All eyes are on Senate Majority Leader Reid, who has said he wants to complete the wedding quickly and get historic health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.
WASHINGTON — Health care talks slip back behind closed doors Wednesday as Senate leaders start trying to merge two very different bills into a new version that can get the 60 votes needed to guarantee its passage.
All eyes are on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who has said he wants to complete the wedding quickly and get historic health care overhaul legislation onto the floor the week after next.
Both bills were written by Democrats, but that’s not going to make it easier for Reid. They share a common goal, which is to provide all Americans with access to affordable health insurance, but they differ on how to accomplish it.
The Finance Committee bill that was approved Tuesday has no government-sponsored insurance plan and no requirement on employers that they must offer coverage. It relies instead on a requirement that all Americans obtain insurance.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee bill, passed earlier by a panel in which liberals predominate, calls for both a government plan to compete with private insurers and a mandate that employers help cover their workers. Those are only two of dozens of differences.
President Barack Obama acknowledges it’s not going to be easy. Speaking Tuesday in the Rose Garden, Obama called the 14-9 Finance Committee vote “a critical milestone” toward getting a health care overhaul this year. The legislation won its first Republican support when Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine broke ranks with her party, saying she was answering the call of history.
Obama wasn’t ready to bask in the bipartisan glow.
“Now is not the time to pat ourselves on the back,” he said. “Now is the time to dig in and work even harder.”
There was no victory lap either for Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana. “The bottom line here is we need a final bill, a merged bill, that gets 60 votes,” he said. “Our goal is to pass health care reform, not just talk about it.”
Read the rest @ FoxNews.comRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
by Jeffrey H. Anderson
The American people haven’t been shy about expressing their views on health-care reform. In the polls and at public events nationwide, they’ve made it clear that they don’t want a behemoth bill that would fundamentally transform a health-care system that works well for most Americans and which offers a level of care that is largely the envy of the world. But they are also understandably concerned about health care’s rising costs, its lack of portability, and the ten percent of Americans who are uninsured. They want to see these pressing problems be addressed, but in a sensible and moderate way.
The bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus does not answer Americans’ call. The Baucus bill is the real health-care bill, the bill on which the Obama administration is implicitly pinning its hopes. But it defiantly turns a deaf ear to the American people.
Seniors have been quite vocal in their concern that health-care legislation would degrade the quality of Medicare, yet the Baucus bill would gut the popular Medicare Advantage program and would pay for its own huge price-tag primarily through cuts to Medicare and related federal health programs. Seniors won’t relish robbing from Medicare to pay for BaucusCare, especially when Medicare is perhaps already the least fiscally solvent program in the United States. But the Baucus bill treats Medicare as if it were a money tree, providing a steady supply of cash to spend elsewhere.
Americans have said that they want more choice and freedom in health care, yet the Baucus bill would mandate that all Americans buy a government-approved insurance plan and would fine them if they don’t. Americans are weary of the federal government’s profligate spending and intrusiveness, yet the Baucus bill is full of Byzantine regulations that only a lawyer could love, and–according to the Congressional Budget Office–it would cost a mind-boggling $2.9 trillion over 20 years while increasing taxes by $2.0 trillion over that same span.
Furthermore, Americans want insurance to be more affordable. Yet the Baucus bill’s requirement that insurers cover all comers–at the same price, at any time–would lead millions to pay the government its fine (still much less than the cost of a premium), quit carrying insurance year-round, and repurchase it only when the immediate need arises. Everyone else’s insurance premiums would skyrocket.
The American people don’t want any of this. They don’t want a huge bill. Instead, they want a small bill that addresses their central concerns without opening the door to far greater..
Read more at the Weekly Standard.comRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Look for this on the Hill as early as Monday: A report commissioned by America’s Health Insurance Plans alleging that the Senate Finance Committee legislation would cause health care costs to go up faster than under the current system.
The report, which was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, has caused some buzz among Hill GOP aides. It was described to Pulse by a person familiar with the findings. (UPDATE: Here it is.)
The report will drop ahead of a crucial vote on the bill Tuesday in the Finance Committee, and could figure into the discussion there. At the very least, expect to hear a lot more about the report from Republicans, who are looking to slow any kind of momentum for the Democratic health care reform proposals after the Congressional Budget Office’s positive analysis last week.
The CBO concluded the Finance Committee bill would reduce the deficit by $81 billion in 2019, allaying the concerns of centrist senators for whom cost is a chief issue.
It’s interesting that the report comes from AHIP, which has spoken publicly in favor of overhauling the health care system, but has worked behind-the-scenes to kill aspects of the president’s plan, including attempts to create a government competitor to private plans, Insurance companies have also balked at the watered-down individual mandate in the Finance bill.
Read the Rest of the story Posted by Carrie Budoff Brown on Politico.comRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
By John Fritze, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Older Americans who buy health insurance on their own could pay nearly 50% more in premiums under the Senate Finance Committee bill compared with other versions pending in Congress, an independent study says.Americans between 55 and 64 could be charged an average of $8,650 a year for insurance under the Finance Committee bill compared with $5,930 under a separate bill approved in July by the Senate health committee, according to a report by the Urban Institute and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The discrepancy would not affect people who get insurance from Medicare or through work. It would apply to older Americans who buy coverage in the individual market or who are currently uninsured — about 6 million people between 55 and 64, Kaiser Family Foundation data show.
The Finance Committee is scheduled to vote Tuesday on its bill, which would cost $829 billion over 10 years and would cover 29 million uninsured Americans. The bill would require nearly everyone to buy a health insurance policy.
Determining how much insurance companies can consider age when setting premium prices could become a sticking point if the committee passes the bill. Democratic leaders will then have to merge the finance version with the health committee’s bill, which is more generous to older people.
David Sloane, AARP’s chief lobbyist asks, “Why is it more acceptable to discriminate against older people?” AARP was formerly known as the American Association of Retired Persons.
Families with two people ages 45 to 64 could be charged an average of $11,939 under the finance bill compared with $9,662 under other versions of the bill, according to the report.
Younger Americans, on the other hand, could pay less. The report found that single adults between 18 and 24 would pay $2,163 a year on average under the finance bill compared with $2,965 under legislation approved in July by the Senate health committee and bills pending in the House.
“This intergenerational issue is where the tension comes in,” said Linda Blumberg, senior fellow at the Urban Institute and lead author of the study.
In a July letter, the industry trade group, America’s Health Insurance Plans, asked Congress to allow them to charge older Americans five times more than younger ones — which the Urban Institute study says is close to the current industry practice. The finance bill would let insurers charge older adults four times more while the health committee and House versions of the bill set a 2-1 ratio, which is favored by AARP.
Representatives for the AARP and the insurance industry said they would be closely watching the merging process.
Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans said that individuals under 35 who are less likely to use insurance could wind up subsidizing coverage for everyone else if lawmakers favor older people.
Blumberg said because younger Americans earn less on average they would receive larger federal subsidies to offset the premiums. Individuals earning between $32,490 and $43,320, for instance, would get subsidies to cover premiums that exceed 12% of their income.
From USATodayRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Step right up: A new entitlement that cuts the deficit!
Washington spent the week waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to roll in with its new cost estimates of the Senate health-care bill, and what a carnival. Behold: a new $829 billion entitlement that will subsidize insurance for tens of millions of people—and reduce deficits by $81 billion at the same time. In the next tent, see the mermaid and a two-headed cow.
The political and media classes are proving they’ll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a “green light” for ObamaCare. (What isn’t these days?) The irony is that the CBO’s guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is “paid for” with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.
The better part of the 10-year $829 billion overall cost will finance insurance “exchanges” where individuals and families could purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus kept a lid on the cost by making this program non-universal: Enrollment is limited to those who aren’t offered employer-sponsored insurance and earn under 400% of the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four. CBO expects some 23 million people to sign up by 2019.
But this “firewall” is unlikely to last even that long. Liberals are demanding heftier subsidies, and once people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care, they too will want in. Even CBO seems to find this unrealistic, noting “These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation.” Scratch “often.”
Then there are the many budget gimmicks. Take the “failsafe budgeting mechanism” that would require automatic cuts in exchange spending if it increases the deficit. CBO expects 15% reductions in exchange subsidies each year from 2015 to 2018, even though the exchanges don’t open until 2014. That kind of re-gifting should have been laughed out of the committee room, but the ruse helps to move future spending off the current budget “score.”
Read the rest at Wall Street JournalRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
By Stephen Spruiell
In the early 1990s, eight state governments imposed “guaranteed issue” and “community rating” regulations on health-insurance companies operating in their states. Guaranteed issue means that insurance companies cannot deny coverage except in rare cases, such as those involving fraud. Community rating means that insurance companies are restricted in their ability to charge higher rates based on things like gender, age, or medical history. All the versions of Obamacare being debated in Congress would impose guaranteed issue and community rating on the nation.
The effect of these reforms at the state level is no longer a matter for debate: In each case, insurance premiums skyrocketed; healthy people stopped buying insurance; and insurance companies exited the market in droves. Each state government was forced to take corrective action. Yet, while three state governments possessed the good sense to repeal or weaken their guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, the other five papered over their failures with inadequate, short-term fixes.
What accounts for the difference? In Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Washington state, conservative Republicans were able to find footholds at key moments and repeal or weaken the requirements. In New York, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, the political culture proved inhospitable to calls for market-based solutions.
Keep reading on National Review
By: Jim Meyers
A government-run healthcare system favored by many Democrats would be “ruthless” in its treatment of healthcare recipients, warns former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.
In a wide-ranging exclusive Newsmax interview, the Texas Republican also said Sarah Palin will prove to be a far better proponent of small-government conservatism than John McCain was in 2008.
And Armey agrees with House Minority Leader John Boehner’s recent assertion to Newsmax that President Obama’s appointment of many so-called “czars” constitutes a “circumvention” of the Constitution.
Armey, who entered the House in 1984, was a leading architect of the “Republican Revolution” in the 1990s and the Contract with America. He was a national sponsor of the March on Washington in September, and is chairman of the conservative non-profit organization FreedomWorks.
Armey was instrumental in a lawsuit that successfully challenged a requirement that seniors had to enroll in Medicare or lose their Social Security benefits.
“This is a big victory for me and I think for America, for my partners in the lawsuit,” he said in his interview with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella and Kathleen Walter.
“Imagine this: They have been enforcing a policy memorandum since 1993 — not a law, not a regulation, just a memorandum — that says, for example, if you’re a Christian Scientist and you decide not to enroll in Medicare, you lose your Social Security. What audacity is this?
“It’s an issue that needed to be set right, and we’ve done that, and I’m proud of the courts for seeing our case.
“But it’s also a reflection people should look at: If they’re that ruthless with our senior citizens, they’ll be that ruthless with you and me if they get their hands on all of America’s healthcare. They’ll be these kinds of secret, hidden bureaucratic implementations that aren’t understood or appreciated.”
Noting the massive negative response to Obama’s healthcare reform plans, Armey agreed that we are seeing a “populist uprising.”
He said: “I think it goes back to last April when we had the initial tea party uprisings across the country. It fascinated me to watch the Democrats’ response. They said, they’ll go away. Then they came back in August. Then they had the march on Washington. [The Democrats are] finally coming to terms with the fact that these are very real concerns expressed by hundreds of thousands of American citizens all over the country.
“It boils down to the simple observation by Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama: We can’t get our votes in the legislative body because members of Congress are being responsive to the concerns raised by their constituents.”
Martella cited a Health and Human Services Department “gag order” on insurance companies, stopping them from mailing out information to their clients about the proposed $500 billion cut in the Medicare Advantage program.
“Armey’s axiom: If you’re going to peddle a bum steer, you better keep it under wraps,” he responded. “The first thing they want is, no one should know what’s in this bill.
“This is their strategic mistake: When Speaker Pelosi allowed the committees to report that bill before the August recess, they gave America a chance to read the bill. This is why it blew up in their faces.
“The fact of the matter is, it’s heavy-handed. It is coercive. If you read the bill, it is frightening…
“The country’s really concerned. They consider this a big, unnecessary government takeover, an aggressive government takeover.”
Regarding the so-called “public option” health insurance plan being pushed by Democrats, Armey said that most Democrats in the House “want government-run healthcare. They think having a public insurance option is a compromise from their most desired position, which is just have the government run it all. ”
Walter asked Armey if he is concerned about President Obama’s appointment of several dozen “czars” — special advisors or envoys who have relatively few restrictions on their authority and do not have to win Senate confirmation as Cabinet secretaries do.
Read the rest @ NewsMax.com & see VideoRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Lights, camera, agitprop! The curtains opened on yet another artfully staged performance of Obamacare Theater this week. One hundred and fifty doctors took their places on the plush lawn outside the West Wing — many acting like “Twilight” groupies with cameras instead of credible medical professionals. The president approved the scenery: “I am thrilled to have all of you here today, and you look very spiffy in your coats.”
White House wardrobe assistants guaranteed the “spiffy.” As the New York Post’s Charles Hurt reported, the physicians “were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.” President Obama’s aides hastily handed out costumes to those who came in suits or dresses before the doc-and-pony show began.
But while Halloween came early to the Potomac, these partisan single-payer activists in White House-supplied clothing aren’t fooling anyone.
Obama’s spin doctors belong to a group called Doctors for America (DFA), which reportedly supplied the white lab coats. The White House event was organized in conjunction with DFA and Organizing for America, Obama’s campaign outfit.
OFA and DFA are behind a massive new Obamacare ad campaign, letter-writing campaign and doctor-recruitment campaign. The supposedly “grassroots” nonprofit DFA is a spin-off of Doctors for Obama, a 2008 campaign arm that aggressively pushed the Democrats’ government health care takeover. DFA claims to have thousands of members with a “variety of backgrounds.” But there’s little diversity in their views on socialized medicine (98 percent want a taxpayer-funded public insurance option) — or in their political contributions.
Read the list at Townhall.comRead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
When then-Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama promised not to sign major legislation until it had been posted on the Internet for public reading at least five days, trusting voters took him at his word. Now they know better. Not only is the actual language of what is likely to become the main legislative vehicle for Obama’s signature health care reform not available on the Internet, it hasn’t been given to members of the key Senate committees or the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), either. All that is available to those worried about a massive government takeover of our health care system is a 262-page description of the bill’s provisions. Bill descriptions mean nothing and bind nobody.
Brian Darling, a legislative analyst with the Heritage Foundation, believes the Senate Democratic leadership intends to use an obscure parliamentary maneuver to bring the actual health care reform proposal to the Senate floor in order to prevent a Republican-led filibuster. Once debate starts in the Senate, Democrats will only need 51 votes to add the public option provision they have long favored. The White House and the Democratic congressional leadership know that passing so monumental a proposal in this manner violates the president’s promise of greater transparency, but they don’t care. That became clear last week when Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Jim Bunning, R-KY, offered an amendment requiring the actual legislative language be posted on the Internet for 72 hours prior to final passage. Bunning’s amendment was soundly defeated. As The Examiner’s Susan Ferrechio reported yesterday, there is no reason to think that situation will change before a vote on final passage.
Technically, Senate and House rules require that all bills be read in their entirety three times before debate begins, with a 24-hour and one-week respite between readings to allow elected representatives to digest what’s in the bills before voting on them. But rules are made to be suspended, as frequently happens on Capitol Hill. Indeed, earlier this year, hardly any member of Congress read the 1,100-page stimulus bill because copies of the bill only became available barely 13 hours before the final vote. Passing the even more massive health care reform bill without reading it or allowing the public to do so will qualify as among the worse instances ever of legislative malpractice. The shameless message Democrats are thus sending to the American people, with tacit approval of the White House, is this: “We won’t read the bill, and neither will you.” The public’s response ought to have a familiar ring to it: “You won’t tread on me.”Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
The monstrously complicated Democratic health-care bills costing upward of a trillion dollars are churning through Congress. They are too complicated for the average voter to fully comprehend and too voluminous for the average lawmaker to read. They spend money we don’t have and create enormous new bureaucracies to regulate, limit, control, and, yes, ration care. The actual cost of health care (as opposed to what the government will pay for it) isn’t addressed in any meaningful way. Medicare Advantage, a popular program, will be slashed. And millions will have huge new tax liabilities. There is something for everyone to hate, and a lot of people do.
Republicans and a few Democrats have offered insightful critiques. There are many, many ideas and proposals swirling from, among others, Sen. Tom Coburn, Sen. Jim DeMint, Rep. Tom Price, and Rep. Paul Ryan. But now Jeffrey Anderson has gone to the trouble of culling the best ideas and putting them on a single page. Yes, one page. These ideas have appeared in one form or another in Republican proposals and in pundit columns. And here’s the kicker: it doesn’t really cost a lot. Here’s the short version of the already short version of conservative health-care reform suggested by Anderson:
1. Leave employer-provided insurance as it is and give individuals a $2,500 tax credit to equalize tax treatment for individuals who buy their own insurance.
2. Allow individuals to buy insurance across state lines.
3. Extend COBRA for up to 30 months, allowing people to keep their insurance if they leave a job.
4. Remove government regulations limiting insurers from offering premium breaks for healthy lifestyle choices.
5. Enact real malpractice reform (limit punitive damages to $250,000 and all noneconomic damages to $750,000).
6. Provide help to encourage insurance pools for the hard to insure.
That’s it. Over 10 years Anderson’s plan would spend $75B and include $345M in tax cuts. The Baucus bill (one version of it, at least) would spend $856B and include a net increase of $352B in tax hikes and $47B in fines. Both the Anderson and the Baucus plans would insure 95 percent of Americans.
There is something to be said for simplicity — and a lot to be said for achieving the same results as Democrats are promising without a massive tax hike, a government takeover of health care, another massive hit to the budget, and thousands of pages of new federal regulations.Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
By Star Parker
The ACORN scandal shows that if Congress wants to act, it can.
Within weeks of Fox airing videos of a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute being advised by ACORN “community organizers” on how to evade taxes and set up a prostitution ring, our stalwart Washington legislators voted to cut off federal funds to the organization.
But similar publicized abuses at Planned Parenthood – workers agreeing to cover up rape or earmarking funds to abort black babies – all captured on video and audio – produced no similar action in Washington to cut off funds.
Of course, the scope of taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is many times greater – a few hundred million dollars per year versus a few million.
But that’s no explanation.
Congress acts when voters demand it. And, sadly, the decibel level of outrage about abortion, let alone federal funds supporting abortion enablers, is not great enough.
A hint of the problem is evident in a new abortion survey released by the Pew Research Center.
The good news for “pro-lifers” is that sentiment continues to move against abortion. Forty five percent now believe abortion should be illegal in most cases, up four points from a year ago, and 47 percent believe it should be legal, down seven points from last year.
But less encouraging is a drop in the percentage that sees abortion as a “critical” issue. Fifteen percent, down from 28 percent a year ago.
I think this is why Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion factory in the country, continues annually to get hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds, under both Democrat and Republican leadership.
It’s why, despite opposition from Republicans and some conservative Democrats, we have health-care bills moving in both the House and Senate that will allow federal funds to subsidize purchase of insurance that will pay for abortions.
The outrage is not great enough. Too many still turn a deaf ear or a blind eye.
Young women prepared to abort largely change their mind when they see an ultrasound image of the live child moving inside of them. If somehow a whole nation could grasp this experience, things would change.
Or perhaps if they saw the picture of the beautiful young woman, recently given to me by her mother, who died in an abortion clinic.
Read more by Star Parker- GOPUSARead Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
by Brian Darling
President Obama and liberals in Congress seems intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
Read the rest of this story on The Heritage Foundation
Hello Barry. I’ve decided to write you a few questions in response to the unsolicited emails I keep getting from BarackObama.com. Since most of your form emails concern health care I’ll confine most of my questions to one health-related subject: Abortion.
1. Did you know that about 150 young black people were admitted to Howard University School of Law this year? But, unfortunately, about 1370 black babies were aborted today. How can we effect “social justice” if the health profession kills far more blacks than the legal profession is currently accepting into its ranks?
2. Isn’t abortion sort of like liberalism in a nutshell? It’s just a way of asking others to suffer the consequences of your own bad decisions.
3. Doctors are supposed to save lives and not take them. Shouldn’t abortion doctors then be required to take the hypocritical oath?
4. You been supported by People…Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
RAPID RESPONSE – Fox News
Concern over one virus has made thousands of people across the country — many have died and some worry that it could grow into a full blown pandemic. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is preparing a very controversial bill. Massachusetts proposing legislation that would allow police to force quarantining of residents and even impose martial law. Without a war. Could that possibly be constitutional? Apparently they’re worried that the swine flu is a public safety issue. They’re talking about a law where the police can knock on your door or may or may not necessarily knocking it or just go in and essentially quarantining citizens.
” What they’re doing more than talking about in the state of Massachusetts. A law that will allow Governor Deval Patrick to declare an emergency. Once he declares an emergency he can authorize non healthcare licensed personnel, read that to mean police — to vaccinated people against their will and force adults to take vaccination, without a trial, without charges- without even a search warrant. This is what the statute authorizes. It also authorizes the police to remove children from adults, to vaccinate them against the will of the child and the will of the parents. Are they gonna just have neighbors turn and other neighbors? Do they have a list of people who got vaccinated? The constitution says the police can’t break into your home and the police can’t take your children away from you and parents decide what medication that children get. (more…)Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2009, 10:29 AM
PRESS RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OPEN LETTER TO MICHAEL STEELE AND THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
On the first page of your website you have a section that says something to the effect, “tell me what you think.” OK, here it is:
How much longer do “we the people” have to sit out here and wait for you to do something? Where is your voice? Where is your spine? Why does a talk show host/entertainer have to do your job? Where is the leadership of the Republican Party in Congress?
If the United States of America survives past 2009 it will certainly not be because the RNC and the congressional leadership stood firm and held news conferences and produced youtube videos, to keep us, the citizenry informed. What a sad state of affairs when the media controls what we get to hear from you, the elected officials. Are you fearful of what they will call you? Have you no power? Do they own you?
The grassroots have been fighting since April to voice our opposition to what is happening in our government. We have held tea parties, town halls, rants in public places, we have all become proficient on facebook, twitter, blogs, etc. We stay up most nights trying to google information, watch Glen Beck, read and re-read our constitution. We have been like blind people trying to put a puzzle together and now that we are succeeding in seeing what is being done to us; it’s a frightening thing. I can only speak for myself but there have been times in the last six months that I have to pinch myself and ask if I am still in my country.
We have spent time calling, writing, emailing, petitioning our elected officials and we are called un-American, terrorists, mobs, dangerous, right-wing extremists, kooks, etc. I don’t hear national voices calling the main stream media to task for attacking us. I have only heard of one congressman who is going to the Library of Congress before the session begins to look up information on “redressing of grievances”. Why hasn’t the entire Republican congress called a meeting to ask the same thing?
We begged the Republicans to stop cap and trade and they did not. I can’t believe that any thinking person would even be talking about trying to pass something as heinous as HR 3200. When I hear a Republican, especially McCain talk about tweaking the bill and then passing it, I want to scream! What could these people be thinking? The only thing that could help this bill is for it to be flushed!
Do you watch television? Do you watch Fox20News? Do you watch Glen Beck? I’m appalled that there has not been a movement from the Republican Party to impeach this man who is living in our Whitehouse. Don’t even try to tell me that we can’t do that. We must impeach him. Are you aware that Van Jones, the green job czar, whose organization, the Apollo Alliance, wrote the stimulus bill and is receiving tax dollars to dismantle our country? Van Jones is a self-avowed communist! Those are his words. This man is an advisor to the President? How can that happen? How can any elected official stand by and let this happen? Who is representing us?
What about Cass Sunstein? This man is a fascist nut. Yes, I did say fascist. I’m sick of not being able to speak truths because we’re fearful of not being politically correct. Guess what? We are out of the p.c. closet. Sunstein is a proponent of the ‘nudge’ philosophy – Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Our decisions, our health, our wealth and our happiness. No thank you. This man thinks animals should have the right to take people to court??? This is not a fairy tale.
Now we hear that our internet may be taken from us through legislation – SB 773. Will this be carried out through martial law? I have not heard one Republican official say that they are not going to allow this to happen.
Are all the conspiracy theorists correct when they say that the Republicans are just as instrumental in destroying our country as the liberal fascist arm of the Democratic Party are?
The President is destroying the United States of America. If a Russian Professor can see it, and write articles about it, why can’t you? What do we need to do to start the impeachment process? I could list numerous other things that he has done that I believe are in direct opposition to our constitution but I don’t have the time or the space. You could contact Glen Beck; he will fill you in.
I am going to put this letter on Facebook, Twitter, blogs; I’m going to email it to every address I can get my hands on. I will send it as a press release to every media outlet I can think of and who knows, maybe one or two will print it. I’m going to send it to talk shows and I’m also going to email it to you. I certainly hope I receive an answer and if I do, I will also send that out to all the above mentioned sites.
Thank you for your time and I pray that God will Bless America.