Conservatives Drawn to the Dark Side

by: the Common Constitutionalist


Have you ever felt alone? Not like, on a desert island alone; just the feeling that you are in such a philosophical minority that your segregated from the rest of society.

Well, that’s how I’m beginning to feel. I know that is not the case, but with every passing month I see one ally after another fall, or at least lean toward the Dark Side. I’m speaking metaphysically of course.

christie-obama-odd-coupleMaybe I set my sights too high or maybe I’m just being unreasonable. I liken the situation we find ourselves in to the Matrix movie; the first one in particular. In the movie practically everyone is living in a great mirage and even if given the choice to free themselves from the program, they choose not to. There are a relative few who broke out of the matrix to fight the system and try to free the minds of others. In the first of the trilogy, one of the freedom fighters betrays the others. As payment for this betrayal, the overlords promise to return him to the mirage of the matrix, thus freeing him from the suffering of reality. He claimed he was simply tired of fighting the good fight.

Well, as I stated, it appears that not a month goes by where another freedom fighter seems to either give up the fight or begin the slow walk of compromise to the Dark Side.

Not that Christie was a conservative in the first place and whatever his reason, in 2012 Chris Christie sold us out with his famous post Sandy invite an overly affectionate salutation of Obama. Personally, I believe it was that he felt snubbed by Romney for not choosing him as his running mate. Whatever conservative leanings he did have, have all but vanished.

Then about a month ago, the great Hispanic hope of the conservative movement and potential presidential hopeful, sold out to the lefts idea of immigration reform. Some would say it was smart and pragmatic, given the times we live in. I say it was a sellout, pure and simple.

Now in just the past few days, one of my favorite constitutional conservatives has shocked me. I’ve held up Rand Paul as one of a very few constitutionalists in our government I could count on to say and do the right thing consistently.

I was disappointed in his vote for John Kerry as Secretary of State. I held out hope that he would redeem himself when he and others filibustered Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Hagel was a Republican, but a liberal RINO in every sense of the word. I was stunned when after two successful filibusters; Rand Paul changed his vote to confirm Hagel.

He first appeared on Fox news to explain why:

So he filibustered just to get additional information on Hagel and when he knew he would not receive it, rather than just vote his conscience, he voted to confirm. He claimed he voted for Kerry, “despite not agreeing with a single thing Kerry believes”. Huh?

Paul explained he did so due to constitutional deference to the President. Indeed, the president may nominate anyone he likes to such posts and the Senate’s job is “Advice and Consent” of the nominee.

The senator said that he takes the position that, “The president is afforded a lot of leeway in his selection”. He’s right; the president could select Charles Manson if he is so inclined. The Constitution does however, in no way state that the Senate is merely a rubber stamp. If that were the case why would they bother with it? Hello! Robert Bork?!

Article II. Section. 2. Of the United States Constitution, in part reads: “… and he (the president) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

I know it’s a silly and outdated notion, but are we not supposed to follow the law, which is the Constitution? Ridiculous! And if we are even the slightest bit confused, regarding the federalist papersmeaning of said document should we not look to the original intent of the founders who wrote and advocated for the Constitution? Seems logical.

Well, the Federalist Papers were the commercials of the day. They were written to explain the document and compel people to support it.

Federalist 76 – The Appointment Power of the Executive – explains the Advice and Consent clause.

The author of Federalist 76 was Alexander Hamilton. He wrote, “to what purpose then require the cooperation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters…” “The Senate… In the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate.”

It is therefore evident to me that the Senate is supposed to play an important role in the process of confirmation, and not as I said, be a rubberstamp.

Another thing that bothered me was Paul’s statement that he will stick with his party (Republicans) if the party will stick together. I don’t care for that lemming mentality and it was wholly unexpected coming from Rand Paul.

When asked whether he thought Chuck Hagel would be a good Secretary of Defense, Rand said he didn’t know. Then why vote to confirm him?!

I haven’t given up on Rand Paul, but I do know that compromise begets more compromise until one is unable to walk it back. Let’s hope this doesn’t happen to the Senator.

Wall Street Legend Warns: A ‘Storm’ Is Coming

Stan Druckenmiller Warns That the U.S. Econ. Is Heading Into a Dangerous Strom

Noted hedge fund manager Stan Druckenmiller, 59, on Friday warned that the U.S. economy is headed for a “storm” that could prove to be far worse than the financial meltdown of 2008.

But first, if you’re not familiar with his name, here’s what you need to know: He’s one of the most respected and successful hedge fund managers in the past 30 years.

Obviously, you don’t achieve that type of success (or notoriety) on Wall Street by running your mouth. That being said, if Druckenmiller, a former partner of billionaire liberal philanthropist George Soros, is predicting serious economic trouble for the U.S., perhaps we should listen.

“I see a storm coming, maybe bigger than the storm we had in 2008, 2010. And really, the reason could happen without people looking as for a lot of similar reasons that we could get into,” he said during an interview with Bloomberg TV’s Stephanie Ruhle. Continue Reading

‘Coming After the Standard Shotgun’

Coming After the Standard Shotgun: Colo. Gun Bill the Most Extreme Proposed Firearms Law

Image source: KCNC-TV

A bill making its way through the Colorado state Capitol could outlaw the best-selling hunting shotgun in the state.

“They’re coming after the standard shotgun,” Republican state Sen. Greg Brophy told KCNC-TV.

The bill, aimed at banning high-capacity ammunition, has already passed the House and has support from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper. If it’s signed into law, it will also seriously limit shotguns used by most hunters in the state, according to the station.

“Hundreds of thousands of pheasant hunters are probably going to be carrying around a gun they won’t be able to replace after July 1 this year,” Brophy told KCNC. Continue Reading

Court Lightweights Challenge the Champ

Scalia, Kagan, and Sotomayor Slug it Out over ‘Voting Rights Act’

It’s about time. We’ve needed a battle over ideology on the Supreme Court that the public gets to read about. The 1965 discriminatory Voting Rights Act is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Who would ever question such an Act? I mean, voting rights is the staple of our Republic.

Moreover, to question the legitimacy of the Voting Rights Act puts you in the same company as the KKK. At least that’s what Michael Moore maintains. Here’s what Justice Scalia said:

“I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any senator to vote against continuation of this act. They are going to lose votes if they do not reenact the Voting Rights Act. Even the name of it is wonderful — the Voting Rights Act. Who is going to vote against that in the future?”

What many people do not know is that the Voting Rights Act is not equal in the way it is applied. Not every state is under the Act’s jurisdictional demands. So here we have a law designed to stop discrimination, and yet the Act itself is discriminatory. Continue Reading

Maxine Waters Dire Warning

Maxine Waters Warns 170 MILLION Jobs Could Be Lost Due to Sequestration Cuts — But There’s a Huge Problem With Her Estimate

If Congress allows sequestration cuts to take effect, more than 170 million Americans could lose their jobs, according to Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.).

“If sequestration takes place, that’s going to be a great setback. We don’t need to be having something like sequestration that’s going to cause these job losses — over 170 million jobs that could be lost,” Waters said.

She went on to say cuts must be done “over a long period of time.”

There’s just one problem with her estimation — and it’s a big one.  Continue Reading

Buy-Back Mania

by: the Common Constitutionalist

There’ve been many weapons buy-back programs throughout the country recently. Local police and sheriffs departments, towns and cities have all offered monetary compensation for those turning in a gun or ammunition magazine. The object of these programs is to attempt to get weapons off the streets. That sounds reasonable. After all, less guns mean less gun Chicagoviolence, does it not?

Just ask those living in the city of Chicago, where because of some of the strictest gun control laws anywhere in the US, it is virtually impossible to own such a weapon. I’m sure they all feel quite safe because of those restrictions. Oh that’s right! One of the inconvenient truths about gun control is that it doesn’t work. Chicago is the poster child for strict control. At the same time it just happens to have the distinction of being the murder capital of America. Rather a strange coincidence I’d say.

Now it seems a pastor in St. Louis is taking the gun buy-back program to a new level. Pastor Rodney Francis of the Washington Tabernacle Baptist Church has planned a buy-back program of htoy gunis own. It is not for weapons however. It’s for toys.

Pastor Francis will not allow allow weapons, violent video games or gory movies in his home. Bully for him. The pastor is a private citizen and is welcome to set those rules for he and his family.

He is now proposing that parents trade their children’s toy guns and other toy weapons for more wholesome toys. The pastor explained that, “We want to engage the culture of violence and one of the strategies that we thought we might be able to use is to educate parents about the dangers of allowing kids to continue this access to toy guns and playing with toy guns. They’re going to get exposed to it but we can protect them early on so they don’t get a distorted view of what those can do to the human body.”

Although I admire Pastor Francis for living his beliefs, I think those beliefs are misguided.

Now I don’t know the pastor from Adam, but I do recognize the behavior. Pastor Francis is either a progressive or has bought into the myth that the degradation of society is due to inanimate objects.

It seems he like an ever-increasing percentage of this country believe, if you just take away the weapons, all will be right in America. That is exactly what those who seek to rule us are gun-buybackcounting on. I hate to quote Karl Marx, but this is what he would call a useful idiot.

Throughout history despotic regimes have known they must first completely disarm their citizenry. However, another effective way of controlling a nations citizens is through education. Get to the children early with programs such as head start, public (government run) kindergarten and now pre-kindergarten. Pressure the parents into thinking they must send little Johnny and little Janey to a government training facility at age 3 or 4 to have any chance of success later in life.

Once in the training facility the eager tots are taught how to correctly think and conduct themselves. They’re also taught life lessons such as, the earth is warming and that it is your parents fault, and that all guns are bad and scary.

The Hitler youth, thinking that the teacher knows best, absorb the propaganda like sponges. The parents trust little Johnny and Janey are being well care for and thus give little thought to the misinformation their children are being fed.hitler-youth

This has been happening now for a generation or more. The progressives, long ago, figured out that this is the most effective way to change society.

So now we have children who have probably never seen a gun in person, much less held or shot one, scared to death of them.

Parents and even grandparents, children of the 60s, think the same way. But now, having been raised in a state of fear, the same Chicken Littles are running the country.

Hopefully, enoughgolden-rule people in our nation will figure out that it is not the guns, the video games or the movies and music that are the problem. The real problem is the simple lack of love and respect for our fellow man, as it were.

It is the worship of the state and an unpinning from God and the 10 Commandments. I’m not saying everyone has to be a religious zealot; I’m not. Heck, if citizens just live their lives by the Golden rule, we could cure a lot of ills. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. It’s short and virtually anyone can understand its meaning. Even an atheist could follow it.

This has been our problem for decades. We have to stop giving in to progressives and Marxists that think they can engineer the perfect society just by mandating it. We must also fight against so-called conservatives that believe compromise is a good thing. It’s too late for compromise.

The pastor has every right to do what he is proposing, however misguided I think he is. He is, as I said, a private citizen and should be able to do what he wishes provided he doesn’t try to make it public policy.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson; If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, it matters not to me. You may do what you wish.

Bloomberg’s Ban

Bloomberg’s ban prohibits 2-liter soda with your pizza and some nightclub mixers




Take a big gulp, New York: Hizzoner is about to give you a pop.

Nanny Bloomberg unleashes his ban on large sodas on March 12 — and there are some nasty surprises lurking for hardworking families.

Say goodbye to that 2-liter bottle of Coke with your pizza delivery, pitchers of soft drinks at your kid’s birthday party and some bottle-service mixers at your favorite nightclub.

They’d violate Mayor Bloomberg’s new rules, which prohibit eateries from serving or selling sugary drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces.

Bloomberg’s soda smackdown follows his attacks on salt, sugar, trans fat, smoking and even baby formula.

LESS SODA, MORE DOUGH: If you order a pizza, you cannot get a large bottle of soda delivered with it. Already, Domino’s locations across the city are doing away with 1 and 2 liter bottles of soda, deliveryman Philippe Daniba says. They’ll sell smaller bottles instead — costing you more money and increasing plastic waste.


The city Health Department last week began sending brochures to businesses that would be affected by the latest ban, including restaurants, bars and any “food service” establishment subject to letter grades.

And merchants were shocked to see the broad sweep of the new rules.

“It’s not fair. If you’re gonna tell me what to do, it’s no good,” said Steve DiMaggio of Caruso’s in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn. “It’s gonna cost a lot more.”

And consumers, especially families, will soon see how the rules will affect their wallets — forcing them to pay higher unit prices for smaller bottles. Continue Reading