RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for July, 2005

On the Road Again …

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 30, 2005

Going on the road again, should be able to post sometime Late tomorrow night or sometime Monday.

Have a great weekend!

RWR

Advertisements

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

“Breezy” … Sooo Apropos

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 29, 2005

Hanging out over at Ranting Fox’s new blog, I saw this comment (along with the included exchange) in response to the (correct) assertion that liberals want to rig operations to ensure America loses the War on Terror in the hopes that it will help them come election time:

Oh my god, are you kidding me? Liberals are the ones who CARE about the people. They want everyone to have an equal chance for a long life. To assume that “libs” want soldiers dead is just plain wrong (as well as evil!)
Comment by Breezy – July 28, 2005 @ 20:30 IST

Well, Breezy, can you think of any other way to explain it? Seriously, these people have demonstrated time and time again that the only thing they care about is their ability to maintain POWER. Ask Vince Foster just how much his liberal buddy Bill Clinton cares about people, him in particular. Ask Mary Jo Kopechne exactly how much Teddy Kennedy cares about people, her in particular. I guarantee they weren’t given an equal chance at a long life. Kids murdered in abortions don’t get an equal chance for a long life. Terri Schiavo didn’t get an equal chance for a long life. All the way back to FDR, these people have thumbed their noses at the Founders and the people said Founders sought to protect.

What other way could there possibly be to explain the most successful military operations in the history of warfare being called “quagmires”, and the miniscule number (by comparison) of casualties we have suffered to be so totally blown out of proportion? Why else would liberals go to such extremes, calling simple unfortunate collateral damage “targeting civilians”.

You want to know who was targeting civilians? Saddam Hussein, that’s who. Rape rooms, mass graves, torture chambers, and the like weren’t used against simple “enemies of the state”. They were used agains WHOMEVER THAT CRAZY RAT-BASTARD FELT LIKE USING THEM AGAINST. If it was the liberals who so cared about people, where were they when President Bush sought to end the Saddam Hussein regime? Hmm?? Never mind the fact that he violated the terms of the 1991 armistice, which, according to International Law, is grounds for resumption of hostilities. Illegal war? MY ASS!

Of course, the lovely and gracious Alli, responds:

The fact that you believe that, Breezy, makes me sad. Liberals don’t care about
people, for all their talk of tolerance they don’t tolerate ME or my beliefs, why should I tolerate their BS?
Comment by Alli – July 28, 2005 @ 21:45 IST

Excellent point, Alli. Liberals don’t care a whit about people. If they did, they would recognize that the things they have sought to do, ostensibly to help people, have hurt them instead, and they would seek the same roll-backs the conservatives are pushing for. Of course, Breezy misses the point completely:

No, what liberals dont tolerate is intolerance, if that makes any sense. 100% of the liberals that I know, which is a lot, dont care if you are against abortion, believe in god, hold some moral superiority, etc, etc. We just dont like how you all want to mandate your beliefs, which then limit ours. Do you get what I mean? No one wants anyone dead, everyone wants the armed forces home, safe and sound.
Comment by Breezy – July 28, 2005 @ 22:42 IST

Well now, is that so??

Are the liberals willing to tolerate people being able to choose the school their kids go to? Nope. They are intolerant on that issue, and they have successfully mandated that belief, severely limiting people’s ability to secure the kind of education they want for their kids.

Are the liberals willing to tolerate people being able to live without fear of their lives being taken away? Nope. If it’s convenient for someone THEY deem special, then just go ahead and kill that baby or grandparent who’s just being a blight on everyone else. They aren’t even willing to tolerate a father having a say in whether a mother chooses life or death for her child, unless, of course, it’s convenient for the mother, whom THEY have deemed special. Oh and are they tolerant of the father who wants his wife/girlfriend to kill the baby against her wishes? Nope, and they also won’t tolerate his inability to pay for everything that child needs in his or her lifetime.

I, for one, am intolerant of this intolerance. And Breezy, the idea that your statement may not make sense has plenty of merit – because it doesn’t make sense. You are just as intolerant of the opposing point of view as the conservatives you accuse of being intolerant. In fact, you are more so. Here’s an example as to why:

Conservatives are, by and large, Constitutionalists and/or Federalists. This is the philosophy of self-governance, and each level of government (starting with the people and ending with the fed) gets LESS powerful. Local laws, for example, that do not interfere with the laws of other states or localities are out of the jurisdiction of those other states or localities, or even the federal government. The Congress and the Supreme Court, for example, cannot interfere with local laws unless they somehow violate the Constitution. This is exactly what the Founders had in mind. You dig?

You see, the degree to which people involve themselves in religion is a personal matter. You have NO SAY WHATSOEVER. Why? Because each person governs himself when it comes to religion. Each must react with TOLERANCE when another practices his religion nearby. Where is the ACLU when someone needs their religious freedoms defended? On the other side of the courtroom, that’s where. The liberals over at the ACLU aren’t tolerant at all.

It is the right of the individual municipality/state/etc. to determine which expressions of religion are appropriate for the local/state/etc. government to show. This is not mandating beliefs, since each is still free to worship (or not worship) as he pleases. It makes me sick to think that just because our President openly practices a religion, he is demonized by the God-hating liberals out there. Wanna take me on in a debate over the First Amendment?

The biggest problems I have with liberals include this intolerance, their insistence on dismantling the Constitution that people have fought so hard to defend over these last two hundred or so years, and their crippling unconstitutional socialism that has virtually destroyed the very people it was supposed to help. I want the soldiers to come home too, but I want them to come home VICTORIOUS.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

TripleNeck’s Challenge to the Left

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 28, 2005

I’ve tried to stay away from Donny’s page. He doesn’t deserve the traffic. Read any comment he has made on this blog, and you will clearly see what I mean.

But I was recently reminiscing on a comment or two that I had made there, and a few that I had read, and I noticed that HS TripleNeckSteel had gotten the last word in a particular string with this comment – a challenge to Don and his friends:

So when are you leftist asshats going to take a stab at actually repudiating something one of us says, rather than invariably resorting to patent dismissals followed by ad hominem attacks? At least when we insult you, it’s after we’ve established that you can’t hang in a debate with us– for you twits and twats, it’s your primary (and often your only) tactic.

*crickets chirp, fold their little cricket arms, and tap their little cricket toes while waiting for the reasoned response even they know isn’t forthcoming*

When are you simpletons going to realize that we don’t make our estimation of you leftists based on what we read in the liberal-dominated mainstream media, but on your own gaseous effluvia?

There are leftist blogs and newspapers, you know. We read them.

Anytime one of us calls you on the absurdity of your mewlings, you practically fall over each other to liken us to Nazis. Instead of making argument, you slam my writing. Nobody else had any trouble with its construction, so it’s either collective illiteracy on your part, or collective hysterical blindness that prevents you from reading properly. It definitely sounds like the problem’s on your end and not mine, Don(g).

I have a challenge for you perpetual short-bus riders:

Let’s see if you can conduct an argument without:

A) Labelling us as, or even merely likening us to Nazis.

B) Dismissing us and/or our sources as “misguided”, “evil”, or “brainwashed”.

C) Citing known enemies of the US such as Noam Chomsky, or leftist propaganda sites like DU, Indymedia, or Saudi-funded “think-tanks”. Limit yourself to accepted historical record, if you can.

You know you can’t, I know you can’t, and you shall doubtlessly display that again for all seventeen readers of your blog.

There were no answers to this, and I gave it some serious thought. When has Donny come around here and actually pursuaded anyone? We had better luck with Bobby Lindsay, for sure. At least Bobby made an effort to pursuade us to his point. OK, well his point was crap, but he didn’t do the things Donny was doing here. He presented evidence (though flimsy) that might make his point rather than just throw around DNC talking points and left-wing bullshit as if they were proven as fact.

I challenge Donny and his ilk to go through this blog, choose a post to argue with, and meet the challenge set forth by HS TripleNeckSteel. You didn’t meet the challenge on your own blog, so I’m giving you a second chance here.

It would be nice to see you demonstrate exactly why you deny that there is a systematic effort on the part of the Left to dismantle and/or usurp the Constitution. I have offered considerable proof on this blog that there is. Why exactly am I wrong? Come on, guys. Show me. Where does the Constitution say any of this is legal? What is it about my point of view that makes me a xenophobic redneck? I’ve been waiting for weeks for you to answer these questions.

I have serious doubts about these morons’ ability to present a coherent argument. I’ve been asking them (Donny in particular) for a clear explanation of their point of view for some time now, and all I’ve gotten is a bunch of the crap TripleNeck cites in his challenge. Maybe I should have Donny point out exactly what fault he finds in my “sentence structure”, since that seems to be a big beef of his. Man, this kind of shit pisses me off.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Debra Saunders Gets a Hit … Though it Stays in the Park

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 27, 2005

In concept, Debra Saunders has hit the nail on the head with an excellent post on education.

Enforcing standards based on programs and concepts that work is the only way to go in education. Too many “educrats” are too busy playing political football with the lives of America’s children.

The only problem I have with this article is that Ms. Saunders misses a very important point with regard to NCLB (“No Child Left Behind”). While it is true that having and enforcing standards based in the actual reality of education, as required by NCLB, has helped American children improve educationally, there is one very important detail that gets left out time and time again when it comes to NCLB – it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have the authority to implement or fund such a program. Good idea that it is, the fed is required under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to leave this issue to the States and the people.

Does this mean that the President and/or the Congress cannot say or do anything at all with regard to education? Absolutely NOT. However, it does limit what they can do to bascially issuing statements of opinion and/or suggestions. This could have been VERY productive.

An appropriate method of presenting NCLB would have been for the President and his cohorts in Congress to draft and build a joint program to present to the various States. The States would then have the opportunity to revise and implement the program as they saw fit IF THEY SO WISHED (and if their individual state constitutions allowed). The federal budget would have no obligations to the various States’ educational programs, since such expenditures are not authorized under the Constitution, so NCLB couldn’t have any negative effect on the deficit.

Sure, these ideas have worked. But they would have worked much better in a context whereby the States would have had the opportunity to tailor the program to their own needs and budgets. That’s why we have the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the first place. It’s a little concept known as “States’ Rights”. What we have now under NCLB is a good idea driven into the ground by big-spending beaureaucrats.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

An Iraqi Speaks Out on the New Constitution

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 26, 2005

Omar over at Iraq the Model has spoken out against the new Iraqi Constitution. It’s a long post, and contains, from what I can see from my quick scan, the entire text of the document with his comments inserted.

If you read Omar’s comments, you may wonder, as I do, why he doesn’t just move to the US. We could use a voice like his here. In the meantime, it’s great that Iraqis are thinking these things through and making good, rational, freedom-loving decisions about them.

Update: I’ve been having problems for some time getting into the comments section over at Iraq the Model … any ideas as to what may be causing this?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The REAL Reason the Donks are Pissed

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 25, 2005

Mark Steyn has chronicled the real source of the hate for all things Republican, right-wing (read that non-extreme left-wing), and even Bush (a true moderate the Left loves to call “extremist”).

Despite the serious nature of his article, I still had to chuckle. I’ve been trying to figure out exactly how a dude named Chad could be pregnant for the last 4-1/2 years …

The point Steyn basically makes is that the Donks made such asses of themselves trying to overturn the will of the voters in 2000 that no one wanted to vote for them in 2004. While I believe that is partially true, I still believe that their party’s extreme Don Myers-esque agenda is the real reason they lost both the 2000 and 2004 elections.

I love watching the Donks shimmer and shake while they call everyone to the right of Franklin “Don’t Call Me Francis” D. Roosevelt right-wing extremists. Face it, losers. President Bush is closer to your philosophy than the Founding Fathers were. Thank God he agrees with them on Constitutionalist judges.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Usurpation of the Constitution

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 22, 2005

In assembling the following post, the observations made by Timothy B. Lewis at the Constitutional Freedom Foundation were invaluable. While I have summarized pretty well the concepts he presented, there is still no substitute for reading the actual article he published.

In looking at the Left’s penchant for getting around the Constitution at all costs, it is important to look at the history of the Constitution and the Founders’ original intent. After all, it is THEIR vision we Americans cherish and seek to implement in our republican form of government.

It’s important to understand that the majority of power in America is supposed to reside with the people, less with local governments, less still with states, and least of all with the federal government. This concept is known as Federalism. Our laws are designed to allow maximum freedom to the people with as little interference from government on any level as possible. The idea was that people would be guided by virtue (religion) as to the concepts of right and wrong, and problems with violations of God-given rights would be addressed through the democratic process.

Before I go to something very important that Mr. Lewis brought up, let me quote from the 2000 Democratic Party Platform …

When Thomas Jefferson was elected as our Party’s first president in 1800, America was a young country trying to find its place in the world.

That’s quite interesting, to say the least, since the Donk party wasn’t even founded until after the dissolution of the Federalist Party in 1816. Yes, many members of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party joined the new Democratic Party, but others joined the National Republican Party and the Whig Party as well. Just goes to show just how interested these people are in the truth (note: Andrew Jackson was the first president from their party). Still, if the Dems want to claim Jefferson as their own, let’s get to a quote from Jefferson himself that Lewis used on the very subject of constitutional usurpation:

It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow,) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed; because, when all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.


The Founding Fathers’ vision of a free America has succeeded as long as it has for a reason. That reason is simple – there is very little these guys didn’t think of. Jefferson saw in 1821 (when he penned those words) that there would someday be a problem with judicial activism.

One of the most important documents to study in learning the Founders’ perspective on their original intent is the Federalist, a series of essays by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison designed to persuade the people of New York to accept the Constitution and ratify it. These essays defend the idea of having the Constitution as the law of the land, and were often written in response to another set of articles, published anonymously under the pseudonym “Brutus”, called the Anti-Federalist. In Federalist #78 and 79, Hamilton sets forth his opinions as to the appropriateness of the structure of the judiciary:

The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. (my emphasis) – Hamilton, Federalist 78

A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. – Hamilton, Federalist 78

They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by hose which are not fundamental. – Hamilton, Federalist 7

whenever an articular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former. – Hamilton, Federalist 78

To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them … – Hamilton, Federalist 78

Upon the whole, there can be no room to doubt that the convention acted wisely in copying from the models of those constitutions which have established GOOD BEHAVIOR as the tenure of their judicial offices, in point of duration … – Hamilton, Federalist 78

The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. – Hamilton, Federalist 79

So the courts can’t legally take any active resolution on their own. Think about that when some Leftist wingnut tries to argue that Roe v. Wade is not a violation of the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority. As a fundamental law, all parties provided for in the Constitution are obligated to stay within the structure set forth, and all decisions must derive directly from the Constitution. Judges making decisions not backed up by the Constitution, and therefore engaging in bad behavior, are subject to impeachment. Sounds pretty clear to me.

But let there be no change by usurpation … – Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

President Washington would clearly be disappointed in the US government of the last hundred years. He would further be disappointed in Americans’ neglect of the situation in their refusal or inability to do something about it.

Lewis sums it up pretty nicely in his conclusion:

Jefferson correctly predicted the judicial destruction of federalism. That would not have happened had our federal judges stayed true to their proper roles in our constitutional scheme …

And so it wouldn’t. Nor would it have happened had Americans stood up and defended the Constitution against such usurpations. Lewis goes on in his next article, Virtue & Morality: Freedom’s Prerequisites, to explain the proper role of the judiciary in American government. Of course, he nails it, so reading for yourself would be the way to go. The article covers many important concepts upon which my opinion is based, including natural law, the failure of Greece, the First Amendment, virtue, morality, religion, and self-government, and I want to get to the real meat and potatoes of the post.

First, a quote from Hamilton, also quoted by Lewis:

Nothing is more common than for a free people, in times of heat and violence, to gratify momentary passions, by letting into the government, principles and precedents which afterwards prove fatal to themselves.

Yup. Nothing better describes the so-called “New Deal”, presented by our first real socialist president, Franklin “Don”t Call Me Francis” Roosevelt. During that time, people became so desperate they gave up on themselves, and President Roosevelt promised them that the fed was powerful enough to take care of it all. Someone forgot to tell ol’ Frankie that the common dude like you and me is supposed to be more powerful than the fed in America. The whole idea has, as Hamilton correctly predicted, been reversed to gratify momentary passions, etc., and these precedents have clearly proven fatal to themselves (a great argument in favor of the New Federalist idea of having a “sunset” to all legislation and just starting over).

A major problem with FDR’s program was that the Congress went along with it, despite the constitutional issues involved. Luckily, the courts struck down a lot of what he was trying to do. Unfortunately, FDR threatened to “pack the court” with judicial activists who would rule in his favor on such issues. When judges saw that he could easily do this, they basically caved, causing a constitutional crisis that continues to this day. A few cases in point:

1942Wickard vs. Filburn – The Supreme Court reversed its 1936 ruling (U.S. v. Butler) that Congress did not have the power under the commerce clause to tell farmers what to do with their land.

The original ruling (in Butler) was correct. The commerce clause reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,
and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The Supreme Court had already ruled repeatedly that Congress’s power did not extend to activities within the states, only AMONG the states. That is, after all what the Constitution says.

This was the beginning of the slippery slope that ultimately resulted in the 2005 Kelo case. Congress also used constitutional means to usurp the rights of the people and the states, such as passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments. Both of these amendments were passed with the purpose of giving more power to Congress. The 16th Amendment created an unlimited right to tax, while the 17th Amendment eliminated the Senate’s accountability to the states. Ratification of these two Amendments is the fault of the American people, and the same American people (and their descendants) must now fight to repeal them if there is to be any accountability to those who are supposed to have power in this country. Not judicial activism, but definitely a usurpation of the power of the people and the states.

1965Griswold v. Connecticut – The Supreme Court overruled a state’s law banning the use of contraception. No prohibitions against states having such laws exist in the Constitution.

1973Roe v. Wade – The Supreme Court overruled a state’s right to make its own laws governing abortion. No prohibitions against state laws regulating “medical procedures” exist in the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution protects a person’s right to life.

2003Lawrence v. Texas – The Supreme Court overruled a state’s anti-sodomy law. No prohibitions against states having such laws exist in the Constitution.

2005Kelo v. New London – The Supreme Court allowed a city to commandeer land from a homeowner on the sole basis that higher tax revenues would be possible if the land were owned by a business. This is a violation of both the 4th and 5th Amendment.

Again, these are just a few. Virtually every socialist program is a violation of God-given rights and their constitutional guarantees. I have chronicled these before. Just because the court allows it does not make a law constitutional. Of course, if the Founding Fathers saw what was going on today, they would be intensely disappointed in Americans’ willingness to accept this sort of garbage. It completely perplexes me that Alan Colmes would be surprised that Liberal judges would vote for usurpations of people’s rights. They have done it routinely, and his pal FDR was the one who let the cat out of the bag in the first place. It was FDR who opened the door for the Johnson Administration’s “Great Society” (read that “Huge Socialist Power Grab”), and the high taxation that required the genius of President Reagan to bring under control.

These are all clear cases of the government treading into unconstitutional waters. The courts have no right to make law, and the legislatures are limited in the kinds of law they may make. It’s high time those limits were respected, and the laws that came out of these usurpations repealed. I’d go on, but the weekend calls, and the shows must go on!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

100th Post … And an Important One, at That

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 20, 2005

OK … Now for a REAL celebration …

THIS IS RWR’S ONE HUNDREDTH POST!!!!!!!

YAAAAAYYYY!!

Of course President Bush has given me the perfect thing to post about, the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the US Supreme Court. This nomination, based on what I’m seeing, is a victory for all of us who support the Constitution.

I think one of the best ways to gauge a nominee’s appropriateness for the court is to look at the reaction of the opposition. If you listen to most Donks, you will notice that they have been taken pretty much by surprise. They are all sort of “dancing around the issue”. Those who are taking a position are strongly against him. This can only mean one thing – HE IS PERFECT FOR THE JOB!

Evidence:

NARAL (Link omitted due to site actually putting a petition there) says:

If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade. As Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled….” We must not allow someone who’s spent his career advocating ending the right to choose to be appointed to the most important court in our country.

Ok, NARAL, Roberts said that “Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled ….”. Show me exactly where in the Constitution the courts have the authority to make such a decision. Until someone can do that, Judge Roberts is ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I further doubt he would actively work to overturn ANY case not brought before him in the court.

I also have to take issue with NARAL’s assertion that anyone is out to end any woman’s right to choose in the first place. Wasn’t there a choice (whether or not to have sex) involved in virtually every situation NARAL is talking about? This argument is just too easy to bury. Most, if not all, pro-life people will make an exception in cases of rape or incest, simply because we haven’t proven that the fetus is an actual human. We do, however, think that until it is proven one way or the other, it imperative that any discrepency on the issue be resolved on the side of life. Does this make us “extremists”? If so, exactly how? After all, if that fetus is actually a child, is it not murder to destroy it? If it is not, what harm is there in protecting it? More importantly, how does this position make someone who advocates it an “extremist”?

Another site comes up with this horse-shit:

John Roberts will not uphold the separation of church and state. In 1992, he co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies.

First of all, idiot, THERE IS NO SEPARATION OF CURCH AND STATE IN THE CONSTITUTION. Furthermore, it is completely inappropriate for the government to interfere with anyone’s practice of religion, even at a high school graduation. Prayer in public is completely appropriate per the First Amendment, which says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

How exactly do you make the case that Judge Roberts is failing to uphold the Constitution? It’s pretty clear in the First Amendment that interfering with people’s free practice of religion is ILLEGAL. Looks to me like he’s holding up the law. What exactly is your gripe?

Granted, both of these sites were set up by organizations that were going to oppose President Bush’s nomination, even if it were Bill Clinton, but it’s nice to see that the Left has already started seething over what seems to be a pretty good constitutionalist judge. Works for me!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

Looking Forward to the Kennedy Day of Reckoning

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 19, 2005

Well Y Ted K Day is here, and I’m still recovering from the weekend. I’ve checked out these links, and hopefully they will suffice for the time being in “celebration” (for most of us we’re talking “mourning”) of Teddy’s incident at Chappaquiddick.

I can’t believe the people in Taxachusetts continue to buy into this guy’s crap. It happened RIGHT THERE FOR ALL OF THEM TO SEE. Can these people really be that stupid?

Well, anyway, have fun. Mr. Kennedy, all I have to say to you is that you will have your day of reckoning at one time or another. Either the people of Massachusetts or God will see to it that you suffer for what you have done. I take no pleasure in reminding you of that, since you have shown no desire to do the right thing at any point in the last 36 years. Kiss my ass.

Kennedy, July, 1969 … I could have a field day with this!

Mary Mostert, Oct, 2003 … “Who’s Lying?”

John Hawkins on Kennedy’s remarks calling the successful Iraq operation a “quagmire”.

HS TripleNeckSteel asking Ted to shut up instead of asking Rumsfeld to resign.

Delftsman – People in glass houses should shut the fuck up.

Kennedy Isn’t Doing Interviews Today – I wonder why not?

Hoosierboy – weighs in.

Conservative Insurgent – Cowardice Revisited

Ol’ BC – Y Ted K Day is Here

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Tomorrow Is the Big Day!

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 18, 2005

The big day is coming … TOMORROW!

Hopefully we conservative bloggers can make a small dent in the political machine that is Senator Edward Kennedy. After all, he loves celebrating anniversaries, so why not this one?

I am preparing a “Y Ted K Day” review of articles I have found supporting the assertion that Kennedy is not only a liar, but possibly also a murderer.

Time has been scarce for me, especially with the research I am doing on the many usurpations of the Constitution, especially in the 20th century. I am really hoping to put something really awesome on here when I get done. Hopefully it won’t be just a research paper.

Anyway, let’s get those Y Ted K Day posts up, and make sure you stop by and link to it in the comments area. I am considering transferring the links into the post. Hopefully I will have time to do that.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments »

Busy Weekend

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 15, 2005

I will hopefully get a chance to put something up on Sunday, but a busy weekend is ahead starting tonight – In a couple hours, in fact. I may be out until sometime Monday if I can’t get something up on Sunday.

I have been thinking a lot about the considerations sparked by the Limbaugh piece, and checking out some sites. Hopefully, I can put something really strong together early next week.

In the meantime, have a great weekend, and keep Rockin’ it to the Right!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

An Interesting Question for the Left

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 14, 2005

During my daily blog-run today, I found the following comment by “mcpotapusn” over at RightWingNews.

Since the Dems and their sycophantic supporters have been so sure that the
Supreme Court gave the Presidency to George W. Bush, why are they so against
changing the makeup of the court?

Anyone? Anyone? Donny?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

David Limbaugh on Constitutionalist Judges

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 13, 2005

David Limbaugh has put out a wonderful article today on the concept of Constitutionalist judges vs. activist judges. He’s done America a great service if people read and heed his words.

This is NOT to take the fire from Paul Jacob’s awesome text on the Live 8 concerts, posted below. I usually allow a couple of days with such things on top for the benefit of those who don’t like to scroll down a lot. Also, since my post pattern is usually once every couple days, some may not be inclined to scroll very far to see the other posts.

At any rate, there are some things in Limbaugh’s text that have piqued my curiosity and deep thought. After I get done checking them out, I’ll put post my thoughts.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Paul Jacob Hits It Out Again

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 12, 2005

Paul Jacob has done it again.

There are a few problems I had with Live 8, all of which Mr. Jacob brought right out as clear as day. First, Live 8’s predecessor, Live Aid, was an effort to get people to reach into their pockets and donate to charities supporting impoverished people in Africa. Live 8 was nothing of the sort. Live 8 was an effort to get people to lobby for higher taxes, so that the federal government could add to the already crippling deficits by sending the money to African dictators.

Never mind that neither concert series will ever get one penny to a single poor person in Africa, since it all goes to pay for fancy cars and mansions for the dictators there. Live 8’s goal was an increase in unconstitutional spending.

What Africa needs, as Mr. Jacob emphasizes, is FREEDOM. He said it in many excellent ways, but I think the best expression of that sentiment was this one:

Africa simply needs freedom. It won’t be easy to come by. Never is. But it is a crusade that can and must be won by Africans themselves.

And that one is out of here! Home run, Paul Jacob. Maybe if the National League had him on their roster they might have stood a chance …

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments »

One Week to Y Ted K Day.

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 12, 2005

I gave Donny an extra day to respond to my last post regarding the systematic dismantling of the Constitution. Still nothing. All I asked for was proof that the Constitution would allow any of the things that I called violations. Oh well. I just wish winning the argument would have at least included having to actually defend my position. Maybe I hoped Donny might see the light of truth and understand what has been going on here over the last century. Wishful thinking – and why am I not surprised? It’s not like we have much in the way of open-minded leftists in this country. They call us conservatives “crazy” and “extreme”, but seldom actually engage us in ways that could actually pursuade us to their point of view.

I suppose that’s what I liked about Bobby Lindsay. Even though he was wrong on most things, he was at least honest about what he thought. He even stated, “I am not a moderate. I am a leftwing radical.” He mentioned in one comment that he felt the Founding Fathers were wrong to put the Second Amendment into play. Ridiculous as this was, he was being honest, and he was engaging me on actual historical and constitutional terms. He established that he disagreed with the Founders, and explained why. Sure, he said a lot of stupid and nasty things about my point of view, but he was at least able to argue his point, even though he was wrong. I defended him against several of my readers who called him a troll. Why? Because he understood my point of view and attempted to pursuade me to his. Of course he called me names. ALL liberals do that. It is something I have expected and dealt with appropriately from day one. It’s incredibly easy to separate substantive arguments from simple “moonbattery”. Like him or not, Bobby presented an argument and challenged me to defend my position. That’s what blogging is all about – the free and open exchange of ideas. This is why we have the First Amendment in America.

Anyway, the point of this post wasn’t to sing praises to Bobby Lindsay, nor to more deeply bury Donny for being the moron that he is. The real point to this post is to remind everyone that Y Ted K Day is only one week away.

I have to admit that I’ve been awfully busy during a time when I usualy am not. I really haven’t given that much thought to what I would do here on my blog to “celebrate” Y Ted K Day. The only idea I had that I thought I could pull off was to organize the “insurgency” against Senator Kennedy and just link to all the sites that actually participated. If you are posting something on Y Ted K Day, let me know in the comments section (with a link to your site), and I will link your post when I see that it is up. I will try to bring about some thoughts regarding the situation at Chappaquiddick and do what I can in a post of my own. In either case, the links will be included. I did promise this, so I will deliver. If I do fail to deliver, I will put up a post where everyone who put a legitimate link request (sorry, Kennedy supporters, you’re not included) will get to call me an asshole in the comments section. Of course, with the creativity of most of my readership, even that could be some fun.

Bring it on!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The Left Loses Yet Another Argument

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 9, 2005

In the comments of my recent post, Moonbats on the Constitution, I was accused of all kinds of wacky stuff by our current representative of the moonbat community, “Don Myers” – we’ve been calling him “Donny” … TNS loves to refer to him as “Donna” (perhaps a tad eloquent for the situation, but I didnt edit it … let TNS have his fun, ya know?) … His response to my post was the usual non-response …

Rocker, there is no way I’m gonna wade into that morass of far-right insanity. It would take a semester’s worth of civics class and really—who has that kinda time? Not me! You’re a fanatic, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. Go with God. I do have one question for you, though. Did you know that the John Birch Society is a gang of conspiracy nuts who think Eisenhower was a communist?

Ha ha ha … A “morass of far-right insanity”. Ok, Don, but exactly why would it take a semester’s worth of civics class to explain the plain language of the Constitution? Just read it. It says what it says. No need to get involved in “nuance’ or any bullshit like that. JUST READ IT. Call me a fanatic if you want, but you haven’t quoted a single constitutional provision allowing the things I have cited to legally occur in the United States. You can rant about the John Birch Society all you want. Quite frankly, I have no clue as to their opinion of any particular person (nor do I care), but their mission statement is clear, and it is about time SOMEONE stood up in an attempt to protect the rights granted by God to all Americans and guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

So I asked Don exactly why he was out to defent communism … no answer. I further posted the following:

Also, if you want to call my post, “far-right insanity”, you will have to cite examples, not just call it insanity. I have demonstrated the sanity of the post through documentation of the very plain language of the Constitution. Since you won’t even attempt to prove me wrong, I can only assume that you have a problem with the Constitution. If that’s the case, and all evidence thus far points squarely in that direction, then exactly who is the one around here whois “insane”?

No examples, despite my clear citing of the Constitutional provisions to support my position. I guess it’s safe to assume Donny’s got a gripe or two with the Constituton itself. No attempt was made to refute a single point I had made, yet I am being called “insane”. Interesting. With this in mind, I also posted the following comment:

As for the JBS, they can believe whatever they want. They have the First Amendment right to do so. However, I quoted their mission statement for you in a previous comments section. Do you deny that there is a systematic effort on the part of the Left to dismantle the Constitution? If you do, I submit that you are the one around here with a sanity problem.

So what does he say? Nothing to refute the JBS’s mission statement – nothing to refute my positions. Just this:

(Quoting me) Do you deny that there is a systematic effort on the part of the Left to dismantle the Constitution?

Of course I deny it. I also catagorically deny that the left is working with the aliens to build orbital mind-control lasers at Area 51.

Of course, no one on this blog made a single charge regarding aliens at Area 51. And since you seem to constantly harp on my sentence structure, may I take a moment to correct your spelling of “categorically”? I mean, in the heat of argument, sometimes we all (including myself) hit a wrong key here and there, but hey, I might as well, since your sentence structure is so far superior to mine (sic).

But check out what he said – OF COURSE HE DENIES THERE IS A SYSTEMATIC EFFORT ON THE PART OF THE LEFT TO DISMANTLE THE CONSTITUTION.

Well, Donny, old pal, it’s time, then, that you took a moment to refute one – just one – of the allegations I have made (and strongly supported) that the Constituton has been violated. I have made more than enough allegations to support the idea that there MUST be a systematic effort on SOMEONE’S part to dismantle the Constitution. Pick one and let’s discuss the matter from there. Perhaps we can go on to others. In the meantime, we will have to simply accept Hoosierboy‘s analysis …

Typical Liberal response. “I do not have to prove my point because it is superior, and if you keep asking for proof, I am no longer going to respond.” I am afraid Don’s stupid pregnant analogy applies more to his arguments.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments »

What Were These Terrorists Thinking?

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 7, 2005

When I learned about the terror attacks this morning in London, my initial reaction was, of course, one of sorrow for the victims. Once through that, however, I got to thinking about the consequences of the attack for the long haul. These terrorists must have a death wish for themselves and their cause. The British will now increase their resolve, and increase their support for Tony Blair, who will obviously be stepping things up in the UK’s involvement in the War on Terror.

I have hit a few blogs that have told the story quite well, so I will not try to do it myself at this point. Instead, I will drop a few links. More links in the comments section are welcome.

HS BethW
HS Mr. Minority

Pulpit Pounder
Blog Gig

The Rottie
Right Wing News
VRWC #1 Member
Moonbattery
Angry Young Conservatives
GOP Bloggers
GOP Bloggers
Ranting Fox
Straight Up with Sherri
Bleeding Right

These blogs are all blogs that I read. Sherri’s is a new addition this week, also Bleeding Right.

If any special thoughts come to mind, I’ll post.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

Exactly Where I’m Coming From

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 6, 2005

Occasionally, we get some wacko moonbat who swings by my blog and acts as if I’m some way-out-there loony nutcase. Well, that can only be true if the Founding Fathers were way-out-there loony nutcases. If that is true, then I will proudly wear that label like a badge of honor.

My position on issues are Constitutionalist in nature. Every position I take can be traced to the founding documents. My party affiliation is Republican, and my political platform is the New Federalist platform. Of course no one agrees 100 per cent with any political platform, but the only thing I can recall disagreeing with in the New Federalist platform is the treatment of the military, as I believe that in the age of today’s high-magnitude potential conflicts, we need the kind of full-time professional military that we have today. It has, however, been a while since I have sat down and read the platform, so there may be more.

My political heroes are George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II, Winston Churchill, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and most of the Revolutionaries of the colonial era.

On a more personal note …

I grew up in the Philadelphia area during the very exciting time Schmidt, Carlton, McGraw, et al, were bringing pennants home just about every year. 1980 was the year I went to heaven. A baseball fan I will always be, though these days it’s just too expensive to go to the major league parks. Instead, I am content to see games in smaller parks in places like Trenton, Atlantic City, Wilmington, Camden, and Lakewood. MLB has followed the NFL into the realm of places only the wealthy elite can go. That’s fine with me, as I am working hard to climb out of the financial hole i have dug for myself, at which point one of the first things I will do is go and see a game at Citizens Bank Park.

It seems Washington, DC finally has something to be proud of, and whether the Nationals are able to continue winning or not, they have done their new city proud. Many congratulations to them on their success so far.

It’s frustrating sometimes being a conservative in a liberal area such as this, and add to that a career in education that completely surropunds me with socialists, but it’s home, and it’s a beautiful place. There’s absolutely nothing you cannot do in New Jersey.

These ramblings were presented just so that you could get to know me a little better. I hope you have enjoyed them.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

Moonbats on the Constitution

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 5, 2005

Roe v. Wade isn’t an infringement of Article I, Section 8 any more than it’s an infringement of The Stamp Act, Taft/Hartley, or The Comics Code Authority.

This statement was made in my comments section recently by someone who should have known I could bury it easily. Roe v. Wade is an infringement on more than Article I, Section 8, as I will demonstrate here.

For reference, the following links are appropriate:
1. The Constitution of the United States
2. The Bill of Rights
3. The Amendments to the Constitution of the United States

Of course, we can always start at the beginning when taking out a liberal argument. Article I, Section 1 clearly states:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.

The ability to create law in the United States resides EXCLUSIVELY with the Congress. The courts have no such power. In the absence of a law written by the legislatures regarding an issue, the courts have no power whatsoever to get involved. Please find and cite the clause in the Constitution that overrides this section which gives the Congress exclusive powers to create law before calling me “insane”.

Article I, Section 7 is quite lengthy. I shall refer you to the links to get the information directly in order to save space here. What this section covers is the process by which laws are created and passed by the legislatures, and approved by the president. The courts are simply not involved. After reading this, please explain how this process was followed in the case of Roe v. Wade before calling me a “fanatic”.

Article I, Section 8 is also quite lengthy, but the last power expressly given to Congress is listed as follows:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Again, the Constitution has reiterated the power of CONGRESS to create and pass laws. No authority has been given to the judiciary do make law here, either. Again, please demonstrate how the courts created law in the case of Roe v. Wade without violating this constitutional provision before saying I’m “blowing smoke up people’s asses”.

Article V explains the process by which the Constitution can be amended. No amendment has ever been passed changing the process of creating and passing law that I know of. Maybe you can help us “xenophobic rednecks” find one?

Oh, by the way, I am hardly fearful of foreigners or things foreign. I am DEFINITELY fearful of the kind of life Americans would have to lead under the kind of socialism most liberals are advocating these days. Who wouldn’t be? I don’t see people flocking to the Gulf of Mexico trying to get into Cuba, only people trying escape it.

That concludes my analysis of the Constitution itself. The Bill of Rights is next. Again, we are focusing on Roe v. Wade, since our liberal buddy decided to specifically attack my position on that issue.

The Fourth Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Since no law declaring unborn children anything other than human beings has been passed (or ever will), those children have all the rights declared in the Bill of Rights. They have the right to be secure in their persons against seizure or warrants without probable cause, just like you and I. Until the medical community can provide clear proof that somehow a human fetus develops into something other than a human being, unborn children should not be targets of legislation deeming them “expendable”. In either case, there was no law other than the Constitution to go by, and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect the lives of innocent human beings.

The Fifth Amendment declares:

No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law …

Putting the issue through the courts does not equate to “due process of law”. To say that since the courts all heard the case and agreed would be to say that if you could choose courts that are favorable to your position all the way to the Supreme Court (which the ACLU attempts to do all the time), you could easily get your way in depriving people of their rights without violating the due process clause. The courts are obligated to follow the law. They have not done that, and Roe v. Wade is the prime example of judicial activism run amok. Please find and cite a provision in the Constitution that overrides this before calling the people I “hang” with “batshit crazies”. I’m going through all this rather thoroughly, and I don’t see that I’m missing anything. Enlighten me, oh liberal friends!

Amendments IX and X turn power over to the States and the people in all cases where the Constitution is silent. Therefore, by inserting itself into the law-making process where the Constitution did not allow it, the courts also violated the rights of the states and of the people. Again, where is the overriding provision?

I haven’t quoted a single “far-right buzzword” here, only the Constitution. This is the law fo the land. “Constitutional scholarship” starts with reading the Constitution, and ends with following it. How exactly am I wrong to insist that this be enforced when those who wrote the Constitution would have done the same, as evidenced by the words they saw fit to include in the Constitution and other documents? I doubt my liberal friend understands much about “Constitutional scholarship” if he cannot understand the scholarship I have exercised and demonstrated here. Most likely, he will come up with some baloney about my sentence structure (which is always nearly perfect) and suggest that supporting an organization whose mission statement reads,

to build a national network of chapters and members to restore the values and principles found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, which protect our God-given rights … provides Americans with the educational materials, programs, campaigns, and essential organizational leadership to restore our constitutional Republic and defeat the organized efforts of those seeking to destroy it.

makes those who agree with me a “xenophobic gang of rednecks”.

These people simply do not understand that we respect and cherish that which the Founders gave us, and we intend to stand firm in defending it. Once again, as I have demonstrated, many organizations, and where applicable, the United States government, are breaking the law. Our liberal friends try to tell us that’s not true, but if the Constitution is the law (which it is), and people violate its provisions (which they do), what else can you call it?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

The Americans Who Risked Everything

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 4, 2005

On this day, we celebrate our freedom. During this time of war, we are reminded every day that freedom comes to us at a price. We are reminded of those who fought and died for our freedoms, as well as those who lived to lead the way. Even those who survived the Revolutionary War paid dearly for having supported it.

Instead of trying to put my own thoughts together in the brief time that I have today, I submit to you (if Donny can handle the “sentence structure”) a speech given by Rush Limbaugh, Jr. (El Rushbo’s father) on the sacrifices made by the Founding Fathers just so that we could have the freedoms we all hold dear.

The sacrifices these people made in the name of freedom for future generations of Americans should not go unrecognized, since It takes blood, sweat, and tears to purchase freedom.

Of course, nothing worth having is ever without cost.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments »