By Guest Columnist Michael Ceremello – March 28, 2018 –
Here we go again. Never let a crisis go to waste. The war cry of the Left. But is any of what is happening truly a crisis? Why is it that the obvious solutions are always countered by the obvious rhetoric designed to lead the viewer or reader down the predetermined path of ideology, an ideology which can’t be defended against common sense?
We have the “March for Life” which should be known by its historical name, “Death by “Gun Control””. I would suggest that these young dupes, as well as the well meaning Leftist lemmings such as Oprah, actually educate themselves before leading the rest of us to the “Killing Fields”. Ever hear of the Khmer Rouge?
I will make it easy on you. This is the link which leads you to a “Death Chart” plus governmental impositions on the citizens’ right to keep and own firearms: http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm … this is what the author and founder of JPFO added:
We at JPFO recently received a letter from an angry and very articulate fellow who took the vast majority of gun owners to task for not being NRA members. He rightly points out that there are more than eighty million gun owners and only five million members of any pro-gun organization, the NRA obviously being the largest. Aaron Zelman, Founder and Director of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership.
So let me see. We have two or three hundred thousand young people whose minds have been made mush by their teachers who don’t train them to think or question but rather accept as whole cloth anything they are taught. Out of those 80 million gun owners, many of whom are children who have been properly trained in the use of firearms, they are all supposed to give up their weapons at the behest of a 97 year old retired liberal Supreme Court justice who believes the Second Amendment should be repealed? Along with that, John Paul Stephens as well as the Pope believe the voting age should be lowered so these indoctrinated kids can help in furthering their socialist cause in destroying the greatest Nation ever conceived? But wait a minute …
Aren’t these the same people who want the age to own a gun increased to 21 to match drinking and smoking laws? These same people don’t have a problem in sending an 18 year old off to war. Why? Just look at the agenda they have and you will understand “any means to justify the end”.
Gun march – really? … no one can call out a kid for being naive, pushed to conclusions by liberal Second Amendment hating teachers. Now for the reality check. If you looked at the “death chart” you will see many of the same restrictions on gun ownership and control put in by these past regimes was recently imposed and instituted by Barack Obama. The results? Thirty to forty million Chinese killed over two different regimes. Cambodia, 2 million killed by 13 to 15 year old kids indoctrinated by the dictator Pol Pot. Russian … in the millions, Guatemala … a couple hundred thousand … Idi Amin … will America be any different? … do you get the picture?
For all of those of you who want to get rid of all guns, let me ask you a simple question. You are in a municipal or commercial building. An active shooter enters the building. Would you rather be present knowing all guns have been taken away or knowing there are people carrying concealed weapons for the exact purpose of dealing with this situation? To make it even simpler for those of you who prefer allegories, would you rather be a sheep with no shepherd and no guard dog or mule or have a fierce sheep dog baring its fangs when necessary?
Don’t make your decisions based on emotion. Make them using logic. High school kids with no worldly experience and kept purposely deprived of the world’s history don’t need to be taken seriously. All you have to do is look who is behind funding them and encouraging them to do the dirty work for which an adult would be called out …
* * * * *
Next subject on the State and National level is the already settled debate on Federal versus State’s rights. The city of Los Alamitos passed an ordinance opting out of the sanctuary State law which is unconstitutional. How can I say that when current litigation by the Attorney General of the United States, Jeff Sessions, has not wound its way through court? I direct you to the United States Constitution.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
“Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government’s exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. It does not, however, allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.”
June of 2017 by Stephanie Jurkowski. Source: Cornell School of Law – Legal Information Institute
From the Annenberg Classroom:
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution –
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Immigration Law: An Overview
Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable. (Author’s note: Definition of nonjusticiable. : not justiciable : not capable of being decided by legal principles or by a court of justice.)
States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.
By controlling the visa process, the federal government can achieve the goals of its immigration policies.
It would appear that Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown and the illegal felonious alien loving bleeding heart liberal mayor of Oakland can’t comprehend basic legal precedents or the construction of our legal system including Federalism. Didn’t the mayor and the governor take an oath of office to “uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”? This was, in fact, one of the primary bases that the council in Los Alamitos used as a reason for their legislation.
Los Alamitos is a town of 12,000. How is it they have the intestinal fortitude to challenge the obvious paradox of having to defend both California and Federal law when they conflict with each other? How is it that no one else is taking action? Well, in fact, others are.
The County of Orange, where Los Alamitos is, is contemplating action by either joining the US government in their suit by filing an amicus brief or by initiating their own litigation. Other towns, such as Fullerton, Aliso Viejo, Buena Park, Huntington Beach, and Upland are all considering the same action taken by Los Alamitos. Is your town?
The obvious is the rhetoric coming from racists such as California’s Senate leader Kevin de León, who authored Senate Bill 54, who defends the state law and said it complies with federal law. The council’s “symbolic vote in favor of President Trump’s racist immigration enforcement policies is disappointing,” de León said in an e-mail.
Sorry Kevin but you are the racist, you are putting lawbreakers ahead of lawful US citizens, and you are obvious. Perhaps Kevin has never heard of the rule of law. Protecting law breakers because of their race or ethnic background labels you for what you are, Kevin.
For those of you who feel that deporting illegals of any size, shape or form will lead to “breaking up families”, I have a solution for you: deport them all including anyone in the chain which also contains the felon. A little “personal responsibility and accountability” would end the problem. Who knows the family better than members of it. You don’t bring trouble makers with you. Problem solved.
* * * * *
Finally, lets talk about the budget bill Trump signed, the Establishment swamp plus giving you a few more solutions. I found it interesting how Meet The Press didn’t cover this. Why? Because the liberals and RINO’s got everything they wanted.
Don’t bring up the fact this was exactly how Obamacare was put into place. Present the bill at the last second possible so no one has time to read it and the swamp critters, known as the majority of the House and Senate, pass it to avoid a “shutdown”. It is time to shutdown government when they conduct themselves thusly.
I agree that Trump should have vetoed this bill on this basis alone. I also know that Trump got one thing he wanted, increased military spending. Given the statements coming out of Planned Parenthood on Twitter, these loons needed to be defunded. How is it possible that both houses of Congress, both controlled by the President’s party, refuse to do what is right? Simple. They are politicians and nothing more.
These phonies need to be removed and replaced not by Democrats but by TEA party individuals, constitutional conservatives, and the likes of the Freedom Caucus. Are you telling me we can’t find good candidates in a country of 300 million?
Subsequent to the president signing the bill, I found the uttered reactions on talk radio quite interesting. On Friday, many disgruntled individuals who were fence sitters in the last election now declare they wouldn’t vote for Trump again. On Monday, the reaction flipped as the realization that something positive was done although the status quo was continued to a large extent.
A president who gets 40% of his campaign agenda accomplished in one year is getting the job done. Trump has set up the US economy for a comeback. Hiring Larry Kudlow will add to that. While many believe John Bolton is a warmonger, my impression is he is a no nonsense guy who fits perfectly into a regime whose ultimate goal is draining the swamp and bringing America back from the brink. And now we are set to vastly improve our military?
The distractions of the lame stream media and fake news outlets are inconsequential. I don’t care with whom Trump had an affair, what he said in the past, or that he declared bankruptcy. I care about what he is doing. I care that Congress has not allowed him to fully staff his Cabinet. I care that Trump is attempting to move the country forward while the opposition continues to attempt to make us less than we can be through stranglehold legislation and regulation.
It is obvious you need to muse about my rhetoric … enjoy yourselves …
13 thoughts on “Obvious Rhetoric”
Despite your assertion that you are a constitutional conservative, you betray your ideology within this attack on the Constitution and those who understand its inherent purpose. I do not pretend to be a constitutional scholar.
The Constitution was put in place to substitute for the Articles of Confederation, an instrument that failed to meet the needs of a young Republic. The Constitution defined the role of the Federal government and, thanks to the 10th Amendment, leaves powers not given to the Federal government to its several States.
It is quite apparent that you cannot accept the Supremacy clause, which I included in its entirety, because you would reject the role given to the Federal government to regulate immigration into our country. Until you and others of your ilk take it upon yourself to remove these powers from the Federal government through the constitutional amendment process, you and your liberal friends are whistling in the wind.
To correct you, the Constitution can be amended through Article 5 with a Convention of the States, or by Congressional action. It cannot be amended by individual citizens gathering signatures for an initiative as is done to amend our State Constitution.
There is nothing “divine” about our Constitution except perhaps the inspiration given to our Founding Fathers to come up with such a comprehensive and well thought out document. It is “inherently good and fair” based on the temporal scenario in which it was created.
I have no problem with freedom for United States citizens or those who enter our country legally. Again you betray your liberal leanings by whining about freedom for those who enter our country illegally, some with intent to harm our own citizens. I would suggest to you that you take your sentiments and thoughts to the Mexican government or to any other nation and ask them to open their borders to anyone and everyone who would like to enter their country. As a libertarian, I wholeheartedly endorse the idea but know well enough no nation which has a welfare safety net can survive all of those who would come here to use and abuse it.
After reading your coherent argument, it is my conclusion you are a liberal in conservative drag. No one is attempting to take “your” freedom from you or to “dissuade” you from defending yourself from tyranny. However, no State has the right to usurp the duty of the Federal government to control immigration and can make no law which supersedes a valid Federal law. California has no right to make treaties with foreign governments. California can’t send three Senators to the Senate in Washington because it wants to.
By the way, slavery, women’s right to vote, and segregated schools are all examples of how States took away freedom and the Federal government stopped all three through their own action while States attempted to resist these freedoms.
While your argument may have been coherent, it is far from logical. You are far from being the conservative you believe you are.
I ask you to enlighten yourself before you attempt to convince others of the errors of others. Reading the written article again without the distraction of your incorrect ideology might be a good start …
I consider it name calling to be falsely labeled a ‘liberal’. Please define ‘liberal’. Define ‘conservative’. You have drawn many false assumptions about my understanding of the constitution; what I support and what I don’t. I made no statements about what California is doing, or immigration, legal or not. Perhaps I have made false assumptions about you. I hear a lot of hate and anger in your voice that seems to cloud your sense of where freedom comes from. I am well aware of how the US constitutional amendment process works. You are correct about the three examples I gave being state injustices that we’re, in the end, corrected by federal authority. Do not pretend that these were movements originating from congress! These were movements of the people; citizens standing up to state power, which is backed up by federal force until the supreme court says otherwise. Like Sam said, CA can’t DO anything, it’s all talk; the early phases of a populist movement used for political advantage. I hear you flexing the supremacy clause because you don’t like the action on the ground. Perhaps your just an ‘armchair libertarian’, all talk and no boots on the ground. I know nothing about you! I grew up in LA, I know all about the problems, culturally and logistically with immigration. Perhaps a simple solution is to raise the voting age to say, 25, and as the minimum age for military conscription. I have no problem with the supremacy clause. What do you suggest the feds actually do to enforce it? What is your problem with people stumbling their way to freedom? It’s the American way. It’s not always good, almost never fair, but divine in my opinion.
I see no point in defining liberal or conservative for you given your failure to understand yourself and your own positions. Today’s liberal is not a classical liberal but instead a “progressive”. A conservative is one who would “conserve” traditions and values of our Founding Fathers with specific adaptations such as the removal of slavery. As you tout “open borders”, flout the Constitution specified duties of the Federal government where they have supremacy over the States, and continue to use buzzwords such as “freedom” to give your positions validity, you are a liberal by your actions and words.
I always find it amusing to read that a person “hears” something when nothing has been spoken. What you hear in my writing is only in your imagination or, at worst, from the voices in your own mind.
I also find it interesting that you would say you have said nothing about immigration when that is the topic we are discussing. Your stance is “for freedom”. Who is it you want to be “free” to benefit from the illegal activities of your beloved liberal governor Moonbeam Brown? It certainly isn’t for citizens already here legally.
Perhaps your own logic escapes you. Perhaps you are only confused. But one thing is for certain.
You are stating liberal positions, using the liberal playbook, and cannot claim that California “isn’t doing anything” when in fact they have created a sanctuary State.
Facts are facts and only a liberal refuses to recognize them when those facts counter what they wish to accomplish.
A progressive is the fellow that figures out slavery is bad, a conservative is someone who catches up in a hundred or two hundred years.
Being a progressive is tantamount to being enslaved by the government that a progressive insists is the only mechanism by which civilized society can exist. So much for a progressive figuring out slavery is bad. They have had at least 100 plus years and still haven’t figured it out.
Wow, all I can say is you’re really full of yourself Michael. We use language very differently. I don’t care for the governor, I didn’t vote for the man or Obama, Clinton or any other ‘liberal/progressive’. I don’t tout open borders and never have. You don’t seem to care to understand what I am saying. You are arguing things I never said, and things we agree on. My definition of conservative is the same as yours. Let go of your preconception of me and ‘hear’ only what I am saying. I am a human being; I can ‘hear’ your voice through your writing. Your article contains lots of emotion and feeling, not just logic and facts. It’s part of what makes for good writing. I am not using ‘freedom’ as a buzz word, as others do. I am not looking for freedom for anyone as a result of this or any other social/political movement. I am NOT talking about immigration. You seem smart enough to get this. Arrogance is preventing you from accepting the possibility that you are not a constitutional purist, and that I may be. People do all kinds of stupid, destructive, illegal, and unconstitutional things as they struggle to understand how best to structure their society. I am criticizing the way in which you criticize those people, regardless of whether or not they have the same understanding of the constitution as you and I. If we met, I think we would find that we share a similar constitutional view. I think we all could benefit from a greater connection to the human process of understanding the true source of freedom, and respecting all the different pathways we walk.
Jesse, I’m not quite sure where you are going with this. To me it looks like all Michael is doing is stating that until it is changed, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I really do not see any references to federalism, or removal of your right to defend yourself. I can’t find any reference to using the federal government to force you to do any thing. So please clarify what exactly your objection is to Michael’s piece. I don’t see any difference between what he has written and what you have written.
Samuel, you are correct but I am not taking the position of changing the Constitution so that individual States can allow non-citizens to take up residency to add to their voting base. Jesse, on the other hand, is endorsing California’s presumptive but illegal right to allow illegal aliens the “freedom” to become citizens of California, no matter the impact. While I would support free movement of human capital, it can’t be a one way street with all the burden placed on America. If Jesse wants the Mexican people to have free access to everything that is California or America, then perhaps he would like my idea of annexing Mexico and turning their provinces into individual States, the imposition of US law and bureaucracy, and having the entire Mexican population contribute to our system instead of seeing only withdrawals from it.
Currently there is no way for States such as California to operate as “Sanctuary States”. This is one of a few instances where the Federal Government holds sway, and unless California is willing to change the current reading of the Constitution to give that power to the States by legal means, California is violating the Constitution. In any event it would be an impossible task for each state to develop a consistent immigration policy to define what it means to be a citizen of the United States and for it to make sense across all fifty states. This is why the framers left immigration and a few other tasks as federal tasks. Far fewer than what passes for federal meddling in its current form. I don’t think many true conservatives think that what our Federal Government has assigned itself as federal tasks would agree with much that it has taken on as constitutionally correct. So I still am at a loss for why you, Jesse, think that Conservatives have “an unhealthy and inconsistent attachment to ‘federal supremacy'” when all that exists is a call to heed the fact that the Federal Government is probably the best vehicle for immigration policy and nothing more. What say you, unless I am missing something here.
Freedom originates from the the desire to live. Everything else that follows is done in an effort to preserve it. Many conservatives stray from pure constitutional values when attempting to apply the supremacy clause to social movements at large and the individual citizens who support them. One can not use the supremacy clause to justify an argument for or against a social/political movement. If someone wants to see enforcement of federal law, against the will of voters and their elected officials, then talk about what that would look like and how to do it. The inconsistency comes when people refer to the supremacy clause only on issues they personally disagree with for reasons unrelated to the constitution. To put it simply to Michael, keep our constitution out or your personal moral arguments, unless you are ready to do something to get the change you want. Complaining and never talking about anything constructive is a disgrace to the intent of the constitution and the spirit of this nation. CA doesn’t have an obligation to enforce federal law, and if that law is broken what should the feds do about it?
Jesse, While California may not be obligated to enforce Federal law, they also cannot obstruct Federal law which is precisely what a sanctuary city, county, state, what ever is meant to do. They are also violating the Constitution by inserting themselves between the Federal government’s immigration activities and illegal immigrants who for the most part are serious criminals above and beyond simple illegal immigration. It is another example of where the progressive left can talk about social justice all the while flouting social justice. The left is all about “the talk” but it never reaches the level of any kind of solution. The progressive left will cry and whine about the need for the “Government” to do something about all the “poor, unfortunate, illegal immigrants”, yet not a word about the inept government they call to solve the problem. It seems to me that the liberal progressive left’s compassion never extends to an actual solution. They just want to “feel good” about being compassionate, the heck with actually being productive. Of course, that assumes that that left can actually solve any problem. Seems history is showing them at a big zero in that department.
You’re right Sam. The only difference I see is Michael’s fear of action versus my embrace of it to defend the ability to make change.
I have yet to hear from any contributor to this site, including you Michael, who is as conservative as myself in terms of constitutional preservation as intended by its founders. You and other ‘conservatives’ seem to have an unhealthy and inconsistent attachment to ‘federal supremacy’ depending on what principles are at issue. As you know, the constitution is beautifully designed to be changed in any way and to whatever extent, up to and including its total dissolution. The legal process of change begins at the state level, with original initiative at the local level from citizens who are willing to stand for freedom. Slavery, womens’ suffrage, and segregated schools are examples of this. There is nothing inherently fair or good in the constitution, other than it’s ability to be interpreted and changed by a super majority. It is disgusting and shameful to the divinity of the constitution for a person to use it to justify their own minority views on freedom. When then the federal government exerts power in a way that is viewed as threatening to personal or state freedoms, it becomes every citizens civic duty to challenge that authority at the local and state level, continuing all the way to the supreme court if necessary. Any person who suggests that another person should NOT exercise their right to challenge the constitutionality of any law, by defying local, state, or federal authority, is suggesting the values of an authoritarian despot. Hero,Rosa Parks comes to mind.
As you know, the second amendment backs up the first amendment. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, is meant to be used to defend against a tyrannical federal government, regardless of one’s religion or moral convictions. If you wish to use the power of the federal government to dissuade me from defending myself from tyranny, then you are the enemy of my free state.