by: the Common Constitutionalist
So, all the sudden the left in America is concerned with anti-Semitism. That’s a riot. Is this the same left that constantly sides with the Muslim Brotherhood and goes out of their way to support Islam? That left?
It just goes to show, when pundits on the left want to accomplish something – there is no end to which they will go.
I’m speaking, in this case, of gun control and the fascist mayor Michael Bloomberg’s one-man crusade for their confiscation. And don’t think for a moment that is not his endgame. As with everything Bloomberg involves himself in, it seems he always knows better than we, how to live our lives, for we cannot be trusted. Sounds a lot like the great progressive Teddy Roosevelt.
And now those with no moral center have branded us pro-second amendment advocates as anti-Semites.
For those who are unaware, Mayor Bloomberg with his personal fortune, north of $22 billion, started an organization called “Mayors against Illegal Guns”. What an apropos name, for of course, who could be for illegal guns? Naturally no one and that is why the word game. The left is great at innocuous names for things – abortion is reproductive or women’s health because who would oppose the health of a woman?
Anyway, Benito Bloomberg cobbled this organization together to “combat” the influence of the NRA and he’s announced a $12 million ad campaign to push for universal background checks, because we all know that this is how criminals acquire their guns. Criminals seek out legal sales and subject themselves to legal background checks. I’m sure that’s how MS13 acquired their weapons.
You see, Il Duce, or should I say Il Douche Bag, is Jewish. This past Monday on MSNBC, contributor Mike Barnicle said: “let’s get down to it, Mike Bloomberg, mayor of New York City; I mean, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing directed toward Bloomberg.” Al Sharpton chimed in agreement: “there’s no doubt about it”.
Their proof comes from comments made on the website “Stormfront”, your typical white supremacist site, calling out Bloomberg for being a “Jew” and various tweets claiming Bloomberg to be “King Heeb”. Real middle-of-the-road stuff that clearly represents the conservative point of view, don’t you think? MSNBC has finally outed us as the Jew haters we are. What a despicable bunch of hatemongers.
Yes, we are not lovers of liberty, but anti-semites. We don’t dislike Bloomberg due to his version of American fascism. No, that can’t be it. It’s that he is Jewish. If he were Protestant or Catholic we would be fine with his no salt, no trans-fats, no big gulp and now, gun control decrees.
We would be okay with his governing philosophy of: “You have to have the space, if you will, to lead from the front to make decisions to then convince people why it’s right, to do things,” said Bloomberg. “And if it doesn’t work perfectly, to fix it.”
Not that he should convince the public to support an idea, but to just explain to his subjects that he is right and you must support it after he has made the decision for you. That would be grand, if he were not a “Jew”.
As with anything the left attempts to foist on the American people, they know they can never win an honest debate. There must always be some devious angle to pull and tug at the hearts, but not the minds of the low information citizen.
If Bloomberg were honest about his real intent to confiscate our weapons, he would get nowhere, regardless of how much money he threw at his silly campaign, but he would still have the unwavering support of the idiots at MSNBC.
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.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was watching Fox News Sunday morning and saw that John Kerry is over in the Middle East, working on the Syria problem. It seems the Iraqis are allowing aircraft from Iran to fly over Iraqi airspace uninspected and unimpeded. It’s as if the Iraqis are helping the Iranians support Assad’s effort to maintain power in Syria.
Evidently the American government knew of this problem when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. The Iraqis had evidently been warned privately of the Obama administration’s distaste for this. Wow! You mean the Iraqis had the nerve to disregard Hillary’s warnings?
It seems that Iran, most likely with the help of Russia, has been ferrying arms, money, supplies and personnel over Iraq and into Syria for some time.
It’s not that this is unexpected, at least by us that live in realville, as Rush calls it. These Dictators understand they must prop one another up, lest they all fall.
Yet our progressive geniuses in both the Bush and Obama administrations think they can just go in and “nation build”. As if a Jeffersonian democracy will just spring up in a land of centuries old warring tribes and religious fanatics. We are not wanted or liked over in that part of the world. We should’ve accepted that long ago and just gotten out. But no, it’s not good enough to just win a war, not that we know how to do that anymore. Progressives have that burning need to nation build.
Well… Nothing. This is not our fight. For decades progressives on both sides of the aisle in this country have envisioned some sort of odd grand world democracy. A grand collective, as it were. They refuse to see the reality that that will never be possible.
All the talking and negotiating by our pinhead politicians will amount to spit in the end. There has never been a single instance in history where talking or negotiation has ended in a lasting peace. Never has and never will.
So John Kerry has been dispatched to do what? To threaten Iraq? To publicly humiliate them? Do these morons in Washington actually think that will work? I guess they must. What would we threaten them with, talking them to death? What the hell do they care whether they’re humiliated in the eyes of the world, not that they would be. I have an idea. Mr. Kerry could threaten them with a strongly worded letter from the UN or maybe even a resolution. Ooh, scary! Talk is cheap and the United States, since Reagan left, has done virtually nothing but.
For a long time, I have thought the American State Department is the most useless entity in our government, and that’s saying something. I personally can’t name a single accomplishment of the State Department. Not one. They fly all over the world, negotiating deals, giving our money away and getting hosed in the process, repeatedly. Yet they keep coming back for more. Insane!
Maybe Secretary Kerry will throw money at the Iraqis. That always works well for us. Would they accept the bribe, with the promise that they will no longer allow it to happen? Heck I would, and they probably will too, if it is offered. Of course they won’t change anything, but they’ll be happy to take our money, which we borrowed from China or just printed at the local Bernanke Kinko’s.
I don’t know how this is going to turn out. My gut tells me that Assad, unless he is assassinated, will remain in power with the help of his despot friends and allies, Russia, Iran and who knows who else. I don’t know what will happen to the “Rebel Alliance” in Syria, made up of not freedom fighters but several different terrorist organizations. Maybe they’ll move on to attempt to overtake Jordan.
I do know, that given the Obama administrations record for backing terrorist governments like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, no matter how it turns out, America will be on the losing end.
If you want to pity anyone in this whole Syria debacle, pity the Syrian people, as you should the Egyptian people. No matter who wins, they lose.
A majority of physicians see a somewhat bleak future for medicine, pointing to
eroding independence and shrinking income, reports everydayhealth.com.
According to a survey from the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions of more than 600 doctors, six in 10
physicians said they expect many of their colleagues to retire earlier than planned in the next 1 to 3 years.
That perception cuts across age, gender and specialty.
Another 55 percent of doctors surveyed believe many of their colleagues will cut back on their hours because of the way medicine is
changing, although the survey didn’t delineate on how it was changing.
Seventy-five percent believe the best and brightest may not consider a career in medicine, an increase from the 2011 survey result of 69
**Note** As you read this article, ask yourself who couldn’t have seen this coming? This has been part of the lefts end came from the start. It is a perfect example of compromise begets more compromise. Compromise once and it not only gets easier but boxes you in. You are expected to continue and it gets more and more difficult to eventually draw the line in the sand.
Immigration Vote Splits Gang of 8
The Senate’s bipartisan immigration working group split along party lines during a contentious budget vote to prevent illegal immigrants who receive legal status from receiving federal health benefits.
The Senate early Saturday morning defeated the amendment to the budget resolution which would have put the Senate on record as opposing access to health care under Medicaid or the Affordable Care Act for undocumented immigrants who get a green card.
The amendment, which failed 43 to 56, was offered by Senate Budget ranking member Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
All Democrats — including gang members Dick Durbin of Illinois, Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Charles E. Schumer of New York and Michael Bennet of Colorado — opposed the amendment. They were joined by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska. All other Republicans — including immigration negotiators Marco Rubio of Florida, John McCain of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona — supported the amendment.
The gang of eight has been negotiating a comprehensive immigration reform package that they hope to unveil when the Senate returns the week of April 8 from spring recess.
Sessions contended the vote bodes poorly for the state of negotiations.
“The result of today’s vote places immigration reform in jeopardy,” Sessions said.
Immigration reform advocates, including National Council of La Raza, said Friday they would be monitoring what they contend to be any anti-immigrant votes and put members of both parties on notice that their votes would be remembered come election day.
During debate, Sessions argued that illegal immigrants who are given legal status in the future should not be eligible for these health care benefits.
By now many have heard of the uproar that was caused by an article written by Bob Huber in Philadelphia Magazine entitled “Being White in Philly“.
In the article, Mr. Huber writes that his friends have become blind to the plight in the poorest neighborhoods. He explains that whites don’t just avoid these poor black areas, but do their best to erase them from their minds – as if they don’t exist.
As an aside: Mr. Huber doesn’t appear to be very bright – he not only gives up his son’s name, but the address of the apartment his son is living at near Temple University.
The article continues with anecdotes of strained relationships between blacks and whites. He did continually call blacks African-Americans, which I refuse to do. That’s at least one politically correct point in his favor, I guess. However, it didn’t get him anywhere with the “Black Community”.
Others have written about the flap over this article, calling out the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, for effectively siccing the government on Bob Huber and Philadelphia Magazine.
I agree that Nutter has no right to use the force of the state, or city in this case, for persecution, but honestly what do we expect? After all, our dear president jailed a man that made a dopey You Tube movie about Islam. If you recall, Mark Basseley Youssef was snatched up and held without bail. You may also recall the whole incident of the video causing protests and riots was a lie. So why be surprised when some chump mayor sees fit to persecute a private citizen.
What I got out of this article was not that it was simply the honest accounting of Mr. Huber’s thoughts and feelings. It was the all too typical mentality of being offended by anything and everything.
A perfect example of this was contained in one of Mr. Huber’s anecdotes. He wrote of a white female student who lost her blackberry (shouldn’t it be African American Berry) during a biology lab at Villanova University. She evidently put a message on Facebook to all her classmates that read: “wondering if you happened to pick it up or know who did”. There was but one black female student in the same class. Upon receiving the white girls Facebook post, the black girl responded: “why would I just happened to pick up a blackberry and if this is a personal message, I’m offended”.
And there you have it! The state of race relations in America perfectly summarized in one statement.
So I ask, who is the racialist here?
Pet peeve alert: let’s clear up something . Racialism and racism, although used synonymously, are not the same. In fact the correct term is racialism. Racism is “the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race”, while racialism is “the belief in the superiority of a particular race.”
Okay, to answer the question, clearly the black girl is the racialist, with her assumption that the white girl thinks herself superior and therefore can single out the poor black girl.
As most thinking people have or should have surmised, it is the liberal education system and liberal white guilt in general, as well as the industry of racialism promoted by the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, et al.
This is how these hack politicians get elected and remain, at all levels of government, whether it be Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia, and idiot like Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas, or our president.
Somehow, somewhere along the line, blacks in this country have been convinced that someone of the same race can only solve their collective problems. A white politician could never understand the black struggle. As if their struggle is any more severe than some destitute white family living in a holler in Kentucky, Tennessee or West Virginia.
As long as there is human nature, there will always be prejudice. There will always be whites that don’t like blacks because they’re black and vice versa. That’s just the way it is. You can’t legislate it out of existence. Living your life just waiting to be offended is no way to live, and a bloody waste of time to boot.