Dallas Tea Party - City Hall Plaza

Bob's Nephew....it was a feeling to remember, I'm sure. And we're only getting started, this is a coalition of the patriotic, and something the Left could only dream about. In fact, I'm sure behind closed doors this causing some real concern. They aint seen nothing yet, wait till the Fourth of July....great pics by the way, and now we know who you are!!! :)

It surely was a great time. It's only the beginning. We're going to put in some effort to see that this movement grows. We want the Fourth of July to be a real celebration of TRUE patriotism.

Glad you were able to bring us such good ones. Hopefully this isn't the last of the movement. I don't think it is. Let's hope it translates in 2010!

the New Media. This is a tangible result of the new communication between citizens. The Enemedia is on the downswing, and it's killing them.

Wasn't it a great feeling to be there with like-minded Radical Right Wing Neo Nazi Extremeists? I loved ours in Tennessee. Can't wait till Independence day.

Thanks for your dedication and patriotism and the view from Dallas.

Say ya'll really know how to put on a protest, BMU. Thanx for the pic of you as well. I must say, you look like you write.

You and Garnet must have had a really good time amongst all those no-good extremist nuts.

(Like Dallas, but spent much more time in Houston on business. Ya'll have a lot of space down there.)

What a great day, Bob`s Nephew! Nice photos! You know that now we are all branded as right wing extremists, the movement can only grow! People love to be "renegades"! Your cartoon sign looks fantastic larger than life! Good work!

Very Nice...And I Love the cartoon!! I'll be posting a video today of the Chicago party...

That's what we're shooting for. And 2012, and 2014, and 2016. That should clear out the dead wood.

That's US, my friend. And we have met the enemy, and they is: the NYTimes, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., and they are going down!

it was a wonderful time. One thing about it, you didn't have to feel anyone out with questioning. Everyone was there for the same reason, the same purpose. To make our voices heard, even though they are not listening. I know you didn't meant it that way, but I don't want to identify as neo-nazi's. The nazi's were socialists and we're agin' 'em.

The Dallas crowd was really great. There was no misbehavior at all. All good citizens voicing their opinion.
I asked a Dallas cop on duty as I was leaving, "Did you get the DHS warning about Right Wing Extremists?" He replied, "We sure did. I think I'm on the watch list, too." I said, "Me too, brother, me too."

I had a lot of fun carrying that cartoon around and explaining to people, "It's 75 years old. We've been here before. This "hope and change" stuff is NOTHING NEW. Just different faces."
And possibly a populace with less real information.

I look like I write! LOL. That is just too funny!

Thanks for coming by again. I'll be looking for your video post. To me, that cartoon speaks volumes. The lady standing next to me in the photo actually had a copy of it pasted on the other side of her poster. I wanted her to turn it around for the pic, but she liked that side best. Several people told me they had seen it on the internet.
Many others, (mostly younger folks), could not believe that it had been published 75 years ago.

I hadn't read G92's new post thoroughly, so I had not seen or heard anyone use the neo-nazi term about us. I still don't want to give anyone satisfaction by using the term.

Bob's nephew.

BTW, I believe the "renactor" was portraying Thomas Jefferson (because of the red hair).

500,000 to 1,000,000 across the US is a good start. We need the 4th of July TEA Parties to be at least double this.

Davecat is correct. The MSM is "fit to bust" as they become more and more unimportant.

Great Job and Pics!!

You and Garnet did a great job!!

For a change the Libs can depend on!!! Go 2010!!

I can see why that cartoon sign was a big hit!
Folks attending the Tea Parties understand the importance of history in light of current times.

Pretty cool that you were able to meet up with Garnet92.

Thanks for the report and pictures, I did hear a few speakers from the Dallas Tea Party on other sites, they were inspiring.

God Bless America!

I think our Founders would be proud and apprehensive at the same time. Even Ben Franklin denoted our form of government as "a Republic, if you can keep it". I fear that we are in a time of testing where "keeping it" is in the balance.

G92 and I enjoyed ourselves. It was so great to be among so many True Patriots. Afterward we went and got a bite to eat and a beer. A great American tradition.

I think one of the reasons that cartoon was such a hit, is because it relates an essay full of material in very few words. We've been in a place very like this before. If we resist now, we may be able to throw off the oppression that is being instituted.

Can't see the pics on my gummint computer...will try again when I get home.

Wish I could have joined y'all and seen Brother Davis fire up the crowd! Was there a big event in Foat Wuth?

Dadgum gummint computers!! Yeah, Foat Wuth had a big T-Party at La Grave Field. Governor Perry was keynote at that one. He was making big noises about the 10th Amendment there. Read the DMN story I linked on my blog page. It has something about the FW event, too.

great pics! The tea parties were a great time and we were heard by our leaders. Like I've told others, let's hope we planted a seed in a few, hopefully to take off and grow into what "we the people" are feeling right now. The media downplayed it and resented that there are many who disagree with whats going on, but we were heard! Pray 2010 and 2012 take a turn for the better! Fiscal responsibility and common sense seem better than hope and change.

One of the most "heart warming" stories I heard from a TEA Party was about that Republican pol who voted for TARP, Bailouts, Stimulus, and the Obama Budget, got up to speak and was roundly booed. *sniff* *choke*

Congrats on a very successful day and Great pics! I hope I will be able to attend the next Tea in the Tampa BAy area, I had to work and could not get off :(

Though I disagree with them, it is good for our democracy for the conservatives to loudly voice their opinions regarding what our gov't is doing. The Left has been doing that but we don't have the numbers. In the meantime, the liberal democrats are playing the role of the silent majority.

But here is what I disagree with. The governor of Texas expressed it best, those at the Tea parties TEND to identify themselves and those who agree with them as real Americans. Those Americans who have different views are relegated to having a non-contributory or even dangerous place in this country. Remember that a majority of people voted for Barack. You will have to persist in making your case to get results. In addition, remember the plight of the anti-war protesters. THat is even though most of the people wanted the Iraq war to end during Bush's last years in office, he didn't listen at all.

In addition, do you really mean taxed enough already? Tax rates are not significantly different than they were under Bush and they are less than what they have been under other presidents. If you really felt that you had been taxed enough enough already, why didn't you have these parties sooner?

Finally, what many conservatives suggest we should do with economically strapped corporations and financial institutions has been tried before by other Republican Presidents. Hoover relied on the market fixing itself and so he didn't respond much to the crash of '29. In addition, it is what the republican born and bred wife says now, it is the republicans who put us in this mess. So, she asks, why should we listen to them now?

"the liberal democrats are playing the role of the silent majority".

meanwhile, the Far Left is in control of the government dragging us over a Socialist cliff.

"Remember that a majority of people voted for Barack."

Actually a majority of VOTERS voted for Barack, many of whom are now expressing regret and disagreement with his policies. "They didn't think he would go this far!"

"most of the people wanted the Iraq war to end during Bush's last years"

True, but most people wanted to go to Iraq in 2001-2002, then the democrats started to nay-say the whole operation that many of them voted for. Don't give me "Bush lied". All major intelligence was in agreement and the danger Sadam Hussein posed is still evident. He HAD WMD. He USED it. And he refused to cooperate with inspectors to verify that it was destroyed. He even lied, saying that he still had it. It is evident that he intended to reconstitute his programs after the sanctions were dismissed. Once in a war, it should not be ended by declaring your own defeat when we were clearly winning.

"do you really mean taxed enough already?"

Indeed I do. Government is too big, tries to do too much, and takes too much of my money. Massive deficit spending by this government and also by George Bush, WILL result in higher taxes down the road to pay for it. It will result in high rates of inflation because it's phony money. Printing presses are running overtime.

"the republicans who put us in this mess. So, she asks, why should we listen to them now?"

Couldn't agree more. Republicans who bowed to pressure to bailout companies that made bad decisions and are in danger of going under do not have my support. Read my blogs, I am probably more critical of Republicans than I am of Democrats, because I expect some degree of common sense out of them, though often disappointed. I don't expect much of that from Democrats, therefore not disappointed when they do obey their ideology.

The fact that you think of Barack as far left means that you have clue what a far left person is like.

Examples
Far left-
1. single payer health care
2. Complete withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes for the invasion itself, not just the torture
4. Real nationalization included with bailouts where employees direct corporations through democratic processes.


Do you see where Barack falls short of far left?

Finally, the available evidence did not point conclusively toward Saddamn having such weapons. That is a bush/cheney/conservative lie. We had inspectors on the ground who were saying that our allegations were not proved. These inspectors asked for more time. We kicked them out with our invasion. Much of our intelligence came from sources not vetted. Other countries did not agree with bush cheney assessment of Saddamn.

Finally, read what I said about the conservative reaction to our financial meltdown. Conservatives suggest the same solution that Hoover employed in 1929. That failed. Did you want to fail again? I hasten to add that Barack's attempts are still oriented around the investor and corporations--the same parties who financed his campaign.

My "midweek" is terribly busy so have not had time to respond, 'til now.
You wrote, "The fact that you think of Barack as far left means that you have clue what a far left person is like.
Examples
Far left-
1. single payer health care
2. Complete withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq
3. Charge Bush and Cheney with war crimes for the invasion itself, not just the torture
4. Real nationalization included with bailouts where employees direct corporations through democratic processes.
Do you see where Barack falls short of far left?"

Actually I do "have clue" about the far left. If you have heard any of the news of the last week, #3 is well in progress, at least in threat form, #1 is being pushed by Obama Admin. & Dem. Congress #4 I see nationalization (control) of banks and auto companies, but "democratic processes" be dam*ed. #2 Maybe BHO sees the practicality of staying to prevent the certain ensuing holocaust.

The inspectors had 2 years to find a needle in a haystack, with Saddam lying and obfuscating the entire time. The 911 Commission showed that he had the INTENT to reconstitute his WMD programs once the "sanctions" were done. He enriched himself off of dealings with the CORRUPT United Nations (Oil for Food) and paid kickbacks to UN officials and corrupt international entities to thwart the sanctions and thumb his nose at the world and US.
Fact: Over 500 tons of yellowcake uranium was found in Iraq and removed by the US.

Last for 10+ years? Because Government becoming huge and bloated and massive deficit spending to "stimulate" the economy DOES NOT WORK!! Only when the private sector recovers and begins to prosper, does the economy begin to recover. Most people do not want to work for the government. When the gov't owns all means of production, the gov't controls the people. Freedom and Liberty are not part of this scenario.

First, the lie claim. THat is not the testimony of the inspectors. Some of the UN inspectors were Americans. And btw, the yellowcake you mentioned implies nothing. It certainly wasn't weapons grade and they had no resources or capabilities to make the yellowcake weapons grade.

And btw, there was corruption with part of the UN program but not all of it. We do know that the corruption was not with the weapons inspectors, unless of course you count Clinton's attempts to use the inspections to spy on Iraq. And even with the oil for food program, the fault did not lie with the head administrators of the program and the fault lied both ways. The UN leaders in charge of the program called the sanctions genocidal and a war against the Iraqis. Of of the UN leaders making this charge was an American.

Next, if you had been following Obama at all you would realize that he isn't pushing a single payer system. Rather his plan funnels business to the major health insurance corporations.

Finally, the crash in 1929 came from massive deregulation, a highly speculative stock market, and tax cuts. Again, Hoover followed the advise of his chief economic adviser who claimed that the market would correct itself. It didn't. And though FDR's program did not end the depression, it eased unemployment until he reversed his policies at the behest of conservatives.

does not constitute a LIE!!!
ALMOST EVERYBODY, even many of the inspectors, believed that Saddam had WMD. They found small caches of them. (That's called EVIDENCE). Saddam, himself, also kept giving that impression to the world. He did not document their destruction or depletion as was required by the surrender resolution.

The 911 Commission gives the entire story if you read more than just the parts that say "there was no WMD". He HAD them, he USED them, we did not know what he DID with them after Desert Storm since we did not go into Baghdad with troops at that time. Since he had 2 years after GW Bush came into office and could no doubt see Iraqi Freedom coming, he had plenty of time to "dispose" of the contraband weapons. Some say he sent them to the friendly regime in Syria. We know there were large convoys traveling the road that direction prior to the invasion.

Somehow, I think you trust Saddam Hussein's words over our own government's. That is the trouble with you on the Left. Like BHO, you think worse of your own country than you do of rogue, anti-American dictatorships. (Castro, Chavez, Ortega). Yes, there are pro-American dictatorships, but you guys only love the ones that hate us. Somehow that makes them "Righteous".

What the hell is yellowcake for, dumba$$?

Why not look up all of the uses of yellowcake. It needs to be refined but not refining produces weapons grade material. And again, they had no capacity for refining the yellowcake. It seems like you are too eager to justify the invasion.

And again, your statement on Iraq was not true. Some of those inspectors had been dealing with Iraq for years and were familiar with both Iraqi actions and US efforts to sabotage the inspections. Not even our our own intelligence agencies believed that it was certain that Iraq had WMDs. The concern was legitimate because there was a possibility but the certainty was wrong.

BTW, who I trust the most in this matter are the inspectors who were there and their views are well documented. Your cheap shot shows how much you lack objectivity here.

Didn't you know, yellowcake is used for Jelly Roll! It astounds me how ignorant and dense the Left is. The Template is all they see. Don't confront evil, and keep your morals relative, so you can appease and cower before your enemies.

I believe that condemning others for doing what you yourself do is the epitome of moral relativity. And why not prove that yellowcake can only be used for weapons and why not prove that Iraq, despite the statements made by the weapons inspectors, had the capability to make weapons grade material from the yellowcake.

The difference in morals between the left and the right here is that the right claims that the left cannot see the evil in our enemies while the left claims that the right can't see the evil in themselves. I got news for you, the left does see the evil in our enemies but we also know that for each set of evil works, there is a context that should help determine our response.

Let me ask the question in a slightly different way.

What would be the purpose of having 500 metric tonnes of yellow cake uranium, (IF you are an evil, oppressive, megalomaniacal dictator, with a history of agressing on his neighbor nations, Iran and Kuwait, killing some hundreds of thousands of his own citizens with poison gas, torture, rape, shooting practice, etc., who has made statements of wishing to destroy the US and Israel, a la Ahmadenijad, and generally spouting hatred of the West in general and the US and Israel in particular, and an expressed desire to have a nuclear weapons program)?
I don't think Saddam Hussein was interested in manufacturing X-Ray machines with the "refined" uranium.

You on the Left always want to divorce the actions of the US from any provocation made by the object of our actions. That makes no sense to me.

Thanks for playing. Jelly Roll! LOL, too funny.

If the question is about preferring Saddamn to be the leader of any country, let alone Iraq, we all share the same sentiments.

But there is more than one issue here. That is issue is whether the ends can survive the means--in terms of both the immediate effects on Iraq and the US and the future consequences.

The future consequences included the precedent we set for other nations (see Russia's invasion of Georgia), the resentment and resulting terrorist attacks on our troops from an increased pool of terrorist recruits, and an increase in worldwide terrorism. And did I forget the weakening of our economy because of military and war expenditures? With each unilateral action, international law becomes more and more mute and with that, our chances to survive, according to Dwight Eisenhower, become dimmer and dimmer.

Basically, you argue against our invasion of Iraq and deposing Saddam because of the "example" we set for the Russians and the costs incurred in fighting the war.
1. The hardliners Putin and Medvedev do not need any example from us to have agressed on their independent neighbor, Georgia. Georgia was under the Soviet thumb for many years and only after the Soviet breakup did they attain autonomy, independence and some freedom. Russia was just trying to reassert itself. And do you remember anything about major oil and gas pipelines going throught Georgia? Also, the government there was pro-American, so I'm sure that was reason enough.
2. The cost of the Obama Administration in just 3 months has far exceeded the entire cost of the Iraq War. I will not defend Bush's TARP bailout bill. To me that was just a kickoff for Obama to run touchdown with. All we are getting for the government outlays are government control of private banking and industry. And they do not seem interested in relinquishing that control by allowing banks to pay back the TARP funds.

"Increased pool of terrorists"? Well I'm not sure how you know this, but it seems to me that when you kill a terrorist, he becomes dead, and is not able to carry out any more terrorism. If you kill enough of them, as we did in Iraq, it becomes very discouraging to be a terrorist. It seems to me that lately, (since the Iraq War) there has been less terrorism in other parts of the world, though more in Iraq, cause that's where the battle is joined.

of yellowcake if you want my opinion---he is pulling the same junk over at my place-I guess he just lives for the conflict. Hang in there Bob's Nephew---truth is a solid rock that never moves--it is truly sad that ole caday here is moving all the time.

Someone once said, "Pinning down a liberal is like trying to nail Jello to the wall"

Let me save C5 the energy instead of furiously typing away at us mean, evil rightwing extremists.

Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah, Blah, blaah, blah....All hail the State.

it is so sad that many in congress (as far as true priciples are conserned) have that substance for a backbone!!

Yeah--his bubble was burst a looong time ago. The trouble is he is still tring to travel on a flat tire. Tooo sad.

The argument against invading Iraq is that we need to follow international law. Without that, what you have is one free for all after another which, in the end, will lead to the use of WMDs. Once that starts, we could easily reach the end. This is not my opinion alone, this has been stated by Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, JFK, and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

International law does provide procedures by which a country could justify the use of force but those procedures involve accountability to the international community rather than telling the world that we are right and they have to take it. That approach is nothing more than rule of force.

What I see you write is that our use of force is right whereas the use of force by others who do not have our approval is wrong. It is simple moral relativity. If we wish to be the moral light to the world, then we must apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others (Romans 2:1).

Also, with regards to Russia and comparing their invasion of Georgia with our invasion of Iraq, first they did not overthrow the Georgian gov't and try the leader for a crime they were not involved in though they were involved in other crimes committed by that leader and their troops were attacked by Georgian troops prior to their invasion. Their invasion did not take the lives of up to 1.2 million Georgians and did not displace 4.7 others. Certainly Russia is led by thugs but their crimes have not touched the international arena like ours have.

Finally, with regards to Obama, unlike the Democratic liberals, few from the left have been fooled by Obama's opposition to Bush's war in Iraq. Obama never took a principled stand against the war, noted by Street and Chomsky, neither has he opposed American Exceptionalism. If Bush and Cheney goes on trial, it will only be for crimes they committed that Obama avoids but not for crimes they share.

When all you can do is ridicule you have to ask if you are guilty of what you accuse others of and what have you proved?

Can you point to the Constitution that embodies International Law? What individual rights are enumerated in such a document? And how are rogue nations to be punished under this Law? By whom was this document ratified, and what effect does this have on the Constitution of the United States of America? Does the "International Law" abrogate the laws of my country and its ability to protect and defend its people? Does it abrogate my individual right to protect my life and property against evil and harm? And must we allow rogue states to hide behind "International Law", and continue threatening behavior and actions, which if left unchecked will surely result in harm to their neighbors, ourselves, and the entire world?
You claim my view to be "moral relativism". Yours leaves us with moral ambiguity. Even if the U.N. is your standard, it had issued 14 resolutions against Iraq, none of which had teeth. The members of the Security Council were all benefit recipients of the "Oil for Food" program, so, they were not willing to do away with their cash-cow, and would not agree to stronger language. Sometimes you have to do what is right. The world will never agree to that.

Perhaps you might want to consult what the Constitution says about ratified treaties because the UN Charter was ratified by our gov't.

And if by rogue nations, you include the US, then we have a dilemma. Because we are the world's leading rogue nation and we are the most powerful nation, it puts the international community back to square 1 where the world lives by the rule of force. And again, we can even go to what Eisenhower expressed in the '60's when he said that the Civilized World's only hope is to live by the rule of law, not the rule of force.

Finally, if you were that concerned with international law, you would be more concerned with the over 30 UN resolutions that Israel has broken. And yet, no one suggests a unilateral invasion of Israel. Again, the last pre-invasion UN resolution regarding Iraq was that material breaches regarding weapons was to be deliberated on by the UN. And again, if you are so concerned about UN resolutions, you would be concerned that our unilateral invasion violated resolution 1440, especially since the inspection team found no material breaches regarding weapons. Our justification for the invasion was that, according to Rumsfeld, we knew where the weapons were. Later, our own gov't had to backtrack on that statement.

to tell the truth. So has Bob's nephew but truth is not what you seek. Tell me caday- who is REALLY doing the ridiculing when it is you who continues to drag out issues sowing your little seeds of strife along the way?

I saw this morning that Harry "greed" wrote a book--I wonder if it will make a good doorstop!

UN Charter ratified. OK, does the UN Charter then abrogate and suspend the Constitution? I don't think so. You on the Left would love nothing better than that. The Constitution gives me the right to "keep and bear arms". It gives me the right to oppose and speak against the government, oppose policy, and lobby for redress.
But Liberal Judges and Liberal Politicians are doing their best to shred the Constitution, especially it's delineated individual rights.

You know I am not including the U.S. as a rogue nation. We have defined human and individual rights to the world, yet you refuse to acknowlege that. In invading Iraq, there was more in consideration than WMD, and YOU KNOW IT! There was a hazard in having Saddam Hussein in control of a large portion of the world's oil reserves. There was a great hazard to the Iraqi people as we have found out in uncovering of mass graves, rape rooms, torture facilities, (far worse things than "water-boarding" were done in those places.) You apparently believe in "moral equivalency" where you see no difference between Saddam's regime and our own. Allow me to take your view for a minute: The North should never have gone to war with the South in the Civil War, since there was no moral superiority. They were equal. There was no difference. There was torture and the trampling of rights on both sides. There. Feel better?

Yeah, you got me there. I am not concerned with international law, especially the tomfoolery that comes out of the UN.

C5 was starting to make me sleepy.

No prob. Have you noticed that ole caday here just goes back to old failed arguements and he thinks we will not remember tactics like that--pity. He is putting his trust in a failed UN as well as a failed Socialist worldview.

Is citing history the same as ridiculing others?

Your 2nd amendment rights do not give you permission to wage wars of aggression against others.

Also, Constitutional compliance does not imply international law was followed. Plus, ratified treaties, according to the Constitution, become the law of the land. So how does a treaty that prohibits wars of aggression abrogate Constitution?

Finally, the issue isn't what rights we define, the issue is whose rights we observe. We prosecuted terrorist wars against other countries and overthrown democratic gov'ts and replaced them with dictators. In Iraq, we prosecuted a war of aggression which is the supreme international crime according to the Nuremberg Principles.

So Bob, we have our faults and I am not talking about mere mistakes. We have exhibited plenty of moral failures especially when using our Intelligence and Military against other countries.

To answer your question--YES. When the history is nothing more than a regurgition of lessons long past learned. also when one does not look past his nose to see truth he is overlooking-like the failure of Socialism no matter where it is tried.

When you say that socialism has always failed, you are denying that you learned from history as well as the present.

In addition, can you list the lessons you learned from what I have cited? I mean, who in the world would say the retelling of 9-11 is merely a regurgitation of lessons learned; and yet, many of our actions have killed far more people than were killed on 9-11. If we want to learn from history, it is best to read it and discuss it more than once--especially when we want to trash others for their sins.