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:

1) NO NAME-CALLING.
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?

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

Erm…

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.

The link:  http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

“ 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?

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.

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?

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.

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.