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

The links:  http://www.taosnews.com/opinion/article_cba5321e-9f89-11e1-a445-0019bb2963f4.html

(and)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/it-begins-far-left-thugs-beat-homeowner-for-not-allowing-dems-signs-in-his-yard/

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?

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.

(*) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95KC7CF5B9E

(*2) – http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2012/04/credit-where-its-due-obama-was-right.html

(*3) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYdqIQqU7Fc

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.

Opinion: President Obama is part of the problem.

You read (or heard) it here first!  At least, I hope. 
But remember when Mr Obama said he wasn't going to spike the football and show photos of the corpse (Not Corpseman, Mr Obama - corpse.  ) of bin Laden? 

And then he politicized it - you could say he spiked the football.  Even Arianna Huffington (yes, that one) was none too pleased with Mr Obama about it! 

The link:  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/democratic-columnist-discusses-report-of-desperate-obamas-enemy-list-of-wealthy-romney-donors/

There's a reason I chose that link:  it also contains the link to Mr Obama's "enemies" list a la Richard "I am NOT a crook" Nixon.

You can imagine the reason that I've bound three different things together here.  First, consider each of these items on its own merits and consider it from a liberal viewpoint.

First, we've known for some time (and I've written about it before) that Mr Obama's campaign has put out a list of people whose only 'crime' was to donate money to Mr Romney's campaign coffers.  Let's play pretend and pretend for the moment that it was Mr Romney's campaign doing this classless and dishonourable thing.  The liberal media and the liberals themselves would (rightly!) be all over it.  Why?  Because it would be classless, dishonorable and borderline defamatory.  You simply need to view Mr Obama's "enemies list" to see some of the borderline defamatory statements.  But this is Obama bin Largess 'the Obamessiah,' or 'the anointed one' doing all these things. 

No matter who does it, it's wrong.  But if you're willing to say it's not a problem because it's Obama doing it, you seriously need to realize that you've just shown yourself to be part of the problem.  To get out of this mess, we don't need people to prove that they're part of the problem, they need to be ready to act as (and be!) part of the solution.  And that means willing to criticize both sides of the aisle when they deserve it!

So now we come to Mr Bush's being unable to say "nuclear."  I myself laughed at it.  Why?  Because here's the President of the United States being unable to say a simple word such as "nuclear" correctly!  (As an aside, could you imagine him trying to say 'bovine spongiform encephalopathy?' )  I don't want to be anywhere near President TelePrompTer were he to try to say it!

Mr Obama, however, says (twice) " ... Navy Corpsman ... " with "Corpsman" being pronounced "corpse-man."    Get the idea yet?  Those who were so willing to nail Mr Bush to the wall for his inability to say "nuclear" are oddly mute on Mr Obama's flub of "corpse-man."  Part of the solution or part of the problem?

Thirdly, Obama bin Largess' double-standard and spiking the football by politicizing his decision to get Osama bin Laden.  Even Arianna Huffington is NOT happy about that.  Which, to me, is shocking.  She's a big-time liberal and she's gone off the reservation and is willing to criticize 'the one.'

His making it political is wrong - no matter how you slice it.  Had it been Mr Bush, the liberal media would be all over it.

They too are part of the problem.

And I'm going to add one thing because this too is part of the problem. 

Political author S.E. Cupp wrote a book in 2010 named "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal's Attack on Christianity," and people out there immediately took it to mean that since Ms Cupp is a Conservative author, she was therefore also a Christian.

The liberals, again, have their facts wrong.  According to her Wikipedia article and she herself, she is an atheist.  Although, to be honest and in the interest of full disclosure, she is an atheist who "really aspires to be a person of faith someday."
I would be honoured to be the father of any future children she might wish to have. 

The Grove bans Manny Pacquiao

The link:  http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/05/16/the-grove-bans-pacquiao-for-gay-marriage-views-boxer-denies-quote/

There's just one slight problem:  Mr Pacquiao didn't actually say what he's being accused of saying!  Indeed, the article itself states this!

" Granville Ampong, the writer of the article — but not Pacquiao himself — went on to quote a passage from the Old Testament book of Leviticus, which states that “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” " (emphasis and colour added)

Of course, if you've been following along on Twitter (or twitchy) you'd see that to those with an agenda, this little fact doesn't mean a damn thing.  Mr Pacquiao did not say what he's being accused of saying.

That is the fact.

Pity that "The Grove" and others couldn't be bothered with the facts.

NOTE:  I have contacted "The Grove" for their comment(s) and am awaiting their reply. 

Opinion: "Obama vandalizes WH presidential biographies"

The link:  http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-vandalizes-wh-presidential-biographies/543386

" Conservatives are having a laugh after it surfaced that the official presidential biographies on the White House website have been updated to inject President Obama into history. But kidding aside, this is a truly disgraceful behavior. " (emphasis added)

But the writer wasn't done!  I'm actually in shock about this.  It's been my opinion that Obama is a megalomaniac, but to see this clear of an example.  I'm actually floored!

" Obama should get beyond his own narcissism and realize that, win or lose in November, he's just a temporary part of something that's bigger than himself. "

Wow.  DHS and Ms Clownitano (and you Mr Holder) obviously need to investigate the writer.  He's saying bad things about 'the one.'