Not to hold my nose or anything, but I've decided to throw the lever for Republican Chris Christie for Governor of New Jersey. His ideas aren't anything new, nor are they particularly Federalist, but Republican governors have done better on the economy in this state than Democrats, and boy are we paying the price for our high freaking taxes now. Independent Chris Daggett is most likely to the left of Christie, based on what little analysis is available.

We do have some great watchdogs around the state, including Steve Lonegan, who put up a great showing in the primaries and would still make not only a great governor for our state, but a great President for the Nation. I'll be watching Chris from my blog desk as well.

The real problem in New Jersey is that the entitlement mentality has gotten way out of control, and to the point where some socialism will be in place regardless of what you do. State-funded public education is provided for in the state Constitution, for example. With nothing but corrupt politicians often beholden to organized crime (and I doubt Christie is any exception), this mentality will take a lot of work to change. Trimming off some of our overly burdensome taxation and creating real jobs will provide a good start. The education of the populace isn't going to be undertaken by a Christie administration, so it will be up to the educated citizens of the state to take up that task.

I'm up to it. Don't worry your pretty blue eyes.

RWR

Today on WorldNetDaily:

In little noticed remarks, Michelle Obama stated at a public event that her husband's mother, Ann Dunham, was "very young and very single" when she gave birth to the future U.S. president.

Her comments further undermine the official story as told by Barack Obama – that Dunham was married to his father, Barack Obama Sr., at the time of birth.

While this is interesting and raises a lot of questions regarding important issues, it's not likely to affect much with regard to the "birther" cause. After all, Barack Obama, Sr. was a British national at the time of Barack Obama, Jr.s birth, whether he was married to Ann Dunham at the time or not. His place of birth is more relevant, but the most important issue is whether a man born to a foreign parent qualifies as a "natural born citizen". The wording of the Constitution suggests he may not:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

- Article II, Section 1

There is only one reason the highlighted phrase would have been included: The Founding Fathers did not view themselves as "natural born citizens". But wait ... most of them were born on US soil. Why would they not be natural born citizens???? Washington himself was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia. Why would he need this stipulation in order to serve as President of the new nation if he were not to be considered a natural born citizen by virtue of his birth within the borders of the country?

Answer: His parents, Augustine and Mary Washington, were BRITISH SUBJECTS at the time of his birth. Get it? George Washington himself was not a natural born citizen, but as a "Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution", he was eligible to serve.

Does being born to an American mother and a foreign father qualify one as a natural born citizen? That is an issue the Supreme Court must address in order for Mr. Obama to serve. The birth certification from Hawaii does not prove he was born there, as that same document was provided to people born outside the US at the time of Mr. Obama's birth, but his vault birth certificate doesn't prove his status as a natural born citizen either, as it has already been established that Mr. Obama's father was not a US citizen.

In other "Birther News", WND is reporting today that an appeal has been filed in Philadelphia regarding one of the eligibility cases.

Look. You can call me loony for taking a stance here, but the Constitution is real. If you think that circumventing the Constitution is ok, then just go ahead and enjoy your cushy little place in the Republican or Democratic Party. They do it all the time.

To be fair, I will establish that the birther cause has the support of my closest and biggest Obama supporter. Why? Because he stands behind at least those provisions that determine eligibility, even if his candidate isn't all that interested in the Constitution (he also forgot to read what comes after the colon in the general welfare clause). After all, can a dual citizen fully and effectively represent the interests of one nation? Look around you. I really wish we didn't have to find out.

RWR

The National Chairman of the American Conservative Party made a stop by here today, and left us a clarification, which was very helpful:

Just a clarification:

The Conservative Party of NY State has been around since 1962, and usually focuses on State level and local issues and candidates.

The ACP was started in 2008 by a few frustrated Republicans, conservative Democrats and libertarians...

While we support the candidacy of Doug Hoffman enthusiastically, we don't want anyone to get confused, because we're not directly associated with the CPNYS (I think they're at CPNYS.org). Great organization...been around for a while, like I said. We've had conversations with them informally, but they're not really interested in affiliating nationally.

If you guys are interested in learning more about the party, feel free to send an email to: info@amconparty.org

Butch Porter
National Chairman
The American Conservative Party

So as it turns out, the ACP is NOT the same "Conservative Party" that is currently running Doug Hoffman as its candidate. They are different entities altogether, albeit similar in beliefs and such.

Also, given the historical context provided by Mr. Porter in his comment, it is now no wonder I had not heard of the ACP when I built the AFP platform last spring. It would have been in its infancy at best.

Mr. Porter also complimented us on the AFP platform, "spot on". Thank you, sir.

I did respond to Mr. Porter both in the comment area and in an email. The email was more involved, so I'll post it here. I brought to light the original idea of what the AFP was going to be - a coalition. Wow. That concept goes all the way back to 2005. With the way things are going today, I have often reconsidered the idea of the AFP being more of a coalition than a party of its own, and I expressed this to Mr. Porter in my comment and my email:

Hey Butch!

May I suggest a contact page on your site. I've been interested in contacting someone there for some time, but haven't found an easy way to get there.

I responded to your comments on my blog as follows, just in case you don't get a chance to come back for a while:


Butch,

Thanks for the clarification.

Let me also make a clarification or two.

If you peruse this blog some more (hearty welcome to you by the way), you will see that the Federalist Party Platform was originally conceived as a coalition of parties that subscribed to similar beliefs. At the time, I had not yet heard of the ACP, so when I stepped into the concept of platform writing, all I really did was bring together the common ground of the conservative factions known to me at the time (Reagan2020, Constitution, and Libertarian).

The idea was to bring us all together under one banner. I've read your platform, and as you can see here, critiqued it. I'm sure you may even agree with my analysis.

As time has passed and the conservative movement has gained ground, my personal tendency is to again consider the platform more a platform for a coalition of parties united toward the same goal: Federalism and a return to the fundamental structure and beliefs of the Founding Fathers. Should our coalition result in some electoral success, at that point we should consider uniting more solidly as a party, but in the meantime, anyone who takes a position developed with the Constitution in mind and reverence should consider himself part of the Federalist movement, regardless of party.

Can you spread the word to your people?

RWR


Sadly, it's become evident that there isn't a "major" party that subscribes to the belief that the Founding Fathers' vision is an ideal worth embracing. However, it is encouraging to see the American people waking up to this fact today. I was about a year ahead of my time, it seems! The problem I see is that we conservatives are all fragmented across a number of political factions, including the Reagan Federalists (largely conservative Republicans), Libertarians, and our friends in the Constitution Party. Your platform does look like it would dovetail nicely into what my platform seeks to do, so perhaps you guys can participate in the building of what I would like to call "The Federalist Coalition".

People have put a lot of time and effort into organizing their people into organizations and their beliefs into platforms. I know mine was a lot of work - I did it all by myself. That's a lot of work to put into a project just to turn to another faction. That's why I think the coalition concept may be better for our time. You can still push your platform within your ranks, and so can the Constitutionites and the Libertarians. The point of the coalition is to give all of our positions the strength that comes with numbers. None of us can beat back the socialists Ds and Rs on our own. If that were possible, the Libertarians would have achieved it long ago. Uniting as a coalition of political parties under the Federalist banner would preserve the parties' platforms, force us all to look to our common ground (the Constitution), and unite the several factions behind a strong candidate that all the parties in the coalition can support. Then we will have strength in numbers, and the chance to truly take advantage of the current demise of the Ds and Rs.

The biggest problem I have is that I'm an idea guy. I know how to organize my thoughts and ideas. I know how to defend tham against those who challenge them. But organizing people and parties is just not my strength. Perhaps people from the parties in the coalition can help out with that.

As to working on committees and stuff, I would much prefer consulting for profit. I am currently unemployed (with my claim running out this week), and any $$ coming in, especially if it can be a significant living, would be helpful, to say the least.

Do let me know what you think of the idea of having the "Federalist Party" be more of a "Federalist Coalition". I think getting everyone together for a common cause would kick some serious ass!

Regards,
RWR
www.rightwingrocker.com

At this point in time, I think it would be pretty important to get conservatives all on the same page, and the platform was written with exactly this in mind. In fact, much of it is taken verbatim from the platforms of the parties it seeks to unite. This may very well be the way to go, and with the support of the ACP, we may be able to better organize the effort and bring on the Ls and Cs while we're at it.

It sure couldn't hurt, now could it?

RWR

Much is being made of the candidacy of New York Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman's run for Congress. In reading the things that are out there, it occurred to me that there isn't much known about this obscure, but patriotic party. Doug really does have a chance to win this thing, and if he doesn't, he's sure to put up a good enough showing to make the idea of replacing the Republicans with a truly conservative party much more palatable to many more people.

So, for your perusal, here is the Platform of the American Conservative Party:

Platform
Written by The ACP

The Creed of the ACP is a belief system of how we feel a just government and its citizens should interact.

The ACP Creed

We Believe:

*the legitimacy of government exists only as long as it defends human liberty.
the origin of human liberty predates government, and therefore liberty cannot be repealed by government.
*the existence of human liberty presupposes the right to defend it, and the basic right to live begets the rights of self-defense and free expression.
*the self-ownership evident in human liberty begets basic rights over one’s self and time, and that the right to pursue happiness and self-fulfillment originate here.
*the boundary of human liberty ends where it transgresses the rights of another. *Jurisprudence exists to mediate disputes where the boundaries of more than one individual intersect.
*the armed forces and law enforcement exist to bolster private defense, not to supplant it.
*that the American Experiment was born out of these beliefs and that it has resulted in a bountiful gain for the human condition.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Principles of the American Conservative Party
Foundation:
From this Foundation, all principles flow:

*The individual is sovereign
*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 among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just limited powers from the consent of the governed
*"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America." What does this mean? Simply put, that the formation of a legitimate government can only occur when the citizens themselves choose to surrender a portion of their inherent authority. The citizens may chose to give, but the government cannot chose to take (or keep) authority against the wishes of its citizenry.


Policy:
From our Principles, our Policy Issues will be derived:

Federalism and Social Issues
*We reject the practice of using Government powers for any purpose of social engineering, and we uphold the principle that the individual is sovereign; where social conduct involves personal choices, the People are best served when those choices are embraced and defended at the family and community level.

Authority of Government
*The citizens of the United States are the sole source of power and life of the United States Government. All powers and authority not explicitly given by the citizens to their representatives remain with the states or the people thereof.
*The United States Government has the authority and obligation to protect its citizens and their liberties from all actual and perceived threats regardless of the source, location or scope.

Limitations on Government
*The federal legislature may make no law that abridges or limits the Constitutional rights of an individual.
*No state may abridge a citizen's right to life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
*Property currently owned or controlled by the Government is held in Trust for the citizens
*Regardless of compensation, no property shall be forcibly taken by government for private use or profit.

Citizenship
*Any child, born of a citizen, shall have all the legal rights of a citizen born or naturalized into the United States.
*Persons who are not citizens or resident aliens of the United States have no right to petition or benefit from any agency of the government except for petition of entry or asylum.
*A child born in the United States to non-citizens is not a citizen.

Citizen Responsibilities
*Each adult citizen is responsible for the health, education and welfare of himself or herself and their family.
*No adult citizen may call on the resources of another citizen or group of citizens without their explicit, expressed consent.
*No citizen or group of citizens, by expression of any character or physical trait, may call upon the resources, nor abridge the rights, of another citizen or group of citizens without their explicit, expressed consent.
*It is the responsibility of every citizen to participate in the political process.

Global War on Terror and Iraq and Afghanistan
*We support our service members and their missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. That support includes political and funding issues.
*We believe the proliferation of dangerous weapons (including WMD) has created a need to act against threats before they are capable of being fulfilled. We support preemption.
*Our national security is not just defense against threats, but protection of our borders and citizens. We support the actual, active control of our borders, including the construction of a fence on the border with Mexico. In general, it should be 870 miles as currently authorized, constructed with two physical fences separated by 15-20 feet for vehicle access; and sufficient military and border patrol to make regular patrols possible.

Education
The position has been drafted and available for review and comment.

----Establish an Institute for Educational and Academic Standards which will publish standards for educational materials and academic teaching but have no implementation/enforcement/acceptance powers.
----Eliminate the Department of Education, Terminate No Child Left Behind initiative and terminate federal support of the Head Start Programs.

Eminent Domain
*The takings of private property for private use is to be prevented. A recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, Kelo v. City of New London, has shown a need to reinforce the premise that the government does NOT have the right to seize, even with compensation, private property for private use.



Immigration
*Immigration is the life blood of the American dream. With very few exceptions, most of us are derived from foreign stock. We support immigration, enthusiastically.
1. We believe that the limitations imposed upon the number of people that may come to this country to work under H-1B visas is a limitation on our Country's ability to compete in the global marketplace. We therefore support the lifting of limits on H-1B visas. However, an H-1B visa should be reserved for those individuals that seek to become American citizens. The term of the H-1B visa should be limited and renewable only once.
2. We support aggressive enforcement of immigration laws by:
Increasing the fines levied against businesses that hire illegal immigrants;
illegal immigrants that are arrested for charges unrelated to their status be:
deported if the charges are misdemeanor;
deported after adjudication if the charges are felony;
3. We support amnesty/asylum petition hearings only for those illegals that present themselves to immigration authorities prior to any criminal arrest. We also support requiring those that are in the United States illegally to leave and apply for legal immigration from their country of origin
4. Legal immigrants are obligated to pursue citizenship in a timely manner and their continuing presence in the United States should be dependent upon it.
5. The United States is a country of immigrants with a unique and unifying culture. The diversity of culture is to be appreciated, not embraced. English is a unifying force and with the exception of immigration agencies and departments, all government function should be carried out in English only.

Taxes
*The government needs funds to carry out the functions and tasks assigned to it by the Constitution. Taxes, fairly assessed, are the primary source of those funds.

1. The government can levy tariffs upon imports, but should do so when the cost of managing those imports imposes a burden on the government. The cost of verifying, inspecting and handling imports should be born by those seeking to deliver goods to the United States. Tariffs should not be used to increase the cost of goods being imported in order to protect or otherwise subsidize domestic goods.

2. The income tax on individuals can impose an undue burden on those earning minimal incomes. We believe a flat tax with significant personal exemptions offers the best opportunity to distribute the burden fairly.

There are a few things to take issue with here, but there's nothing to take MAJOR issue with. Everything stated in this platform is based upon a particular LEGITIMATE interpretation of the Constitution.

Here's where I would take issue:

Under LIMITATIONS ON GOVERNMENT,

Regardless of compensation, no property shall be forcibly taken by government for private use or profit.

should be "no property shall be taken by government, forcibly or otherwise, for private use or profit, and property taken as provided in Amendment V, shall not be taken without payment to its owner the full market value of the property and any required expense, including but not limited to relocation."

Under CITIZENSHIP, something needs to be added:

* Natural-born citizenship shall be defined in our practice as one born to two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of birth, which must occur on US soil, soil controlled by the US, or in an institution under the control of the United States government and/or military.


Something must be said in the section on the War on Terror about fighting to win. Our soldiers deserve to fight under the best possible conditions with the greatest chance of achieving victory. If the commander-in-chief cannot achieve these objectives, then troops should be withdrawn.

The Education Institute suggested should be attended and controlled by the several States, not the federal government. This may be what they mean, but they should definitely say so.

Illegal aliens should not be referred to as "immigrants". The term implies a desire to naturalize as American citizens, which the illegals in this country largely have no intention of ever doing.

On taxation, I've generally supported the flat tax, but the taxation system advocated by the Reagan2020.us New Federalist platform is a much better idea (each State is given a percentage of the budget to fund, and handles its own collection of the tax on behalf of the federal government).

This sounds like a lot of criticism, but from reading the platform, there is no question that I would support a candidate who supported it. Other issues may come into play, but the American Conservative Party represents a HUGE step in the right direction, and with only minor adjustments necessary to "form a more perfect union".

RWR

Obama's Checklist
h/t Krondax and Emperor Misha

RWR

I have been commenting at MichelleMalkin.com for a little over a year now. Tonight, I was perusing the comments on this post, and noticed this little tidbit from a commenter named "RocketMan":

NO MORE RINOS!

This got me to thinking, since I was once a proud Republican, but thinking things through, the truth winds up coming to mind rather easily.

So I put it into a comment:

Sadly, what we have been calling RINOs have been the true essence of the Republican Party all along. WE have been the true RINOs. WE are the ones who have espoused ideas and beliefs contrary to those of the party.

Those we have dubbed RINOs are the real Republicans, not us conservatives. WE have been the RINOs. Only once we get that and move on will we be able to realize the true potential of our philosophy and that of those who gave it to us over two hundred years ago.

WE are the ones who have truly been Republican In Name Only.

The question is this: Will we come together to stand against the liberals in the two socialist parties, or will we continue to blindly follow the road of the LOTE voter (nose-holder)?

Will YOU stand up for the Founders’ vision? If not you, then who? If not now, then when?

RWR

Not that the nose-holders will get it, but I do believe I put the concept together rather nicely.

Oh .. by the way ... I haven't tooted over post numbers in AGES ... This is RWR post #900!! Only another hundred to go for the comma!! Enjoy!!

RWR

One of my favorite quotes lies in its shortened form in my random quotes, but I came across it today, and you can imagine the impact the full quote had upon me.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

- Thomas Paine, Common Sense - 1776

In other words, any time you let a government handle a crisis, you will always have been better off having handled it yourself, and if the government does a bad job, you will always be worse off than if you had done the same bad job.

By the way, when Paine refers to "Society", he is referring to people helping each other voluntarily, not the government stealing their money and giving it to others, as the socialists would have you believe.

This quote, also from Common Sense, brings to the fore the whole purpose of the Tea Party movement:

We have it in our power to begin the world over again.

And we don't even have to begin the whole world over again ... just the Constitution.

One of the platforms that was used to build the Federalist Party Platform called for a final sunset on all legislation, and then anything that would be needed from there would be re-passed. What a great connection between Paine and the modern conservative movement. He should truly be among our heroes!

RWR

WOW!

What fun!

RWR was out tonight having a soda or two at the local Karaoke bar, and somehow wound up confronted by a gung-ho Che-supporting liberidiot freak. The discourse that took place is largely a blur, but for collecting STATE unemployment benefits that I PAID FOR, I was accused of "leeching off of this government". Never mind that without Obama's stiffulus bill, I wouldn't be unemployed in the first place ... But check this out:

When I asked said liberal (as I do here often) to point out which article and section of the US Constitution allows anyone in Washington, DC (District of Criminals - thank you, Sage) to get involved in such things as healthcare, etc., he tried to hit me with the old "well why don't you tell me what the Constitution says ..." thing. Of course, I'm RightWingRocker, and I have a pretty good grasp of the Constitution, so when I started explaining what the Constitution ACTUALLY SAID, the fucker changed the subject, and did it in such a fashion that got us both tossed from the place.

Don't you just love liberals? I'll bet he goes home, hits up Google for the full text of the Constitution, finds out that I'm right, and continues to deny that he is the one that has no clue.

After all, the thing that got him started was something I said to someone else about Che ...


MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

RWR

In addition to Barack Obama's dismal record on the Second Amendment, here comes more.

There were apparently some rumors that you would have to report your firearms to the IRS with your taxes, but that doesn't seem to be in HR 45. Here is what IS in the bill, according to WorldNetDaily:

* If enacted, the bill would forbid any person from owning any handgun or semiautomatic firearm that accepts a detachable ammunition feeding device, not including antiques, without obtaining a license.

* A person who is seeking a firearm license must submit to the attorney general an application including personal information.

* Requires licensing of all parties involved in the sale or transfer of a firearm.

* Licensed dealers would be required submit to the attorney general or appropriate state authorities the following information within 14 days of a transfer of a qualifying firearm: 1) manufacturer, 2) model name or number 3) serial number 4) date of transfer 5) number of the transferee's valid firearm license 6) name and address of person who transferred the firearm.

* The attorney general would be required to establish and maintain a federal system to track sales, including all of the identifying information submitted during a transfer of ownership.

* It would be illegal to fail to report lost or stolen firearms or to fail to report change of address within 60 days of the change.

* Random inspection of firearm shops, including those belonging to the manufacturer.

* The act does not apply to governmental authorities.

... Ummm. That seems kind of important, so let's make sure it gets said again ...

* The act does not apply to governmental authorities.

Are you getting this???

* The act does not apply to governmental authorities.

Are you sure?

* THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES.

In all humility and honesty, I think it's much more important that WE THE PEOPLE know who in the government is armed and what with. Don't forget that once they have the guns and/or know who has what, the rest of our rights only exist on paper, if at all. All of the above are direct violations of the Second Amendment.

Now Fox News's First Amendment rights appear to be targeted by the White House. They're not even trying to hide it anymore. It's getting so ridiculous that White House communications director Anita Dunn actually said this:

"They take their opposition research, put it on air; let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is."

Un - fucking - believable. Anita doesn't seem to get two things that are in play here:

1. That if CNN had been providing both sides of the issues at hand in 1996, there would be NO FOX NEWS TODAY. Fox is essentially doing what is supposed to be CNN's job. This statement is pure projection. Is there anyone that doesn't believe that CNN is a "wing" of the Democratic Party?

2. Fox happens to be kicking CNN's ass in the ratings (March figures). Glenn Beck, who seems to be the White House's biggest target (there's even a page at whitehouse.gov dedicated exclusively to trying to discredit him), doesn't even have a prime-time show, and he's only about 100,000 viewers behind Bill O'Reilly, who has dominated the ratings in a prime-time show. CNN powerhouse Larry King can't get even half of Beck's viewership, and even Fox's weakest performer in the top ratings, Greta van Susteren, has nearly a half a million more viewers than Larry. Anita ought to consider this when she opens her monkey-trap. Alienating Fox's viewers in this fashion only makes her and her boss look more stupid, while putting more money into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch and people like Glenn Beck. More people watch Fox News than any other cable network except USA. CNN is either 23rd or 26th, depending on how you're counting.

The bottom line on this is that CNN doesn't even qualify as a channel to bother watching, let alone a news network. So for not simply climbing up into Barack Obama's bus just to be thrown under it down the road, Fox News, and specifically Glenn Beck, is now a target for being treated as the enemy. Have you wondered why Barack Obama went to every Sunday news show except the ones on the most watched news channel in the country, where he could easily reach more people with less work? This is it. Fox is successful - and without help from Washington, DC. That is a bad thing if you're Barack Obama. Successful people need to be brought down so that the government can help them survive. That's what socialism is all about. Why do you think Obama has ignored all of the proof that what he is trying to do will only make things worse? There's no other answer other than he WANTS the economy to fail. I can just see it. Barack Obama goes on TV and says that nothing else worked, so we're just going to put the entire economy into the hands of the federal government. What a maroon.

If HR 45 passes, a proper armed resistance from the people will be impossible, therefore requiring a proper armed uprising in defiance of HR 45 (which cannot be legally passed) in order to reinstate the basic rights being trampled by Barack Obama and Congress.

I'm all for doing it peacefully a la Glenn Beck, but once the government gains complete control over the guns, it will then have gained complete control over everything, including YOU.

At that point, we will have to either submit or fight to the death.

RWR

This was posted at the Rottie, and it's perfect in its clarity and purpose (exposing leftist bigots):

This is amazing stuff! I went over to The Black Sphere, and lo and behold, an absolutely amazing blog.

So today, let's all welcome Kevin Jackson to the BlogRWRoll!

RWR

On this post about Michelle Obama's tall tale about sitting on her father's lap to watch the Olympic Games when she was 20, I was called a "radical", an "irresponsible voter", and "not a real conservative".

How quaint.

So standing up for the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, and the ideals not only that made America the greatest and most free country the world had ever seen, but also that they gave their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to deliver us, makes me a "radical"...

Voting for someone who would work to deliver a true Constitutional government instead of either of the two shitbags the major parties presented makes me an "irresponsible voter"...

And refusing to give in to the lies of the aforementioned shitbags and their respective parties somehow takes away my status as a "real conservative".

I'd say I'm doing a whole lot better in those departments than one would think. After all, isn't the willingness to stand up for what you believe in supposed to be the epitome of what makes one "conservative"?

And isn't the willingness to cast a vote in favor of someone who shares one's reverence for the Founders and respect for the Constitution what makes one a "responsible voter"?

And finally, how did we get to a point in our history where believing in the proper implementation of the Constitution, as set forth by the Founding Fathers, became "radical"?

I would submit that if we have come to that point, then it is our responsibility as a free nation to make sure it not only doesn't get any worse, but that it gets restored as quickly as possible to the intended circumstance. To delay by trying to elect the likes of John McCain to the office of President of the United States is simply playing into the hands of the socialists who wish to continue dismantling the Constitution that restricts their progress in destroying everything our Founders (and our soldiers, for that matter) worked, fought, and died for.

I would submit that those who disagree on this matter may be the ones who are not "real" conservatives, as they have sold out to the enemy in the hopes of getting a little of what they want here and there. That's not what conservatism is all about. Conservatism is all about standing firm and fast for those ideals and beliefs that made this country great - the ones espoused in the Founding Documents and in the hearts of those who still hold them dear.

My positions aren't new or radical. They are the same sentiments expressed over 200 years ago in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself. There's nothing super-special about them, except that they form the foundation of the greatest nation The Creator has ever given the world. There's nothing sinister in them. I doubt the same could be said of the ideals currently espoused by the Republican or Democratic Party.

I would also submit that those who would vote for someone as the lesser of two evils couldn't responsibly call someone who votes according to a Constitutional ideal "irresponsible". After all, voting for the likes of John McCain or Barack Obama is one of the most irresponsible things an American could do, given their respective track records. I can, however, understand the sentiment. I used to vote that way myself.

I've seen and corrected the error of my ways in that department. Time for those who wish to throw around accusations such as these to consider doing the same.

We'll all be better off once that happens.

RWR

ACORN was warned of internal problems of many kinds, including ethics issues. Corruption is running very deep in this administration. I wonder how much longer The Big O will be able to handle the heat before he declares martial law or something.

Maybe he'll do the right thing and resign. Problem is, with his dual citizenship in question, what would become of the office? You can't put Biden in there because he was nominated by a dual citizen. You can't put McShithead in there because he didn't win an election. You can't put anyone else in there for a myriad of reasons.

That leaves us with a do-over with Bush in there holding things down temporarily, but how many illegal mortgage and auto bailouts and/or stuff like that can we handle while that's going on?

I sure don't know ...

Maybe I'll volunteer ...

RWR

... and it was all just a "misunderstanding".

Does anyone really believe that?

RWR

The Philadelphia Phillies have done it again.

For only the second time in the history of the franchise, the Philadelphia Phillies have won their third consecutive division pennant. Even the great squads of the late 1970s and early 1980s, boasting greats like Rose, Luzinski, Mathews, McGraw, Carlton, and Schmidt cannot make that claim. As a Phillies fan of 33 years (off and on ... now that we have minor league baseball in the area, I'm much more excited about that), I must say that this is a great moment in Philadelphia baseball history.

I did not see the game (the Division was clinched before the Phils' win anyway), but watching the highlight reels showing the players running to the outfield and splashing champagne all over the Harry Kalas memorial brought forth tears of pride. "Harry the K" would have definitely been proud. These guys never lost sight of the great voice that had supported the team's efforts through good times and bad for 38 years.


Harry Kalas 1936-2009
Phillies Announcer 1971-2009
NFL Films Announcer 1975-2009

That moment was a fitting tribute to Harry, and you can bet there will be more if God wills further success upon the Philadelphia Phillies in the series to come.

We have to do it for Harry, guys. Do it for Harry!

RWR

Earlier in September, I thanked everyone for giving the RWRepublic 12 consecutive months of over 1000 visits per month. We had a spike in the run-up to the election, setting a traffic record that was broken this past month. October saw the RWRepublic with 2976 visits, surely due to the fact that the election was at hand. September's super-spike probably had more to do with ACORN and Obamacare scandals than anything else, even though I blogged very little about either (I sense there is something REALLY HUGE in both of these that make me think I may want to wait for the REALLY HUGE story).

Anyway, total traffic for September was 4465 visits - a new record just short of 4500.

Of course, I really don't live by traffic, but when there's something special to report, I do report, mainly because the people that brought it about deserve my most humble thanks.

So here's a HUGE thank you to those who have come around. The RWRepublic is a better place for your presence, regardless of whether you are a thoughtful Constitutionalist or some dumbass troll. All are needed here and welcome.

Let's roll!

RWR

PS - Look for a congratulatory post for the Phils in the morning. That deserves "top time" much more than my tooting my own horn posts (but not necessarily more than the thank you that goes with it). Go Phils!