CA-SEN Candidate Fiorina Unleashes Demon Sheep Web Video

Are the claims about him true? Regardless, I give it an A. This is better than the NOLA coroner's ad.

Ms. Carly Fiorina should drop out of the Republican Senate race in California and throw her support behind Chuck DeVore a true Constitutional Republican, he's not a RINO like Ms. Fiorina.

1. Ms. Fiorina believes in whatever is good for Global Corporations is good for America, wrong! Global Corporation's interest should never ever trump are U.S. Constitution--period!
2. Ms. Fiorina believes in John McCain's Amnesty for illegal aliens. Amnesty should be in the form of permanent residency only and never-ever in the form a path way to U.S. Citizenship where they would have the right to vote.
3. Ms. Fiorina does not believe in securing the Mexican Border with the National Guard, thus she would never vote on the constitutionality of the Mexican Invasion.
4. Ms. Fiorina does not know what the Constitution means when it states, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government".

Chuck DeVore is a Constitutional Republican that believes in restoring the Republic and the Constitution to it's rightful place in Government. Its time for all Citizens (regardless of Party) in California to support a candidate like Chuck Devore, someone who will be a champion of the Constitution in the Senate and not trample on the Constitution when the situation benefits their party's interest.

I believe Chuck Devore is that "champion", not Ms. Fiorina!

Rachel? That headline is seriously awesome. "Demon sheep". Just awesome.

That, combined with this: Ford doesn't shoot children. We'll go ahead and put that in the plus column. should earn you a raise.

Great, now I'll have nightmares about the puppet Lamb Chop. Is Fiorina calling all CA voters sheep or just the "Fiscally Conservative" ones? Either way it's an interesting campaign strategy.

FCINO just rolls off the tongue. In fact, it sounds a bit like Fiorina.

So according to Fiorina true conservatives are sheep?

Freakin' hilarious. But still, who actually watches web ads? The campaign should edit it down to just the demon sheep and air it on TV.

1.This ad ain't good for mutton.
2.This ad ain't worth a teaspoon of mint jelly
3.If it walks like a sheep, and talks like a sheep, it must be a tax increase.
4. Carly will not air this ad on TV, she is too much of a sheepskate.
5. Bumpersticker: EWWWWWE!! 2010

6.Does Carly's carpet match her Uggs?

If I hear one more word about this baaadddd...er...ad...I am going to break out

The milton Berle joke book.....EWE have been shorned...I mean warned.

Republicans actually depicting themselves—or is it their constituents—as sheep? Somebody in the Fiorina camp didn't think this one all the way through. Or … did they?

I think the sheep mask is a good look for Carly. She wears it well.

keep on carlyfornia dreamin'

Notice the opening bit about "men we admire"? I wonder if Carly noticed.

here's the guy behind it:
http://www.strategicperceptioninc.com/fred.php

explains a lot...

This reminds me of the a line by the late Utah Phillips, that the only place that you get virgin wool is from the sheep that can outrun the Mormons and the Republicans.

What a great campaign, a Frankenstein and a sheep ad in the same week.

BAAAA

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. It's as if they were trying to recreate the Reagan bear ad from 1984 or the Bush wolves ad from 2004, but with no budget, just bad costumes and stock photography. Wow.

This is a reply to DugFmJamul's comment, here. as well as here. Posted here because posts an inch wide and ten feet long are no fun to read.

DugFmJamul writes:

It's not part of Constitution, never was and I never pivoted, you just can't comprehend the difference between promoting and protecting due to your Liberal bias.

OK, let's review.

In your 5:33 post you stated that "slavery was never part of our Constitution." Those are your exact words.

In your 6:18 post, however, you stated that "it was only the constitutional protections for slavery that brought and kept some Southern States into the Union."

Then, in your 6:28 post you stated that "The U.S. Constitution never promoted slavery, only protected it for the Southern States." If the US Constitution protected slavery for the Southern States, how do you square that with your first assertion that "slavery was never part of our Constitution"?

And then, in your 6:54 post you stated that "the Constitution was full of pro slavery provisions." Yet somehow, mysteriously, "slavery was never part of our Constitution."

You hang yourself with your own rope.

Article I, section 2, clause 3: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Emphasis mine. Question: who exactly are "all other Persons", since Art. I § 2 cl. 3 contrasts them with "free Persons?"

Are you sure "slavery was never part of our Constitution"?

Article I, § 9, cl. 1: "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

Do you have a clue what this clause was addressing?

Are you sure "slavery was never part of our Constitution"?

Article IV, § 2, cl. 3: "No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

Do you have a clue what this clause was addressing?

The Supreme Court did. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842) the court ruled that all state laws forbidding the abduction of slaves for return to their "owners" were unconstitutional, in part because they violated this clause. In other words, this clause prohibited "free" States from enacting laws that would bar the return of escaped slaves to their owners in "slave" States. As Justice Story wrote:

Historically, it is well known that the object of this clause was to secure to the citizens of the slave-holding States the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves, as property, in every State in the Union into which they might escape from the State where they were held in servitude. The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property in all the slave-holding States, and indeed was so vital to the preservation of their domestic interests and institutions that it cannot be doubted that it constituted a fundamental article without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermeddling with, or obstructing, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves.... The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive, unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave which no state law or regulation can in any way qualify, regulate, control, or restrain. The slave is not to be discharged from service or labor in consequence of any state law or regulation. ... If this be so, then all the incidents to that right attach also. The owner must, therefore, have the right to seize and repossess the slave, which the local laws of his own State confer upon him, as property, and we all know that this right of seizure and recaption is universally acknowledged in all the slaveholding States.

41 U.S. at 611-613 passim.

Are you sure "slavery was never part of our Constitution"?

Article V (regarding amendments): "...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article;..."

Do you have a clue what this clause was addressing?

I think you know by now.

The Constitution of 1787 did not have the words slave or slavery in any part of the Constitution and I repeat for possible penetration, slavery or slave was no part of the Constitution of 1787.

The Supreme Court and the various Articles of the Constitution cited and quoted herein, prove you either an ignoramus or a liar, or both. The existence or not of the specific term "slave" or "slavery" within the text of the Constitution is completely irrelevant -- in fact, it's a red herring.

DugFmJamul continues:

The ignorance lies at the feet of the hysterical progressives who did not take the time or give me the time to explain myself completely

Really? Hysterical progressives? Again, the text above proves you incontrovertibly, egregiously, laughably wrong. Law, text, and history shows it's you who are hysterical. And you had all the time you needed. Nobody can interrupt a comment on a blog, fool. You write it, taking all the time you want, then you post it. That's how it works. You could have explained yourself fully in your very first post, and nobody could have stopped you. You have now taken several posts to "explain yourself fully," and all you've done is dig yourself in deeper and deeper. Your complaint that we "haven't given you enough time" is laughable.

And for those of you that called me ignorant, well at the very least you owe me an apology.

Um, no, I don't think so. Your ignorance and hysteria are now a matter of record.

Reply to DugFmJamul's comment above.

Ok, Obama's invisible signing statements. Clearly that practice is unconstitutional, do you agree?

The 60-39-1 vote on H.R. 3590 that would force Americans to pay for private health insurance before forcing the Mexican Government to pay for its own citizens health care here illegally, clearly unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS ruling that gave person-hood to corporations, clearly unconstitutional.

You're almost talking sense here, in spots. In others you go way off the rails. It's now 23:00 PST and I'm up at 06:00. I'll reply in more detail when I have time.

As to (1), suffice to say I don't like signing statements in general (although Clinton used them, and Bush used them on steroids -- how do you feel about that?). I have no idea what you mean by "invisible signing statements." Examples please.

As to the SCOTUS decision in Citizens United, substantively I hate it, and I certainly believe that the court was out of bounds procedurally in reaching out to rule on a Constitutional issue that was never raised or litigated in the courts below, and on which a factual and adequate legal record was never developed, and was unnecessary to decide the issue before it -- as Justice Stevens, a liberal, pointed out in his stinging dissent. I also think the case was wrongly decided substantively, and I don't think that the Constitution grants corporations personhood rights, although there's a line of cases stretching back to the 1890s that says it does. The Citizens United ruling didn't establish that, it merely extended it and put it on steroids. I might point out that it was the conservative wing of the Court that ruled for expanded corporate personhood and protections under the Bill of Rights in Citizens United. The "progressives" you claim are so ignorant -- Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter -- were unanimously in opposition.

But none of that is the same as saying that the court overstepped its Constitutional bounds. It is a problem, since the only body that can rule on constitutionality is... the Court. You might argue that the Court's reaching out for the Constitutional issue violates in some way the "case or controversy" provision in Article III, or something similar, but it would be a big stretch. It was, however, really, really, really bad jurisprudence, and dramatically contrary, not only to what the Court normally does, but also to the principles of "judicial restraint" that conservative activists -- who vociferously supported Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito -- claim to adhere to, and which Roberts and Alito specifically supported (in words) at their confirmation hearings.

As to "forcing Americans to pay for private health insurance", that might or might not be constitutional, and the courts will rule on it. I hate the idea, myself; and so do a lot of progressives: I'd much rather have a single payer health plan. I don't know if requiring all Americans to buy a product from a private industry sector is a novel idea or not. I strongly suspect it would be held constitutional under the Interstate Commerce Clause (Art. I § 8 cl. 3), but maybe there is some other constitutional argument against this specific mandate of which I'm unaware. I kind of doubt it, though. If the bill passes, it could well get litigated. But it's not "clearly unconstitutional" on its face unless you'd care to explain, specifically, which part of the Constitution it violates, or which power the Congress is overstepping. As I've said, typically these Congressional actions have been ruled constitutional under the power to regulate interstate commerce.

You're completely off the rails, however, when you talk about "forcing the Mexican Government to pay for its own citizens health care here." One, it's irrelevant to whether Congress can constitutionally enact the mandate under discussion. Two, you cite no Constitutional provision that requires Congress to do what you ask of it. Three, you give no mechanism for Congress to do so -- short of declaring war on Mexico, that is, which is within Congress's enumerated powers.

Speaking of which, one area where I do think there's a good argument to be made that Congress and the Executive have together acted extraconstitutionally -- for the last 60 years -- has been in war powers. The Constitution gives Congress the sole power "to declare War" (Art. I § 8 cl. 11) -- and the Framers were very clear as to why. James Madison wrote: "In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Madison also wrote: "In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. ... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

A state of war dramatically increases the desire and opportunity of the executive branch to extend its power. Thus the Constitution separated the power to declare war from the power to fight a war, once declared. Yet there has never been a formal Congressional declaration of war since WWII. And we are now, for all intents and purposes, in a state of "continual warfare" -- precisely the state Madison warned against. But I don't see conservatives or tea-partiers railing against that. If you want to talk more about that I'd be more than happy to do so.

Finally, none of what you complain about (except possibly for the health care bill) is anything new under Obama and the 111th Congress. Stuff like this happened on steroids under Bush, and for that matter Clinton, Bush I, and Reagan. Why are you so upset all of a sudden?

I would love to know who produced this mess! It's really bahhhhhhhhhhhD

goddam furries

This is so stupid it's hilarious. She should fire whoever made that video. It makes her look ridiculous.