Self Deportation Beginning Ahead of Schedule

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Yesterday, in the first segment of my weekly podcast, I recalled for the listeners, a story of which I simply switched on my TV. There I saw on Fox News, Bill O’Reilly speaking with Geraldo Rivera about illegal immigration and deportation. You may listen here.

He retold, in brief, the story of Guadalupe García de Rayos, a Mexican illegal alien who was recently deported. You may read a more detailed account here.

Geraldo said, quite correctly, that this spectacle was all over the news. Everyone was covering it. He then turned to Bill and said that this incident was only one of 11 million. He explained that this leaves 10,999,999 to go. He asked O-Reilly if America is ready and willing to witness the tragedy of millions being deported every day on the evening news and thousands of websites.

In my podcast, as well as many articles I’ve written on the subject, I exclaimed that this will not occur. It didn’t occur when President Eisenhower oversaw the deportation of millions of illegals and it won’t occur this time. I’m certain of it.

During his career in Real Estate, the Trumpster took pride in projects coming in under budget and ahead of schedule. It looks like he’s doing it again. read more

Feinstein Decides Who is a Journalist

Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), backed by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), has proposed an amendment to a journalist shield law sponsored by Senator Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the month. She wants to choose who can and who cannot be considered a journalist.

Schumer’s shield law bill’s purpose is aimed at protecting journalists’ sources. A renewed push for stronger media shield laws came after disclosures earlier this year that the Justice Department secretly subpoenaed two months’ of telephone records for phone lines used by reporters and editors for The Associated Press and secretly used a warrant to obtain the emails of a FOX News journalist.

“We need a strong media shield bill now more than ever,” Schumer said. “This is an important step forward that strengthens this bipartisan bill and should give it even more momentum to clear the committee and the Senate by the end of the year.”

The New York Democrat’s effort came complete with a four-page explanation of who would be protected under the law, summarily, a person “with the primary intent to investigate events and procure material in order to disseminate to the public news or information concerning local, national or international events or other matters of public interest.”

Continue Reading

UK Crime Rate

England’s Crime Rate Nearly Four Times Higher than United States. Hey Piers Morgan, Care to Explain That?

by:

I’ll give Piers Morgan credit for one thing: He’s not afraid to interview  people who have strong disagreements with him. He’s giving them a platform for  views that rarely see the light of day on liberal networks.

He had Alex Jones of InfoWars on a few nights ago. While Jones was a little  over the top, he didn’t roll over for Morgan. Too many conservatives want to be  friends with the media as if their agreeable style will somehow endear them to  the liberal media establishment. It will never, never, never happen.

Morgan also had Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America on. Don’t mess with  Larry Pratt. He comes to interviews prepared, and he’s a lot more measured and  calm than Jones. In his December 19, 2012 interview, Pratt had said that “evil’s  in our hearts. Not in the guns.” That’s probably the first time the  secularist Morgan ever heard that before. Of course, it’s true. Good people, or  at least people who work hard to say no to evil thoughts and desires, do not  murder people. When some usually good person “snaps,” the snapping is the evil  in them (James 1:13–15; Mark 7:14–15).

Pratt went on to say to Morgan in the interview:

“The problem occurs, sir, in those areas  precisely where we have said ‘no guns.’ The problem doesn’t occur where the guns  are allowed freely to be carried to be used by people. There we have very low  murder rates.”

Pratt returned to Morgan’s show on January 9th of this year. The  sparks flew over crime statistics.

The vast majority of people in England do not own guns. Guns are heavily  restricted. Morgan sees this as one of the reasons crime is low in England. At  least that’s what he’s been trying to pass off to his low-information viewers .  . . until Larry Pratt showed up for round two.

Pratt maintained that the official police homicide numbers are cooked. “The  data that you are using for the murder rate in England is a sham,” Pratt  countered. “There’s a monumental miss-reporting of what constitutes murder. If  three people are murdered, it’s likely to be counted as one event.” In fact, an article  on crime statistics in England makes the same point: “there are the official  police figures (which historically under-record the true level of crime).”

Morgan couldn’t handle the truth. He accused Pratt of “deliberately lying,  deliberately twisting” the data. Where did Pratt get his information? Instead of  there being 39 murders in 2011 that Morgan claimed, Pratt stated there were 970. “That’s exactly what your own constabulary is saying,” insisted Pratt.

Then just yesterday, I came across an article that was published in The  Telegraph on July 2, 2009:

“Analysis of figures from the European Commission  showed a 77 per cent increase in murders, robberies, assaults and sexual  offences in the UK since [the] Labour [Party] came to power.

The total number of violent offences recorded  compared to population is higher than any other country in Europe, as well as  America, Canada, Australia and South Africa.

“The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007  than any other EU country — 927 — and at a relative rate higher than most  western European neighbours, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

It gets worse. “Overall, 5.4 million crimes were recorded in the UK in 2007 — more than 10 a minute — second only to Sweden. . . . It means there are over  2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most  violent place in Europe.”

Great Britain’s crime rate is nearly four times that of the United States. “By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000  population.”

Morgan and Muskets

Piers Morgan Says Second Amendment Only Meant for Muskets

by:

Piers Morgan has a great English accent, but it’s obvious that he doesn’t know much about the United States Constitution. Morgan is editorial director of First News, a national newspaper for children, and the host of CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight. As with most of these show hosts, they aren’t very informed when it comes to history and logic.

Morgan got into a debate over gun control after Bob Costas went on his anti-gun rant following Jovan Belcher’s murder of his girlfriend and his later suicide.

Trying to add credibility to his anti-gun position, Morgan made reference to the Unitedsecond amendment States Constitution. Here’s what he said:

“The Second Amendment was devised with muskets in mind, not high-powered handguns and assault rifles. Fact.”

See if you can find this claim in the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Even without this embedded constitutional right, we have the right to bear arms. Rights don’t come from the State. This point is not often made. The Constitution doesn’t say that we have a right to work or own property. The Second Amendment was included in the Constitution to ensure the already existing right to “keep and bear arms.” Morgan should study some of his own British history before he spouts off in America.

twitter“The right to have arms in English history is believed to have been regarded as a long-established natural right in English law, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court remarked that at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights there was “‘clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia’ and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.”

The Second Amendment doesn’t say what type of “arms” is included in the right to bear them. There’s a reason for this. Our founders knew that the definition of “arms” can change over time. What were “arms” in the 18th century differed from what would have been defined as “arms” in the 13th century. The Constitution was designed to be a document for the ages, not just for the late 18th century.

Following Morgan’s logic, the freedoms of speech and press found in the First Amendment should be limited to a town crier, horses and footmen to carry communiques, quill pens, and actual printing presses. This would mean setting type by hand, rolling ink ever theAmerican Muskets type, and pressing the paper on the raised letters, one sheet at a time. Since we don” press” paper over type today, therefore, to follow Morgan’s logic, we can’t appeal to the First Amendment’s right to “freedom of the press.”

If the Second Amendment was only for muskets, then it was also only for parchment and literal printing presses. Our founders knew better. Ideals transcend technology and innovation. Ideals are for the ages.

The six books I wrote in the 1980s were typeset electronically. Even so, the galley sheets still had to be pasted on boards so plates could be made. No one in the 18th century, or even in the last decade of the 20th century, could have conceived of printing exclusively with digits by way of a Portable Document Format PDF.

Printing has made more technical advancements since the First Amendment was drafted than have “arms.” A founding father from the 18th century could easily recognize a modern-day handgun and rifle, but would be stymied by a laptop computer with software that is used to typeset a book with no hard type that could be turned into an electronic file that in the end could print a million copies of a book in days.

It’s Over, Obama Wins

 CBS: Obama Leads in Our D+13 Poll

by Mike Flynn

Anyone following the presidential campaign through the prism of media polls is doing themselves a serious disservice. Virtually every one of them uses a polling sample that is so heavily-skewed towards Democrats that it distorts the actual state of the campaign. Of course, that is a feature, not a bug of the polls. The polls are specifically designed to drive a narrative that Obama is surging and Romney is struggling. Increasingly, though, the polls are having to go to ridiculous efforts to support this meme. Friday’s CBS/New York Times poll, for example, uses a D+13 (13% more democrats polled) sample of registered voters. That’s registered, but not likely voters. This is absurd. 

In 2008, an historic election wave for Democrats, the electorate was D+7. In 2004, when George W. Bush won reelection, the electorate was evenly split. In other words, D+0. Repeat after me; the Democrat share of the electorate is not going to double this year. Given the well-noted enthusiasm edge for Republicans this year, the electorate is going to be far closer to the 2004 model than 2008. Any poll trying to replicate the 2008 is going to artificially inflate Obama’s support. 

CBS does apply a Likely Voter screen to the head-to-head match up. The LV sample is D+6, similar to the make up of the 08 election. In that, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points, 49-46. In the RV sample, which more than doubles the proportion of Democrats to D+13, Obama leads by 8 points, 51-43. See the simple relationship there? 

Let’s try a simple thought experiment. Imagine if, for a week, all media polls decided to use a sample that replicated the 2004 electorate–a D+0 model. Given the GOP’s enthusiasm edge–even the CBS poll found Republicans voters with a double-digit lead on enthusiasm for the election–the electorate is going to look a lot more like 2004 than 2008. Imagine how the narrative of the campaign would change. The CBS poll found Romney beating Obama among Independents by 11 points. With a balanced partisan sample, Romney would likely post consistent leads against Obama. 

A week of this and Politico would run out of fuel for its daily “Romney is struggling” theme. Which is why the media will never adjust its samples. This election, it isn’t so much about polling as propaganda. The polls are simply a tool being used by the media to try to depress GOP turnout and give a powerful lift to Obama’s obviously lackluster campaign. 

The polls confirm that the media aren’t really biased. Rather, they are active players for the other team.

Of Roads and Bridges

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So recently we learned a business person can’t make it on their own (certainly not a solar business). No business owner or entrepreneur ever made it with the great collective. It was thanks to everyone elses efforts. Evidently it does take a village to build a road or a bridge or a business.

I agree with Mitt Romney,  that every entrepreneur or business owner has received at least some assistance somewhere along the way. But he never said, nor does he believe, that someone didn’t build a business through their own sweat, blood and tears.

As an aside, I never thought I’d say, “I agree with Mitt Romney”, but I find myself doing just that. Maybe Mitt has seen the conservative light at the end of the tunnel? I don’t know. What I do know is that Mitt is saying the right things. I also tend to think he may actually believe them due to the conspicuous lack of teleprompters. He appears to be speaking from the heart. One doesn’t need a teleprompter when one is being honest. Obama has shown us that on many occasions; revealing his true, radical self, when he strays from his prepared text. Sorry for the digression.

If it were as King Barack describes, we would all be business owners. But we’re not. Some don’t have the drive or passion. Some don’t wish to work all day and half the night. Some would like to have weekends off. There’s nothing at all wrong with that. We can’t all be chiefs. Every business needs Indians. Employees are needed to do the tasks the owner no longer has time to do, you know, as he grows and expands his business. That doesn’t mean the employee or the neighbor down the street had anything to do with starting the business, anymore than the road or bridge.

To hear Obama describe it, to the cheers and hoorahs of the dimwitted clones in his audiences, the city, state or federal government decide to build a road to nowhere in particular, and the entrepreneur says to himself, ” Gee, look at that road leading to nowhere special. Why don’t I put a business on that road that leads to nowhere. I will go ask the community to help me think up, finance, build and run my business on the road to nowhere in particular.”

I’m sure Henry Ford thought just that. He must have looked out over the countryside, marvelling at all the paved roads. He then said to himself, “Self; The government must have had great forthought in creating these roads and bridges. Maybe I should mass-produce automobiles to take advantage of all the tarred over government maintained former cart paths. I’ll go see President Teddy Roosevelt. He’s a progressive. Surely he will issue me a government grant to build an assembly plant. I’ll even power it by harnessing the wind and the sun. Then I will go on a listening tour of the country, to discover how to build the business, for I have no idea how to achieve success on my own.”

Yes, that’s how Ford did it. Look it up. It’s all there in the history books. 

Another thought: If a company hits a rough patch and has to lay people off  or plans to close all together, the business owner could ask the government to simply repave the road leading to it. That would certainly lead to its re-emergence. We’ll call it the “Tarmac Bailout”.

Although it happens all the time, it’s still very interesting to see everyone tie themselves into knots over a simple, honest statement. The media and Obama sycophants (one in the same), hitting the trail in lock step to attempt to explain away the genuine opinion of a collectivist.

Those of us who understand the president, would expect nothing less of a socialist.

Tolerance of the Intolerant

I’ve seen my share of hypocritical people and groups over the years.  Generally, it’s the people that scream the loudest about injustices that are the ones most guilty of injustices themselves.  It seems no one else is entitled to have their own opinion if it differs from those doing the screaming.

People like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are so fast to point the racial prejudice finger at anyone else, but I find their actions and words to be among the most racially hateful and bigoted I’ve ever seen.  Following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, blacks across the nation were taking their racial justice out on whites, even when George Zimmerman is half Hispanic.  The ones yelling race the loudest proved to be the most racially intolerant.

Yet, none of that holds a candle to the absolute intolerance of homosexual activists.  One of their biggest grievances with the rest of the world is that we are intolerant of their lifestyle.  In the past decade, homosexual activists have filed numerous lawsuits based on intolerance of others.  They have pushed to become accepted as a normal lifestyle.  They have caused the military to accept them.  They have been getting more states to legalize their civil unions or marriages.  They have gotten the public schools to start teaching students across the nation that homosexuality is normal .  They are even pushing their ways on churches, businesses and government offices.

When companies like J.C. Penney, Sears, Target, Starbucks and others, embrace homosexual marriage, they are praised by the homosexual community as well as the national media.  But let one company make a stand for traditional marriage and all the activists go on the war path. Basically, all hell breaks loose.

Last week, Dan Cathy, president of Chick-fil-A announced that they are a family owned business (that means they’re privately owned) and that they still embrace and endorse traditional marriage.  The rabid homosexual crowd instantly declared war on the Christian based company as they have with so many others.  They have gone so far as to declare organizations that continue to embrace traditional marriage as hate groups and accuse them of being intolerant.

If you disagree with homosexual activists, you are part of a hate group.  If they disagree with you, they will take you to court, sue you and force you to accept their lifestyle.  In other words, it is their way or no way. 

When you weigh it all out, homosexual activists are the most intolerant group of people in the world today, save for radical islamists.

Attribution: 

Random Act of Journalism

If you’ve never encountered such a thing, behold an actual journalist. I don’t know where Larry is now? Maybe he’s unemployed, shamed and outcast by his peers. His peers. You know, the real journalists that might ask the president what type of tree he would be, or “Mr. President, could you explain what makes you so wonderful?” Maybe Larry is still employed…for now, but he should soon be looking out for the black helicopters to swoop down & carry him away to be reeducated.

It’s sad that this, not much more than a minute clip, is so unique. I guess we’ll take it where we can get it.

Olbermann, Pompous Ass or just Misunderstood

Liberal talk show host Keith Olbermann changed car services eight times in the year he was at Current TV, complaining his chauffeurs ‘smelled’ and even ‘talked to him’ in the car, according to reports. Oh, the horror.

The left-leaning network founded by former presidential candidate Al Gore, fired Olbermann, it’s biggest star and the host of its signature program, last week for breach of contract.

Sources close to the TV channel have begun leaking claims about Olbermann’s behavior that give hints about why the host of ‘Countdown’ was given the ax.

Olbermann has promised to sue the station after it cut short his five-year, $50 million contract. He fought back against the firing, saying Current didn’t make good on its ‘promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program.’

Mediaite cited anonymous sources as it reported that Olbermann had Current staffers change his car service eight times since he began work at the network last February.

Olbermann, who cannot drive, complained that some of the drivers ‘smelled.’ Others ‘talked to him.’

The network publicly cited unauthorized absences, failing to promote Current-TV, and disparaging the company and its executives as its public reasons for cutting ties.

Among the other gripes are claims, from Mediaite’s source, that the network built a $250,000 custom-designed set for Olbermann’s signature show. When the set had lighting trouble in December, Olbermann told the crew he wouldn’t use it anymore.

He also instructed guest hosts not to use the set, either.

Olbermann also refused to allow the network to promote the show when he wasn’t hosting it and prohibited the staff from sending out tweets when he was absent, according to Mediate.

Olbermann left MSNBC in January 2011 after the network declined to renew his contract. Some have speculated that this was a result of his suspension for making undisclosed donations to three Democratic Congressional candidates in 2010.

Shortly after he left, Current-TV, a newly-launched liberal TV news channel, hired Olbermann as its prime time star.

With Olbermann’s departure, Current announced it had hired client number 9, disgraced former New York Gov Eliot Spitzer to replace him.

Attribution: Mail Online

Did I Say That?

American Crossroads, a 527 organization advised by Karl Rove, has released a new video showing that Barack Obama himself has not always supported the individual mandate at the center of his controversial health care reform plan. Put aside what you may think of Karl Rove & just listen to Obama’s own words: