Mr. Minority’s “Grumpy Old Fart”

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

The Gray Lady Stands Against Your Rights

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

Presiden’t Address “Hostile”

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

Sheryl Crow’s Satire

It’s satire. It’s got to be. Come on, now.

“I propose a limitation to be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. I think we are industrious enough people to make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.”

The radio was ablaze yesterday with people talking about this. Five hours of driving, and this was nearly all I heard about. At some point someone HAD to reveal that this was all one big joke. I was laughing at people’s gullibility. After all, something like this is just a bit too extreme to be taken seriously, even by the most whacked-out enviro-nutjob. Even my nutty cousin would be laughing hysterically at this (I think …).

Well the revelation never came, which brings forth another thought, and the libs really need to take this seriously: Can we now agree that the liberal “environmental” movement is a joke? Isn’t this foolishness proof positive that environmentalist wackos like Sheryl Crow have something other than America’s best interests at heart when they spew their nonsense?

Come on. I have a lot of trouble believing these people don’t see just how foolish they are, especially when they’re going to these extremes.

This is all just too funny.

RWR

Update 2:05PM: Sheryl now says it was a joke.

And by the way guys, the toilet paper thing…it was a JOKE!!

A joke perhaps, Ms. Crow. But it’s quite illustrative of the lunacy that passes for the Left’s WACKY positions with regard to “The Environment”.

Fred Thompson on VA Tech

Fred Thompson posted an opinion yesterday that is quite encouraging, though not completely in the right. The part that I have issues with, however, is minor compared to the issues I have with the opposition. Here’s where Fred and I differ:

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain. (my emphasis)

While Fred is absolutely on the mark about people being safer where they can pack and carry, he’s missing the point with regard to who is legally allowed to carry and use guns. The Second Amendment makes no provision for “citizens with training and legal permits”. It says only that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Nothing about permits or training. If you are a citizen of this country, you have the right to carry any means you wish to defend yourself against perpetrators such as that which fired upon Virginia Tech earlier this week. You don’t need training, and you don’t need a permit. Any law that requires either infringes directly upon that right and is therefore ILLEGAL.

Fred goes on to make many excellent points about why the Second Amendment needs to be respected more now than ever. I just wish any caveats would be consistent with those in the Constitution. Still, this is a LOT closer to reality than what you will get from those on the Left.

RWR

Ginsberg’s Latest Idiocy

Can the liberals on the Supreme Court be any more out of touch with reality?

… at stake in cases challenging abortion restrictions is a woman’s “control over her [own] destiny.” – Ruth Bader-Ginsberg

The usual pro-abortion blather. It’s as if these people believe that somehow these women get pregnant completely at random and have no say in the matter of conceiving a child in the first place. You don’t get to be a Supreme Court Justice by being stupid enough to believe that kind of bullshit, but it’s clearly what Ms. Ginsberg and her ilk want YOU to believe.

Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right “to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.”

I wonder how this is relevant to the discussion. I further challenge anyone to show me how being a mother conflicts with “[participating] equally in the economic and social life of the Nation.” Motherhood is the very essence of the economic and social life of ANY nation. Without it, all humanity would cease to exist.

Their ability to realize their full potential … is intimately connected to “their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Thus, legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature.

Frankly, I don’t see how being a mother interferes with any of the above. Women do realize their full potential as mothers. They do the most important work in the world which, as a man, I absolutely cannot do. I don’t see how banning partial-birth abortion or, for that matter, ANY abortion, interferes with a woman’s ability to control her reproductive life. Women DO choose to have sex, after all, and KNOW the risks involved.

What she is suggesting as legitimate would be the equivalent of my running General Motors into a court battle over an accident that was my own fault. I knew the risks involved in operating a motor vehicle. I knew I could have an accident. The accident may have ruined my life, and quite a bit more so than simply giving birth and raising a child would ruin the life of a mother. Therefore, Ms. Ginsberg, your argument that a woman being able “to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature” is as much bullshit as my making the same claim against General Motors in the above example, not to mention an insult to mothers all across America.

I really don’t need to go on here. If this is how Ms. Ginsberg introduces her position, the rest of it can’t be any less idiotic.

Is the Left’s entire position on abortion based on the faulty premises that women don’t choose to have sex and that babies aren’t human? Can’t they come up with something substantive? They couldn’t use the libertarian argument that the government should just stay out of it, now could they? After all, that argument would be an admission that their entire socialist agenda is as much bullshit as their position on abortion.

What else is new?

RWR

Hokey Madness

The massacre at VA Tech has my traffic running high for today, and I haven’t even posted about it yet. John Hawkins has said it quite well in his post on the matter today:

The calls for gun control are already coming in hot and heavy after the massacre at Va. Tech yesterday, but isn’t what happened there proof positive that gun control doesn’t work? After all, we just had the biggest gun massacre at a school in American history at a university where it is illegal to carry guns.

Well, duh. Take away the citizen’s final line of defense, and this is EXACTLY what you get. I will repeat the key question here: Isn’t what happened there proof positive that gun control doesn’t work?

My answer is this: While it is true enough that gun control laws do not bring any kind of violence under control, the question of whether these laws work is completely irrelevant. The Second Amendment 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. – (my emphasis, of course)

If the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, what the fuck difference does it make whether a law that does just that “works”? These laws are illegal and, as such, require the punishment of those creating and bringing them into law.

Of course, given the liberal nutjobs running the shows, don’t expect it to happen any day soon.

RWR

Moonbat Monitor Says it for Me

I didn’t hear Imus’s bullshit.

I brushed off Jackson and Sharpton’s bullshit as well. Let’s face it. It’s not news when those two hypocrite shitheads go out and bitch about someone saying something racist. They do it all the time, and then they turn around and advocate the same kind of racism they decry (only against white people). Yawn.

Still, I went ahead and read Moonbat Monitor’s rant on the subject. He’s right on every point he makes. This was the best point of the piece:

I do however have serious issues with the two media whores that led the charge to get him canned. Both Sharpton and Jackson have spewed as much racist garbage as Imus has over the last few decades, so who in the hell gives these two race-pimping punks any moral authority to call for his firing. And better yet, why are there shows on the air? Why is no one calling for them to be fired? Why aren’t sponsors pulling ads from their shows?

* Imus is an idiot so canning him is, well, a non-issue – check.

* Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are a couple of racist media whores – check.

* “Gangsta” rappers routinely include this language in their work and consistently get a pass – check.

* Heterosexual white males are discriminated against with regard to these matters – check.

* It’s possible that firing Imus was a wrong (though obviously irrelevant) actioin – check.

I’m with you MM on this one. I hope we can finally get America to face the fact that racism is occurring as much, if not more, against those who are being called on the carpet for racism.

RWR

Solving the Embryonic Stem Cells Debate

John Hawkins has a great piece today showing the superiority of adult stem cell research over embryonic stem cell research. In the comments section, I provide the very best solution to this debate yet provided:

Here’s an even better idea:

Let’s not let the government spend ANY money on medical research. After all, it is illegal for it to do so anyway. That will force individuals, inventors, and private industry to make wise investments to get to the methods that will be truly succssful.

Of course, the Republicrats will never go for it because it takes it out of their evil hands.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Posted by RightWingRocker
April 11, 2007 12:19 PM

The proof, of course came later, posted by “aharris”:

As my husband, the pharmaceutical guy, says: if private industry isn’t investing in it, they must not see a return on their investment.

Posted by aharris
April 11, 2007 12:50 PM

This is the bottom line, folks. If private industry won’t spend money on it, then why should anyone else, especially those of us who are opposed to it?

Get the government out of it, and let the chips fall where they may.

RWR

RantingFox on Guns and Drugs

In her post today entitled Back to Reality, Ranting Fox has hit on some very important points.

I really dont understand Chicago’s fear of guns. You outlawed them so that gun crime would go down… when it skyrocketed, because now only people who already break the law have guns. And you have an unarmed civilian population, which frankly gives the thugs the power.

Why is this a surprise? Lawmakers who make laws like this are breaking the law themselves when they do so. Ever heard of the Second Amendment???

Has our modern effort of prohibition worked at all either? Other than empowering the government to regulate everything we may or may not put in our bodies? And giving invasive powers to the state to track activity? And funding gangs, rotting our cities, and all that?

Why are drugs illegal? Seriously. Why?

They are illegal because people bitch to their lawmakers, who in turn violate the rights we are all endowed with by our Creator because the voices of some ignorant Americans gave them the power to do so. I used to support the drug war. Every day, I see its failings grow and grow. It will eventually end, just like prohibition did. It’s not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

I posted the following in the comment area:

Now for the big question:

Why do lawmakers have a problem with following the laws that govern what laws they can and cannot make????????

THAT is what we, as Americans, should be asking ourselves.

And it’s high time we did – and loudly enough for all to hear.

RWR

The Real Front in the War on Terror

It’s been a while since I stopped by Iraq the Model, my favorite Iraqi blog, hosted by Omar and Mohammed, two brothers who live in the Baghdad area.

Mohammed posted this on Friday.  Go read it.  I’ll wait …

Finished??

Good.  Now my question is this:

If someone living on the ground in Iraq gets it, why don’t so many of those whose countrymen were killed on September 11, 2001?

Idiots.

RWR

Public Stupidity

John Hawkins posted this picture today.

What a fucking moron.

RWR

Why Your Blog Sucks

I found this amusing. A blogger giving pointers on “Why Your Blog Sucks”, on a blog that, well … sucks.

Anyway, I figured I’d have a little fisky fun with it.

Why Your Blog SucksPossible reasons not as many people read your blog as you would like:

1) You don’t post often enough. People click on a website regularly when they expect it to have new content. If you’re a thoughtful writer who tends to write longer essays then you’re at a disadvantage. On the other hand, Glenn Greenwald provides a pretty good model of how to make this work: generally one post per day, followed by a couple of updates, and some participation in his comments section. Oh, and truly excellent, original, and important content.

I post whenever the hell I feel like it. This usually works out to at least a post every other day, but I don’t get my panties in a twist if I don’t make that. After all, blogging isn’t my profession. Sometimes I even get a couple of posts a day up there. People do come back on the off days, it seems, to check up on the comments, which are important here at the RWRepublic. John Hawkins tends to post at least three times a day, and includes a pretty well-thought out news post each day along with it. By the way, who is Glenn Greenwald?

2) Your page design sucks. I know there are some blogs I’d read more often if the design was more appealing to me. I’m not talking about sexy and beautiful, I’m talking about basic readability issues. For example, light text on dark background makes my eyes bleed.

Oh, geez. I’m sure Spats, Delfts, MrMinority, and the like are just running scared trying to make your bleedy little eyes happy. Get a life.

3) You need to get some mad blogwhoring skills. Look, good marketing/PR is a skill. There are lots of ways to try to get attention. And, believe it or not, people like me don’t have the entire interwebs jacked into our cerebral cortices. If I’m not linking to your awesome blog it’s quite possible I’m not aware of its awesomeness.

Any question as to the awesomeness of THIS blog??? Duh…

4) Your blog actually sucks. Maybe you’re just not offering something that is original and timely enough. Maybe you don’t have a good sense of what is or isn’t important. Maybe your readers don’t know what the hell you’re talking about most of the time. Maybe you’re not as funny as you think you are. Who knows?

This from a guy whose content includes “More and Better Democrats”, “Why Your City Sucks”, and “Fox Apologists in the Mainstream Media”. Dude, maybe people just don’t want to read someone’s work when they’re full of shit.

5) You post all your best stuff as diaries at Daily Kos. Great way to get some attention and a quick readership, but it isn’t a great way to encourage people to come to your site. Why should they? They can read you there.

Posting at Daily Krap is a great way to get people who actually know how to think to avoid you like the plague. Same for DU.

6) A sizable chunk of your content involves complaining about people not reading or linking to you. There’s an audience for this, but the territory is rather overcovered in the blogosphere.

Guess you figured this little bit of intelligence out for yourself, huh?

7) An elite cabal of bloggers, all on the Hillary Clinton for President campaign payroll, have conspired to suppress your original voice by any means necessary, including the implementation of very elitist and anti-democratic peer review systems such as the open posting and “recommended diary” system at Daily Kos. This is certainly an interesting theory, and one which several blogs seem to be devoted to exploring, but absent further evidence you might want to look for alternative explanations.

Ah yeah. Hitlery’s coming to try to shut down my blog. Thankfully, I’ve installed the Socialist Moonbat Detection Array (SMDA), for which even that commie bitch has no defense. I wonder if you’re really serious.

By the way, you are an embarrassment to the Philadelphia area. Oh, and your blog … sucks.

RWR

A Win for the Second Amendment

I saw this on Friday, but was busy with touring and such.

It’s about time we had a win for the Second Amendment. I, for one, am too weary to speak of the bullshit we hear about the Second Amendment applying only to “state militias”. Governments at all levels need to get their grimy paws off of the guns of American citizens.

March 9 (Bloomberg) — A U.S. appeals court struck down a three-decade-old District of Columbia law that bans residents from keeping a handgun in their homes, saying the Constitution’s Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Washington also threw out a district law requiring registered firearms to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock.

It’s the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a gun-control measure on Second Amendment grounds. Nelson Lund, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University in neighboring Virginia, said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court is “very likely.”

This may be the first time a law has been struck down on Second Amendment grounds, but it’s DEFINITELY not the first time a law has NEEDED to be. Let’s get started on the rest, and right away.

Lawyers for the District of Columbia, which banned residents from owning handguns in 1976 for public safety reasons, argued that the amendment guarantees the right to bear arms only for members of a militia.

OK. So what if I start a militia tomorrow … how exactly do you figure I’m going to get my hands on the appropriate weaponry if you’ve banned the owning of guns? Morons. Oh yeah, and exactly how do you expect taking away people’s ability to defend themselves to improve “public safety”? Who’s the knucklehead that dreamed that one up?

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, saying that because the capital district isn’t a state, the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to it.

Here’s a good one. The Second Amendment applies only to people who live and work in the 50 states, and the unalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitutiona and the Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment in particular). It doesn’t apply to our nation’s capital? You can own weapons anywhere in the US except Washington, DC? What a fucking joke.

Most U.S. appeals courts to consider the issue have said the Second Amendment preserves state militias and doesn’t protect individual rights.

Yeah, well most U.S. appeals courts are full of shit. The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about state militas, in case you didn’t know.

For the good of the American people, this decision must be upheld. It is truly a victory for the Constitution and the people of this great country.

RWR

Stine on the Rights of Man

Brad Stine’s recent piece on “rights” is good … VERY good.

He does, however, miss one key point. And he misses it with this statement:

The truth of the matter is we do indeed possess these “rights”, what isn’t true is that they are intrinsic to our nature. No the truth is we don’t actually “have” ANY rights in America. The “rights” we do have have been given to us! The “rights” you have to speak freely was given to you by people who DIED speaking freely. The “right” you have to worship freely here without the concern for coercian or jailtime was given to you by people who left their native home to hand you that privilige.

This statement flies in the face of the concept of God-given unalienable rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

It is a basic tenet of the concept that is America that these rights are, in fact, intrinsic to our nature. We are endowed with them by our Creator.

Do I think for one minute that Brad Stine is trying to tell us he disbelieves in America as envisioned by the Founders? Not at all. What is probably at work in Brad’s thought process here is the simple fact that these rights are ours as long as we have the resolve to defend them. If our soldiers weren’t willing to stand up to those interested in taking away those rights, we would definitely not have them. We are endowed with these rights by our Creator, but that same Creator expects us to pay for them with blood.

I hate war but humanity has proven we can’t exist without it. You can protest war in America only because people who fought in war gave you the privilige. My point is that we should be beyond grateful for all the “rights” we possess as Americans; but perhaps we should all be more careful about flippantly utilizing the word “rights” as though this is common to man.

Everyone hates war, and we should be “beyond grateful” for our rights. We should be thankful both to the Creator and those whose blood has been spilled for those rights.

While rights are common to man, the recognition of those rights is not, and for the rights of those people we should also be champions.

RWR

Shut Up, Faggot!

It seems the ‘sphere is all ablaze on both sides about Ann Coulter’s use of the word FAGGOT over the weekend…

It’s often been said: Opinions are like assholes – Everyone’s got one, and they all stink.  Never mind what Ann said or who was offended.  She has the right to say it.  If you don’t like it, you can say whatever you want about it.

What gets me is all these people demanding that conservatives speak out against her.  Of course, you won’t hear anyone over at Koz or DU speaking out against those posting on their sites saying things that are much worse.

Bottom line.  I’ll exercise my First Amendment rights as I please, and everyone else, conservative and liberal alike, can feel free to do the same. I won’t be calling for anyone’s apology or demanding they be spoken out against. Don’t like it??  Go whine to the UN.

Faggots.

RWR

Presidential Candidates …

Let’s face it.

The current crop of “Presidential candidates” sucks. REALLY sucks – and I mean on both sides of the aisle.

You have basically two choices now. You can either support a socialist nutjob like Hitlery or Osama Obama, or you can support a RINO like John McCain. If you want someone with any sense of federalism, you can support Ron Paul, but expect to have to cut and run in the War on Terror.

The measure of a good candidate is best summed up in a post I wrote last year:

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:48 AM

Rocker for President

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

Maybe Tancredo?? I’ll have to look into it.

RWR

The Left’s REAL Agenda

Kim du Toit is an absolute expert on the Second Amendment.

His wife is no slouch, either.

Last week, she took on Jim Zumbo, a Hollywood idiot who took the position that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to protect hunters. She started by quoting a previous post of hers, in which she had had this to say:

Others argue that the Second Amendment was added to allow sportsman to hunt or to shoot at cups and saucers. This camp argues that it was never intended that you have arms to shoot at a person, or in your defense, it was only a protection for hobbyists and hunting enthusiasts.

This idiot (Zumbo) apparently changed his position on the “assault weapons” ban because he didn’t realize that hunters used them. What a moron.

He was rightly buried by Second Amendment supporters for his prior remarks. He was fired by OLN and Remington, for whom he had been doing shows and such. All relevant sponsors cancelled their endorsements. He really took it on the chin. Good.

So why didn’t the truth sink in?? Who knows? Mrs. dT gave him a blunt reminder:

The Second Amendment, which articulates your “right to bear arms,” has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING.

This will be added to the list of random quotes I post at the top of the page. It’s one of the most important things people need to know about the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment was instituted to empower every day people like you and me to kill those who would try to wrest our rights and freedoms from our hands. It gives us the right to own and use weapons of all sorts in an effort to protect ourselves from criminals of all sorts.

This isn’t just for defending our homes against intruders. It’s for killing agents of an oppressive government which makes illegal laws, levies illegal taxes, confiscates private property, etc. Are you getting the picture?

As I thought about this, something very dark and profound came to mind, and the direction of my post changed drastically.

Before I explain myself, there’s something from Mrs. du Toit’s post that must be brought forth, as I will need to reference

it later, and smoothly:

…we ALSO understand the order of bringing about change is the four boxes:
1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Cartridge

In that order and never getting to the last until the first three boxes are completely and entirely gone from us.

You see, all this brings us to the real reason the anti-Second Amendment crowd is so vocal and pushy.

This crowd, largely socialist, communist, and “liberal”,can see quite well that people are starting to see and feel the effects of their illegal laws, punitive taxes, confiscation of property, etc. The first three “boxes” are wearing down quickly, and the point of having to use the “cartridge box” is fast approaching. The more guilt they can instill in people who choose to own guns and those who are thinking about it, the better for their cause. The fewer armed Americans there are, the easiser it will be to bring their plans to full implementation.

Face it. There are only two kinds of anti-gun loonies – (1) the kind who are out to get as many guns away from as many Americans as possible in order to make it easy to oppress those same people, and (2) the kind who have been fooled by those same loonies into believing that their intentions are honorable. These people play on people’s emotions, bringing forth images of violent crime, dead children, and, of course, everyone’s favorite anti-gun icon, Bambi. They pretend to have compassion for the innocent, weak, downtrodden, and defenseless, and in the same breath seek to increase the number of innocent, wear, downtrodden, and defenseless that they can have compassion for.

No surprise. This is the tactic liberals use for all of their foolish schemes. The dream up something that people will view as a crisis (take your pick – Animal rights, illegal aliens, failing schools, AIDS, global warming – whoops, sorry they call this “global climate change” now because they can’t conclude that it’s consistently “warming” anymore – sorry about that, insane people in asylums and the resulting bums in the street – er, “homeless” – once they closed down the asylums, pollution, and the list goes on …), figure out a way people will be so emotionally affected by it that they will spend their hard-earned money to stop it, use that money and the voices of those who they’ve fooled to shout down politicians and convince them to spend everyone else’s money on it, and from there create jobs in government for people who are trained to “solve” the applicable “crisis”.

Over time, the public sector grows at the expense of the private sector, and these people dream up ways to incorporate what used to be the private sector into the public sector. Eventually, they hope, there will be no more private sector at all, and once that has happened, their socialism has won the day.

If they’ve taken the guns, the people have no means of rising up to defend against this. Oh, and the police and military that are paid (by the oppressed) to do the bidding of the oppressors STILL WILL BE ARMED.

Now some liberidiot nutjob will probably make a stop into the comment area and ask why, if these people intend to use the military to oppress people, these same people are largely “anti-war”.

The answer is simple. They are NOT anti-war. They are simply using war as a pity scheme in the crisis scenario shown above. They use war to bring forth people’s pity for those who die in it in the hopes that people will rise up against the war. Remember that the War on Terror (and that includes the Iraq front) is a means of retaliating against those who have attacked us, as well as spreading FREEDOM in the hopes that those attempting to oppress us from without will either decline in number, leave us alone, or die. If this war were about spreading SOCIALISM, they’d have no problem with it whatsoever.

Just read any thread at DU for the proof.

The real motivation for the anti-gun crowd to be so vocal and steadfast is not that they think people shouldn’t carry guns. It’s because they believe that they are better qualified that you or I to decide who should be carrying them,and they want to be able to impose that belief upon us, whether we like it or not …

Just like they do when they take our lives (Roe v. Wade), our fortunes (the tax code), and our sacred honor (McCain-Feingold).

I say this from my “soab box”. I also proudly use my “ballot box” at every opportunity. The “jury box” is a joke because those who choose the juries represent the oppressors.

With the state things are in today, especially given the oppressive and illegal gun laws there are in this country, using the “cartridge box” cannot be all that far off. Those first three boxes are indeed nearly completely and entirely gone from us. Thus, we must remember:

We, collectively, give our government a tremendous amount of our trust. We give them the power to make and enforce laws. We give them the power to incarcerate those among us who refuse to abide by those laws. With that trust we demand only the commensurate, reciprocal trust: You may make war against us, so we retain the right and the means to make war against you. It is a permanent and perpetual stand off. It is a mutual destruction pact.

Unfortunatetly, I cannot agree with her next statement about not ever expecting to need to go to war with our own government. In fact, if Hitlery finds a way into the White House (which I thank God is highly unlikely), I’m certain it will be absolutely necessary. Our government doesn’t fear us anymore, and that is reason enough.

RWR

While I’m Working

… on this, check out the Emperor’s recent comments on the fight the South-of-the-Border idiots are picking.

The title sums it up pretty well –
<a href=”http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=221″&gt;
How About You Shut the Fuck Up Before We Get Angry, Pendejos?</a>

It’s one of his many home runs …

Maybe I’ll get my two cents in again on this issue sometime soon.

RWR

Yo

Working on something I think may be pretty hot.

Stay tuned …

RWR