RightWingRocker

Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for May, 2007

Ken Taylor: Fred is Running

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 30, 2007

Ken Taylor, a reader over at MrM’s blog, is reporting that Fred Thompson will announce his candidacy on or about July 4th.  The post is actually dated this coming Saturday (don’t know what’s up with that), but if Fred runs, maybe we’ll get some answers to the important questions I posted for him earlier today.

I do support Fred at this point, though I do have a few concerns.  Hopefully we can get some answers to the questions so that support will have true enthusiasm.

C’mon, Fred.  What say?

RWR

Posted in Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere | Leave a Comment »

A Few Questions for Fred Thompson

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 30, 2007

Last week, I emailed Fred Thompson requesting an interview. In my correspondence, I gave him the URL of this blog (so that he could get a good feel for where I’m coming from), as well as the link to Reagan2020.org, where he can read the New Federalist platform first-hand.

Perhaps he is simply waiting until after he has announced his candidacy. Perhaps he gets swamped with emails every day. I don’t look at the fact that I haven’t heard back from him as anything personal. I’m not suggesting that he’s avoiding my questions. After all, with his position on federalism, he’d probably consider most of them “softball”.

Or, maybe he would like to see the questions first. Heck, I’m sure most of you would as well. Maybe the comment area for this post can become a place for refining the questions and perhaps their wording. Maybe Fred will come around and see them. Maybe he’ll venture a few answers.

Or maybe another candidate will …

Time will tell. In the meantime, here are the questions I would ask Fred Thompson:

Preface: First of all, I see no candidate anywhere that I could vote for ahead of Fred Thompson. He’s got the Reagan optimism and the love of Federalism all in one package.

I’d love to do an interview with Mr. Thompson. Here are the questions I would ask.

I would, of course, start any interview by making sure Fred knew that I did have some concerns, and that this wouldn’t necessarily be a bunch of softball questions, even if it is true that I hope to vote for him in 2008.

1. I’ll start with some questions about Federalism. You’ve gone on record as supporting its reimplementation, which I strongly support. It’s not much of a secret that those elected to office have disregarded their constitutional limitations far too often. Do you support the idea of requiring that no legislation be brought to the floor for consideration unless a majority of members of the body House/Senate) shall have signed a report giving specific citation and affirming detailed reasons why the proposed legislation is authorized to Congress by the Constitution?

2. How do you feel about a final sunset on past legislation to weed out all the unconstitutional stuff that’s been passed, and re-introducing relevant bills under a Constitutional Authorization Report as I have suggested?

3. Do you think it’s a good idea for the individual states to also implement the Constitutional Authorization Report concept?

4. Do you think an Oath of Office should be considered binding? If so, what provisions do you advocate for utilizing impeachment for those who have acted outside their constitutional limitations?

5. What do you think can be done about the annual media circus surrounding the President’s State of the Union Address?

6. How do you feel about returning congressional authority to those entities delegated to it by the Constitution, such as the IRS?

7. How do you feel about requiring Presidential Orders to include a citation from the Constitution of the authority by which the action ordered is justified?

8. How do you feel about doing away with lifetime judicial appointments and instead replenishing the courts, say, every five years (on a rotating scale if ncessary)?

9. Would you support repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments?

10. Do you think it should be required that all voting machines provide printouts of the vote counts by individual vote, and a printed receipt to the voter?

11. What is your position on implementing English as our official language?

12. What is your opnion of Kelo v. New London?

13. After the Virginia Tech massacre, you came forward in defense of gun ownership and posession. I believed you missed the point, though, when you qualified your statements by saying that people “with training and legal permits” should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. The Second Amendment makes no such stipulation. Why do you?

14. If you were president, what would you advocate and/or do about the spread of nanny-state socialism in this country?

15. How would you go about getting the government out of the business of trying to micromanage the economy?

16. Do you support the Strategic Defense Initiative?

17. What positions will you take with regard to staying out of the World Court?

18. Many have suggested that the United Nations works against US interests. Would you advocate withdrawal from the UN?

19. The amount of taxpayer money spent on foreign aid is clearly out of control, and quite questionable in its constitutionality. What will your position be on stopping this?

20. What will you do to rein in the unconstitutional socialist programs of the last 100 years such as Social(ist) Security and welfare?

21. What will you do about other illegal federal intrusions into the rights of the States and the people, such as No Child Left Behind?

22. How quickly do you think the national debt could be retired?

23. Would you support replacing the federal income tax with a system in which revenues for the federal government would be collected and held in trust by the states?

24. Most of what I’ve asked so far is taken directly from things I’ve posted about the New Federalist Platform posted at Reagan2020.org. The toughest question I have for you, however, involves your support of John McCain’s efforts to repeal the First Amendment with his pal, Russ Feingold. What exactly made you think it was ok to vote for this, and how has your reasoning changed in a way that makes it justifiable to vote for you after you voted as you did?

25. Finally, a question presented to me by a reader. It is a very important question to Americans who are in the know about how our government works. Would you return the government to the people by rescinding the emergency war powers mode that it has been quietly, but illegally operating from for the last seventy-five years?

These are the questions that are important to New Federalists and Americans. It’s a pretty tough list, but I do believe Fred can deliver.

RWR

Posted in Border SecuRWRity, New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

Another Retro-Blogoversary Wish

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 30, 2007

I’m SUCH a loser.

Last year, I forgot Sage’s Blogoversary and missed it by over a week. THIS year, I miss by more than a month.

April 19 … Gotta put that on my calendar!

Anyway, congrats, Sage, for hanging in there another year!

And please do accept my apologies … again. I’m such a shitty blogfather.

RWR

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Thompson on Memorial Day

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 29, 2007

Students polled in a wide range of colleges and universities showed no real improvement in their historical knowledge. Some actually forgot part of what they’d learned in high school by the time they graduated — and I’m talking about some of our best-known Ivy League schools.Less than half of college seniors knew that, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal” is from the Declaration of Independence. Less than half knew basic facts about the First Amendment. Half didn’t know that the Federalist Papers were written in support of the Constitution’s ratification. Only a quarter of seniors knew the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine.This is our quandary. Memorial Day is about remembering. It’s about remembering those who died for our country; but it’s also about remembering why they believed it was worth dying for. Too many Americans, though, have never been taught our own history and heritage. How can you remember something that you’ve never learned?

First of all, let me go on record as knowing that the above quote is from the Declaration of Independence and that it continues as follows (and this is from memory): “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. This blog is my personal expression of the First Amendment, as is my religion. I know not only that the Federalist Papers were written in support of ratification of the Constitution, but that they were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. I also know that the Monroe Doctrine established the policy that the United States would fight any new European intrusion into the Western Hemisphere.

I also must say that I find it absolutely deplorable that any educational institution in this country would deprive any student of the knowledge of the philosophy under which this country was established and the names and backgrounds of those who implemented it.

I am further angered by those who would use a day set aside to honor the nameless soldiers who have given their lives protecting the very First Amendment that protects free speech rights to use that day to use those same free speech rights to demean those nameless soldiers.

If the typical terrorist suicide murderer’s heritage and cause are worth dying for, then why shouldn’t ours be? Is ours not superior? Is it not at a bare minimum worth learning about?

RWR

Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

Good Riddance … If Only

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 29, 2007

Expect to find CamoKitty added to the BlogRWRoll in the near future. Her commentary is refreshing, to say the least, especially given my recent comments on the blogosphere. I found her recently as I was clicking around at the Rottie (I REALLY need to spend more time there), and well … Go read her stuff. It’s great.

At the top of her page when I first arrived was this post about Cindy Sheehan (known around here as “Sheehag”). I really have tried not to post about this idiot, largely because she was never really relevant, and all we really got from her was some comic relief. No one ever took her seriously. CamoKitty linked to her post yesterday at Daily Kos, another loony blog that I avoid like the plague just because it’s way too frustrating to know that people that far out of touch with reality actually exist. Still, now that Sheehag has allegedly moved on, perhaps it would be fun to fisk her bitching and moaning about the inevitable coming to pass HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA …

“Good Riddance Attention Whore”
by CindySheehan
Mon May 28, 2007 at 09:57:01 AM PDT

I have endured a lot of smear and hatred since Casey was killed and especially since I became the so-called “Face” of the American anti-war movement. Especially since I renounced any tie I have remaining with the Democratic Party, I have been further trashed on such “liberal blogs” as the Democratic Underground. Being called an “attention whore” and being told “good riddance” are some of the more milder rebukes.

The “American anti-war movement” was doomed without your face, Cindy. You just sped up the process. Why are you surprised that you are being called an attention whore by the libs? We conservatives have been calling you that from the get-go. Just goes to show how far behind the curve the Left really is.

You see, Mrs. Sheehag, as I’ve said in comments on many blogs in the blogosphere, the left and the “anti-war movement” (I’ve had bowel movements more powerful) were only using you. As soon as you were of no more use to them, they discarded you just as I predicted they would. Good riddance, indeed. Oh, and while you’re bitching and moaning, why not get a handle on the English language? I don’t know if I can handle reading this whole thing if you’re going to be dropping dumbed-down phrases like “more milder”.

I have come to some heartbreaking conclusions this Memorial Day Morning. These are not spur of the moment reflections, but things I have been meditating on for about a year now. The conclusions that I have slowly and very reluctantly come to are very heartbreaking to me.

Poor fucking baby. The heartbreaking conclusions that you still are missing is that the world is a better place without your socialist agenda and that war is a fact of life. Spare me the whining. Wait, don’t. I need a good laugh.

The first conclusion is that I was the darling of the so-called left as long as I limited my protests to George Bush and the Republican Party. Of course, I was slandered and libeled by the right as a “tool” of the Democratic Party. This label was to marginalize me and my message. How could a woman have an original thought, or be working outside of our “two-party” system?

HAHA … This is exactly what I’ve been saying about you all along, Sheehag. As soon as you were no longer of any use to the Democrats, they would toss you out with the bathwater. And you WERE a tool of the Democratic Party. That’s not libel. For proof, answer this question: What do you do with a tool you no longer have any use for? Eh. You obviously have a problem thinking on that level, so I’ll answer it for you: YOU THROW IT THE FUCK OUT! Just like the Donks did to you. Get over yourself. You and your message were marginal at best to begin with. There was nothing “original” about anything you were saying. We’d heard it all before in the 1960s.

However, when I started to hold the Democratic Party to the same standards that I held the Republican Party, support for my cause started to erode and the “left” started labeling me with the same slurs that the right used. I guess no one paid attention to me when I said that the issue of peace and people dying for no reason is not a matter of “right or left”, but “right and wrong.”

Yup. And you were wrong. Your slurs have been earned, Mrs. Sheehag. They’ve been well-earned; and if you can’t take the heat, you don’t belong in the kitchen.

I am deemed a radical because I believe that partisan politics should be left to the wayside when hundreds of thousands of people are dying for a war based on lies that is supported by Democrats and Republican alike. It amazes me that people who are sharp on the issues and can zero in like a laser beam on lies, misrepresentations, and political expediency when it comes to one party refuse to recognize it in their own party. Blind party loyalty is dangerous whatever side it occurs on. People of the world look on us Americans as jokes because we allow our political leaders so much murderous latitude and if we don’t find alternatives to this corrupt “two” party system our Representative Republic will die and be replaced with what we are rapidly descending into with nary a check or balance: a fascist corporate wasteland. I am demonized because I don’t see party affiliation or nationality when I look at a person, I see that person’s heart. If someone looks, dresses, acts, talks and votes like a Republican, then why do they deserve support just because he/she calls him/herself a Democrat?

You are deemed a radical because you stand for radical things. Your letter to the President is proof of that. You politicized the war and your son’s death for your own socialist cause. The Donks are still fighting for that cause, but they no longer can use the war as a political football in their effort to implement these things. Just because you think politicizing the war is still the way to go doesn’t mean those responsible for fighting it agree. This is more proof that the Democrat win in 2006 wasn’t a victory for liberals as much as it was for change in general. Anti-war Democrats teamed up with pro-war ones to win the election, and now they have to pay the piper. Truth hurts, doesn’t it, Cindy? Never mind that the socialism you support is one of the fastest ways possible to the very fascist wasteland you bemoan.

I have also reached the conclusion that if I am doing what I am doing because I am an “attention whore” then I really need to be committed.

This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all along, and I know I’m not alone. Never mind the fisk. I’m going to start skipping stuff.

I have spent every available cent I got from the money a “grateful” country gave me when they killed my son and every penny that I have received in speaking or book fees since then.

Your son was killed in battle, Mrs. Sheehag. He is an honorable man. I cannot say the same for a mother who spends “every available cent” (including a $250,000 life insurance payment) on an idiotic anti-war cause and leaves the grave of the very man whose name she invokes in the effort looking like this:


No headstone. Deplorable.

I have sacrificed a 29 year marriage and have traveled for extended periods of time away from Casey’s brother and sisters and my health has suffered and my hospital bills from last summer (when I almost died) are in collection because I have used all my energy trying to stop this country from slaughtering innocent human beings.

Spare me. Your marriage never meant anything to you, only your love of socialism. That’s why your husband left you – he left you because you are, in a word, looney-tunes.

I have been called every despicable name that small minds can think of and have had my life threatened many times.

And every name large minds can think of, too. And it’s all been earned. Your life threatened? I never heard any of those allegations. I can think of a few soldiers, though, who would jump at the chance to avenge your traitorous deeds.

The most devastating conclusion that I reached this morning, however, was that Casey did indeed die for nothing. His precious lifeblood drained out in a country far away from his family who loves him, killed by his own country which is beholden to and run by a war machine that even controls what we think. I have tried every since he died to make his sacrifice meaningful. Casey died for a country which cares more about who will be the next American Idol than how many people will be killed in the next few months while Democrats and Republicans play politics with human lives. It is so painful to me to know that I bought into this system for so many years and Casey paid the price for that allegiance. I failed my boy and that hurts the most.

Spare me again. This from a so-called “mother” who puts her lame excuse for a “cause” over her own son’s heroism. Let me remind you once again:


Spare me the whining.

I have also tried to work within a peace movement that often puts personal egos above peace and human life. This group won’t work with that group; he won’t attend an event if she is going to be there; and why does Cindy Sheehan get all the attention anyway? It is hard to work for peace when the very movement that is named after it has so many divisions.

It’s also hard to work for peace when people like Cindy Sheehag get more attention than the honorable soldiers who put their lives on the line every day in the real effort to work for peace.

I am going to take whatever I have left and go home. I am going to go home and be a mother to my surviving children and try to regain some of what I have lost. I will try to maintain and nurture some very positive relationships that I have found in the journey that I was forced into when Casey died and try to repair some of the ones that have fallen apart since I began this single-minded crusade to try and change a paradigm that is now, I am afraid, carved in immovable, unbendable and rigidly mendacious marble.

If I believed this, I’d be doing John Hawkins’ Snoopy dance. Go home, Cindy. Take the time to learn what it means to be a mother. Get close to your friends. Vote for the socialists. It’s all your right. What makes this sad is that we on the right knew all along that the “peace movement” and the Democrats were just using you, and that when they were finished with you, they’d just toss you aside. Had you listened to us, you might have had a chance to salvage some of your son’s honor that you destroyed in his name. Had you listened to us, you might already be home, knowing what it means to be a mother, close to your friends, and voting for socialists. Had you listened to us, your phony cries of grief may have had some credibility.

Of course, you haven’t listened to us. Perhaps that’s what hurts you the most now, eh Cindy? Your adversaries were right all along. We scorned you. We made fun of you. We made fun of you, and then made fun of you some more. From the beginning, we saw you for the fool that you are, and we called you on it. Well, in the words of Hart and Stilgoe …

Pity comes too late. Turn around and face your fate: an eternity of this before your eyes.

(from The Phantom of the Opera)

Camp Casey has served its purpose. It’s for sale. Anyone want to buy five beautiful acres in Crawford , Texas ? I will consider any reasonable offer. I hear George Bush will be moving out soon, too…which makes the property even more valuable.

Can’t get by without a little Bush-bashing, eh, Cindy? So much for pity.

This is my resignation letter as the “face” of the American anti-war movement. This is not my “Checkers” moment, because I will never give up trying to help people in the world who are harmed by the empire of the good old US of A, but I am finished working in, or outside of this system. This system forcefully resists being helped and eats up the people who try to help it. I am getting out before it totally consumes me or anymore people that I love and the rest of my resources.

Sheehag has a point or two here. Of course, she means it in a way that’s not really the truth, and she misses the real point entirely. She wants to “help” America by turning it into a socialist shithole. Maybe the system “forcefully resisting being helped” can work out to being a good thing. Oh, and do get out before it totally consumes you – oh yeah, that already happened, duh. And spare me the “people that I love” crap, Cindy. There’s only one person you love, and you already mentioned her.

Oh, and how about diverting some of your “remaining resources” here while you’re at it:


I would think that would have been taken care of sooner, but that’s just me.

Good-bye America …you are not the country that I love and I finally realized no matter how much I sacrifice, I can’t make you be that country unless you want it.

It’s up to you now.

Good-bye Cindy. Thanks for the laughs. America will never be the country you love. You’d be much better off in Cuba. We Americans DEFINITELY don’t want that. We want the free America Casey gave his life for; the America that was the subject of the Founders’ hopes and dreams. That will never be your America.

Again, thanks for the laughs. Enjoy your new home life, IF you can keep it.

RWR

Posted in Funny Shit, Liberal Bullshit, RWRants, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

How the Blogosphere Has Changed

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 29, 2007

They say that the only thing in the world that’s constant is change, and oh, how right they are.

Over two hundred years ago, we had a group of patriots who were willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of freedom. Many did just that. Today, there are very few willing to take that stand. Sad enough, but that’s not what I sat down today to lament.

This weekend, as I was thinking about those who have given their lives to protect my freedom from foreign adversaries (while those funding the effort systematically and ironically work to dismantle that same freedom from within), I realized that the blogosphere as I know it has changed drastically in the two-and-a-half years since I joined the chorus.

The RWRepublic officially came into being February 1, 2005. I had been cruising around cooperforpresident.com (no longer around), Little Green Footballs (which I stopped visiting in the early going), and the Rottie (still the most powerful voice around … you go, Emperor!), and was inspired to add my voice.

Some really great minds found their way here in the early going, and many stayed as regulars. Sadly, many of these great voices have either fallen silent or have scaled back their involvement considerably. This isn’t a complaint. People have to do what they have to do. It’s just sad when a friend has to move on. Paul has a new baby, who is surely keeping him busy. TripleNeckSteel has found bigger things with his new business. Delfts has had major health problems and can’t post as often as he used to. Mama had gone silent as well, but has posted recently about the horrors being wrought upon the world by the Chinese government. Even RantingFox went silent for a while, and seems to be taking another (much-deserved) vacation.

The right loses power when voices like these go quiet. CooperForPresident was some seriously awesome comic relief. Thank God Misha is still around, though I wish I could be more active in my commenting there.

Thank God also for those voices that have stuck around, and the new voices that carry us still. Van Helsing still posts a great site, though his comments around here are missed. Sage has been pretty quiet at R&S, but has kept the fires burning with his commentary here. Ol’ BC still pats me on the back quite often, and for that I’m grateful. Moonbat Monitor’s rants are on point and rival those of the great Emperor himself. RWN is still a great place to go for serious discussion of the issues of the day, even though I disagree with Hawk’s choice of candidate, and MrMinority will always be a favorite of mine as well.

I guess I’ve just been missing the people that inspired me to keep going back in the beginning. I wish everyone well, and hope to enjoy everyone’s commentary here for the long haul.

RWR

Posted in RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

Memorial Day 2007

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 26, 2007

Last Memorial Day, I linked over to Delftsman, who had up a really great cartoon that catches the essence of people’s screwed up priorities this day and age. So, I’ll just re-post last year’s post as a reminder of WHY we all stay home and barbecue. There is a reason, you know. There is someone being honored.

Sunday, May 28, 2006 4:48 PMMemorial Day

Delftsman has said it better than any could.

I regret that loss of meaning. This is supposed to be a day of reflection, a day of honoring those that died in the defense of everything we hold dear; a day to realize that freedom isn’t free and that we are blessed that so many brave patriots in the past were willing to pay that ultimate price so that we may feel secure in our land.

Why is it that a foreign-born American has more of a clue than many of those born here? Too many people take this country for granted.

RWR

Delfts is always right on the mark.

RWR

Posted in Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, RWRandom Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Not sure if this will work …

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 23, 2007

I sent the following email to Fred Thompson today. Think he’ll bite?

Hey, sir!

I’m really hoping you will run. I’m pretty close to sending my vote your way. I have a good number of questions that I’d like to post your answers to on my blog, which you can find at http://rightwingrocker.blogspot.com.

There are a few things of note there that you should read, including a few things I have posted about you, as well as my comments on the New Federalist Platform found at Reagan2020.org, which I strongly support.

My questions won’t all be easy, but I can be a very strong voice in your favor with the great answers I know you can give.

How about it??

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

It’ll be lots of fun if he goes for it.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere | Leave a Comment »

Rock ‘Em!

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 22, 2007

In a guest editorial on David Codrea’s site, Mike Vanderboegh brings to the fore the way our revered forefathers dealt with government usurpation of our God-given rights. Read it. Then read it again.

There’s far too much truth in it for it to be comfortable. Perhaps some of the “rocks” are taking out the television sets, so that “the Revolution will not be televised”, as The Old Sage likes to put it. Again, there’s just far too much truth in the piece for it to be comfortable.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

Questions 21-23 Revisited

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 21, 2007

I did think of something just a few minutes ago while I was going over the “look and feel” of the page. It had to do with this post from last week. “Grumpy Old Fart” had basically called this questionnaire, given to Idaho judges who were all seeking appointments “political”. Most of the questions dealt with the knowledge each respondent had with regard to the Idaho Constitution itself, and a few (questions 21-23 in particular) dealt with the philosophy of the candidate.

I wondered how “GOF” might feel if the same questionnaire were presented not by a conservative group (allegedly to weed out liberals), but rather by a liberal group (allegedly to weed out conservatives). In other words, what would an IMPARTIAL observer say about the answers to these three questions??

21. Which one of the current or recent U.S. Supreme Court Justices most reflects your judicial philosophy?

___ Ginsburg

___ O’Connor

­­___ Kennedy

___ Scalia

___ Other ___________________________

I think a liberal would call this question (as I, a conservative did) HIGHLY RELEVANT. After all, wouldn’t a liberal want to know if the judge seeking appointment were more aligned with Ginsberg or Scalia? Wouldn’t a liberal hope that the judge being appointed would be more Ginsberg-like, just as a conservative would want someone more Scalia-like? HIGHLY RELEVANT – to BOTH sides.

22. Rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1-10 when approaching the constitution, with “living document” being a 1 and “strict constructionist” being a 10.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Again, your “living document” liberals and your “strict constructionist” conservatives are both going to find this question EQUALLY RELEVANT. After all, if you advocate the “living document” philosophy, you are going to try for judges who think the same way, aren’t you?

23. Which of the following former U.S. Presidents best represents your political philosophy?

___ Jimmy Carter

___ Ronald Reagan

___ Bill Clinton

___ George W. Bush

___ Other ___________________________

I had to laugh when I saw this one … Jimmy Carter?? Exactly whose political philosophy does he represent? HAHA Same for W. These two are the poster boys for the “smile and kiss ass” ideology that the rest of Washington exploits day in and day out. Your choices are socialist Clinton, or patriot Reagan. Let’s face it. A liberal wants the answer to that question, too. Again, HIGHLY RELEVANT to BOTH sides.

Exactly what that grumpy old fart was talking about, I’m not sure.  Maybe he just has it in for WorldNetDaily and conservative organizations who aren’t afraid to ask important questions.

Eh.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere, RWRandom Thoughts | 2 Comments »

Yeah … I Know

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 21, 2007

Yes, things have been quiet around the RWRepublic. I’m too busy to research the “Immigration Bill” and too bored with everything else to post anything about it. What I’m really looking for is something “pithy” to comment on, not some long-winded treatise that I don’t have time to read in the first place.

There just isn’t much of that.

Any suggestions?

RWR

Posted in RWRandom Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Mr. Minority’s “Grumpy Old Fart”

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 17, 2007

Mr. Minority is one fine blogger. We sometimes disagree, but we most often agree wholeheartedly. Few are as passionate about the conservative cause as he.

So when he put up this post today about judges who refused to answer a few simple questions, largely about their own State’s Constitution, especially since they were all seeking appointments, I took a closer look. Go read it. It’s spot on.

Now MrM does entertain his share of trolls, one of which is a normally harmless idiot who calls himself “Grumpy Old Fart”. This guy is one of the biggest “shoot the messenger” types around. If it came from Fox or WND, it MUST be bullshit. Or so you’d think. Go read MrM’s post again if you think there was anything wrong with this article. Click the link. The point MrM was making is simple: Jurists seeking appointment are going to have to answer some questions. Why not have them be about the law they are supposed to uphold? Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with the questionnaire. Nothing wrong with WND’s publishing it.

Still, the troll felt he had to speak.

Oh great, another WND prevarication.

(Heavy Sigh). Now here’s the rest…..of the story:

First of all, here’s the full questionaire.

Second, judicial ethics prevents justices from responding to these obviously loaded and political questions. You can read about these ethical rules here. In a nutshell it says that justices should not give any statements that would give the impression that they would pre-judge any case or issue that might come before the court. They are not to get into the muck and mire of Red/Blue food fights.

For instance: Question 22. Rate your judicial philosophy on a scale of 1-10 when approaching the constitution, with “living document” being a 1 and “strict constructionist” being a 10.

Finally, only a bozo who answers those “do you believe in supporting the president in a time of war” questionaires that come in fund raising envelopes could fail to see what this “questionaire” was. There is not a judge or justice in the country that respond to this IVA “questionaire”, and only WND would print this as news.

grumpy old fart | 05.17.07 – 2:15 pm |

For starters, I think the question GOF cited (#22) is HIGHLY RELEVANT when making decisions as to who will sit on the bench in a courtroom. Second, he provided a link, and therefore all the ammo I needed to blow his idiocy away. So, just for fun, I researched the Idaho Constitution and REALLY let him have it …

GOF-

There’s absolutely NOTHING wrong with a SINGLE QUESTION on that questionnaire. Not a single one of these questions was in any way “political” or “loaded”. Most of them basically amount to a quiz about what is or isn’t constitutionally legal in Idaho.

In fact, here are my answers, as I’m quite willing to answer them all:

1. Agree (“Preamble – We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.”)

2. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and equal, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety.”)

3. Agree (see #2)

4. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 2. POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the legislature.”)

5. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 4. GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. The exercise and enjoyment of religious faith and worship shall forever be guaranteed …”)

6. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 4. GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY…but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, or excuse acts of licentiousness”)

7. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 4. GUARANTY OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY… “Bigamy and polygamy are forever prohibited in the state”)

8. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 9. FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Every person may freely speak, write and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty.”)

9. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 13. GUARANTIES IN CRIMINAL ACTIONS AND DUE PROCESS OF LAW… No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; nor be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”)

10. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged…”)

11. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS… No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition.”)

12. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS… Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.”)

13. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 14. RIGHT OF EMINENT DOMAIN. The necessary use of lands for … or any other use necessary to the complete development of the material resources of the state … s hereby declared to be a public use, and subject to the regulation and control of the state.”)

14. Agree (“ARTICLE I SECTION 20. NO PROPERTY QUALIFICATION REQUIRED OF ELECTORS – EXCEPTIONS. No property qualifications shall ever be required for any person to vote or hold office except in school elections, or elections creating indebtedness, or in irrigation district elections, as to which last-named elections the legislature may restrict the voters to land owners.”)

15. Agree (“Article II SECTION 1. DEPARTMENTS OF GOVERNMENT. The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.”)

16. I personally disagree … haven’t been able to find a reference with regard to the philosophy of the Idaho Constitution … this is my answer for now …

17. Agree (at least with regard to the Idaho Constitution as I would be expected to enforce as a judge in Idaho – “Article III SECTION 24. PROMOTION OF TEMPERANCE AND MORALITY. The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home. The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”) even though I personally disagree and am more in agreement with the philosophy expressed by the Founders …(Declaration if Independence – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,.. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”) .. still, this is about being a judge in Idaho, not a patriot in general.

18. Agree (see references for #17 – again, I’m not personally in agreement, but I would be bound by the Idaho Constitution as a jurist in that state).

19. Agree (“Article III SECTION 28. MARRIAGE. A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state.”)

20. Agree (“Article IV SECTION 11. DISAPPROVAL OF APPROPRIATION BILLS. The governor shall have power to disapprove of any item or items of any bill making appropriations of money embracing distinct items …”)

21. Scalia. This is a personal reference question designed to bring forth an understanding of the philosophical beliefs of the person answering.

22. 10. Again, another question designed to bring forth a clear understanding of the philosophical beliefs of the person answering the question.

23. Reagan. Yet again. A question brought forth to give a clear understanding of the person’s guiding philosophy.

The last three questions are the most important, as they give a better understanding of exactly what to expect from the judge in question.

#16 is interesting. I imagine casino gambling may be covered in an amendment somewhere, but I just wasn’t able to dig up the reference. I personally have no problem with it myself, but then again, I make a lot of money performing in casinos. If the Idaho Constitution forbids it, though, it requires an amendment for there to be casino gambling there.

ALL of the rest of the questions were taken directly from the Idaho Constitution, which is exactly what these judges are supposed to be using to make their decisions when they’re on the bench.

3 or 4 questions involving personal philosophy. and 19 or 20 taken directly from the state’s governing document. And those 3 or 4 personal questions were HIGHLY RELEVANT in any decision as to who should be appointed to enforce the provisions implied in the other 19 or 20.

I hope you weren’t trying to call this questionnaire one of those “do you believe in supporting the president in a time of war” questionnaires in your remark. That would betray you as a fool.

Grumpy Old Fart, indeed.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

HAHA

And he was the one who provided the link the the “full questionnaire”. Make your bed; sleep in it.

RWR

Posted in Alternative Media, Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

The Gray Lady Stands Against Your Rights

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 11, 2007

Today, Fred Thompson takes yet another stand in favor of the Second Amendment, or at least its general existence. He mentions this article from the New York Slimes.

The DC law in question is one of the biggest violations of the Second Amendment in the US. Provisions struck down by the court include a near outright ban on handguns, carrying a gun AROUND ONE’S OWN HOME without a license, and a requirement that guns (even those registered under illegal registration laws), be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock”.

Just to demonstrate the incredible hypocrisy of those fighting to reinstate this law, one of the lawyers for the gun-grabbers, Robert A. Levy, had this to say:

The obligation of District of Columbia officials is to demonstrate that D.C. laws are constitutional and not to engage in strategic behavior driven by concerns elsewhere in the country.

Well sir. I’ve got something for you to think about. Exactly how can the aforementioned law be in compliance with the law which says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”?????

And leave out all your bullshit arguments about “public safety”. None of them are relevant.

RWR

Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

Presiden’t Address “Hostile”

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 8, 2007

h/t – ConservativeGrapevine.com

Both NewsMax and the New York Post reported yesterday that a math professor in Arizona is being fired for harassment. He is charged with sending an email on a public service that was “hostile” and “derogatory”. What exactly did he send? Porn? KKK/Farrakhan/Nazi propaganda? Pictures of President Bush? If only.

No, what this horrible man did was use the occasion of Thanksgiving to send out to everyone on this email bulletin service … PRESIDENT WASHINGTON’S 1789 THANKSGIVING ADDRESS!!!!!

First of all, I have a question for these idiots: If these words carried no “hostile” or “derogatory” meanings in 1789, why all of a sudden is simply quoting them reason for dismissal? I mean, seriously – what’s the bitch?

Since I own RWR.com, and can’t get fired for simply posting anything in particular, I’ll show you EXACTLY what this address says:

President Washington’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1789Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint committee requested me to “recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many single favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

OK. It’s the duty of all Nations to acknowledge and obey God, be grateful to Him, and seek his protection and favor. A congressional committee has requested a day of public prayer and thanksgiving for the above. “Hostile”? “Derogatory”? Are we reading the same piece here?

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the Service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks, for His kind care and protection of the People of this country previous to their becoming a Nation, for the single and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war, for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed, for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted, of the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have to acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

Next, the President declares the day of that requested day of prayer and thanksgiving, acknowledging God, showing him gratitude, and encouraging all to seek his protection and favor, and thank him together as a nation for all he has done. “Hostile”? “Derogatory”? Puh-LEASE!

And also that we may then unite in most humble offering our prayers and supplications to the Great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all people, by constantly being a government of wise, just and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace and concord. To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us, and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone know to be best.

So, President Washington declares a day of Thanksgiving – at Congress’s request, no less – and here we sit 227 years later defending an educator who dares invoke these words in encouraging all to understand the meaning of the holiday at hand. This man faces dismissal from his position for 1. exercising his First Amendment right to free speech, and 2. invoking the words of the only president ever to be elected unanimously.

What I’d like to know is this: Who are the sickos calling for this man’s dismissal???

RWR

Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit | Leave a Comment »

Fred Thompson on Repealing the First Amendment

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 8, 2007

I was pretty hard on MrM in my last post. He’s a good friend – really, he is. We simply part ways when we get to the point where someone wants to suggest that Fred Thompson has given an adequate explanation as to 1. why he voted to repeal the First Amendment, and 2. why we should believe he won’t engage in future usurpations of that nature.

MrM left another link in the comment area, which yielded this quote from a recent interview with Chris Wallace:

I came from the outside to Congress. And it always seemed strange to me. We’ve got a situation where people could give politicians huge sums of money, which is the soft money situation at that time, and then come before those same politicians and ask them to pass legislation for them.

I mean, you get thrown in jail for stuff like that in the real world. And so I always thought that there was some reasonable limitation that ought to be put on that, and you know, looking back on history, Barry Goldwater in his heyday felt the same thing. (my emphasis)

OK. Well then why take the First Amendment away from those who use it responsibly? You seem to take that stand when it comes to the Second. Why not the First? Why not simply apply the same “real world” laws that get other people thrown in jail and punish these perpetrators that way? After all, people serving in government are expected to obey those laws as well, and if there are people getting “thrown in jail”, then obviously there are laws already in place that will remedy the situation.

Needless to say, I’m not impressed. There’s nothing here that addresses the issues I have brought forth with regard to this vote. If Fred Thompson can stand up and defend the Second Amendment (albeit a little wishy-washy), I see no reason for him to see any legitimacy in McCain-Feingold. I further see no reason to believe he will turn around start standing up for our God-given rights as guaranteed by the Constitution in these statements.

Fred is an EXCELLENT candidate for President – don’t get me wrong. Still, he’s going to have to come up with better than this if he is to get my vote. I do see Fred as a very deliberate and thoughtful candidate. I do expect him to come clean on this at some point. I do have faith. But, then again, I had faith in the Republican Congress as well …

Time will tell.

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

MrM says Thompson Came Clean

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 7, 2007

On Friday, my good buddy MrMinority had this to say about Fred Thompson, who is doing really well in my personal opinion of who should be our next President.

No, the spirit of Ronald Reagan lives in the one person that hasn’t announced his candidacy yet, that man is Fred Thompson. If you have read up on Fred, and if you have read his recent columns posted on Townhall and Redstate, then you will see that the spirit of Ronnie does live in Fred. His position on the War on Terrorism, limited Gov’t, States Rights, the 2nd Amendment, Immigration, Gay Marriage, Abortion, Embryonic Stem Cell Research all are the positions that a Reagan Conservative would take.

I hope Fred hurries up and announces, because this country needs him.

I’ve already commented on Fred’s position on the Second Amendment. Not ideal, but WAY better then you’re going to get from any other viable candidate. Still, I haven’t been satisfied, as Fred voted for the McCain-Feingold repeal of the First Amendment, an intolerable violation of the Bill of Rights if ever there were one. Fred has a lot of explaining to do, as I’ve said before, about this vote if I’m to vote for him, so I responded to MrM as follows:

I like Fred as a candidate.

Still, he’s got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do with regard to his yea vote on McCain’s repeal of the First Amendment.

Time will tell.

RWR

A lot of explaining, indeed. Anyone who supported that piece of rights-grabbing shit is unfit for office unless he/she can make it clear exactly what the hell he/she was thinking, and why we should believe he/she won’t get involved in future usurpations of this nature. MrM responded:

RWR,
I have read what Fred said on this, and he said he thought it would be better than what was in place before, and admits that the legislation is a piece of garbage now. One of the things we like about Fred is he is willing to admit his mistakes and correct them.

Mr Minority

He did? He did? He is? I never saw anything of the sort, so I asked for a link. This is what I got:

Many on the right remain angry Mr. Thompson supported the campaign finance law sponsored by his friend, John McCain. “There are problems with people giving politicians large sums of money and then asking them to pass legislation,” Mr. Thompson says. Still, he notes he proposed the amendment to raise “the $1,000 per person hard money” federal contribution limit. Conceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended, and is being riddled with new loopholes, he throws his hands open in exasperation. “I’m not prepared to go there yet, but I wonder if we shouldn’t just take off the limits and have full disclosure with harsh penalties for not reporting everything on the Internet immediately.”

Better than what was in place before? I don’t see that here. Admits the legislation is a piece of garbage? I’m not sure cenceding that McCain-Feingold hasn’t worked as intended equates to admitting it’s a “piece of garbage”. In fact, it sounds more like the typical Leftspeak similar to “mend it, don’t end it”.  I also don’t see this as any kind of admission of any mistake.  Fred just threw his arms up and made a suggestion for an amendment.

Look, MrM.  You are one of the most thoughtful bloggers on the web, but to say that Thompson has come clean even the slightest on this issue is an insult to my intelligence, and worse, to your own.  This appears to be the only issue on which Fred and I part ways, but  I don’t feel any better about this vote today than I did prior to following that link.

I do think there is reason to believe that Fred Thompson CAN come up with a reasonable explanation as to why he voted as he did, as well as what he will do in the future to right this wrong in which he participated.  When that time comes, I’ll gladly listen.  Hopefully, I’ll have plenty of reason to be excited about going to the polls.

Come on, Fred.  What say?

RWR

Posted in New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

Blogger Break

Posted by RightWingRocker on May 3, 2007

Hey all! Checking in and noticing I haven’t posted in over a week.

I’ll need a little more time, as I’m pretty busy with things on the home front.  I hope to be back in full force by the end of next week.

In the meantime, please keep checking back, as there’s plenty to read here – especially if you’re new to the RWRepublic – and once I’m back, you know I’ll be back in the RIGHT way.

RWR

Posted in RWRandom Thoughts, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »