Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Seen on Michelle Malkin's Site

erm....  I don't know what to say.  This is a screenshot I just took as I went to Michelle Malkin's site.

As an aside, Ms Malkin and her family continue to be in my prayers, and a thank you to Mr Doug Powers who continues to post there during this trying period.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Maxine Waters wants to debate? Really?

The link:  http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2012/06/23/maxine-waters-tea-party-bring/74676/

" She was cheered when she said, “After a good night sleep, I wake up the next day, and I say, ‘Come on, Tea Party, let’s get it on.’” " (Link is Denver Post's and is left intact.) "

Well, Ms Waters, be careful what you ask for.  I'd debate you in a New York second ... but there must be some ground rules:

2) You will not pick up the "RAAAAACIST" card
3) You will not pick up the "Sexist" card
4) You will not pick up the "Stupid" card
5) You will not pick up the Demagogue card.

6) Each of us will leave the "talking points" at home.

If you can manage to do that, I'll debate you.  But the instant you pick up just one of those cards (and if you fit the typical liberal profile, it'll be a few seconds in) you'll have proven yourself to be part of the problem.

Here's what I have to say to you:  "You could not seriously debate somebody without reaching for at least two of those cards.  It would be impossible."

Now how about it?

Emily Mortimer - Tea Party is "lunatic fringe."

Emily Mortimer – Tea Party is “lunatic fringe.”
“I can remember when Bush got in for the second time, just feeling like so much of the problem about the way that politics go here is that people are improperly informed. That they didn’t know that they had been lied to, or they didn’t understand exactly to what extent they had been, and they still thought that there were weapons of mass destruction. “
She must’ve gotten her talking points from Michael Moore – that mis-guided film-maker who, confronted with the facts that Mr Bush had been mis-informed about the WMDs (all intelligence up to that point said there were WMDs in Iraq) out and out called him a liar – well.  Delusional?
“I’m going to sue your sorry ass Mr Birosh!”
“No doubt for definition of character.”
Not to out-do herself, Ms Mortimer wasn’t done yet!  “You can’t rely on getting the facts, or getting them presented in a way that is actually objective and makes sense and puts people in a position where they can make informed decisions about who to vote for. It’s just over-sensationalized and, as our show keeps pointing out, one of the big problems is that they act like there’s just two definite sides to every discussion — and that’s just not necessarily the case, but it feeds into the way this country has just become completely polarized. This Tea Party is presented on the television as the viable alternative instead of like a lunatic fringe. “
Well, Ms Mortimer, let’s examine this.  MSNBC doctored the Trayvon Martin 911 tape to make Mr Zimmerman appear racist.(*)  In the edited tape, they had Mr Zimmerman appear to state without being asked that Mr Martin was black.  After the backlash, they had to admit that the tape was “edited for time” … and state that Mr Zimmerman answered a police dispatcher question.  So … are you still going to say that the media is objective?  Really?  They “edited” the tape due to “time constraints” and edited out 5 seconds of him answering a dispatcher’s question.  Yeah, that’s really objective Ms Mortimer. 
How about Mr Romney’s “Wa-Wa” tape?  Again, edited by MSNBC “due to time constraints” the edited version and the unedited version are very very different. (*2)  (Note here that I’ve selected two liberal outlets to make my point for me.)
No doubt it was “fake but accurate.”  Rathergate, anybody?
But what gets me is where Ms Mortimer says “…one of the big problems is that they act like there’s just two definite sides to every discussion – and that’s just not necessarily the case…”
Really?  It wasn’t until “just a blogger” pointed out that the Trayvon Martin tape and the Mitt Romney tapes were edited that the story changed.  Ms Mortimer, are you absolutely certain that the news media is telling the entire story without distortion or concealment?  Really?
Here’s the entire tape of Mr Romney’s remarks.(*3)
And then the “lunatic” part.  I thought we weren’t supposed to be calling names Ms Mortimer.  Or is it just that you’ve fallen into the liberal “holier-than-thou” dung?  If you’re going to apply those rules to me you can be damn sure I will apply them to you.  Otherwise, it’s hypocrisy(*4), isn’t it?
But what, pray tell, was the word I used to describe another liberal’s thinking?
Remember Janeane Garofalo on MSNBC speaking about the Tea Party Movement? She herself said it. “Let's be very honest about what this is about. This is not about bashing Democrats. It's not about taxes. They have no idea what the Boston Tea Party was about. They don't know their history at all. It's about hating a black man in the White House. That is racism straight up. This is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.[21] “ (Links are Wikipedia’s and are left intact.)

So, according to her, I don’t know my history, and the reason I dislike Mr Obama is because he’s black. Well, it’s so very nice to know that Ms Garofalo knows what’s in my mind and my heart. She can conceive of no other possible answer. It’s not because I dislike Mr Obama’s policies, again according to her. It’s not because he’s surrounded himself with socialists and Marxists (a la Van Jones, a self-confessed Communist) it simply must be, again according to her, because he’s black.

There is a word for that. But first, the definition from dictionary.com: “a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion”
“Yes, the word is delusional. Note that I’m not calling her a name, I’m describing her reasoning. Yes, the first part certainly fits, doesn’t it? The race card has been debunked how many times now? Yet they still reach for it. Believe it or not, but they’re part of the problem too. “
I would invite you to debate me, if I weren’t already convinced it would be an exercise in futility.  You would, in very short order, reach for one of the liberal’s favourite playing cards.
Perhaps I’m not the only one to blame?  Now how about it?

Sunday, June 24, 2012

Dr James Lovelock, godfather of global warming, tells the truth.

One word … wow.  If I were wearing a hat, I’d take it off and doff it to him.  Come to think of it, and based on what he said, I think I might put my baseball cap on and then doff it to him.  Wow.
“ Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change. “
All I can say is “wow.”  Unlike many in the ‘global warming is entirely man-made’ movement, Dr Lovelock doesn’t have a political science degree.  Dr Lovelock’s degree is in something directly related to the matter in question, and many of his inventions are used by NASA, among others. 
In the article, Dr Lovelock states that we really don’t know what the climate is doing.  As I wrote on 22-MAY-2008, “The simple truth is that since our climate models break down, we don't know exactly what's going to happen in the future. 
Our climate models tend to break down in rather spectacular fashion when we get to the upper atmosphere, since we frankly don’t know what goes on up there.
But then Dr Lovelock goes “off the reservation” and says this:  ““It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.” “
Again, all I can say is “wow.”   As I wrote on 30-OCT-2008; “I'll be the first to admit right now that any theory arrived at logically and scientifically possesses its own validity, however, there are a number of people who are now viewing global warming as a de facto religion. It most certainly is nothing of the sort. Global Warming is a theory ... at best. It predicts wild swings of temperature. Some years it will be colder and in others it will be hotter. The overall trend, however, will be warming. To be frank, it is a theory that also has a great deal of contradictory evidence. Some of this evidence in fact refutes global warming entirely. “
I have to applaud Dr Lovelock for saying these things.  In my opinion, he’s reinforced his status as a serious scientist.  But I must also be honest and say that I now fear for his reputation. 
There are many in the “green” movement that say that us skeptics need to be treated for having a mental disorder and that our homes should be burnt to the ground.  How wonderful.  Unfortunately, there are those that will note that since Dr Lovelock is saying these things, his house should also be torched.  But then, typical liberal bullsh*t.  “I’m correct and you’re wrong.” 
I at least admit that I could be wrong.
Now how about it, libs?

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Paid to Protest? Paid to Heckle? Apparently.

Paid to Protest?  Paid to Heckle?  Apparently.
“ DeWitt, Mich. — The protesters popping up at Mitt Romney's rallies throughout Michigan Tuesday look like run-of-the-mill grassroots liberals — they wave signs about "the 99 percent," they chant about the Republican's greed, and they describe themselves as a loosely organized coalition of "concerned citizens."
“ They're also getting paid, two of the protesters and an Obama campaign official told BuzzFeed. “
Yes, those Democrats who consistently accused the Tea Party Protests as being “astroturfed” are very oddly mute right now. 
To be fair, the Obama campaign has quickly distanced itself from this event.  But in my opinion, they need to denounce it.  Here we have a clear example of astroturfing … yet another example of hypocrisy … as if we needed it.  These are the same people who remained silent when “Ellie Light” was running around and praising Obama. 
We don’t need astroturfing … on either side of the aisle.

Monday, June 18, 2012

Obama Plays Golf for 100th Time, but Isn't "Out of Touch?"

The link:  http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/13/flashback-axelrod-called-bush-%E2%80%98out-of-touch%E2%80%99-for-playing-golf-in-bad-economy/

" Video from 1994 has surfaced of David Axelrod, President Obama’s chief campaign strategist, calling former President George H.W. Bush “out of touch” for “tastelessly” playing golf while trying to convince voters that the economy is improving.
“Bush tastelessly did it, often from the ninth hole, and from the cigar boat and other places,” Axelrod said.

" Added the adviser: “The impression you got was that he was out of touch.” "

But Obama apparently isn't?  Obama's played more golf in not yet 4 years than Shrub played in his entire 8. 

Yet another 'do as I say, not as I do.'  Tell me libs, how many more examples of hypocrisy is it going to take before you get your heads out of Obama's a$$? 

The Constitution exists for a reason.  Our Founding Fathers wrote it the way they did (checks & balances, three separate but equal branches of government) for a reason, so that no one person (or branch of government) could usurp power over the others.

Apparently, Obama bin Largess has decided that the Constitution doesn't apply to him.  Apparently, he doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution says and apparently, he's going to decide what laws to enforce and which ones to throw out.  But that is not what the Constitution says!  As President, Mr Largess took an oath to 'preserve, protect, and defend' the Constitution.  He didn't take an oath to 'enforce only those laws that I agree with or those that will get me votes.' 

If Obama bin Largess had any sense of honour, he would immediately resign the office of President (and take that perjurer Eric Holder with him) OR commit seppuku. 

Of course, Mr Obama doesn't have any honour.  And that's sad.

Saturday, June 16, 2012

More Slackless Service Follies

The link:  http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/years_of_secret_disservice_JgCJ8gbz9V0Wp1D00aAuUL

We've heard about the April prostitution scandal, which was described as (yet another) isolated incident.  Buuuuuut...

" However, the [229-page] log, which the Service Service released yesterday after news organizations requested it under the Freedom of Information Act, shows a pattern of misdeeds dating back to 2003. "

I feel so much safer, don't you?

An Inconvenient Truth (with apologies to the Goracle)

An Inconvenient Truth (with apologies to the Goracle)
Until the death of Edward Moore “Ted” Kennedy on 25-AUG-2009 (may he rest in peace) the Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority.  They had both houses of Congress, the House and the Senate.  They had the Executive branch as well (ie; the President who has campaigned, played golf, took vacations, played more golf, took more vacations, squandered our money on ‘green energy’ fiascos such as Solyndra(*) (and, as it turns out 11 others!!!) (oh, and Standard and Poors gave Beacon Power (another green energy company) a CCC+ rating, which is a bad junk bond that has a 70% chance of failure.))
But the point is that during the time that the Democrats had a filibuster-proof super-majority they could have pushed this amnesty through with no Republican ‘obstruction.’  They had the votes to push through anything they wanted and the Republicans couldn’t have stopped them. 
So why wait till now if it was so important that it couldn’t wait?
VOTES.  President Obama knows that this election is going to be very very difficult.  He can’t run on his record, so he needs to buy every vote he can … just like he bought ObamaCare(*2).  You only have to look at the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Handout Montana.  Take your ObamaGlasses off and you’ll see much better. 

Rush Limbaugh called it "Catch, Release, Vote."  And it's what it is.
(*) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_bQgFBDZjo (This is a link to a CBS News video)

Article: "President Obama's top 10 Constitutional Violations"

The link:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/04/president-obamas-top-10-constitutional-violations/

A quick caveat:  This was written in 2011 and does not include Mr Obama's recent amnesty announcement.

Friday, June 15, 2012

Obama Violates Constitution: Does End-Run Around Congress

Yes, have you forgotten Mr Bush (the Elder) and Mr Bush (Shrub) getting heckled?!?  Just how damned delusional are you people?  Here’s the ‘heckling’:
Didn’t Obama say just last year that he didn’t have the authority to do what he just did?!? 
This was done for political purposes, make no mistake about it.  He needs those votes, and he doesn't give a damn about anything else.
This isn’t about not caring, it’s about the law.  It’s about the three separate but equal branches of government. 
The President, no matter which colour, MSNBC, does not have the legal right under the Constitution to do what Mr Obama just did. 
Mr Obama knows what the Constitution says; he just doesn’t give a damn.

I Will NOT Submit to ObamaCare

I will not submit to ObamaCare.
My name is Greg Birosh (no kidding, huh?) As of the time of this writing, I’m 45 years of age and am of sound mind and body.
And I will not submit to ObamaCare.  I will not help to fund the murder of unborn children.  I will not help fund murdering children who survived the abortion attempt. 
I will not help fund contraceptives for people who can easily obtain them elsewhere.  I will not obtain the government insurance.
And, I will not pay the fine. 

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

The Gateway Pundit: "Support Democrat Ernestina Cruz. Or get a concussion. Your choice."

Please note, the is an opinion article.  The second is a Conservative blog.  Still, it goes to the crux of another problem. 
In the article, we learn that a judge candidate was holding an event across the street from the Cunnyngham household. 
Apparently, somebody in her campaign put campaign signs on Mr Cunnyngham’s yard.  When he and his family returned home, he removed these signs from his property.  (To be clear, the article also says that these signs were in front of this property.  So it could be either.)
Here’s Ms Cruz’s statement, according to the article: 
“ With regard to the violence reportedly perpetrated on Mr. Cunnyngham last week, The Taos News quotes Ms. Cruz thus: “It is unfortunate that this individual [Cunnyngham] chose to remove these signs when they did not belong to him.” “
It’s unfortunate that he removed signs that might’ve been on his property that were put there without his approval?  If the signs were put on his property without his consent, that’s illegal.  If the signs were put on public property without permission , that’s also illegal.
“At that point, a younger man came across the street and again told Cunnyngham to put the signs back. When Cunnyngham refused, the man “pounded me in the chest,” Cunnyngham said. “
The article goes on to  state that his wife and son were restrained by some of these supporters when they tried to get to Mr Cunnyngham. 
In my opinion, this says a great deal about Ms Cruz … and what it says isn’t good.  She wishes to be a judge?!? 
Here’s what she should’ve done, again in my opinion:
First, she should have denounced the violence and assault carried out against Mr Cunnyngham.
Second, she should have publicly called on those involved in the assault to turn themselves in to the police immediately.
Third, she should apologize to Mr Cunnyngham (in private) if she wished, making it clear that those signs were not put in front of his property at her behest.
Instead, she said it was unfortunate that he removed the signs.
Ms Cruz, given the points I’ve made, do you wish to change your story?  Now how about it?
In my opinion, you’re not qualified to be a fair and impartial judge.  Now how about it?

Scott Walker Survives Recall Effort, Libs Call For His Murder

The link:  http://twitchy.com/2012/06/06/kill-scott-walker-angry-libs-flood-twitter-with-death-threats-after-wisconsin-recall-defeat/

First, a caveat.  Twitchy is one of Michelle Malkin's sites. 

SECOND, a warning.  The language displayed by the libs isn't safe for work.  They also use the "C" word, and I don't mean "C" as in "cute." 

Now if a conservative were to do these things, the DOJ would rightly show up and investigate.  However, these are liberals engaging in this hate speech and I'm sure that Mr Holder and the Department of (Social) Justice can't wait to ... do nothing.

Monday, June 4, 2012

I Was Part of the Problem

Part of the problem.

For a long time, I was part of the problem.  I was willing to trust our government, no matter what.  I would not criticize Republicans, no matter what.  That began to change during the years of the older President Bush because I saw some things that he was doing that I wasn’t happy about.  Although, to be honest, I did vote for him when he lost to President Clinton.  I had to hold my nose to do it, but I did vote for him over Mr Clinton. 
Then we got a choice between Bob Dole(?!?) and Bill Clinton.  Because I knew what Clinton was, I held my nose (and put on nose plugs) and voted for Dole.  But Dole?!?  Whose brilliant idea was he?!?  It’s since been confirmed that it was “his turn.”  Isn’t that nice.  It’s not what’s best for the Country, it’s about whose turn it is. 
Then it was Mr Bush (the younger, aka “shrub”) against Al Gore in the first race (and contrary to what many Democrats believe, he did not invent the Internet,) and then John “F-cking” Kerry in the second race.  (And while the Democrats excoriate Mr Romney for building his own wealth, Mr Kerry married into his.)  Again, I held my nose and voted for Shrub.
And then I saw what he was doing and then spoke out against him, vocally.  That completed my transformation from part of the problem to part of the solution.  Yes, I did vote for Shrub twice, and I regretted it the second time around.  But I did something that far too many people, on both sides of the aisle, have been unwilling to do:  I spoke out against him.
Enter the 2008 election, where it was Mr Obama against Mr McCain (or as I referred to him, Juan McAmnesty.)  Although I did speak out against Mr Obama far more than Mr McAmnesty, I also spoke out against him.  That particular election was, for me, about the lesser of two evils.  The main stream media, in my opinion, bent over backwards to get Mr Obama elected.  The media and Mr Obama’s handlers crafted this image of a super-human coming to save us from the evils of Shrub. 
Don’t get me wrong; although I did vote for him the second time around I regretted it.  But in the 2008 election it really was the lesser of two evils.  Mr Obama is, I believe, a socialist.  Mr McCain was an open-borders zealot.  Never the less, I knew what would happen if Mr Obama got into office. 
During his time in office, I’ve been writing to politicians of both sides of the aisle, criticizing them both for things I believe them to be doing wrong.
I took issue with the Republican National Committee, I took issue with Speaker Boehner, I took issue with Kris Jordan, whom I wrote about favourably on my blog.  Mr Jordan, in his personal email to me, corrected a mistake I had made.  I haven’t heard back from the Speaker or from the RNC.  Although, I’ve no doubt I’ve made numerous enemies. 
That, however, isn’t the point.  The point is that I’m willing to criticize my own party for things I believe them to be doing wrong.
There are far too many people, on both sides of the aisle, who are unwilling to criticize their own party or their own candidate. 
Many Democrats will vote for Mr Obama this coming election no matter what.  He could rip off a human disguise and show himself to be a space alien, and they’d still vote for him. 
Many of his policies are running our Republic into the ground and they’re still going to vote for him.  The main stream media (see my previous posting) are again going to bend over backwards and insist that GOP Governors give Mr Obama credit, even when it might not be due. 
But that also brings up another part of the problem; the main stream media.
Many people, myself included, laughed at Shrub’s inability to say ‘nuclear.’  I myself laughed when he walked into the wall in China.  It really wasn’t a shining moment for him!  His stumbles and gaffes have become the butt of numerous jokes.  And, he deserved them. 
But let’s contrast that with Mr Obama’s saying that the March to Selma in 1965 was responsible for his parents getting together?!?(*) There’s just one slight problem; the March was in 1965.  Barack Obama, by all accounts, was born in 1961. 
Let’s remember that he himself said he’d campaigned in 57 states, and then identified the city of Eau Claire as the “state of” Eau Claire.(*2)  Had it been an African-American Republican saying that, the press would be all over it.  For Obama, yet another pass?
Then it was Abraham Lincoln who built the intercontinental railroad, according to Mr Obama.(*3)  Again, there’s just one slight problem.  An intercontinental railroad goes between continents.  Mayhaps he meant the trans-continental railroad?
That is the point:  Part of the problem, or part of the solution?
If you’re going to mention the gaffes on the right, you’ve also got to mention those on the left.

OUCH! Juan Williams mocks Obama ad!

The link:  http://lonelyconservative.com/2012/06/lol-juan-williams-amused-by-anna-wintours-come-to-dinner-ad/

(H/T:  Michelle Malkin)

Cross-Link to Michelle Malkin

The link:  http://michellemalkin.com/2012/06/04/developing-msm-trend/

First, a quick note.  This particular posting was written by Mr Doug Powers, who along with Ms Malkin posts to the site (and others.)

Second; I'm going to disagree with one thing that Mr Powers wrote.  He wrote:

" Over the weekend there were a couple of examples of what’s almost certain to become a coordinated mainstream media trend in the coming months: Pleading with Republicans from states with better-than-average economies to give President Obama some credit for their state’s recovery. "

I believe it's a given that the media is going to do this.  And that's sad.

Remember the question I keep asking?  "Part of the solution, or part of the problem?"

Just asking.