Better to be Awake than Woke

by: Brent Smith at Common Constitutionalist

I enjoy viewing various #WalkAway stories from time to time – seeing what it took for each to wise up to the nonsense they’ve been spoon-fed their whole lives.

For those unfamiliar, the #WalkAway campaign was founded by Brandon Straka, whose liberal eyes were opened to the hypocrisy and lies of the left and decided to WalkAway from liberalism and the democrat party.

Now, thousands are too having their eyes open as they join the campaign.

The following is a #WalkAway video posted by Shannon. She claims to be an independent, not affiliated with either party, but always voted democrat, until recently. read more

Man Explains why He’s Walking Away from the Left

by: Brent Smith at the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

A rather remarkable thing has begun in America. It’s an awakening of sorts. Check that. It’s not “of sorts.” It is an absolute awakening. It’s been dubbed as #Walkaway.

As most know, I, the Common Constitutionalist, was not, am not, and will never be an “Ever-Trumper.” I wholeheartedly support the president when I believe he is right and constitutional on policy, and call him out when he strays. As the saying goes: “It’s not personal – it’s just business.” Being a Never-Trumper or Ever-Trumper is just silly and irrational.

But thank heavens for president Trump and the many things he has accomplished thus far. Most have been well publicized as good or evil, but known to most nonetheless. And most leftist campaigns against him have been equally well publicized.

However, one campaign may not – at least not yet. It’s called the #Walkaway movement, and I don’t think it would have begun without Trump being elected.

Up until this last presidential election, Ronald Reagan was the most hated Republican president. Reagan was labeled as the amiable dunce by the left, and to be sure, was hated by them. But as much as they disliked Reagan’s policies, the left didn’t suffer from Reagan Derangement Syndrome. Nor did they of either George Bush. read more

The All-Inclusive Democrat Package Deal

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

The other day I heard some one describe modern liberalism or leftist ideology like an all-inclusive resort. At first I merely chuckled at the thought. But despite the humor I found in it, it struck me as being dead-on accurate.

For those unfamiliar, an all-inclusive resort is the best vacation one will ever experience – but only if you can take advantage of the amenities. You pay one price, and that payment includes everything the resort has to offer.

If you can’t take advantage, or wish more of a bare bones or a-la carte experience, an all-inclusive experience is definitely not for you. An all-inclusive vacation is just that. The customer doesn’t have the option of a-la carte. You pay for all or nothing. It’s like ObamaCare. Everything is included, whether you care to partake or not.

And as I stated – this is also the definition of modern leftism and the Democrat Party. If you are a committed liberal, you are expected to collectively support all leftist causes. It’s all-inclusive. read more

Liberalism is Closer to Sharia Than it is to Constitutional Conservatism.

by: the Common Constitutionalist

I think we would all agree that radical Islam is not good for America and Sharia law has no place in this country. Dr. Carson was absolutely right when he said that Sharia law is the antithesis of a Constitutional Republic. Why that was controversial, I’ll never know.

I thought it fascinating that the left made such a fuss over something which, to us conservatives, appears so obvious. At first I thought they were just saying how wrong Carson was out of hatred for the right and political correctness.

So I started outlining some of the glaring disparities between Constitutional conservatism and Islam’s Sharia law. As I wrote, it donned on me that there is a third category – liberalism/progressivism/statism – however you wish to classify it. And I discovered something quite interesting. Liberalism is closer to Sharia than it is to Constitutional conservatism.

Let me explain: read more

To Be or Not To Be…..Offended

Some people go out of their way to be offended by completely innocent things  when no offense was intended.

Case in point involves a Rhode Island woman, Chelley  Martinka, who craved pickles when she was pregnant.  Ten months after  her daughter was born, she was grocery shopping and stopped to look at some  pickles.  The label on one type of pickle caught her attention and she  became overly offended.

The label said:

“Kosher Dill Midgets.”

Why did the pickle label offend her?  Her 10 month old daughter has a  form of dwarfism and she took the label as being insensitive and  offensive.  Martinka  explained:

“Seeing a word that is so hurtful used in such a benign fashion is, it’s hard  for a parent.”

Martinka was so upset that she launched a social media campaign against the  pickle company.  Her efforts have led to the company contacting her and  informing her that they plan on changing the name of the type of pickle to ‘kosher dill mini muncher’ or ‘kosher dill babies.’

Continue Reading

Public School Shooting Clubs

Public Schools Used to Have Rifle Teams — Even New York

by: Gary DeMar

I graduated from high school in 1968. There were some problem students. I do remember a student who robbed a bank during lunch and hid the money in his locker, but that was the rare exception. It was big news at the time because it was so out of the ordinary. There were fights and petty thievery. The perpetrators were dealt with swiftly by the administration without having to worry that their parents would hire a lawyer and sue the school.

My wife grew up in a small town in the northwestern part of Pennsylvania. The schools closed for the first day of doe and buck season. There was no reason to hold classes because most of the boys would be out with their dads hunting deer. No one ever took a gun to school to shoot anybody. You could see kids riding down the street with a rifle across the handle bars. Continue Reading

Catholics Deal With the Devil

Excerpts from Paul A. Rahe’s article titled: American Catholicism’s Pact With the Devil

One might say that the Catholic Church itself laid the groundwork for the recent firestorm they find themselves embroiled in. I speak, of course, of the battle royal between the Church and the Obama administration over what they claimed to be “Women’s Healthcare”.

Now, just as the whites of today cannot be held to account for slavery, Catholics leaders of today cannot be accountable for their past leaders. Or can they?

It might be instructive to add some historical perspective to this dilemma.

In the burgeoning American republic, the principle of limited government was codified in its purest form in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But it had additional ramifications as well – for the government’s scope was limited also in other ways.

 There were other amendments that made up what we call the Bill of Rights, and many of the states prefaced their constitutions with bills of rights or added them as appendices. These were all intended to limit the scope of the government. They were all designed to protect the right of individuals to life, liberty, the acquisition and possession of property, and the pursuit of happiness as these individuals understood happiness. Put simply, liberty of conscience was part of a larger package.

This is what the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church forgot.

In the 1930s, the majority of the bishops, priests, and nuns sold their souls to the devil, and they did so, as is usual, with the best of intentions.

Due to their concern during the Depression, for the suffering of those out of work and destitute, they wholeheartedly embraced the New Deal. They gloried in the fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt made Frances Perkins, a devout Anglo-Catholic laywoman who belonged to the Episcopalian Church but retreated on occasion to a Catholic convent, Secretary of Labor and the first member of her sex to be awarded a cabinet post.

They welcomed Social Security, which was her handiwork. They did not stop to ponder whether public provision in this regard would subvert the moral principle that children are responsible for the well being of their parents. They did not stop to consider whether this measure would reduce the incentives for procreation and nourish the temptation to think of sexual intercourse as an indoor sport. They just did not stop to think of any potential consequences.

In the process, the leaders of the American Catholic Church fell prey to that which had long before ensnared a great many mainstream Protestants in the United States. That of the notion that public provision is somehow akin to charity and so they fostered state paternalism and undermined what they professed to teach: that charity is an individual responsibility and that it is appropriate that the laity join together under the leadership of the Church to alleviate the suffering of the poor.

In its place, they helped establish the Machiavellian principle that underpins modern liberalism, the belief that it is our Christian duty to confiscate other people’s money and redistribute it.

At every turn in American politics since that time, you will find the Catholic hierarchy assisting the Democratic Party and promoting the growth of the administrative entitlement state. It did not cross the minds of the hierarchy, that the paternalistic state they had embraced, would someday turn on the Church and seek to dictate how it would conduct its affairs.

The weapon that Barack Obama has directed at the Church was fashioned to a considerable degree by Catholic churchmen. They welcomed Obamacare. They encouraged Senators and Congressmen who professed to be Catholics to vote for it.

The Roman Catholic Church in the United States has lost much of its moral authority.

In 1973, when the Supreme Court made its decision in Roe v. Wade, had the bishops, priests, and nuns screamed bloody murder and declared war, as they have recently done, the decision would have been reversed. Instead, under the leadership of Joseph Bernadin, the Cardinal-Archbishop of Chicago, they asserted that the social teaching of the Church was a “seamless garment,” and they treated abortion as one concern among many.

Here is what Cardinal Bernadin said in the Gannon Lecture at Fordham University that he delivered in 1983:

“Those who defend the right to life of the weakest among us must be equally visible in support of the quality of life of the powerless among us: the old and the young, the hungry and the homeless, the undocumented immigrant and the unemployed worker.

Consistency means that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge a compassionate society and vigorous public policy to protect the rights of the unborn and then argue that compassion and significant public programs on behalf of the needy undermine the moral fiber of the society or are beyond the proper scope of governmental responsibility.” 

The truth is that the priests in the United States are far more likely to push the “social justice” agenda of the Church from the pulpit than to instruct the faithful in the evils of abortion.

And there is more. Paul has not once, in the thirteen years of attending mass, heard the argument against contraception articulated from the pulpit, nor has he once heard the argument for chastity articulated. In the face of the sexual revolution, the bishops, priests, and nuns of the American Church have by and large fallen silent. In effect, they have abandoned the moral teaching of the Roman Catholic Church in order to articulate a defense of the administrative entitlements state and its progressive expansion.

Those who seek to create heaven on earth and who, to this end, subvert the liberty of others and embrace the administrative entitlement state will sooner or later become its victims.