Trump, the Lunch Pail Billionaire, has Driven the Left Mad

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

It was August 1, 1988. Remember the date? Maybe not, unless you’re a common sense, right thinking conservative. It was the first day of Rush Limbaugh’s nationally syndicated radio talk show. And it was the beginning of the new conservative movement. One that the everyman, like you and me, could be part of.

The show took off like a rocket. No one had ever heard such things, particularly from the boring, deadpan, AM dial.

And why did it become an instant an enduring success? First was the shock factor. People, me included, couldn’t believe what we were hearing. “Can you believe what that Limbaugh guy said on the radio,” was a common refrain.

And second, and more importantly, Rush gave voice to what we were thinking. It’s just that simple. Finally there was a guy in the media who actually thought like us – believed what we did, and was not shy about expressing it. In a sea of liberalism from the left and measured politispeak from the right, Limbaugh was breath of fresh air. read more

The Progressive Socialist State of California Part 3

Guest Post by John C. Velisek USN (RET):

Governor “Moonbeam” Jerry Brown has made it legal for illegal aliens to get the right to vote by just getting a drivers license. On October 10, 2015, Brown signed that New Motor Voter Act (Assembly Bill 1461) Estimates are around 2 million illegals in the state now can vote for Democrats to continue and expand the benefits that have no right to and is paid by the California taxpayer. What does it take to register to vote? In California, you must be at least 16 years old and be able to prove your identity and California Residency. All the proof takes is a matricula consular card issued by the Mexican government.
President Trump was ridiculed and laughed at when he claimed he may have also won the popular vote if illegals had not been counted. (VoteFraud.org).

a non-partisan group has already shown that almost 5 million illegals may have voted in the last election.
The laws in California that pertain to immigration are clearly unconstitutional and inhibit the agencies involved from performing the duties assigned to them by federal law and the Constitution.

Three examples are the following: read more

The Progressive Socialist State of California Pt 2

Guest Post by John Velisek – USN (Ret.):

A supermajority of Progressive socialist Democrats in the legislature of California has led the citizens of the State to pay higher state taxes, higher fuel taxes, higher cost of living, faulty schools, prohibitive health care costs for many, and have succeeded in becoming one of the most unlivable states within our country. Coupled with projects such as a high-speed rail line to nowhere, which is already tripled in the budget with no end date, and a sanctuary state status that a plurality of Californians do not want, has plummeted much of the state into third world status.

The progressive elite, with the influx of illegal aliens they have created and have no wish to stop, cocooned in their gated communities, have wreaked havoc on the communities of the middle class. They spend money as if it is the states and not the citizens.
From an edicts passed down from on high regarding the usage of plastic bags, to a waiter facing a fine and imprisonment over a plastic straw – the policies of the elite in Sacramento have made our state and those in it the laughing stock of the country.

All this rather than working on policies to help the veterans and other homeless to stand on their feet or get the medical help they need to at least have the opportunity to prosper and move forward in the community and ignore the drug problem that leave needles in our streets. read more

Video Podcast – Dick’s Caters to Those who Will Never Buy from Them

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Today I discuss the campaign by Dick’s Sporting Goods and its CEO Ed Stack to destroy or at least severely weaken their entire business – as they bow at the alter of leftist anti-gun nuts.

The company wide policy was/is to cease to sell semi-automatic rifles and accessories in any of their stores. The latest addition to this ridiculous policy is they now plan to destroy all the weapons and accessories they currently have in stock. Not give them to training facilities or anything reasonable. No – they are going to destroy them, and I’ll guarantee you the destruction will be on video, so that all the leftists who have never and will never shop at a Dick’s will applaud.

Yeah for Dick’s. But hey, as I explain – they are private company and can do what they want. – even ruin their business, forcing their employees into the unemployment line. read more

Another Dred Decision by a Lower Court

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version (YouTube or SoundCloud)

On Thursday, I posted an article entitled, “The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment.”

I began by explaining that we do not have three “separate but equal” branches of government – that the federal judiciary, or Judicial Branch of the federal government, is by far the most powerful and influential branch of the three. The other two are of course the Executive and Legislative.

To this, I had an interesting, yet confusing comment on my YouTube channel regarding my assertion, which is a fact, not an assertion. The commentor stated: “I don’t know why you think the supreme Court is so powerful…” At first I thought they must be kidding, but I don’t think so.

The supreme Court has become the ultimate arbiter of every law and every right in America. Their authority is not to be questioned and their rulings are final and should not be challenged, not withstanding a few dreadful decisions from yesteryear. read more

The Bill of Rights is Missing an Amendment

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

First Draft of Original 17 Amendments

Scroll Down for Audio Version (YouTube or SoundCloud)

One of greater problems that plague our federal government is that of cross-delegation. What do I mean by this?

I describe this phenomenon as such, owing to the fact that three branches of government are no longer “separate but equal.” As we see by the take-over of government by the federal judiciary, they are clearly the most powerful of the three. The other two branches, the legislative and executive, take to bended knee before them, and as blind mutes, comply with any and every decree. This was clearly not intended by the founders.

However, this cross-delegation can more accurately be described not as a seizing of power and authority of one branch from another, but as a voluntary giving of authority of one branch to another. The legislative branch, devoid of backbone, consistently surrenders its constitutionally mandated authority to the executive branch, giving the President authority he is not entitled to. read more

WND Exclusive – Bill of Rights: 9 Apply to the Individual but 1 Does Not?

It recently dawned on me what should be the most obvious argument for the individual right to “keep and bear arms.”

The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights is to protect the natural rights of the individual from an encroaching federal government function. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them.

In fact, each of the Bill of Rights’ 10 Amendments – there were originally 17 – states this by use of the words person, people, owner, or accused. The only two that do not expressly state the individual are the Seventh and Eighth. They do, however, use inference to make the point that both pertain to the individual. read more

The Second Amendment is an Individual Right – the Founders Said So

The primary purpose of the 10 Amendments that form the Bill of Rights was to protect the natural rights of the individual from encroaching federal government function. We must remind ourselves and others of this. The only way someone would not know this is if they have not read them. So when a leftist begins to spout off about the Second Amendment, that it applies only to hunting or militias, we must remind them of this. If necessary, review each of the 10 and it will become clear that the founders did not intend for nine of the 10 to pertain primarily to the individual and yet single out just the Second as not having any individual component. It defies logic. But then so does liberalism.

So if we agree that the 10 Amendments pertain to individual rights,  we must then agree that the right to “keep and bear arms” also pertains to the individual. I might also suggest that you explain what “keep and bear arms” means. Simply put, it means to own and carry arms in defense of oneself and others.

Justin Haskins of the Blaze has cataloged several of the views of our founding fathers in the following article.

from the Blaze:

In their own words: What the Founding fathers really believed about guns

When the Founding Fathers approved the “right to bear arms” and the 13 newly formed states agreed to ratify the Second Amendment, the reason couldn’t be clearer: An armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

Yet despite the clear historical evidence showing the true intention behind the Second Amendment, liberals continue to mislead the public by asserting the founders believed the Second Amendment only protects guns necessary for everyday life in the 18th century, such as hunting rifles, or that the founders believed these constitutional protections apply only to militias, not to individuals.

These notions are nothing more than left-wing delusions, carefully crafted by people who in their pursuit of power and “public safety” have become desperate to take away law-abiding citizens’ centuries-old rights to own and operate guns.

As Richard Brookhiser, a historian and author of “What Would the Founders Do?,” concluded in his book’s section on the Second Amendment, “The founders lived among guns; they would never make them illegal; they would subject them to necessary laws, following [William] Blackstone. And they broke their own laws when honor demanded it.” 

Continue reading

Are Segregation and Integration Natural Human Behaviors?

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Over the weekend, the Atlantic posted an article entitled, “The Unfulfilled Promise of Fair Housing;” subtitled, “Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream of an integrated America was about creating a more equal society, but to many white homeowners, it was a threat.”

Allow me to correct the author right off the bat. Martin Luther King, Jr. did have a dream of an integrated and equal America – one which he “envisioned.” The author, Abdallah Fayyad is showing his leftist bent by describing King’s vision as a creation. This is typical of the left – thinking equality, integration and desegregation can just be created. Hearts and minds need not be changed as long as there is a more powerful force mandating their behavior. And of course that more powerful force always comes down to the federal government.

King, to his credit, did not petition the feds, but rather he started locally, as it should be.

In 1966 he organized the “Chicago Freedom Movement march.” King sought to compel the Richard Daley administration to make Chicago “a just and open city.”

“There is nothing more powerful than the tramp, tramp of marching feet. We will march on city hall to make demands of an open city,” King said. There is nothing wrong with this. The Founders set up our system of governance to allow for the States and localities to be the laboratories of the nation. They rathered this than a giant one-size-fits-all federal solution. read more

March For Our Lives is a Nothing Burger

Guest Post by John Velisek, USN (ret.):

Saturday was the day of the “March For Our Lives,” which transformed into an all-out anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment and anti-Trump movement. Taking place in cities all across the country and funded by anti-gun left wing organizations, it will become a debacle that did not need to occur.

Ostensibly created by the Parkland school youth, it is now working with adults from leftist organizers like March for Women Live Action Fund, MoveOn.org, The Giffords group, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, and of course Everytown, Bloomberg’s gun confiscation group who have spewed lies since the time of the Parkland shooting.

And who can explain why a meeting was held in Broward County by someone named Debby Miller, who introduced herself as a representative of the Giffords Foundation? I thought this was all put in place by the altruistic students. And why were school funds, a taxpayer resource, used for the printing of itinerary for the March?

Students, with little knowledge and even less understanding, will take to the streets to demand that more action be taken. Ignoring the fact that there are thousands of gun laws already on the books, and those suggested would not have stopped these actions. A School Resource Officer (SRO) could have prevented parkland, or at least mitigated it, but he was under orders to maintain a perimeter and too cowardly to take matters into his own hands and save lives. Maryland had shooting as well. Law enforcement stopped that. There needs to be armed security of some type in our schools. Any school shooting that has a massacre of the kind in the past will have to explain to the parents of those harmed why there was not adequate security. read more