Purdue Review time! Joy!

As I so subtly hinted in my very first entry I'm not the biggest fan of the Purdue Review. It's essentially the literary equivalent of the cat-lady from the Simpsons.


So in my first specific fight with them I'm jumping straight into their courageous, front page coverage of those noble tea party losers patriots.

From Scott Sowers' article:

They [the media and far left] say
that we don’t know our history; we’re
sore-losers, void of ideas that will
move the country in the right direction;
we just hate Barack Obama; and
most importantly, we’re all a bunch
of racist, gun-totin’ red necks. They
know us so well.

Hey! We agree!!

Sowers actually argues in his article that the observation he pins on us crazy lefties and our media "couldnt be farther from the truth" and that the tea parties were not partisan efforts (he suggests John McCain was void of ideas, another point on which we agree) and were about government being fiscally irresponsible and getting too big.

Hmmm, lets take a look at the Indy and Purdue tea parties:





This is from the Indy tea party. Yep, no Obama hatin gun toters here.





"No one was advocating a violent revolution". These guys were just advocating a different type of revolution that involves crosshairs and rifles.









I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. How could you miss the clear fiscal responsibility, pro-freedom, smaller government message here? (BTW, this guy needs to check out the Treaty of Tripoli)







Hmmm, I seem to recall Darth Dick Cheney calling a 51% win a "mandate" and our beloved President Bush essentially sharing that interpretation. (from the Purdue tea party)



You know, if I didn't know better, I'd think this person (CCAV whackjob-in-chief Naomi Whittaker) seems to be taking issue with being called an extremist (she was just standing next to someone suggesting violent revolution!) more than making some statement about spending or the size of government.








This one is far and away my favorite. Let's start with "I am we the people" girl. I think if she read past the first clause of the preamble and read the whole "in order to..." part she just might find some type of list of the different reasons why we're plagued by that ever-so-evil federal government.

"Legalize the Constitution" wtf does that even mean? I don't really follow but let's assume for a second that the Constitution is somehow magically not currently legal. Let's legalize again, starting with Article I section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries...

...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

or perhaps you were thinking of the 16th Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

You meant that part too right?

Yeah, I'm sure you did.

Hey since you're such a defender of the Constitution, I know you'll be demanding Bush administration officials face trial right? Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Or does this not fit your definition of cruel or unusual?

Oh, and if you think its not, well that's simply unamerican of you.