Dismantling the Mirror

It’s been quite a long time since I’ve had any problems with Blogger, and I’ve had enough of the headaches involved in maintaining two virtually identical blogs.  One of them has to go, or at least become more or less dormant.

The RWRepublic will remain at its current Blogspot address (with rightwingrocker.com also available), and the mirror site at wordpress.com will remain, but will not be updated.  Should this change for any reason, I’ll let you know.  TheWordPress site had few, if any, regular readers as far as I can tell, so anyone who’s been visiting there can come here to the Blogger site.

The WordPress site will continue to exist in case there are problems in the future, and maybe I’ll update it from time to time.  If you’ve been coming to the WordPress version of the RWRepublic, I enthusiastically invite you to come see us at the home of the RWRepublic!

RWR

Advertisement

The Republican Nominee: Johnny McScrewUs

OK, so now it’s time to take a look at the Republican contenders. I won’t worry about Mitt, because he’s all but out of it now, but I’ll definitely consider a look at Huckabee if the idea seems fairly worthwhile at the time. For now here’s my constitutional analysis of John McCain (and that’s probably the last time you’ll see me use his real name around here – as undeserved as it is in the first place).

For starters, I’ve exercised the utmost fairness here by only evaluating the platform expressed on Mr. McBullshit’s campaign website. Given that he’s trying to appeal to conservatives (too late idiot, we aren’t half asleep like the rest of America), he made sure that the things that WE stand for were emphasized, so it’s important to take these results (like those of Barack and Hitlery) with a grain of salt. Hitlery was working to conceal her extreme socialist agenda, and Obama was working to inundate you with so much you wouldn’t have a legitimate opportunity to make sense of it all – both in the hope that you would vote for them based on some ridiculous concept of “change”. What they seem to be advocating is change for change’s sake rather than encouraging you to look closely at the changes they advocate and THEN decide for whom to vote. Seriously, a change that involves expanding the illegal socialist agenda that’s been the order of the day for the last three quarters of a century is clearly not the kind of change that America needs, and I would hope it’s not the kind of change she would want.

That being said, I took a look at the agenda that Johnny McFeingold was selling on his website. some of this stuff was a bunch of outright lies. There’s plenty of bullshit on McDumbass’s site, and I imagine much of it will be confronted during the campaign. It’s sad to note that this scumbag seems to be the last hope America has of avoiding a Hitlery presidency (unless the Schlock can somehow pull off a win – in which case Hitlery will be back to try again, mark my words).

Of course, the benefit of four years of ANY Democrat (including J. McC.) should not be overlooked. Four years of Jimmy Carter gave us eight years of Ronald Reagan, and an economic boom that even eight years of Bill Clinton couldn’t stop. This is a great reason to support the current write-in campaign for Fred Thompson. Conservatives have nothing to lose. We either win the campaign and get Thompson elected, or we make a strong statement that can’t be ignored in 2012. A strong showing for Fred takes away the liberal mandate each of the four liberals still in the race would otherwise have.

Back to The asshole. While McDorkus made a pretty good showing here in this review, some of the things he’s wrong on are just too wrong to just sit back and accept (Scamnesty and his sponsoring of a bill that, for all intents and purposes, repealed the First Amendment). Some things, as I will point out, are inappropriately inconsistent. Still, McWhatTheHellAmIDoingHere was able to get a grade of 77% constitutional based upon those things that he openly advocates in his platform.

Before you go and get excited about this and go and vote for the guy, let me remind you of a couple of tidbits: McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold.

Both of these are absolute slaps in the face of the conservative movement. You’d think a Senator from a border state, particularly one with Mexico’s reputation, would have some clue when it came to illegal aliens and their shenanigans, but does he?? Nope. Not at all. Does a conservative with presidential aspirations sponsor a bill that, for all intents and purposes, repeals the First Amendment? Wait till you see what else came up in this research.

First, let’s address the blatant lies that this idiot posts on his site. Check out this quote from the section entitled “Strict Constructionist Philosophy” (as if someone repealing important tenets of the Bill of Rights could even assert himself as a “strict constructionist”):

We are a free people. This means that the rules we have agreed to live by are those made by the people themselves, not a small elite that claims to be wiser than everybody else.

If Johnny-wad believed this, he wouldn’t, on the same website, be touting his “achievements” with regard to campaign finance reform, in which he basically tells us that these same free people don’t have the right to put our money into political campaigns as we see fit, or say what we want about candidates whenever the fuck we damned well please, as the First Amendment is supposed to guarantee. This is a blatant lie, and I’m not falling for it. You shouldn’t either.

Also, some inconsistencies should be addressed. In a section entitled “Second Amendment Rights”, we first are handed this line, as if this candidate really belived it (which he may or may not, but hear me out):

John McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights.

OK. So I’m supposed to believe that Jizz McJerkoff believes that banning ammunition is “just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights”, when in the next breath I get THIS line of bullshit?

John McCain supports instant criminal background checks to help prohibit criminals from buying firearms …

Last time I checked, those who owed a debt to society were either in prison or under probationary contract not to carry. People who have taken this position have more often than not extended their position to include those who have completed their sentence and have returned to their homes and families. Defining these people as “criminals” and denying them the right to own, carry, and use firearms is an extremely heinous violation of their Second Amendment rights. It is clearly fair to say that anyone considered safe to be out in public unsupervised should not be denied this right. After all, who will defend them against the criminals wearing badges; or worse, the criminals in state capitals and in Washington (including John McCain himself) who commit the very types of crimes I have brought to the fore in this post?

So take it with a grain of salt, but these are the results. That grain of salt is a necessary thing these days, especially with regard to these liberals. Hitlery left a lot of very important shit out. Barack repeated himself to the point of total confusion. McAbel’sMurderer hides illegal positions within legal ones and has a record of repealing rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Next we’ll see what the Huckster would do to America.

RWR

Related: Hitlery Clinton: 68% unconstitutional – 2/8/2008
Barack Obama – 84% Unconstitutional – 2/7/2008

Playing it Smart: Hitlery

As promised, here’s the research on Hitlery’s proposals as outlined on her web site. A few notes about this research, as this site was much easier to navigate and was much better in its presentation than that of Barack Hussein bin Obama. The numbers were very surprising, though this could be blamed either on the redundancy of Obama’s presentation OR the simple fact that Hitlery is very smart in the way she presents things so as to make it seem good for America when the reverse is true.

I grabbed a quote or two that I found interesting. These two quotes were presented in the context of ripping President Bush for his understandable opposition to embryonic stem cell research, but it doesn’t take a very close look to see the disingenuousness in the statement. Simply apply them to her position on AIDS or, more obviously, man-made global warming, and you get the picture.

[Clinton will] ban political appointees from unduly interfering with scientific conclusions and publications.

This will be true ONLY as long as those “scientific conclusions and publications” are in sync with whatever she believes (or better, believes will increase her power).

It is important to … ensure that the President receives objective, fact-based advice.

OK. I’m going to cut in early here. The quote continues below. Again, what if the President gets objective, fact-based advice (Lord knows there’s already plenty of it out there) that suggests that there is nothing to worry about with regard to “global warming”, and that it’s not necessary to do anything to try to stop something that’s either not happening at all or, at least, is not being influenced by human activity? Do you really believe she’s going to accept that as “objective, fact-based advice”? I can answer that with two words: FAT FUCKING CHANCE (OK … three words. Who’s counting anyway?)

Hillary Clinton will reverse the Bush Administration’s irresponsible politicization of science.

and we are to believe this because? We’ve had eight years of a Republican president who has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reverse prior administrations’ blatant, irresponsible, and frankly disgusting politicization of science vis-a-vis AIDS and “the environment”. Are we really to believe that Hitlery, who could have influenced her ex-President husband to do just that (and didn’t) is going to change this? BULLSHIT.

And this research, unfortunately, only reviews the constitutionality (read that LEGALITY) of those things shown on her website. Her prior assaults on the First and Second Amendments and how she would continue them are curiously omitted. So, how does her platform stack up against the Constitution of the United States of America? It comes in at 68% unconstitutional. More than two thirds of the things she admits to advocating are blatantly illegal under the limitations placed upon her as president, and frankly, as Senator – the office she currently holds.

Is she more dangerous that Barack the Schlock? Not likely. Her convenient omissions would definitely play well with the socialists in Congress, particularly Pelosi and her minions. None of them give a rat’s ass after a cheese shit what the Constitution says their limitations are. Barack at least tells you what he’s about on his website, even if he never mentions it in public. There could be omissions there, but who would expect that from a guy who keeps saying the same things over and over and over? Besides, we have had eight years of a president whom we elected for that very reason, and the only real benefits were healthy tax cuts and a strong stand on terrorism. No Child Left Behind? Please.

Just more proof that no liberal is fit for office in the US government. Next up: Johnny McShitPie

RWR

Related:
Barack Obama – 84% Unconstitutional – 2/7/2008

A Little Research: Obama

This will be much more important when I do it for the Republicans, i know, because that will show just how screwed up they are. I started this project with Barack (the Schlock) Obama because he’s been the big surprise this year – another reason Republicans all over America are being stupid by choosing a field of Democrat wannabes for their candidate.

Obama is KICKING HITLERY’S ASS in the primaries. Not well enough to beat her, but clearly well enough to drain her resources enough to put WHOMEVER WE WANT into the White House with as little fight from the Left as possible. Instead, we send in our most left-leaning senators and governors, virtually guaranteeing either a Hitlery presidency or a liberal Republican, which is just as bad – especially considering these assholes are all claiming to be conservative. Well, it worked for da Schickmeister; might as well try it in our party. NOT.

Of course, anyone who comes to this blog with any degree of frequency knows that my biggest beef with both Democrats and Republicans is their ignorance of the limits placed upon them by the Constitution. This tidbit of research on the five remaining candidates will, as one would expect, focus on this matter.

Before I get into this, I want to explain how I arrived at my result. This was a difficult bit of research to do, given that Obama’s website is annoyingly overrun with redundancies that forced me to stop reading about halfway through it. Not my favorite thing to do, but there was plenty there (redundancy notwithstanding) to get a good clear picture of what this guy says he’s going to do. I reviewed over a hundred proposals/promises, and I cannot emphasize enough that the warnings are all right there on Obama’s campaign site. Elect this man at your own peril.

Before I get into the verdict, I’ll pay Obama a compliment. There was one thing I saw n his site that was clearly refreshing, and I think any conservative would strongly support it:

As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

Refreshing indeed. Not too shabby coming from a Donk. Sounds more like something Fred or Ron Paul would advocate.

Still, it’s nowhere near enough by any measure to elect Barack Obama to the office of President of the United States. His site also reveals that he supports Hitlerycare, something he has fought Mrs. Clinton tooth and nail over throughout this primary season. Mr. Obama, universal health care is universal health care. You’re better off just agreeing with the bitch on that one and trying to find somewhere you differ, however difficult that may be. Mr. Obama also has published a blatant and obvious lie on his website for all to see (if they decide to read it). the site asserts that Obama is:

… the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Russ Feingold’s tough bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

Not that that’s a good thing, even if it were true that Obama, and not John McShithead were the driving force in sponsoring that bill. Here, Obama’s campaign is openly supporting the blatant repeal of the First Amendment that is McCain-Feingold (not Obama-Feingold).

With allowances made for redundant statements, Mr. Obama’s proposals came in at a whopping 84% – yes, you read that right, EIGHTY-FOUR PERCENT – unconstitutional (read that ILLEGAL). Fully eighty-four percent of what Mr. Obama wants to do as president is outside the legal boundaries of that office and/or the federal government. And that’s only stopping halfway. What’s the likelihood that the other half would be any better? I say nil. In fact, given all the repetition I endured in reading this guy’s platform, I’d say I’d most likely be reading more of the same stuff I’d already read. Not a very well-written website. At least when I endured Ron Paul’s platform, everything I read was new material when I read it.

Next in the corsshairs: Hitlery.

RWR

From the Desk of Delftsman …

Delfts has been kinda quiet of late, but has posted a few times recently. I hope he’s doing well. Today I found this posted at his blog.

Am Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD American.

I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid level governmental functionary, be it Democratic or Republican!

I believe that owning a gun doesn’t make you a killer, I believe it makes you a smart American. (Unless you own a gun and are afraid to use it.)

I believe that being a minority does not make you noble or victimized, and does not entitle you to anything.

I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, do it in English.

I believe everyone has a right to pray to his or her God when and where they want to.

My heroes are John Wayne, Babe Ruth, Roy Rogers, and whoever canceled Jerry Springer.

I don’t hate the rich. I don’t pity the poor.

I know wrestling is fake and I don’t waste my time watching or arguing about it.

I’ve never owned a slave, or was a slave, and I WILL NOT pay reparations for something that I didn’t do.

I haven’t burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you! So shut up already.

This is AMERICA, I believe if you don’t like the way things are here, go back to where you came from and change your own country!

I want to know which church it is exactly, where the Reverend Jesse Jackson preaches, where he gets his money, and why he is always part of the problem and not the solution. Can I get an AMEN on that one?

I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you’re running from them, because if you’re not guilty, WHY are you running?

I also think the cops have the right to pull you over if you’re breaking the law, regardless of what color you are, that’s the job we’re paying them to do.

(RWR note: I further believe that if the cops are violating your constitutional rights, you have the constitutional right to use your gun against them – this is what the Second amendment is for.)

And, no, I don’t mind having my face shown on my drivers license. I think it’s good, it lets you know it’s really me.

I’m proud that the word ‘God’ is written on my money.

I believe that if you are too stupid to know how a ballot works, I don’t want you deciding who should be running the most powerful nation in the world for the next four years.

I dislike those people standing in the intersections trying to sell me stuff or trying to guilt me into making ‘donations’ to their cause.

I believe that it doesn’t take a village to raise a child, it takes two parents.

I believe ‘illegal’ is illegal no matter what the lawmakers think.

(RWR note: If lawmakers want to create laws that deem things illegal, they should make those laws simple and easy enough to read and understand without the aid of a lawyer.)

I believe the American flag should be the only one allowed to fly over American soil! If you want to fly the flag of YOUR nation at the top of a flag pole, by all means, do so, IN YOUR OWN NATION! And if the American flag is NOT your flag, then this is NOT your nation.

If this makes me a BAD American or causes you to classify me as a racist, then yes, I’m a BAD American and a racist.

If you’re a BAD American, if you share the same feelings and beliefs that I do, please, copy and post this on your web site for everyone to see.

We want our country back! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

AMEN.

Delfts always seems to hit it out of the park, doesn’t he?

RWR

And Another Thing …

As I was out and about the blogosphere today, I happened upon a site that encourages people to do what I did yesterday and will probably do in November …

http://www.WriteInFred.com

Also, there has also been a wee bit of scuttlebutt about a new conservative party rising out of this mess.  I hope the advice I gave (the Reagan2020 New Federalist Platform and the 1840 Democratic Party Platform would be great places to start) is well-heeded.

Both of the above are great ideas.  Lord knows the Republicans aren’t doing their job any better than the Democrats.

RWR

Yeah, OK …

OK. I celebrated my blogoversary by taking some time off … Please call 1-800-EAT-SHIT with any complaints.

Yeah, so the Asshole had some big wins yesterday. I voted for Fred, so don’t blame me when you’re sitting at home next January watching yet another liberal lie to America with the words “and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

These idiots have been trampling upon the Constitution like a doormat for twenty years. The American people are at fault, though, because they (including you and I) keep electing these scumbags.

I’ll be doing my homework for the next 8 or 9 months, but it looks right now like I’ll be writing in Fred Thompson in November. With John McShitbag the likely nominee (and the ONLY candidate on the Republican side that I’d NEVER cast a vote for – not even for dog catcher), it’s a long shot that I’ll be voting for the Republican. Of course, a lot can change, but I’m not all that impressed with Huckabee or Romney at this point, either – though I may hold my nose for one of them.

I recently took a trip over to my blogfather’s website, which I admit I’ve not been to nearly enough, and find that the posts there are right there with the things I’ve been saying about the Republicans (and, for the record, Fred Thompson). I’ll definitely be hanging out there quite a bit. It’s a shame the Emperor is foreign-born. He’d make a great president. See for yourself.

Don’t let the tone of my recent posts (including this one) fool you.  I’m still as optimistic as ever.  It is important, though, to properly communicate the truth about the very sad state of affairs in America right now.  The Founders must be rolling over in their graves.

RWR

Blogoversary Tomorrow!

Yes, I know I’ve been quiet, and it hasn’t necessarily been due to a lack of time or thoughts.  Still, I plan to keep blogging – and being as loud a voice as I can for the cause of the Founding Fathers, which seems to be in some serious jeopardy.  Realistically, four candidates remain for President of the US, and all of them are liberals, including the Republicans.

We vote here on Super Tuesday, and Fred Thompson, though withdrawn from the race, is on the ballot.  I will be casting my vote for him, both on Tuesday, and as a write-in in the November election.  Pro-Thompson advertising will continue on this site as well.

What, you say?  Rocker not vote for the Republican in an election this crucial to America’s future?  Consider the following: My vote will not influence the outcome, and we’re stuck with a useless liberal in the White House regardless.  I can cast a “statement vote” with no need to worry about its ultimate effect on the outcome.  New Jersey consistently goes to the Democrat in election after election.  The people of this state consistently elect liberal governors (the last “conservative” governor was Tom Kean), and ones that are as dangerous as Hitlery (Florio, McGreevey, Corzine).  Even Christine Todd Whitman was RINO to the max.  As as result, we already have here what Hitlery, Barack, Mitt, and McCain are trying to get for America.  The reason I stay here is family and friends.  Roots are roots.  Not much you can do at this stage of life except to do what you can to change things in the hope that there will be some benefit for your children and grandchildren.

Which is what I intend to do.  The Founding Fathers did not put their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor on the line so that we could all just sit here and piss their dream away.  It is up to ALL who cherish that dream to stand up to these liberals and win back the freedom that these men fought and died for.  I am up to the task.  I will do everything in my power to rescue this ideal from those who threaten it.  I believe in the wisdom of the American people, and that once reality sets in, the America of our Founders will be at hand.

I do believe that the time is finally here for conservatives to form ourselves a new party – one dedicated to re-establishing the freedoms that our forefathers gave us, and that the Left has taken away.  It seems to me that that will be the only way Americans will listen.  The major parties are finally devoid of all credibility when it comes to American history and ideals.  If Mitt Romney is the best the Republicans can do, then they’re just as out of touch as the Democrats.  I would suggest naming the party the “Federalist” or “Patriot” party in honor of those who stood up for freedom over two centuries ago.  THIS will be the true party of Ronald Reagan, not these idiot liberals who consistently try to portray themselves as the next Reagan when they aren’t even fit to lick his decomposing ass.

The education of America must begin now, and without delay.  I’m up to the task.  Are you?

RWR

The Future of the Thompson Conservative

Folks, this is really simple.

Fred’s taken his hat out of the game (I’d argue he took it out right after Iowa). Ron Paul is still nutty as a fruitcake. The rest of the field just isn’t conservative. John McCain? Please. If that guy’s the nominee, I’m writing my own name in on Election Day.

Still, the message of Fred Thompson’s candidacy rings true, and his influence on the debate is clear. Everyone’s trying to be Reagan, even John McCain, who Bonzo would probably punch square if the face if he were alive today to do so. Who brought Reagan conservatism to the debate? Fred Thompson. Now all the liberal Republicans are trying to out-Reagan each other. What a joke. The truth is that the Republican Party just isn’t conservative anymore. Rush has even started saying so (though I’ve been saying that about the Republican leadership – especially George W. Bush – for some time now).

So what’s a conservative to do? Who does a conservative vote for? I’ll be looking at that a bit more closely in the near future, but if I’m not satisfied, I’m voting write-in. Never mind loony third parties like the Libertarians who for all of their good ideas can’t find the votes to run a candidate for dog catcher.

Perhaps it’s time for conservatives across America to unite. Time for Reagan Federalists to invite Libertarians and the Constitutionites (who should be called the Religion Party) to the table to create the new Federalist party here in America to implement the New Federalism advocated by Reagan2020.org. If there won’t be a voice for those of us who revere the Founders’ vision in the two major parties, then maybe it’s time to take our ball and go back to Independence Hall. President Reagan often said he did not leave the Democrat Party, but rather that the party left him. The Republicans have done the same thing to us. A new party would perhaps give the Democrats victories for some time, but the end result would be better, with America knowing the truth about the Constitution and those who sacrificed so much for us to have it. It will be our job to educate America, and it will be a lot of work. Maybe a Hitlery presidency would be helpful, as was the Carter presidency of the 1970’s.

America’s best days are ahead of her. Still, the dark period that seems to be the result of the 2008 election will be a formidable obstacle to overcome.

Who’s with me?

RWR

Fred Wants to Win

Perfect message, but just a little too late, say some South Carolinians.  I say bullshit.

If you agree with the message of the candidate, whether that candidate is Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuiliani, Mitt, McCain, or even Hitlery, then you have a RESPONSIBILITY to vote that way in the primaries.  That’s what primaries are for – finding out which candidate is most in line with the beliefs and philosophies of the party’s voters.  If you think Fred’s message is perfect, then you absolutely MUST cast your primary vote that way.

Interestingly enough, Fred’s message is the one that happens to be closest to President Reagan’s (I’m bringing that up since the South Carolina debate seemed to be a contest of who could be the most Reagan-like).  Don’t you just love Rudy’s statement that he would mount a 50-state campaign to win the election just like Reagan did – made on the very same day he pulled all his staffers out of South Carolina and Michigan?  Nice 50-state campaign, you dork.  Rush often says that conservatism wins every time it’s tried, and I do believe he’s right.  Americans gravitate toward it, and its implementation is always successful.  Indeed, when a conservative president gets into trouble, it’s almost always for doing something liberal – like raise taxes.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Fred Thompson wants to win this election.  None at all.  However, his campaign staff stopped sending emails right after the Iowa caucuses.  How exactly do they expect to raise the needed funds to get anywhere?  How do they think we’re going to get the only electable conservative elected by just sitting around on their asses and doing nothing?

To the Thompson campaign, I say this:  Get off your sorry asses and get them into gear.  Fred is the last hope we have of having a conservative president take over in 2009 after 20 years of liberal bullshit in the White House.  Other than Fred, neither party offers anything but liberals.  This election should be a breeze – and the primaries should be the easy part.  Why are you idiots making such a farce out of it?

RWR

Iowa: Winners and Losers

The results are in in Iowa.

With all the resources she poured into Iowa, it’s a HUGE loss for Hitlery, and just as huge a win for Barack the Schlock. Make no mistake about it, Democrats there went for the newcomer, and BIG.

On our side, Fred Thompson was the clear winner of the three conservatives in the race, and if this caucus meant anything to Duncan Hunter, he’s done.

I also don’t see this as a huge win for Mike Huckabee, as he has a following in Iowa that simply cannot be discounted. Congratulations to him on the victory, but he’s not looking at doing as well elsewhere. Romney was as big a loser as Hitlery, thank God. Mitt was counting on Iowa, and will now have to rethink his strategy.

So, the biggest winner of the day was obviously Barack Obama. Hard to say whether the bigger loser is Hitlery or Mitt, as they both had put a lot into this one, and were both counting on easy wins. Hell, even The Breck Girl edged that witch out by a few tenths of a point!

As a note here, most analyses of Huckabee will show that he generally believes in conservative principles, but he also advocates using the government as an engine for applying them, even where the Constitution doesn’t allow it. This is the reason I have not been including Huck in the “conservative” camp. Abortion is the perfect example. Huck and real conservatives like myself (yes I know every conservative considers his own brand of conservatism as the only “real” brand of conservatism, but at least those of my stripe have the Constitution to stand with) both agree that abortion is the termination of a human life that should have been protected, and I applaud his work in getting a human life amendment passed in Arkansas. While I do support a federal amendment of that nature, I do not support any language contained therein making abortion a federal crime. After all, murder isn’t a federal crime, so why should abortion be? Let the states have that jurisdiction (which can easily be included in any human life amendment, by the way). Huckabee has explicitly stated that the states shouldn’t have this power, even though the Constitution doesn’t offer it to the fed – one size fits all, the typical liberal way of doing things. The overall analysis of Huck’s lack of conservative application of his conservative beliefs is material for another post.

Here’s something Sage will love to hear: Ron Paul beat Rudy 10.1% to 3.5%. I’m liking this too, except for one little detail: Rudy didn’t bother campaigning in Iowa, so who could have expected him to perform there? This makes it hard to gauge how successful he may have been, as he obviously didn’t care much how he did there – and I have NO information on what the Paul campaign was up to in Iowa.

As for the Thompson campaign, we did do a lot of work in Iowa, and were expecting somewhere between 10 and 15% of the vote. With that accomplished, we can move on to New Hampshire understanding that we have reached our goal so far. This caucus pretty much shows that Fred is the best-chanced conservative in the race.

In the meantime, it’s on to New Hampshire. Congrats to Mike and Barack. Go Fred!

RWR

The Phone Rang Today …

Not usually a big deal at all – the phone ringing, that is. Actually, it was a message in the voicemail. It must have come in while I was shopping for musicians for an upcoming gig.

I figured it was one of the prospective musicians calling in, and prepared to inform him that I had found someone. Instead, I come to find it was one of the RWRepublic’s most faithful readers – one I have been promising a beer for well over a year now as a token of my appreciation for his awesome service to our great nation, as well as his support of my winning efforts in a bet with a certain liberidiot who will for now remain nameless (you can see the whole thing if you know where to look).

Not many of my readers actually have my phone number (I think Sage does – I hope Sage does). Given the description of the above conversation, it shouldn’t be hard for anyone who’s been around a while to know who called me today …

ARMYBRYAN!!!

He’d been busy with a lot of things and had gotten out of touch. Still, don’t be too surprised if you find a comment or two from him on this thread. He’s doing great, folks. He’s taken on a new job (defense-related if I’m not mistaken) as a civilian, and living within a couple of hours of the RWRepublic! Looks like I’ll be getting that beer for him soon after all (did he say Guinness was his beer of choice?? – BRILLIANT!!). The move has had him going every which way, and it looks like there may be as much as a month or so before things calm down. In any case, I’m really excited to see him so close to home.

Bryan, if you’re reading this, welcome to the Northeast! Be careful, though. The moonbats here are more annoying than you may have imagined!!

RWR

Merry Christmas 2007

The hustle and bustle of the holidays has begun.

Here’s wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas!

RWR

The Clintonesque Mitt Romney

Remember back during one of the Bill Clinton campaigns, ol’ Bubba spoke of how he had watched black churches burn as a child, even though there was no opportunity for him to do so?

So much for Mitt Romney’s “front-runner” status. He’s all the liar Slick Willie was. Yeah, sure. He watched his old man march with Dr. King. Believe that, and I have some oceanfront property in Colorado to sell you.

Look. We had eight years of this, and voted out two more Democrats who were prone to this sort of lying. There’s a reason for that. We saw where it got us the first time, and paid the price for re-electing the crook. So certain were we that we didn’t want that, we elected a straight-shooter of a Republican, knowing full well he wasn’t the conservative we needed – pretty much because he told us the truth. Say what you want about George W. Bush; he told us what he’d do, and he delivered.

I hope America sees this for what it is and hands this idiot his walking papers. Republicans, PLEASE do not put me in a situation where I have to vote for this clown just to keep Hitlery out. Keep the pressure on for the only conservative with a chance – Fred Thompson. Thank God he’s getting some new momentum. Idiots like Romney only hurt Republican credibility by showing the useless liberal side of the party.

RWR

The Federalist 2008: Part the First

Throughout the last nearly three years as one of the Rightosphere’s louder voices in support of the Founding Fathers’ dream, I have built much of my relevant writing around the following statement, found in the New Federalist Platform, as submitted by Reagan2020.org:

We call ourselves “Federalists” because we humbly acknowledge that our guidance derives from the original ideals and principles of federally distributed powers as explicated by The Federalist Papers. But we are “New” Federalists for two basic reasons: first, because we are well aware that the cautionary warnings of the Anti-Federalists have proven true about the central government embarking on a long crusade of usurpations and encroachments that have substantially abridged the rights of individual citizens and state and local governments; and second, because we follow in the tradition of New Federalism that was implemented under Ronald Reagan’s presidency, but has since then languished. We strive to reassert the principles of New Federalism, to roll back those abridgements and infringements of our rights as plainly set forth in our Founding Documents.

Indeed, the Federalist Papers, written largely in defense of the Constitution in the wake of much dissent with regard to the document, were very persuasive in ultimately bringing forth ratification, and the warnings of the Anti-Federalists have largely come to fruition as well. One would have to be completely blind to the situation in America today to believe otherwise.

Recently, on a thread over at RWN, I took a stand in favor of the Founders and their vision. I even posted about it. My argument is simply that conservatives are dropping the ball when they argue with liberals on the liberals’ terms. Why? Simple: These arguments were had back in the Eighteenth Century, and the Founders had the opportunity to explain themselves. The decisions about the meaning of the Constitution were made then, and the liberals of the 20th Century have succeeded in convincing an uneducated public that the Constitution says something different. It’s time to reinvigorate the enthusiasm of the American people for the true vision of the Founding Fathers by reintroducing the public discourse of their time into the public discourse of today. It only makes sense, given the liberals’ constant desire to inject the evil of the federal government more and more into our daily lives.

On the aforementioned comment thread at RWN, I successfully got liberals to take (among others) the following positions:

* That socialism is allowed in the US under the general welfare clause of Article 1, Section 8.

* That James Madison would advocate socialism and/or nationalist socialist healthcare.

* That James Madison and the Founding Fathers are irrelevant.

I prodded these guys about Madison quite heavily to get these responses, given that Madison – the biggest contributor to the Constitution from a content standpoint – would clearly NOT have advocated socialism being injected into our lives, especially to the degree that it is today. This discussion of Article 1, Section 8 was had 220 years ago, and the rationale for the wording of the article was made clear then. To ignore the discourse of the founding generation and/or call it “irrelevant” is sheer foollishness and idiocy.

The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; — there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. – Brutus #1

So the challenge to the Constitution was made then, as you can see. Madison responded as follows:

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. – Madison, Federalist 45

Have I not been consisitent in saying that the states have the authority to have socialism within their own systems if they so (foolishly) choose, but that the federal government does not? I have yet to find a liberal who would advocate turning the federal socialist machine over to the individual states. One size fits all is the only thing they know. Government is always the only solution, even when government is the stupidest option available (and legally, it is not available – or so say the Constitution and its primary author). To say that James Madison, who penned the above words in defense of ratification, would have supported the efforts being made today to expand upon the socialism, which he would have denounced, by extending federal powers to include control over people’s healthcare decisions is, at best, ignorance, and at worst, a deliberate lie perpetrated for the purpose of cheating the American people out of more of their tax dollars in support of another lunatic ponzi scheme.

Today, we are seeing the concerns of the Anti-Federalist coming to fruition, and it’s happening right before our very eyes (baby, what a big surprise). It’s happening, and all the liberals can do in their defense when we so clearly demonstrate that their vision is so inconsistent with that of the Founders is call the Founders “irrelevant” and/or lie about what their true positions would be. I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t buy the idea that they don’t know. I might believe that about Joe Publick and the rest of the victims of the public education system, but you had better believe those in Washington and those seeking the nod to go there know better. Trust me. They know better – and better than you’ll ever know.

RWR

DJ Gallo Gets It Right

My opinion of the whole “Mitchell Report” and this foolishness surrounding Major League Baseball and steroid use has been simple: blah blah blah. Seriously, even I have found it necessary from time to time to use them. They are very helpful in strengthening weak body systems and making life more comfortable.

The thing about this list that is truly revealing is that the percentage of great ballplayers on this list is about the same as the percentage in the game in general. In other words, you can’t convince me that these drugs in any way changed the destinies of the players involved. In other words, Barry Bonds would have STILL become the Home Run King, and “The Rocket” would have still risen to the same level of greatness. Tim Laker would have no other legitimate claim to fame.

In all seriousness, it doesn’t, never has, and never will matter what any player or group of players does to enhance performance. As a competitor, you still have to find a way to win. For true winners, losing is not an option. Can you imagine going to war and giving up just because the other side had NBC? As much as we heard about Iraq’s NBC program, we still went in, kicked ass, and took names. NBC or none, the winners won. It’s the same in baseball. So Barry’s juiced. So fucking what? I don’t see Barry Bonds walking around with a 2007 World Series ring on his finger.

Truth be told, People have to lighten up about these things, and mind their own business. If Barry Bonds feels the need to get juiced, I say let him. It’s not like this stuff is without side-effects, and it’s not like the Giants did any better because of it. DJ Gallo hits it right on the head today. Read these quotes (which you can bet are all made up). They go right to the heart of the matter.

And they’re fun to read to boot! Enjoy!

RWR

In Defense of Ron Paul

Ronald Reagan once said, “Never speak ill of another Republican.”

This should be true today more than ever before. Our party must be united against the socialist onslaught that is looming on the horizon should Hitlery Clinton find her way into the White House. Each of our candidates brings something very important to the table. Every last one of them has something special to offer. Never mind the fact that I think Fred Thompson is the guy with not only the best chance of winning in the general election, but also the one with the most realistic conservative goals.

Rudy Guiliani offers us great leadership under pressure. Mitt Romney offers the opportunity to show that not all Republicans are conservative (Rudy offers this as well). Fred Thompson offers Federalism with all its obvious advantages.

What of Ron Paul? Since his following is largely a bunch of loons trying to beef up his numbers by spamming polls, we’ll never really know what his chances really are of winning any primary or the general election. John Hawkins doesn’t even offer this candidate’s name as a positive response in his polls anymore, simply because he doesn’t have the time to be weeding out all of the re-votes that are cast by the Ron Paul crowd. This is unfortunate, because it makes it difficult for those of us who comment about these things to have good information. To the Ron Paul crowd I say this: Thanks for the enthusiasm and the 110 percent, but these tactics only hurt your candidate and those of us who honor the contribution he makes to the debate. Remember, stuffing ballot boxes and rigging elections is a Donk game (free cigarettes, anyone??).

I took some time this week and checked out Ron Paul on the issues – not by his record, but by his platform. I did this because I disagree with the way conservatives are demonizing this guy. He has very few positions that are out of sync with those of true conservatives. Ron Paul’s platform is far too involved to go into too much detail. You can read up on all of his positions by clicking “Issues” here. I’ll pick and choose what to quote.

Ron Paul: American Independence and Sovereignty

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites.

Ron Paul is 100% right on this, and this is a position that is also 100% conservative. The UN is also included in later comments. Paul goes on to show exactly how these things threaten us, and is right on the mark on every note. He closes with this, again right on the money:

Let’s not forget the UN. It wants to impose a direct tax on us. I successfully fought this move in Congress last year, but if we are going to stop ongoing attempts of this world government body to tax us, we will need leadership from the White House.

We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe upon the freedom and independence of the United States of America.

Ron Paul: Border Security and Immigration

The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked.

Again, right on point. I’ve made my position on border security no secret here at the RWRepublic. Our own president has dropped the ball on this one, a very unfortunate thing. Our next president must clean up the mess that his many predecessors have left. Even Ronaldus Maximus cheesed on this issue, granting amnesty to countless illegals during what was the greatest presidency of the Twentieth Century. This coddling of illegal aliens has to stop, and the time has already passed. Ron Paul’s six-point plan includes physically securing the borders (hopefully this means a wall), enforcing visa rules, no amnesty, no government assistance for illegal aliens, ending birthright citizenship, and real immigration reform instead of the proposals that he correctly believes aren’t tough enough.

Ron Paul: Debt & Taxes

Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by $40 a month or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains taxes and hire more employees, that tax cut is a good thing. Lower taxes allow more spending, saving, and investing which helps the economy — that means all of us.

Real conservatives have always supported low taxes and low spending.

Amen. Paul goes on to describe the real nature of spending and what really needs to be done to control it. It’s not a pretty picture, but who’s surprised by that?

Ron Paul: Education

The federal government has no constitutional authority to fund or control schools. I want to abolish the unconstitutional, wasteful Department of Education and return its functions to the states. By removing the federal subsidies that inflate costs, schools can be funded by local taxes, and parents and teachers can directly decide how best to allocate the resources.

This is hands-down the best thing any politician is saying today. It’s also the most conservative. Again, Ron Paul is right.

Ron Paul: Environment

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor’s land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter’s production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

Sounds great. Check this out, though, because it seems kind of shady:

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

* I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
* I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
* Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a “Treasury Guardian” for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
* I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Voting against subidies. Good move. There’s no constitutional authority for that. However, “Legislation designed to encourage the development of …” – fill in the blank. There’s no constitutional authority for that, either, and therefore, NOT a constitutional approach to ANYTHING. Conservative by its tax-credit nature though it may be, it’s not as conservative as standing up for the Constitution and doing away with investment taxes in the first place. Using the tax code to control people’s behavior happens to be a liberal tactic that’s been used by the Donks for decades. Mr. Paul is wrong on this count. I’m also suspicious of anyone who works against “corporate welfare”. This term is usually used to describe tax cuts for businesses (which don’t pay taxes in the first place). It’s used by liberals to generate hate for those building businesses for profit, as if there were another reason to have a business. I’m also suspicious of anyone belonging to any “environmental” organization with the word “green” in its name. These organizations generally sing the AlGorean chants of the man-made global warming cult. I give them a wide berth – a VERY wide berth. So here we find Ron Paul to be something of an enviro-nutcase, who will abandon his Constitutionalist principles in favor of liberal policies on this issue.

Ron Paul: Health Care

Mr. Paul makes a lot of very important points about healthcare, emphasizing Congress’s role in the rise of HMOs in the management of Americans’ healthcare needs. Here’s a great quote from his page:

The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted.

Amen, Mr. Paul. Here’s his plan:

* Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
* Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
* Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
* Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
* Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

All of this will go a long way in making healthcare affordable and getting the government out of it. Government should have never gotten involved in the first place, and Paul is right on the money here.

Ron Paul: Health Freedom

I oppose legislation that increases the FDA’s legal powers. FDA has consistently failed to protect the public from dangerous drugs, genetically modified foods, dangerous pesticides and other chemicals in the food supply. Meanwhile they waste public funds attacking safe, healthy foods and dietary supplements

‘Nuff said. Right on the money AGAIN.

Ron Paul: Home Schooling

We must have permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. I will use my authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities.

I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for home school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum).

Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation.

My only problems with this is that it falls short of repealing No Child Left Behind. There’s also stuff that I didn’t quote that seem kind of fed-intrusive, but I can easily see how they would be unnecessary if the rest of Paul’s education agenda were to fly. Ron Paul is again right (and conservative).

Ron Paul: Life and Liberty

In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Again, conservative and right.

Ron Paul: No Taxes on Tips

A small idea, but why have income taxes at all? Paul supporters tell us that he would abolish the IRS. I haven’t seen this in his platform, but would love to have someone stand up for that. No taxes on tips is a start, but I would love to see more taxes gone.

Ron Paul: Privacy and Personal Liberty

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters.

So Paul is against national ID cards and the Patriot Act. I used to agree with the Patriot Act, but have seen it (like every other government intrusion into our privacy) abused in ways people would have never imagined. Old ladies being searched in airports just to diffuse accusations of “racial profiling” is simply the wrong way to go about stopping terrorists. Paul also opposes currency transaction reports, as I do. He’s right on with this issue as well – and conservative.

Ron Paul: Property Rights and Eminent Domain

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Without mentioning Kelo by name, Paul delivers it a stinging blow here. He also happens to be conservative – and right.

Ron Paul: Racism

A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Geez. Has this guy been reading my blog? I’ve been saying all along that racism is the inevitable result of this socialist mindset that has plagued our nation for nearly a hundred years. Again Ron Paul is conservative, and right.

Ron Paul: Socialist Security

Paul tries to walk on both sides of the fence here. Sure, he says SS benefits shouldn’t be taxed, and he says that people shouldn’t be discouraged from saving on their own, but he also talks of “keeping our promise to our seniors”. So we find another liberal position, but one supported largely by Republicans, so to anyone opposing Paul on the grounds that he’s supposedly liberal, I say, “Pot, meet kettle.”

Ron Paul: The Second Amendment

I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right.

He goes on to include what he has done with regard to the Second Amendment:

* H.R. 1096 includes provisions repealing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993, two invasive and unconstitutional bills.
* H.R. 1897 would end the ban on carrying a firearm in the National Park System, restoring Americans’ ability to protect themselves in potentially hazardous situations.
* H.R. 3305 would allow pilots and specially assigned law enforcement personnel to carry firearms in order to protect airline passengers, possibly preventing future 9/11-style attacks.
* H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.

In the past, I introduced legislation to repeal the so-called “assault weapons” ban before its 2004 sunset, and I will oppose any attempts to reinstate it.

All of these things are conservative – and right, though HR 3305 would be better to simply get the government out of things altogether and let the airlines decide who will and will not be allowed to pack heat on their aircraft.

Ron Paul: War and Foreign Policy

Here, I see Ron Paul carrying water for the nutcases selling us the “inside job” conspiracies regarding 9/11. I’d have to fisk this thing one point at a time, and have said plenty already. On these matters, Paul acts like Hanoi Jane and the rest of the pinko-commie whackjobs. It’s insulting to the conservative movement. He even goes on to imply (incorrectly) that Congress did not authorize the President’s use of military force in the Middle East. Maybe he didn’t vote for it, but it did carry.

So we have here a candidate who is a little bit liberal on Socialist Security and the tax code, something of an enviro-nutcase, and WAY out there when it comes to defense matters. On ever other issue, he is a staunch conservative and a defender of the Constitution. Granted, this is all based upon his own platform that he is using to try and win people to his campaign, but he hasn’t tried to hide his nutty positions on environmentalism and the war, so as long as he would stick to these positions (except where noted), he’d be quite the ideal president.

Does this mean I’m changing camps and going Ron Paul?? Of course not. I know I’m conservative, and I know America is not. Sure, the pendulum is swinging in the right direction, but most Americans have no clue what is in the Constitution to begin with, and that’s not going to change before November 2008. Still, you can’t justifiably call the man a “moonbat”, as I’ve seen time and again around the blogosphere. Fred Thompson is still my guy. Unfortunately, Paul supporters have this nutty tendency to spam polls, so we won’t know until the primaries start exactly what the task at hand really is. Educating Americans about her Constitution and history will be a tall order indeed, but less of one should we see real widespread grassroots support for Ron Paul. He has a snowball’s chance in hell, I think, but his candidacy has forced the Republicans to show their conservative credentials. He absolutely MUST be given credit for that. Someday, someone as conservative as Ron Paul may have a chance, but America’s just not ready for that.

RWR

Poll: Thompson Wins in Stupid Debate

No. I didn’t watch the stupid debate this week. New Years is coming up, and there’s lots of preparation with a new band and all. First gig with them, in fact. Still, I found this poll Hawk did very interesting.

Who won the debate?

Tom Tancredo: 2%
Duncan Hunter: 6%
Rudy Giuliani: 7%
John McCain: 7%
Mitt Romney: 12%
Mike Huckabee: 22%
Fred Thompson: 44%

Who lost the debate?

Duncan Hunter: 1%
Tom Tancredo: 2%
John McCain: 3%
Mike Huckabee: 4%
Fred Thompson: 6%
Mitt Romney: 21%
Rudy Giuliani: 24%
Ron Paul: 40%

One thing was missing, though. When Hawk does a poll, he often analyzes the net result (in this case, subtracting the negatives from the positives). Here is how that would have panned out:

Guiliani: -14%
Romney: -9%
Tancredo: 0%
McCain: +4%
Hunter: +5%
Huckabee: +18%
Thompson: +38%

An important note on this poll is that Ron Paul was not offered as a choice for the winner. Hawk does this because he often winds up sifting through the pro-Paul vote having to weed out duplicate votes. The Ron Paul crowd simply isn’t honest when it comes to these things, unfortunately, so we will never get an accurate assessment of what people really think of Ron Paul. This is truly unfortunate, because Ron Paul brings something very important to the debate: far-right conservatism. Conservatism largely the way it ought to be. I disagree with Mr. Paul on a few key issues, but his desire to champion the Constitution is nothing short of admirable. Every candidate from every party should be thinking along those lines – another reason I’m a Thompson voter. It would be very useful to know how Americans really feel about Ron Paul because it would give us a better idea of exactly what we face from an education standpoint. Sure, he’s nutty on the war and 9/11, but to know where Americans stand on much of the rest of his platform would be truly instructive and useful in bringing America back into the Constitutional fray.

Anyway, form what I’ve heard about the debate, it was pretty stupid, and even included a Hitlery operative planting a question or two. For Fred to have won this debate is probably something very small, but perhaps the ability to handle himself effectively on the Communist News Network may make it larger. It’s definitely something that must be considered when making a decision, and it’s my sincere hope that Fred will come through in the final analysis.

RWR

Thanksgiving 2007

Posting has been light lately because of a new job.  I’ve also started an internship at the school from which I recently graduated, so even a lot of evenings are being eaten up …

Still, I have no intentions of falling silent at this critical time in the history of our great Nation, and I hope all of you will hang in there and keep the RWRepublic strong.  There’s a lot to do.  Hitlery must be beaten, a Federalist must be elected, socialism must be stopped – and that’s just the beginning!

On the musical front, we just booked our New Year’s show in Atlantic City, NJ.  It’s going to be awesome.  Plus, there’s all the church work I typically do around the holidays, which is also going to happen as usual.

Today, however, we celebrate Thanksgiving, which, behind Independence Day, is probably the single most important holiday our Nation celebrates.  Wouldn’t it be nice if Americans today would learn the same simple lessons learned nearly four centuries ago??

So here are my usual Thanksgiving links.  I haven’t added any new ones for obvious reasons this year, but these are incredibly important, so enjoy!

RWR, 3/10/2005
Mike Franc, Human Events Online, 11/21/2005

Happy Thanksgiving!

RWR

Forcing Constitutional Debate at RWN

Yesterday, I spent considerable energy arguing with a bunch of liberal morons over at RWN. John correctly brought to the fore the ideology of Norman Thomas, an American socialist from the 1920’s, who basically said that Americans would never accept socialism unless its name was changed – to liberalism. Once this happened, just about any socialist concept could be applied, even here.

Thomas, who ran for President six different times, understood the power of incrementalism. He knew that a socialist agenda in America could only be pursued with the use of deception and half measures, until one day Americans would wake up in a socialized state.

Well, wasn’t that the truth?

American liberals have fallen for Thomas’s passion hook, line, and sinker. Since the post was drawn up in the face of a debate on Hitlerycare, liberal commentors jumped at the chance to defend it. Conservatives fell for their game, unfortuantely, trying to defend the country against this foolishness by arguing on the libs’ terms – in other words, trying to demonstrate why Nationalized Socialized healthcare is such a bad idea compared to why the libs thought otherwise. No one brought up its blatant unconstitutionality.

Until I entered the debate.

Go read the thread. It’s quite enlightening. Here’s the link again.

Over the course of the debate, I was able to get the libs on record as either saying or implying:

1. That socialism is allowed in the US under the general welfare clause of Article 1, Section 8,2. That socialist non-solutions are better than real free-market solutions to problems that were largely a result of socialism (e.g. healthcare regulations).

3. That the cost of lawsuits and malpractice insurance doesn’t drive up the cost of healthcare more than the price of medicine.

4. That government regulation is a good thing, especially for the healthcare industry.

5. That people with BDS are right.

6. That James Madison would advocate socialism and/or nationalist socialist healthcare.

7. That James Madison and the Founding Fathers are irrelevant.

8. That George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and others would have a problem with acknowledging James Madison’s contributions to the US Constitution.

11. That adhering to a “rock solid” Constitution is akin to totalitariansim.

I left out 9 and 10. Seems a lib or two had a problem knowing the difference between the 9th and 10th Amendments. I just don’t want to confuse people – ya know??

The conservatives largely left me to work my magic and came to defend the Constitution after I left the thread.

This is the most important thing we conservatives can do to defend our great nation against the liberals who seek to dismantle everything that has made her great. Far too often we argue on their terms. Why? Their terms are FLAWED. Their terms are BULLSHIT. Their terms are IRRELEVANT.

As long as the Constitution is the law of the land, it must be defended against all enemies. Many of these enemies are holding public office today. These people must be defeated, regardless of their branch of government. The Founders’ vision, as enshrined in the Constitution, MUST prevail.

In order to defeat the socialist liberal onslaught that threatens our country, we must be sure to argue on Constitutional grounds. We must be prepared to use the Constitution in her defense. We must be prepared to call socialism what it is: SOCIALISM. We must be prepared to defend ourselves against these accusations of advocating totalitarianism with facts about real totalitarians and what they advocated.

This is an EASY argument. It takes little or no effort. If you want to defend the Constitution, just know it. Read it. Read the Federalist Papers – AND the Anti-Federalist Papers. Know what the Founders said in its defense. Know why the liberals are full of it and show them. If you like, give them plenty of rope and let them hang themselves as I did yesterday.

This is, I believe, the biggest problem with the way conservatives confront liberals today. There seems to be some need to debate the liberals on the facts of the argument e.g. how much nationalized socialized medicine will cost or how it will affect the choices available as opposed to whether the federal government really has any such authority to begin with. The people of the USA need to be re-educated about the Constitution and what it says, and you know damned right well the schools aren’t going to do anything about it.

If we don’t bring the Constitution back to the front lines of the fight, we are going to have serious problems winning it. If we do, we will win every time. Powerful thing, that US Constitution. Powerful thing. The perfect tribute to the minds that created it.

RWR