Aren't You Sick?

Aren’t you sick?

Aren’t you sick and tired of those on the liberal left who can’t debate the facts, but they can:

1)      Slander.  “They’re all RAAAAACIST!”  Don’t like Mr Obama’s policies?  “RAAAAAACIST!” 

2)      Demagogue.  Apparently, our hearts are “full of hate.”

3)      Call names & belittle.  “R U insane?  Methinks so.”

4)      Pull out the “emotional” card.  “Don’t you care?!?”  Or, “But what about me?”

I’ll be the first to admit that there are also those on the right who cannot or will not listen to other viewpoints.  We’re “wrong” if we disagree with them.  Point out the facts and you’re “looking for trouble.”  It is these people … on both sides of the aisle ... that are part of the problem.

If you wish to debate me, that’s great!  I welcome debate.  Notice please that I said “debate.”  The instant either one of us picks up any of those cards, we’ll have shown ourselves to be part of the problem.  And if you’ve read this blog for any length of time, you’ll know that I pride myself on being part of the solution.

It’s actually quite sad in that in only fifty short years we’ve gone from “Ask not what your Country can do for you; ask what you can do for your Country,” to ObamaPhone Woman.  And it’s not just her.  Several investigative reports by several local affiliates suggests that 10% (1 out of every 10) of people with these “free” phones have not just one such device.  And not just two … but three such devices.  One woman had six … in her purse. (*4)  The FCC found that as of the production of the article, it was 250,000 people who had more than one such phone.

Guess who’s paying for those “free” phones?  You ask those that have them and you’ll be told “the government” is paying for them or that Obama is.  But where do they get the money? (*4)  Take a look at your cell bill and you’ll find the “Universal Service Fund,” and/or the “Universal Access Fee.”  That’s right … you are.

A quick note here;  these monies were originally levied by President Clinton.  The idea was that the funds were to be used for landlines and for 911 systems.  President Bush (the younger … Shrub) expanded the program to cell phones and the amount of people receiving them increased.  But it has exploded under Obama.  Feel free to look it up … Google really is your friend.  (At least for this … please don’t get me started about some of their very public snafus.)

These, of course, are the same people who can’t be bothered to read any opposing viewpoint.  Try to tell them that the Federal government is considering taking all monies out of individual 401(k) and replacing them with annuities … and they’ll say that’s not true.  Tell them it is true and point them to the articles about it, and they don’t want to see it.  (*1)

Forgive me for being dense, but part of being informed means being willing to listen to both sides of the debate.  And this is where the utter hypocrisy of the left reeks.  Try to point out the numerous things we’ve said about the healthcare law and … boy, do they have lots to say about that!

Most of them are wrong, but they still have lots to say about it!  Remember when Ms Palin was excoriated for saying that there would be “death panels?”  Well … there’s a New York Times Op-Ed that says we need such panels! (*2)

Remember when some were saying that such panels could be coming for infants?  Well … (*3)  Those are the facts.  Care to dispute them?

I was part of the problem … and I freely admit it. (*5)   I’m not proud that I was once part of the problem.  But I have since worked to become part of the solution. 

(*1) -  http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm

(*2) - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/health-care-reform-beyond-obamacare.html?_r=0

(*3) - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240075/Now-sick-babies-death-pathway-Doctors-haunting-testimony-reveals-children-end-life-plan.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

(*4) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAjAvxDkfk

(*5) - http://gregb1967.blogspot.com/2012/06/i-was-part-of-problem.html

Opinion: A few words for thought...

The link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7Nlq80DVpo

Does anybody remember back on 9-NOV-2008, when Valerie Jarrett the Co-Chair of the Obama-Biden transition team said this?

“ However, given the really daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really, ah, take power and begin to rule day one.”

“ … begin to rule … “ ?!? 

Perhaps I’m just dense about this, as the liberals keep telling me, but an elected President does not ‘rule,’ he governs.  There’s an important distinction to be drawn here.  A dictator rules, but somebody who is elected governs.  Back I went to dictionary.com to see what their definition of ‘rule’ is.  And I’ll quote the 5^th definition that they have:  “tenure or conduct of reign or office:  during the rule of George III.” (italicized in article.) 

However, it could be argued that Ms Jarrett meant ‘rule’ as in ‘govern.’

But let’s go further.  Here’s another link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUfo-RxkXA8&feature=related

There’s a lot going on in this clip, so let’s distill it down.  First we learn that, according to the moderator, every time the capital gains tax was increased, revenues from the tax dropped.  While it sounds counter-intuitive, it really isn’t.  It is, however, an ‘inconvenient truth’ that the liberals love to forget.  Every time the capital gains tax was increased, revenues from the tax fell.  Conversely, every time the capital gains tax was lowered, revenues from the tax increased!

But there’s also this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

And then this:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ

" If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to - this is the last stand on Earth. "

And then Mr Reagan said something prophetic.  It was almost as if he were aware of the situation that now faces us.  He said:

" This is the issue of this election; whether we believe in our capacity for self-government, or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. "

And then, most dammingly for Mr Obama and his supporters:  " And among themselves and all of the things I will now quote have appeared in print:  these are not Republican accusations.

" For example, they have voices that say 'The Cold War will end with our acceptance of a not-undemocratic Socialism.'

" Another voice said the profit motive has become out-moded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the Welfare State.

" Or 'Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th Century.

" Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is out-moded.  He referred to the President as our 'moral teacher' and 'our leader.'  And he says he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.  He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best.

" And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as 'meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government. "

When did President Reagan say these things?  27-OCT-1964.

It certainly fits today, doesn't it?