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?

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.

"Nike" under pressure to drop Manny Pacquiao.

You might've seen my previous posting about it.  Mr Pacquiao is being assaulted by the leftie prog mob for remarks he allegedly made when he allegedly quoted Leviticus. 

There's just one slight problem.  The writer of that article, Granville Ampong, did the honourable thing and admitted (albeit under pressure) that he added that part.  For reference, simply follow the link in my previous posting.

"The Grove" (Yes, the one in LA) banned Mr Pacquiao for life ... without bothering to do the least bit of due diligence. 

Here's my question:  Will Nike do the honourable thing and stand up to the prog mob who are lying and distorting the facts? 

Or will they follow "The Grove's" cowardly lead and kowtow to those with an agenda, those who are willing to lie and distort the facts.

Sadly, my money says that Nike will follow "The Grove's" cowardly and dishonourable lead.

If Rick Caruso of "The Grove" (Twitter: @RickCarusoLA) had any personal honour he would immediately:

1) Get his facts straight and do the basic due diligence
2) Apologize to Mr Pacquaio (via Twitter since the smear was made via Twitter)

or, failing the first two

commit seppuku(*) (Japanese ritual suicide, usually by disembowelment.)

Of course, he'll probably do nothing.  And that's sad.

(*) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

" Part of the samurai bushido honor code, seppuku was either used voluntarily by samurai to die with honor rather than fall into the hands of their enemies (and likely suffer torture), or as a form of capital punishment for samurai who had committed serious offenses, or performed for other reasons that had brought shame to them. " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.  Emphasis and colour added.)