Buyer’s Remorse

You may have heard that some people are now experiencing buyer’s remorse from voting for Barack Obama. Perhaps they voted for Obama because he said he would benefit them, instead of voting for someone who would uphold and defend The Constitution, which benefits everyone. Although neither major presidential candidate in 2008 had solid constitutional bona fides, Barack Obama definitely held the short end of that stick.

It is hard to believe that Obama voters could not discern that he is a liberal, a socialist, a “progressive” – whatever you want to call it. And obviously radical to boot. All they had to do was listen to him. He used all the “progressive” memes and code words. So the problem is that the majority of voters must not know – or don’t care – that Obama’s principles are fundamentally at odds with the founding principles embodied in The Constitution.

The Constitution is the specification for the US Government. It is the contract between We the People and the US Government. Any regime that distorts or disregards The Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous. How can Barack Obama – or any other “progressive” – even take the oath of office, and swear to God and to We the People, to uphold and defend the Constitution, if he rejects The Constitution and the principles it represents? Such a person is lying to God and everybody on inauguration day! The fact that there isn't national outrage speaks volumes about us.

As long as we remain constitutionally illiterate, as long as political parties continue to nominate, and as long as we continue to elect anti-constitutional politicans to public office, then buyer’s remorse will be a given.

IPCC Would Not Win Blue Ribbon in Science Fair

By Andrew Thomas at American Thinker

Hypothesis: If the Nobel Prize-winning IPCC scientists submitted their climate change research as a grade-school science fair project, it would fail miserably. (Continue reading...)

Of course, regardless of whether the AGW hypothesis is true, in our Constitutional Republic, the government is not authorized to address AGW with Cap&Trade or any other top-down remedy. The believers and the skeptics are at liberty to duke it out for the hearts and minds of the We the People, via the first amendment. The rest of the world can do what it deems necessary, but the USA must follow the Constitution.

(That's what Barack Obama should have said at Copenhagen, but he's anti-Constitution). ~ Karl Uppiano

In-ter-rest-ing! "Faux" News Most Trusted News Source

An annual survey ranked Fox News as the country's most-trusted news source ... and the least-trusted.

Sacred Heart University's third annual "Trust and Satisfaction with the National News Media Survey" found that Fox News topped the list when people were asked which news source they trust the most.

Fox News had 30% of the vote, then CNN (19.5%), NBC (7.5%) and ABC (7.5%).

When asked for which organization they trusted the least, people picked Fox News again (26.2%), then NBC (9.9%), MSNBC (9.4%) and CNN (8.5%).

Another interesting result from the study: Fox News' Bill O'Reilly ranked as the most-trusted news anchor on cable TV. (Continue reading...)

No Rules for Radicals!

Finally, we are starting to hear -- and see -- some original pro-liberty music!

The Cloud in the Silver Lining

I had a long talk with an old friend today... one of the most gifted engineers that I have had the pleasure of working with. Politics was one of our most common topics of conversation, and I used to go to Jim for a unique perspective on current events.

So naturally, today's conversation was no different. His take on the Brown victory was that it will be a negative for conservatives. The reason is interesting: Jim's opinion is that healthcare reform was already dead, and the progressives just didn't know it yet. So, the backroom dealing, the arm-twisting, the brazen bribes, would have continued for several more months, before the bill finally just collapsed under its own weight. Meanwhile, conservatives and independents would have become increasingly outraged by the whole spectacle. By ending the discussion now, the outrage will die down by November, never having reached the pitch that it might have, had the debate dragged on into Spring and Summer. The upshot: Republicans won't gain as many seats as they would have otherwise.

Secondly, a whole bunch of power evaporated from Washington D.C. overnight. The Obama-Pelosi-Reid "leadership" is now largely discredited in their own party. Many Democrats were already jumping ship, but now they won't be able to get anywhere near the votes needed to accomplish anything significant. Not that we want the progressive agenda to pass, but now America's weakness is obvious to the rest of the world. We are much more at risk than before, because our enemies and opportunists can take advantage of our weakness, militarily and financially.

Finally, progressives are comprised of two groups: The ones who advocate a soft take-over, through subversion and overload (e.g., Cloward and Piven, by overwhelming the system with welfare cases and illegal immigration, etc.), and the ones who advocate violent take-over (Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and most of the cabinet and czars). The peaceful progressives just lost. That leaves the militant ones. We could be in for a bumpy ride.

If Scott Brown had lost the election, the progressives might have triggered a full-blown conservative backlash, sufficient to safely de-fang them. As it is, our world just got a lot more dangerous. According to Jim.

Global Warming Skeptics have no Credibility with the Intelligensia

Some people claim that the tea party movement will not gain traction with intelligent people as long as we remain skeptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). I find this claim to be elitist and condescending.

Case in point: I hold a degree in mathematics and physics. I am a lifelong student of science and the philosophy of science. I know how scientific knowledge is obtained. I also know how it can be corrupted. It is for precisely these reasons that I am skeptical of AGW. AGW is the proposed theory that humans are responsible for the phenomenon formerly known as "global warming". The notion that "the science is settled", or that there is "consensus" is historically ignorant.

We thought that the science was "settled" when Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravity were "proved". Physics was considered a dead science until some unexplainable phenomena inspired Albert Einstein to blow the whole thing wide open again in 1905. About the same time, quantum theory threw some monkey wrenches into Einstein's work, as well as further revolutionizing physics, chemistry and cosmology. Relativity and quantum theory are approximately 100 years old, and they are still not "settled". The standard model was agreed upon by "consensus", and yet ongoing research pokes inconvenient holes in it. It works, if you watch where you step. Fortunately, the government hasn't passed any laws based on the standard model. Yet.

String theory is the latest twist on quantum theory, and it appears to be going nowhere. Renowned physicist Lee Smolin wrote a book about it: The Trouble with Physics. Do you know what it's about? It's about the politicization of science. Not at the government level, but at the university level. String theory is the "cool" science, on the cutting edge. The best grants, the best teaching positions, and the best students get to work on string theory. The trouble is, there are huge problems with string theory. It hasn't made any real progress in 20 years. But the best minds continue to hammer away at this concept, leaving other avenues unexplored because there isn't any money or prestige in them.

I would argue that AGW suffers from the same trouble -- only worse because of the "real political" aspect of it: The climate is always changing, except now statists have secured "science" to tax us for it. Climategate came as no surprise to me. In fact, it is the natural conclusion: Big government, big power, big money, big corruption -- in that order.

The AGW hypothesis suffers from one very serious problem: There is no way to test whether the assumptions (and hence the predictions of this theory) are actually true, and by how much. Computer models are not experiments! The best minds in the field -- if they were honest -- would have to admit that.

But I saved the best for last: Even if AGW was demonstrably true, it is not the role of the American Republic (thanks to the Constitution) to coerce everyone to fall into line. It is the true believers' job (via the first amendment) to convince everyone to fall into line of their own free will. See the difference?

Scott Brown Wins in Massachusetts

Well, Scott Brown won the election to determine Ted Kennedy's successor in the Senate. I am not going to gloat, but I am going to thank God for this gift. The oppressive health care reform bill is by no means dead, and cap & trade still looms. At this point, the radical "progressives" may back down for now, or they may double down instead. It is anybody's guess.

Since Barack Obama's favorite word is "audacity", and since he hails from Chicago, my money is on the double down. However, Congressman Barney Frank, in an uncharacteristic fit of reasonableness, said this:

I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.

Perhaps this is the beginning of a bit more balance in Washington D.C., and some glimmer of hope for our liberty.

Washington “Assault Weapon” Ban Impacts All Firearm Owners!

From an NRA email:

Stand-Up and Make Your Voices Heard Now!

Last week, NRA-ILA informed you about Senate Bill 6396, legislation that would bring California-style gun-control to the Northwest and ultimately ban many semi-automatic firearms commonly owned by Washingtonians.

In fact, SB 6396 is more far-reaching than it appears on the surface and will absolutely impact a gigantic swath of Washington firearm owners, including concealed pistol license holders, hunters and competitive pistol shooters. As examples, consider the following restrictions that flow from the provisions of this horrendous piece of gun control legislation:

• Every semiautomatic AND PUMP-ACTION rifle and shotgun that has a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip located rear of the trigger (yes, that is just about all of them) is defined as an “assault weapon” and is banned under SB 6396!
• If you and your child/children are out in the woods plinking with his or her Ruger 10-22 and there are more than 10 rounds in the magazine, you are a FELON!
• If you are a Concealed Pistol License holder and your semi-auto self-defense pistol contains more than 10 rounds, you are a FELON!
• The use of firearms defined as “assault weapons” (see first bullet point) are banned for use in hunting!
• Competitive shooters will be impacted as any semi-auto pistol that has a detachable magazine and is equipped with a muzzle brake or compensator is defined as an “assault weapon!”
• If you own a firearm(s) defined as an “assault weapon” on the date this bill becomes law, you can keep it if you are willing to allow your Sheriff to come into your home once every year to ensure you store your firearm(s) appropriately!

Senate Bill 6396 is proof that the gun-ban groups and politicians are not interested in only banning semi-automatic firearms that happen to look like military firearms. This bill shows where they really want to go with their agenda! This gun ban scheme will only punish law-abiding citizens and will do nothing to curb crime or keep criminals from obtaining firearms illegally. This is not only another attack on our Second Amendment rights in Washington State, but an attack on your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches of your home!

I sent the following message to my state legislators:

TO: Senator Dale Brandland

CC: Representative Doug Ericksen
Representative Kelli Linville

FROM: Karl Uppiano

BILL: 6396 (Against)

SUBJECT: The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not be Infringed

MESSAGE: The US Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment right is an individual right. Senate Bill 6396 infringes on our right to keep and bear arms. To infringe means to erode or eat away at something. This is an erosion if anything ever was! It also infringes on our fourth amendment right from unreasonable search and seizure. The latest modification not only bans the sale of these firearms, it infringes on our right to keep and bear them (by mandating that we must store them a certain way, and submit to periodic inspections, as well as prohibiting transportation or use of these weapons, including target practice and shooting competitions).

The second amendment is as important today as it was in the late 1700s, and for the same reasons: 

• The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it. ~ Thomas Jefferson
• When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson
• When seconds count, the police can be there in minutes. ~ Unknown

Do we have the right to protect and defend our life and property, or don't we? A firearm is like a fire extinguisher. You hope you never need it, but it can save your life and property in an emergency.

Sincerely,


Karl Uppiano

Anatomy of a Meltdown

by Victor Davis Hanson
NRO’s The Corner

Many saw Obama's polls dropping for a variety of reasons, and can anticipate what's next. People took the candidate at his word of bipartisanship, fiscal seriousness, and centrism, and from day one got instead shady Cabinet nominations of tax cheats and lobbyists, indifference to congressional corruption as symbolized by Rangel and Dodd, a whiny monotony of "Bush did it" for a year, a 1,000-page healthcare monstrosity, fiscal insanity, serial appeasement of enemies with conscious neglect of old allies, and on and on. No hope, less change. (Continue reading...)

OK, Here's the Thing...

We can spend the entire day debating the pros and cons of health care reform, the policy details of Cap & Trade, or any other liberty-sucking, big government, “progressive” power grab. But at the end of the day, it all comes down to this: Any regime that disregards or distorts the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.

Fellow citizens, it’s up to us: If we want to preserve our liberty, we must elect politicians who will follow the Constitution, and send the others packing!

So George W. Bush is an Idiot?

From an email circulating on the internet:

• If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
• If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
• If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language", would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
• If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
• If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as proof of what a dunce he is?
• If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?
• If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
• If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
• If George W. Bush had created the position 32 or more Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
• If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved? If George W. Bush had spent more than all the Presidents combined since George Washington, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 10 months -- so you'll have 3 years and 2 months to come up with an answer.

I searched Snopes and Googled this email, but found no concrete references. I found similar content posted on another blog, where one commenter suggested snopesing before posting, with the implication that there were factual errors, but they made no specific citations. I think they were blowing smoke. -- KU

Happy New Year Everyone!

The year 2009 has certainly been a year. A very wise man once told me "the opposite of joy isn't sorrow; the opposite of joy is fear". I have never been more fearful for my liberty, and my children's liberty, than I have in 2009. I thought the same thing in 2008, and in 2007. So here's hoping we have some real Hope and Change in 2010.

My resolution for this year is to rage against the kakistocracy, and attempt to convince everyone that I can, not to vote as stupidly as they did in 2006, and especially not as stupidly as they did in 2008, and to kick some Republican keister for giving us such horrible choices in those elections.

We have a lot of work ahead of us. Even if we were to replace every statist with a constitutionalist, we still have much damage to repair, dating all the way back to the early 1900s. It is unfeasible and inhumane just to repeal everything and start over. Please consider my Limited Government Amendment as one possible solution.

Rage against the kakistocracy in 2010!

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano