RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for March, 2006

Opening Remarks for April

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 31, 2006

March has been a special month, breaking the 1,000 visit barrier for one month. While that’s not a really big accomplishment in the overall blogosphere, for a small blogger like myself whou wouldn’t mind being bigger, it’s a neat thing to be able to point to and gloat a little.

April will be a special month as well. My one and only blogson (I get a kick outa that … blogson haha … the dude is ten years older than I am!), The Old Sage, will celebrate his first blogoversary on April 19. I wonder what kinda gift you get a blogson … I myself didn’t get into blogging on anyone’s prodding or encouragement. Instead, I was inspired to start blogging from reading The Rottie and RightWing News. Does that make me a “blorphan”?

Oh, and while I’m rambling, advertising space is available here at the RWRepublic. Just click “Your Ad Here” in the right column, and we can take it from there.

I also wonder what it would be like to have an “Ask Rocker” post from time to time similar to Hawkins’s Q&A Friday. Of course, people would have to pose some questions for me to answer ;). I’m also thinking about featuring a blogger friend from time to time with a little post about him/her.

It’s time for bed. I’m bushed.

Good night.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Illegal Aliens Want Cheap Tuition for College

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 31, 2006

Such a gorgeous day …

Such a long nap …

Such a stupid idea – That taxpayers should be forced to pay for illegal aliens’ college tuition. When will it stop?

h/t – John Hawkins

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Unhinged and Uninformed

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 30, 2006

Surfing around today, I found this by way of Jim’s Parkway Rest Stop.

If this isn’t the most obvious reason we should be curbing the flow of illegal aliens into this country, it had damned well be near the top of the list.

Here is all the history anyone needs. It’s the February, 1848 treaty with Mexico that declared that the US would take possession of Texas as part of her victory in the war. We kicked Mexico’s ass then, and we’ll kick it again if we have to. That’s the “true history”.

On the other issue on this idiot’s sign …

NO ONE calls ANYONE illegal for being Mexican. People being called illegal are being called illegal for being, well, ILLEGAL. These people have entered a sovereign nation without doing so in accordance with its laws. If you entered this country (or any other, for that matter) without following the proper procedure set forth in law, then you are, by definition, ILLEGAL.

By the way, if I were an INS agent, I would make sure anyone holding a sign bragging about their illegal status were taken into custody for a verification of citizenship or legal status. If found to in fact be in the country illegally, I would prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. If found to be legal, then they would be released – no problem. A sign bragging about illegal status would easily rise to the level of probable cause.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“Only then are you truly American”

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 30, 2006

Peggy Noonan’s article today is one of the most inspiring things I have read in a long time as an American.

Just read it. All of it. Right now.

RWR

h/t – Mark Tapscott

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

How Stupid Can You Be?

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 30, 2006

If you want to understand the frustration reasonable people feel with regard to these anti-war idiots, take a look at this AP article, regarding recently released Jill Carroll:

Carroll Says Iraq Captors Treated Her Well

Huh? Treated her well? You call THIS being treated well?

Captors threaten to kill U.S. reporter

Jill Carroll taken captive January 7th

AP/WJRT

CAIRO, Egypt (AP/WJRT) – (01/18/06)– An American reporter being held hostage in Iraq is being threatened with death.

An Arab television channel has aired a silent 20-second videotape of Christian Science Monitor reporter Jill Carroll. It said an accompanying message gives the United States 72 hours to free female prisoners in Iraq, or the journalist would be killed. (my emphasis)

What kind of sick person equates captivity and death threats with being “treated well”??

“I was treated well, but I don’t know why I was kidnapped,” Carroll said in a brief interview on Baghdad television.

If you don’t know why you were kidnapped, you have got to be the STUPIDEST person walking this planet. Even the filthiest drooling anti-war pinko commie moonbat could tell you. I’ll just give you a little hint: It has something to do with that cross you’re carrying and that eagle on your passport. What you should be wondering is why you were let go, idiot.

“They never hit me. They never said they would hit me.”

Oh how fucking humane. I’m supposed to have pity on someone who’s too big a man to hit a lady, but not too big a man to saw her fucking head off with a knife, videotape it, and send the video to al-Jizzeater so the whole world, including her parents, can watch?

I have a new proposal for dealing with these anti-war morons who go into the war zone and deliberately place themselves into situations where they kiss terrorist ass and then wind up being kidnapped and/or murdered, only to show total disdain for those who put their lives on the line to see to their rescue – Let the terrorists keep them.

Seriously. What do we stand to gain by saving the lives of those who would aid and abet our enemies, those who wish to destroy our people, our culture, and our nation? Why should we bother rescuing people who show their appreciation for our having done so by supporting the very terrorists that threatened their own precious lives? What benefit exists in giving these people the opportunity to make political hay out of a situation they themselves created?

Look, regardless of your position on the war, it takes a person of questionable motives and/or sanity to just walk into a war zone knowing full well terrorists are there – and ready and willing to use you as a political pawn, threaten you, torture you, murder you, and all without regard for what you think or believe, unless you are willing to renounce your religion in favor of theirs. It takes a person of questionable patriotism to put life and limb on the line just to make a political point.

And it takes a person of INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY to put herself through all of the above and then come home and say that she 1.) was treated well, and 2.) didn’t know why she was taken captive. Jill, you’re safe at home now. You don’t need to kiss their sorry asses any more. Or do you really mean this nonsense?

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Another Milestone

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 29, 2006

I’ve been flirting for some time with the prospect of having a month with over a thousand hits. It finally happened. Today, we crossed the 1000 visitor mark for this month.

It’s not really a big deal. After all, the big guys get ten times that and more in a single day, but hey, every big blogger was once a small blogger.

>>>>>>>SHAMELESS GLOATING

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Platform of a Great Party

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 29, 2006

I found this of interest in my reading today.

Imagine a party built on the following platform (my comments added):

1. Resolved, That the federal government is one of limited powers, derived solely from the constitution, and the grants of power shown therein, ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government, and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.

A government limited by the Constitution, with all grants of power to be strictly interpreted by everyone, and that it is wrong to exercise powers of doubtful constitutionality. Call me a right-wing extremist, but this makes a LOT of sense to me.

2. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer upon the general government the power to commence and carry on, a general system of internal improvements.

You mean the government doesn’t have the authority to get involved in trying to fix everything that someone thinks is wrong with the country? This is MY party so far.

3. Resolved, That the constitution does not confer authority upon the federal government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several states, contracted for local internal improvements, or other state purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.

The federal government has to stay out of state-level financial matters? Amen to that!

4. Resolved, That justice and sound policy forbid the federal government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of another, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country—that every citizen and every section of the country, has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of person and property from domestic violence, or foreign aggression.

So the federal government cannot work in favor of a particular industry, such as education, or to the detriment of another, such as tobacco or automobiles? No favoritism for people who look at themselves as members of some contrived group? No favoritism in favor of people in any particular part of the country over another? Every citizen has the right to demand that his unalienable rights be secured? Where do I sign up?

5. Resolved, That it is the duty of every branch of the government, to enforce and practice the most rigid economy, in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised, than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the government.

No more taxation than is absolutely necessary to maintain these very limited functions? Dude, I’m there.

6. Resolved, That congress has no power to charter a national bank; that we believe such an institution one of deadly hostility to the best interests of the country, dangerous to our republican institutions and the liberties of the people, and calculated to place the business of the country within the control of a concentrated money power, and above the laws and the will of the people.

Hmm … Sounds like this policy could help to solve a lot of problems…

7. Resolved, That congress has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the several states, and that such states are the sole and proper judges of everything appertaining to their own affairs, not prohibited by the constitution; that all efforts by abolitionists or others, made to induce congress to interfere with questions of slavery, or to take incipient steps in relation thereto, are calculated to lead to the most alarming and dangerous consequences, and that all such efforts have an inevitable tendency to diminish the happiness of the people, and endanger the stability and permanency of the union, and ought not to be countenanced by any friend to our political institutions.

OK, now before anyone gets all bent out of shape over this party not wanting to take a stand against slavery, this platform does not in any way interfere with any state wishing to abolish slavery. It merely stands against abolitionists pestering Congress about the matter, and conferring upon the individual states the authority to deal with the matter individually. In other words, this platform does not seek to stop the abolition of slavery, but to see to it that those working toward that end follow the proper procedure, and work through the proper channels, namely, the states.

I personally would disagree that the federal government did not have the authority to get involved, since the Bill of Rights reinforces several rights that are retained by the people, and the slaves were being excluded from these rights. The federal government correctly banned slavery under the Lincoln Administration, but I do agree that the best course of action would have been to work through the individual states and abolish slavery state-by-state, and then pass the Thirteenth Amendment. On that level, I agree with this party.

8. Resolved, That the separation of the moneys of the government from banking institutions, is indispensable for the safety of the funds of the government, and the rights of the people.

Again, this policy could very well save a lot of the trouble we face today with the IRS.

9. Resolved, That the liberal principles embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence, and sanctioned in the constitution, which makes ours the land of liberty, and the asylum of the oppressed of every nation, have ever been cardinal principles in the democratic faith; and every attempt to abridge the present privilege of becoming citizens, and the owners of soil among us, ought to be resisted with the same spirit which swept the alien and sedition laws from our statute-book.

Amen. The laws that we have on the books today with regard to immigration, as well as those involving illegal border crossings, could very well be enough to curtail the problems we are having. There’s one problem. They are not enforced. Why not? No serious penalties. Allowing for more stringent penalties and increasing border security, both at the federal and local level (the Minuteman Project is perfectly legitimate to this end), with or without a wall, will definitely help us secure our rights in this more dangerous day and age.

I largely agree with this platform. Again, I disagree that the federal government does not have the authority to ban slavery, but I also agree that going state-to-state before introducing the Thirteenth Amendment would have been a much better solution. With the strict limitations this platform places on the federal government, this party is head and shoulders above either of the major parties in power today.

Wouldn’t it be great if a political party would again focus on the limitations that the federal government is supposed to respect under the Constitution?

Oh, by the way, this extreme right-wing agenda, as it would be called today, is the Democratic Party Platform of 1840.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

“New Federalists”? Yeah, Right.

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 29, 2006

OK. I don’t know who the knucklehead was that came up with this idea, but a little site on GeoCities is now calling itself the “Official Website of the New Federalist Party”. Problem is, they do not represent the ideas set forth in the New Federalist Platform, found here . Instead, there’s another platform, which has little or nothing to do with the ideas we New Federalists truly represent.

Created in 1787 by some of our nation’s finest minds, the Federalist Party was instrumental in forging the new nation. Where they have left off, a new party has begun. In a time dominated by partisan politics and money interests the cry for a united government in which the voice of the people will not be drowned out is stronger than it has ever been. Though incorporating many of the views from both the Republicans and Democrats, the New Federalists are their own party fixed around a strong central government that holds the voice of the people close at heart.

True New Federalists agree with very little of the Democratic Party Platform, due to its emphasis on socialism and its blatant disrespect for the Constitution, so “incorporating many of the views from both the Republicans and Democrats” is nothing more than a cop-out. This “party” is nothing more than a bunch of “RINOs”, “DINOs”, and “moderates” trying to make themselves out as a viable alternative to the major parties, despite the fact that they aren’t any different from them.

Begun as a small progressive movement in the Eastern United States, it is now gaining significant ground throughout the country, with the number of members growing exponentially. This is the official website of the New Federalist Party. We invite you to explore our views in our party platform and read about the old Federalists in the history section.

How would they know if their ideas were “gaining significant ground”? I would venture that most people calling themselves “New Federalists” would overwhelmingly be more along the lines of those of us following the concept supported by President Reagan and set forth in the New Federalist Platform. If someone says “yeah, I’m a Federalist” or “I’m a New Federalist”, how do they know the person isn’t talking about the Reagan movement, which is most likely considerably stronger than their little imaginary “party”. Furthermore, the New Federalist movement is hardly “progressive” (translation: SOCIALIST). It is a return to the concept of Federalism as envisioned by our forefathers, with adjustments consistent with the acknowledgement that history has shown the Anti-federalists to have been largely correct in their assessment of the potential problems with the Constitution. Of course, these people’s version of “New Federalism” is not even close to the real New Federalist platform.

Environment

The New Federalist believe the environment should be both preserved and used for the benefit of mankind. We can use our environment for enjoyment and raw materials, without damaging the ecosystem. We firmly support the Environmental Protection Agency. Current Issue: New Federalists are against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

New Federalists believe that it is not within the authority of the federal government to be involved in such matters. Believing that “the environment should be both preserved and used for the benefit of mankind,” and that “we can use our environment for enjoyment and raw materials, without damaging the ecosystem,” which most true New Federalists do, does NOT mean that putting the federal government in charge of this is either prudent or constitutional. No provisions for the EPA or, for that matter, something like ANWR, are made in the Constitution.

Power of Government

As the Federalist Party supported a strong central government, so do the New Federalists. Without a unifying, firm national government, our country couldn’t survive.

The Federalist Party of 1787 supported what in its time would have been considered a strong central government, but this is a relative term. Prior to the Constitution, there was no central government at all. ALL of the Founders, whether their party affiliation ultimately wound up being Federalist or Democratic-Republican, sought to limit the size and scope of the federal government. The Constitution itself, along with the Bill of Rights, sets forth a system by which the federal government is the WEAKEST link in the chain of government, not the opposite. The Tenth Amendment clearly makes this case. These phony “New Federalists” are supporting a position more akin to Bill Clinton’s “supreme” federal government.

Gun Control

“As the sword was the last resort for the preservation of our liberties, so it ought to be the first to be laid aside when those liberties are firmly established.” -George Washington
The New Federalists agree with Washington and believe we only need stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, not any new ones.

Obviously one of those measures these people have taken from the Republicans, but is it conservative? No. Is it supported by the Constitution? No. True New Federalists believe that existing gun laws violate the Second Amendment, and should be repealed rather than enforced.

Economy

Graduated tax plan, where the wealthy pay a greater amount since they reap more benefits from the government. New Federalists support middle class tax cuts to aid the working class. New Federalists believe any national surplus would be utilized in paying off the national debt. New Federalists also advocate government aid and regulation to small businesses promoting competition and allowing American business to be controlled by Americans. We support NAFTA but want to regulate overseas trade through protective tariffs.

Wrong. New Federalists support doing away with the income tax, and getting the government out of the business of micromanaging the economy altogether. This platform position sounds a lot like a campaign speech from Al Gore.

Military Defense

The New Federalists support the status quo on military spending.
We also need to stop the testing of the ABM, which steps on the toes of our own foreign policy, destroying relations with both China and Russia.

My disagreement on the concept of keeping a strong professional military notwithstanding, the real New Federalist platform calls for a greater role of US citizens in the defense of our nation and less emphasis on the professional military we currently have. I personally couldn’t give a shit about relations with Russia and China, as neither of those countries cares much about their relations with us. ABM is a legitimate defense mechanism, essential for defense against anyone who would seek to harm us with ballistic missile technology.

Foreign Policy

The New Federalists believe that the stronger the foundation, the stronger the nation. If our military is responsible for the devastation of a foriegn land, we must put a hand to rebuild it. That is why Nation Building is the key to progressive international relations.

Faulty premise. Our military has not devastated ANY foreign land. We have, since 2001, twice liberated countries from oppressive governments that just happened to be hostile to us and posed a legitimate threat. The effects of our military operations have been the end of the devastating effects of their prior governments, the elimination of the threats posed by those hostile governments, and the establishment of a more citizen-friendly form of government that will have more potential to take our side when called upon. Just because it hasn’t been easy doesn’t mean it’s not ultimately a win-win situation.

Media

The Federal Communications Commission has been seen as an infringement of the rights of all Americans. In many cases, this is not true. Television is regularly monitored by the FCC. It is because of this that your child will never be able to see nudity or hear profanity at 4 o’clock in the afternoon. The internet is a completely different story. At any time of day, anyone anywhere would be able to view a pornographic website with incredible ease. It is far easier to find such a site than it would be to find information on the planet Mars, Abraham Lincoln, World War I, etc. It isn’t just pornography. There are websites that have gruesome footage of Daniel Pearl’s slaying, instructions for pipe bombs, and many other evils . A controlled censorship would allow for the termination of these atrocities while still guaranteeing every man, woman, and child their God-given rights.

There is no provision in the Constitution for the FCC. Again the premise is faulty. The FCC has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that my child will not see nudity or profanity at 4 o’clock in the afternoon because I, as a parent, monitor their television habits. Furthermore, responsible communications companies wouldn’t show that stuff at that time anyway, with or without the FCC. Why not? Because they are parents, too, and they wouldn’t want THEIR kids watching that stuff, either. Irresponsible companies would cease to exist, because of the loss of money caused by people refusing to watch their programming. On the Internet, search engines routinely carry a “family filter” feature, which filters out most of these things (ain’t capitalism great?). There are also many free applications available for download, which do a great job of filtering out what you don’t want. These people are treating the availability of video of Daniel Pearl’s slaying as if it were a greater atrocity than the slaying itself. Censoring something like that takes away the ability to see the enemy for what he is, and feeds these anti-war activist nutjobs who would rather face Pearl’s fate than defeat those who inflicted it. Furthermore, censorship is illegal under the First Amendment.

Energy

Americans need to reduce their dependence on OPEC and eventually on oil all together. About 60% of the world’s oil supply is produced by non-OPEC countries such as the United States, Mexico, Russia, China, Canada, Norway, and the United Kingdom. A dependence on OPEC is a dependence on Middle East nations, and reducing that reliance would keep the United States free of regional conflicts.

Eventually our oil supply will dwindle, and when that time comes, alternative energy sources must be established. We promote solar power, hybrid cars, and eventually fusion power. The US Department of Energy must continue to research these areas, especially the potentials of fusing hydrogen atoms. Also, we must continue to fund the development of fuel cell technology.

You can have whatever position on energy you want. There is no room in the Constitution for the federal government to involve itself in such matters. Real New Federalists know and understand this. Somehow I get the idea these phony “New Federalists” haven’t bothered to read the Constitution their forebearers crafted for the republic.

Abortion

The New Federalists believe that life begins at conception. Because of this view, we favor the ban of all abortion. Only in cases of high-risk pregnancy will a termination of the fetus be permitted, and purely on command of the mother. In order to compensate for the larger population of infants that will be put up for adoption, the New Federalists propose that the government assume control of all adoption agencies. In the case of rape or incest, the baby may be put up for adoption at one such government agency. Because these centers are funded by the federal government, any increase of children will lead to a direct increase in funding, ensuring that these agencies will not deteriorate. To further curb the resulting higher birth rate, we propose an increase of education on abstenance and contraceptives.

This starts out sounding pretty conservative, with actual acknowledgement that life begins at conception, but read on. Only the mother can allow an abortion – the father is left out entirely (violation of equal protection clause). The federal government is put in charge of all adoption agencies (no constitutional provision). Advocating any “increase in education” means one thing: increasing federal spending on it (no constitutional provision). Again, there isn’t much here that the Federalists of 1787 would have agreed with, and beyond the first sentence, the same goes for true New Federalists as well.

Education

The New Federalist Party condemns vouchers. Removing money from the public education system will do nothing to improve it. Vouchers make it easier for the wealthy to attend private schools while leaving the rest behind.

We need to segregate students with special needs. By allowing students to follow their own academic track, all students will be given the attention they need. If it comes to a teacher giving more time to one student, then this is neglecting the nineteen others in the class.

The federal government needs to improve funding and make the teacher occupation more favorable. The education field is no longer competitive in reference to salary with other fields. The bottomline is we must not give up on public education.

New Federalists (the real ones, not these phonies) recognize that federal infringement on states’ rights such as taking over the education system is the problem, not the solution. It is a joke to suggest that vouchers (at the state level where they belong) would have the effect suggested. Where they have been implemented, they have actually been quite successful. Besides, why shouldn’t people be able to choose where their children go to school? For that matter, why shoulnd’t people who have worked hard and made smart decisions have an advantage in any market? The fact that I pissed most of my money away in my lifetime SHOULD put me at a disadvantage. It’s only right. Those who have made better decisions should have better opportunities. It’s called a reward. Get over it.

Pornography

People have a right to look at pornography as much as they do to read the morning newspaper. The New Federalists however seek to stymie the growth of this morally objectionable industry by increasing federal taxes on pornography. This will decrease viewership and discourage growth in the industry, while government revenues will be increased. This increased revenue will be used to fight child pornography and fund expenses related to Amber’s Law.

If you don’t like pornography, don’t look at it. If you don’t want your kids to see it, don’t let them. The private sector provides more than ample opportunity to do this without the government violating the First Amendment. The taxes these people support will have little, if any, effect on viewership or the growth of the industry, and laws that represent a violation of the First Amendment should be repealed, not funded. New Federalists these people are not.

Gay Rights

Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. Therefore the New Federalists are strongly against any attempt to legalize gay marriage. Civil unions are an attempt to do the same thingt under a different name, so the party stands against them as well. However, New Federalists stand against sodomy laws as we feel the government has no control over a person’s bedroom.

Now here’s a place I agree with these people – 100%. But notice the change in tone from their other positions. Here, it’s all about getting the government out, and keeping it that way. Restoring limitations on the federal government is what the New Federalism is all about.

Immigration

New Federalists support restricting immigration by limiting the total number of immigrants based on the number of immigrants granted citizenship in a previous year. This year is based on census data and chosen by Congress and the Chair of the Federal Reserve. For example, if the government decided to base the number on census data from 1985, the total number of immigrants admitted would be 570,009. This number can be chosen on a yearly basis as the economy warrants. Qualification for immigration would be based on skills, political refugee status and family unification. Unrestricted immigration leads to a large amount of unskilled labor depressing the economy. This problem will be corrected with a proactive limit to immigration. The New Federalist also support more funding toward INS and border patrol in order to reduce illegal immigration.

New Federalists do not support restricting immigration. We support immigration limited only by the ability of people to legally enter the country and naturalize. We would agree that the Constitution authorizes border patrols to keep illegal aliens out, but we are all either immigrants ourselves, or descended from immigrants. Real Federalists, like those of the 18th Century, recognize the importance of people wanting to assimilate into our culture, as most, if not all, who come here legally seek to do. We welcome these people and their contributions with open arms. Illegal aliens typically want nothing of the sort, and their unlawful behavior, especially given the magnitude of the problem, is a blight on our country and its ideals.

Well, folks, that’s their platform. Another big-government idea with nothing new to bring to the table. Everything in their platform is directly taken from some Donk policy position or some liberal Republican position that needs to be done away with. In reality, these people are nothing more than pro-life Democrats who support marriage and secure borders.

The only common ground these phony New Federalists have with us real ones is on the concept of life beginning at conception and gay “rights”. A better name for this party would be the “Republicrats”, since instead of seeking new ideas and new ways to rein in a government that has grown so far out of bounds it resembles the Soviet government more than it does the Federalist government of the Eighteenth Century, they merely looked over positions taken by those two parties and picked out the common ground they had with both. Nothing at all about even trying to limit government and return power to its rightful place (the people and the states). They also are much closer to the Democrats than they are the Republicans. These people have hijacked a name and tried to make it sound noble, but in reality they are the same big government liberals America is trying to rid herself of.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Emperor Misha Once Again

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 28, 2006

This post says it all.

It’s the perfect continuation of the discussion we’ve been having here.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Aliens vs. Immigrants

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 27, 2006

I returned today from yesterday’s relaxing family day to find a comment from “John” on my recent post about Emperor Misha’s comments on illegal aliens:

Its funny how you call fellow humans aliens. The more you isolate yourselves from the rest of the world the more alien YOU become..wait and see.

John 03.26.06 – 4:25 pm

This is just the kind of buillshit rhetoric I came into the blogosphere to counter. I responded in the coment area, but this is actually important enough to warrant an actual post. Again, let me post my comments from last week:

I just wish we would call these people what they are and cut it out with the PC bullshit. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, not “undocumented immigrants” (implying they are legally in the country), not “undocumented workers” (implying they are American workers), but ILLEGAL ALIENS. Call a spade a spade, already.

OK, so who’s right? Well, first, it’s important to note that “John” somehow has this idea that by calling aliens aliens we are somehow saying they aren’t human. Fair enough. Let’s look at the actual dictionary definition of the word alien, first as an adjective:

1 a : belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing : STRANGE b : relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government : FOREIGN
2 : differing in nature or character typically to the point of incompatibility

Now I don’t know about you, but I don’t see anything there that would imply that there was any sub-human or extra-human aspect of being “alien”. There is, however, another entry, as a noun …

1 : a person of another family, race, or nation
2 : a foreign-born resident who has not been naturalized and is still a subject or citizen of a foreign country; broadly : a foreign-born citizen
3 : EXTRATERRESTRIAL

Notice how you have to get to a very broad definition (as acknowledged by Webster) to even approach anything that would suggest any legitimacy with regard to these people’s presence, and only those who are actually citizens. Only the very last definition allows for the term “extraterrestrial” as a synonym. Bottom line: the term “alien” is 100% appropriate and accurate in describing these people.

As for the rest of my comments on the matter, I present the definition of the word “immigrant”:

one that immigrates : as a : a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence b : a plant or animal that becomes established in an area where it was previously unknown

Definition b does not apply. These people are not plants.

But notice that an “immigrant” is one who comes to take up permanent residence. Those who have come here illegally have no intention of taking up permanent residence as Americans, EVER. If they did, they would respect American laws and come here legally. It is unconscionable that anyone would break a country’s laws to gain entry and then turn around and swear allegiance to it. They are therefore NOT immigrants.

And just in case any of you pro-illegal alien types feel like perverting the definition of “immigrate”, here it is:

to enter and usually become established; especially : to come into a country of which one is not a native for permanent residence

In other words, for these people to “immigrate” to this country, they must have full intention of becoming established here. Pardon my redundance, but it is unconscionable that anyone would break a country’s laws to gain entry and then turn around and swear allegiance to it.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Checkin’ In

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 25, 2006

The weekend has been kind of busy. Friday was crazy and it doesn’t look much like it’s going to stop before Tuesday.

There will be time to blog, though. Monday looks lke a pretty good bet, though I’m sure to have a lot of catching up to do. If I get some time before then, I’ll put something up.

In the meantime, there’ve been some pretty great posts here, so scroll through, hit up the RWRchives and the BlogRWRoll, and have a great time.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Emperor Strikes Again

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 23, 2006

Emperor Misha has put up a gem today regarding illegal aliens and liberal politicians, including Hitlery and President Bush.

to the MSM in general: Cut it out with the “undocumented immigrants” Newspeak, because nobody is falling for it. At least not anybody who isn’t already a drooling liberal moonbat. You’re only making yourselves look silly. Well, sillier actually, hard though that may be to imagine. What’s next? Bankrobbers being charged with “undocumented withdrawals?”

Couldn’t have said it better myself, especially that part about the parallels between illegal aliens and bank robbers. “Undocumented withdrawals”. HAHAHA!!

I just with we would call these people what they are and cut it out with the PC bullshit. They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, not “undocumented immigrants” (implying they are legally in the country), not “undocumented workers” (implying they are American workers), but ILLEGAL ALIENS. Call a spade a spade, already.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Little Linky Love for HS Beth

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 23, 2006

HS BethW has put out some very profound statements today as part of a post regarding the firing of a radio personality in St. Louis. These comments, really just a sidebar, have well summed up the real problem that exists with regard to race.

The St. Louis area has suffered greatly under the influence of the Left, and, in all honesty, I think the black community has suffered the most. For generations, many blacks have been taught that the government will take care of them, and the cycle of poverty and welfare is a sad norm in the area, along with the gangs and criminal behavior that go along with it. And, then, those who are stuck in the cycle are told that those not in cycle are intent on keeping them down. And they are offended at the slightest little thing, because, after all, every person who doesn’t look like them is just another racist pig.

And this isn’t a black thing, or a racism thing, or a St. Louis thing. It’s a Nanny State, entitlement, victimhood thing. The Left in this country has done everything in its power to segregate the population into “victim groups,” (women, minorities, laborers) telling them that the DNC are the only ones who care, the only ones who will take care of them. And, because they’ve been told that for generations, the “victims” dutifully drink the Kool-aid and join the zombie masses, afraid to break the cycle that has held them captive.

“Under the influence of the Left”. I can think of no better way to describe it. The Left’s socialist agenda is nothing less than a bad drug to which many people are addicted, and the Left does everything in its power to get as many people on the drug as possible.

“And, then, those who are stuck in the cycle are told that those not in cycle are intent on keeping them down.” And, of course, the Left demonizes anyone who tries to convince these people differently. Truer words were ne’er spake, as I love to say.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Malkin Calls Out Sheehag

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 21, 2006

This video is hilarious.

Michelle Malkin interviews Sheehag, and Sheehag is stunned to learn who it is she’s talking to, as if she’s never seen Michelle Malkin before!

But the best part comes when she asserts that it isn’t anyone’s business why her son doesn’t have a marker on his grave.

Mrs. Sheehag, if you read nothing else on this blog, read this:

IT IS EVERY SELF-RESPECTING AMERICAN’S BUSINESS WHY YOUR SON HAS NO MARKER ON HIS GRAVE. IT’S OUR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS HE DIED DEFENDING – RIGHTS THAT WE OBVIOUSLY VALUE MORE THAN YOU DO.

It’s a good thing she hasn’t shown her face around here. In my rage, I wouldn’t need a gun to avenge her son’s humiliation. This woman cares more about trotting around the world kissing the asses of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers than she does about her own flesh and blood. That is disgraceful.

I have largely held back with regard to the Sheehag. If this crap keeps up, the gloves are coming off. I see this happening sooner rather than later.

Bitch.

RWR

Update: Please forgive me for forgetting the h/t to RightWingSparkle for the link.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Rocker for President

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 21, 2006

Not really.

But I have, from time to time, thought about what my priorities would be if I were to run, and ultimately, to win and become President of the United States. Of course, I’m sure everyone gets a thought or two like that during the course of a lifetime.

As President, there are a few things I would try to accomplish.

* Real border security. I would take drastic measures to stop as many illegal aliens from entering the country as possible, while simultaneously deporting any illegal aliens found about the country. This goes for all illegal aliens, regardless of their nation of origin. If a wall were to become necessary, I would support its building with expenditures as provided for in the Constitution.

* Federalism. I would start be reinstating President Reagan’s EO 12612 and insist upon its full implementation. I would supplement this EO with orders that the constitutionality of all federal programs be reviewed, and real plans for dismantling any and all unconstitutional operations, departments, and/or programs be submitted. I would further seek to implement as much of the New Federalist platform as possible, except where I have indicated in these posts that I am in disagreement with the New Federalists.

* Fiscal responsibility. With the dismantling of unconstitutional operations described above, plenty of money would be made available as a down-payment on the national debt. Simplification of the tax code and tax cuts for all Americans would stimulate the economy, increasing federal receipts and making deficits unnecessary. There would be plenty of money to fund constitutional operations, including military and national security operations, AND provide tax cuts, AND make significant payments toward the national debt, with the ultimate goal of retiring it completely.

* Terrorism. All nations sponsoring terrorism would be put on notice: Knock it the fuck off or da Rocker gonna rock your world. I’m not sure I would necessarily turn Iran into a glass parking lot, but I would definitely finish the job of training the Afghan and Iraqi militaries as quickly as possible, so that Iran could easily be attacked simultaneously from both the east and west. Syria would be a major target after that, as would North Korea, and any other nation that chooses to threaten the American people with violence. I would invoke the threat of nuclear attack to defend the lives and unalienable rights of the American people, including all the barking moonbats who would oppose me at every turn. The real threat of American military action is the best way to keep our enemies at bay.

* Dismantling socialism. Socialism has dismally failed to solve any problems in the US, and can clearly be argued to have created more problems, that socialists have tried to solve with more socialism. Big government will never be the cure for any social ill, and Americans must face this fact directly and immediately. Per my remarks earlier regarding Federalism, any program not authorized by the Constitution would be targeted for elimination. This is not to say that individual States couldn’t replace these programs as authorized by their own constitutions, but they would not be run or funded by the federal government.

To even accomplish a portion of this would go a long way in re-establshing the constitutional federalist republic our founding fathers set up in their infinite wisdom. That wisdom is still applicable today, and will endure forever in our future, if we allow it.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A Funny Quiz via Beth’s Site

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 21, 2006

RightWingRocker will have to write:

I will not accidentally light my hair on fire

‘What will you have to write on the chalk board?’ at QuizGalaxy.com

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Owens and Thome: Comparable Situations?

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 20, 2006

Another rare sports post. This is, however, something that everyone should think about.

This morning’s radio commentary that occurred while I was going through my morning routine yielded an interesting attempt at a parallel: Terrell Owens and Jim Thome.

The idea was that Owens may have a great year next season with his new team, the Dallas Cowboys, and it seems that Thome is doing quite well back in Chicago with his new team, the White Sox. I’m calling bullshit right now.

These situations are not in any way comparable. First of all, the future is uncertain regardless of the situation. You just never know what is going to actually happen. Yet the only parallel that can be drawn is that each of these two athletes has made some contributions to his respective game.

Owens played the role of crybaby quite well this past season. Suspended for being a loudmouthed asshole, he lost the respect of Eagles fans in a big hurry. Later, he shot his mouth off in a disrespectful fashion about Eagles quarterback Donovan MacNabb. Not that MacNabb handled that very well. He lost a lot of the respect I had for him by trying to play the “race card”, but despite being seriously overrated, he is still a fan favorite, and Owens’s comment did nothing but solidify his chances of being sent packing by the Eagles. Most Eagles fans are probably happy he wound up where he did. He turned himself into an enemy of Philadelphia football fans with his unprofessional attitude, and now he’s playing for Dallas, the most reviled team in the eyes of Eagles fans. In summary, no one in Philly was at all disappointed in Terrell Owens’s departure.

Thome is another story entirely. Jim was a stand-up guy right up to the very end, and was loved by Philly fans from the first day to the last. The Phillies simply had no choice. Thome spent a lot of time on the disabled list, and the kid that replaced him won the Rookie of the Year Award. There is no designated hitter in the National League, so an expensive deserving veteran like Thome would wind up platooning with someone who had rightly earned a full-time position on the team. If you’re the Phils, you have this choice: Fan-favorite veteran with recent extended stays on the disabled list, or recent Rookie of the Year who has just proven himself to be the future of the team. One of these guys has to be traded to make room for the other. What choice do you make?

I haven’t looked at this year’s schedule, but I can definitely tell you that when Owens takes the field at “the Linc” this year, he will be appropriately booed by Eagles fans, and I wouldn’t be surprised to find him facing more sinister means of fans showing how they feel, such as trash being thrown at him. Expect the fans to cheer especially loudly when Owens is taken down with a hard tackle, and expect them to boo especially so if he scores a touchdown. Philadelphia sports fans are a passionate lot, and his antics from last season will not soon be forgotten. On the other hand, if the White Sox make their way to Citizens Bank Park, expect Thome to receive a standing ovation at some point, and maybe even a few posters and signs with “Thanks, Jim” and the like. If Thome hits a home run, he will be applauded, even though he represents the opposition.

Philadelphia sports fans have not forgotten the contributions, either positive or negative, that these two athletes have made to Philadelphia sports teams. The big difference: Thome will be missed. Owens will not.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The (Momentary) Silence of the Rocker

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 19, 2006

There are a few reasons I haven’t posted in the last couple days.

1. The debate on other blogs has been quite spirited, but not to the point that I necessarily want to bring it “home”.

2. There’s nothing else going on in the blogosphere that I could match, beat, or give any unique insight into right now.

3. Things have been very busy at work and even busier in the music business. In fact, the music business situation is becoming more and more unique right now. The newest project is something I couldn’t have even fathomed a year ago, but soon is about to become a reality. VERY exciting.

4. There really isn’t much going on, other than a few hours ago I learned that Terrell Owens is going to Dallas. I hope they can find a use for him. We can’t be bothered with that kind of B.S. here around Philly. Now, if they’d only figure out what to do about the quarterback situation. Of course, I’m not much of a football fan. The Phils seem to be doing well in spring training, but we all know that doesn’t mean shit, and when it comes to MLB, I’ve been kind of lukewarm the last few years because the minor leagues are so much better a deal.

5. This is probably the most important reason. The recent post on Federalism was, in my opinion, VERY important, and I wanted to keep it close to the top. The Yogi post was just a special moment I had as a baseball fan, but figured it would be fun, what with the “Yogi-isms” and all.

I’m going to take tomorrow (Sunday) off, too. I’ll need some rest from this busy weekend.

See ya Monday!

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

The Wisdom of Yogi Berra

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 16, 2006


Lady Heather posted a bunch of “Yogi-isms” today. I’ve always loved these unusual bits of wisdom. Enjoy!

RWR

Update: Put your favorite “Yogi-ism” in the comment area! – RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Reagan vs. Clinton on Federalism

Posted by RightWingRocker on March 15, 2006

I got to thinking recently about the role models of liberals and conservatives – those who tend to be the standard bearers of the competing philosophies. There doesn’t seem to be much in the way of argument. Conservatives revere President Reagan and liberals definitely revere President Clinton.

As a Federalist myself, I decided to have a look at the federalist philosophies of these two men side by side. It was pretty easy. Both had written executive orders dealing directly with Federalism.

I tried to put together a chart with both presidents’ executive orders on the matter side by side, but it just didn’t work out. So President Reagan’s quotes are in normal text, while President Clinton’s are in italics. My comments are in bold. Hopefully it’s readable enough.

EO 12612 – Reagan

Federalism
October 26, 1987

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions.

For purposes of this Order:

(a) “Policies that have federalism implications” refers to regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

(b) “State” or “States” refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.

EO 13083 – Clinton

May 14, 1998
FEDERALISM

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to guarantee the division of governmental responsibilities, embodied in the Constitution, between the Federal Government and the States that was intended by the Framers and application of those principles by the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.Definitions.

For purposes of this order:

(b) “Policies that have federalism implications” refers to Federal regulations, proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States or on the relationship, or the distribution of power and responsibilities, between the Federal Government and the states.

(a) “State” or “States” refer to the States of the United States of America, individually or collectively, and, where relevant, to State governments, including units of local government and other political subdivisions established by the States.

(c) “Agency” means any authority of the United States that is an “agency” under 44 U.S.C. 3502(1), other than those considered to be independent regulatory agencies, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(5).

President Reagan would have viewed any “Agency” as part of the federal government, or part of the branch under whose jurisdiction the agency would fall.

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles.

In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:

Sec. 2. Fundamental Federalism Principles.

In formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications, agencies shall be guided by the following fundamental federalism principles:

President Clinton does not mention “executive departments”. I wonder if these are mentioned in 44 U.S.C 3502. Something to possiby check out at a later date, I suppose.

(a) The structure of government established by the Constitution is premised upon a system of checks and balances.

President Clinton’s logic in this statement is flawed. As you will see, the checks and balances among the three branches of government become somewhat convoluted by including checks and balances between the state and federal governments.

(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.

(c) Federalism reflects the principle that dividing power between the Federal Government and the States serves to protect individual liberty. Preserving State authority provides an essential balance to the power of the Federal Government, while preserving the supremacy of Federal law provides an essential balance to the power of the States.

President Clinton’s remarks on this point can be summed up in one word: BULLSHIT. Anyone asserting the “supremacy of Federal law” is committing a treasonous act. Quite frankly, there is no “balance of power” between the States and the federal government, nor is there supposed to be. Instead, the States’ power SUPERCEDES that of the federal government, per the Tenth Amendment.

(b) The people of the States created the national government when they delegated to it those enumerated governmental powers relating to matters beyond the competence of the individual States. All other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or to the people.

(b) The Constitution created a Federal Government of supreme, but limited, powers.The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States, unless prohibited to the States by the Constitution.

The Constitution is a piece of paper. It did not create anything. President Reagan asserts that “the people of the States created the national government”, and that “all other sovereign powers, save those expressly prohibited the States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States or the people.” President Reagan’s words echo those of the Tenth Amendment almost verbatim.

Furthermore, President Clinton’s assertion that the Federal Government has “supreme” powers doesn’t even resemble anything in the Constitution at all. According to the Constitution, the States and the People are the most powerful level of government. Under this philosophy (that of the Founders), there is no room for any concept of a federal government with supreme powers, however limited.

(c) The constitutional relationship among sovereign governments, State and national, is formalized in and protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

I am under no illusions as to why President Clinton doesn’t even mention the Tenth Amendment in his “Executive Order on Federalism”.

(d) The people of the States are free, subject only to restrictions in the Constitution itself or in constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

(d) The people of the States are at liberty, subject only to the limitations in the Constitution itself or in Federal law, to define the moral, political, and legal character of their lives.

Notice here that President Clinton authorizes “Federal Law” as a legitimate means of dictating to the States and the people. President Reagan requires “constitutionally authorized Acts of Congress”, a concept which places more stringent limitations on the federal government, and thus retaining more power for the States and the people.

(e) In most areas of governmental concern, the States uniquely possess the constitutional authority, the resources, and the competence to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly. In Thomas Jefferson’s words, the States are “the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against antirepublican tendencies.”

(f) Effective public policy is often achieved when there is competition among the several States in the fashioning of different approaches to public policy issues. The search for enlightened public policy is often furthered when individual States and local governments are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues. Uniform, national approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective solutions to those problems.

President Reagan again gives the States the power to make their own decisions, while President Clinton makes a philosophical statement that basically says that it’s sometimes best for the federal government to allow the States to make their own decisions.

The major difference between these two statements is the SOURCE of the power. According to Reagan, the States and the people are that source, while according to Clinton, it is the federal government.

(f) The nature of our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires. In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.

(e) Our constitutional system encourages a healthy diversity in the public policies adopted by the people of the several States according to their own conditions, needs, and desires.States and local governments are often uniquely situated to discern the sentiments of the people and to govern accordingly.

While these two statements seem similar on the surface, President Reagan is clearly submitting to the power of the States and the people to govern themselves, while it’s pretty obvious that President Clinton is simply saying that the federal government should, in some cases, allow the States to govern themselves.

(g) Acts of the national government – whether legislative, executive, or judicial in nature – that exceed the enumerated powers of that government under the Constitution violate the principle of federalism established by the Framers.

(h) Policies of the national government should recognize the responsibility of–and should encourage opportunities for–individuals, families, neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.

(i) In the absence of clear constitutional or statutory authority, the presumption of sovereignty should rest with the individual States. Uncertainties regarding the legitimate authority of the national government should be resolved against regulation at the national level.

(g) Policies of the Federal Government should recognize the responsibility of — and should encourage opportunities for — States, local governments, private associations, neighborhoods, families, and individuals to achieve personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives through cooperative effort.

Without acknowledging that powers enumerated under the Constitution cannot be exceeded and recognizing State sovereignty, the “cooperative effort” clause gives the federal government carte blanche to implement whatever socialist policy it wants. Furthermore, without these limitation placed on the government, the philosophical basis for the statement becomes the supremacy of the federal government.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, Executive departments and agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:

(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Executive departments and agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action. To the extent practicable, the States should be consulted before any such action is implemented. Executive Order No. 12372 (“Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs”) remains in effect for the programs and activities to which it is applicable.

Sec. 3. Federalism Policymaking Criteria. In addition to adhering to the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2 of this order, agencies shall adhere, to the extent permitted by law, to the following criteria when formulating and implementing policies that have federalism implications:

(a) There should be strict adherence to constitutional principles. Agencies should closely examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any Federal action that would limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments, and should carefully assess the necessity for such action.

No one should be under any illusions as to why President Clinton would not require the States to be consulted. He views the federal government as “supreme”. President Reagan’s EO 12372 outlines procedures to be followed in such consultations, and in all relevant sections acknowledges State supremacy. President Clinton merely requires that action not be taken until after examining constitutional and statutory authority. If such examination reveals that the States hold the true authority, he offers no requirement that that authority be respected.

(b) Federal action limiting the policymaking discretion of the States should be taken only where constitutional authority for the action is clear and certain and the national activity is necessitated by the presence of a problem of national scope. For the purposes of this Order:

(1) It is important to recognize the distinction between problems of national scope (which may justify Federal action) and problems that are merely common to the States (which will not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, can effectively deal with them).

(2) Constitutional authority for Federal action is clear and certain only when authority for the action may be found in a specific provision of the Constitution, there is no provision in the Constitution prohibiting Federal action, and the action does not encroach upon authority reserved to the States.

(b) Agencies may limit the policymaking discretion of States and local governments only after determining that there is constitutional and legal authority for the action.

Reagan again emphasizes the importance of respecting State authority under the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. All of his statements here are directly supportive of this theme.

Clinton? Determine, by whatever means you like, that actions violating States’ rights are constitutional and legal before violating States’ rights. After all, the federal government is “supreme”.

(c) With respect to national policies administered by the States, the national government should grant the States the maximum administrative discretion possible. Intrusive, Federal oversight of State administration is neither necessary nor desirable.

(c) With respect to Federal statutes and regulations administered by States and local governments, the Federal Government should grant States and local governments the maximum administrative discretion possible. Any Federal oversight of such State and local administration should not unnecessarily intrude on State and local discretion.

Reagan takes the stand that federal oversight of State matters is “neither necessary nor desirable”, period. Clinton allows plenty of federal oversight, but says it should not “unnecessarily intrude. Of course, the “supreme” federal government gets to decide what comprises a “necessary intrusion”.

(d) When undertaking to formulate and implement policies that have federalism implications, Executive departments and agencies shall:

(1) Encourage States to develop their own policies to achieve program objectives and to work with appropriate officials in other States.

(2) Refrain, to the maximum extent possible, from establishing uniform, national standards for programs and, when possible, defer to the States to establish standards.

(3) When national standards are required, consult with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in developing those standards.

(d) It is important to recognize the distinction between matters of national or multi-state scope (which may justify Federal action) and matters that are merely common to the States (which may not justify Federal action because individual States, acting individually or together, may effectively deal with them). Matters of national or multi-state scope that justify Federal action may arise in a variety of circumstances, including:

(1) When the matter to be addressed by Federal action occurs interstate as opposed to being contained within one State’s boundaries.

(2) When the source of the matter to be addressed occurs in a State different from the State (or States) where a significant amount of the harm occurs.

(3) When there is a need for uniform national standards.

(4) When decentralization increases the costs of government thus imposing additional burdens on the taxpayer.

(5) When States have not adequately protected individual rights and liberties.

(6) When States would be reluctant to impose necessary regulations because of fears that regulated business activity will relocate to other States.

(7) When placing regulatory authority at the State or local level would undermine regulatory goals because high costs or demands for specialized expertise will effectively place the regulatory matter beyond the resources of State authorities.

(8) When the matter relates to Federally owned or managed property or natural resources, trust obligations, or international obligations.

(9) When the matter to be regulated significantly or uniquely affects Indian tribal governments.

Reagan basically says that any federal involvement in State matters must include direct consultation with those States, and emphasizes encouraging States to be independent, and deferring to the States as often as possible. Clinton simply gives a list explaining where his “supreme” federal government will simply take over.

Sec. 4 Special Requirements for Preemption.

(a) To the extent permitted by law, Executive departments and agencies shall construe, in regulations and otherwise, a Federal statute to preempt State law only when the statute contains an express preemption provision or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended preemption of State law, or when the exercise of State authority directly conflicts with the exercise of Federal authority under the Federal statute.

(b) Where a Federal statute does not preempt State law (as addressed in subsection (a) of this section), Executive departments and agencies shall construe any authorization in the statute for the issuance of regulations as authorizing preemption of State law by rule-making only when the statute expressly authorizes issuance of preemptive regulations or there is some other firm and palpable evidence compelling the conclusion that the Congress intended to delegate to the department or agency the authority to issue regulations preempting State law.

(c) Any regulatory preemption of State law shall be restricted to the minimum level necessary to achieve the objectives of the statute pursuant to which the regulations are promulgated.

(d) As soon as an Executive department or agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the department or agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate officials and organizations representing the States in an effort to avoid such a conflict.

(e) When an Executive department or agency proposes to act through adjudication or rule-making to preempt State law, the department or agency shall provide all affected States notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.

Sec. 4. Consultation.

(a) Each agency shall have an effective process to permit elected officials and other representatives of State and local governments to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.

(b) To the extent practicable and permitted by law, no agency shall promulgate any regulation that is not required by statute, that has federalism implications, and that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on States and local governments, unless:

(1) funds necessary to pay the direct costs incurred by the State or local government in complying with the regulation are provided by the Federal Government; or

(2) the agency, prior to the formal promulgation of the regulation,

(A) in a separately identified portion of the preamble to the regulation as it is to be issued in the Federal Register, provides to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget a description of the extent of the agency’s prior consultation with representatives of affected States and local governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and the agency’s position supporting the need to issue the regulation; and

(B) makes available to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget any written communications submitted to the agency by States or local governments.

Reagan’s words are obviously geared toward discouraging federal intrusion into State matters, period. He requires documentation proving that the federal government has the authority to involve itself in the given matter.

Under Reagan’s Federalism doctrine, the States simply CANNOT be left out of ANY process unless the federal department or agency can conclusively prove its authority using the actual Constitution and those laws applicable to the situation.

While President Clinton provides some “lip service” to staying out of State matters, but then goes on to basically say that the “supreme” federal government can trample all over State authority as long as they communicate with the States on the matter. In other words, President Clinton’s federal government can do whatever it wants, without regard for constitutional limitations, as long as there is communication about it.

Sec. 5. Special Requirements for Legislative Proposals. Executive departments and agencies shall not submit to the Congress legislation that would:

(a) Directly regulate the States in ways that would interfere with functions essential to the States’ separate and independent existence or operate to directly displace the States’ freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions;

(b) Attach to Federal grants conditions that are not directly related to the purpose of the grant;

(c) Preempt State law, unless preemption is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles set forth in section 2, and unless a clearly legitimate national purpose, consistent with the federalism policymaking criteria set forth in section 3, cannot otherwise be met.

Sec. 5. Increasing Flexibility for State and Local Waivers.

(a) Agencies shall review the processes under which States and local governments apply for waivers of statutory and regulatory requirements and take appropriate steps to streamline those processes.

(b) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, consider any application by a State or local government for a waiver of statutory or regulatory requirements in connection with any program administered by that agency with a general view toward increasing opportunities for utilizing flexible policy approaches at the State or local level in cases in which the proposed waiver is consistent with applicable Federal policy objectives and is otherwise appropriate.

(c) Each agency shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, render a decision upon a complete application for a waiver within 120 days of receipt of such application by the agency. If the application for a waiver is not granted, the agency shall provide the applicant with timely written notice of the decision and the reasons therefor.

(d) This section applies only to statutory or regulatory requirements that are discretionary and subject to waiver by the agency.

Reagan’s instructions sound an awful lot like the words of the Bill of Rights (“Executive departments and agencies shall not submit to Congress legislation that …”). Clinton allows States to ask for waivers if they don’t like a decision made by a federal agency. In effect, this would simply put an “appeals process” into place for States that wished to challenge an intrusion into their rights. Of course, who gets to adjudicate the appeal? That’s right. The “supreme” federal government.

Sec. 6. Agency Implementation.

(a) The head of each Executive department and agency shall designate an official to be responsible for ensuring the implementation of this Order.

(b) In addition to whatever other actions the designated official may take to ensure implementation of this Order, the designated official shall determine which proposed policies have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. With respect to each such policy for which an affirmative determination is made, a Federalism Assessment, as described in subsection (c) of this section, shall be prepared. The department or agency head shall consider any such Assessment in all decisions involved in promulgating and implementing the policy.

(c) Each Federalism Assessment shall accompany any submission concerning the policy that is made to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 or OMB Circular No. A-19, and shall:

(1) Contain the designated official’s certification that the policy has been assessed in light of the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(2) Identify any provision or element of the policy that is inconsistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order;

(3) Identify the extent to which the policy imposes additional costs or burdens on the States, including the likely source of funding for the States and the ability of the States to fulfill the purposes of the policy; and

(4) Identify the extent to which the policy would affect the States’ ability to discharge traditional State governmental functions, or other aspects of State sovereignty.

Sec. 6. Independent Agencies.

Independent regulatory agencies are encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.

While President Clinton merely “encourages federal agencies to comply with the few limitations placed upon them by this order, Reagan requires each agency to designate someone to be responsible for complying with the restrictions set forth in his order. This person is required to review all policies within his agency and prepare assessments regarding them, including any violations of Federalist principles as set forth in the order. Given President Reagan’s emphasis in the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment earlier in the order, it would be safe to assume that President Reagan also meant to apply these principles with regard to the Constitution as well.

Sec. 7. Government-wide Federalism Coordination and Review.

(a) In implementing Executive Order Nos. 12291 and 12498 and OMB Circular No. A-19, the Office of Management and Budget, to the extent permitted by law and consistent with the provisions of those authorities, shall take action to ensure that the policies of the Executive departments and agencies are consistent with the principles, criteria, and requirements stated in sections 2 through 5 of this Order.

(b) In submissions to the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order No. 12291 and OMB Circular No. A-19, Executive departments and agencies shall identify proposed regulatory and statutory provisions that have significant federalism implications and shall address any substantial federalism concerns. Where the departments or agencies deem it appropriate, substantial federalism concerns should also be addressed in notices of proposed rule-making and messages transmitting legislative proposals to the Congress.

In this section, President Reagan basically gives the order “teeth”, outlining his expectation that federal agencies identify provisions that have federalism concerns and address them.

Sec. 8 Judicial Review. This Order is intended only to improve the internal management of the Executive branch, and is not intended to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or any person.

RONALD REAGAN

THE WHITE HOUSE

October 26, 1987

Sec. 7. General Provisions.

(a) This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

(b) This order shall supplement but not supersede the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”), Executive Order 12988 (“Civil Justice Reform”), and OMB Circular A-19.

(c) Executive Order 12612 of October 26, 1987, and Executive Order 12875 of October 26, 1993, are revoked.

(d) The consultation and waiver provisions in sections 4 and 5 of this order shall complement the Executive order entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” being issued on this day.

(e) This order shall be effective 90 days after the date of this order.

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,

May 14, 1998.

Most EOs that I have read end with this disclaimer (Reagan). Its purpose is to simply protect the government from lawsuits resulting from the order. Clinton’s order closes with a similar disclaimer followed by a coupling to other orders and, more importantly, a direct revocation of President Reagan’s Executive Order on Federalism.

It is clear that President Clinton was trying to make a statement modeled after President Reagan’s order. The wording is often similar to the point of plagiarism. With something like this, however, if what Clinton means is exactly what Reagan said, I don’t have a problem with it.

The problem is with Clinton’s convoluted idea of what constitutes federalism. The Framers had absolutely NO intention of creating a “supreme” federal government, nor was there to be any “balance of powers” between the federal government and the States. The whole concept of Federalism (which is reflected in the philosophy of the New Federalists today) is that the federal government is supposed to be the WEAKEST of the levels of government, with the people themselves being the “supreme” power, local and county governments next, then the States, again with the federal government the WEAKEST link in the chain of command.

Well, that’s my take on all this. For his attempts to restore the Founders’ vision through more strict application of federalist principles, and his clear understanding of what federalism actually is and is supposed to be, there can be no doubt as to his superiority as President over Clinton, who included such concoctions as a “supreme federal government” and “balance of power between the states and the federal government” in his definition of federalism.

Either Clinton didn’t know what he was talking about, or he was trying to deliberately usurp the Constitution and the Founders’ vision. There simply aren’t any other options.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »