Who’s on First … Third Base

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

 The other morning Glenn Beck asked if the president really does know what’s going on?

Is he in charge? Is anyone in charge? Do any of his people actually report to him or not. Eric Holder for example. Does he report to Obama? If not, than to whom does he report; himself?

Was Leon Panetta telling the truth when he said he had no additional contact with the president. It was rumored that Obama went to sleep the night of the Benghazi attack.

Obama had no idea of the fast & furious scandal. Not even Holder had any notion of the gun running into Mexico. Is any of this to be believed?

The IRS was and for all we know still is, targeting groups that don’t agree with the administration. Are we to believe the president knew nothing of this either?

Is this guy the most incompetent official ever to hold office? Is he the most disengaged Chief executive ever, or is he the most corrupt politician in history?

That’s a tough choice.

Well, I agree with Rush and have contended this for years. Liberals and radical leftists all think the alike. Obama doesn’t need to coach or tell them how to think or act. They don’t require meetings and strategy sessions to make sure all are on the same page.  So, although I doubt it, it could be possible that Obama isn’t aware of some the nefarious goings-on.

He has a circle of friends and colleagues that are cut from the same cloth. So Obama can hire or promote someone like Lois Lerner and just walk away. She knows what to do. She knows to wield her power. She doesn’t need instructions from Obama. She is also able to hire others radicals to do her bidding, and so on down the ladder. That way everyone can claim to be ignorant.

If they do appear to be caught in the act, they just clam up.

Regarding Lois Lerner, of IRS infamy; she claimed the Fifth before Darrell Issa’s committee. Many republicans thought, we’ve got her now!

Conservatives claim she lost the benefit of the Fifth Amendment and wish to her force her to return and testify to the commission.

They certainly have the right to do so, but what will happen?  She will reappear, plead the Fifth and refuse to testify again. The republicans will then remind her that due to her original opening statement, she effectively surrendered her Constitutional right to silence.  The republicans will then hold her in contempt of Congress. How naïve.

Now being in contempt of Congress is not the same as it is in a courtroom. A Judge can find someone in contempt and toss him or her in jail until they answer his questions. It’s different with Congress.

The committee will find Ms. Lerner in contempt. They then  must bring the contempt order to the entire body of the House of Representatives for a vote. Now during this time, Ms Lerner isn’t sitting in the slammer. She is out, going about her business completely unencumbered, and getting paid.

The House votes on the contempt charge. If they vote it down, that’s it; she’s off scot-free. But what if Congress votes in favor? She’ll be in deep doo-doo, right?

Ummm…No. If the body votes to hold her in contempt, they must hand the order over to…, you got it; the Obama Justice Department. Eric Holder’s Justice Department. And what will happen to Ms. Lerner? Absolutely nothing. Well, maybe she’ll get another raise and promotion for a job well done.

So I ask again. Who is running the country anyway? Is there anyone really in charge? Does the buck actually stop anywhere? No, of course not silly. If there were one individual in charge, either the president or department head, he, she or it would bear ultimate responsibility for all the high crimes and shenanigans.

No one who should be in charge seems to know anything, including our dear president. Is it because they really don’t know, or are they all liars? You make the call.

The Squishy Kimberley Strassel

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

As far as conservative newspapers go, there are very few. The most recognizable being IBD, the Washington Times, the New York Post (at times) and of course, the Wall Street Journal.

While I agree for the most part, I challenge those who trust the Wall Street Journal to be conservative. In my opinion it only masquerades as a conservative newspaper.

Case in point: A recent article penned on May 2 by Kimberly Strassel entitled, “About Those Conservative ‘Squishes’”. In it she tows the typical Republican line. You know, the faux-conservative Karl Rove, Bill Kristol republican line.

She began the article with: “Texas Sen. Ted Cruz recently gave a speech to some FreedomWorks activists, delivering a fascinating retelling of the Senate-it gun control fight. After taking credit for killing the bill with his filibuster threat, Mr. Cruz went on to divide the Republican caucus between those who have ‘principles’ and those who are a bunch of ‘squishes’.”

FreedomWorks activists eh? Not a group of FreedomWorks patriots; no, activists. I also enjoyed the implication that Ted Cruz is nothing but a glory hound.

She continued with: “… The GOP is split between those who insist on making a point, and those who want to make some progress.”

Although I am not, I could stop here as she reveals her hand in one word: “progress”. The watchword of both Republican and Democrat big government Statists.

She claimed that Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee screwed up the perfect storm of Obama’s failed gun control bill. She, of course, was all about the Republican win. No mention of preserving the Second Amendment. It’s all about the party.

And not a word regarding the left’s ultimate strategy, assuming she even knows it. What was supposed to happen was the Bill was to sail through the “squishy” Senate and get soundly defeated in the Republican-controlled House, giving Obama and his minions the issue they can hammer into 2014. The strategy was, that if the bill was approved, it would further their gun confiscation agenda. If it was defeated, they have an issue for 2014.

Strassel said the Cruz “faction” wanted to make a point that the GOP believed in the Constitution. He’s right and what’s sad is that there seems to be but a few senators standing up for the document.

She went on to describe how the House was on the verge of scoring a political victory over the Democrats on some minor funding for Obamacare insurance exchanges. (Yes I know, it’s $5 billion, but that’s minor for Obamacare.) Wow, the Republicans would force the Dems to choose between sick people and some money. Big win!

She then explained that if not for the Cruz “absolutionists” the reasonable Republicans could’ve force the Dems to kill off a tiny portion of Obamacare. Cruz and his buddies, she claims, insist on full repeal or nothing. Oh the nerve of them.

Does Ms. Strassel fail to realize that trimming around the edges of Obamacare is utter futility? Sen. Cruz and his few allies along with Heritage and the Club for Growth seem to be the only ones in Washington that know or care of the devastation that is Obamacare.

She then points out that, “the majority of Republicans are ardent supporters of the second amendment, passionate about repealing Obamacare, in favor of lower taxes.” Tells you a lot that she has to point it out!

“Yet”, she states, “disagree with Mr. Cruz on his filibuster strategy and you are a ‘squish’.”

Well, Ms. Strassel, Ted Cruz is the upstart you make him out to be. He and a few other relative newcomers have so far been uncorrupted by the DC moderate “Squishes”, and the big government Republicans don’t know how to contain them and that, no doubt, is quite frustrating.

So since the moderates can contain these rebels, they run to the so-called conservative press to do their dirty work.

It appears to me at least that the inside the Beltway Republicans think, as do the leftists, that these conservative rabble-rousers are the biggest threat to our country and certainly to their power. Bigger than joblessness, the debt, taxes, Obamacare and terrorism.

If they could just get rid of, or turn, those uncompromising conservatives, Washington would run like the well oiled machine we all know it to be. (Kinda choked on that one).

Harry Reid’s Omnibus Background Check Bill

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

After reading about the gang of 16 turncoat Republicans that voted with the dems to allow Harry Reid’s gun bill to move forward, I made a call.

I telephoned my Senator, Kelly Ayotte’s office in Washington to vent my spleen. I spoke with one of her lackeys, and she explained that the senator has always been pro-second amendment. I asked the lackey if the pro-gun Sen. actually read the very lengthy bill she voted to allow to proceed? The lackey had no answer. She just kept repeating how Sen. Ayotte was pro-second amendment. I told her that her answer, to me, assumed the senator had not and that I will report it that way. The lackey was none too happy with me. Frankly, at this point, I don’t really care.

At this very moment (writing this article), I am staring at page after page after excruciating page of Senate bill S – 649.

The name of the bill is: S – 649: Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013.

How could anyone be against safe communities and schools? They might as well call it the “Don’t Shoot Grandma Act.” After all, who would vote to shoot grandma?

It doesn’t take long to question the sincerity of the bill. It starts in the very first sentence: “To ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes.”

See anything a little creepy about the preamble? You too, eh? I see two problems. The first is relatively minor, the second, seriously major.

First: there is no way to ensure full registration. It’s a crock, but it sounds great and isn’t that really the most important thing? It doesn’t matter whether it actually happens as long as they care enough to wish it to be so. It is tailored directly to the low information citizen.

Second: this is the scary part: “… And for other purposes”. Yikes! What does that mean? Answer: anything they want it to – after it is signed into law.

This bill, like so many others, is purposely written to go on forever. Here is the link to read it for yourself, assuming you are as masochistic as I: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s649/text.

Here’s a little interesting factoid to ponder that directly relates to this bill.

In 2007 Delaware passed a law making it a minimum class A misdemeanor to spank a child under the age of 18. Coincidentally, uncle Joe Biden’s son Beau was one of the people who pushed the law. Small world, isn’t it?

So Delaware passed a law. So what? Well, here is so what.

Bill S – 649, Section 111: … Proposed Grants, b) Use of Grants, (1) In General, (E) “supply accurate and timely court orders and records of misdemeanor crimes…”

Putting it together? Any parent in Delaware convicted of spanking their child (don’t laugh, it’s the law) will not be able to legally own a firearm and I’m sure that’s not the only example.

Not only is the bill written, at times in the vaguest terms possible, but also it continually cites other laws  – causing one to either research every cited law or throw their hands up in frustration.

This is where we are headed folks. I have now finished reading the entire bill and I’ll tell you, it would take Justice Scalia and 20 researchers several weeks to interpret. No lie! That means there is no Senator that will fully understand what they are voting for. Just like Obamacare.

Oh, and by the way, it never did reveal what the “other purposes” were.

Marriage in the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

However you feel regarding homosexual marriage, it is my contention that the United States Supreme Court has no business involving itself in such matters or in the state of Californias business.

Why does the Supreme Court feel the need to concern itself, or that the average american citizen believes it has that right? Answer: 4 liberal activist justices, which is coincidently the number needed to accept a case. States have their own rules, own constitution, their own courts and supreme courts as well as their own state judicial review.

The federal government, in my opinion, has absolutely no roll in or right to hear this case. This is a state issue. The U.S. supreme court should vacate the 9th circus court of appeals decision (as it does on a regular basis) as well as the federal district courts decision and declare that this is a matter for the state of California to decide, which it already has.

The state of California allows for popular referendum votes in order to amend the California constitution. The people of California overwhleming voted to amend their constitution via proposition 8, to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Because the politicians in California refused to uphold the legally binding California constitutional amendment, the left saw an opportunity to usurp the state constitution.  I’m not certain, but I would guess that the politicians in California took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of California. Frankly they should all be brought up on charges for failure to properly discharge their duties and removed from office. They have no right to pick and choose what they will and will not enforce.

Oh, by the way, a majority of blacks and hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. Why are those in favor of overturning the amendment not called racists? Just asking.

What is the point in having states at all if they can’t run themselves? For that matter, why even have a state legislature, a governor, a congress, senate or president? If the United States Supreme Court is the end all and be all decision maker, why not just let them run the country? What is the point in Federalism; checks and balances.

These black robed gods are evidently infallible, except when they are. Throughout our history our supreme court has been comprised of human beings, not gods. Their have been drunks, womanizers, bigots, Klan members, etc., that sat on the bench. They are frankly as fallible as the rest of us and as Chief justice John Roberts recently demonstrated, they are just as prone to public (or some kind of) pressure as are we .

Here are just a few of the really poor decisions handed down by 9 black robed infallible gods:

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857: All Americans of African descent were not citizens and would have no rights.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896:   It protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell 1934: The Court created the Emergency Exceptions Doctrine, arguing that the Great Depression was so bad that government could interfere with private contracts.

 Wickard v. Filburn 1942: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat to feed to his livestock. The Court determined that Filburn’s self-sufficiency caused him to buy less wheat from outside suppliers. They decided this marginal impact was enough to subject him to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944: Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry allowing the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

 Bennis v. Michigan 1996: Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used this way.

Kelo v. New London 2005: the  High Court extended the governments ability to seize private property under eminent domain, even when the only public purpose was to enrich the city’s treasury.This decision afforded a government the right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it.

As I said; this is not a case for the U.S. Supreme Court and is not a 14th Amendment issue if you know anything about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 specifically to demand that freed blacks, post Civil War, are citizens, period, and as such are afforded the same constitutional rights as whites. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual marriage or any other kind of marriage.

The Court should just say that this is a 10th Amendment issue and be done with it.

Does the 10th amendment, states rights, mean nothing anymore? I thought the left was all about diversity. Does not the 10th amendment tippify diversity?

As many in California have done for a number of reasons, those who do not accept California law are welcome to vote with their feet and move to a more amenable state. But, of course that is not the lefts way, is it.