Arguing With Idiots -- For Dummies II

Never argue politics with anyone without first asking, "Where in the US Constitution do you find the authority for the proposed policy?" If they can find it, then argue. Otherwise, end of discussion.

Hollywood Actress "Gets" the Constitution!

This article on Breitbart TV, Conservative Actress Janine Turner Rallies for Joe Miller; ‘Follow the Constitution’ is great. Janine is one of the "constitutional literates". I thought she blew it on the Medicare question though.

Janine: The correct answer to the medicare questions is, "Medicare is clearly extra-constitutional, and it should be migrated to the states, or the people. Because of the dependency it fosters, it is inhumane and politically unfeasible simply to terminate it, but a transition to a constitutional format is imperative if the Constitution is to have any meaning at all." You get a B+.

These things take time, and we can't fix everything overnight. We have to start moving in the right direction though.

Audience Wants to Say the Pledge of Allegiance

American Hero -- Time to Send the Hippies Home!

Hat tip to Grouchy Old Cripple.

I'm Not a Conservative; I'm a Preservative

I used to call myself a conservative. But I'm not a conservative, I'm a preservative. Conservatives are merely fiscally responsible, and optionally, socially conservative policy wonks. Conservatives constantly have to argue each policy with the 'progressives'. Sometimes they win. Sometimes they lose. Sometimes they lose their will. Sometimes they lose their way. Sometimes they compromise.

"Preservatives" want to preserve the founding principles and our nation's political heritage for future generations. Preservatives simply ask, "Which article of the US Constitution gives government the authority to do that?" Preservatives demand that our politicians follow the original intent of the same Constitution that they took an oath to uphold and defend.

Ballots, Not Bullets; Voluntary, Not Mandatory

Our most honorable founders gave us a government in which we could alter the course with ballots, not bullets. They also gave us a government that would address public policy in ways that are more voluntary, and less mandatory.

Things are getting less voluntary, and more mandatory all the time. Before we cross the line where bullets are the only recourse, we need to reverse course. Time to lock and load those ballots, folks.

Find the Constitution

November second is coming. It's hard to say how this will all go down. If we manage to get enough new blood in Washington over the course of the next few elections, we might be able to repopulate our three branches of government with politicians who won't respond with, "Are you serious?" when someone raises the question, "Where in the Constitution do you find the authority for the proposed action?" Otherwise, we will crash, and then we'll all have to pick up the pieces and start over. In that case, I hope someone manages to find the Constitution in all the rubble.

Oppressive Government

A few weeks ago I was having a discussion with a woman about politics. I mentioned that I felt that government was too oppressive. She replied, "I don't think our government is oppressive". I had to wonder what she thought real oppression would feel like.
Here is a quick run-down:

1. Government is in my wallet.
2. Government is in my paycheck.
3. Government is in my employer's HR department.
4. Government is in my glove compartment.
5. Government is in my car's engine compartment.
6. Government is in my steering wheel and door panels.
7. Government controls owns my car's manufacturer.
8. Government is in my gasoline.
9. Government is in my medicine cabinet.
10. Government is in my toilet.
11. Government is in my shampoo.
12. Government is in my washing machine.
13. Government is in my light sockets.
14. Government controls my power company.
15. Government controls my gas company.
16. Government is in my television set.
17. Government controls my television station.
18. Government is in my radio.
19. Government controls my radio station.
20. Government is in my telephone.
21. Government controls my telephone company.
22. Government is in my computer.
23. Government is trying to control controls my internet.
24. Government is in my liquor cabinet.
25. Government is in my gun cabinet.
26. Government is in my ammo locker.
27. Government is in my air.
28. Government is in my water.
29. Government is in my back yard.
30. Government is in my lawn mower.
31. Government is in my garden supplies.
32. Government is in my food supply.
33. Government is in my grocery store.
34. Government is in my refrigerator.
35. Government is in my pants.
36. Government is trying to control controls my diet.
37. Government controls my doctor's office.
38. Government controls my hospital.
39. Government controls my medical insurance.
40. Government controls my charities.
41. Government runs my retirement fund.
42. Government controls my parenting.
43. Government is in my kids' school.
44. Government controls my kids' college financing.
45. Government is trying to get into my kids' minds.

From the moment I get up in the morning to the moment I close my eyes at night, practically nothing I use, or touch, or love, is immune from government regulations, mandates and taxes. I can see my liberty diminish by the day. With very few exceptions, only the most trivial decisions are left up to me anymore. After having taken from me all my life, and not being content with spending my kids' future now, they will make sure my kids don't get most of whatever I happen to have left when I die. How is that not oppressive?
There is practically nothing that the government controls or regulates that we do not already have the tools in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to handle on our own.
Send me your suggestions and we'll keep adding them to this list.

Times Sq. bomber sentenced, warns of more attacks

From an article in The Washington Post:

NEW YORK -- The Pakistani immigrant who tried to detonate a car bomb on a busy Saturday night in Times Square accepted a life sentence with a smirk Tuesday and warned that Americans can expect more bloodshed at the hands of Muslims.

"Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun," 31-year-old Faisal Shahzad told a federal judge. "Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow." (Continue reading...)

America's ruling classes and Muslim apologists object strenuously whenever one of us says we are in a religious war. The strange thing is, the people we're in the religious war with, say it all the time -- and I quote, "Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun". I do not think I could put it any more succinctly if I said it myself. How long are we going to ignore this threat, and pretend it does not exist? How far do we take tolerance and diversity? I believe in being tolerant, but I draw the line at cultural suicide.

I know, I know, this guy is a crazed outlier. He would have to be crazy to try to target innocent civilians. There are tons of moderate Muslims. But right up to the time he tried to set off the bomb, he fit the profile of a "moderate Muslim". Well educated, seemingly assimilated, and so on.

The judge cut him off at one point to ask if he had sworn allegiance to the U.S. when he became a citizen last year.

"I did swear, but I did not mean it," Shahzad said.

This illustrates the concept of taqiyya -- religious deception: According to Islamic doctrine, Muslims are allowed to lie to avoid persecution, a right that jihadists use to cover anything to further the cause. So whom can you trust? I would not say, "You cannot trust any Muslim" without them saying it first. Personally, I would advise, "trust but verify" whenever verification is physically possible. Otherwise, you logically cannot trust anything Muslims say about their religion, its objective or their part in it.

Islam is a political system disguised as a religion. In regimes where Sharia law reigns supreme, people become Muslim in name only, simply to avoid persecution and death. In this country, taqiyya suggests that I can't be sure what they're doing.

Objective Truth

If all truth is relative, as post-modernists and 'progressives' believe, then one man's truth-claim is as good as another. But my truth-claim is that truth is objective. Therefore, truth is objective. ~ Q.E.D.

Are 'Progressives' Just a Bunch of Big, Inconsiderate Slobs?

I know it's probably prejudiced of me to generalize, but I have a few data points that show that actions speak louder than words (although the actions are related to the words). Since pictures are worth a thousand words, at 30 frames per second, videos must be worth gigawords.

Here is the aftermath of Barack Obama's immaculation:



I'll go out on a limb here, and assume there weren't a lot of tea party types in attendance. Now here's an article that compares the immaculation with the aftermath of the tea party march on Washington D.C. ... Oh, and here's the aftermath of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally (there is a stack of garbage bags at 0:51, ready for convenient pick-up):



And here's the aftermath of the "One Nation" rally:



Are you picking up a pattern here? 'Progressives' talk a lot about responsibility, protecting the environment, but look what they do to it. They talk a lot about compassion and social justice, but look what they leave for other people to clean up. They're like kids. They want other (more successful) people to take care of them, to provide for them, and clean up after them.

You would think that the "One Nation" rally organizers would have gotten a clue after the Obama immaculation, and at least hired some cleanup staff. Of course, the tea partiers and the "Restoring Honor" crowd cleaned up after themselves. And the D.C. Park Service said they left the area cleaner than they found it. Now, no doubt, the 'progressives' will eventually become embarassed by this comparison, and their "solution" will most likely be in the form of more government regulation and infringement on our right of assembly. They have shown that they can't be trusted to clean up after themselves, so they'll invoke the heavy hand of government to force everybody to do the right thing.

Having volunteered on the Bellingham Tea Party cleanup detail, I can tell you that tea partiers are a tidy crowd. Before our first tea party, I didn't know what to expect, but I was pleasantly surprised to find little or no trash left behind after the event. Since I had to police the area anyway, and I had the trash bag with me, I picked up stuff that was obviously there before the event. We left the place cleaner than we found it. And that my friends, is what we mean by "responsibility". No government regulations required -- just a little respect for others.

Update: More here.

By Their Creator

I sent the following letter to Barack Obama in response to his remarks to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala:

Dear President Obama,

In the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson writes:

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. (Emphasis mine.)

In your remarks to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's 33rd Annual Awards Gala, you quoted this passage, but deliberately omitted the words “by their Creator”. In so doing, you have changed the entire meaning of this important statement. Let me break it down for you.

1. Thomas Jefferson makes a truth-claim: “We hold these truths to be self evident,” meaning that this is a fundamental truth, a given.
2. He goes on to say what his truth-claim is: “that all men are created equal,” meaning that there are no natural-born monarchs, aristocracy or commoners. We are all commoners.
3. Jefferson then further states: “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” meaning that we have birthrights that no government can bestow, and that no government can alienate.
4. Finally, he lists but three: “that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Which is to say, there are many more, of course. The number is, in fact, infinite.

By expurgating “by their creator”, you remove the critically important statement that we have birthrights that no government can bestow, and that no government can alienate, thus paving the way for a statist utopia, or statist hell, more likely.

---

Mr. President, you claim to be a Christian, so I must assume that you believe in God, the Creator. Nevertheless, even if you do not, Humanity exists, so something created us – if not God, then evolution – unless God created evolution … but I digress – we have a creator.

If you want to know what your natural rights are, try this thought experiment: Imagine that you and your family wake up tomorrow morning, naked in the Antarctic wilderness – no government, no society, only your naked bodies. What are your rights? They are infinite. You can do whatever you want. There is no government or anyone else to tell you what to do, or what not to do. You will probably want to exercise your right to find shelter, food and clothing first. You might want to exercise your right to defend yourself against wildlife that would consider you their lunch. Conversely, you might want to consider making the wildlife your lunch. I’m just saying.

The point here is, there is no natural right simply to receive shelter, food and clothing. It is your right – and your responsibility – to work for it by whatever means available, if you wish to survive. Now, for the sake of argument, let us say that you stumble upon a remote settlement of humans. Do they give you food, shelter, or clothing? There is no government to compel them to do so. They might have compassion, or they might think you could help them to survive. Therefore, they might voluntarily decide to help you. However, if you or anyone else tried to take their things by force for your benefit, they would be within their rights to defend themselves against the theft. Now, think again about the proper role of government, and about the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Sincerely,
Karl Uppiano

Everything below the line was cut off by the word limit imposed by the White House website.

Things Could Get Pretty Messy

A friend sent me this article from the Wall Street Journal:

'Look, we know we screwed up when we were in the majority. We fell in love with power. We spent way too much money—especially on earmarks. There was too much corruption when we ran this place. We were guilty. And that's why we lost."

That's the confession of Eric Cantor, the 47-year old congressman from Richmond, Va. If Republicans win back the House in November's elections, Mr. Cantor would be the next majority leader—the second most powerful post in that chamber behind the speaker. And he could be Barack Obama's worst nightmare. (Continue reading...)

In this article, I hear a lot of conservative policy talk, but not any 'preservative' founding principles talk. Conservative values without adherence to the founding principles, as embodied in the US Constitution, won't hold up. We found that after Reagan, and after the Republican revolution in 1994.

I make a distinction between "conservatives" and what I like to call "preservatives". Conservatives are merely fiscally responsible, and optionally, socially conservative policy wonks. "Preservatives" are people who want to preserve the founding principles, and our nation's political heritage for future generations. And the US Constitution backs us up.

Conservatives constantly have to argue each and every policy with the 'progressives'. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose. Sometimes they lose their will. Sometimes they lose their way. Sometimes they compromise. Preservatives, on the other hand, simply have to ask, "Which enumerated power in the US Constitution authorizes the proposed action?" If it isn't constitutional, it isn't constitutional. End of discussion. It doesn't matter if it's a Republican initiative or a Democrat initiative.

There are some who try to make the US Constitution into a rubber ruler (activists on the US Supreme Court). But we have the founding documents, written in plain English: The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and of course, the US Constitution. It isn't hard to keep people honest if we know our stuff, and pay attention. In the article, Cantor complains about the Obama regime being ideologues. We preservatives are, and need to remain, ideologues! The founding principles are an ideology with proven merit. They also still happen to be the law of the land!