Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

1007, 26 Mar 18

Dallet’s Swimming in San Francisco Cash

Remember that she’s been out on the Left coast touting how activist she plans to be on behalf of the Leftist agenda. Of course they opened their wallets for her.

State Supreme Court candidate Rebecca Dallet raised $416,646 in the lead-up to the spring general election, according to a fundraising cover sheet her campaign shared with


1007, 26 March 2018


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    Liberals in San Francisco interfering in our election.

    I say we need a special counsel to investigate!

  2. Le Roi du Nord

    Conservatives from IL interfering in our election.

    “In Wisconsin, Uihlein’s support alone vaulted a long-shot Republican candidate to the front of the pack for the Republican Senate nomination. The candidate, Kevin Nicholson, was initially met with skepticism from fellow Republicans due to his past role as president of the College Democrats of America — until Uihlein decided to support Nicholson after a meeting with him, brokered by a mutual friend. Eight different super PACs that receive Uihlein funds, including the Club for Growth, have signaled their support for Nicholson, convinced by Nicholson’s conversion story, as Uihlein was.”

    From Politico.

    k:  Doesn’t the hypocrisy you ascribe to ever cause you pause?

  3. Paul

    So says the cross-burner…

  4. Le Roi du Nord

    p:  You are 0 for 3 today.  That won’t get you to the big leagues.

  5. Paul

    Let’s see, you’ve been busted lying about:

    – three 500-year floods in a year
    – being an elected official
    – stating baseball “legend” where it didn’t exist in an article
    – stating 12 years of GOP control

    Then again, if you were getting your rectum resized in county last week, I could see why you’re pissy.

  6. Jason

    >Doesn’t the hypocrisy you ascribe to ever cause you pause?

    Sorry but your red herring doesn’t apply here. Unless of course this long shot conservative candidate ran on the promise of not taking special interest money, or promising that she was the only candidate that would take money and political activism out of the office she was running for.

    Your candidate is the shining star of hypocrisy, right now, here, today. Idiotic of me to think your trolling as could accept that as truth. Keep rubbing your Kevin hardon, some days you’ll go blind.

  7. Jason

    Anyone who thinks the John Doe probes should have continued is not looking to protect the average citizen’s rights.

    Anyone who agrees that it’s perfectly legal to search a person because they are black and standing against a wall is not looking to protect the average citizen’s rights.


    She’s a liar, she’s racist, and she’s an activist.

  8. Paul


    This is why the troll supports her.

  9. MjM

    Nort sez, “Conservatives from IL interfering in our election.”

    …. with a world-wide, billion or so dollar company that happens to be based in Wisconsin.

    Question: How many of those San Fran Freaks have ties, direct or otherwise, to our Badger state? Hmmmm?

  10. Paul

    Yet the troll is silent about a held-in-contempt AG interfering in this and other WI elections…..

  11. Kevin Scheunemann


    So serious. I was joking to show how stupid liberals, like yourself, sound on the Trump Russian nonsense.

    If Dallet wants to talk and solicit money from the moral challenged in Frisco, she is free to wallow in the muck.

  12. Paul

    The troll is incapable of humor. The troll shows traits of serial killers such as Dennis Rader.

  13. Le Roi du Nord


    Calling people stupid doesn’t make you any smarter, it just shows how truly uninformed you are.  Although we may disagree on just about everything, I have never called you stupid.

    p:  You are still 0 for 2018.

  14. Kevin Scheunemann


    I called the election “interference” point of view stupid.   If you want to mean that as you being stupid for wanting to prohibit particiaption….I mean “interference” in elections, that would be a problem on your part.

  15. Le Roi du Nord


    Here is your quote, “stupid liberals, like yourself”.  Do you deny saying that?  Or is your memory starting to fade?  Better have that checked.

  16. Paul

    Three 500-year floods in a year…

  17. Kevin Scheunemann


    I’ll take it back. If you think participation in an election equals “interference”, that does, indeed, make you stupid for embracing such a fascist liberal conviction.

  18. Le Roi du Nord


    So you really didn’t “take it back”, eh?  Is your ego so fragile that you can’t accept what you actually said?  Or is it that words really don’t mean anything except what you want them to mean?

    PS:  “fascist liberal” is an oxymoron.  There you go inventing new definitions of words again.

  19. Paul

    Bullying and anti-religious personal attacks by the White Nationalist troll.

  20. Le Roi du Nord

    Another 0 for 3.

  21. Paul

    Nobody cares, Nazi pig.

  22. Kevin Scheunemann


    Are you blind to the fact that the most dangerous fascism these days resides on the liberal side of the aisle.

    Look at what Marquette has done to Professor McAdams.

    Look at how many security guards Berkely needs to protect little Ben Shapiro from the anti-semetic left.

    Look at the words society cannot say or speak without getting a sensitivity lecture (or re-education camp order) from liberal university administrations these days.

    Look at how Christians cannot have a cross in a public place anymore because of the fascist left.

    I have not even got into the 1930s Germany style gun confiscation the left seems to be embracing in droves now.

    You are completely blind to the goosestepping leftist problem in this nation.

    “Fascist liberalism” is everywhere…

  23. Paul

    The troll is not blind to the goosestepping problem.

    The troll is part of the goosestepping problem.

  24. Le Roi du Nord

    k:  No matter what you claim, “Fascist liberalism”, makes no sense.

    And another whiff for p.

  25. Paul

    715 trash

  26. jjf

    Kevin, why do you need Christian religious symbols on public property? What’s wrong with private property?

  27. Paul

    Why did you have a hissy fit about Christian bodybuilders, Foust?

  28. Kevin Scheunemann


    Why are you an intolerant censor and bigot?

  29. jjf

    Kevin, I don’t see where you are coming from. Why do you think I’m intolerant, and of what? And a bigot? Why so?

  30. billphoto

    Notice her ads do not mention that Wisconsin should have California values or her opposition to Act10 or Scott Walker.  One would think if she is so proud of her judicial activism that she would be featuring her philosophy.

    Could it be that radical leftist ideology is not popular with normal people?

  31. Kevin Scheunemann

    When you demand the cross be BANNED from public square in any manner, you are an intolerant bigot.

    It is especially intolerant when graves of past veterans are being ordered by liberal judges to be desecrated by liberal intolerance of the cross.

    That is height of satanic evil.

  32. jjf

    I encourage you to study more about the distinctions the courts have made over the years. There is the concept of a “public forum” and they have been implemented in practice. A space for everyone to express their viewpoint? That’s been held valid. Erecting the Cross and nothing else? Not so much.

    The dictionary says a bigot is “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.” It says intolerant is “not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.” It says tolerant is “showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.”

    I’m quite tolerant and not a bigot by those definitions. I change my mind all the time, based on evidence and explanation. I think you should be able to hold and exercise your religious beliefs. I don’t think you get to use public dollars to do it.

    Do you see yourself as tolerant and not bigoted?

  33. Paul

    John Foust is a bigot.

  34. Kevin Scheunemann

    “I encourage you to study more about the distinctions the courts have made over the years.”

    You mean the same courts that were responsible for the infamous Dred Scott, Buck vs. Bell, Korematsu vs. U.S., Plessy vs. Ferguson, Row vs. Wade….you mean that court?

    Using the supreme court as a shield for your hate and discrimination is awful.   The USSC has had a horid record over the years, and the cases of hostility toward Christians do not help your liberal hate cause.

  35. jjf

    It’s not hostility and bigotry. It’s reversing a decision about a monument. You’re still free to be a Christian and practice your religion in Maryland. You just don’t get to use public intersections to promote it. Feel free to erect a Cross on private land.

    In 1925, I’m sure the people who put up that monument thought “everyone” thought a Christian cross was an appropriate method of commemorating the war dead. They just felt comfortable using that one religion’s symbol. I doubt they checked whether all 49 were Christian. Even if they did, it’s still not appropriate to allow only one religion’s symbol to claim to represent everyone. They could’ve picked a more neutral way of memorializing the dead. No doubt there’s been a long attempt to link war and religion, as a way of building support for war, and to discourage dissent about war.

    Sayeth the Wikipedia, “The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that publicly funded maintenance of the cross was unconstitutional because it “excessively entangles the government in religion because the cross is the core symbol of Christianity and breaches the wall separating church and state.” ”

    In the decision, the court said it “has the primary effect of endorsing religion and excessively entangles the government in religion.”  “The Latin cross is the core symbol of Christianity,” Judge Stephanie D. Thacker wrote. “And here, it is 40 feet tall; prominently displayed in the center of one of the busiest intersections in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and maintained with thousands of dollars in government funds. Therefore, we hold that the purported war memorial breaches the ‘wall of separation between Church and State.’ ”

    Things change. Back in 1925, Maryland schools were segregated and they didn’t pay black and white teachers the same. The last lynching there took place in 1933.

  36. Kevin Scheunemann

    Forcing a cross war memorial down with brave men and women listed on it, who died for this country, is  NOT hostility?


    What color is the sky in your world of hate?


  37. jjf

    Read the decision.

    Where are they hostile to Christianity?

    You might enjoy the footnote on page 21, where they remind us that atheists couldn’t even hold public office in Maryland until the early 1960s. Is that the kind of tolerance you were thinking of?

  38. Kevin Scheunemann

    The part where the cross is not allowed to be expressed openly in the memorial.

    The worst kind of bigotry is the bigot who does not even know he is a bigot.

    Liberals have a huge problem with that these days.

  39. jjf

    The history of the monument shows they were promoting and requiring religion at least as much the war-memorial aspect. You read it, right?

    Do you see yourself as tolerant and not bigoted?

  40. Kevin Scheunemann

    I missed the part where freedom of speech, requires substantive review for liberal anti-God cooties.

    Substance review of speech is a violation of freedom of speech.

  41. jjf

    Which God? Last I checked, there’s thousands of them.

    Do you see yourself as tolerant and not bigoted, as per your accusation of me above?


  42. Kevin Scheunemann

    So you are for intolerant, censoring review of speech?

    That makes you a bigot.

  43. jjf

    Don’t dodge. My question is simple. I presented the dictionary definitions above.

    Do I show a “willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”?  Of course. I think you’re free to believe or not believe, and that the government shouldn’t interfere in your right to that, and that we shouldn’t use government to promote one religious belief over another.  Apparently the Founders agreed with me.

    As for substantive review, read pages 34-35 and tell me how they made their decision.


  44. Kevin Scheunemann

    You are the one dodging.

    If you think page 34-25 IS NOT a substantive review of free speech, you are painfully ignorant of what violative substantive review is under 1st amendment.

  45. jjf

    If you aren’t willing to judge yourself as intolerant or as a bigot (as you did to me, do unto others, etc.), perhaps you can enlighten me on your legal definition of “substantive review” as it applies in these First Amendment cases, and tell me just how all those other decades of court decisions got it wrong.

  46. Kevin Scheunemann

    When speech is reviewed for substance by a government agency, government agent, or court, that is called “substantive review” and the review itself violates freedom of speech.

    I am well acquainted with the topic as UW-Milwaukee administrators conducted several substantive review inquiries when I was editor of the UWM Times.   I had first amendment lawyers of speed dial.

    Liberals have perverted their God cooties into violative substanse review of 1st amendment.   Liberals, esecially the FFRF have perverted the 1st amendment into a godless sword of censorship…just another insidious destructive liberal form of PC.    It all stems from bigoted hostility to Christianity.   This is why liberal fascism is such a problem.

    I know you can’t see it because you join in the bigoted hate, goosestepping with the godless disciples of the left.

  47. jjf

    That’s quite a stretch from the UWM Times to this Cross on public property.

    By that logic, there could be no review of the content of any monument that might get erected on public property.

  48. Le Roi du Nord

    “and the review itself violates freedom of speech.”

    You will have to elaborate on that for anyone to believe you.

  49. Kevin Scheunemann


    The fact you support content review is a dangerous thing.

    Now all one has to do to shut one up is yell “religion”! It is no different than holding a loaded gun to one’s head to prevent speech.

    What happens to speech once we concede global warming, evolution, and liberalism are awful religions?

  50. Le Roi du Nord

    I didn’t say I supported content review, you made that assumption on your own.  What I did ask is that you show something to support your claim of, “and the review itself violates freedom of speech”.

    Per usual, the rest of your comment is just nonsense.

  51. Le Roi du Nord

    And how do you feel about Kooyengas assault on freedom of speech?  Or is that OK because he is allegedly a “conservative” ?

  52. jjf

    Somehow the Second has been interpreted to mean you can’t have an A-bomb, somehow the Second’s “well-regulated militia” now means “untrained Jim-Bob and his AR-15” and somehow even though the First exists, there are still some consequences of speech.

    I think you are not interpreting the law and its application correctly, at least in the way that the judges do it. Keeping government out of the business of religion is a higher goal. They’re not reviewing speech per se.

    What does “free exercise” mean to you? What could government ever do that infringes on that? Do you see how using government dollars or property to promote my religion over yours could infringe on your free exercise?

    If you abhor this idea of content review, do you oppose any inquiry into content? Public school teachers should be free to teach whatever they want?

  53. Kevin Scheunemann

    “Keeping government out of the business of religion is a higher goal. They’re not reviewing speech per se.”

    How the heck do you separate this nebulous thing called religious speech…without content review????

    How doe a paid for WWI war memorial cross put anybody out, except the censoring, anti-American, anti-Bill of rights, liberal fascists?

  54. Kevin Scheunemann


    Was not talking to you.   I find it best to ignore your comment that has nothing to do with the discussion.

  55. Le Roi du Nord


    My apologies.  Maybe you should try that some time.

    “How doe a paid for WWI war memorial cross put anybody out, except the censoring, anti-American, anti-Bill of rights, liberal fascists?”

    Well if you aren’t a christian and are paying taxes for upkeep, those folks might object.  Just like I object to my tax dollars paying for the anti-American, anti-Bills of Rights scofflaws like Kooyenga.  If a D did that you would be all over it.  Why the silence now??


  56. jjf

    Kevin, I’m sure you can understand the differences. You’re free to express yourself on your own property. Your message is not dimmed because you can’t erect it on public property. Put your cross on your church.

    When you want to do it on public property, either you’re doing it in a public forum (a legal term) where everyone is free to speak on equal terms, or you’re going to be subject to examination of your message. Some places have attempted to appease the Christians and the Church of Satan in this way, which is why you get their statues next to each other on some courthouse lawns.

    Yes, government wants to stay out of the religion business. They don’t want to favor one over the other.

    A similar example? Governor Walker doesn’t get to hang a campaign banner on the Capitol, nor does the WisGOP, nor do the Democrats get to put yard signs on the public median.

  57. Paul

    John Foust is an anti-Christian bigot.

  58. Kevin Scheunemann

    GREAT!  Government stay out of religion business!   Let’s start with church of liberalism and its 1st commandment:  thou shalt kill unborn babies.    When you defund this first commandment of liberal religion, I will take your censorship position more seriously.

    Until then, you are an anti-Christian bigot, intolerant of simple grace.

  59. Major Booris

    And there you have it, folks, another contender falls to the patented Schuenemann Special: it’s unfair to restrict my religious speech without holding other religions’ speech to the same standard – and anything anyone believes is a religion, so…

    Arguing with him can be useful for learning just how obtuse a human being can be, but beyond that, it’s really more trouble than it’s worth.


  60. Le Roi du Nord


    How true.  But it fun to get him all wound up and spewing nonsense.  Notice he won’t answer the question about Kooyenga.  Telling.

  61. Kevin Scheunemann

    It’s a valid point.   Why do we fund active insane religions of liberalism, and stomp out long time protected speech of innocent Christians?

    It is just good-old fashioned liberal bigotry and hate.

  62. jjf

    Kevin, repeating something doesn’t make it true. Being a Democrat isn’t like being a Protestant. It’s a political position, not a religion. Same for science. Science changes its view based on evidence. Do religions do that?

    I’ll ask in a different way. If you ran the zoo, what would you like the position and policy to be? It would be fair to use tax dollars to erect monuments to particular religions, as long as you got the vote to do so at a particular moment, and no subsequent administration could remove those monuments?

  63. Paul

    Dunno, Foust. You whined about fake prank calls for years. Didn’t make it any more true.

  64. Kevin Scheunemann

    The second commandment of liberal religion is:  to blow and twitch with the wind when it finds a new victim class.

    The thrid commandment is:  there is no absoute truth, liberalism makes truth up as it goes.


  65. Kevin Scheunemann

    And if you want to talk about tearing down monuments and statues, let’s start with all the leftist butchers like Stalin, Lennin, Mao, etc.   the Eastern bloc had good sense to tear them down.   Leftists scream censorship and intolerance when demand is made to tear these down!

    How about it?  Do we tear down the monuments to the holy leftist disciples that the socialists worship?

    Why not?

  66. jjf

    Again, Kevin, tell me how you would run the zoo.

    I don’t support or admire Stalin, Lenin, Mao, etc. any more than you do.

    The Lenin statue is privately owned and on private property, no? You think we should be able to review the content of their speech and prohibit it and confiscate the statue?

    Not quite sure what you’re trying to say about the nature of religion. Religions blow in the wind? Liberals blow in the wind and make up stuff, so therefore they’re a religion?

  67. Kevin Scheunemann

    When Christians have attempted to save war memorials, like the cross in the past, some governments have tried to privatize the piece of land by leasing it or giving it to a private civic group.  That also has been met by leftist, hate, disdain, and lawsuits in the past.

    So “private property” does not matter in leftist hate sphere.

    Lenin’s writings have been considered “holy scripture” to his followers, espeically in the Soviet union.   How is that NOT a religion?

    You want to play this dangerous censorship game.   I can slap the censoring “religious speech” label on anything you care about and attack it in the same way.

    I’m just asking you to stop the hate.

  68. Kevin Scheunemann

    …and yes, religions do blow in the wind, have you ever met Islam?   that religion blows and twitches all over the map.

  69. jjf

    Again, tell me what you’d like our USA policy to be about religious monuments.

    Yes, converting public property to private property as a dodge after being confronted in court hasn’t worked. You think it should? Have you looked at what the courts have said when people tried that?

    Why have you pivoted to Leninism? I don’t see what the former Soviet Union’s regard for Lenin has to do with this issue.

    Why have you pivoted to whether religions blow in the wind? Have you found any seemingly contradictory passages in the Bible?

  70. Kevin Scheunemann

    “Again, tell me what you’d like our USA policy to be about religious monuments.”


  71. jjf

    So that fellow should be able to move his Lenin statue to public land?

  72. Kevin Scheunemann

    Sure, as long as Christians get same consideration…and tolerance.

    I would also criticize it as stupid and a monument to insanity, butchery, and the failure of the public school system to properly educate, but that is what makes free speech a great thing, without censoring leftist Nazis running around destroying everyone’s speech.

  73. Major Booris

    “I can slap the censoring “religious speech” label on anything you care about and attack it in the same way.”

    This one sentence reveals more about your worldview than anything else in recent memory, Kevin.

  74. Le Roi du Nord

    “The second commandment of liberal religion is:  to blow and twitch with the wind when it finds a new victim class.”
    “The thrid(sic) commandment is:  there is no absoute truth, liberalism makes truth up as it goes.”

    Could you enlighten us all where we can find these commandments written?  Or are they just found in the murky depths of your mind?

    “leftist Nazis” (remember the Nazis were sworn born enemies of the soviets) makes as little sense as “liberal fascist/fascist liberal”.   You can’t have it both ways….

  75. Kevin Scheunemann


    Just stating it bluntly to warn of the danger of liberalism reviewing all speech in public sphere and sorting it between “verboten” and “non-verboten”.

    Many view Lenin’s writings as “holy scripture” in former Soviet union, liberal fever swamps, and in the darkest depths of Democratic Party.   Religion is nothing more than faith, a belief system, and a cosmology about the orgin of life.   Tell me that the religion of Leninism (atheism, secular humanism, hedonism, etc) did/does not address all those items in great detail.

    The only thing really unique about the religion of Leninism is that most of the disciples openly deny their faith because they are ashamed.

    You see the leftist fascist danger of sorting speech for a religious component for second class, hateful treatment?

    It can end up being anything targeted for censorship.

    Just trying to stop the leftist hate, one leftist at a time.

  76. Le Roi du Nord

    “Many view Lenin’s writings as “holy scripture” in former Soviet union, liberal fever swamps, and in the darkest depths of Democratic Party. ”

    Total, utter and absolute nonsense.

  77. Kevin Scheunemann

    The Huffington Post?

    The primary hatred organ of the left. I wouldn’t even use it for toilet paper if you printed it out on super soft parchment.

    Not surprised you quoted a leftist hate site.

  78. Le Roi du Nord

    Did you read the article you linked”  Here is the headline,
    “Communist ideology similar to Christianity”.
    That doesn’t help your case, seeing as you are an alleged christian.  All the more reason to stay away from religions.

  79. Kevin Scheunemann


    You dispute liberalism is a religion with dripping disdain. Putin seems to think it is a religion.

    I don’t care too much when unbelievers compare Christianity to their false, work righteousness religions….it shows basic misunderstanding of Christianity.

  80. jjf




    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”

    faith, belief, worship, creed; More

    a particular system of faith and worship.
    plural noun: religions
    “the world’s great religions”

    a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
    “consumerism is the new religion”

  81. Kevin Scheunemann

    Thanks Mr. dictionary.   You prove the point just about anything can be a religion and subject to leftist fascist censorship.

    The leftist hate of anything religious is dangerous.

  82. jjf

    I’m always puzzled when people want to conflate any belief with religion. I am aware of the nature of language, and that someone might say “his car collection is his religion” and they don’t mean I worship the Mustang as a God.

    But in the midst of a conversation with legal subtle distinctions and Supreme Court cases, I don’t think it’s helpful to say Communism is a religion and secular humanism is a religion and … well, as you say, anything is a religion. You are a believer in absolute truths, and yet you’ve twisted and turned so that you’ve become quite the relativist.

    I think the Founders damn well understood they didn’t want government to get entangled in the unprovable swamp of religion. Believe what you want on your own time. Don’t expect government to prop up your Bronze Age fantasies.

  83. Kevin Scheunemann

    That is the challenge when you are a speechcensor, the victims of your censorship can find ways to apply your barbaric and ruthless censorship to you.

  84. jjf

    Saying that you can’t use government resources to express your message is not censorship. Unless of course you want to redefine “censorship” in the way you redefined “religion”, just so you can continue to shout that you are being persecuted and censored.

    Again I’m drawn to the horseshoe theory… all this persecution… don’t many conservatives / Trump-ites these days make almost exactly the same sort of claim about “snowflakes” who whine all the time about their lack of safe spaces and who hate examination and criticism?

Pin It on Pinterest