Beck and O’Reilly Talk Potential for Civil War

There are a lot of people talking about the possibility of another American Civil War. Only this time is won’t be between the North and South.

However it will over slavery, of a sorts. If we end up in another civil war, God forbid, it will be between We the People and the Big Government Leftist entrenched Deep State.

A recent poll cited the top two reasons we may sink into civil war. They are over the Second Amendment, i.e., gun confiscation and a revocation of our natural right to own and bear arms – and impeachment of the President.

Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly recently discussed the possibility of Civil War and the reasons why: read more

Is O’Reilly Looking Out for the Folks or Just Looking Out for Babes

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Like so many others, I tune into Fox news because it is literally the only cable alternative to a constant barrage of leftism. Sure, I tune in to get real news stories without a leftist spin, but more, I watch for the conservative commentary programs.

Now, between the ouster of Roger Ailes and the O’Reilly harassment accusations, I’d say Fox News has a bit of a problem. Certainly it is not insurmountable, but I’m sure it’s a concern for the execs at Fox.

And now that there appears to be blood in the water, the leftist sharks are circling O’Reilly and Fox, preparing for a feeding frenzy. One thing we should all know about the left – when they sense a problem on the right, they attack and don’t let go until their prey is vanquished. They never give up and never surrender (h/t: Galaxy Quest).

And the attacks on O’Reilly have begun. Salon.com posted a piece entitled “The no-ad zone: ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ may be tops on cable TV, but Bill O’Reilly is turning off advertisers.” read more

The Dynamism of Illegal Immigration

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Have you noticed how it is typical of anyone and everyone either in government, or pundits who work for or report on those in government, to judge and score everything on a static basis?

The static model is that if we raise people’s taxes, the government will take in more money. Never do they figure on the dynamic response to a tax increase. Some will just pay it, while some will seek to shelter their money – and others will lose their jobs because of the increase, and therefore not pay the increase – and so on. As such we end up with a net loss, not gain in revenue.

The same goes for tax cuts. The people who whine about tax cuts always do so by judging the outcome statically, or as a zero sum game. If there is a winner, there must be loser – an equal and opposite reaction, which is never the case. They can’t, or won’t, comprehend the dynamism that tax cuts actually increase revenue.

And now the left, the establishment right, and the pundits who serve them are using the same argument for illegal immigration, not to mention tugging on our heart strings.

Charles Krauthammer did just that on the O’Reilly Factor 3 days ago. He told Bill O’Reilly that once you build a wall and get the “flow of illegals down to a trickle” – at that point “what do you do about the 11 million illegal immigrants living here.” read more

What I Learned While Watching the Superbowl

by: the Common Constitutionalist 

I guess this really should be entitled, observations from the day of the Super Bowl.

 

Regarding the much ballyhooed interview of the President by Bill O’Reilly: If you didn’t see it, don’t bother. Obama didn’t say anything we didn’t expect him to. I’m not a big fan of Bill O’Reilly but I believe he did do his best in what was undoubtedly a very hostile environment. He had very little time to attempt to get some answers out of a soulless, unrepentant liar. I did hear rumors that there was a sniper trained on O’Reilly during the interview. Just kidding. Or am I?

 

That afternoon I learned that the actor Philip Seymour Hoffman had died. I guess technically that is true, he did die, but he should not be celebrated like the boy who ran into a burning home trying to save his uncle. Hoffman killed himself by the choice he made. He chose this fate. As far as we know, it wasn’t forced upon him. He apparently made the choice to leave behind his three children who now have no father. And don’t give me the, drug addiction is a disease argument. It isn’t. You can choose to stop or get help to do so. You may not choose to not get cancer or muscular dystrophy or multiple sclerosis, etc. It is a big difference.

 

Regarding the Super Bowl coin toss: Joe Namath may be over the hill, but he was not at fault. It was the referee who was at fault. He said it was, “my honor to have him tossed the coin”, and then just handed it to Joe. Everyone got a laugh at Namath’s expense. He is, or at least was, an easy target – but not this time. Watch the video:

 

 

I stand in support of Scarlett Johansson, a woman (hot as she may be) I most likely disagree with on every aspect of life. She has become an overnight Hollywood outcast because she dared to do a commercial for Sodastream. Sodastream, as most are well aware, is an evil Israeli company. So of course, anyone who promotes their product is an enemy of the Palestinian people, Islam and the wacky Hollywood left. I’ve also heard that she just did it for the money. That somehow that is bad. Although, I guess it’s only bad if it promotes evil, in the eyes of the left, like Israel. Well hooray for her ! Oh, and Roger Waters is an @&*hole.

 

And now the Piece de Resistance – the Super Bowl Coca-Cola ad and their celebration of leftist multiculturalism.

The Huffington Post reported that it simply and innocently “Reflects the reality of a multilingual America”. They also reported that 60 million “people” speak a language other than English. Notice they wrote “people”, not citizens. But I’m sure that was simply an oversight. Right!

 

Huff Po continued with a fun fact that, “America was multilingual long before English was spoken here”. Oh, you mean before we were a country that needed a common language in order to effectively communicate with each other without a Star Trek language translator?

 

The article also cited that, “Many of the founding fathers were multilingual”. Of course they were multilingual. Most of these men were highly educated and traveled abroad as ambassadors, so it was imperative to know at least one other language. She did however neglect to add that all the founding fathers had a perfect command of the English language.

 

Is the writer, Nataly Kelly really this stupid? Does she not know that English is the language of not only domestic but international commerce? That’s possible. Could it be she is simply a mindless tool for the multicultural left? Or maybe she knows exactly what she’s doing – making obvious but specious arguments to advance the cause that has proven throughout history to be counterintuitive to a functional society and nation.

 

At least the game turned out the way I wished.

The Kennedy Myth

from: Ann Coulter

Does anyone read anymore? I mean, besides tweets from Anthony Weiner?

During his otherwise excellent commentaries on race in America, Bill O’Reilly, host of the No. 1 cable news show, claimed on Tuesday night that the one person who tried to help African-Americans more than any other was … Robert F. Kennedy!

No one laughed. I guess that’s what they’re teaching these days at the John F. Kennedy School of Government. (I can’t wait to hear how Ted Kennedy helped eradicate drunk driving!)

According to O’Reilly’s Bizarro-World history, Bobby Kennedy was “the guy who was really concerned about African-Americans” and “who really DID SOMETHING. … He went in with the federal government and he cleaned out the rat’s nest that was abusing African-Americans in the South.”

Although this myth has been polished to perfection by the Kennedy PR machine (requiring all Kennedy stories to illustrate either courage or adorableness), it is simply a fact that helping blacks was not the Democrats’ priority. Even the ones who wanted to, such as Bobby and John Kennedy, couldn’t risk upsetting the segregationists, more than 90 percent of whom were Democratic.

The job of actually enforcing civil rights and desegregating Southern schools fell to Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.

Five years after Eisenhower had shown the Democrats how its done by sending federal troops to desegregate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., President Kennedy and brother Bobby still dragged their feet in helping James Meredith enter the University of Mississippi.

Continue Reading

 

Bill O’Reilly, the Republicans Kevorkian?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

So Bill O’Reilly, great defender of folks is officially on the immigration bandwagon. Hooray! Another conservative bites the dust. Although I guess that’s not accurate. O’Reilly has never described himself as a conservative. I’ll second that. He’s not. But even if he had after coming out in favor of “immigration reform” he could no longer wear that moniker.

His claim is that if Republicans don’t line up behind the RINOs (my words, not his) and support the bill, all will be lost and Hillary Clinton will waltz into the White House in 2016. Of course he mentioned nothing of the importance of the 2014 midterms.

His lecture was in response to an e-mail from one of his viewers who was against the bill and said that Congress should make no concessions. In effect they must reject the entire bill.

Well bully for you Nettie the e-mailer. I agree 100%. Bill did not agree. He said: “When Hillary Clinton is elected president in 2016, will you say the same thing, Nettie? Because that’s what’s gonna happen if the GOP does not begin to put forth smart solutions to the country’s problems.”

Well Mr. O’Reilly, I read the bill, or at least the long-winded summary and there’s not a single “smart solution” in it. Feel free to review my critique here.

At this point, as often happens, O’Reilly got on a roll. E-mailer Jim was his next victim. Foolish Jim had the temerity to suggest we merely adhere to and enforce current laws. Bill’s rebuttal: “So that means federal agents will begin forcibly rounding up millions of illegal people, entering their homes and removing men, women, and children, taking them to holding pens, where they will be awaiting deportation. Is that your vision, Jim? Because that’s what enforcing existing laws would mean.”

What an absurd statement Mr. O’Reilly. You just stated that if the government doesn’t care for a law or set of laws they just don’t have to enforce some. That is what you said, correct? Does that apply to us, or just the government? How ridiculous!

Of course now that I think of it, that’s what many administrations have done, the current being one of the worst offenders.

Whatever happened to the law is the law? There are many antidiscrimination laws on the books. If an employer won’t hire someone because he’s black or fire him for the same reason, would you be okay with that Bill? After all, the employer disagrees with the current law so why follow it.

As an aside, I would agree with the employer. It’s his business. He should be able to hire and fire whom he wants for whatever the reason.

But I’m sure Mr. O’Reilly meant that because current immigration law is “mean” it shouldn’t be enforced. I guess it’s all about being nice to the people that snuck into our country illegally.

No, actually it’s only about winning the next election. The ruination of America will be worth it to keep Hillary out of the White House.

Mr. O’Reilly, you and every other wrong thinking middle-of-the-roader will surely lose us the next election with cowardly acts like passing this bill.

O’Reilly stated: “For years I’ve called for a more secure southern border, you know that. And now it looks like the secure border is in reach. At least somewhat. So I hope this bill does become law.”

Has anyone actually read this bill? I reiterate, I’ve read what I needed of the bill and there is no more security in it! And how do you have somewhat of a secure border? Is that like being kind of pregnant?

It really sounds to me as if Republicans are so terrified of this issue they will pretend to see something that isn’t there.

And as I’ve stated before, we will not receive any more Hispanic votes due to its passage. In fact, if history repeats, as often happens, we’ll get less.

In 1980 Republicans received 38% of the Hispanic vote. In 1984 it was 37%. 1986 brought us mass amnesty. In 1988 Republicans garnered only 30% and in 1992 it was down to 29%. What a winning strategy and Bill wants a repeat.

Someone explain to me how the outcome will differ from post 1986, because I don’t see it. Putting aside the reality of the logistical and financial nightmare, politically, it’s suicide and like Jack Kevorkian, Bill is ready to assist.