Friday, September 25, 2009

Dianne Feinstein Needs to Go

It doesn't matter anymore whether you agree with Feinstein's far left policies. I will not get into those here. I am seeking patriotic, freedom-loving Americans of all denominations to stand with me in saying, "enough is enough".

In a matter of just a few days, Dianne Feinstein has slapped all Americans three times in the face. First, when given an opportunity to help the people of her own state who have been suffering immeasurably since April of this year she turned her back on them. An amendment was proposed to a Senate bill this week which would have turned the water back on for millions of acres of once vibrant California Central Valley farmland was, for simplicity's sake, blocked by Feinstein and other Senators.

What the heck are they waiting for? Isn't it enough that 40+% of the Central Valley residents are unemployed, farmers are being run out of business, and people who were once the providers of food for California, the United States and the world are now lining up at food banks to get food provided for them from China, Japan and South American. I suppose it won't hurt Feinstein and her millionaire husband to have to pay three times the normal costs for produce and hundreds of other foods this fall and next year.

Next, Feinstein decided to slap us again over the Baucus Health Care Reform plan. When one Senator, who actually "got it" last month when he found himself confronted by thousands of constituents over what's happening in D.C. dared to propose an amendment to the Baucus bill that would have afforded a 72 hour window for anyone and everyone to read the bill, Feinstein and her cohorts decided that Americans were too emotional and incapable of intelligently understanding such a thing. She blocked the amendment, suggesting that what happened last month was merely the uncontrolled emotional outbursts of people who didn't understand what was really in the original House bill. And she didn't want that sort of thing happening again.

Does she not yet understand that it is only PARTIALLY about the insane provisions of these bills that we are enraged? We are enraged as much, OR MORE, over this very sort of arrogance and elitism by people

Lastly, earlier this week, Feinstein, seemingly doing the right thing, came out in support of an amendment to a bill that would have required all these presidential czars to appear before a senate committee twice a year to make accounts for their involvement in executive policy making and to account for their budget. Then, today, when the White House pressured her to drop her support of this amendment, she buckled and changed her mind.

Who, Ms Feinstein, do you work for? Have you NEVER heard of the separations of powers? Does it not occur to you that what you are doing violates the very essence of the Constitution you swore to uphold and defend?

I don't give a hoot whether you support the Baucus bill. Well, actually, personally I do. But that is actually irrelevant to this, much more important, matter.

I am not concerned about your personal environmental views. But I do care whether you are doing what you were sent to Washington, BY THIS STATE, to do...represent the interest OF THIS STATE. DO YOUR JOB...take care of your constituents FIRST. The Delta Smelt will not vote your sorry your know what out if you don't take care of them. But WE WILL.

I couldn't care less whether you actually believe the moronic views of people like Cass Sunstein or Mark Lloyd or any other of the Marxist advisers of President Obama. Not in relation to this issue. What I DO care about is our Constitution. And our Constitution ordains a separation of powers. The President has every right to ask you to change your position on a matter. But YOUR have an OBLIGATION to do what is right by the Constitution. And the Constitution says that you and your fellow Senators are required to oversee the activities of these people advising our president.

Dianne Feinstein has become far too arrogant and detacted from California's issues to be of any use to us anymore. Again, my friends, I don't care what your policy beliefs are. I will debate with you to the end over issues. But I will also stand by you in defense of your right to disagree with me. We must ALL demand that Ms. Feinstein cease and desist from these sort of slaps to our collective faces and get back to representing the interests of Californians. Either that or we, we Californians, must stand together to send someone else to Washington who WILL represent us.

Sunday, September 13, 2009

ACORN Must Go Down...

I am convinced that ACORN must go down. They are in the middle of everything evil happening in this country right now. No, they are not the only organization working on these socialist ideals. But they are a key cog. And they must go down. The article below was posted on another blog. I have given them credit at the bottom. It shows that ACORN has already been investigated. Combine those results (linked in the text of this post), with the fact that Democrat John Conyers has already said that "the powers that be" won't allow ACORN to be investigated and you wonder who is behind the curtain. Let's play the role of Toto and pull back the curtain.

We haven't heard a word about this. Have you?

Staff Report

U.S. House of Representatives

111th Congress

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

July 20, 2009

See the conclusion on page 73 at least:

V. Conclusion

American nonprofits generate $1.3 trillion in revenues, have assets over $2 trillion, and employ 15 million people.408 Nonprofits represent a substantial portion of the activities directed toward public service, a mission obstructed by the fraud of groups like ACORN.

On the basis of this Report, the legal protections distinguishing ACORN and its affiliates must be ignored because the ability to ascertain whether federal moneys are being walled off from ACORN’s political activities is impracticable. As a result, ACORN and its Council of affiliates represent a politically partisan lobbying organization. ACORN and its affiliates’ nonprofit exemptions and receipt of federal grants must therefore bear greater scrutiny.
Why hasn't this been all over the news? Ok, stupid question; we all know why the news won't cover it, but we can!

Spread this around!

Friday, September 11, 2009

Consolidation of Notes on Obama's Health Care Speech

I wrote many, many posts tonight in response to several points in Obama's speech before Congress on health care reform. Many of my posts were from things I read from others (in those instances, I have referenced the link. Below, I will attempt to consolidate them in one piece of reading for anyone interested. I covet your views on any of them and encourage you to share any or any of this note.

A. Obama suggests many noble ideas...focusing upon the "character" of our nation and its history of caring for its own. Well, let's look at this plan from the Cato Institute and tell me if this does not achieve the goals without giving g...overnment the biggest single power grab in the history of our country.

B. Obama somehow thinks that providing a government option produces competition. Aside from the obvious, that he is using capitalistic terms to try to appeal to the capitalist right, there is an inherent problem with his claim. Read this article and I wrote awhile back ( and READ THE BILL.

C. Fact Check: Obama calls the suggestion that there will be some board deciding whether Grandma lives or dies is false. Yet he proposed that same thing himself and the government is about enact it with that part of health care they already run...Medicare. See the article, read the bill.

D. Obama keeps trying to convince America that no one, under his plan, will be required to give up their current plan or current doctor. However, that claim does not tell anyone how his plan would make it so that employers will invariably drop their pl...ans for the sake of their OWN business' competitiveness. If the fine for NOT covering their employees is less than the cost to cover them, what employer would be considered sane to keep their plan? Read the article AND the bill.

E. Obama said, “Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies – many of whom opposed reform in the past.” …but who now support reform, because we've bought them... off... see the details of this article to see how PhRMA and WalMart will make out like bandits under the Obama plan.

F. RE: Obama's claim that our health care costs are higher in large part because of the shift of health care for those who do not pay. FACT: The Urban Institute says “Uncompensated care represents 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008.”

G. ADDING THIS LINK WHICH IS A VERY COPIOUS ANALYSIS OF HR3200...I didn't write, but can affirm its accuracy...having read HR3200.

H. OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives." THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Ob...ama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

I. The MSM does not cover the proposals made by the GOP on healthcare and then castigate them for the party of "NO". The GOP has been proposing reforms for years. This link shows what they are currently proposing. Tell me what YOU think of their ideas.

J. (THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO MY ORIGINAL POST) - Bettina had a thread that centered around the heckling done by one particular Republican congressman when Obama said this bill will not cover any illegal aliens. One of her responders suggested that it was typical of the right when he have no logical response and then went on to reference section 246 of the bill. Here is my response to him:

What this man is misreading is that the bill, in Sect. 246, prohibits undocumented aliens from receiving the Affordability Credits that are being offered to help low income Americans to afford this. Since I have NEVER met an illegal who filed a tax return, I doubt they will care whether the government actually PAYS them to get their health care in our hospitals and medical centers. Sect. 152, on the other hand, makes it illegal for any health care provider, NOT JUST EMERGENCY ROOMS, from discriminating against anyone...that would mean, ANYONE...not just legal immigrants and citizens.

I have one other problem with those who are offended by this congressman's outburst. Although it was inappropriate, it was nonetheless understandable considering the fact that at that very time and for quite a bit of the speech, Obama focused his attention on calling all sorts of people liars simply because they disagree with him about what this bill will do. So we have to sit quietly and let the president call us liars, but this congressman has to apologize for calling HIM one?

K. Appealing to our compassion and love for our families is formidable approach to trying to convince me to support your effort to pass this legislation. Such tender emotions lead to tough decisions sometimes...but they are OUR decisions, not the government's...stay out of our lives. When I could have declared bankruptcy (using government protection against creditors), I refused to do so. When facing my own burdens, I want the government ONLY to make sure I am not abused by others who might want to take advantage of me when I'm down. Let me make my own choices. I trust me. I do NOT trust you. Not because you are evil. I don't know whether you are or are not. But because you have never shown yourself be a source of true wisdom and sound advice in making personal decisions. I have people whom I do trust in that area. Leave me to that and do the job our forefathers handed down to you. I don't need my government telling me that I am being selfish because I do not choose to cover the financial risks of my youth by transferring my risk to some insurance company. If there ARE people who choose to not be insured, even though they CAN afford it, then face some disastrous health crisis that they cannot afford, I am not so heartless as to deny them care. The cost of such is so minute that it would represent almost nothing in comparison to the overall cost of health care in this country. Adjusting insurance rates by some small degree to cover those occasions is not unbearable. Or even better, cut out a few billion dollars of annual earmark waste and there ya go...its covered.

When you, Mr. President, can PROVE that you can take that part of the health care industry that you already control and make it work...cut the waste, show that care is not rationed and waiting times do not rock the universe, and eliminate the other words, make it solvent...and we might just decide to give you another chance to discuss the rest of the health care industry. Until then, keep your hands OUT of my health care.

Obama/Libs Changing Health Care Approach

Being the marketing guru that he is, David Axelrod has done his research and is making changes to the end-game of the Administration's push of its health care agenda (and all their agenda, for that matter). Most of us who have been fighting this administration for the past 7+ months knew this was coming. But I received a full dose of this change last night at Tom McClintock's Town Hall meeting in Granite Bay, CA.

Tom was gracious enough to let people from both sides of the debate to present their points without disruption. In doing so, those who were given a chance to speak in favor of the administration's push for a public option health plan were clearly making the new arguments for Obama. They focused their attentions on four points: choice, competition, this is not about government control but rather about our rights, and we have to show some compassion for our fellow Americans. They added these four points (or more accurately, re-packaged these points) with one other favorite, namely that we are the only civilized society that does NOT have universal health care. I would like to present some very important information about how to address these points.

1. Choice, how is this bill about choice when it actually removes all choice. The provisions of HR3200 create a panel of "experts" who will, within five years, establish the standards which all health insurance plans must meet. These are called mandates. Mandates are why health insurance and health care is already as expensive as it is. Now they want to mandate the entire industry. In essence, however, it will remove all options...all choices. It won't matter what plan you or your employer buys, it will have the same basic provisions. What choice is that? Henry Ford once told an audience they could purchase the Model A in any color, so long as it is black.

And what happens if your company's plan or your privately purchased plan doesn't meet the government standards? Well, your employer is fined up to 8% of their entire payroll AND your plan is canceled and you and your fellow employees are automatically enrolled in the government plan. If you are silly enough to not buy a personal private health care plan that does not meet the government's criteria, then you too will be forced into the government plan and will have to pay a 2.5% tax on your income for not complying.

Those are really good choices.

2. Competition, the emblem of all that is capitalism. The administration has been saying for months that the government plan will bring competition to the industry and bring honesty to the insurance companies. But let's think about this for a second...or twenty.

Imagine, for a moment, that IBM obtains such an intense hold on the computer manufacturing industry that they set up a board designed to establish the standards by which all computers would be build. This board is run by people they appoint. This board establishes all the rules for computer manufacturing. They establish penalties for companies that do NOT manufacture computers by these standards and force you and me to dump a computer we own or buy that does not meet those standards. As soon as we dump that computer, we are forced to buy their computer.

Not only do all computer manufacturers have to abide by IBM's rules and pay fines when they don't, but should, by some miracle, some manufacturer be capable of abiding by those rules and still make a profit, IBM gets a share of those profits.

What sort of competition is that? It's not. In fact, if a company like IBM were capable of doing something like that and actually did it, there would be a public outcry and US Attorneys would bring suits against IBM for violation of anti-trust laws designed to restrain monopolies.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the government is doing with HR3200? Is there NOT a public outcry? Only one problem, THIS monopoly also owns those US Attorneys and the courts where those anti-trust lawsuits would be heard. Only thing is, there won't be any such lawsuits because the government has made sure that HR3200 contains provisions making sure they cannot be sued over this bill, and they put themselves in charge of enforcing convenient.

That's not competition. That's gangland tactics and extortion.

3. Many the proponents of Obama-scare laugh at the notion that HR3200 is going to give the government control over our lives, absconding with our liberties. When they are not denying such lunacies they are pointing out all the liberties we lost under Bush's administration (expecting to divert the argument AWAY from the liberties under assault by Obama). However, mostly, they just laugh at the notion of government control through health care.

But let's take a look at what the bill does to give government more control over our lives. Aside from the obvious, that taking over 1/6 of the country's economy will afford the government massive control over the economy, there are numerous other means by which they gain greater control over our lives. One section, for example, gives them complete and utter access to all our bank accounts and financial information. Much broader access than they have now through the IRS (the organization, btw, that will charged with collection of all the taxes, fines, penalties, co-payments and premiums that are part of the plan).

Another section of the bill offers to hire outside organizations, under the control and pay of the government, to come into our homes to take care of our elderly during home care.

Another section of the bill gives similar outside organization authority to come into our homes to evaluate our lifestyles...under the guise of helping the health care panels fine new and better ways to help us citizens learn how to live healthier, thus reducing health care costs.

Yet another section gives the government authority to send people into our homes to evaluate how we raise our children, give us advice and determine whether our children our living well. Combine this with the current UN Children's Rights Initiatives, which this administration wants to participate in, you will soon find the UN telling our children that they don't have to go to church on Sunday or do what we tell them to do, if they don't want.

Do you doubt that these provisions are in the bill? Do you WANT me to quote the sections? I will if you want. But you HAVE to ask. I am not going to assume that by reading this that you actually care what the government is wanting to do with health care reform. Or you could just read the bill yourself and see it for yourself.

But let's assume, just for a moment, that this bill, as written, does NOT give the government control over our lives to the extent I am saying. Let me show you how the government has, in the past, taken a, seemingly, harmless idea/bill and slowly and progressively expanded it to control our lives in ways the founders NEVER intended.

a) The federal income tax law. When first initiated it seemed harmless enough. It was a measly 7% in 1913...on income over $500,000. Do you have any clue what $500,000 of income in 1913 would be today? Based upon inflation rates from then till now, it would mean that in order to have to pay the top marginal tax rate of 7% you would have had to make what is the equivalent today of $10,000,000/year. Holy Cow for the Hindus amongst us.

But it didn't stop there. Due to the "emergency" of the first world war, Congress felt compelled to raise funds for the war by altering the tax rates. In 1917, the rate went to 67% of incomes over $2,000,000. Still not so bad. After all, there weren't THAT many people making that much money in 1917. Funny, though, how WWI began shortly after the US instituted the federal income tax.

Well, you'd think that once the war was over that rates would go back to what they were originally. You'd be wrong, though. In 1918, when the war ended, the highest marginal rate was 77% of incomes over $1,000,000. The very next year, rates DID go down, 73% of incomes over $1,000,000. By 1922, it was 58%....of incomes over $200,000...oops, coming after the middle class...well, not really..not yet.

This sort of pattern of taking more and more money from people continued throughout the 20th century. But this only addresses the HIGHEST marginal tax rates. Let's look at the LOWEST rates...where people BEGIN to pay taxes. In 1913, a person had to make $20,000 per year before they paid a dime in income taxes. That would equate to $400,000/year today. How would you like that make $400,000 before you have to pay a dime in income taxes? And this is before there was that silly little FICA tax. That's coming later.

By 1917, you remember, the year we entered the Great War, the lowest marginal rate had doubled from 1% to 2%...but rather than beginning at $20,000/year of income, it began at $2000/year of income. When the war ended, that lowest rate was 6% of incomes of $4000/year and dropped progressively to 1.125% of incomes over $4000/year. It never did return to the $20,000/year level.

By the time WWII, the next "emergency", drew us into war, the lowest marginal rates went to 10%, then 19%, then 21% of incomes over 4,000/year. The maximum rates went to as high as 94% of incomes over $200,000. FDR had what the progressives wanted.

Once again, the libs used their "emergency" to step up their control over our lives. The lowest marginal rates never again went back to that 4% rate. In fact, it wasn't until Reagan that they went below 20% of incomes over $4000/year.

Take note of the fact that there was no such thing as adjusting the rates to offset inflationary growth in incomes. They called this "income tax creep". More and more Americans found themselves making more money but also suddenly having to pay taxes on it. The Feds even reduced, not increased, exemptions used to reduce taxable income. In 1913, individuals received a $3000 personal exemption. By WWII that exemption was down to $500.

You know the current state of the income tax...convoluted and corrupted by special interests, earmarks and out of control IRS enforcement powers.

b) As if that's not enough, let's look at Social Security system. Originally designed as merely a retirement benefit with a tax rate of 1% on incomes up to $3000/year. In today's dollars, that would be a cap of about $45,000 of income/year. Not TOO bad...very palatable for the public to pay for a safety net retirement plan. Well, once in, the government didn't stop there...raising the rates precipitously over the next 70 years to what they are today...a max of 7.65% paid by both YOU and your employer on incomes UPTO $75,000/year.

But, of course, we get more benefits then we did in 1937, right. Yep, the SSA now has to pay a DEATH benefit to our family to the tune of $252....WHOOHOO!!!. And let's not forget they've also added a disability benefit...but, oh, wait, that's part of a totally separate ADDITIONAL nearly 1% (yes, the same amount as the original Social Security tax) of ALLLLLL cap.

c) How about something simple, like driver's licenses and vehicle registrations? Federal courts have ruled over and over and over again that Citizens have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal travel. Black's Law Dictionary on 1838 defines a "license" as permission from the state to do something which you would ordinarily have no right to do. What "permission" do we need from the government if the courts say we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for personal use?

Well, here's how we got to THAT point. Original licensing and vehicle registration laws were designed to regulate use of the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes...research it, if you don't believe me. But this makes sense. The courts never ruled that we have a fundamental right to use the public roads for COMMERCIAL purposes. Therefore, the people who used the roads for commercial purposes would, legitimately, need to pay a fee for the privilege of doing so. And would, legitimately, have to register the vehicles they use for those commercial purposes.

So how did they get us to the point where we all needed to obtain a license to use the public roads for non-commercial purposes and to register our personal property with the state and pay a fee to do so? They slowly and progressives and, yes, secretly, redefined terms in the vehicle codes. Instead of defining a "driver" as someone who uses the public roads for commercial purposes, they made it seem that ANYONE who uses the public roads using a vehicle is a "driver". It was a slow and heinously deceptive corruption of power and control over our lives.

d) Another license that has become abused by government is the marriage license. When in the world did it become necessary for us to obtain permission from the government to get married? Well, it all began post Civil War. Some states required "freed" slaves to obtain licenses to get married. In some states, it became necessary for whites who wanted to marry a black to obtain permission to do so as well. Instead of repealing such ignorant laws, or declaring them unconstitutional, the government saw an opportunity to take further control over our lives by redefining terms in the law and thus requiring ALL people to obtain permission from the state.

Part of this issue centers around other, more corrupt power grabs by the government. But I will not get into them at this time. My point in bringing these issues up is to prove that the government is not going to be satisfied with just passing a health reform bill providing an alternative public option. Once in the door, this government has proved themselves to be usurpers, greedy for more and more power and control over our lives.

This is not about control? Think again. This is ALL about control.

4) Tugging on the heart strings of citizens is always a ploy of the far left. Saul Alinsky taught them to force their opposition to live up to their own standards. They want us to PROVE just how compassionate we are or EXPOSE ourselves as the self-centered, heartless beasts they try vehemently to project us to be. Are we so heartless that we would want some poor child or woman or whatever to go without proper medical care? Of course not. So we MUST give them what they deserve, what they need, what they are entitled to, what they have a right to.

FDR wanted desperately to establish a second bill of rights in his third term. He wanted people to believe that their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness should include more than what the original bill of rights included. In his State of the Union address in 1944 he said,

"In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

"Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens."

There are two fundamental problems with this mindset. First, it assumes that the fundamental right to PURSUE happiness must necessarily include the fundamental right to HAVE happiness. This second bill of rights centers around what actually would MAKE people happy, not the more general principle of the PURSUIT of happiness.

Secondly, it presumes that the fundamental rights of Americans are afforded them BY the government. FDR, along with most every other progressive, thinks that our rights are given to us by the government. Conservatives understand fully that the government was established to PROTECT the very rights we have by the very simple fact that we exist. Whether you want to believe that you were created by God or not, the Constitution affords you the presumption that by your mere existence you have these rights and government is established with the primary purpose of PROTECTING those rights. Any government that assumes they grant us our rights (such as through licenses) is a government which also believes it can, by legislative or executive authority, rescind those rights.

No matter how affectionate we are towards those who suffer a need, we must NEVER afford our government the power and authority to attend to those needs at the unwilling expense of another. Charity, not government, is the power of the people to care for its own. Government must bow to that charity as the right of the individual to effectively apply it. Government is not established to compel charity, but to encourage and clear the way FOR it.

We are compelled by conscience to attend to the needs of the lowly. Governments are not instituted to enforce our conscience but to enforce our rights to exercise our conscience.

5) Lastly, the new Obama health reform message includes the old stand-by argument that we are the only civilized nation that does NOT have universal health care. In invoking this argument, proponents of the Obama agenda use time honored WHO statistics concerning health care in America. They declare that we spend more than any other country. They declare that we rank 37th in life expectancy. But let's look at those two primary stats. First, expenditures on health care. We rank so high because we have the most sophisticated health care system. We provide amazing health care for our citizens to the tune of providing the greatest recovery rates from virtually every major illness (especially cancers of various kinds). There ARE ways to reduce those costs (i.e. - through tort reform that would remove the need for doctors to put their patients through virtually every test possible to diagnose an illness).

As for the stat about life expectancy, these WHO numbers, unfortunately, also include those who die from murder, auto accidents AND, get this one, WAR. Well, duh, no one else is willing to send hundreds of thousands of troops in to fight these despots. What do you THINK is gonna happen to our life expectancy numbers when that happens? When you remove war figures and the other false indicator, deaths of illegals, our life expectancy rate ranks in the top 10 world wide. When you remove deaths by auto accident, a number that skews our life expectancy number by the mere fact that we own more cars than any other nation, BY FAR, we rank in the top 5.

But exclusive of statistics, ask yourself this question, since WHEN have we needed to follow all the other countries in ANYTHING. What a LAME argument to do anything. Can you imagine what a pathetic parent you would be if every time your teenage son asked to do something that his argument for doing it is that all his friends are doing it? Give me a break. Grow UP, Mr. Obama.

In conclusion, let me just say this, the firestorm of opponents to this plan is ENORMOUS. We cannot allow this president to merely re-package this plan using focus-group tested terms and bribery...yes bribery. This president WILL use stimulus money to bribe votes from a corrupt congress. As one conservative senator said about "blue dog democrats"...there is no such thing as a blue dog democrat. These are democrats. They pretend to be fiscally conservative in order to get elected in a mostly conservative district. They will vote certain ways on issues where their vote will not effect the outcome, in order to continue the pretense about their fiscal conservatism. When it comes down to it, they want to be re-elected. They will take the buyoff from Obama and ride it to re-election if they can. The same can be said about the RINO republicans.

We MUST not allow them to get away with it. Pass or not, ANYONE who votes for this bill or its revised version, MUST be pushed out of office as soon as possible. Do NOT let up. If you cannot go to the 9/12 event, send letters to your representatives telling them you would have gone had you been able to. Let them know you will NOT let up until this president's Marxist agenda is completely defeated. DEMAND that your representatives DEMAND they have enough time to read and debate the final bill.

If you made it this far in my note, thank you for your kindness and patience. I have now proofread this note and re-posted it. I hope it is useful to you all.

(Originally posted September 3, 2009 on my Facebook page.