Obama, the Un-Governor

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Do you hear that? It’s the sound of Air Force One. Yes, Obama is jetting off yet again to campaign for or against something. Does he ever stay in Washington? Maybe he can rent out the White House like some kind of timeshare – pay down the debt.

The odd thing is that he seems to be constantly campaigning against his own administration’s policies. As if he still candidate Obama from five years ago and they are not his policies.

So the question remains – why doesn’t he just stay in Washington and demonstrate to all how well he can govern? Even some in the liberal press are asking this.

Well, there are three parts to that answer. 1) He doesn’t really care about the whole governing thing. 2) He is more comfortable on the road because, 3) He doesn’t know how to govern and does not wish to learn. One only needs to look at his background to know this is true.

Before he was a senator for about an hour and a half, he was a State Senator whose votes mostly consisted of “present”. Before that he was a community organizer, an agitator, a rabble-rouser. He was a student of Saul Linsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. Not exactly the encyclopedia on governance.

He was evidently highly educated, but by radical professors and by his own admission, he sought out radicals and Communists with which to hang out.

I liken his management skill to another governing mastermind – the great peacemaker Yasir Arafat. Now don’t get your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying our president is a terrorist. Although he plants them quite often, Obama’s IED’s are strictly rhetorical.

Arafat was offered land for peace. He was offered a real homeland for his precious PLO. He rebutted every attempt at peace and settlement.

At one point Israel was willing to withdraw from 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip. They offered to dismantle and abandon 63 entire settlements. They even offered Arafat East Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state, plus right of return and an international fund worth $30 billion for reparations.

As an aside, in my opinion, none of this should have been offered, for many others and I knew who Arafat was and that he would turn it down, which he did. No matter what Israel proposed, it would never be enough. Why? Because Arafat was a terrorist leader, not a governor. He had neither the desire nor capability to govern.

The same trait can be found in the presidential agitator Obama. No matter what the Republicans stupidly offer him it has been and will never be enough, for if it were, he would have nothing to agitate for. He would be out of his element, his comfort zone.

This is why radicals never seem to be satisfied. They can’t be, for they know nothing else.

The president is a radical ideologue, not a manager, not a governor. In fact he is the flip side of Reagan. Like Reagan, Obama is a big-idea man. With Reagan one got the grand vision of growth, prosperity and patriotism – love of country. But you also got a leader – one who relished the opportunity to govern.

With Obama, the agitator, we have a fomenter of hatred, envy, decline and the division, but certainly not governance.

To the Moon

The country’s national debt is now so high,  over $16.7 trillion, that if the figure was converted into $5 bills it would  stretch almost to the moon.

According to the latest available data  from  the U.S. Treasury, the total public debt outstanding is  $16,738,105,803,858.21,  while the distance between the earth and the  moon is 238,857 miles.

Since President Obama took office the figure  has increased by more than $6 trillion, the largest increase to date under any  U.S. president.

A graphic representation of how far the U.S. national debt would reach to the moon if pile up in $5 bills - 2013 vs 1981
A graphic representation of how far the U.S. national  debt would reach to the moon if pile up in $5 bills – 2013 vs 1981
During the eight-year presidency of George W.  Bush, the debt soared by $4.9 trillion.

On January 20, 2009, the day President Obama  took office, the debt stood  at $10.626 trillion. The latest posting reflects an  increase of over $6  trillion.

The current national debt figure is also the  highest since the end of the second world war. Every man, woman and child in the  U.S. currently owes $55,091 for their share of the U.S. public debt.

Of the $5.1 trillion dollars of debt owned by  foreign governments, nearly half is owned by China and Japan.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan famously  said that a stack of $1,000  bills equivalent to the U.S. government’s debt  would be about 67 miles  high. In $5  bills that would only have reach 13,400 miles.

 Under President Obama the debt has increased more than  $6 trillion, while President Bush added $4.9 trillion


  • The national debt currently stands at  $16,738,105,803,858.21
  • A dollar bill is .0043 inches in  thickness
  • $16,738,105,803,858.21 multiplied by .0043  equals 71,973,854,956.59 inches
  • 71,973,854,956.59 divided by 12 is  5,997,821,246.38 feet
  • A mile is 5,280 feet in length
  • In $1 bills the national debt would stretch  1,135,951 miles into the air
  • In $5 bills that equates to 227,190  miles
  • The Earth is 238,855 miles from the  moon
  • Difference 11,665 miles

Source: CNSNews.com

Attribution: Mail Online

Rubio Falls in Polls

Marco Rubio started off the year as one of the most popular Republicans among the GOP, and according to the latest poll from Rasmussen, he’s still more popular than not.  After several months of working on immigration reform, though, Rubio’s numbers have slid significantly within his party — by fifteen points (via Byron York):

Rubio, the most visible advocate of the Senate’s comprehensive immigration reform plan, is now viewed favorably by 58% of Republican voters nationwide. That down 10 points since May  and 15 points since February.  A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 16% of GOP voters have an unfavorable opinion of him, while 25% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The level of enthusiasm for Rubio has declined significantly. Today, just 21% of GOP voters have a Very Favorable opinion of the Florida senator. That’s down sharply from 44% in February and 31% in May.

Continue Reading

It’s Better to Look Back Than Forward

by: the Common Constitutionalist


We all know of the giant $1.2 billion NSA storage facility in Utah. It tops out at over 15 times the size of Giants/Jets stadium and that’s just the part that’s above ground. 200 acres is evidently not enough room to store all the data to “keep America safe”.

In May of this year construction began on an additional 28 acre NSA site outside of Baltimore Maryland (and again, that’s just the part that we can see). Together they are seven times the size of the Pentagon.

But don’t worry; they need all that acreage to “keep us safe”.

Many have complained of all that data being stored, but our government assures us that they aren’t reading our transmissions or listening to our phone calls.

They say they must monitor us all “in general” so they can better find the bad guys. That it is essential for the administration to issue “general warrants” allowing the NSA to spy on everyone.

So the question is, should we allow it to continue? Is it legal or even proper? Good questions. For answers, we conservatives always go back to our original documents: the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Federalist papers as well as the founders actual statements.

But you may say, most of the surveillance is electronic. What did the founders know of that? Well, nothing of course. So what! A “general warrant” is the same, whether it is to intrude electronically or physically.

One has to go no further than the fourth amendment of the Constitution which states: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by the oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

That seems fairly straightforward. But where did it come from? One of the fourth amendment purposes was to prevent the new American government from doing what the British crown had perpetrated on the colonies for so many years.

Prior to the revolution, British courts issued “Writs of Assistance”, a type of general warrant. It gave the crown very broad search and seizure powers. The writs gave customs officials the power to enter private homes and businesses to search for smuggled or untaxed goods.

Writs of assistance not only gave British customs agents the power to search for illegal imports, but as the name suggests, it allowed them to command other government officials and even private citizens to assist them. A holder of a writ had the power to search any building or residence and confiscate any suspected contraband.

Writs of assistance were very similar to the data collected and stored by the NSA. Unlike a standard search warrant it was and is permanent, remaining in effect until six months after the death of the King in power when it was issued. Now that I think about it, NSA stored data is worse than a writ of assistance for a writ does eventually expire where NSA data is truly permanent.

Writs were such a concern to the colonists that in 1756 the colony of Massachusetts banned the use of general warrants, but it did no good for the crown superseded all colonial law.

Attorney and founder James Otis, Jr. describes general warrants as: “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that was ever found in an English law book.”

The issuance of writs had become so egregious as to be included among the specific complaints the signers of the Declaration of Independence laid out against King George III: “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

So as is always the case, if one wishes to find the answer pertaining to law or government one merely has to look back, not forward. I’d say the founders would be firmly against the NSA program, wouldn’t you?

The Politics of Instant Gratification

by: the Common Constitutionalist


The search for immediate results, instant gratification, is everywhere in our society. It has permeated every facet of our lives from professional to personal to political.

Electronic media is a perfect example. Twitter, in my opinion, has become exactly what I thought it would be, a platform for the stupid. It is the epitome of the instant gratification society.

I’m not a fuddy-duddy, unless you ask my children. I just know “you can’t always get what you want” (Rolling Stones) in the time frame you desire.

And thus it is also in politics. How many times have we heard Obama say “we’re out of time” or “we don’t have time for Congress to debate this” or “we must act for the good of the…” fill in the blank. And then he signs and anticonstitutional executive order.

Speaking of executive orders, you may have noticed the president and his people no longer use the term executive order. It is now “Executive Action”, for he is a man of action and action gives us… you got it, instant gratification.

The Republicans are not immune from this disease, except when it comes to taking a stand on or for something. Then we can wait until next time, like the debt ceiling, or a budget battle, etc. But when it comes to things like amnesty, we can’t wait.

Never mind looking down the road to see how it will destroy what so many have fought and died for. No, we must win the next election and nothing else matters.

It seems we no longer need men (and women) of thought and deliberation. No, we need “Men of Action”, who can’t get something done now.

As I stated, many have fallen prey to this myopic approach to life and politics, even real conservatives whom I respect and trust.

I am speaking of the desperate need some have to cling to a party that clearly has abandoned us. Rush Limbaugh has on so many occasions excoriated people for even positing the notion of a third-party. He has always stated that the party can only be fixed, as was Reagan’s view, from the inside.

Well, as controversial as this may be, I believe that portion of the era of Reagan  to be over.

Limbaugh insists, as do many others, we don’t stand a chance if we form a third-party. With an attitude like that, I agree. He’s right though; there may not be the instant gratification of an election victory right around the corner. So what!

At this point, are we not beyond that? Presently, I’m going to guess there are maybe 15 to 25 constitutional conservative Republicans within both Houses. That’s maybe 25 out of 535. Pitiful! And it’s crystal clear that the Republican leadership despises them (and us) more than Al Qaeda.

So again, what are we supposed to do? Just go along to get along? That’s no longer an option.

It’s time to begin doing what is right for our country, our children, because it’s the right thing to do. Let’s stop worrying about just winning the next election. With few exceptions, we all see where that has gotten us.

Beware the Hatch Effect


In 2014, several prominent Republicans in the House and Senate are going to be challenged by people more conservative than the incumbents in area where a more conservative person can still win.  Leading up to these challenges, conservatives must beware of the Hatch Effect.

In 2012, many conservatives in print, radio, and television came out quickly and endorsed Orrin Hatch against Dan Liljenquist.  Hatch had been a conservative warrior for a long time, he sounded conservative, and we’d need him in the fight against amnesty.  He made the rounds on television, radio, and had references in various op-ed columns.  Outside groups went to work for Orrin Hatch.

Those who fretted that Hatch might return to the ways of Ted Kennedy’s best friend on the right were drowned out by a near unified conservative front — one that did not include RedState.

In a debate against Dan Liljenquist, Hatch hit all the right notes on immigration.

Continue Reading

Republicans Afraid to Shutdown

There is a lot of talk these days about how the GOP cannot afford to shut down the government like they did in 1995. “Remember,” they the chattering class say, “the GOP got destroyed at the polls in 1996.”

That talk has everything to do with the Democrats winning the message battle in the media, but has nothing to do with anything else. Let’s roll the tape, shall we?

In 1995, Republicans in Washington shut down the government. They got creamed by the media and Democrats. The Democrats were interested in scoring points. The media was interested and remains interested in “good government,” never mind what that may or may not be.

But what actually happened?

Continue Reading

Dreams of the Caliphate

by: the Common Constitutionalist


I heard a little ditty back in May of this year. It’s sure to be a hit to millions worldwide. It wasn’t on American Idol or the Voice. No, it was at a political rally – in Egypt.

The event was for then president Mohammed Morsi, the Obama administration’s preferred Egyptian ruler and member of the Muslim Brotherhood.

At the rally they sang this song:

“O those who long to die a martyr’s death,

 you are all Hamas,

 banish the sleep from the eyes of all the Jews

forget about the whole world, forget the conferences

take up your arms

say your prayers and call to Allah…”


Prior to the singing of that short yet poignant ballad another Brotherhood member spoke. Sheikh Safwat al-Higazi spoke of nonpartisan secularism and unity. Like MLK he too has a dream.

Higazi declared: “We see the dream of the Islamic Caliphate, the dream of the land of the Caliphate realized, God willing, by Mohammed Morsi, and his supporters and his brothers and his political party. We have seen the great dream, that we all share, the United Arab States! United Arab States will return, God willing. The United Arab States will be restored by this man and his supporters, God willing. The capital of the caliphate, the capital of the United Arab States will be Jerusalem, God willing. It’s capital will not be Cairo, nor Mecca, nor Medina, only Jerusalem, God willing, and our call will be millions of martyrs are marching to Jerusalem.”

Yes, it sounds just like a peaceful democracy, just as the administration predicted. And did you catch the several references to “United Arab States”?

Well, according to Dr. Mordechai Kedar, the name “United Arab States” was inserted quite purposefully. He claims it was inserted to equate the caliphate to the strength of the United States. And worse, the doctor says the suggestion came from an American. An American currently employed at the State Department.

Others and I have been warning for years of the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into our government.

But, you might say, Morsi and the brotherhood was just ousted. True but that is a temporary setback. Look at the region to understand the progress they’ve made in just the past decade.

The Muslim Brotherhood has outright or effective control of Turkey, the Palestinian Authority, the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, Morocco and Kuwait. Most likely adding Libya and Syria to that list. All supported by the very rich and very powerful Emirate of Qatar and the al- Jazeera network.

So why has the United States government supported and continue to support them? Because governments are stupid and employ a lot of myopic idiots that claim to be experts. Hillary Clinton was a shining example of this. What did she know about diplomacy or foreign affairs. She was/is a leftist political hack who was given the job as a thank you and to keep her out of the country.

After 9/11 it was thought that the Brotherhood was more moderate than al- Qaeda and the Bush and Obama administrations could more easily deal with their rule of the Middle East. Again, this idea was pushed by the U.S. State Department.

That same department has been trying to reassure Israel that the Brotherhood can be partners in peace, and some, even in Israel are stupid enough to buy it.

King Abdullah of Jordan seems to be one of the few leaders that isn’t buying into the Brotherhood or United States pressure.

He has called the Brotherhood “wolves in sheep’s clothing” and worse.

He understands there is no working with them and does not wish to relinquish his throne for the benefit of the caliphate. He believes that holding the Brotherhood at bay is even more important than the Iranian conflict.

Yet for all the evidence to the contrary, our White House and State Department keep pushing and promoting the radical Brotherhood agenda.

Could they all really be that gullible or is there another agenda?

Profiting From Food Stamps

by: the Common Constitutionalist


When one thinks of the poor in America, one might think of the welfare system, or government (section 8) housing, or maybe the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). You know, food stamps.


Actually, it’s been quite a while since I’ve seen anyone at the grocery store pull out a paper “food stamp”. Now it’s the EBT (Electronic Benefits Transfer) card. You’ve seen it, even if you haven’t realized. The EBT card mimics a standard credit card.


So that’s what may come to mind when reflecting on America’s less fortunate. It certainly wouldn’t be J.P. Morgan, Xerox or eFunds Corporation.


Now why in the world would anyone think of these three large corporations in relation to the poor?


Well, you see, the federal government pays for the food stamp program, but it does not administer it.


Have you ever heard the term public/private partnership? Well, this is a classic example of its real-world application. It also sounds better than what it is; crony capitalism.


These three corporations hold the EBT contracts for the various states. J.P. Morgan has 24 state contracts alone. In other words, the government pays J.P. Morgan as the administrator of SNAP funds in almost half the states.


Have you heard that dopey saying, mostly uttered by socialists and other leftists: “they’re getting rich on the backs of the poor”?


Logically, that’s an impossibility except in this case, where corporate executives and investors are doing just that. It’s an ingenious scam and here’s how it works.


J.P. Morgan wins state EBT contracts. It in turn lobbies Congress and the White House. It pays particular attention to those of the Department of Agriculture and members of Congress that oversee the department’s budget.


Maybe Morgan might donate money to a politician’s election or reelection campaign, similar to the almost $1 million in donated in 2008 to the Obama presidential campaign. It’s just coincidental that shortly after taking office in 2009 Obama signed the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act”. Buried in the Bill was a 13% increase in EBT benefits and also broadened acceptance into the program. In other words, allowing many more to enroll in SNAP.


My guess, you like me have heard the ads promoting food stamp enrollment. As more and more unfortunate Americans are forced into the EBT program, J.P. Morgan’s profit increases and investors reap the benefits. Investors such as Obama, which has invested upwards of $1 million.


They are the number 3 campaign contributor to Senate Agriculture chair Debbie Stabenow.  Sen. Jay Rockefeller has invested over $50 million in J.P. Morgan.


Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for investment profits. Just not rigged profits. And that’s what they are. Companies like J.P. Morgan reap huge profits and increased stock value by manipulating political hacks. At the same time these political hacks reap profits by investing in the same companies they promote. That’s crony capitalism.


And with more and more people enrolling and the addition of the WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program into the EBT system, the circle of profits and corruption will continue unabated.