Got a note from one of our more avid readers yesterday saying that the blog was down. I checked, and lo and behold, the blog was up and running just fine. What was down was the DNS entry for RightWingRocker.com. Checked in with my registrar, and apparently I didn't fork over the cash for the forwarding service when I renewed.

What I've decided to do is simply wait until I renew with my registrar in February and take care of it then. I prefer that to having to pay out twice a year. Do it all at once.

In the meantime, the site is still available via search engines and links, as well as the original Blogspot address (rightwingrocker.blogspot.com), so people can get here almost as easily. This post is mainly an FYI in case anyone wants to know why they had trouble getting here in their normal fashion.

Maybe time for a post today ... Don't forget why we celebrate Thanksgiving ... anyone want to put it in the comment area before I post the link?

RWR

This one is for the troops ...

Rock on, Gene.

RWR

At MichelleMalkin.com, Doug Powers has brought it again.

I'm not even going to comment. Doug has said it perfectly.

Now go read it and be pissed. A 13-year old kid being told to take his flag down?

Wow.

RWR

Update: Commenter Christian Soldier reminds us of Dick Lamm's 2005 speech, in which the plan to destroy America was revealed.

This came in an email today from a reader who will today remain anonymous. It puts "healthcare" into the perfect perspective:

Let me get this straight. We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't. Written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, and whose Speaker states we will pass it to see what it says, and by a congress that exempts themselves from it, to be signed by a president who also smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke.


What the hell could possibly go wrong?

Of course, the most effective argument against this joke is left out - There's nothing in the Constitution that makes it legal for Congress to even pass it.

Why don't we just stick with the basics?? Gotta admit, though - this piece was the perfect illustration of WHY the Founders didn't give Congress this sort of power.

RWR

For nothing short of voter fraud.

I've often said that nutjobs like Reid and Pelosi can't win without "stuffing the ballot box". Who could forget the gore campaign bribing bums off the street with free cigarettes to vote for that stuffed shirt ten years ago.

The problem is that while this stuff gets press, no one pursues it in the courts.

It truly doesn't matter that these extremists commit these crimes, because for all intents and purposes, what they are doing is LEGAL. Face it, if you don't enforce a law, it becomes null and void. Just look at the Arizona border for proof, where they had to make their own laws because the federal government refused to enforce theirs. For all intents and purposes, there were no laws being enforced to stop illegal aliens from crossing the border.

So you won't see Harry Reid or anyone associated with his campaign on trial for this. It's not surprising though.

Not in the least.

RWR

Earlier this week, I posted about the Republican takeover of the House, and the role of Constitutionalism and the Tea Party in the win. I also made some important points about where to go when the Republican Party ultimately drops the ball.

OreoThunder left a comment that took nine paragraphs to say what it took the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh multiple volumes to say. Were Harry Kalas alive today, he would have had to call it just like he would have a Michael Jack Schmidt home run ... OUTAA HEERREE!!!!! Here it is in its entirety for all to savor:

We conservatives have rallied against what we see as President Barack Obama's "wealth redistribution" policies. For us, Obama's infamous meeting with Joe the Plumber, during which the future president said he wanted to "spread the wealth around," was a defining moment.

Nearly two years into Obama's presidency, the debate about government's role in redistributing wealth continues to be a central one in American politics. Too often, however, conservatives allow this debate to center around the issue of "fairness." Liberals believe it would be "fair" if the "wealthy" were taxed more in order to support government programs intended to benefit the less fortunate. Conservatives counter that no "fairness" can exist in a society where income is forcibly taken from those who have earned it, regardless of the intent.

Such a debate will never be settled. Words such as "fair" and "wealthy" defy definition, and any argument that presupposes a shared meaning is doomed from the start. The real challenge for liberals, then, is not in convincing conservatives of the true definition of "fair" or how much income makes one "wealthy." The real challenge facing liberals is a much more basic one. In order to present a truly sound argument for redistributing wealth, liberals must focus not on distribution at all. Instead, they must solve for wealth creation.

Any government with a sufficiently armed police force has the ability to redistribute wealth. There's nothing complicated about forcing an individual to give up some or even all of his or her wealth at the threat of incarceration. That's easy. The dilemma, however, lies in doing so while at the same time maintaining an environment in which those who create wealth are motivated to continue doing so.

If wealth simply appeared out of nowhere, the liberal view of "fair" distribution would certainly have merit, especially from a purely social perspective. Who could argue that a free and abundant resource should be equally shared by all? Wealth, however, does not simply appear. It is the result of ingenuity, effort and risk-taking. If we fail to make it worthwhile -- or make it unnecessarily burdensome -- for individuals and organizations to apply ingenuity, put forth effort and take risks, there no longer exists an incentive to create wealth.

Because a policy of redistribution destroys the motivation to create wealth, such a policy cannot be sustained. There is a terminal point to a policy of wealth redistribution -- the inevitable point where wealth creation simply ceases, or at least decreases to a level that cannot support the standard of living enjoyed at the policy's inception.

Liberals must solve for wealth creation. Any policy that seeks to redistribute wealth but at the same time decreases the incentive for its creation will ultimately collapse on itself. For liberal policies to work, there must exist at the same time an increasing tax burden on wealth and an increasing incentive to create wealth. This paradox is not overcome by some vague concept of "fairness." Basic economics cannot be permanently ignored.

This liberal dilemma is an example of something we see more and more in today's political environment: a clash between social ideology and economic reality. We can even go back to the 2008 economic downturn to see this dynamic at work. A social ideology (everyone should own a home) led to government-mandated lending practices that ultimately ran headlong into economic reality (not everyone can repay a home loan). The result was economic disaster.

It is an interesting irony that the very capitalism decried by liberals is responsible for the wealth they want to redistribute under their banner of "fairness." Until, however, they can adequately solve for creation -- rather than simply call for redistribution -- their arguments amount to nothing more than hollow, irrational ranting. Perhaps this is what Winston Churchill meant when he said, "If you're 20 and not liberal you have no heart, but if you're 40 and not conservative, you have no brain."

Wow.

RWR

The Republicans have won the House back from the Donks.

Big deal? Yeah, I think this time it must be said that it is. The Republicans promised us quite a bit of Constitutionalism, and they won big for it.

Here's the problem with it, though. When the Republicans fail to deliver Constitutionalism, Americans will once again demonstrate their insanity by electing Democrats to office. The Donks may or may not promise Constitutionalism, but I can guarantee you they won't deliver it.

So conservatives must approach this soberly, and continue to build the Tea Part movement as a Constitutionalist entity in this country, not one associated with any particular political party. We must be prepared to move further to the RIGHT when throwing the Republicans out the next time it becomes necessary and possible instead of allowing America to drift back into the hands of whatever socialist entity dominates the day. We must make sure it is understood that while the Republicans can easily be seen to be to the right of Democrats, it doesn't necessarily make them far enough to the right to deliver what this country needs.

That is the essence of the problem created by yesterday's election, folks. Not "gridlock" or "compromise" or the "inability to get things done", but the challenge of focusing the American people on what is right for America instead of just voting LOTE in the hopes of keeping out or getting out whichever party is perceived worse at the time.

This is where Federalists and our agenda come into play. The Tea Party embraces most of what we embrace. It will be up to all of us to do two very important things over the next two years, and in each subsequent election cycle:

1. EDUCATE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE in the ways of the Constitution, the Founding Documents, and the Founding Fathers.

2. KEEP THE FEET TO THE FIRE of those sent to Washington to implement the Constitution, the Founding Documents, and the vision of the Founding Fathers.

As John Boehner said, this is not a time for celebration. His premise about celebrating when people get back to work, however, is the wrong one. The economy will recover long before this country even begins to recover from the damage done to her Constitution over the last hundred years. When the road to that recovery begins in earnest, THEN it will be time for some celebration - not a day before. Until then, there is far too much to be done within the Federalist movement and its sister the Tea Party movement to even contemplate celebration.

Another note to everyone: Money does not win elections. Votes win elections. Money may help get the message out, but if the people know the message is bullshit, they won't vote for it unless they feel it is the lesser of two. Taking the message of Federalism and Constitutionalism to the people hasn't taken much money thus far, and yet the candidates supported by the Tea Party largely won the day. It will not take the party bosses' money to take down the parties. What it will take is the force of the electorate. Of course, the force of the electorate also has the power to get the parties and their bosses to wise up and do the right thing, at least for a time.

Now how is that for a slogan??

Federalism/Constitutionalism/The Tea Party - The Force of the Electorate.

Has a nice ring to it - if it can be made to stick. Just make sure we're all doing our homework AND the right thing.

RWR