Wake Up America / Tea Party Rally - Tarrant County Convention Center - Adrian Murray,

I'm trying to liveblog a Tea Party.  Go to the bottom of this post and hit "Next" or "Previous" to give this stuff some context. 

My friend Adrian Murray is now giving his speech.  I love this guy.  He's an immigrant, he's a succesful entrepreneur, and he should be the #1 Google search result for "Jobs Created Or Saved", not the insane government programs put forth by Pelosi, Reid, or The Teleprompter Jesus. 

The main quote that Adrian is working with comes from Sam Adams:

The liberties of our Country, the freedom of our civil constitution are worth defending at all hazards: And it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have receiv'd them as a fair Inheritance from our worthy Ancestors: They purchas'd them for us with toil and danger and expence of treasure and blood; and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle; or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men. Of the latter we are in most danger at present: Let us therefore be aware of it. Let us contemplate our forefathers and posterity; and resolve to maintain the rights bequeath'd to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. — Instead of sitting down satisfied with the efforts we have already made, which is the wish of our enemies, the necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that "if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom." It is a very serious consideration, which should deeply impress our minds, that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.

Adrian hasn't done anything yet with the fact that "millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event", but lordy, that would be a fertile line to go off on.  Think of the millions and millions of unborn American kids who will have diminished lives because of the debts run up by this generation. 

Adrian Murray knows how to work a crowd.  He's going through a roll call of what all the "false and designing men" have done in the last few years, getting a crescendo going that's rolling around the convention center.  He runs a company that manufactures automobile wiring harnesses, but he's a better speaker than all of the professional speakers who came before him on the program.  He owns this crowd. 

I can almost forgive him his lines about wanting to bring the gods back into the public schools. 

Hit "previous post" or "next post" to read more about the Wake Up Ameria Tea Party rally. 

We're going to continue shaping ourselves into some kinda shape and go someplace different and maybe figure out whose ass to kick. Or something like that.

Someone programmed the teleprompter of The President Of The United States with the following statement, intending for it to be read with great sincerity during a live broadcast about the oil spill:

Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we're unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don't yet know precisely how we're going to get there. We know we'll get there.

Speak for yourself, Barry.  No wonder you don't know whose ass to kick. 

Pic came from here.  Vapidity of the quote was pointed out by Marc Thiessen, among many others.  

There are those who say....I reject the view that....There are those who insist....that Obama's Strawman needs some recognition

Scott Stanzel has taken exception to Time magazine naming noted counterfeiter Ben Bernanke as Person Of The Year.


Who did Stanzel nominate? One of my favorite whipping boys: Barack Obama's Straw Man.

.

Straw Man should be the person of the year. He’s been employed by President Obama so much this year that he is certainly the busiest person in Washington. As the president has advocated his bloated stimulus package, his government intrusion into health care and his plans to return us to a pre-9/11 security mindset by treating terrorists as common criminals, Straw Man has provided the perfect foil for the president’s arguments. Straw Man deserves the Person of the Year recognition, particularly because he is rarely named. Most of the time he is referred to by his nicknames “some say” or “those who say.” Witness how busy Straw Man has been in 2009, as President Obama takes on his greatest hits:

Obama: “There are those who say these plans are too ambitious.”

Obama: “I know some folks on Wall Street who say we should just focus on their problems.”

Obama: “There are those embrace a view that can be summarized in two words: anything goes.”

Obama: “There seem to be a set of folks, and I don’t doubt their sincerity, who just believe we should do nothing.”

Obama: “"I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."

Obama: "A surplus became an excuse to transfer wealth to the wealthy."

Obama: "We have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord."

Obama: “There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences.”

Obama: "Of course, there are some critics, always critics, who say we can't afford to take on these priorities.”

Obama: "A philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."

Straw Man’s influence in Washington is at an all time high. He deserves to be the person of the year.

Brilliant.

Thomas Sowell on Global Cooling, Barack Obama, and Velcro

Please stand for this month's reading from The Gospel According To Saint Thomas....

Economist Thomas Sowell, the smartest man in the world now that Milton Friedman is dead, has given us an assortment of new scriptures to ponder.
As Saint Thomas has grown old, his offerings to his disciples have become shorter, but no less pithy. We should treasure them, ponder them, and hold them in our hearts. I'll begin with his observations on the weather:

New York and Chicago have both recently had their coldest June in generations. If they had had their hottest month, it would have been trumpeted from the media 24/7 by global warming zealots. But the average surface temperature of the earth has not changed in more than a decade, according to the Cato Institute.

This, of course, is true. But as we have often said from this very pulpit, "What profiteth a man from cooling, when the fear of warming hath been shouted from the rooftops?"
Let us continue with the next verse:

Different people have very different reactions to President Barack Obama. Those who listen to his rhetoric are often inspired, while those who follow what he actually does are often appalled.

And yet The False Prophet Of Change still has the support of those who would close the abomination of Gitmo, those who would have us beat our swords into plowshares, and those who would preach marriage to the sodomites (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Saint Thomas continues with another verse:

With Velcro and other modern adhesives available, can't someone design a boxing glove that doesn't require fights to be stopped in the middle of a round so that loose tape can be repaired? Often the break in the action changes the whole tempo of the fight and can affect the outcome.

We must remember that Saint Thomas's ways are not our ways. If he says we need Velcro inside boxing gloves, let us develop Velcro boxing gloves. He's been right about everything else.

The man has spoken.

Thus endeth the reading from The Gospel According To Saint Thomas.

You may be seated.

Those of you interested in other lessons from this sermon series from the writings of Saint Thomas may go here.

One Volokh, Three Nicks, Flannery O'Connor, and passion

I'm going to quote three of my favorite websites in this post. The Volokh Conspiracy, Reason Magazine, and Counting Cats. Read all three of these closely. You will be tested.

Here's The Volokh Conspiracy:

....For libertarians who lean "left" on foreign policy, Obama's rhetoric gave them hope that as president he would fundamentally reassess American foreign policy in the direction of nonintervention, and reverse various national security policies that they felt threatened individual liberty.

....libertarian Obama supporters got the opposite of what they hoped for: a moderate on foreign and national security policy, and someone fundamentally reassessing American economic policy in the direction of bigger government.

Yep, The Teleprompter Jesus has sent an extra 17,000 troops into the sandpile, and you can check the clock to your right to remain updated on how long he's been in charge of the whole mess. And Havana East, or Guantanamo Bay, remains open for business.

Nick Gillespie of "Reason" lays out a rant on the same topic:

Question to the folks, including some of the libertarian persuasion (you fools!), who were bullish on Obama back when the alternative was John McCain, the Terri Schiavo of presidential candidates: When are you going to admit that Barry O stinks on ice?

Here's NickM, from the Counting Cats website, on the British National Party - a "whites only" political organization led by Nick Griffin. The BNP made the mistake of sending NickM a pamphlet comparing their political battles to The Battle Of Britain:

I am English and proud of it. Being English is a state of mind and I absolutely don’t need Nick Griffin’s Brownshorts to remind me of the truth of my birth. To put it bluntly he can go away and be fucked up the council gritter by an alpaca (or whatever other Latin American beast of burden is up for the job and can be hepped-up on PCP).

...OK folks. A poignant image. (The fighter plane in the BNP's pamphlet) Our finest hour and all that. Obviously “Battle for Britain 2009″ is a dismal attempt to compare what Churchill called the struggle to save Christian Civilization to the tawdry political ambitions of a one-eyed Welsh git.

....But that’s the BNP for ya. They might use the symbolism of our finest hour (farcially incorrectly - but what the heck) to their electoral ends but they do not speak for me.

They are in fact abhorrent to me. I am a libertarian and they use one of the free-world’s most potent symbols (and it was also pretty good in a furball) of freedom to espouse insane racism. I am sitting here in my shed in Cheshire with my pale skin and blue eyes and blonde(ish) hair married to a blue-eyed blonde and I am fucking outraged. English is not something you are. It is something that just happens to you. And the BNP bastards will never, ever, take that away from me.

....It is not so much that the BNP are excrable racist hoons (though they are) that I object to. It is the simple fact they’re complete fucking edjits.

Now let's toggle back over to Nick Gillespie of Reason. Trust me, I'm going someplace with all this.

Mega-props to our President Obama for yesterday's speechifying about simplifying and fair-izing the Infernal Revenue Service and all that.

Except for one small nitpicky thing: He's full of shit on this topic. How precisely is he or his Slugger's Row of policy mavens (you know, the idjits who can't even use Turbo Tax) gonna make the income tax more fair? As it stands, the top 1 percent of filers pay 40 percent of all income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; and the top 10 percent pay fully 70 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50 percent (5-0, Dano!) pay a whopping 3 percent of all income tax.

Kind sir, prithee, what the hell are you going to do to remedy this situation? You promise "tax cuts to the Americans who need them." Hey pal, I just shelled out tens of thousands of dollars so Citigroup can keep its fucking name on the 21st century's answer to Shea Stadium. Where in the name of Ray Sadecki and Bob Apodaca is my bailout? (Ray and Bob played for the NY Mets in Shea Stadium - TWS)

Here's my point.
What do you remember about the first quote I copied, the one from The Volokh Conspiracy? Anything? Anything at all? Prob'ly not. The logic was flawless, the grammar was flawless, and the tone was polite. But it had no passion. The person who wrote it doesn't have any blood in his mouth.

Nick Gillespie is another story. What tax preparation software did Tim Geithner use for his falsified tax returns? What company is using your tax dollars to put its name on which baseball stadium? What percentage of income taxes are paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers? And John McCain was called the ____ ______ of presidential candidates. I bet you remember most of what was written.

Or the NickM rant... Where does NickM live? What is Nick Griffin's nationality? What Latin American Beast Of Burden would NickM encourage to have unnatural relations with Nick Griffin?

One week soon I might stage a series of Sweet-16 basketball playoff style brackets between NickM of Counting Cats and Nick Gillespie of Reason magazine. Points would be awarded based on logic, creativity, disdain for The Remaining Sheeple, and contempt for Messianic Big Brotherism.

A lot of people object to the snarky tone used on the internet. Profanity is the rule rather than the exception.

But dang it, Barack Obama is raising the troop levels in the Middle East when he promised he wouldn't. He promised to Guantanamo Bay, and he probably won't. He's spending money at a rate that makes little Bush, Daddy Bush, and Grandpaw Reagan look miserly. He's still claiming that your taxes won't go up as a result.

Nick Gillespie is the one of the few print journalists brave enough to point out the obvious: Barack Obama is full of shit. He really is.

Is Nick Griffin a one-eyed Welsh git, as NickM claims? I have no freakin' clue. I didn't know anything about the BNP until tonight. But NickM hasn't led me astray yet, and NickM has now made me want to know more.

(I apologize for the overwhelming number of people named "Nick" in this post. It just worked out that way.)

Nick Gillespie and NickM are alarmed. Fire alarms don't have a snooze button. Paul Revere didn't ride from Boston to Lexington politely whispering so as not to wake the baby.

"I use the grotesque the way I do because people are deaf and dumb and need help to see and hear." — Flannery O'Connor

How To Spot A Bad Argument

This is from Johann Hari, writing in "The Independent" :

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument - when you can't justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands - you snap back: "But what about x?"

You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it - hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

So whenever I report on, say, atrocities committed by Israel, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about the bad things done by Muslims? Why do you never talk about them?" Whenever I report on the atrocities committed by Islamists, I am bombarded with e-mails saying: "But what about Israel? Why do you never write about the terrible things they do?" And so it goes on, whatever the subject, in an endless international shifting of blame, united in the cry: "What about them! Talk about them instead!".....

The best way to respond to what-aboutery is to state a simple truth. Say it slowly: there can be more than one bad thing in the world. You can oppose American atrocities, and Chinese atrocities. You can be critical of Israel, and of Islamism. You can condemn Dubai's system of slavery, and the fact people are detained without trial in Britain. You can stand independent of governments - including your own - and criticize anyone who chooses to abuse human rights. The world is not divided into a Block of Light, and a Block of Darkness; you don't have to pick a tribe and defend its every action.

So whenever you hear the cry "But what about?!", you can reply: what about we ignore this crude attempt to change the subject, and focus on the subject in hand?

Graph of Bad Argument from here

I'm The Strawman, Part 2

I'm getting tired of The Teleprompter Jesus calling me out during his speeches....



For starters, there are plenty of people who think the government should be doing a lot less. Stating that fact after the idiocy of the past two weeks seems unnecessary.

But can the man not advocate a position without his now-patented "There are those who say...." fill-in-the-blank horse manure?
"There are those who say.... that we should allow orphans to starve, but I say we should spend two trillion dollars on orphan programs in Senator Dodd's district."
"There are those who say.... that we should use Canada for nuclear target practice, but I say we should send Canada a really nice card this year."
"There are those who say.... that I have too much faith in Tim Geithner, but I say 'Heck of a job, Timmy."

And on and on and on.

I'm The Strawman

What is a Strawman? What is a Strawman argument?
A "Strawman" argument, according to Freethoughtpedia, is a classic logical fallacy where a person manufactures a caricature (usually a misinterpretation or oversimplification) of his opponent's argument, and then sets out to attack or dismiss the exaggeration. i.e. Building a straw man and then knocking it down.
This is a very dishonest line of argument, since a person puts words into his opponent's mouth then ridicules them.

President Obama has received a lot of criticism in the last two weeks for relying on Strawman arguments.

Here's Jay Cost at the RCP Horserace Blog:

Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago.

As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been said in Congress, is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing.

Mr. Cost then goes on to claim that no one genuinely advocates that position!

Another example....Here's Karl Rove writing in the Wall Street Journal:

On Tuesday night, Mr. Obama told Congress and the nation, "I reject the view that . . . says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."

Rove then goes on to state "Who exactly has that view? Certainly not congressional Republicans, who believe that through reasonable tax cuts, fiscal restraint, and prudent monetary policies government contributes to prosperity."

(Can ANYONE tell me what Republicans are supposed to know and believe about "fiscal restraint and prudent monetary policies" ????)

Jay Cost and Karl Rove are badly mistaken when they accuse Obama of rhetorical trickery in these cases.

I hold the view, along with many other libertarians, that most of the government should call in sick for the next six to twelve months. Take some time off. Since they are incapable of doing no harm, the least they could do for us is nothing.

Please. Do nothing.

Not only is President Obama's argument not a rhetorical "Straw Man", but he's basically daring the spineless Republicans to advocate what a few of them know to be right.

And the Republicans are now claiming that nothing of the sort has ever crossed their minds.

Amazing.