Having monitored the traffic to this blog, I can report that the number of visitors dwarfs the number of commenters at about 200 to one. Either the handful of those commenting are checking back for updates every 10 minutes (now that's dedication) or there's lots of lurkers about. I suspect the latter.
I also suspect those lurking remain so because of their dissenting opinions opposite mine, and their relative inferiority toward voicing and supporting those arguments. Fine, I say. I'm happy to think that at least you've maybe learned something while you were here.
You've no doubt witnessed the smack-down I administered to the Dude Carriage (an America-hating troll who I'd journalistically thumped over at Kate's several times) on a couple of occasions, and you're reluctant to find yourself behind a similar woodshed. Rest assured, though, that dingbat brought it on hisself. Respectful disagreement is absolutely welcome here, poking the bear with a pointy stick without regard for the consequences could foster, what you might consider, a negative result.
That said, I'd like to clarify a small misconception. Although I won't call her by name (it rhymes with Schmerlfriend's Schmother), a comment she verbalized got back to me which I'll reference. She said, "All those Republicans get their misinformation from Fox News." Well, that got me wondering how much, in the great equation of political/social/cultural influence, real informational impact do I glean from Fox? The answer is, and I know you'll probably get all wee-wee'd up: virtually none. I get most of what I call news from online newspapers, the Drudge Report (which if you don't know, doesn't color the news, he just hands it to you without soliloquy), National Public Radio (don't think I'm not grinding my teeth through nigh every episode), Libertarian (not Republican) Neal Boortz' Neal's Nuze, and my fellow bloggers. And almost universally, when I read something that references another item, I follow back to the referenced article. I think it an insult when anyone pretends my (or that of my fellow Republicans) informational palette is narrowly supplied.
Like a good percentage of those bloggers I've come to admire, I came from a family of Democrats and was surrounded by Democrats most of my life, and considered myself one because I didn't know any better. On September 11, 2001, I thanked God that we had a Republican in the White House, and I still thank Dubya for not flinching for 8 years and having the huevos to carry more than empty rhetoric to the presidency (at least as applied to the question of national security). Also, on that day, I became a sponge for honest news. I found that Fox could deliver more-accurate reportage, but they even still couldn't refrain from too much color-commentary, and because they suffer from the same programmed mindset of how best to attract dedicated viewers, there's still too many fluff pieces for my liking. And I can't stomach shows featuring a "moderator" and three or more "experts" yelling at, and over, each other. I just don't get that, at all.
But this post isn't so much about Fox News, but about listening skeptically to what you're told.
In the final Presidential debate last October, both candidates were asked a rhetorical question by a caller. The lady said, and I'm paraphrasing, "What is it that you do not know, and how do you expect to learn it?"
I don't always have the perfect response to a question myself, but I immediately wished I could whisper in Senator McCain's ear: What I don't know is how can it be possible that a man...with zero leadership experience on one hand and a bagful of very scary historical associations (Wright, Ayers, Jones, ACORN, the corrupt Chicago political machine, communist personal mentor Frank Marshall Davis, and not-to-mention George Soros and Saul Alinsky) on the other, plus more than a little uncertainty regarding his citizenship and education on a third hand, ...could have poll numbers reflecting serious consideration for electing him President of these United States? And the way I expect to learn it is to watch what I call the Mainstream Media and see if they continue pandering to Socialist principles or decide to show his warts and strange, strange bedfellows the harsh light of day.
In that moment, while Johnnie Mac stumbled, stuttered, and lost his nerve, the election of 2008 was lost to a man who despises America, but has a pleasant speaking voice that masks his malevolent intent for destroying the fabric of this country.
I didn't know how and why so many people that I cared for, lots of intelligent folks, were so easily duped by him, but one thing that event spawned, for better or worse, was this blog, as an attempt at to clearly voice my dissention and opposition to the dumbing-down of the masses in general, and those who know me, in particular. Since its launch, I've come to know some truly outstanding minds, and am encouraged by the wave of patriotism amid which I find myself. Truly, I've stated before and shall reiterate, the smartest excuse you could have for visiting here could be checking the updates of those in my blogroll above left.
One very recent addition that you should note is Truth Or Consequences, by Jim Simpson. I began reading his work after being directed (by Boortz) to an essay he wrote a year ago in The American Thinker, "Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis."
If you haven't heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy, hatched in 1966 to create orchestrated calamity as a tool to engender a nationwide shift to embrace socialism, please follow the link to Mr. Simpson's essay. Also, if you choose to consider yourself a person who isn't easily fooled by those who would make them so, and you are open to reading one thing which doesn't fall lockstep into programmed liberalist/progressive/socialist so-called "intellectual" thought, please read the referenced essay. This work is the most-comprehensive piece that ties all of Obama's relationships, tutoring, and associations (not to mention his obligations!) into one package. And guess what, none of it is good. You may hear folks like Olberman and Matthews wax poetic about it (the essay) being unflattering, but you will not hear anyone disputing its veracity. This environment is where Obama's thinking was born and incubated, so it's not difficult at all to understand his rationale for appointing Van Jones, an avowed Communist, to a position of authority.
And that leads me to tonight's speech to be delivered to the joint session of Congress, where the great Community Organizer, defacto President of the United States, will push again for the passing of his so-called "healthcare reform" bill. If you choose to listen to him reading his teleprompter, please keep in the back of your mind this: The only certainty regarding government-run healthcare is that it will empower the government and further addict the populace to that same entity. The people who show up at Town Hall meetings are people just like me, who see corruption for what it is, and refuse to grant Washington DC more complete control of their lives, not paid shills for the Republican party. They are terrified of what more power, in the hands of those whose only purpose (and I'm talking about both sides of the aisle) is to increase their power and feather their own nests, means as a trade-off: more for them equals less for us. This is why you heard a Congessmen say in a Town Hall meeting yesterday, "You aren't allowed to film in here because it's my Town Hall meeting...And you're not going to tell me how to run my Congressional Office." -Democrat Baron Hill, Indiana.
Thanks to Flopping Aces for the video. Sorry to burst their bubble, but I will be telling them all exactly how to run their Congressional Offices, and I expect you should be also.
Please take it from me, one who ably chooses to process a wide palette of information, a cancer survivor who has battled his insurance company and hospital, was fired from his job over the diagnosis, who can't afford insurance ($2100 per month), and who was handed a bill for medical services (over $50,000) in spite of assured "complete coverage"...The federal government sticking its grubby self-serving hands into the healthcare equation is already part of the problem, and can't possibly be trusted as part of the solution. The current laws (laws, I say!) that preclude insurance companies from selling policies across state lines and limit your ability as the insured from changing jobs without losing your insurance, coupled with insane lawsuits and the higher medical costs that that process leads to (because of the absurd costs of malpractice insurance), benefit only the lawyers!...and, of course, those lawyers posing as elected representatives who enacted them.
Your addiction to their "care" is the set of shackles that enslaves you to them. The more authority and control and power you grant them, the less of it remains with you. There will be a faceless bureaucrat deciding whether you're worthy (because of your potential future contribution to the community) of that bypass surgery or should receive end-of-life counseling, if and when the federal government supplies/oversees your insurance. Consider as you listen to this America-hating communist speak tonight, the same person who actually said the new healthcare program would be run as smoothly and efficiently as the US Postal Service (you can scream now), the chart below illustrates the environment wherein he learned what he knows, and explains what is truly in his heart. Thanks again to Jim at Truth or Consequences. Click image to enlarge. UPDATE: It seems that clicking on image does nothing to help view it, so I re-inserted a larger version.
I apologize for the enormity of this post, but had to get it all off my chest. If you've read this and you're still making excuses for the left, and still taking what the MSM says as honestly newsworthy, then I say you are either lamentably ignorant or intentionally un-American.
If you're like me, then you most likely seek out that which is true and honest and good, and do your best to shun and not tolerate that which is rotten and vile. The one real benefit from the radical left's ascension to power is, that if we choose to see it for what it is, the intentional subversion of our country's founding principles, our core values will be strengthened and unified and we may never wander foolishly down this idiotic collective alleyway again.
You can't go back and change your vote, but you can change your way of thinking, and method by which you get your information.
Final note to Schmom, I bet I read ten times as much McClatchey newspaper propaganda and at least twice as much NPR as your limited exposure to Fox News. Which among us is the better informed, and more intellectually well-rounded?
Update #2: Thanks to Jim for providing additional links to his entire series, and a special essay on Obamacare's relationship to Cloward-Piven.