Democrats and the Free Press

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

The main stream media and the democrats claim, like Joe Biden did recently, that president Trump is an “existential” threat to this nation. They claim that Trump is an enemy to a free press in this country and wants to censor them and shut them down.

However, not once as I recall, has the president Trump ever seriously called for the shuttering of any leftist news outlets, or silencing any opposing voices. Frankly, why would he. They are doing such a bang up job of it themselves.

Just look at the tanking ratings for CNN and the like. Every time I tune in to that network, I wonder why advertisers still run commercials there. Who’s going to see them? Every month there are new reports of CNN losing more market share.

Yet still they won’t change their narrative.

Unfortunately for the left, the facts, and history, is and has always been on our side. And it’s a funny thing about facts. There is no denying them. Oh sure, they can try to spin them, but the facts are and every will be what they are. read more

Four American Presidents Conducted Deportations

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Trump is a blowhard. Let’s just admit it. He’s a loud mouth. But that doesn’t mean one can’t still be a Trump supporter. Frankly, if he’s right on the issues, who cares if he’s a blowhard.

Well, he’s not right on all issues. So why is he still so popular? Why does he remain at the top of the heap despite bashing everyone but his mother? It’s uncivilized they say. Yet none of that appears to matter due to two little words: Illegal Immigration. That’s it.

Although I’m not a Trumpster, I was glad someone finally brought up president Eisenhower and “Operation Wetback,” during the last debate. We “republicans” are supposed to be up on the issues, but I’ll wager 90% in the audience or viewing on TV didn’t know about Eisenhower’s very successful deportation program.

Well, Bill O’Reilly, on behalf of his “folks,” did not take too kindly to Trump invoking the name of Ike. Business Insider writes that the “Eisenhower program has a dark history – including its name, ‘Operation Wetback,’ a derogatory slur. Of course they neglect to mention that in 1950s parlance, the term “wetback” was more factual than merely derogatory, nor did they care a wit about politically correct speech.

And according to CNN, the 1950s-era transfer process resulted in a number of Mexican migrants dying along the way.” They are attempting to make us believe this deportation was the Mexican Trail-of-Tears? read more

The Greater Depression

**Note** What have we always said, A Big Government Progressive is a Big Government Progressive. Sides of the aisle do not matter.

 

You can’t say we haven’t been warned. Despite the high debt price tag  resulting from the government intervention and arbitrary price controls designed  to “spur the economy” during the American Great Depression, modern politicians  on both sides of the aisle are more than willing to repeat the same mistakes.  Interestingly, just as Herbert Hoover is blamed by leftist historians (but I  repeat myself) for leading us into the Depression with his so-called free-market  policies, so is George W. Bush blamed for his “capitalistic” tendencies. This is  nonsense of course, both Hoover and Bush implemented interventionist economic  policies that were exactly the antithesis of free-market capitalism. And both  were succeeded by men who took their economic strategies (i.e. political  compromises) and opened them up to full-throttle. What Hoover and Bush began,  FDR and Obama have respectively finished.

In his book, America’s Great Depression, Murray Rothbard sets the  record on Hoover in proper perspective:

Hoover’s role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to  combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D.  Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his  predecessor. To scoff at Hoover’s tragic failure to cure the depression as a  typical example of laissez-faire [meaning “allow to act,” or  free-enterprise] is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover  rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free  market.

Continue Reading

An Assault on Weapons

by: the Common Constitutionalist

As a result of the Newtown Connecticut shootings more and more Statists in local, state and federal government are not asking but demanding knee-jerk measures to control what they classify as “Gun Violence”.

gun violenceAs you read this or any article, listen to the radio or watch television; always remember the language shifts that the left employees. In this case it is no longer gun control, but is now gun violence, because no one could ever be in favor of gun violence.

Many states like New York have enacted far-reaching gun restrictions on their law-abiding citizens and by now most of heard or seen the ranting of that dopey police chief from Emeryville California, Ken James. In a recent press conference chief James exclaimed, “One issue that boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon. That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon. A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power. Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face oppositions we may come upon.”

So chief James, when a police officer somehow finds him or herself in a threatening situation and he/she draws their weapon, it is not to defend themselves or others? That’s just inane on its face and you sir, are a moron. Is the California police Creed not to protect and serve but to intimidate and show power? Nice motto.

California has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation yet they are pushing a new massive gun control package. California Senate President pro tem, Democrat Darrell Steinberg said, “We can save lives” in defending the package. He continued, “If it was a defensive measure why did we lose 55 officers nationwide last year to gun violence? We are asking and have been asking for reasonable regulations, not that are going to impact the legal gun owner.”

First, notice the injection of the new buzzword “gun violence”. Second, who else would it “impact” you idiot; the criminals? Criminals don’t obey the law or regulations. That’s what makes them criminals.New-Featured-Guns

Although it is completely misguided and anathema to the Constitution, I understand why states such as New York and California enact ridiculous laws and regulations to control their populations. These states are controlled and run by Statists and do-gooders. They don’t feel we citizens can live our lives without constant guidance and dictates from our overseers. I was surprised when hearing that Missouri was jumping onto the gun-grab train.

In the most brazen attempt yet, Missouri Democrats introduced a retroactive anti-gun bill. If passed Missouri residents will have 90 days to turn in their guns. The bill reads in part, “any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have 90 days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution. 1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; 2) render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; 3) surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 4) Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine is a class C felony.”

Gun-GrabSo essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a potential felon tomorrow. And it won’t be long before the feds mimic the states actions; but it will be worse.

I believe that national gun-grab legislation will be proposed, but will either be severely watered down or rejected outright. Both Congressman and Senators understand that most of the voting public won’t stand for it.

So, in will step Herr Obama and prove that the pen is mightier than the sword or the gun. With an executive order, he will begin the confiscation of all weapons. Yes I did say all weapons. Oh, it will begin with something similar to the Missouri proposal. You know, just turn in your scary guns. It will not; I repeat, will not end there.

How could he do such a thing? He could never think to get away with it, you say. Well, we haven’t been in the way back machine a while. Buckle up Sherman. Flipped the switch Mr. Peabody. Set it for the gold confiscation of 1933.

Just a few short months after winning election in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102 and an improved version in August of ‘33, order 6260, making it illegal, with few exceptions, for a private citizen to own or possess gold. Of course, they didn’t describe it as just innocuously owning gold. They called it “hoarding”. And of course, “hoarding” is bad and only bad people hoard things.executive-order

Franklin’s decree (Executive Order) power came from, he said: “by the authority vested in me” and another mandate, the “National Emergency in Banking Relief and Trading with the Enemy Act” or War Powers Act. That hero of the left and all around good guy, Woodrow Wilson, decreed the War Powers Act.

The 1917 act was to “define, regulate and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”. I love the addition of “for other purposes” which was never defined. How convenient. The war Powers act of 1917 did at least exclude citizens of the United States. The Roosevelt gold confiscation order of 1933, however,chnged the language to include “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Suddenly, any citizen owning gold became an enemgreat depressiony of the United States government.

As an aside, you may notice a common clause inserted in the text of essentially every PEO (Presidential Executive Order). That is “by the authority vested in me…”, whether the president actually has the authority is of no account, as long as he says he does. Neat trick, eh.

This is the type of regulatory statism that is born of fear and hubris. Remember, no matter what the era, a progressive will always think the same way. Don’t let a crisis go to waste. In times of crisis, either real or fabricated, fascists in government can accomplish what they could never think to do without. The worst legislation and decrees always involve some sort of national crisis.

In 1933, we were suffering through the worst depression in our history. Fear of economic collapse was on everybody’s mind. A perfect time for a progressive “Administrator ” to grab the reins from the people and lead them into… The Great Depression! By confiscating the one thing that citizens had of intrinsic value, Roosevelt blew out the only candle of economic survival available to ordinary Americans struggling mightily during the dark days of the Depression.

And back to today. The lefts push of gun control into crisis is all too predictable for those who understand their M.O. They cannot allow this opportunity to go cold. They are striking as quickly and as forcefully as they are able. They understand if the crisis wanes, they will lose that window.

This is why I believe Obama will simply sign a PEO to begin the process of control and then confiscation of our guns. I would also bet my life that the PEO was written long ago, probably by someone like Cass Sunstein, along with many others, just sitting in a drawer somewhere, to be pulled out at the opportune moment.

A Man Without a (Tea) Party

Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?

Newt’s latest attack of Romney is over Bain Capital and how Mitt has “destroyed jobs”, etc.

There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.

Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.

“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.

He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.

Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.

If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.

I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.

Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.

I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”

In his own words:

No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.

If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.

The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”

Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.

Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!

Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.

Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.

Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.

If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.

I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.

Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.