Where Were Tea Parties During the G.W. Bush Administration?

The most common "proof" offered by "progressives" that tea parties are racist is the observation that the tea parties were nowhere to be found during the eight years when G.W. Bush was busy "shredding" the Constitution. In fact, however, the tea parties were triggered by the bailouts in the last year of the Bush administration.

Why not earlier? Well, the simple answer is, the tea parties hadn't been invented yet! The tea parties crystallized out of a super-saturated solution of concerned citizens nationwide -- once called the "silent majority". These people felt islolated and disenfranchized by the "progressive" mainstream media and the chattering classes in both major political parties, going back at least 20 or 30 years, I suspect. When the tea parties started to emerge, the once-silent majority gravitated to them because, finally, here were people not afraid to speak out against government spending, entitlements, waste, fraud, corruption, and oppressive livelihood-crushing regulation and mandates at every turn.

The fact that the tea parties burgeoned during the first part of Barack Obama's administration is largely coincidence. Correlation does not imply causation, especially when the tea parties came first. But now that they're here, the Democrat super majority and the Obama administration are certainly heaping on plenty of material for tea party constitutionalists to object to. Don't feel singled out for criticism. It isn't about Obama, Democrats or Republicans. It's about "progressivism". If the shoe fits... the tea parties are going to ensure that you wear it conspicuously.

Arguing With Idiots -- For Dummies

I have been reading Glenn Beck's book, Arguing With Idiots. It's a pretty good compendium of how to debunk the usual "progressive" arguments and accusations against conservative values and the nation's founding principles. But I wonder if it is really worth it to argue about that stuff. We might educate ourselves, our neighbors and our children. We're not going to convince the "progressives". We might solidify our own convictions and hone our debating skills, but if the arguments I've had recently are any indication, the "progressives" just don't bring any serious intellectual firepower to the table. It's the same old talking points and half-truths, or zero-truths over and over. Even if you win an argument, the next time you visit the blog, they're right back on the same harangue.

Here's my book, Arguing With Idiots -- For Dummies:

• The Constitution is the official specification for the US Government.
• The Constitution is the binding contract between the US Government and We the People.
• Any regime that distorts or disregards the Constitution is untrustworthy and dangerous.

The End.

There is no other argument. Nothing else matters. Global warming? The Constitution doesn't address it. Cap & Trade is not authorized by the Constitution. Government health care? Not authorized. Entitlement programs, corporate welfare? Bailouts? Farm subsidies? Not authorized. EPA? OSHA? IRS? Energy Department? No, no, no, and no. I could go on, but if it isn't in the enumerated powers, it isn't authorized. The 9th and 10th amendments make that crystal clear.

So if the "progressives" want a different form of government, then they will have to legally amend the Constitution to authorize all of those things mentioned above, and more. That is difficult by design. They can't do it out in the open, where We the People can see what they're doing, because we would not allow it. So they must do it by stealth, and they are succeeding. They distort and disregard the Constitution. Untrustworthy and dangerous "progressives" want to retire or destroy the Constitution.

However, in order to secure government power, "progressive" politicians must take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. In so doing, their first official act as a public official is to lie to God and everybody! They have no intention of upholding and defending the Constitution. They mean to shred it. Barack Obama said the Constitution is an impediment (well yeah! -- that's by design!). He says that it represents the fundamental flaw of our form of government, that persists to this day. Yet he took an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. How could he? Seriously, how?

By the way, it isn't just Obama. I want all politicians, Republican and Democrat control freaks on both sides the aisle, to implement the spec, and honor the contract!

Climate Science Is By No Means "Settled"

This is why our founders were adamant that the American system of government was all about liberty and self-determination. They gave us the first amendment, so that we can debate these things in the free market of ideas. The true believers must convince the skeptics to come around of their own free will. If the believers cannot do that, no matter how passionately they believe, so be it. This is no different from the contentious debates about religion that the first and second amendments were intended to protect. Those arguments were no less strongly believed, and the claimed consequences of failure to believe, no less severe. The government was not to get involved.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that public policy based on the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming would be misguided and premature. It is becoming increasingly obvious, in fact, that such public policy is more about crushing capitalism and liberty than it ever was about "saving the planet". The following article presents some very interesting scientific data about the true nature of climate change. The science is never settled. ~ Karl Uppiano

Phil Jones, disgraced and dismissed Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), granted BBC reporter Roger Harrabin an interview. Why Harrabin? His reporting has shown bias on all the IPCC and CRU activities. Leaked emails showed the CRU gang used friends in the BBC and that apparently continues. Prevarication, evasion, half-truths continue in Phil Jones’ answers. Despite this there are stunning admissions from Jones. “There is a tendency in the IPCC reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s) most likely to be read by policy makers.” (Continue reading...)

Conservatives vs. Progressives? No, Conservatives vs. Radicals

A conservative is someone who wants to conserve fundamental, original, traditional constitutional principles. A better word might be "preservative".

When you think of what the term "conservative" means, it is obvious that no true conservative could be a "radical" conservative. Conversely, a "progressive" specifically rejects fundamental, original, traditional constitutional principles. That makes "progressives" radical by definition.

Maybe I'm not a conservative, I'm a preservative.

Thank You, Glenn Beck, for Exposing Communism’s Evils

If we get out of this alive, Glenn Beck might go down in history as one of the greatest teachers and historians of his day. If not, the "progressive" revisionist history will simply dismiss him as a crackpot fear-monger and hate-monger.

Here is a story by someone who lived the communist nightmare. Mind you, communism in itself is not a nightmare. Most families are communist regimes. It is when communism is extended to an entire society via a centralized government that it becomes tyrannical. There is no other possible outcome. Even our trending-toward-socialism government is becoming unacceptably oppressive. Imagine a totalitarian government, like this...

Constitutional Illiterates

The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting this man with the presidency. Obama is only a symptom of what ails us. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” ~ Author Unknown

Washington D.C. Buried Under 30 Inches of Snow

It is never wise to confuse climate with the weather. There are weather anomalies every year.

Our solar-powered climate is always changing. Always has, always will. Now, the "progressives" think they have secured fraudulent "science" to tax us for it. It is the "progressives" that we have to stop. We have no control over the climate.

Victor Davis Hanson's "Our Obama Saga"

This is a must-read from prof. Victor Davis Hanson.

Part One -- Chapters One to Four

• Chapter One — The Liberal Hope and Dream
• Chapter Two — The Perfect Storm
• Chapter Three – The Ascension
• Chapter Four — The Resistance

Part Two -- Chapers Five and Six

• Chapter Five — The Verdict Is Still Out
• Chapter Six…

Scott Joplin Plays "Easy Winners"

Ever since the movie The Sting re-introduced my generation to the music of Scott Joplin with an inferior rendition of The Entertainer, I fell in love with Scott Joplin's piano rags. Of course Scott Joplin died before high-fidelity recording technology was available, but we do have a few piano rolls that he recorded. This is a wonderful rendition by the composer.



Joplin plays this piece more slowly than you have probably heard it before. Scott Joplin often wrote "It is never right to play ragtime fast" at the top of his sheet music.