Click on the banner to access our forums and discussions    

Click on the banner to make your donation

Donate $20 and Receive Discounts at 300,000 Locations.
A Portion of the Donation will go to the Bundy Family Legal Defense Fund

San Diego County, California

Information

San Diego County, California

Dedicated to the original, organic, fundemental and supreme law known as the "Constitution for the United States of America" as explained by the Federalist Papers and James Madison's notes of the convention in 1787. The original intent and the context of 1787 is how our constitution should be interpreted.

Location: San Diego County in the Republic of California
Members: 11
Latest Activity: Mar 16, 2015

Tonight - Monday May, 5th, 8 pm, Free Facilitator and Meeting Skills Workshop in North County, San Diego. Duration: 90 minutes All welcome! Call Kevin for details 828-230-3918  Longer title: How to form effective action groups and be a Facilitator and  Maximizer of a Group's Potential

Discussion Forum

Comment Wall

Comment

You need to be a member of San Diego County, California to add comments!

Comment by Joe brown on March 16, 2015 at 3:30pm

It’s election time again... according to the collectivist/liberal media. They have been talking about presidential candidates for months - mostly Marco Rubio and Hillary Clinton. Have either of them said they will run for president? No. Then why does the media sometimes call them and some other rich and famous people "presidential candidates"? Because they want to alter the election.

They sometimes use phrases such as "presidential hopeful" or "potential presidential candidate". Why is the media making these statements about other people? They often imply or outright say that a person is running for president who may not have even talked about possibly running. Fox also does this. The media has been selecting presidents for years. How do they do it?

In the 2008 presidential election campaign, the biased media (TV, radio, "news"papers and "news"magazines) gave more attention to John McCain (344 minutes) than any other candidate in early 2008. Barack Obama got the 5th amount of attention (261 minutes). In “Tracking Face Time”, John McCain was interviewed more than all 17 candidates of both parties January 2007 to July 15, 2007. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/08/01/us/politics/0802-nat... and http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/chart-tracking-face-t... The leftist media wanted McCain to be the Republican nominee and they got what they wanted. Once the Republicans nominated the media’s choice, the media gave Obama far more attention until the election.

By attention, I mean positive or neutral articles, stories, mentions, interviews, videos, pictures and high "polling" data.

In the 2012 campaign, the media supported Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination with headlines such as "GOP race now down to just Perry and Romney" (9-11-11), "Perry, Romney twist records in GOP debate" (9-11-11) and "Poll: Romney leads New Hampshire, Huntsman in third, Perry in forth" (9-22-11). These opinions were made while over 15 Republicans were still running for president.

Who was second in the poll? Take a guess. What group of people do the collectivists in the media hate the most? Constitutionalists and libertarians. Ron Paul was second to Romney. "Worldwide traffic" according to Google Trends was far greater for Ron Paul than Romney. So Internet searches were very different than what the media was saying.

So why does the media pick the more leftist candidates of the major parties to become president? Because they lean left. A poll showed 85% of them were Democrats/collectivists.

So how does the media get you to vote for their choice of president? By censoring the real right-wing candidates and giving the more collectivist candidates (which includes some Republicans) more attention than the others. Many conservatives said that "Ron Paul can’t win", "Romney can beat Obama" (obviously not), "Romney is a conservative" and/or "Romney is the lesser of the evils". Why would conservatives believe such nonsense? The liberal media.

So a general rule is to NOT vote for anyone the media gives positive attention to. Now they are supporting Hillary by giving her the most attention. How much do you want to bet that she will be the Democrat’s nominee? She will be unless the media chooses someone else because she does not run, says something really damaging or someone they like better decides to run.

In 2016, Americans can and should ignore the media and choose the best candidate regardless of media attention, popularity and political party. And the best candidate could be someone you never heard of. Usually 100+- people run for president, but the media only mentions a few of them.

Comment by Peter on May 11, 2014 at 6:05pm

Write in Paul Tanaka for San Diego county sheriff.

Comment by Jerr Allison on May 8, 2014 at 3:24pm

 3,177,063 people  live in SD county and only11 members here?  wow so many still sleeping ...........

Comment by Joe brown on April 7, 2014 at 12:18pm

The new blue flew - treating people like subordinates, subjects, crap. It is slowly spreading across America and infecting all "law enFORCEment". Peace officers are almost extinct.

Comment by Jeffry C. Lorenz on April 5, 2014 at 4:48pm

He couldn't remember if he took an oath! What baloney. I have a video of it. If his job is not protecting our rights, then what is his job? Are we the enemy? Also, are his sheriffs trained to incite people to resist, because their being hurt in various ways? There's a lot of questions. They're thugs; most of them. They want to have a reason to arrest people; and some want an excuse to beat someone up or shoot them, even better.

Comment by Peter on April 5, 2014 at 4:22pm

It doesn't matter what's in the Constitution if no one is going to follow it, and no one is going to be held accountable for violating it. If we solve the problem of accountability, then the discussion of changing parts of the constitution is valid. Prior resolving the current criminal activity with no consequences, a constitutional convention is a mute point.

Comment by Peter on April 5, 2014 at 4:19pm

I'll bet Sheriff Gore, is he talks to us at all, will be very evasive as anyone of his sort is. What would be a good set of questions to ask? I'm curious to see if we can appeal to his conscience. For example, if we are to find out through questioning that he is not particularly interested in the traditional, and lawful role of sheriff, I'd like to know what he thinks we as citizens should do in the face of someone willing to violate our civil rights.

Comment by Peter on March 19, 2014 at 6:31pm

I'd love to go meet the Sheriff with any you guys. I've been thinking about doing here myself.

Comment by Joe brown on March 5, 2014 at 9:25am

I support improving our constitution, but how? There is a risk of leftists eliminating it or altering it to the point of creating a socialist political system. Most of our constitution is ignored now. So even if restrictions to government power were added to our constitution, the feds would ignore them. First we need to get politicians to obey it. But then we would not need to amend our constitution. 

Comment by Joe brown on March 5, 2014 at 9:17am

Now the RNC is opposed to a const. convention -

"RESOLUTION OPPOSING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

WHEREAS,

Article V of the Constitution of the United States authorizes the convening of a Convention for proposing Amendments, now frequently called a Constitutional Convention, "on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States"; and,

WHEREAS

, the Constitution is silent as to the qualifications of the delegates to such a convention and how or by whom they should be selected; and,

WHEREAS,

the Constitution is also silent as to the agenda of such a Convention and sets out no way to limit the agenda of such a Convention, and,

WHEREAS,

former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger concluded that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention after it is convened; and,

WHEREAS,

a Constitutional Convention would attract a multitude of individuals and special interest groups with agendas that would alter our Constitution beyond recognition; and,

WHEREAS,

well known Democrat members of the US Congress are currently advocating a Constitutional Convention to introduce a number of amendments that would enshrine and effectuate their liberal agenda; and

WHEREAS

, the Constitution of the United States is a timeless document which, by limiting the powers of the government it created and guaranteeing the freedom and opportunity of the citizens for whom it was created, has produced the best and most productive nation in the history of the world; now be it

RESOLVED,

that the Republican National Committee strongly opposes the convening of a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States for the reason that the risk of loss far exceeds the possibility of gain from such an uncontrolled and uncontrollable proceeding. "

 
 
 

© 2017   Created by Keith Broaders.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service