Never mind the pajamas … We blog in the nude!

Archive for the ‘New FedeRWRalism’ Category

Stop Waiting for a Reagan

Posted by RightWingRocker on August 7, 2007

So says John Hawkins.

While John is absolutely right with regard to everything he has said in this piece, I have just one thing to say about it:

Regardless of whether there will be another Reagan in our lifetimes, or for that matter ever for this country, the litmus test for any candidate is and should be his proximity to President Reagan on the various issues. What would Reagan have done? Is a question every American conservative should ask when considering a candidate’s position on an issue.

Sorry, folks. I just don’t have time to say any more. Besides, what else needs to be said?



Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Conservative Wins, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere | Leave a Comment »

Keep Your Head Up, April

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 30, 2007

My recent post, in which I explained what the Donks were REALLY saying when they said certain things, brought forth some commentary from a newer reader who came to us via Moonbat Monitor’s blog.

“Progressive”. So, is that the ne politically correct way of saying America hating, socialist, f**k the Constitution, I’ll change the laws to suit my nanny state ideas, do it my way or else, liberal? And will we be charged with some kind of ‘ism’ if we use the L word now?


April is pretty much always right on point. I often wonder why I don’t see a blog out there with her name on it. Maybe she has one and I just don’t know about it. I responded as follows:

That’s the new word, April. You’re right on top of it, as usual.

HAHA … Yep. Do we get to pick which ism? Make mine Catholicism. It’s just too provocative and right to pass up!

Go Benny!



I had to have a little fun! Any why not Catholicism? Sure beats socialism, liberalism, communism and, of course, progressivism. April didn’t seem consoled:

The fact that I’m on top of it makes not a whit of difference. The left has taken over this country by changing the laws over the past thirty years to suit their agenda, and my voice (and the majority of Americans’) has been sufficiently stifled. Who’s Benny?


Again, she’s right on point, mostly. The Left hasn’t changed the laws per se to suit their agenda. What they’ve done is ignored and usurped them, particularly those laws that impose limitations upon what powers they may have once elected to office.

After I submitted and re-read my response to this, I realized that there were some really important points in it (which I believe warranted creating this post):

Ahh … Forgot you’re new here …

“Benny” is my nickname for Pope Benedict XVI. Most people don’t have any idea of the influence he had in the administration of JPII. He was the perfect choice at the time, and will certainly prove one of the great leaders in the history of the church, despite the size of the shoes he now must fill.

The Left’s assault on America started long before LBJ. It’s only since then that people have noticed. Your voice is important, April, because without it, the voices of the true Patriots in this country would be further silenced.

This is the one positive I see in the Ron Paul candidacy. He’s brought out a bunch of conservative voices that have avoided participation for decades. Even though his chances of winning the primary or the general election are less than nil, his conservative voice (and that of his following) is a strong magnet pulling the debate in its proper direction – the Right.

Though I sincerely fear a Schlock or Hitlery presidency, I know in my heart of hearts that the conservative movement has the upper hand in this election, just because of the power of the conservative voices shouting to save the freedoms the Left would force us to surrender.

There’s a reason the Right is called the Right. And it has to do with more than just the direction.



Of course, it was only fair that I let her in on who “Benny” is.  After that, a brief history lesson.  The assault on the Constitution began in earnest in the early part of this century when FDR tuned the Constitution on its head.  Those of us who adore and respect President Lincoln have to shoulder a small part of the blame for this, due to his doing the right thing for all the right reasons but without the real authority to do it (freeing the slaves).  FDR simply applied that concept to his belief that implementing socialism was the right thing to do, and that his intentions were good, even though he had no authority to do it.

Still, two wrongs don’t make a right, and there’s a BIG difference between releasing people from slavery that they never should have been forced to endure and forcing an entire nation into government servitude simply because its people are having difficulty on the economic front.

April’s voice, like those of Moonbat Monitor, MrMinority, Emperor Misha, and others, are necessary for the defeat of this onslaught of socialist extremism we face today.  We simply cannot have her voice go silent like so many have.  We will need every conservative to stand firmly against socialism in the coming election cycle, as Hitlery does have a shot, and a big enough one that we cannot afford to stand by aloof.

I also refer to the Ron Paul candidacy.  This is a very important reference, as Ron Paul is a very important candidate in this race.  While I stand a better chance of throwing a snowball from Philadelphia to Hitlery’s home in Illinois, Arkansas, or New York (pick one – I can’t reach any of them from Philly) than Mr. Paul does of winning the primaries, he and his following are serving an EXTREMELY important purpose – FORCING THE DEBATE TO THE RIGHT.

Say what you want about the nutcases that actively support Mr. Paul.  Lord knows I’ve said plenty here at the RWRepublic, but make no mistake about it – these people are not going to go away just because their candidate loses the nomination.  They’ve been a silent but frustrated lot, and now they are returning to activism.  That means more conservatives involved in the discourse.

That can only be a good thing, even if some of them toss their vote to the Libertarian Party (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing as long as there’s a corresponding siphon party on the Left having the same effect).  Most will support the winner of the Republican primary, given the fact that they, through their candidate, had the real and fair opportunity to influence the party’s direction, and will continue to do so in the future.

That’s why I say conservatives have the upper hand.  It’s not in the bag by a long shot, but we do have the upper hand.


Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | 2 Comments »

Translation: Donk Debate

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 28, 2007

OK …

I’ll admit I didn’t even know the Donks were having a debate this week. Now I can’t find a transcript.

However, there have been a few comments posted in the blogosphere from the debate, chock full of the usual liberal “spin”. So here’s some of what was said (courtesy of John Hawkins), and what was really meant by it.

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word “liberal?”

And would you use this word to describe yourself?


HITLERY: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word “progressive,” which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we’re working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.


You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual. Of course, I’ve never been for ANY of that. I’ve always believed that freedom took too much power away from the powerful, and that people who achieve should be forced to do as they are told with the fruits of their success. The interest of the individual should never take precedence over the interests of big power, especially when that big power is me.

In the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it’s been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century. Now it means something that I agree with, except to a lesser degree. Big government as we have today can never do everything we need big government to do, so it must be made bigger.

I prefer the word “progressive,” which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century. That’s when real Americans actually entered the picture. Washington? Jefferson? Adams? Franklin? Paine? Madison? All lightweights with no clue. You want to talk about REAL Americans? FDR. LBJ. HRC. Those are the Americans who have made a difference.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, except those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights; who believes that we are better as a society when we steal people’s money and give it to those who refuse to lead more productive lives for themselves and their families.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, a true socialist, and I think that’s the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring to American politics.

You can take your “modern American progressive philosophy” and shove it up your fat hairy ass, Mrs. Clinton. Maybe you can use it to clean your cankles after you shit it out.

Dennis Kucinich: I say we achieve strength through peace. That’s the new doctrine that I’m going to promote throughout this campaign.


I say we try a new approach to winning wars – surrender. That’s the new doctrine that I’m going to promote throughout this campaign.

Dennis Kucunich, surrender monkey.

John Edwards: I would challenge every Democrat on this stage today to commit to raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by the year 2012.


I would challenge every Democrat on this stage today to commit to increasing unemployment and the need for socialist programs by raising the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by the year 2012.

As if any of them would turn down THAT opportunity?!?!?!

Senator Obama, how do we pull out now?

OBAMA: Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we’ve seen and that it would distract us from the war on terror.

At this point, I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq.


Look, I opposed this war from the start. Because I anticipated that we would be creating the kind of sectarian violence that we’ve seen decline and that it would enhance our success in the war on terror. Any military success for America is bad for America.

At this point, I think we can be as foolish getting out as we were successful getting in. But we have to send a clear message to the Iraqi government as well as to the surrounding neighbors that there is no military solution to the problems that we face in Iraq if a Democrat is in the White House. We just don’t handle these things well.

The simple fact is that the Donks could have never dreamed of the successes that were achieved in Iraq militarily – never mind the decline in terrorist activity at home that accompanied them. Of course, Osama Obama would rather succumb to terrorists at home than fight them abroad. Great strategy – NOT.

I think he just made an admission against self-interest. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I’m being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns. I am the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban, that became law, and then we got defeated and then Dianne Feinstein went to town on it and did a great job.


This guy owns a gun. Therefore, he is crazy. I don’t know that he is mentally qualified to own that gun. I’m being serious. Look, just like me, we go around talking about people who own guns. I am the guy who originally wrote the assault weapons ban, that became law, and then we got defeated and then Dianne Feinstein went to town on it and did a great job.

Look, we should be working with law enforcement, right now, to make sure that we protect protect the government against people who know what to do with a gun and might use one to protect their freedoms against those of us who are all about controlling them.

Mr. Biden, YOU are crazy. YOU are the evil one who should not be trusted. You say you want to take guns away from people, while in the same statement, you brag about your own criminal record writing laws that violate the Second Amendment.

And how about Obama’s prevarication about not being able to get a cab in New York City because he’s black. If I were a cab driver, I’d pass him up just because he’s nutty as a fruitcake.

If this is the best the Donks can do, they’re going to need Hitlery’s ballot box stuffing techniques to even come close!


Posted in Funny Shit, Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »

Fred’s Going to Run

Posted by RightWingRocker on July 17, 2007

Well, The Washington Post (yeah I know – lots of credibility … NOT) says so. Actually, they quoted Thompson advisor Mary Matalin (who IS credible) as saying this:

“He has made up his mind,” she said. “And one can appreciate that planning the announcement of what’s on his mind needs to take place in a deliberative fashion.”

I’m not sure about the strategy. It seems to me waiting until September may not be the best idea. Still, Matalin and Thompson, et. al. are more experienced in campaign matters than I.

Let’s hope they’re right.


Posted in New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

Comment Spam from the Ron Paul Crowd

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 19, 2007

The Ron Paul campaign has it all wrong.

They somehow are running with the notion that hitting every blog post that takes a position critical of Ron Paul with nasty comment after nasty comment. Somehow they figure this is going to get their candidate elected. All it’s really doing is exposing the Paul campaign and its supporters for the nutjobs that they are.

First, let’s make it very clear that I have no problem with Ron Paul. In fact, I posted my recent piece with the intention of proving him to be the most conservative candidate among the three I was analyzing, and even said so (proof that these comment spammers didn’t read my post before throwing around their nasty comments).

My hypothesis at the beginning was that Paul would run away with the “most conservative” label, despite his non-support of protecting Americans from terrorists, with Thompson and Hunter coming in second and third, with second place being too close to call.

After all, I do consider Libertarians in general more conservative than Republicans or (God forbid) Donks. Instead of reading my thoughtful analysis and commenting on it, these idiots decided to hit me over the head with their foolishness.

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the IRS and replace it with NOTHING! No more income taxes is that conservative enough for you? The other two neocons are just that NEOCONS! Ron Paul is the ONLY true conservative on the republican ticket. He’s the ONLY reason I am going to change my party affliation to republican and you can thank HIM for that not the NEOCONS! Thank you very much.


Yup … and I support Paul and anyone else who wants to do just that. Still, what can you say to defend your position that Paul is more conservative than Hunter or Thompson? This is not a place where you get to throw words around and put up campaign slogans. If you’re going to say something, then you had better be able to back it up.

I am fairly certain that ontheissues.org does not take into account all of the pork and unconstitutional amendments tacked on to these “conservative” bills. There is a reason that Ron Paul received the nickname of “Dr No” from his fellow congressmen. He consistently votes against unconstitutional bills, even if the bill has good intentions. Strictly following the Constitution is about as conservative as you can get. Agree with him or not, study the man, and you will find he has principles.

May I suggest (No you may not).


“No you may not” was my addition, removing a campaign commercial for Ron Paul. This is a classic example of attacking the messenger when you can’t argue on the facts. How about Paul’s non-conservative YES votes? Read the information. It’s there.

Principles, my ass. Ron Paul is the same guy who made clear that he agreed that 9/11 was the work of Islamofascist terrorists, yet he kisses as with the “truther” crowd again and again. If that’s what you call “principles”, then you’re much better off hanging out at DU.

What a joke. You don’t even explain what in the hell a so-called “conservative” position is. I wonder if you would even know it if it bit you on the tookus.

Here’s a hint: nuking Iran != conservative position. Here’s another: getting support of Bush family != conservative position. I think that just about says it all right there.


Here’s another idiot who has no clue.

I explain rather clearly what I consider a “conservative” position.

In deciding what to call conservative, I considered factors such as a position’s constitutionality (which the Republicans ignore and the Libertarians obsess over) and its relevance with regard to said constitutionality and/or freedom (getting the government out of places it doesn’t belong – like your wallet).

Didn’t read the post. You’re lucky I didn’t delete your sorry-ass comment.

Nuking Iran = conservative position? Yup. It is the responsibility of those in the government to secure the rights of the American people. That includes Life, Liberty, and Property. Ahmagaynutjob has made it abundantly clear that he will involve himself in the destruction of these rights by any means possible. Just read anything the guy says any given day for the proof. If nukes are necessary to keep him at bay, then so be it.

As far as supporting Bush being a conservative position, I challenge anyone – and I do mean ANYONE – to demonstrate that I have in any way been blind in support of this president, or even that I consider him conservative to begin with. Find it. Go on. You have two and a half years worth of posts here to draw on.

*** crickets ***

I’m waiting …

*** crickets ***

You won’t find it because it’s not here. If I disagree with the president, I don’t change my opinion to comply. I criticize the president often. Of course, if I agree, I make that clear, too. I don’t just blindly disagree with him, either, as many Libertarians, and even more Donks, are apt to do.

If you think Ron Paul took the non-conservative position on guns 3 times out of 6, you have the positions labeled incorrectly. He has never voted against the Second Amendment, and never will.


OnTheIssues.com’s listing of Ron Paul’s gun control positions:

* Ease procedures on the purchase and registration of firearms. (Nov 1996) – conservative
* Allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed firearms. (Nov 1996) – conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005) – NOT conservative
* Voted NO on prohibiting suing gunmakers & sellers for gun misuse. (Apr 2003) – NOT conservative
* Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999) – NOT conservative
* Support the Second Amendment . (Dec 2000) – conservative

Easing restrictions is a conservative position. Ron Paul voted AGAINST protecting gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits arising from the sale of their product – TWICE. He also voted AGAISNT easing restrictions on people’s ability to acquire arms in a timely manner. That’s three out of six. If you want to bring forth arguments as to reasons Paul may have been justified in so voting, so be it. You may even change my mind. Still, until you do, Ron Paul is 3 for 6 on conservative votes on gun control.

Hear, Hear once again! Hawkins has exposed his bias in terms of HIS idea of a conservative which ignores the fact that it used to include classical liberals of which, I am glad to report Ron Paul can be counted. He has simply ignored the information about Paul that does not suit his(Hawkins) agenda.


In the interest of full disclosure, Sage is a friend of mine, and a very good one at that. He is by far the most conservative person I know, and a Bush-hating Libertarian. In our own personal discourse, however, he seems more suited to the Tom Tancredo crowd, and I’m not sure why he isn’t riding that bandwagon instead of going with these loonies. The main position that Sage takes (and you wouldn’t get this from his comments here at the RWRepublic) that causes me to think that is his position on the War on Terror. He doesn’t agree with it. He thinks it’s the wrong thing to do. But he hopes those that are prosecuting the war – those that agree with it and believe it is the right thing to do – are right. Sounds much more Tancredo to me than Paul.

That having been said, Sage, you are mistaken in pinning this on Hawk. I did this research hoping to prove Hawk wrong. It only served to prove him right (at least when it comes to Paul and his buddy Hunter). This post is entirely about what I think about the candidates and the information given. I don’t claim it to be complete, but given what I see in the reports on ontheissues.com, which has been VERY fair to ALL the candidates EVERY time I’ve gone there, this is what I see.

What bothers me is the hate speech that these people engage in. You’d think they would want to attract more people to their candidate who, by the way, despite my findings here, is still a very good one. Instead, they engage in these shady practices and turn people away.

Is there anyone here who would deny that Ron Paul would be a better president than Hitlery? I don’t think so. All I did was research the level of conservatism in the voting and position records of three candidates and offered my opinion of them. Don’t you think someone who wanted me to vote for their candidate would show a little respect for that position?

I guess not.


Posted in Alternative Media, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | 4 Comments »

Ron Paul: The LEAST Conservative??

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 17, 2007

John Hawkins submitted last week that Ron Paul (whom I am not supporting) is “the least conservative member of Congress running for President.” Hmm … I’d have to look into that. Maybe a little side-by-side of Paul with Hawkins’ buddy Duncan Hunter. Oh, and don’t bother following Hawkins’ link. There’s NO information there about either candidate’s voting record. For good measure, I’ll put Fred Thompson’s voting stats up as well. After all, he’s the one I currently support. Stats are from ontheissues.org, a really good site for issue-by-issue voting record research. Let’s just see who’s who here.

Issue#1: Abortion

Paul: Of 14 votes/positions, 10 Conservative – 71%
Hunter: Of 14 votes/positions, 12 Conservative – 85%
Thompson: Of 3 votes/positions, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #2: Budget & Economy

Paul: Of 3 votes/positions, 2 Conservative – 66%
Hunter: Of 1 vote/position, 1 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 3 votes, positions, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #3: Civil Rights

Paul: Of 7, 4 Conservative – 57%
Hunter: Of 7, 5 Conservative – 71%
Thompson: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%

Issue #4: Corporations

Paul: Of 2, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 1, 0 Conservative – 0%
Thompson: Of 0, 0 – 0%

(note: Bankruptcy votes were not clear enough to make a proper comparison, so they were omitted)

Issue #5: Crime

Paul: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Hunter: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%
Thompson: Of 5, 3 Conservative – 60%

Issue #6: Drugs

Paul: Of 5, 4 Conservative – 80%
Hunter: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Thompson: Of 2, 0 Conservative – 0%

Issue #7: Education

Paul: Of 8, 5 Conservative – 62%
Hunter: Of 8, 5 Conservative – 62%
Thompson: Of 8, 7 Conservative – 87%

Issue #8: Energy & Oil

Paul: Of 10, 9 Conservative – 90%
Hunter: Of 10, 7 Conservative – 70%
Thompson: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%

Issue #9: Environment

Paul: Of 3, 1 Conservative – 33%
Hunter: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 2 Conservative – 50%

Issue #10: Families & Children

Paul: Of 2, 2 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 2, 1 Conservative – 50%
Thompson: Of 1, 1 Conservative – 100%

Issue #11: Foreign Policy

Paul: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%
Hunter: Of 6, 4 Conservative – 66%
Thompson: Of 7, 7 Conservative – 100%

Issue #12: Free Trade

Paul: Of 8, 8 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 8, 6 Conservative – 75%
Thompson: Of 7, 2 Conservative – 28%

Issue #13: Government Reform

Paul: Of 13, 13 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 12, 8 Conservative – 66%
Thompson: Of 7, 2 Conservative – 87%

Issue #14: Gun Control

Paul: Of 6, 3 Conservative – 50%
Hunter: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%

Issue #15: Health Care

Paul: Of 11, 6 Conservative – 54%
Hunter: Of 11, 4 Conservative – 36%
Thompson: Of 8, 3 Conservative – 37%

Issue #16: Homeland Security

Paul: Of 17, 14 Conservative – 82%
Hunter: Of 13, 7 Conservative – 53%
Thompson: Of 9, 7 Conservative – 77%

Issue #17: Immigration

Paul: Of 6, 6 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 6, 6 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%

Issue #18: Jobs

Paul: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 5, 4Conservative – 80%
Thompson: Of 3, 2 Conservative – 66%

Issue #19: Socialist Security

Paul: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 3, 3 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #20: Tax Reform

Paul: Of 14, 14 Conservative – 100%
Hunter: Of 13, 13 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #21: Technology

Paul: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%
Hunter: Of 5, 1 Conservative – 20%
Thompson: Of 2, 2 Conservative – 100%

Issue #22: War & Peace

Paul: Of 5, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 5, 5 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 3 Conservative – 75%

Issue #23: Welfare & Poverty

Paul: Of 4, 0 Conservative – 0%
Hunter: Of 4, 4 Conservative – 100%
Thompson: Of 4, 2 Conservative – 50%

I really expected Ron Paul to perform better in that last category. I would think any scaling back of the welfare state would be a yes vote for a Libertarian like Paul, yet he voted for $70 million in grants for just that – the welfare state. He also voted no on a number of conditions that would be placed upon welfare recipients – conditions that would make it harder to be on welfare – conditions that would have amounted to a significant scaling back of the welfare state, possibly even to the point of its phasing itself out.

I also expected Hunter and Thompson to be more conservative. Not more conservative than Paul, but I noticed in general that Hunter may, in fact, have turned out to be the most conservative, even of the three. So now with that having been said (these were mere thoughts), let’s tally the result:

Before doing this, let me emphasize that I consider Libertarians to be conservative – and MORE SO THAN REPUBLICANS. I don’t see the political spectrum as a big square upon which you could plot points in quadrants. I see it as a simple line along which you would plot your point as in a number line. Libertarians are CLEARLY to the right of Republicans, especially if you look at things this way. Call it two-dimensional if you like, but it is correct and a whole lot more accurate than any attempt to three-dimensionalize a political position. In a nutshell, it’s either conservative, or it ain’t.

In deciding what to call conservative, I considered factors such as a position’s constitutionality (which the Republicans ignore and the Libertarians obsess over) and its relevance with regard to said constitutionality and/or freedom (getting the government out of places it doesn’t belong – like your wallet). Also, Thompson’s votes, unlike Paul’s and Hunter’s, were made in the Senate, where there could be significant differences with regard to the actual vote. I tried to keep this in mind as well. Here we go …

Conservative Average

Ron Paul – 66% Conservative
Duncan Hunter – 70% Conservative
Fred Thompson – 72% Conservative

This study turned my understanding of the candidates upside-down. I had previously viewed Paul as a staunch Libertarian type who could seriously out-conservative any of the major candidates – certainly Fred Thompson, a Senator. My hypothesis at the beginning was that Paul would run away with the “most conservative” label, despite his non-support of protecting Americans from terrorists, with Thompson and Hunter coming in second and third, with second place being too close to call.

Instead, I do wind up seeing Hunter as the more conservative congressman (between himself and Ron Paul, at least – kudos to Hawk for picking up on that), with Thompson actually coming in a little more conservative than Hunter. Of course, as a Thompson supporter, this is a very pleasant surprise. To this point, my support for Thompson has been largely on the grounds that he is optimistic, ELECTABLE (Hunter and Paul are not), and a supporter of one of the most important philosophies of our culture (federalism), which has been coming under attack by powerful, greedy liberals. His open support of Federalism is a strong point that no other candidate has expressed.

And now we learn just how conservative he really is.


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

THIS will drive the Left NUTS !!

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 13, 2007

Our new reader, Nanc put up a link or two that I checked out. A reader on a blog that she frequents had this article linked in the comment area. It doesn’t appear to have a URL of its own, so I will paste the whole article here:

Memorial To Be Dedicated June 12
Rep. Tom Lantos Will Deliver the Keynote
President George W. Bush Invited

“The world has been reluctant to acknowledge the horrors of Communism… Now at last they will be memorialized.” – Washington Times

The Victims of Communism Memorial will be dedicated on Tuesday morning, June 12, 2007, in Washington, D.C. Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, will give the keynote address while Rep. Dana Rohrabacher will deliver remarks. President George W. Bush has also been invited to speak. A crowd of 1,000 including Congressional leaders, members of the diplomatic corps, ethnic leaders, foreign dignitaries, and Memorial supporters, is expected to attend the historic event.

The dedication will take place at the Memorial site at the intersection of Massachusetts Ave., N.W., New Jersey Ave., N.W., and G St., N.W., two blocks from Union Station and within view of the U.S. Capitol. A reception will follow the ceremony.

The day’s activities will conclude with a gala dinner at the J.W. Marriott Hotel, at which a Truman-Reagan Medal of Freedom will be presented to William F. Buckley, Jr., and the late Senator Henry M. (Scoop) Jackson. Senator Joe Lieberman will present the Medal of Freedom to Senator Jackson’s daughter, Anna Marie Laurence.

To make reservations for the day’s events and for further information, please contact [name deleted] at [contact information deleted].

June 12 will be an historic day for the victims of communism and for those who love liberty. We hope to see you there!

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, Copyright 2007

A monument in Washington memorializing the victims of communism – Just when you thought America was already in the shit from things like communism on our soil, a (hopefully) big monument goes up alerting the world to its evils. Do you think America will get it now?

Don’t hold your breath. The handouts that communists and socialists promise are far too tempting, and those who have taken advantage of those already in place have allowed themselves to become dependent upon them.

You know, this tinfoil hat just isn’t making me any more liberal. I think it’s time to retire it.


Posted in Confronting Libs, Conservative Wins, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts | Leave a Comment »

Wise Words at RWN

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 12, 2007

I visited this post today over at RWN, and added my input to the comment thread. I found my words particularly wise, and those of the other commentors well-meaning but missing the point.

Hawk had posted an excerpt from President Reagan’s “Tear Down This Wall” speech (one of the greatest speeches ever made by any orator), and the first comment was from a liberal troll calling himself “rmiller”.

So simple, yet one of the most subversive statements of the late 20th century.

Posted by rmiller
June 12, 2007 7:51 AM

Of course, the conservative defense of Ronaldus Maximus came right away, starting with Don_cos, normally a very reasonable and intelligent commentor, who basically accused rmiller of ulterior motives in his comment. Rmiller defended himself, and another lib rushed to his aid.

At no time, however was there a comment about the REAL issue generated by rmiller’s comment, which, while being a pretty dumb thing to say, was still thought-provoking. What about the issue of whether Reagan was right to say subversive things about a regime as evil as the USSR? That’s where my comment came in:


Hmm …

Subversive – a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system

Systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system? Check.

So what?

The question we should all be asking ourselves in this thread after reading this negative and asinine, yet thought-provoking comment by rmiller is this:

Was President Reagan right to make subversive statements with regard to the Soviet Union?

With 20/20 hindsight as our guide, no reasonable person could possibly disagree with the assertion that President Reagan was ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in his utterance of EVERY WORD. Let the libs say the USSR would have crumbled under its own weight all they want. It didn’t happen that way, and if it did, it would only have served as more proof of the idiocy of the communist/socialist culture they advocate.

Until Americans begin to understand and espouse the concept of the Founders’ vision and denounce socialism once and for all, we are at serious risk of facing the same fate as the USSR.

A very wise commentor at my blog once said, “A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master every four years.” We must begin immediately to dismantle the socialism that eats away at the very soul of our nation. The very freedoms we hold dear are in jeopardy.


Posted by RightWingRocker
June 12, 2007 7:46 PM

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the 20th century. His domestic policy brought forth economic growth the likes of which had never been seen before in peacetime, and his foreign policy brought down an evil empire.

I believe my response to this thread at RWN to be the appropriate defense of President Reagan – not the “yeah, well he brought down the Soviet Union so never mind what you think of him” defense.  The fact that President Reagan made subversive remarks is merely academic, especially when those subversive remarks inspired millions of people to stand up to those forcing socialism and communism into their lives.

If only Americans cared as much about their own freedom.  Who will inspire Americans to stand against the socialists here in our own land??


Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Conservative Wins, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere | Leave a Comment »

Answers for Ol’ BC

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 6, 2007

Ol’ BC first came to the RWRepublic in its infancy. Since then, he is without question the most loyal reader I have. Last night, he posted some interesting questions in the wake of the incredible waste of time that passed for a debate. There were, of course, largely obvious answers to all of them, so I figured, Why not …

Do the Democrats who are running REALLY think they represent the views of a majority of Americans?

Yup. They think Americans are stupid socialist idiots who not only believe that they have no clue whatsoever how to run their own lives, but that they need a Barack the Schlock or a Hitlery to run it for them. They really believe that the backlash against President Bush is because he’s a Republican and not because he’s nearly as liberal as they are. Why else would they be promising all this stuff that no one really needs or wants?

If the U.S. pulls out of Iraq, do some of these candidates REALLY think the Islamic terrorists are just going to terrorize one another and leave the non-Muslims alone?

Worse. They think the terrorists will cease to be terrorists and live quiet, happy lives sitting around campfires singing “Kum Ba Ya”. They think that only Americans are capable of greed and selfishness and that making everyone’s situation the same (poverty by force if necessary) will lead to peace. They think that they are the only people who are capable of making anyone happy, and that even the terrorists will “see the light” if only we just appease them (Neville Chamberlain was unfortunately unavailable for comment).

How are the deaths of those in the Darfur region different than the hundreds of thousands of deaths of Arabs and Kurds under Saddam Hussein?

In one very important, but nonetheless rather irrelevant way. What’s going on in Darfur is actually a bona-fide Civil War, unlike anything we’ve seen in Iraq.

Pro-choice versus Pro-life, what’s with the exceptions? If I was born in 1955 or 1975 as the result of a pregnancy by rape or incest or if my mother died during childbirth, am I less of a person than the majority of the other people? If not, why the exceptions? Is a fetus a life or not at conception? At one month? At two months? Are most pro-lifers only part time?

Every American grapples with this issue, whether pro-life or pro-child murder. No child is any less a person just because he/she is still in the womb. The reason we make exceptions has to do with violation of the rights of the mother. It’s very difficult to reconcile this. If it is clear that the mother is going to die from carrying the baby to term (an EXTREMELY RARE situation), then her God-given right to life is threatened, and we have a responsibility to protect it. How do we also protect the baby’s similar God-given right? At this time, we are in the unfortunate position of not having any idea. In the interests of preserving her family unit, and with the understanding that one of these very important people (the mother or the baby) is going to die, we make a choice as to whom we save. In choosing to save the mother, we preserve her ability to bring more children into the world in the future, and we save her family from the emotional and economic disaster that might have followed. Nonetheless, we grieve the loss of the child.

As to rape and incest, we make these allowances as a peace offering to the pro-murder crowd. Of course, it’s gotten us nowhere. The Constitution Party states that we shouldn’t be punishing the child for the sins of his/her father, but if a woman has not consented to the act, then should she be considered to have consented to the pregnancy? Conversely, doesn’t it solidify the pro-life position if the position is taken that by consenting to an act that is known to have pregnancy as a consequence, one has consented to the resulting pregnancy?? After all, that is precisely the position taken by those who advocate a woman killing her baby and simultaneously advocate forcing a father to finance a child’s life against his will should the mother choose life.

What happened to the specific powers granted to the federal government in the constitution? I missed the entire education and healthcare section. There has been a lot of talk about heaping on more and very little about rescinding any. What about all others being reserved for the states? Eerie silence.

Those specific powers are still there, along with a slew of others that have been added illegally by those elected to office with the consent of their constituents. This question is truly what the New Federalism seeks to address. America needs a wake-up call.

Do that many of the candidates REALLY think that if they grant amnesty to illegal aliens already in this country no more are going to sneak in?

Nope. They know all too well what will happen – and it’s exactly what they want. Face it, with all of their support of killing off babies that could have been voting for liberal candidates, they’re running out of people to vote for them. It’s happening a lot faster than they anticipated. Liberals need a new constituency, and if they can import one, all the better for them. Do you really think they are fighting this hard so that these people can vote for conservatives??? If these people seriously cared about bringing more people into the prosperity that is America, they’d be falling all over themselves trying to get large numbers of Israelis to move here so that the terrorists could have the land they want. Why isn’t THAT happening??

It’s not happening because Israelis generally would be voting in favor of fighting off terrorists, lowering taxes, and bringing government back to within its legal limits. They are largely well-educated and well-off. Those they are trying to get your heart to bleed over are largely neither. They’re not looking for people who will be independent. They are looking for people who will need liberals for their well-being.

Have that many of the candidates forgotten that learning English opened doors to success for millions of Germans, Italians, Israelis and scads of others for years and years?

Nope. The problem is that they don’t want those doors to be opened. They want the doors closed so that they can have their little dependency class and force you and me and the rest of America to pay for it.

Why weren’t signs and information printed in eighteen languages for all those years if it is that critical?

Because it’s not critical at all…

Could it actually hold people back and keep them living at a subsistence level?

That is precisely the point, and it’s exactly why there is a move on to force every language but English on all of us. I’m not saying that English is what makes people successful. What I’m saying is that English, by sheer luck of the draw, has been the language of successful people. To be successful in the world today, you ALMOST HAVE TO surround yourself with English-speaking people. Telling those who would otherwise do this that it’s ok not to ultimately slows their success, which is exactly what the liberals want. People who claim to be the smartest people in the world can’t possibly be stupid enough to ignore these facts.

Do people REALLY think that catering to a Palestinian state, whose sole mission in life is the eradication of Israel, is going to lead to peace in the region?

Nope. If they did, they’d be inviting scores of successful Israelis to naturalize as Americans. The real problem is that they are more ideologically inclined with the Islamofascist philosophy espoused by the terrorists than they are with the more liberty-minded philosophy of the Israelis.

How about if that Palestinian state is on land that was previously Israel and is presently adjacent to Israel?

All the more reason to eradicate it, in their opinion. These people value freedom, but only for themselves. Everyone else, including you and I, is expected to take orders from them, Constitution be damned.

Maybe I’ve been listening to Sage a little too much, but I doubt it. Just because I have this cynical outlook on liberals doesn’t mean I’m not an optimist. America’s brightest days are ahead; I’m convinced of that. Still, we must overcome these very dark times when many among us would surrender our constitutional rights and succumb to a socialist regime just because they’re too lazy or ignorant to stand up and fight.


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

This was Fun

Posted by RightWingRocker on June 5, 2007

While studying tonight, I took frequent breaks and followed John Hawkins’s LiveBlog of tonight’s Republican Debate.

What made it most fun was reading the LiveBlog without watching the debate. So John would comment on something someone said without quoting him, and I’d just be reading what he had to say about it. Hilarious!

Well come on. Any Republican debates going on now are a total waste of time and energy for the candidates and for us. Same for the Donks. What does anyone really expect to accomplish NOW? The likely primary winner on the Republican side hasn’t even joined the race, Giuliani and McCain are RINOs, Hunter and Gilmore are nobodies, so are Tommy, Sam, and Huck, and Tanc and Paul are Libertarian nutjobs who will get elected MAYBE if all the liberals in the Democrat and Republican Parties can be killed off in time for the primaries.

It’s all a big joke. We have a war on in this party. Rush is absolutely right about that. We federalist conservatives MUST win it, and BEFORE the primaries, so that there is a true winner standing for the principles of freedom and federalism that have made America great on the ticket to beat Hitlery and Barack the Schlock. This is MUCH more important than these silly irrelevant debates.

The Revolution has begun, and it WILL be televised.

It will be hard work, but saving America from those who would turn it over to the government will be well worth the effort.


Posted in Alternative Media, Border SecuRWRity, Confronting Libs, Funny Shit, Liberal Bullshit, MSMadness, New FedeRWRalism, RWRandom Thoughts, TerrorAsses | Leave a Comment »

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?


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.


Posted in Border SecuRWRity, New FedeRWRalism | 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?


Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism, RWR in the 'Sphere, TerrorAsses | 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??


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


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.


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.



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

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 …


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.



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


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.


Posted in Confronting Libs, Liberal Bullshit, New FedeRWRalism | 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.


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.


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:

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?


Posted in New FedeRWRalism | Leave a Comment »