Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for September, 2005

The New Federalism Part III: A More Perfect Union

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 30, 2005

In part III of this series, I will look at section 3 of the New Federalist platform, A More Perfect Union. This section discusses the proper structure of the federal government and gives a possible set of actions that could be taken to achieve it.

A More Perfect Union

The Constitution provides that our government possesses a federal structure, in order to serve the objective of self-government through republican representation. As the Declaration of Independence makes clear, governments are instituted in order to secure the rights of individual citizens, and governments derive their just powers solely from the consent of the governed. We New Federalists believe that our nation has currently strayed from this understanding that the only valid purpose of government is as guarantor of individual citizens’ rights, substituting in its place various purposes and intentions that, whether designed for good or ill, have abridged and infringed those rights. And because the nation has lost this perspective on the legitimate objectives of government, the federal structure outlined with detail and specificity in the Constitution is no longer honored. This straying from constitutional boundaries is worrisome in and of itself, both because it calls into question the legitimacy of the government and because it inhibits the government from carrying out those legitimate functions authorized by the Constitution. Further, though, a government that has lost focus on its only valid purpose will embark inexorably on a course of systematic violations — and ultimate destruction — of its citizens’ rights. Coupled with the observation that the twentieth century has seen governments kill tens of millions of their own citizens, this is cause for deep concern.

Truer words were ne’er spake. Combine the dangers associated with government straying from its constitutional limits, calling its legitimacy into question and making it difficult for it to perform its legitmate role, with the systematic series of violations and yes, in many cases, destruction of citizens’ rights, and you get the kind of government that kills its own citizens. Don’t believe me? Go ask a few Iraqis about it … or a few Russians … or a few Cubans … or a few citizens of ANY oppressive totalitarian state. Totalitarianism is the direct result of the erosion of the rights of the people.

The Declaration of Independence asserts plainly “that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.” This was the basis of our nation’s founding, and this remains the cornerstone that should guide understanding of the respective powers, duties and responsibilities for guaranteeing rights of citizens of the United States, under that “more perfect union” envisioned by the nation’s Founders.

The Declaration established the philosophy and the rationale for our system of government, and is the basis for all of the provisions set forth in the Constitution.

The Constitution limits the powers of government by division of those powers into separate branches and levels of government. At the national level, the central governing powers are divided into the coequal legislative, executive and judicial branches, so as to offer checks and balances on the unbridled exercise of ruling authority over the states and individual citizens. Moreover, the Constitution is explicit in listing the few and restricted powers that are assigned to the United States, together with the powers that are prohibited to the several states. As the 10th Amendment makes clear, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This means that only those powers, responsibilities and duties the Constitution explicitly authorizes are legitimate for the national government, and all that is not so authorized is forbidden.

In other words, the greatest power lies with the people, and each level of government gets progressively WEAKER as you make your way to Washington, DC. The federal government has virtually no authority at all under the Constitution, except that which secures the rights of the people. Every authority the federal government has under the Constitution has a specific purpose to this end.

We believe that the Constitutional Authorization Report, as described elsewhere in this Platform, would assist in returning the existing overgrowth of government power to the narrow channels of constitutionally limited federalism — if honestly and faithfully followed by Congress and the state legislatures. However, more is certainly necessary to overturn the violations of federalist principles existing in this 21st century, in such an orderly way as to avoid wrenching dislocations of civic and governmental functions.

“If honestly and faithfully followed …” I wonder if we New Federalists could somehow find a way to COMPEL the legislatures to utilize the Constitutional Authorization Report honestly and faithfully. So far, all I can think of is the ballot box. I do believe that the “sunset” concept outlined in Part II would be an appropriate way to handle the current overabundance of violations of constitutional limits.

The major sources of such violations of federalism involving the separation of powers have arisen through executive and judicial usurpations of legislative functions appropriately exercised only by Congress. These usurpations have, in turn, served to centralize power within the national government, violating the federalist principle of preserving states’ rights and powers. As additional measures to restore a more perfect union to our country, as envisioned by our nation’s Founding Documents, we propose the following.

Restoration of Congressional Powers Act

Congress should adopt legislation restoring to direct congressional jurisdiction and purview all the powers, duties and responsibilities explicitly entrusted to Congress under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, whether by this action Congress outright abolishes or merely transfers away from the executive branch any departments, regulatory agencies or federal bureaucracies, or whether by this action Congress rescinds any existing treaties or agreements with international and private agencies or organizations. Congress should further state that none of the agencies under its jurisdiction shall be empowered to promulgate any regulations, orders, statements or advisories that have the force of law, as the Constitution vests legislative powers only with Congress, and these legislative powers may not permissibly be transferred away to any other entity.

For example, the constitutional provision that “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises” in no way permits Congress to reassign this power to a tax collection agency such as the Internal Revenue Service, which currently exercises that power beyond the direct jurisdiction of Congress. Similarly, the constitutional provision that “Congress shall have power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations” yields Congress no authorization to transfer this power away from itself and to an international body such as the World Trade Organization. And likewise, the constitutional provision that “Congress shall have power … to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” does not properly allow an executive department bureaucracy like the Immigration and Naturalization Service to wrest exercise of this power from Congress.

Furthermore, we urge Congress, once having jurisdiction over such agencies as persist under its purview, to follow the guidelines for returning powers and responsibilities to the states that were laid down by President Ronald Reagan in Executive Order 12612, from October 26, 1987.

This is pretty straightforward. Congress shold be expected to read and follow the Constitution. This is all President Reagan asked in EO 12612.

Restoration of Executive Boundaries

Much of the mischievous violation of federalism has resulted from the profligate use of presidential orders (executive orders, presidential proclamations and presidential directives) exceeding the powers and responsibilities vested in the executive branch of government. Correctly viewed through constitutional authorization, presidential orders are limited in application and effect solely to the executive branch. We New Federalists therefore support actions of Congress to restore the separation of powers between the Congress and the President.

For example, we support as a minimal gesture legislation expressing the sense of the Congress that any executive order that infringes on the powers and duties of the Congress under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, or that would require the
expenditure of federal funds not specifically appropriated for the purpose of the executive order, is advisory only and has no force or effect unless enacted as law (such as 1999’s H. Con. Res. 30).

More importantly, though, we urge effective measures to restore the separation of powers between Congress and the executive branch. Such measures include repeal of the War Powers Act, termination of states of emergency, termination of presidential or executive authority to declare states of emergency, and requirement that each presidential order include a statement of the specific constitutional or statutory provision granting authority for the proposed action (as in 1999’s H. R. 2655).

We also encourage efforts to bring challenges to presidential orders in appropriate United States courts by Congress and its Members, by state and local governments, and by aggrieved individual citizens whose liberty and property rights have been adversely affected by presidential orders.

Moreover, a New Federalist President should reimplement President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12612, from October 26, 1987, directing all executive branch officers and agencies to operate according to federalist strictures limiting the role of the national government to solely its enumerated and authorized powers.

In other words, the President shouldn’t be able to just sit around dictating to the Congress and the people what will and what will not be by way of executive order. We believe that executive orders should be challenged where appropriate, either by Congress or by those Americans whose rights have been violated by a particular executive order.

Restoration of Judicial Boundaries

The Constitution’s Article III, Section 1, vests judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court and “such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution specifies the very limited extent of cases subject to judicial power. According to The Federalist Papers, the constitutionally authorized role of the judiciary in dealing with the Constitution and its impact upon the laws passed by Congress was certainly not to ascertain “the spirit of the Constitution,” but rather it was to examine the words within the Constitution as “the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution.”

Assuredly, our present-day federal courts have far exceeded the authority of their offices. Among other lines of faulty justification contrary to constitutional authorization, the federal judiciary in
recent times has cited the 14th Amendment in striking down state laws, in the process creating a single, centralized superstate unlike any national government projected by this nation’s Founding Documents. This era of judicial activism, to date the most arrogant violation of the Constitution, can be traced to 1936, when in a U.S. Supreme Court decision, Justice Hugo Black penned the words, “We must attempt to ascertain the spirit of the Constitution to interpret it.” That flawed statement, in contravention of the restrictions placed on the federal judiciary by the Constitution, upset the delicate system of checks and balances among the three branches of government designed under the Constitution’s model of government.

We New Federalists thus support congressional actions intended to return the federal judiciary to the limited role described in precise terms in Article III of the Constitution. In particular, the
Constitution’s statement that Congress “may from time to time ordain and establish” inferior federal courts surely implies that Congress may restrict the time during which such courts are ordained and established. We recommend Congress adopt a five-year sunset on authorization for each such federal court inferior to the Supreme Court, together with the five-year review of all judges assigned to such courts, to ascertain whether those judges have exhibited the “good behavior” of adherence to their oaths of office to support the Constitution, as described elsewhere in this Platform. This process of reconstituting the federal courts, in rotation every five years, should facilitate removal from office of judges not demonstrating this understanding of
“good behavior” prior to being once again being properly authorized by Congress.

Moreover, though, occasional unconstitutional lapses of the courts may necessitate immediate remedy, by actions of Congress, the President, or perhaps even both. We urge these other federal branches of government to be ever vigilant to excesses of the courts. We urge Congress to override any extra-constitutional decisions of the judiciary, by enacting legislation removing from judicial purview any matters in which the federal courts overstep permissible boundaries. We also urge the President, under Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, to exercise the “power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses” incorrectly decided by the Supreme Court or inferior federal courts and in contravention of the Constitution’s plain meaning.

Perhaps instead of replenishing all of the courts every five years, a rotation could be worked out whereby one fifth of the courts would be recalled immediately, another fifth in a year, etc., with all courts rotating every five years after that. This would give the Congress plenty to do, as they would have courts to review every year, and would not then have to busy themselves with the writing and passing of unconstitutional legislation. It is important, in any case, and as this platform suggests, that the executive and legislative branches must exert the power they have over the courts in precisely the manner suggested. We cannot continue along the current road of rogue courts (and quite frankly, rogue executives and legislatures) who have no respect for the Constitution.

Restoration of States’ Rights and Powers

The surest guarantee of states’ rights is a federal government that restricts its operations only to the enumerated powers specifically listed in the Constitution, as part of honoring the 10th Amendment. Absent a self-limiting national government, the states have little recourse for
restoration of their rights and powers, beyond developing parallel programs solely within their respective jurisdictions and refusing participation in national mandates.

Nevertheless, we suggest states develop 10th Amendment strategies to reclaim their rights and powers, whether by bringing court cases or by lobbying Congress, and we urge the states to stand ready to reassume their proper constitutionally specified roles once federalism is
reimplemented throughout the nation.

However, there are two constitutional amendments, both dating from 1913, which have had supremely deleterious effects on the balance of power between the states and the national
government, and both of which should be repealed. We thus urge action to amend the Constitution by repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments.

It is beyond question that states’ rights have been violated time and again by the federal government. It is my view that this will continue until the states STOP ACCEPTING IT and STAND UP FOR THEMSELVES. I agree with the position on the repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments …

Repeal of the 16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment to the Constitution introduced direct taxation of incomes from United States citizens, replacing the indirect levies that had previously been used to fund the national government. In fact, this amendment overturned the Constitution’s statement (Article I, Section 9)
that “no capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.”

We New Federalists would favor returning to the Constitution’s original plan for funding the national government. We further support simultaneously repealing the 16th Amendment, in the process abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and replacing this onerous, burdensome direct tax on incomes with an alternative levy, preferably in the form of a tax collected by the states on behalf of the national government and held within the jurisdiction of the states until Congress authorizes spending funds in the respective states on constitutionally authorized matters in adherence to federalist principles. We believe this change would substantially alter the skewed balance of power between the states and the national level of government, by no longer automatically amassing large funds to Washington, D.C., for subsequent redispersal to the states. (Only those few monies needed to fund the direct operations of the national government, such as congressional allowances and funding for operations of Congress, would be sent from the states’ accounts to the nation’s capital.)

One such alternate source of funding would be a flat-rate income tax collected by the states on
behalf of the central government. This replacement revenue source would have the benefit of gradualism in implementation, especially for those states whose residents are already subject to taxation of their incomes.

However, a national sales tax can be considered greatly preferable to a flat tax on incomes, because we believe such direct taxes necessarily are in violation of the 4th Amendment’s guarantees of “the right of the people to be secure in their … houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” We believe that the IRS has now amassed such a large collection of centralized information about individual American citizens, that the 4th Amendment cannot be realistically viewed as still having any force or effect in regard to personal, private financial dealings. And merely devolving maintenance of such intrusive
records by the states in data bases linked to the central government conveys no return of constitutional guarantees. Only destruction of existing collected records and replacement of such corollary information collection by an entirely different system will restore the full complement of individual rights acknowledged under the 4th Amendment.

When we allowed out government the right to decide which items in our pockets belonged to us and which belonged to them, we started down a “slippery slope” that has snowballed into a tax system that punishes people according to the will of liberal politicians. No tax cut is ever permanent, nor is any tax temporary. Our federal government is ALWAYS looking for more ways to take what is ours by simply taking a vote. The ideas expressed by the New Federalist platform are all good, and all better than what we have today.

Repeal of the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution brought election of Senators by direct voting of citizens in each state, replacing the previous method of election of Senators, as given in Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution, providing that Senators be chosen by each state’s legislature. We New
Federalists believe that this amendment has had severely deleterious effects, both in reducing the relative power of states with respect to the national government and, ironically, in decreasing the level of “democratic” representation of citizens by their Senators. We thus support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

We view this proposal as seriously needed to return to a more appropriate balance between the states and the national government, as well as restoring a more appropriate balance between the two chambers of Congress. In the Constitution’s original, thoughtful design, the House of Representatives was the only body whose Members were directly elected by citizens, the term of
office was purposely short at two years, and those actions of government of greatest effect on citizens were assigned to this chamber of Congress. By contrast, the Senate was designed as a more deliberative body, with Members providing a bridge between responsiveness to their respective state legislatures and the national level of government, and serving six-year terms of office.

However, with the advent of modern telecommunications and the growing expense of statewide campaigns, Senators now find themselves more responsive to monied “special” interest groups, which can provide campaign donations, thus less responsive to the concerns of their respective state legislatures, and so by extension, less responsive to direct appeal by their state’s constituents.

I’m sure that th direct election of Senators seemed like a good idea at the time, but it has shown itself to be a mistake. The longer term of office a Senator has makes him more susceptible to lobbyists and special interests, while it makes him less accountable to those in the state governments that would have elected them. The lobbyists run the Senate these days, and changing the accountability structure of the Senate may help lessen the effect of this problem.

Restoration of Representative Republican Elections

In order to restore the faith and confidence of the American people in the representativeness and trustworthiness of elections, we New Federalists favor restoration of an electoral process controlled at the state and local level rather than by national-level judges and bureaucrats. All matters relevant to district boundaries, electoral procedures, and campaign activities are the
proper province of the states and the people. We support abolishing The Federal Election Campaign Act, together with its 1974 amendments, and we favor disbanding the Federal Election Commission.

The Electoral College was created in accordance with Article II, Section I of the Constitution, which provides, “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress: but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.” Although the Constitution does not specify methods for electing these electors or how they cast their votes, its wording suggests that prominent individuals from each congressional district, and from the state at large, should be elected or appointed as electors that represent that district. We favor returning to this arrangement, in which voters could vote for three individuals, one to represent the voter’s district and two “at large” representatives to represent the voter’s state.

We do not support voting by Internet, nor do we favor continuing any system of machine-readable ballots that are not simultaneously readily readable by visual scanning. We support a return to the use of paper ballots by all state and local election officials, together with an evidentiary chain of physical custody of ballots, which permits recourse to a manual counting process of ballots overseen by, and accountable to, voters of each respective precinct, should any challenge be lodged to the announced election results.

We are not advocating doing away with electronic voting altogether. We merely advocate that a hard-copy of every vote be recorded. The FEC has been nothing but a blight on the ability of the people to vote according to the concept of free speech, as guaranteed in the First Amendment. The FEC’s zeal in enforcing the unconstitutional law known as McCain-Feingold is the perfect example of this.

English As Official Language

We New Federalists also support actions to declare English the official language of the United States and all states forming our union. We do not favor this proposal to denigrate any culture or national origin of citizens of this Republic, nor is this proposal intended to discourage citizens from learning and using other languages. We favor declaring English the official language of all levels of government in this country in order to promote greater understanding and to strengthen the bonds of commonality and community necessary for all citizens to understand each other and the laws and documents that in fact bind us together as a citizenry.

This isn’t about dictating to people which language to speak in their homes. It’s about helping new Americans to properly assimilate into the American culture. If you cannot understand English, how will you understand the important words of the Declaration and the Constitution, especially those portions which would lose something in the translation? American civil discourse takes place in English. American business is conducted in English. Successful Americans, though they may be fluent in other languages, speak English. This only makes sense in trying to form “a more perfect union”.

The unity of our nation is a very important part of our growth together as a free people. We win together, and we lose together. While we may often disagree during the course of our discussions and/or arguments, Americans, as a people, stand together firmly on the final decisions. It’s time we all took responsibility for the unity of our nation and worked toward these goals.



Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

The New Federalism Part II: Honoring our Founding

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 28, 2005

Part Two of this series will bring forth and analyze Section 2 of the New Federalist Platform, which deals with honor and respect for the Founding Fathers and their belief system, which is responsible for the Constitution and our freedoms in the first place.

Honoring our Founding

We New Federalists begin from the proposition that our Founding Documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, bind us in perpetuity as a nation, because the Constitution contains its own internal provisions specifying how revisions to it may be made. We affirm therefore that the rights and powers acknowledged or assigned by our Founding Documents may not permissibly be reassigned, transferred or outright revoked without proper constitutional authorization. In particular, two branches or levels of government may not properly agree to reassign constitutionally specified responsibilities or duties between themselves or to any other body without formally amending the Constitution. Nor may any rights belonging to the people be properly abridged or limited by any agency or institution of government, unless in accord with and as a consequence of due process in our courts of law.

However, we recognize that our Founding Documents are today honored more in the breach than in the observance. We further assert that this condition is the root of our most pressing national problems; the evasion of duties and responsibilities spelled out by our Constitution has produced the worsening crisis of accountability in our governing processes, imperiling our self-government and endangering this system of ordered liberty, as proper constitutionally prescribed remedies can only be brought to bear against those bearing their appropriate constitutional powers.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These represent the source of the philosophy, rationale, and legal application of the Founders’ vision of a free nation where everyone basically takes care of himself and those dear to him, and government’s only purpose is to secure the basic rights as granted by God (the “Creator”) and guaranteed by the Constitution. The limited powers outlined for the government in the Constitution may not be altered or changed without a proper amending of the Constitution.

The New Federalists are right in saying that the provisions set forth in the Founding Documents are violated more often than followed, and they are right in saying that these violations and usurpations are the source of the most urgent problems we face as Americans. As Americans, the New Federalist platform offers the following as to how we should approach this problem:

We thus urge all citizens, elected and appointed representatives, and officers of our government to return to the plain meaning of our Founding Documents, reassuming their appropriate roles, rather than relying on contorted interpretations and distorted extensions of them. But our country did not arrive in this predicament overnight, and avoiding unneeded upheavals may require returning to our foundations in a gradual, measured manner. To achieve the goal of once again fully honoring our founding, we propose the following, as beginning steps.

Constitutional Authorization Report

Proposed Legislation

Not all legislation contemplated or enacted by Congress is constitutional. For example, the 1st Amendment stipulates that Congress may not make laws establishing a national church or preventing citizens’ free exercise in religious acts, and the 10th Amendment states that those powers not specifically delegated to the United States are reserved to the separate states or to the people. This means that there are bounds beyond which Congress may not permissibly legislate, no matter how worthy or desirable the proposal’s intention.

Moreover, Congress squanders our common resources and undermines its own legitimacy by proposing legislation that will not pass constitutional muster. We thus urge both chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, to revise the rules of their respective proceedings (as authorized in the Constitution, Article I, Section 5), requiring that no legislation may be brought to the floor for consideration, unless a majority of members of the body shall have signed a report giving specific citation and affirming detailed reasons why the proposed legislation is authorized to Congress by the Constitution. (We believe these prior Constitutional Authorization Reports, together with current lists of congressional signers, for all proposed and enacted legislation, should also be made widely available to the public, so that citizens may review the constitutional reasoning of their elected representatives. And the availability of such reports to the courts will facilitate judicial reviews and decisions regarding constitutional challenges to laws enacted.)

One of the most important parts of the New Federalist platform is the concept of ALL Americans, not just those involved in the federal and state/local government, being a part of the solution. ALL Americans are responsible for their fate and the fate of this great nation. Every American must play his appropriate role.

Another important statement made in this section is that the Congress is capable of violating the law by passing certain types of legislation, even if that legislation is well-intended. A good example of this sort of thing is the recent bombardment of Louisiana with federal tax dollars earmarked for the rebuilding of New Orleans. While this is clearly a compassionate thing to do, there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to spent your tax dollars in this fashion. By doing this sort of thing, Congress “squanders our common resources and undermines its own legitimacy”. This is exacerbated by the continuous reports of how government money is routinely wasted. The flood waters in New Orleans haven’t even receded completely yet, and already Congress is operating outside its authority, sending money not even directly to the victims, but to FEMA, an unconstitutional agency that is already known to be prone to waste.

Requiring House and Senate members to sign off on a constitutional authorization prior to any bill’s consideration makes perfect sense. I would even go a step further and propose a constitutional amendment requiring that they do so. After all, any organization that is authorized to change its rules of order is likewise authorized to change them back. Constitutional authorization requirements will also force Congress to justify to the courts in advance their reasoning for allowing legislation to come to the floor on a strictly constitutional basis.

Final Sunset For Prior Legislation

Even more damaging than proposed congressional actions in the future, though, are those pieces of past legislation, driven by whatever good or bad intentions, that were not specifically authorized to Congress by our Constitution. Furthermore, the requirement to reconsider each piece of prior congressional legislation still in effect would be unwieldy and would prevent Congress from fulfilling its duties and responsibilities to meet the challenges of the present and near future. We propose therefore that Congress pass a blanket Final Sunset for all prior legislation to expire, and we recommend a period of no more than five years hence, unless the relevant bill is reintroduced for a vote under the Constitutional Authorization Report requirement. (This would provide Congress with a power akin to the President’s “pocket veto,” and it would avoid counterproductive squabbling over those “settled questions” that fewer than a majority of Members still support as constitutional.)

No one is saying that any prior piece of legislation was necessarily ill-conceived. All we are saying here is that there’s a lot of unconstitutional legislation out there.

The idea here is to simply clean the slate and start over. If a piece of legislation has a constitutional justification and Congress would like to keep it, let them bring it to the floor again under the new rules. Nothing I can think of on the matter would be more sensible.


We also urge that all state legislatures adopt similar State Constitutional Authorization Reports as part of the rules governing their own proceedings.

This would go a long way in limiting socialism at the state level.

Oath Of Office Violations

The Constitution mandates that all Members of Congress, all Members of State Legislatures, and all judicial and executive branch officers of the United States and the several states “shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.” We propose that these oaths be taken seriously, as binding on our representatives and officers once more, by returning to private life as rapidly as possible those who violate their oaths of office. We do not suggest this as a means of foreclosing differences of opinion, or as a method for limiting the robust levels of debate and dissent that enliven and strengthen our civic life; this proposal is intended only to remove from office those representatives and officers clearly ignoring the plain language of our Founding Documents, with the intent of abusing their powers of office to subvert those documents defining their offices.

Why not consider these oaths binding? We consider the oath taken in a court of law to tell the truth binding – those who violate that oath are often subject to incarceration. Those who violate their solemn oath of office should be subject to impeachment, period.


The Constitution allows each chamber of Congress to expel a Member, with the concurrence of two-thirds (Article I, Section 5), and we urge both the House of Representatives and the Senate to create and convene permanent committees or subcommittees to provide speedy review of charges, under the public signatures of three Members, and giving precise constitutional citations and detailed and corroborated evidence, that another Member has violated the oath of office. If this review establishes that the charges have merit and foundation, the matter should be brought to the chamber floor for a vote of expulsion.

I can think of a few we could start with, Democrats and Republicans alike. Actually, I do advocate giving all members of both houses the opportunity to comply with constitutional limits in a good faith effort to reimplement the Founders’ vision. It’s time to reaffirm our commitment to that which they gave us.

Executive And Judicial Impeachment

The Constitution provides that all civil officers of the United States, including the President and the Vice President, may be impeached on the basis of “high crimes and misdemeanors” (Article II, Section 4), which certainly includes violations of the oath of office. We urge Congress to invoke this underutilized tool more frequently, and especially when executive and judicial branch officers repeatedly and egregiously act in ways not specifically permitted to them by the Constitution.

Judicial Review

The Constitution further provides that the judges of the supreme and inferior courts of the United States “shall hold their offices during good behavior” (Article III, Section 1). Congress should adopt the sense that “good behavior” in judges rests on adherence to their oaths of office to support the Constitution, and that violation of their oaths is cause for removal from judicial office, including immediate impeachment, if necessary in cases of egregious violations of support of the Constitution. We also urge the Senate to adopt standard periodic reviews of the “good behavior” of judges, reviewing their records of decisions and comportment at least once every five years after confirmation, and to terminate the appointment of any judge not receiving affirmation of “good behavior” from a majority of Senators.

As stated above, there must be serious consequences for violating any oath requiring the upholding of the Constitution. This should hold true for all officeholders in the government. It only makes sense, since we have seen time and again the usurpation of the Constitution at all levels and from all branches of government.

State Of The Union Colloquy

The Constitution states only that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union” (Article II, Section 3). This custom now involves an annual address given to both Houses of Congress assembled in the chamber of the House of Representatives, with the Vice President and the Speaker of the House presiding. Furthermore, the advent of modern communications has made this no longer merely a report to the Congress but also an address to the nation as a whole. We lament that the evolution of this custom, from such a modest requirement of the Constitution, has added to the trappings of the presidency so as to render the office seemingly more imperial than executive, and the President himself to appear as a grandiose ruler rather than an elected servant of the people, who possesses no greater rights than any other citizen of our free republic.

But nothing in the Constitution mandates that these conditions must persist. We propose therefore that Congress extend an invitation to the President to appear and speak in congressional chambers under the condition that the President engage in a colloquy with Members of Congress by accepting questions from the floor, immediately upon conclusion of his address. As modern Presidents routinely engage in press conferences, taking questions from journalists, this opportunity for Members of Congress to present queries and challenges directly to the President should be no undue burden.

This would bring an end to the media circus we call the “State of the Union Address”. I would add that this dialogue between the President and Congress should be held under more private conditions. I might even go as far as to say that even this may be too much. Why not just have the President prepare a document and send it along to Congress like President Washington did?

Constitutional Convention

Given the current lack of adherence to constitutional limitations, and the generalized lack of understanding of constitutional boundaries set for our federally distributed and separated and balanced powers, which at times now shade into downright hostility toward the plain sense of our original Founding Documents, we do not favor a Constitutional Convention at this time.

Point in fact: Most, if not all, of the problems we face today as Americans stem directly from the fact that the limits the Constitution places on the federal government have not been adhered to. Why have a constitutional convention to fix something that isn’t broken? Reining the government in and bringing it back within its constitutional limits will solve all of the problems big government has brought us, including the huge debt problem it has brought on.

The Founding Fathers were some of the wisest men ever to live. They were definitely the wisest ever to assemble in one place for a purpose. It makes sense to use what they gave us to bring renewed prosperity and freedom to a people who have been oppressed by their own ignorance for the last hundred years. We Americans brought these problems upon ourselves by letting politicians into areas they had no business getting into. We Americans are the only ones that can bring these usurpations to an end. The New Federalism is the way to do it.


Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

The New Federalism Part I: The Preamble

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 26, 2005

There has been a lot of “scuttle-butt” out there lately about whether or not conservatives can continue to vote for Republicans, since the assertions made by many Libertarians and other conservatives (such as those belonging to the Constitution Party) seem to be more and more true. While the Democrats are still the party of big government, the Republicans seem to want to use the same kind of big spending to try to encourage more personal responsibility (a more conservative end), and thus, down the road lower the need for excessive domestic spending (which never works, and they all know it). President Bush has actually OUT-SPENT Bill Clinton. And the Left complains! They should be happy. He’s merely doing their bidding.

Still, I do believe the Republican Party has, within itself, a faction that can save the day. I’ve mentioned the “New Federalists” a few times here on this blog, but since Mark Tapscott’s recent pieces regarding the Donkization of the Republicans in office today, and my subsequent bringing forth of New Federalist ideas in response to them, it is only right that I spell out the ideas of the New Federalists here on my blog and comment on them.

I plan for this to be at least an eight-part series, with each part coinciding with a portion of the New Federalist platform. Today, I’ll take the opportunity to go over the Preamble:

1. Preamble

We the New Federalists advocate individual, family and community rights and responsibilities in acts of self-governance, as set forth by our Founders, in originally establishing our nation by the Declaration of Independence and later codifying our governing principles in our Republic’s Constitution. We begin from our Founders’ premises, that self-evident truths exist, and are the only right ground for political declarations that offer a decent respect for the opinions of humankind in establishing a nation among the powers of the earth.

Self-governance – as in federalism as envisioned by the Founders. Many people do not understand that what the Founders advocated and put into play with the Constitution was the concept of the people being the most powerful level of government with each level getting progressively WEAKER as you worked your way to the fed, with the federal government being the WEAKEST level of government. These concepts are outlined in the Constitution itself, as well as other founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. The Founders built the entire concept of federalism on the idea that self-evident truths exist, and that any political positions that are worth implementing must recognize and adhere to those self-evident truths.

These are the self-evident truths, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

1. That all men (people) are created equal.

2. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are the rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (opportunity).

3. That the purpose of government is to secure these rights, and that the source of such government’s power is the consent of the governed.

4. That the people have a right to alter or abolish and replace said government if it becomes destructive to its purpose of securing the rights of the people as stated above.

Liberal tax policy positions alone violate these rights on an extremely large scale. Add in the very long list of constitutional usurpations I outlined in my earlier posts, and you can see why we wouldn’t want President Bush’s liberal policies on so many matters. This is why we laugh when the Left calls the President’s agenda “extreme right wing”. No Child Left Behind is right wing?? You could have fooled me. It’s one of the biggest expansions of unconstitutional spending since FDR.

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.

Quite a change from the concept of the “New Democrat”, huh? Bill Clinton wasn’t any different from Jimmy Carter or Lyndon Johnson. Tax-and-spend liberal through and through. The New Federalist platform actually explains, in clear and understandable words, EXACTLY WHY they call themselves “New” Federalists instead of just Federalists. As it turns out, the Anti-Federalists of the late eighteenth century were right. The federal government, they said, could and would become too powerful, and before long, we had exactly what they predicted – substantial abridgement of the rights of citizens, states, and local governments. Ronald Reagan worked hard to bring the federal government back within its constitutional limits. Bitch all you want about little mamby-pamby “scandals” that had no merit whatsoever. The man believed in a weak federal government, and advocated the self-governance that the Founders envisioned.

The operative phrase in this quote is “as plainly set forth in our Founding Documents.” I get a kick out of liberals who try to make the Constitution out to be this cryptic document that only lawyers and judges can really aspire to understand. I’ve had more than one come around on this blog and act like there’s no way I could possibly understand what the Constitution says – after all … I’m ONLY a TEACHER and a MUSICIAN.

The Constitution was written for everyday people, just like you and myself. It’s not difficult at all to understand. It was written in plain old everyday English – eighteenth century English, but not the least bit less understandable.

We hold, as our Founders declared, that all humans are created equal, as image bearers of Our Creator, who made us all as morally choosing beings whose proper condition is freedom. We further hold that this freedom is expressed in terms of our possession of unalienable rights, just claims that we possess inherently and that can properly neither be revoked or surrendered, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through our freely chosen actions. The political consequences that flow from this view of our human nature are seriously limiting to the permissible reach and scope of governments over us. The chief consequence of this view is that the purpose of government is to secure these rights for its citizens, and that the only just and legitimate government is one based in the consent of those governed, who freely assent to it. Another serious consequence that follows from these beliefs is that we have a moral duty to alter or abolish any government that fails to secure these rights to us. And that is why we New Federalists advocate the timeless and enduring truths set forth in our nation’s Founding Documents, and based in our Judeo-Christian heritage.

I had a comment on a previous post from an atheist troll that went something like, “Rights granted by God?? Are you serious?” See my commentary above on the Declaration of Independence for the answer to that. Without the presence, at least philosophically, of a higher power, then the concept of rights makes no sense whatsoever in the public discourse. If no higher power is recognized, then whatever rights you have are only those granted to you by one oppressor or another. In America, rights are not derived from government. They are derived from a higher power. You can call that higher power “God” if you want (as our Pledge of Allegiance does), or you can call it “Harry”. Bottom Line: it’s there (derived from Judeo-Christian traditions), and anything we as a people try to contrive in our quest for perfection or idealism will humbly fall short of the will of that higher power. Furthermore, we believe that that higher power has empowered us with the ability to govern ourselves and succeed on our own, despite whatever shortcomings we may have. The point is that, with the exception of those few powers the Constitution grants it, WE DON’T NEED A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!!

We note, though, that our current circumstances in the 21st century are not greatly different from those surrounding our Founders, who remarked on the long train of abuses and usurpations whose ultimate design seemed clearly to abrogate all the citizens’ rights and render them subjects of an absolute despotism. The Founders’ impending tyranny arose under an unjust king; ours derives from a centralizing and increasingly powerful national government that intrudes into ever-growing aspects of our lives, and prevents us from freely exercising our acts of self-government. We New Federalists therefore seek a return to our foundation on the principles of self-government.

We seek a new birth of federalism because we seek a new birth of freedom, both for ourselves and for our posterity.

Here, the platform recognizes that the circumstances America faces in the 21st century are pretty similar to those in the 18th century (rampant usurpations of the Inalienable Rights), with tyranny deriving from an inappropriately powerful and intrusive government being the culprit rather than an oppressive king. We seek to return to the America envisioned by our Founding Fathers – a rescinding of the socialism that has been such a blight on America and so many other nations throughout the world such as Russia, Cuba, China, North Korea, etc.

I proudly stand with the New Federalists on these matters, and encourage anyone who agrees as well to join the chorus. If you disagree (in general – no two people agree on everything), I encourage you to move to a country where you will find a more acceptable climate, as what I have shown you today is basically what America has been about from its humble beginnings.


Posted in New FedeRWRalism | 1 Comment »

Democrats, the Founders, Hurricanes, and the Constitution

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 21, 2005

I’ve been laying off the Katrina posts for personal reasons, but Walter Williams has put into words what has been my contention from the beginning.

What’s interesting is that a good number of the quotes he uses to support his (and my) position come from Democrats:

In February 1887, President Grover Cleveland, upon vetoing a bill appropriating money to aid drought-stricken farmers in Texas, said, “I find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and the duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit.”

President Cleveland added, “The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.”

This is what the Democratic party USED to belive. Here’s more:

In 1854, after vetoing a popular appropriation to assist the mentally ill, President Franklin Pierce said, “I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity.” To approve such spending, argued Pierce, “would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”

Franklin Pierce was also a Democrat.

It is important that we recognize that the Constitution was written as a statement of the Founders’ vision so that it could be implemented according to their wishes.

James Madison, the father of our constitution, irate over a $15,000 congressional appropriation to assist some French refugees, said, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

Modern Democrats and the rest of the socialist movement in America try to use the General Welfare Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to justify expenditures like that inappropriately outlined by President Bush on the object of benevolence we know as New Orleans.

Williams appropriately addresses the issue of the General Welfare Clause by bringing the words of the Founders to light:

Here’s what James Madison said: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

Thomas Jefferson explained, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”

In other words, there is no justification for such expenditures under the General Welfare Clause.

As to the Fourteenth Amendment, here is its text in full:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

You will be looking for a long time for the words that justify this because they are not there. The federal government is not authorized to spend taxpayer dollars in this fashion.

Other quotes on the matter, which shed a lot of light on this (quoted from Williams’ piece):

In 1796, Rep. William Giles of Virginia condemned a relief measure for fire victims, saying that Congress didn’t have a right to “attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require.”

In 1828, South Carolina Sen. William Drayton said, “If Congress can determine what constitutes the general welfare and can appropriate money for its advancement, where is the limitation to carrying into execution whatever can be effected by money?”

The American people are themselves responsible for the recovery efforts in New Orleans, not the American government. If state constitutions allow agencies like FEMA within their governments, then so be it. Every penny the federal government spends outside its constitutional authority is an infringement on the very rights the Constitution was written to protect.

It is high time Democrats and Republicans alike took the time to study the foundations of our great nation, and put their quests for power aside in the interests of a strong populace and a government that serves only to defend and secure the rights of the people. American government is not a means of providing for people. In America, we provide for ourselves.

There is a move on within the Republican Party that seeks to bring the federal government within its constitutional restraints. The New Federalist platform outlines what needs to be done to achieve this goal. If neither the Democratic nor the Republican Party will choose to serve the Constitution, then the New Federalists have a responsibility to take their place as defenders of the Constitution and the philosophy of the Founding Fathers.

I only hope that the Democrats’ demise into oblivion is complete before it happens. Socialism must be defeated before any of this can happen.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Ain’t THIS the Truth!

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 19, 2005

Lord Spatula has found another great piece.

Interestingly enough, this is humor. Strangely enough, it’s ALL TRUE.

Click on over and enjoy! It’s great!


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Paul Jacob Goes Deep …. Again

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 18, 2005

I came back from tour today, and after going over comments and taking a long nap, I returned to the ‘net to find Paul Jacob’s article posted today.

This guy hits so many home runs, he could be the solution to the Cubs’ woes …


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Weekend Tour Starts Today

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 16, 2005


Those last two posts, plus last week’s scathing confrontation with the DUmmies, really brought it on. Some of my best stuff ever. If you missed them, please do make it a point to check them out!

In the meantime, it’s time for me to yet again cover some real estate on a weekend tour. I’ll be able to post again sometime Sunday. I may wait till Monday, depending on what I feel like when I get back.

I saw The Old Sage yesterday, and he said he was organizing his thoughts for a new post. You may want to go over to Rocker and Sage and see if he’s got anything up. He’s had a long dry spell, so you can expect something with a punch (always with a Libertarian fist) if he does get something up there.

Special “linky love” to the newest Honorable Soldier of the RWRmy. Go visit Ranting Fox. She’s always got good stuff up there. Soon, we’ll be promoting our more vocal HS’s to the higher rank of XR (“Xenophobic Redneck”).

Also, coming soon the the BlogRWRoll is a blog I’ve been enjoying a lot lately, DUmmieFunnies. This site takes making fun of liberals to the max. If you want to laugh, go there. Gotta love those liberals. They give us some of the best laughs, don’t they?


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The 25 Points of Nazism: Who You Callin’ a Nazi?

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 14, 2005

Yesterday’s post on Halliburton was awesome. What a way to come back from a break!

Today, I hope to beat it. I have noticed over the last several years an increase in the number of times we conservatives are called “Nazis”. Knowing full well nothing could be further from the truth, I jumped on my cyber-surfboard and rode a wave deep into the mind of Adolf Hitler himself…

Since the Left loves to call us conservatives “Nazis,” I figured I would take a few minutes today and explain exactly what a Nazi is, just so everyone knows what these people are saying.

The NAtionalistische SoZIalist Deutscher Arbeitspartei (Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party or NSDAP) was the party of Adolf Hitler, who rose to power in Germany prior to world War II, and brought upon this world one of the most disgusting and heinous regimes the world had ever seen. He was Saddam Hussein’s idol.

The party platform, announced by Hitler in 1920 (and unchanged since then), emphasized 25 points:

1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.

This would be the same as demanding, with military force, that the United States and Canada become one country simply because both countries are dominated by English-speaking people. I know of not a single American conservative or liberal who would support this.

2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.

If Hitler and his cohorts felt that Germany had been cheated in these treaties, they were certaily within their rights to call the parties back to the table. Once at the table, however, I don’t think many conservatives would have capitulated. Today’s liberals, on the other hand, may have responded to the threat of force by just giving in to Hitler, as they seem to want to do when threatened with force by terrorists. (Liberal match … 1-0 Liberals)

3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.

Conservatives would hold that all Hitler had to do here was to simply try to work a deal and purchase such territory. The US did this with both Louisiana and Alaska. Again, this seems another situation where the liberals may have just given in. (Liberal match … 2-0 Liberals)

4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.

No conservative would approve of this. It’s racism plain and simple. Liberals, however, are constantly trying to assign greater value to one race or more of Americans over others. Listen to Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson (both liberals) virtually any time, and you will see the race-baiting (Liberal match … 3-0 Liberals)

5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.

Here’s a concept that seems pretty “conservative” on the surface. After all, we conservatives are staunchly anti-illegal immigration. We are, however, just as staunchly PRO-LEGAL immigration. Using nice words like “guest” doesn’t change the fact that Hitler meant to torture and kill the foreigners living in Germany, especially the Jews. (Sorry Libs, no match … still 3-0 Liberals)

6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.

Public office should only be held by citizens. Fair enough. Hitler’s position that “office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities” is right in and of itself. However, we all know what happened when he rose to power. Everyone was expected to govern according to party inclinations. Since the statement itself is basically in line with conservative ideals, conservative match. (3-1 Liberals)

7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.

While I will admit that there aren’t any conservatives or liberals trying to chase non-citizens out of the US just because we have enough people here to do the jobs they would do, the liberals in America do believe that the state’s first responsibility is “providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens.” (Liberal match … 4-1 Liberals)

8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.

Again, neither conservatives nor liberals would advocate this policy. Conservatives do advocate that foreigners obey immigration laws when they enter the country, but no one is advocating legal aliens being chased away.

9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.

Citizens by Hitler’s definition, of course. Both conservatives and liberals would agree with this in concept, though liberals do try to create rights out of thin air and try to apply various rights unequally. I’ll cut the libs a break here and not award a match, since they would at least SAY they agree.

10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.

To each according to his need … from each according to his ability. A LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match … 5-1 Liberals)

Consequently we demand:

11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.

Equalization of economic outcome – another LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match … 6-1 Liberals)

12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.

Confiscation of income simply because SOMEBODY IN PARTICULAR didn’t like the way it was earned … LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match … 7-1 Liberals)

13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).

Nationalization of everything, especially industry … LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match … 8-1 Liberals)

14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.

Redistribution of wealth … Hillary Clinton’s favorite idea. (Liberal match … 9-1 Liberals)

15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.

Expansion of Socialist Security! LIBERAL. (Liberal match … 10-1 Liberals)

16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation,
immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts
with the State, county or municipality.

Coontrolling who does and doesn’t have money; government takeover of businesses … LIBERAL. (Liberal match … 11-1 Liberals)

17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.

Free expropriation of land and abolition of land speculation … LIBERAL. (Liberal match … 12-1 Liberals). Abolition of a tax? Conservative! (Conservative match … 12-2 Liberals)

18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.

Punish by death anyone who disagrees with the government. While the liberals would love to advocate this, there are too many anti-death penalty people among them for any of them to admit it. Conservatives welcome opposing opinions, and a lot of liberals do, too. Of course, conservatives generally tend to be the ones wanting to cut back the government.

19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.

Bemoaning a “materialistic world-order” seems kinda liberal to me. (Liberal match … 13-2 Liberals)

20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.

Sounds good on the surface, just like NCLB. The real problem here is that when you turn something as important as education over to the government, you run the risk of extremist thought in the government making its way into the schools and hurting the very people you are trying to help. This is true with virtually every government program, but the problems caused by centralized education in America are obvious. I wonder if it was also true for Nazi Germany. Of course, the liberals have largely been the beneficiaries of America’s failed education system, and they consistently call for more government intrusion and intervention. (Liberal match … 14-2 Liberals)

21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.

Hillary-Care on one hand, pro-life on the other. (One match each … 15-3 Liberals)

22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.

If the Germans wanted a national army, I doubt any conservative or liberal would have stood in their way.

23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.

While McCain-Feingold did this very same thing, I still doubt most Americans, liberal or conservative, would really support this kind of censorship.

24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.

Translation: If we decide your religion is evil, it’s evil, and you can’t practice freely. This is the ACLU’s credo. (Liberal match … 16-3 Liberals)

25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.

Setting up a big all-powerful government and telling everyone to toe the line or else is just soooo Clintonian. Conservatives cringe at the mere thought of this sort of thing. The government that governs best governs least. (Liberal match … 17-3 Liberals)

American liberal philosophy matches 17 out of the 25 Points of the Nazi platform. American conservative philosophy matches only 3. Two of these were “double-matches”, where both sides would have agreed with the Nazis. There were seven points that were so loony even the Donks wouldn’t have agreed.

Now, I haven’t called ANYONE a Nazi on this blog in this, or any other, post. I have, however, seen fellow conservatives receive this accusation, but never a liberal. Could it be the liberals are lying about conservatives on this point, too?


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Why the Left Hates Halliburton

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 13, 2005

What is the Left’s REAL gripe with Halliburton?

OK, well let’s start out with Halliburton in general. This company is an enviro-nutcase’s nightmare. Here’s the corporate vision statement:

Halliburton Vision Statement

Leading the world in integrated energy services, energy equipment, engineering, construction, and maintenance. Supported by four key goals:

* Technological Leadership
* Operational Excellence
* Innovative Business Relationships
* Dynamic Workforce

This is a company that makes our lives better by providing a serious array of services dedicated to bringing valuable energy into our homes. Liberals hate that, especially the enviro-nuts. These people would have us living in the Dark Ages if we listened to their drivel about anyone who has anything to do with oil.

What these people don’t want you to know is that Halliburton is dedicated to advancing technology that both maximizes efficiency and minimizes damage to the environment.

They want you to think that Halliburton keeps winning government contracts because of Dick Cheney. What they don’t seem to want you to know is that Halliburton provides the widest array of energy services in the industry, and as such has very few competitors. No one can provide the “one-stop” array of services that Halliburton does. This makes it easy for them to drum up residual business and keep their prices down in order to win government contracts.

What does Halliburton do that’s so special? They build, sell, and service oil rigs. They build, sell, and service energy-related environmental emergency equipment. They provide evaluation services for deciding whether and where to drill in the first place. They are a one-stop shop for ALL energy-related needs from initial discovery to final delivery.

One major contract of note Halliburton had dealt with the environmental emergency in Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein ordered all the oil wells in Iraq set on fire. Environmentalists had their panties in such a twist, they warned of a disaster that would take years, if not decades, to recover from, if it was even possible to recover at all.

Halliburton had the job done in a matter of weeks. They put out all the fires and capped off all the wells. Yep. This sure is an eeeevil company.

If Halliburton were such a drag, the Clinton Administration had plenty of opportunity to replace them, or to see to it that other companies got any new contracts that Halliburton might have gotten. It didn’t happen. Why didn’t it? BECAUSE HALLIBURTON WAS DOING A GOOD JOB.

The real reason you hear all this crap about Halliburton is simple. Vice President Cheney once had an interest in the company. Everything the Left ever says or does is always about politics, and seldom, if ever, has anything to do with what’s really good for you and/or for America. Halliburton has taken a lot of poor people and made them wealthy. When have you heard the Left praise them for it? I can tell you I haven’t, and I’m not holding my breath, either.

The demonizing of Halliburton is nothing more than another liberal manufactured “crisis” to pin on the President’s team. Cheney used to have an interest in Halliburton? OK, let’s demonize Halliburton so we can connect that to the Veep and demonize him. Think about it. They’re prepared for this. They’ve been demonizing business in general for as long as I can remember.

Never mind that business has brought more people out of poverty and created more millionaires than their big government counterparts could even dream of. The Left’s real motivations have to do with demonizing capitalism and capitalists, and those who would allow said capialists to help make people’s lives better and create wealth.

I think it’s high time we all got real about this.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Back from the Weekend (posted yesterday)

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 13, 2005

Hey, folks!

RWR here …

Blogger seems to be having some issues today, so my Monday “return from touring” post will just have to sit in the coments section for now…

The weekend was exhausting. Too little time in between performances to be able to rest much. Thanks to a cancellation for Sunday night, however, I was able to get some shuteye last night. SOME. I’ll need some rest this week, too, since another busy weekend of touring is in the cards this week. Posting will be light starting around Thursday.

I’ve been making the effort to avoid certain subject matter here on this blog, including the Sheehag (if she’s still out there), Justice Roberts, and Hurricane Katrina. this is mainly because other bloggers are doing a wonderful job of this already, and I’m busy enough that I can focus on the more general issues that don’t require up-to-the-minute news for an effective presentation.

Some ideas I’ve been kicking around are:
– Defending big business
– Demonstrating the inappropriateness of left-wing accusations that conservatives are “Nazis”.
These ideas come from either conversations with liberals I see regularly, or from moonbat comments on this blog.

Of course, my blog-run often changes the course of what kind of post I do. I love the concept of sharing thoughts in the blogosphere, and the challenge of defending what is right against those who wish to tear America down and rebuild it in a Marxist image.

Also, welcome to any new readers. Blogging would be such a drag without people to read and comment.


RightWingRocker | Homepage | 09.12.05 – 12:09 pm | #

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Expect Light Posting This Week

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 6, 2005

Lots of work to do in the music business this week. Every night has at least one show or rehearsal clear through the weekend. Most have two.

I invite everyone to read through the many excellent posts on this site, particularly “February’s Tribute”, while posting’s light.

Also, please make sure the folks on the BlogRWRoll get some of your time, especially the Honorable Soldiers of the RWRmy, and the many great links found in the links section.

Also, you may want to check in over at Rocker and Sage. The Old Sage is back from vacation, and I think he may have something up his sleeve.

Wish me luck, folks. This is going to be an exhausting week!


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Trembling and Puking at DU

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 4, 2005

If you want a good laugh, you oughta stop by Democratic Underground today. I normally don’t give DU links from this blog because they do not allow comments from anyone except left-wing pinko commie whack-jobs whose sole purpose in life is to dismantle America and everything she stands for.

Justice Rehnquist passed this weekend (see today’s earlier post). God rest his soul.

But the clowns at DU wasted no time in using this situation to start up with anti-American and anti-Bush rhetoric only the likes of themselves could think up.

Right out of the chute is a thread stating the President is going to be impeached, and that even right-wingers would advocate it. Not a whole lot of eulogizing for Justice Rehnquist, I can tell you that. Of course, what would you expect from DU?

I have a message for DU the Left:

When we on the right complain about President Bush and/or give him bad marks for things like the war and social reform, it’s because we think he’s doing you clowns too many favors. We want him to step things up in Iraq and other fronts in the War on Terror, not surrender and withdraw, as you would have. We want him to TOTALLY privatize Socialist Security and get the federal government out of the business of trying to help people who would be better off helping themselves. We want him to SCRAP the tax system that punishes people for being successful and replace it with something that makes sense, such as a “flat tax” or a “consumption tax” – and something with STRICT LIMITS on the government’s ability to tax. We want him to do everything he can to return the federal government to its constitutional restraints – something you people fight against day after day.

Furthermore, there will be no impeachment of President Bush by a House and Senate dominated by his own party. President Bush will do the right thing and nominate a justice to the court who will APPLY THE CONSTITUTION. All you will be able to do is watch and whine as your nutty Senators show America, for all to see, just how loony you guys really are. Then Weird Howard and “Mother Sheehan” (that’s one of the funniest ones I’ve heard in a LONG time) will go out there and seal the deal. America belongs to the free, not to the government, not to those who would allow the government to make all their decisions for them, but to the FREE.

As I have always maintained, the conservative point of view always wins in the end, because of the basic longing of the human spirit to be free. Sometimes freedom has its challenges, such as natural disasters in Louisiana or terrorist attacks in New York, that make people sometimes wish there were another way. There isn’t. People standing on their own and succeeding for themselves will always be the best way. Succeeding in the face of adversity makes people stronger and wiser. New Orleans will be the prime example of this when all is said and done, as New York is today.

So you wackos over at Democratic Underground can go ahead and spew your nutty fruitcake rants all you want. Join Weird Howard and the Sheehag in their kicking and screaming about the freedom-loving people of America taking their country back at the expense of your silly little ideology. All it does is solidify America as the true outpost of freedom in the world. The funniest part of it all is that you don’t even realize that just about everyone in this country is laughing at you so hysterically that we can’t even get through the thread.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

William Rehnquist 1924-2005

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 4, 2005

Well, we all knew this was coming.

Justice Rehnquist has passed. His family was with him at the time.

Personally, I wish him God speed and eternal happiness.

I got to thinking, though, as I was reading today about his life, about how the Left would react to this. Justice Rehnquist was, after all, quite the constitutionalist.

My findings are a topic for another post. You can bet it’s forthcoming.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Thinking Back – February’s Tribute

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 3, 2005

Back in February, less that two weeks after joining the blogosphere, I posted an inspiring piece in tribute to our soldiers and their families.

Earlier this week, I was talking to Captain D. on the phone, and learned that his daughter, who had been trapped in her New Orleans dorm room by Hurricane Katrina, had been moved to safety and would be returning home this weekend. Who says God never answers anyone’s prayers?

Anyway, thinking about Captain D.’s daughter reminded me of the great sacrifices she made just one year ago, while her father was away serving our country in the Middle East. It occurred to me that I had been blogging only a very short time, and that much of my readership may not have read that post. Today, I am re-posting it, both as a reminder of what our military families go through, and as a way of hopefully saying “thank you” to those who are serving overseas and their families:

Wednesday, February 09, 2005 10:59 PM

“Butterfly Kisses” – A Tribute

Well that last post, though necessary, was nowhere near my best work. Today, I offer a special tribute to the troops who are fighting for our freedom and safety in the War on Terror, and their families. These guys are doing the Lord’s work out there, and the families are as much a part of that work as they are.

I recently learned a young man whom I had the pleasure of having as a student of sorts was killed at 20 years old while dismantling a car bomb in Iraq. He is survived by a 19 year old wife and a baby who was just 10 weeks old at the time. This tragedy could not have affected a stronger family. Thank God the strength is there to carry them through.

Another friend was called to action from the National Guard. “Captain D” just returned in January from a tour of duty in the Middle East. His wife was charged with caring for their three children for over six months while he was away.

The sacrifices these families make for their country is as important as the ones made by the soldiers themselves. Someone has to care for the children of the soldiers. Someone has to comfort the widows and mothers of those who give the ultimate sacrifice. Someone has to be there to explain where Daddy is and why he is away, or why he won’t be coming home at all.

Someone has to be there to see the first board break at karate school or the first dismount from the balance beam; the first base hit or the first touchdown; the first broken arm or the first lost love. These are “Daddy things”, and there are thousands, if not millions more of them. This list is only the beginning.

Any time I hear the song “Butterfly Kisses”, I think of those daughters who don’t get to have Daddy take them on their first pony ride, or taste her first cake; those daughters who won’t have Daddy there to admire her wedding gown. These soldiers have sons as well, who may not get to have Daddy there when they first enjoy sports, or ride a motorcycle or help them learn to drive. Some of my fondest memories of childhood were my own father showing me how to hit a baseball. None of that for many of these soldiers’ children.

And the spouses … Can you imagine pledging your entire life to a person you love and then have them spend months at a time in harm’s way, or have them taken away from you altogether with so much of your life left to live? These sacrifices are as important and patriotic as those the soldiers make.

This is why it so enrages me when people go on TV, radio and online to trash the hard work these people do. Can it not be understood that without these sacrifices, these people might not even have the right to do what they do or say what they say? Can they not grasp the reality that we are fighting an enemy that wishes us all either dead or suffering under their extreme wacko philosophy? Can they not understand that if we allow them to do what they do and become more powerful now, it will be much more difficult to deal with them later, and at an even greater cost in both military and civilian lives? Are these people blind and stupid?

In this special tribute to the soldiers and their families, I cannot bring my true feelings on that matter forth, as the thought of what is really happening in America is truly too painful for such a somber moment. I will save it for another day. In the meantime, God Bless the United States of America, her President, her true allies, and those who defend her against those who would harm us (often giving their lives in the process), including those who sacrifice both time with their loved ones, and often their loved ones as well.


Looking back, these words are every bit as applicable today as they were nearly seven months ago.

To our soldiers overseas, I can only say this: KICK ASS AND TAKE NAMES! You are making your countrymen very proud. I never served in the military, and I am very proud to know that so many others have been there to do what I did not – I do NOT take my freedom for granted. It was paid for by the blood and sacrifices of American soldiers and their families. I am endlessly grateful to all of you and all of your families for the sacrifices you make so that I may enjoy these freedoms and God-given rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Many thanks are in order. You have done us proud.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Left’s Mentality on the Constitution

Posted by RightWingRocker on September 2, 2005

It is really kinda weird how the liberals love to twist the Constitution about and add and delete things from it at their whim, using judicial activist groups like the ACLU and moveon.org to get what they want, since it won’t ever happen through the legal legislative manner.

“Living document”? MY ASS! You can’t just cut and paste the Constitution into the document you want it to be. It just doesn’t work that way. The ENTIRE purpose of the Constitution is to implement the plan set forth by the Founding Fathers. If the Founders wanted the Constitution to be a “living document”, they would have made the process of amendment easy. It’s not, and because it’s not, the Left cannot enact the laws and programs they want without judicial activism.

If we are to believe the ACLU, an extreme organization that is trying to destroy the Constitution, the federalist structure it guarantees, and the rights that derive from God through that federalist structure, the following are included in the Constitution:

An “inseperable wall between church and state”,

Freedom from religion, including a ban on voluntary prayer in public and/or any public display of religion,

Freedom to exploit children via child pornography,

Freedom to murder children via abortion.

Of course, all of these “rights” are completely made up. None of them appear in the Constitution or any subsequent amendments. Even if there were such a “wall”, how would an expression of religion violate that concept? Laws are not meant to suppress expressions of beliefs or opinions, but to suppress ACTIONS. The ACLU is therefore WRONG to suppress any attempt by any entity to express a view acknowledging religious teachings. They are also wrong to defend organizations such as NAMBLA, who encourage others to exploit young boys by involving them in child pornography.

The discussion regarding abortion has already taken place on this blog. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, for the reasons cited when I posted about it. Why are the liberals so dead set against the repeal of Roe v. Wade? They love to tell you that it would mean abortions would be banned nationwide, and the only way to get an abortion (read that the only way to kill a child) would be to break the law, and that its repeal would violate the constitutional right to privacy. Nothing is further from the truth.

First of all, let’s set the record straight on the “constitutional right to privacy”. It doesn’t exist, plain and simple. You can read the Constitution and its amendments a thousand times, and you won’t find it. It simply ISN’T THERE. The real reason the Left wants Roe v. Wade intact is simple. Its repeal would put the power to decide the fate of abortion into the hands of the states and the people. We can’t have that, now, can we?

This is only the tip of the iceberg. Liberals not only like to create rights out of the air for their own convenience, but they also work diligently to deny Americans the God-given rights that the Constitution guarantees:

The Left’s outrage at and subsequent attempt to suppress public prayer, the actions of the Minuteman Project, and political bloggers (McCain-Feingold) are violations of the First Amendment.

All gun-control laws are violations of the Second Amendment.

The recent Supreme Court decision seizing private property in order to award it to another private entity (Kelo v. New London) is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Federal socialist programs, such as the “New Deal” and the “Great Society” and all of their by-products, such as welfare and Socialist Security, are violations of the Tenth Amendment.

This list could go on and on and on, but anyone who reads the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (subsequent amendments here) can see that it doesn’t take a lawyer or any long boring courses in “civics” to understand. These words were written for everyday people.

Why can’t our liberal friends understand this? I believe that they can and do understand, but act in the manner that they do because ackowledging the Constitution and its words would put an abrupt end to what they stand for: centralized government in control of everything in your life, including whether you live or die. They want the federal government to force the states and the people of those states to live under one supreme authority – THEIRS. This is the real reason they want religion out of American discourse. With God out of the way, they can assert THEMSELVES as the supreme power that governs our lives. Take guns away from law-abiding citizens, and you empower them to create even more manner of oppressive laws, with there then being no means at all for these people to defend themselves against liberal oppression.

Americans are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, and are guaranteed these rights by the Constitution. This is the philosophy that governs our free nation. The people themselves wield the most power, with the states a little weaker, and the federal government weakest of all. That is a concept known as FEDERALISM, and it is the driving force in all those who cherish their freedom. These freedoms have been eroded over the last hundred years, and it’s time to take them back, liberals be damned.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »