Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for December, 2005

Best Wishes for a Happy New YeaRWR!!

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 31, 2005

I just got in from a double … going to try for some sleep, but just in case I don’t make it back to the blog, I wanted to make sure I wished everyone a Happy New YeaRWR.

All the best to all of you and all of yours, and remember, when you’re writing checks, the year will now be 2006!

Rock on!



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Update: Follow-up on the 14 Points

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 29, 2005

XR Delftsman has taken the 14-point debate to another level.

He submitted the same 14 points from the Smerconish debate to a few friends, and posted the results of two such “interviews” in his most recent post. There will be more to come, and I’ll keep you posted as they are posted.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Trolls Trolls Trolls

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 29, 2005

YAAAYYYY … We have us a new troll!!

“JS” recently posted some SERIOUS bullshit in the comment section from my last post, and BOY is this going to be fun! I barely finished editing before this came up:

Wow, way to a) completely misrepresent liberalism, and b) completely miss Mussolini’s point. (You did similar things with Hitler, and continually conflate rhetoric with intention).

Ok, dude. Let’s see how you figure I did that …

Fascism is the totalitarian outcome of extreme patriotism, and you’re too wrapped up in your dogma to see how it applies to you. (And that’s leaving aside your hatchet-job on the already abbreviated Fascist Manifesto. The real one runs about 30 pages, and was written in Mussolini’s name, not by Mussolini.)

First of all, JS, I’m hardly “wrapped up” in ANY “dogma”. Fascism is what it is, and its main points are summed up in my previous post.

There is nothing “extreme” about patriotism. Quite the contrary, pride in a nation and what it stands for is not only healthy, but honorable. If you are so wrapped up in your hatred for President Bush and/or anyone supporting the geniuses who founded this great nation, that’s not MY problem. If you wish to dishonor the memories of the 3,000-plus of YOUR countrymen killed by REAL Fascists four years ago, that is YOUR problem, NOT mine.

For example, your first “match” for liberals is based on some “usurping” of the Constitution by the “liberals,” which while it is a delightfully simplistic talking point, simply does not represent any objective reality.

You have come to the wrong place to call the usurpation of the Constitution a “simplistic talking point”. I have written post after post on the subject, from my humble beginnings back in February. I challenge you to demonstrate, for example, the constitutionality of the following laws/policies/court decisions:

1. Roe v. Wade

2. The Brady Bill/Assault Weapons Ban/Pick any other gun law you want

3. Kelo v. New London

4. McCain-Feingold

5. Court decisions banning public displays of the Nativity


7. Welfare

8. Socialist Security

9. Mediscare

These are just a few of the many usurpations of the Constitution committed by liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans, most in the last half-century. Demonstrate the constitutionality if you disagree, but be prepared to defend your position with the actual words of the Constitution, as I am challenging the very government (including the courts) that created these things, with this position.

Further, you can trace the anti-democratic notions Mussolini espouses (which have little to do with the Constitution, itself a primarily anti-democratic — and thereby liberal– document) through people who are classically considered “conservative” (such as Burke, or more recently Strauss) more easily than you can through “progressives.” (You also don’t seem to know the difference between a “liberal” and a “progressive”, but they are different).

Trace it any way you like, idiot. You just called the Constitution anti-democratic. Maybe you can enlighten me as to the difference between “liberals” and “progressives”, but I gather it will most likely be a matter of nuance, as is the difference between “socialists” and “communists”.

Your further matches, to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, are specious at best, and Mussolini’s point is a continuation of his post-democratic conception of the State.

Let me re-quote: …the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility… Sharpton and Jackson, in their zeal to make themselves and members of their “group” seem victims, make statements to this effect all the time. They are, of course, full of shit. The point you make about Mussolini’s point is exactly the point I was making. And yes, I do mean liberals envision getting to the point of “post-democracy” as quickly as possible. Thank God it’s not going to happen.

The conception of the State as an absolute, allowing only the freedoms that it deigns, is currently a conservative argument.

Is that so? Check my list above. What conservatives brought us those things?

Note that the Patriot Act removes freedoms, note that the conservatives are the ones who would restrict the ability of gays to marry, note the “free speech zones,” note the NSA surveilance. Those are all conservative projects.

The Patriot Act is not something that has been wholeheartedly supported on this blog. Its purpose has been primarily to give the government a way to root out internal terrorism without addressing more pressing issues such as securing our borders. Gays have the same restrictions on marriage as all other Americans. Marriage is, by definition, one man and one woman (the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law). Heterosexuals cannot marry members of the same sex, either. The fact that you brought this up is further evidence that you have not read a damn thing that I have posted over the last ten months. As to NSA surveillance, it is perfectly legitimate the way it is being used in that the only people being watched are those with known terrorist ties and those comminucating with those same people. This surveillance dates back to the CARTER Administration (so it’s not a “conservative project”), and was used by the CLINTON Administration, under the codename “Echelon”, to spy on American civilians when we were not in an acknowledged state of war.

Even more, Fascism is (as you should have gleaned) is an anti-modernist project. That dovetails with the rise of the religious right, who seek to restrict personal freedoms due to an anti-modernist social view. That has direct echoes in fascism.

It also has direct echoes to the positions held by the Founding Fathers. Your so-called “modernist” positions often include many of the above-listed constitutional usurpations that all have hurt the nation as a whole. The Founders built the Constitution on the concept of individualism and self-government, things that are also at odds with the “modernist” point of view. There are no personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution that are in any way at odds with the religious right. I challenge you to find one.

You even miss the point on the expansion of empire. Right now, America is involved in expanding the colonial empire, despite your protestations of “exporting freedom.”

“Expanding the colonial empire” is a talking point that has been beaten to death by the Left ever since we decided to finally take a stand against the terrorists. Expanding an empire would include forcing people to live under our Constitution. We have instead encouraged those we have freed to come up with systems that THEY deem appropriate for THEMSELVES. No one has to “protest” about exporting freedom. It is one of the most honorable things we can do. Just ask the Iraqis and the Afghans. Contrary to the work of reporters who like to parade forth anyone with an axe to grind, these people are largely grateful for what we have done.

From the Structural Adjustment Plans of the IMF to the manipulations of the World Bank in currency markets, the goal of “free market” reforms is to rig the game to our benefit. I’m not saying that this is wrong, simply that it is the structural intention of our policy (you want free trade? Give up agricultural subsidies here in America).

I do not support the IMF, the World Bank, or agricultural subsidies at all. They are all contrary to the concept of freedom in that they work towards the idea of universalizing everything and offering a very liberal “one size fits all” concept in their respective areas. The structural intention of a true free market is to equlalize and maximize opportunity in the market rather than try to equalize the outcome (which has been proven impossible time and again).

As with your attempted Fisking of the Nazi manifesto, you come across as a naive and misguided freshman lost in the sea of political philosophies that you can’t even conceptualize. Reading On Liberty by JS Mill might be a good start for you. Fascism certainly isn’t.

js | Homepage | 12.29.05 – 12:48 pm | #

Actually, I did an incredible job of Fisking the Nazis. It was linked throughout the blogosphere, and encouraged for bookmarks. As far as your “sea of political philosophies”, each and every one of those philosophies can be objectively analyzed and placed on a scale of degree. For example, the Republican Party tends to be to my left, while the Constitution and Libertarian Parties tend to be more to my right.

I further do not pretend that President Bush is a conservative. He has done many things, such as expanding socialist programs, further injecting the federal government into affairs constitutionally reserved to the states and people, and submitting budgets with out-of-control unconstitutional spending, that are typical of liberals. Don’t forget the budget debate of 1995, when House Conservatives forced President Clinton to accept their plan to balance the budget in seven years. I found it quite amusing, myself, to watch him go from twelve – to ten – to eight – to finally agreeing to seven.

The one good thing President Bush has done, though in one case he was forced, has been to appoint judges to the Supreme Court that have a history of using the Constitution itself for their guidance. This is defintiely something that we conservatives will continue to advocate and appreciate.

I have studied liberals and their antics for far too long to sit back and take it up the ass when one of them decides he’s coming around here and defending those who wrongly characterize those who think and believe the way I do as “Nazis”, “Fascists”, “racists”, etc. Just look at how (predictably) crazy you got when I forced you to look in the mirror. You have done an awesome job of showing just how far removed from reality you really are. I will not make a judgement today as to whether it’s naivete or ignorance. My readers are all wise enough to figure that out for themselves.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Mussolini on Fascism: Who You Callin’ a Fascist?

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 28, 2005

Back in September, I posted one of my finest posts ever – The 25 Points of Nazism: Who You Callin’ a Nazi?. If you haven’t read it, I strongly encourage you to do so. It’s quite instructive.

I’ve noticed a lot of similar instances of conservatives being called “fascists”. This kind of curiosity led me to Benito Mussolini’s own treatise, What is Fascism (1932). The ‘net is just chock full of information you can look up and get first-hand, so let’s do another side-by-side comparison, just like we did in response to being called “Nazis” (Please note that Mussolini’s definition of the word “Liberal” would be quite different from the definition we would use today. Mussolini’s definition would more closely reflect that of our own Founding Fathers)…

Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism — born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision — the alternative of life or death….

Well, it has been demonstrated time and again that there will most likely never be perpetual peace, so the repudiation of Pacifism is a fair call. However, no conservative believes that “war alone” is the right way to go. We simply acknowledge that if we are going to be able to keep our freedom, blood will occasionally have to be spilled to that end. Due to the fact that conservatives would actually agree with some of this (i.e. acknowledging that there can be no perpetual state of peace), we’ll put up a match on the conservative side.

…The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others — those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after…

This is a very conservative position, by modern American standards. I don’t think there’d be much argument about that. Conservatives 2, Liberals 0.

…Fascism [is] the complete opposite of … Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production…. Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied – the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society…

This is simply a statement that Mussolini believes that, from an economic standpoint, his ideology is the opposite of Socialism. Strangely, he also decries capitalism here as well. Due to the anti-socialist nature of the statement, I’ll place it in the conservative column, with reservations. Conservatives 3, Liberals 0.

After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage….

I don’t think an honest American of any stripe would buy this. However, the penchant of liberals to use the courts to usurp the Constitution and the will of the people places this one in the liberal column. Conservatives 3, Liberals 1.

…Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of “happiness” and indefinite progress….

Damned if this doesn’t sound like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Conservatives 3, Liberals 2.

…(G)iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority…a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State….

A century of collectivism and of the State?? Dudes, it’s 3 apiece.

The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality — thus it may be called the “ethic” State….

The State as an “absolute”? Only in Teddy Kennedy’s America. Liberals 4, Conservatives 3.

…The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone….

“Useless and possibly harmless freedom”? The State alone, instead of the individual, is the deciding power with regard to what freedoms people have? Liberals 5, Conservatives 3.

…For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude.

OK, I’m splitting this quote for two reasons – 1. It’s dreadfully long, and 2. There are two completely different points being made here by Mussolini.

The first portion suggests that it is normal and healthy for a nation of people to want to force its way of life on others. Many people mistakenly subscribe to the notion that the American Right is of this mindset. In fact, nothing could be less true. American conservatives believe, as did our Founding Fathers, that it is the natural state of human existence to yearn for freedom. Any nation forced to live under the sorts of conditions advocated here by Mussolini would be right to throw them off. In the case of the War on Terror, conservatives largely support efforts to bring freedom to oppressed nations, particularly those with regimes hostile to the US and friendly to the terrorists. Conservatives do NOT advocate imposing the US Constitution on these people, but rather guiding these people in making their own decisions and reaching their own compromises. We seek free people as allies not only in the War on Terror, but in our respective economies as well. Free people always outperform the oppressed. This is a fundamental difference in the opinions of American liberals and conservatives. While conservatives believe in the ability of individuals to use freedom wisely and for maximum benefit to themselves and others, liberals see people as groups, and work to protect people from themselves by limiting their freedom. This applies both with regard to everyday living and with regard to economics. Since the people being liberated were in the state of existence that liberals believe is natural, they believe there wasn’t anything to liberate them from. I imagine a large number of Afghans and Iraqis might disagree.

On to the second portion of the quote …

But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century – repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it.

Mussolini’s missing the point here. ANY successful nation requires discipline and sacrifice, not just those with imperial aspirations. Furthermore, Mussolini advocates a Clintonesque squelching and/or silencing of anyone oppsed to his way of thinking, particularly those who would stand up for the principles that had been successful in the past.

America has been at her most successful when those who oppose her leaders are freely heard. Weird Howard and the Sheehag are playing a very important role in the success of America today, particularly in the success of conservatives and in the case of the latter, in the success of the War on Terror.

There does exist a liberal match here, in the position that “social transformation” ought to be the order of the day, and anyone opposing their position should be decried as a “Nazi” or a “Fascist”.

Still, the liberals match on 6 out of 9 points considered, or 66% of this platform. Conservatives match on 3 out of 9, or 37% (also consider the reservations noted on two of them). Again, the American Left, twice as fascist as the Right, tries to create the illusion that conservatives are “fascists”. Furthermore, the three points upon which conservatives would agree all come in the very beginning of the treatise, which would indicate that Mussolini would have been trying to put his “best foot forward” in trying to sell his point.

Does this come as a surprise? Of course not. The percentages on Nazism were even more in the libs’ camp (Libs 17 out of 25 – 68%, Conservatives 3 out of 25 – 12%), and they love calling us Nazis.

The most interesting point is that you virtually NEVER hear a conservative levelling charges of Fascism, Nazism, or even socialism (well, you DO hear that one from me) at a liberal. Sorry guys, calling Robert Byrd a racist is fully substantiated by his prior membership in the Ku Klux Klan (without subsequent denouncing of their ideas), and his public use of bigoted racial slurs since then.

I would be satisfied with more charges of socialism/communism levelled at those who advocate those positions, only when true. These unsubstantiated charges of Fascism and Nazism are quite annoying, and representative of Hitler’s “big lie”.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Canada Just Doesn’t Get It

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 28, 2005

The Canadian government is blaming an increase in gun violence in their country on the United States.

What a fucking joke.

If these people were truly serious about eliminating gun violence, they would lift their multiple bans on law-abiding citizens carrying guns. Face it, idiots, a “gun criminal” is most likely going to pass over a law-abiding citizen if he thinks he may have to face a good marksman with a proper weapon.

The article liked above, of course, is from CNN. So much energy is wasted on how awful America is for letting guns find their way into Canada, and just a measley little blurb near the end acknowledging that the real problem in Canada is gangs – people who are desperate thanks to Canada’s overpowering socialism.



Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

The Seven Principles of Kwanzaa

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 27, 2005

You just gotta love the Left. Some far-left commie, Maulana Karenga (whose real name is Ron Everett), who just happens to be black, dreams up a “holiday” supposedly celebrating the “Africanness” of African-Americans, and when we question it as a socialist concoction, we’re labeled as racists.

So standing up against socialism is now racist. Standing up against the Soviets, then, must have been racist. Standing up against Hitler, then, must have been racist. Mussolini, Castro, Noriega … standing up to far-left factions of any stripe must now be considered racist. By that definition, a racist I must be. However, it’s not the race of the individual that I am questioning. It is the blatantly socialist agenda this so-called “holiday” reveres. So, for being anti- (white) Soviet, anti- (white) Nazi and fascist, and anti- (hispanic) Western Hemisphere socio-communist, I suppose I will be called a racist for saying that Kwanzaa is about soicialism, and in many ways, it’s about anti-caucasian racism.

Here are the Seven Principles of Kwanzaa, for you to behold in all their socialist glory:

1.Umoja (Unity) – To strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.

In other words, as families and communities, and as a nation and a race. Kwanzaa celebrates being looked upon and treated as a group rather than as individual citizens.

This is why executing a man for murder becomes such a huge issue if the perpetrator is of color. Where was the outrage at the execution of Timothy McVeigh? Tookie Williams was found just as guilty of his crimes as was McVeigh. Neither of these men deserved to live, given the heinous crimes they committed, but Tookie’s execution was decried as “racist”.

Those celebrating Kwanzaa would expect all African-Americans to unite around this position regardless of whether they agreed with it. Anyone who did not would be maligned as an “Uncle Tom”, “selling out their race”, or “trying to be white”. Why? Because to them, there are no individuals, only groups, and if the judge and/or the executioner are from a different “group”, then they consider that fair game for complaint.

This is typical socialism. Hitler used the same concept to slaughter millions of “non-Aryans”, mainly Jews, during the Holocaust. Just because Kwanzaa celebrants are not advocating violence in their “holiday” does not mean they wouldn’t advocate violence on other occasions.

2. Kujichagulia (Self-Determination) – To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves and speak for ourselves.

Read that “ourselves as a group”. Socialism. Self-determination, in these people’s minds, does NOT include individual self-determination. Also note that any time socialists speak or write in the plural (i.e. “ourselves” instead of “oneself”), they are attempting to remove any reference to the individual from the discussion. Watch for it.

3. Ujima (Collective Work and Responsibility) – To build and maintain our community together and make our brother’s and sister’s problems our problems and to solve them together.

Collective work and responsibility. This is precisely what the Soviet Union was all about. All work was to be done for the greater good, and the fruits equally dispersed among the subjects. Never mind the fact that we proved this system’s faults over 100 years before we became a nation. See my comments to #1 with regard to “making our brother’s and sister’s problems our problems …”.

4. Ujamaa (Cooperative Economics) – To build and maintain our own stores, shops and other businesses and to profit from them together.

“Cooperative Economics”? Guys this shit is straight out of Marx/Engels/Hitler/Lenin/Stalin. Socialism through and through.

5. Nia (Purpose) – To make our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.

“Collective vocation”. More socialism. The funny thing is that these people actually believe this socialistic point of view will lead ANYONE to greatness.

6. Kuumba (Creativity) – To do always as much as we can, in the way we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than we inherited it.

This sounds pretty nice, doesn’t it? In practice, what this means is to try to force OTHERS (through punitive taxation, etc.) to do this for them. It’s the socialist mentality … To each according to his need, from each according to his ability …

7. Imani (Faith) – To believe with all our heart in our people, our parents, our teachers, our leaders and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

Yep. Believe in them, except, of course, when they do the right thing and work to bring down the idea of a socialist utopia being set up here in the US. That’s where the belief in the “victory of our struggle” comes into play. Just remember, Marx and Engels wrote of “struggles” in The Communist Manifesto and Hitler’s treatise Mein Kampf‘s very title translates as “My Struggle”.

There’s plenty of socialist diatribe over at the Official Kwanzaa Website (Thanks to Sister Toldjah for the link. See for yourself.

Never mind that people in Africa don’t celebrate Kwanzaa – most Africans don’t even know what it is (which should give you a hint as to its real legitimacy … or lack thereof). Somehow, those on the Left do not see that our objection to Kwanzaa has nothing to do with the race of those celebrating it, but the very poisonous nature of the socilaism it encourages. Actually, I believe they know damned right well what our objections are, but use race as their defense because they know socialism is bullshit.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Recovering from The Holidays

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 27, 2005

Well, folks, I finally woke up from the crazy thing that is Christmas around here. I’ll be posting sometime today most likely, but not until I’ve had a chance to hit the banks and the stores – oh yeah, and the blogs and news sites.

It’s almost like I’ve been on tour!

Anyway, I hope everyone’s weekend was wonderful, with gifts and family time galore! I’ll check back later today


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Merry ChRWRistmas!

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 24, 2005

Family traditions take up three days – Today through Monday, so i’m not sure if anything new is going to be up here before then.

I’ll keep this special holiday post up here until then, wishing everyone Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, Happy Chanukah, etc. (anything but freakin’ Kwanzaa – sheesh – that’s a post for another day).

If I do post anything before Monday, this post will be moved to the top.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Viewpoint: Armybryan Answers the “14 Points”

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 23, 2005

Some months ago, I made the acquaintance of one of our soldiers serving on the ground in Iraq by way of RightWingNews, a blog hosted by blogger extraordinaire John Hawkins. “Armybryan” was involved in a heated debate with a particular loser liberal over the situation in Iraq. It seemed to me kind of silly to be arguing with someone about things he sees every day, so I entered the debate (on Bryan’s side, of course).

Bryan has become a regular reader and commentor here at the RWRepublic, and his comments have always been insightful and well-reasoned. He has earned the respect of all of the Americans for whom he fights, and the admiration of those who openly appreciate his efforts. In late August, I asked Bryan if he would do an interview for this blog.

Graciously, he enthusiastically accepted. This caused a problem for me – what the bloody hell to ASK! I asked around a bit, trying to get a feel for what those who come around here would want to ask, but I just didn’t get a whole lot of feedback. I got a little help around Thanksgiving.

Michael Smerconish, a Philadelphia talk radio host, put together a mock debate on Iraq, asking several prominent people to comment on fourteen of his personal opinions regarding Iraq. It was really cool. He simply played each of their recorded answers one right after the other. He then asked listeners to log on to his website and choose which of those interviewed they most agreed with (it came as no surprise to me that I matched up most with Senator Santorum).

As I was listening to the “debate”, I wondered what Bryan would say if asked to comment on these positions. Perhaps these fourteen points would make a good catalyst for the aforementioned interview. I sent them to Bryan via email. These are his responses (in bold), unedited. Remember, any references to “here” refer to IRAQ.

Do you agree or disagree; are you willing to admit or deny these statements?

1. 9/11 was the work of radical Islam.

Without a doubt, 9/11 was the work of radical Islam. The problem lies in the refusal of many on the left, and some on the right, to recognize that what we call “radical Islam” has become much more mainstream, due to the fundamentalist schools founded by the House of Saud, the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, and the establishment of Madrassas throughout the Middle East and Muslim world. I would argue that it used to be radicalism, but over time it has gained more acceptance with a wide portion of the worshippers of Allah.

2. Post-9/11 there was a consensus in the country to be forward-leaning, meaning to be pre-emptive if necessary to protect against further attack.

I can’t speak to the sentiment around the entire country, but those I knew, and those I spoke with were almost unanimous in their support for pre-emption, if the other option is waiting to be struck again in the US. Personally, I have always supported a more proactive approach to foreign threats. This is one of the reasons that I have been in the Army, not once, but twice, both during troubles with Iraq. Desert Storm was my first experience with Middle Eastern “culture” and I found that while many centuries ago, the Islamic world had much to offer to the rest of the world, since the 7th century they have essentially stagnated, if not regressed to total barbarism. This time isn’t much better, except that those who were unfortunate enough to be born in this part of the world, but have managed to resist the brainwashing, have finally been given a voice in the running of their country.

3. Iraq played no role in the events of September 11.

I don’t think that Iraq directed Al-Qi’ada to conduct the 9/11 attacks. However, there is incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has had dealings with and was supportive of Al-Qi’ada’s attacks on the west and the US specifically.

4. Iraq was nevertheless perceived by American and foreign military and intelligence operations to pose a threat, based principally upon the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs.

I agree that even if there was no connection between Iraq and Al-Qi’ada, we were correct in removing Saddam from power because of the threat he posed to regional stability and a longer term threat to the US interests because of his pursuit of long range missile systems with WMD payloads

5. Saddam Hussein’s perceived possession of WMDs was the primary reason advanced by the Bush administration in support of the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein’s regime had WMD. However, that was only one of many reasons that we were given by the Administration for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. There are also, what, 14 UN resolutions, violations of the cease-fire agreement that ended the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the repeated attempts to deceive WMD inspectors, and when those did not work, outright threats. All of that, plus the not inconsiderable fact that Hussein was trying to have one of our former presidents killed. The reason WMD got so much air time and reporting is that they are very dangerous and we have to take even their potential use as a grave threat to the security of the U.S.

6. It is now apparent that Saddam had no WMDs, meaning the Administration’s predicate for going to war was faulty.

It is not apparent that Saddam had no WMD; what is apparent is that while we wasted time trying to bargain with the criminals in the UN, Saddam had time to move WMD out of Iraq, and either dump or bury others in desolate parts of the country.

7. There can’t be any disagreement about this. With or without WMDs, Saddam Hussein is nevertheless an SOB.


8. The fact that the Administration was wrong about WMDs does not mean that the President lied on that subject.

There is a fundamental difference between lying and being mistaken. There is still some disagreement over whether or not there were WMD in Iraq, so there is no definitive proof that the Administration was wrong or lying. Secondly, being an intel person myself, I know how difficult it is to be 100% correct on every call, no matter how important it is. No one is perfect, even though the Monday morning quarterbacks in Washington would have people think otherwise.

9. I know we’ve got controversy on this one, the war in Iraq is going poorly.

There is not much controversy over that, unless you are one of those who has so much invested in the US doing poorly that you cannot admit the truth. Many of those are in DC, and usually have a (D) after their names. In fact, if it weren’t for all of the naysayers in DC who want us to fail so much that they will get on television and lie to the entire world, we would be doing even better. But, we have too many “legislators” who are more concerned with increasing their own visibility and standing in the power structure than they are with the fact that their statements are seditious and treasonous. Those of us here on the ground in Iraq know that the war is going well, and reconstruction is going well, despite the slow start. By the way, those of us on the ground does not include the reporters who go to the Green Zone, hunt someone up who is unhappy, while ignoring the large majority of those who are very much happier than they were only a few short years ago.

10. It’s entirely possible that when all is said and done, we will have facilitated the replacement of Saddam Hussein with a leadership regime in Iraq that is beholden to Iran and unfriendly to the U.S., albeit one that does not equal the evil of Saddam nor the type of threat he could have become.

It is very unlikely that something like that will happen. I spent several months in and around Basra, which is the largest Shi’a city in Iraq. It is located in the southern part of the country, is on the border, and shares religious ideology with the Iranians, in that it is Shi’a. In my time there, through personal contact, and conversations with others who were going out into the city, I found that most Iraqis in Basra are not the religious fanatics the MSM would have people believe. Are there some there that are very religiously observant? Of course there are. However, most people don’t much like Iran, or the system of government in Iran. Add to that the fact that Iranians are not Arab, and there just isn’t much likelihood of a theocratic government being established in Iraq.

11. I hardly expect disagreement. Leaving Iraq now, meaning immediately, would embolden insurgents and terrorists.

Absolutely. Jack Murtha is one of those I referenced earlier who is more intent on being heard than in saying anything useful. He speaks to the most base, cowardly part of the American electorate in order to secure their support, and Damn the troops on the ground. He may once have been a hero, but that is long ago, before he sold himself to the Devil in order to have a successful political career.

12. Our presence in Iraq provides a rallying point for the insurgency and the radical Islamists.

Maybe, but I say let keep coming. The more we kill or capture or injure here means the less that are available for terrorist plans elsewhere. Eventually, even those idiots must start to realize that they cannot win against a resolute foe that will not be cowed by their attacks on the defenseless. Instead, we will chase them into their hiding places and smoke them out and kill them as fast as we can. There can be no peace accord with someone whose avowed goal is the annihilation of our way of life.

13. Leaving Iraq as soon as possible must be our goal.

No, leaving a strong free Iraq must be our goal. That goal will take some time. It took us roughly 100 years to figure out a workable system of government, and resolve some of our most difficult issues, such as slavery. Hell, we are STILL working on some issues 230 years later. To expect the Iraqis to be able to do it in less than 3 years is unrealistic. We are still in most of the countries we defeated in WWII, nobody called for a withdrawal because they are quagmires. It boils down to the fact that Democrats cannot allow a Republican President to achieve such an historic victory and change the face of the world yet again.

14. Final statement, last but certainly not least, and I know we’ve got disagreement about this one: It’s time for the administration to set a timetable to leave Iraq.

Depends on what you mean by timeline. If you mean setting and publishing specific dates for withdrawal, either partial or complete, then that is absolutely the wrong thing to do. There is a reason that governments and militaries have classification of important plans. It is to avoid letting the enemy know what we will be doing, when it is going to happen, and how it will be done That is very, very basic strategy. Deny information to the enemy and our chances for success increase dramatically. If there are those out there that are too ignorant or too stubborn to accept that reality, then that is their problem, not mine, unless those people are the ones that control the budget to allow us to fight the war. If those are the people that are demanding a timetable, then the President need to tell them what he has been telling them. We will leave when we have accomplished our goals. That should be the only sort of timetable that is set.

Thanks for having this discussion and I appreciate the support you, RWR, and others have shown me and my colleagues while we are deployed.

What I found interesting was the fact that I agreed with Bryan on all fourteen points, giving him the benefit of any doubt that may have existed in my opinion.

Bryan will be back in the States in about three weeks, and I have promised to buy him a brewski or twoski. I’ll try to get more of his incredible insight then. In the meantime, I wish Bryan and his unit all the best and, of course, a Merry Christmas.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Poor Fucking Baby

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 21, 2005

Saddam Says He’s Been Beaten in Detention

By MARIAM FAM, Associated Press Writer
(Associated Press Writers Jason Straziuso and Omar Sinan contributed to this report from Baghdad.)

Awwww … Poor fucking baby.

BAGHDAD, Iraq – Saddam Hussein launched into an extended outburst at his trial Wednesday, alleging he had been beaten and tortured by his Americans captors while in detention after a witness testified that his agents had tortured people by ripping off their skin.

Now that’s creative. Where did you get that one from? Uday?

Chief prosecutor Jaafar al-Mousawi said he would investigate and that if American-led multinational forces were abusing the former Iraqi leader, he would be transferred to the custody of Iraqi troops.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that will get ol’ Saddy to shut up, even if it does mean he will likely undergo REAL torture if he’s placed in that custodial arrangement. He’d be begging to go back to the Americans!

“I want to say here, yes, we have been beaten by the Americans and we have been tortured,” Saddam said, before gesturing to his seven co-defendants around him, “one by one.”

One by one. Just like those innocents you knocked off in your torture chambers, one by one.

After sitting quietly through several hours of testimony, Saddam said he’d been beaten “everywhere on my body. The marks are still there.”

The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis murdered and buried in mass graves were unavailable for comment.

Saddam and his co-defendants are on trial in the deaths of more than 140 Shiites following a 1982 assassination attempt against him in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad.

Standing in the fenced-in defendant’s area, Saddam complained at length about the conditions of his detention, engaging in a debate with al-Mousawi. Some of the exchange was edited out of the televised feed of the trial, which later adjourned until Thursday.

Saddam also told the court that he knew the name of the person who betrayed his hiding place when U.S. forces found him in December 2003.

We know it, too. He’s one of the wealthiest people in Iraq now that we’ve paid him his bounty. I suppose we might have some reason to doubt he cast his vote in your favor in the election. Do you somehow think that by saying you know his name, we will all cower in fear that he’ll somehow be tortured or killed? Puh-LEASE. You are nothing more than a simple criminal now, Saddy. Your threats are of no consequence. I’d have betrayed your hiding place, too, you fucking asshole.

Earlier, Saddam was composed as a witness testified that his regime killed and tortured people by administering electric shocks and ripping off their skin after pouring molten plastic on it.

Well I guess we know now who thought of the “ripping off the skin” accusation.

Two weeks ago, Saddam had called the court “unjust” and boycotted a session.

Poor fucking baby.

Ali Hassan Mohammed al-Haidari was the prosecution’s first witness Wednesday, testifying about killings and torture in Dujail after the attempt to assassinate Saddam.

Al-Haidari, who was 14 in 1982, started off by quoting from the Quran, the Islamic holy book, about how evil would be defeated.

No connection to terrorism? A guy who authorizes torture and murder in front of a 14-year old has no connnection to terrorism? Ummm … ok?

The judge, in an apparent early bid to take control of a courtroom that has often been unruly, told the witness to address the court and not Saddam directly.

Al-Haidari, whose brother was the trial’s first witness, testified that seven of his brothers were executed by Saddam’s regime and their bodies have not been found.

Al-Haidari said that he and other Dujail residents – including relatives – were taken to Baghdad and thrown into a security services prison, where people from “9 to 90” were held.

Throwing innocent 9-year olds in prison – no connection to terrorism?

Blood poured from head wounds and skin was pale from electric shocks, he testified. Security officials would drip melted plastic hoses on detainees, only to pull it off after it cooled, tearing skin off with it, he said.

“I cannot express all that suffering and pain we faced in the 70 days inside,” he said.

This witness is testifying to events that happened in front of him when he was FOURTEEN YEARS OLD. I’m going to be sick.

After a recess, another witness took the stand – the first of four the judge said would testify from behind a curtain Wednesday.

During previous sessions, Saddam has been defiant and combative, often trying to dominate the courtroom.

I wonder if he’ll try to dominate the firing squad.

The deposed president had refused to attend the previous session on Dec. 7. “I will not come to an unjust court! Go to hell!” he said in an outburst in court a day earlier.

I was already there and your mom said you weren’t home.

On Wednesday, his behavior was initially calmer, and he appeared clean-shaven and in fresh clothes, wearing a dark suit but no tie. At previous sessions, Saddam has appeared disheveled and has complained about being held in unsanitary conditions.

You want unsanitary conditions? Step into this big hole.

After greeting the court with a traditional “Peace be upon you,” he sat quietly in the defendants’ area and appeared to pay close attention to the proceedings, at times taking notes.

Let’s see … one very small circle … one a little bigger around that …

Later on, Saddam, interrupting al-Haidari, asked the judge if the court could take a break for prayer. Though the witness agreed, the judge ordered the trial to continue. About 10 minutes later, Saddam swung his chair to the left, closed his eyes and repeatedly bowed his head in what appeared to be about a minute-long prayer, the first time he has done that in court.

Suddenly discovering religion, are we? It’ll be pretty helpful after you’ve had all that lead pumped into you.

Muslims are required to pray five days a day at specific times.

Make that “five times a day” … call me a perfectionist. As to Saddam, the idea of him stopping to pray makes for pretty good theater, but I doubt anyone’s going to do much but laugh. Can you picture this scene? Here’s ol’ Saddy, sitting there in court being tried for heinous crimes, stops mid-trial and bows his head in prayer. I’m laughing so hard, I’m going to barf!

At another point when al-Haidari referred to Saddam by name, the former leader interrupted, saying “Saddam who?” implying the proper respect hadn’t been shown. The judge asked the witness whom he meant, and the witness restated: “I mean the former Iraqi president.”

No connection to terrorism … yeah, ok.

At another point in the trial, Saddam’s half brother and intelligence director, Barazan Ibrahim, launched into an unruly exchange that was largely edited out of the televised feed. He called al-Haidari “a dog” and his dead brothers “rotten dogs.” Guards entered the court and threatened to take him out, but Ibrahim wagged his finger at them, saying he could only be ordered to leave by the judge, who allowed him to stay.

Well, Barazan, it seems the dogs have come for theirs. Which can would you like to be placed into? Alpo or Skippy?

The court – which held its first session Oct. 19 – has now heard from 11 witnesses, who often gave emotional testimonies of random arrests, hunger and beatings while in custody and torture in detention.

Khamis al-Ubeidi, a member of Saddam’s defense team, argued that the “witnesses have no legal value. Their testimonies are based on coaching and unjustified narrative.”

So now personal experience is being characterized as “coaching and unjustified narrative”. Kiss my hairy white ass.

He said the defense team had security concerns that it wanted to tell the court about.

THIS I gotta hear …

“The court has to provide the lawyers and the defense witnesses with security,” he told the AP on Tuesday. “How can a lawyer work if he cannot move freely because of the security situation?”

Dude, you are the one who made the choice to defend this animal. Deal with it.

Some Iraqi government officials have said they hope the trial will help heal the wounds of his regime’s victims and bring Iraqis closer together.

That and some justice and/or closure for those who have been victimized.

But the trial has also highlighted divisions between Iraq’s various ethnic and sectarian groups, with many Sunni Arabs expressing sympathy with the former president and even nostalgia for his era.

Oh well. You make the bed – you sleep in it.

By contrast, many Shiites and Kurds gloated over seeing the once powerful Saddam reduced to a defendant.

As did a certain Rocker, and it’s going to be even more fun watching the video of the firing squad taking out the rat-bastard.

The Dujail case is the first of up to a dozen that prosecutors plan to bring against Saddam and his Baath Party inner circle for atrocities during their 23-year rule.

Again … no ties to terrorism?

The trial is taking place in the five-story marble building that once served as the party’s National Command Headquarters. The building in Baghdad’s Green Zone – the heavily fortified district where Iraq’s government, parliament and the U.S. Embassy are located – was heavily guarded.

Only to keep his sorry ass alive so that he can hear the words, “guilty as charged”.

Saddam Hussein is lucky I haven’t enlisted and volunteered for his guard detail. I wouldn’t give a shit what the judge would think of me, nor would I be too concerned over whether the marks I left were visible. I’d start by branding my initials into his forehead.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Mexico’s at its Whining AGAIN

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 20, 2005

Mexican Official: Border Wall ‘Stupid,’ ‘Underhanded’

Mexico’s foreign secretary Monday levelled his country’s sharpest criticism yet at a U.S. proposal for a fence along parts of its southern border, condemning it as “stupid” and “underhanded.”

In a radio interview, Luis Ernesto Derbez said U.S. legislators who approved the bill are turning a blind eye to the contributions millions of migrants from Mexico and elsewhere make to the U.S. economy and culture. “It’s a law that looks underhanded to everybody…stupid,” Derbez said.

Yeah, well it’s none of your fucking business anyway, asshole. If we want to build a fucking wall to keep the criminals from coming over here from your country, it just happens to be our right.

As a matter of fact, you fucking idiot, I think your whole socialist system in Mexico is stupid, and a totally underhanded way of oppressing people who would otherwise have a much higher standard of life. Why the fuck do you think they keep coming here? If your little socialist utopia were all that and a bag of Lay’s freakin’ potato chips, they’d be staying in Mexico, and we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.

On Friday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 239-182 in favour of an immigration-enforcement bill, which includes a proposal to build more than 1,100 kilometres of border fencing along parts of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

Under the measure, soldiers and police would help stop people sneaking across and employers would have to check the legal status of their workers.

Yeah, and kick their sorry little asses back into Mexico until they do the right thing and obey our laws.

Derbez said he is confident the bill will not make it past the U.S. Senate, which he said is not as easily swayed as the House.

I honestly don’t give a shit what you think, asshat. Someone has to do something about you clowns and your total disregard for your own people and ours. If this passes the Senate, what will you do then? Declare war? THIS I gotta see!

Reacting Sunday to the bill’s approval, Mexican President Vicente Fox said: “This wall is shameful” and called the plan hypocritical for a country made up of immigrants.

Immigrants who have worked hard to maintain a culture and economy that is the envy of the whole world. All we’re asking is that our laws be obeyed. What the fuck is your problem with that?

Fox has for years called for an immigration agreement with Washington granting some form of legal status to Mexicans who sneak into U.S. territory in search of work.

Hey Farks, how about this for a solution? Get all your illegals back into your country and keep them there until they have completed the legal process required to enter the US and work. Your failure and refusal to do so is as flagrant a violation of our laws and our sovereignty as that committed by those sneaking into the US from your country. By saying what you are saying and doing what you are doing, you are disrespecting us as a nation and each and every one of us as Americans. This would go a long way in solving the problem, and would go even farther in easing tensions between Mexico and the US. I’m not holding my breath.

President George W. Bush proposed a new guest worker program with three-year work visas but U.S. legislators refused to include the initiative in the immigration bill passed Friday.

They refused because it would be the wrong thing to do. Guess you’re gonna bitch at us for doing what is right for America? Farks?

Authorities estimate there are about 11 million undocumented migrants in the United States, about one-half of them Mexican.

I’m going to repeat that. It’s kind of important.

Authorities estimate there are about 11 million undocumented migrants in the United States, about one-half of them Mexican.

One half of all illegal aliens are Mexican. That means that ALL OTHER NATIONALITIES COMBINED equal the same number as Mexico. I wonder how many illegal American workers there are in Mexico trying to make a better life there.

Umm … Derbez? Farks?

Yeah, that’s what I thought. Look, if we want to build a wall or a fence or an electrified fortification along our border, it’s none of your fucking business. If you weren’t so into socialist oppression, maybe these people wouldn’t feel so desperate they had to sneak into our country just to make ends meet. Oh, and as Sage will probably tell you, it’s not like tyour typical illegal is here to assimilate and become one of us, which is what our “Nation of Immigrants” is all about. Get along with the business of putting capitalism and freedom at the forefront, and these people won’t be in such a big hurry to come over here.

In the meantime, you can go fuck yourself.


Update: John Hawkins weighs in.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Gonzales: Congress Authorized Spying

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 19, 2005

In this AP article, we learn that Attorney General Gonzales has said that Congress’s authorization for the use of force in the aftermath of 9/11 included provisions for the President to engage in the sort of spying that has come to light in the last week.

A couple of comments on this.

1. The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from “unreasonable searches and seizures”. Any warrants issued must be specific in the nature of the seizure. It does not say that a Warrant is necessarily required for various kinds of surveillance, though I do believe warrants are a good way for the government to cover it’s tuckus in case someone challenges a decision. The real question here is whether or not it is reasonable to engage in surveillance of those who may be involved in terrorism. It is.

2. Congressmen and Senators galore have called for investigations. Since it is quite likely Attorney General Gonzales is telling the truth about the congressional authorization, who will investigate the House and Senate?

I’m off for tour tonight. I’ll be back some time tomorrow. “Stress Week” will start to wind down around mid-week, albeit ever-so slowly. Hang in there with me!


Update 12/21 10:30AM: Moonbat Monitor shows how such spying AND MORE were done by the Clinton Administration.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Just Got In

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 18, 2005

Long weekend …

Double yesterday, road trip today (Saturday), and stuff tomorrow like crazy.

Hopefully I’ll be able to get something up by Monday afternoon, ’cause I got another road trip then.

Tuesday should see some relief.

Of course, please do come around and read some of the older posts, as many of them are quite good, even if I do say so myself.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“Special Collection Program”

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 16, 2005

I haven’t checked out the blogger response to this, but on the surface, it sure looks a lot like another case of Big Brother watching.

Yeah, I know it’s the New York Times. However, in times of war, many administrations have done stupid things. Remember the way Asians were treated during World War II? The Patriot Act is the same kind of fear-driven surrender of God-given rights. This is just the next logical step.

We are at war. We are at war trying to protect the very rights we are surrendering out of fear. It is a victory for the enemy when we act in this fashion, and with the federal government usurping these rights anyway, we shouldn’t be looking for more rights to give up.

It is, of course, important that the telephone conversations of those suspected of terrorist ties be monitored. I can also see any number of scenarios whereby there may simply not be time to secure a warrant prior to engaging in said monitoring. However, would it not be important to secure such a warrant at the very earliest opportunity (within a specified time frame)? Wouldn’t it also be imperative that any policy such as this include the destruction of any record of monitoring of individuals that turned out to be innocent?

Granted, I did not read the entire article, as work is piling up both at the day job and in the performaing world – and it is, after all, the New York Times, one of the most boring and least credible of sources. Who knows how much of this is actually bullshit aimed at damaging the President? Yet, those aspects of this policy, if any and whatever they may be, that violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans should be addressed by those in charge. How difficult would it be to simply add a provision requiring a warrant be secured within a specified period of time if the lead required immediate surveillance? Also, why not set forth the criteria under which the information secured must be destroyed.

This kind of surveillance is actually a good idea. It allows those protecting us from our enemies to keep a close watch on them while they plan their evil deeds. I imagine there are many terrorist attacks that have been thwarted in this fashion. I can understand that, in haste, perhaps a few things may have been left out, but you don’t protect rights by giving them up or taking them away.

Again, I am saying what I am saying within the context of having scanned part of an article in a source that has historically been pro-enemy and Anti-America. However, the charges here are pretty serious, and either the President must look more closely at this policy and make some changes, or the New York Times must be taken to task for its attempts to derail the war effort.


Update 1:10PM: Calls for a probe. What I find interesting about this is that we hear a lot of complaining from liberals and little more than assurances from the administration that everything is/was perfectly legal and ok. Given the track record of that situation, chances are good that this was done lawfully (evidence – Plamegate, etc). If a closer look reveals, for example, that the surveillance involved foreign nationals in the country, or of Americans who appear to be within the phone chain of terrorists, only minor adjustments to the policy, if any, should be necessary.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

On the Iraqi Elections

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 15, 2005

I don’t know who it was that said it. It definitely wasn’t me, but wow.

Every purple finger is a bullet in the chest of terrorism.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

80% turnout. Wow. These guys really seem to be getting into it.

Congratulations, Iraq. We wish you all the best.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Surrender Monkeys

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 14, 2005

By way of HS BethW’s blog, I found Janette from CommonSenseRunsWild.com.

Her blog is awesome. Over the weekend, she put up the obligatory blog about Weird Howard and Co. with their waving of the white flag. In an update she mentioned the epithet “Surrender Monkeys”.

The imagery this conjured up had me in stitches. In my mind’s eye I saw Weird Howard chomping on a banana in between shouts of YYYEEEAAAARRGGH, Fuckweasel John testifying before a committee of babboons (also chowing down on a banana), and Hanoi Jane … well i’m sure you can get a few ideas as to what she was doing with HER banana! HAHAHA.

Maybe I oughta have a contest to see who can come up with the best monkey/banana joke for these “Surrender Monkeys”. Drop it in the comments!


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

No Wonder

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 13, 2005

No wonder the Donks love so much to accuse Republicans of voter fraud and “stealing elections”. It’s apparently exactly how they win them.

Maybe all those accusations of paying off bums with cigarettes in exchange for Gore votes may not have been just a bunch of silly bullshit after all. When it comes to corruption, the Donks seem to have written the book.

Vince Foster is still unavailable for comment.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Under the Weather

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 13, 2005

Sorry to report I’ve been down most of today with a minor virus.

I will make some attempt to get something up this evening or later tonight.


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Pope Benedict: Christmas “Polluted”

Posted by RightWingRocker on December 12, 2005

NewsMax reports today that Pope Benedict believes that the true spirit of Christmas is being polluted today by what he calls “consumerism”.

While this may be true on a world level, here in America “consumerism” is the least of the problems Christmas faces.

The ACLU’s current assault on anything non-atheist has forced people to take down their Christmas trees and Hannukah menorahs, only to erect “holiday trees” in their place. They have intimidated businesses into removing their “Merry Christmas” signs and replacing them with “Happy Holidays” signs. They have gone to court over public displays involving the Nativity. They’ve even demanded that crosses be removed from memorials to fallen police officers. “Consumerism” pales in comparison to this.

It is my hope that Pope Benedict will come to the aid of people of faith in America, as our faith is under assault. Those who would use our Constitution to protect us from these evildoers are curiously silent. Even President Bush, who is often maligned as an overly religious leader, has done little to protect our constitutionally guaranteed free practice. Religious leaders worldwide should be uniting behind the effort to beat back these thugs. They have no right to tell people what they can and cannot do with regard to religion, and they know it.

Do you think Barry Lynn and his goons over at the ACLU don’t know what the First Amendment says? Do you really think they have “interpreted” it improperly? Trust me. Those assholes know damned right well what is says AND what it means. They DELIBERATELY twist it around in their presentation to you, because the real meaning of the First Amendment is at odds with their worldview. If the ACLU succeeds in forcing reigion out of public life, watch out for the next logical step – forcing it out of private life.

“Assembling the Nativity scene in the home can turn out to be a simple but effective way of presenting the faith to pass it on to one’s children,” Benedict added.

If the ACLU gets what it wants, look for them to assault your faith in the privacy of your own home, making this impossible. Pope Benedict’s simple, humble means of reinforcing the real meaning of Christmas would be forced into underground religious practice like those that existed in the Soviet Union.

Kinda makes you think about the ACLU’s real objective, now, doesn’t it?


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by RightWingRocker on December 11, 2005

Got lots of rest yesterday, but still not much sleep.

Got in from the gig at 4AM … Had to get up again at 8AM to start the day’s stuff. Finally arrived back about an hour ago.

The shows this weekend were nothing short of amazing. That’s why I have a little energy to write this quick post. Maybe after a nap I can get back into whats going on out there and post something, either tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for hanging in there!


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »