World Top Bankers Warn of Dire Consequences if U.S. Defaults

As you read this, know these bankers are lying for Obama! No one of this stature is this stupid or unaware. By law, U.S. debt payments must take priority over everything else, per the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, Section4. Obama knows this. Remember; he taught Constitutional law. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew knows this as do these bankers. I don’t know about the other two, but Jamie Dimon is also a friend of Obama’s.  Liars and scaremongers like these must be exposed!

(Reuters) – Three of the world’s most powerful bankers warned of terrible consequences if the United States defaults on its debt, with Deutsche Bank chief executive Anshu Jain claiming default would be “utterly catastrophic.”

“This would be a very rapidly spreading, fatal disease,” Jain said on Saturday at a conference hosted by the Institute of International Finance in Washington.

“I have no recommendations for this audience…about putting band aids on a gaping wound,” he said. read more

The Shutdown Government: Powerful, Punitive And Petty

There were nearly 6 million living World War II veterans counted in the 2000 U.S. Census. By 2010, there were fewer than 2 million. An estimated 640 World War II Veterans die each day.

Last week the Obama Administration chose to barricade the World War II Memorial to keep aging veterans and other citizens out during the so-called government “shutdown.”

It’s tremendously wasteful to spend taxpayer funds and personnel shutting down an open-air memorial that could be visited at any time of the day prior to the shutdown, whether staff were nearby or not. But more than that, it’s just cruel: World War II veterans are on a race against time to see their memorial.

The closing of high-profile sites for tactical advantage has political benefits. Who can forget how President Bill Clinton ordered the Washington Monument closed during the 1995 shutdown? read more

Harry Reid’s Three Card Monte

by: the Common Constitutionalist


It was as if Ted Cruz scripted the whole Harry Reid carnival sideshow on Friday.


As he and Rush Limbaugh predicted, the House voted on a continuing resolution (CR) to temporarily fund the government but stripped out funding for Obamacare, then passed the CR on to the Senate for a vote. Without funding, Obamacare would be DOA.


As predicted the Senate voted 79 to 19 for cloture, thus ending all debate on the House’s version of the CR. Once that supermajority threshold of 60 votes for cloture was reached, “Dirty” Harry Reid was free to reinsert the Obamacare funding provision, which he did within an hour of the cloture vote. Harry Reid’s three-card monte. Now you don’t see it, now you do.


Remember, both Cruz and Limbaugh explained all this prior to these events, almost to the letter. They knew exactly what the soft-spoken dictator of the Senate would do.


The Senate was now free to vote on the amended version of the CR with a simple majority, 51 votes. They got 54. It now goes back to the House, with full Obamacare funding reinstated.


You, as a voter, need to find out if your Senator voted for cloture and then against the CR as my Senator, Kelly Ayotte did.


These traitors to the conservative movement and the Constitution will come home to their districts and try to fool us by saying they voted against Reid’s amended resolution to fund Obamacare. They must’ve known what they were doing. Ted Cruz explained it prior to both Senate votes. He explained a vote for cloture was a vote for Obamacare.


If they claim this, they are either stupid or lying. Let’s not mince words; they’re liars who think we are stupid. Call them out for the progressive double dealers they are.


So what now? What does the House do? What recourse do they have at this point?


Well, Pat Buchanan had a great idea for the House leadership. He suggested that Boehner simply break up the CR into several parts and send each individual component back to Harry Reid and dare him to reject it. Instead of one omnibus continuing resolution, send Reid several, one after the other.


Break out the entire defense budget and send only that. Then the education portion, then agriculture, education, etc. All clean bills, daring Harry Reid and the rest of the Senate hacks to vote each of them down, thus defunding that department; of course leaving Obamacare funding out of each one. It could be done if the House has the courage to do so.


But what of all those politicians and pundits that say, “just get out of the way and let Obamacare pass”. Obamacare is so complicated, confusing and expensive it will surely “collapse under its own weight”, they say. We Republicans can then say, “see we told you so” and then let the Democrats own it. That will show the people.


All who have this strategy in mind are dead wrong! Let me put it another way. Can anyone, anyone tell me which of the thousands of failing, failed or bankrupt government entitlement programs have ever “collapsed under its own weight”? Enlighten me as to the program that was once implemented and no longer exists? I thought so.


Once implemented and funded there’s no turning back. It will be with us forever. That’s what Obama meant when he Thursday exclaimed that we are just five days away from completing the country’s fundamental transformation. Chilling! He understands this is the keystone to ultimate control of our lives.


Government shut down or not – this abomination must be killed. The question is, are there enough patriots in the House to do what needs to be done regardless of the “perceived” fallout. The public is squarely behind them, if they have the courage and brains to listen to their voicemails, read their texts, check their Twitter and Facebook and simply look beyond the Beltway for support.


We are many, we’re out here and ready to fight for those patriots.

Student Get’s Caught With Gun at School

COOK COUNTY  CRIMINAL COURTS — A Chicago teen accused of bringing a loaded gun to Urban Prep Charter Academy feared he would be killed by gang members who harassed him for years, his mother said Wednesday through tears.

Darnell Hamilton, 17, faces gun charges after police found a 9mm semiautomatic handgun loaded with several live rounds in his school locker Tuesday morning, prosecutors said.

Hamilton told police that he was being “hassled by the gangs and he bought the gun for protection,” Assistant State’s Attorney Erin Antonietti said Wednesday when Hamilton appeared in his white button down shirt and khaki pants before a Cook County judge. read more

Lurch Signs the Arms Treaty

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Without a lot of fanfare, Secretary of State, John “Lurch” Kerry signed away our gun rights here in America, with his signature on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT).

This treaty has been hanging out there for years, just waiting for an appropriately liberal U.S. regime to sign on. I guess they finally found one who is more concerned with the “World” community than our own.

In 2012 the ATT’s Coordinated Action on Small Arms (CASA) paper explained that the U.N., “does not aim to impede or interfere with the  lawful ownership and use of weapons”, but that, “United  Nations agencies have come across many situations in which various  types of  conventional weapons have been…misused by lawful owners” and that the  “arms trade must therefore be regulated in ways that would…minimize the risk of misuse of legally owned weapons.”

The language of the paper is unchanged in 2013. Also, notice it says “does not aim to impede. Not that it will/shall not impede. Interesting loop hole. “We didn’t aim to confiscate your weapons. It just happened.”

Reuters had it’s typically leftist take on the subject. Some excerpts below with my comments in [ ].

Reuters: The United States, the world’s No. 1 arms exporter, became the 91st country to sign when U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry put pen to paper on the sidelines of the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations. [ This was a monumental event. I wonder why he didn’t have a publicized signing ceremony, front and center? ]

Kerry Said: “We are talking about the kind of export controls that for decades have not diminished one iota our ability in the United States as Americans to exercise our rights under the constitution.” [ Huh? For decades we have not been party to this terrible treaty John. ]

Another 16 nations signed on Wednesday, raising the total to 107, and two more countries ratified the treaty, raising that number to six, Bishop said. Fifty countries need to ratify the treaty for it to enter into force. [ This will be another straw dog they throw out, that even if we do ratify it, it won’t be in force because they need another 46 countries. Don’t believe it. ]

“This treaty will not diminish anyone’s freedom, in fact the treaty recognizes the freedom of both individuals and states to obtain, possess and use arms for legitimate purposes,” Kerry said after signing the treaty. [How dumb do they think we are? Let me answer that. They think we are too stupid not to be able to read between the lines when Lurch says “to obtain, possess and use arms for legitimate purposes”. Who decides what “legitimate” is? Of course, the dictators at the U.N. and the Marxists in the Obama administration. That’s who.]

“Make no mistake, we would never think about supporting a treaty that is inconsistent with the rights of Americans, the rights of American citizens to be able to exercise their guaranteed rights under our constitution,” Kerry insisted. [ Do you believe him? You’d be a fool to.]

“The Obama administration is politically committed to ending the unscrupulous trade in deadly weapons used by dictators, war lords and criminal gangs to commit atrocities,” said Amnesty International USA deputy executive director Frank Jannuzi. [ Sending tons (literally) of weapons to al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria is somehow not unscrupulous, I guess.] end Reuters.

 Here’s the bottom line folks.  Get out your pocket Constitution. Refer to Article II, section 2, paragraph 2: “The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….” It’s in the Constitution people, which means that if the Senate consents with a two thirds majority, it is automatically considered constitutional. Get it?! This is why these treaties are so dangerous.

Once again we must start calling our Senators to make sure they don’t “consent” to this.


You Make the Call

A Simple Request:


Please call Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Let them know we real conservatives stand firmly behind them and God Bless them for doing what they do. The more calls/messages to them the better. They need to hear from us, for moral support if nothing else.


Ted Cruz Washington Office: 202-224-5922

Mike Lee Washington Ofiice: 202-224-5444

Chicago Gun Laws Gutted

It appears as if the move by a Chicago City Council Committee as the tentatively approved a rewriting of the city’s gun laws that were passed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago has resulted in effectively overturning the city’s ban on handguns. The official vote by the City Council occurs Wednesday.

“Mayor Daley’s pinnacle handgun ordinance after the loss in the McDonald decision is now, for all intents and purposes, gutted,” NRA lobbyist Todd Vandermyde said.

According to CBS Chicago:

The number of Chicago gun laws will be cut in half. The action was needed to bring the city in line with the rest of Illinois, as a result of the recently passed statewide concealed carry gun law.

Chicago had the toughest gun laws in Illinois.

Continue Reading

Gun Applications Soar in Maryland

This year, Maryland passed strict gun-control legislation. In response, residents have flooded the state police with applications to purchase weapons, before the new law takes effect. Through August, more than 85,000 residents have made new requests to purchase firearms. This is almost double the amount who sought buy guns in all of 2011. 

The Maryland law, pushed through by Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley and a Democrat legislature, bans 45 types of “assault weapons” and limits ammunition magazines to a maximum of ten rounds.

Continue Reading

Syria: Should We or Shouldn’t We: American Neutrality is Not Isolationism

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Syria is neither a friend nor ally. The conflict in Syria is a civil war, an internal struggle, not a war of international aggression or imperial colonization. Yet those of the “we must do something” crowd are insistent of our entanglement and brand all others as “Isolationists”.


Once again, our governmental brain trust would be well served to consult our own history. More often than not, the answer can be found.


As The Heritage Foundation asserts, it is helpful to define what is meant by “isolationist.” The term isolationism applies to a policy of abstaining from economic and political relations with other countries. By this definition, the best examples of isolationist foreign policies are offered by 17th century China, 18th century Japan, 19th century Korea, or 20th century North Korea.


Let’s not confuse or commingle military abstinence with economic and political isolationism.


During an Independence Day speech, John Quincy Adams fervently argued that America had no inherent responsibility to intervene abroad (emphasis added):

Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.”


Policies set forth by the founders were born of affection for republican self-government and their desire to preserve the country’s sovereign independence.


Washington advocated for a foreign policy that would allow America to, “choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.”


During Thomas Jefferson’s Administration, the United States, acting in our interest chose war, joining forces with Sweden and the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies during the Tripolitan War against the Barbary Pirates. Such foreign military cooperation was essential in defeating the Muslim privateers (terrorists), loosely associated with the Ottoman Empire (surprise; present day Iran). It was the new nations first foreign war.


From the beginning, the primary purpose of U.S. foreign policy has been to defend the American constitutional system and the interests of the American people.


Jefferson summed it up in his First Inaugural Address as “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none.”


And thus was a difficult decision to be made by our first president. The rebellion during the French revolution solicited Americas help as a military and political ally. The Marquis de Lafayette, who had been George Washington’s aide-de-camp during the American Revolution and had become a close personal friend, had personally requested the assistance of Washington and the Americans. Yet Washington knew that supporting France would likely drag America into a disastrous war against her will.


So in April, 1793, George Washington signed a proclamation declaring America’s neutrality, although the word neutrality is found nowhere in the declaration. In short Washington, like Jefferson feared an entangled alliance. He also did not wish to involve America in another nations internal struggle.


In 1822, President Monroe officially recognized the independence of Argentina, Peru, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. The United States was the first established nation to welcome these new republics into the community of nations. Thus was the Monroe Doctrine.


President Monroe stated of the Monroe Doctrine, “The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”


The Monroe Doctrine would hardly be considered isolationist and it was the last major declaration blessed by both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Must have been nice and quite convenient to be able to seek direct council from the Authors of the both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. How cool is that?!


With the Monroe Doctrine, the U.S. attempted to ban imperial ambition from one-third of the globe’s surface, thereby delegitimizing the accepted system of imperialism and attempting to fundamentally alter the international order – hardly an isolationist policy.


So how does all this “history” equate or relate to the upheaval in the Middle East? What would the founders have advised us to do?


That’s easy; stay out of it. We had our chances long ago to support freedom and liberty and we sat back and did nothing. Now all these uprisings have been high jacked by one terrorist group or another. There are no good guys, no freedom or liberty to support.


This is also an internal struggle. If Washington was able to say no his dear friend, The Marquis de Lafayette, during France’s bloody revolution, we sure as heck can say no to Syria, who are neither friend nor ally.

SEIU Will Kill the Fast Food Industry

by: the Common Constitutionalist


If you live in a major city, soon if not already, you will not be able to get fast food.


What are the soccer moms to do? Here’s an idea. Go home and make dinner. It shouldn’t be that difficult, judging by what we see on the politically correct McDonald’s commercials. Just dress up like a clown and serve your kids apple slices and milk. And don’t forget to recycle!


Anyway, our old communist pals are at it again. The SEIU is whipping up a frenzy among fast food workers with a call to strike. Workers in many cities have already walked off the job.


SEIU boss Mary Kay Henry granted an interview with fair and balanced Seated in her posh Washington DC office she told Salon, “see the fast food workers as standing up for all of us. Because the conditions are the same.”


Really Mary? The same as what? The same as your condition? Not hardly.


In 50 cities across the nation workers will walk or have already walked off the job. The strike against all the major fast food chains is for more pay and a chance to unionize.


The arbitrary number they have chosen is $15 an hour. I say arbitrary, because it is based on nothing. Someone just pulled it out of a hat. Why not 20, 50 or $100 an hour?


The argument is always the same; a living wage. No one can live on $7.25 an hour, the current minimum wage. I’m sure that’s true, but the average fast food worker doesn’t make minimum wage. The average is at least $9 an hour according to the Bureau of Labor statistics. read more