Tea Parties - We Will Be Heard

Contrary to what liberals are saying about the "Tea Party" idea, the Tea Party rallies are events where genuinely concerned people can come together to express their frustration over excessive government spending, government takeover of private corporations, pervasive governmental intrusion into our very lives, and where they can demonstrate a genuine concern over the challenges to some of our individual freedoms.  And make no mistake, the people are "conservatives" who are Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and non-committed to any political party and from several racial backgrounds as well.

The Tea Party rally I just attended had quite a crowd for a small state; I'd estimate it was close to 1,500 people.  I spent an hour and a half reading all the handmade signs and t-shirts that I could.  No one wore swastikas or carried signs with racial slurs. There was nothing hateful about the rally. Instead, I saw signs that said things like "I fought for my country once, and I'll do it again!"  "I've seen your change, now change it back."  "No Obamacare."  "Haste Makes Waste"  "Term Limits Now!" "Stop spending my grandchildren's money!" "Silent Majority - No Longer Silent".  Some were catchy like "I'm an anti-socialist" or "Astroturf made in [name of state]; Anger manufactured in Washington" and other signs expressing their desire for responsible spending, imposing term limits on Congress, the requirement of the teaching of the Constitution in public schools, as well as for Congress and the President to return to the Constitution as the ultimate guide writing and applying all laws.

All pretty innocuous, I'd say.  But regardless of what was printed on their signs or shirts, their belief in their Constitutional rights to be heard is what brought them all to one central place to make a statement.  And if I were to boil it all down to a few simple statements, it would be these:  President Obama, we don't like path to socialism you have us going down and we are determined to go no further.  Congress, since you work for us, we demand you listen to us.  Preserve our individual freedoms now! 

Obviously, since we elected our US Representatives and Senators to represent us (their home states) in Washington DC, it is natural for us to expect them to listen to us whether they are at home or when we contact their Washington offices, and then to express our wishes on the floor of the House and Senate or in committee meetings and to protect our interests.  Unfortunately, many of them have truly forgotten that. Here's a prime example of that:



So, there you have it. Their constituents have become a vehicle to get elected, to gain power, and then they are no longer necessary because "everybody knows that it's hard to get an incumbent out of office." Perhaps that cliché' has long past. Ya think? We shall see. We shall see.

But in Washington, here's what is happening. Our representatives are hearing some things from their colleagues that they think has merit (or is a good deal that they can get in on or that they can line their pockets with or trade favors for), they conduct "legislative swap-meets", in order to gain support on issues that would profit them in some way. It's has become abundantly apparent that in Washington DC, and specifically in the halls of Congress, it's all about special interests groups, or how much money and favors change hands in order to get certain legislation passed, how it is going to benefit their own personal wealth, or give them position and/or power on committees, and so on. If you don't believe that's what it's all about, just look at how many lobbyists there are there in DC!

An example of what goes on might look something like this: If you help me get this bill passed, I'll support you in getting that widget manufacturing company to locate in your state and the company will pay out a bonus of a gazillion dollars which we will split. Or, if you help me get this legislation passed, I'll see that you get on such and such committee. But it starts back home. State legislators vote to lower taxes or give tax breaks/credits or make other conciliatory arrangements to lure business to their state. That brings jobs - a good thing - and it brings revenue in taxes - not a bad thing - but most importantly from a Tea Party perspective is the backroom dealings that go on that ultimately line the pockets of politicians who are sponsoring that company's relocation - a bad thing! There is corruption at every level of government beginning even in municipal government.

It is imperative that House and Senate members remember that they are sent Washington with a mandate from their voters, and should not come back home to lecture their constituents on what they have doing in Washington "for their good". Who, in the world, gave them the idea that they would get some epiphany while in Washington, that the socialistic ideas of a particular group of people, or the special interests of certain lobbyists would be best for their people back home?

Do they believe these conservatives from all political backgrounds are so stupid as to not know what has been going on for years and years on end? No, I don't think that's it - at least all of it. Rather, I think that they know that we were lulled into lethargy, perhaps feeling that we couldn't do anything to change the system - a feeling of hopelessness and oftentimes despair.

But those of us who are attending these Tea Parties do know what's going on, we have become well informed, and we have grown extremely tired of politics as usual, and we're not going to sit quietly by and let the erosion of our freedoms continue any more. We're going to start at ground zero and make a difference. We are going to "get in their faces", if necessary, and remind all of our elected officials that they work on our behalf, that we elected them to do a job for us. It is not their job to take office so they could barter and trade their votes on programs and policies and to line their pockets. They need to be reminded that people who elected them want to what they were mandated to do, to protect their Constitutional rights, to protect their interests and to represent them before the House and Senate. We certainly did not send our legislators to change the Constitution, to gain personal wealth while relieving us of our own, or to convert this nation to socialism or fascism or communism.

We Tea Party goers value our freedoms, we value free enterprise, and we value the system that allowed a bi-racial kid to rise to the rank of President of the United States without the benefit of wealth or birthright. That is what needs to be stressed -- how, under the freedoms that are afforded to the American people under the US Constitution, that can happen for anyone born under those liberties that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Abraham Lincoln used to be our example for a poor, self-educated person's ability to become the leader of the free world. But today, we have a modern day model who had humble beginnings, managed to get a good education, and run and ascend to the highest office in the land. And in regard to Obama's School Speech to be delivered on Tuesday, that is all the politics that needs to be shared with elementary students.

But this same President seems intent on bringing us as quickly as possible to socialism. At every turn, he stresses socialistic policy where the hardest workers are required to share with those who don't put forth equal effort, or won't work at all. I'm not talking about people who cannot work. There are government programs (though improperly run) and charities in existence to assist those with their needs. But to say that if we work very hard and make a very good living and provide a comfortable life for our families, that we will be penalized by having to dole out part of our means to others who don't put forth equal effort. Or if we start a business and it finally becomes successful, that we'll have to pay a high tax level which will be diverted to the poor (if it really ever reaches them). That only encourages lazy, non-productive individuals who are content to just "exist" to sit back with hands out. It discourages those like Obama with humble beginnings to reach for a higher plateau than they were born to. And there are lots of people out there that don't have any drive or ambition in life.

So, Tea Parties are popping up with a unified agenda to do whatever they can peacefully and lawfully to protect our Constitutional rights to enjoy life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. They're people who are simply concerned citizens, concerned over what they see happening to their country. Some are "wealthy" small business people, but most are middle class, blue-collar workers who have worked very hard for years and years to get to some level of comfortable living and who pay their fair share of taxes. Most of them have never been political before, never made a public stance on any issue, but they have now come together to form a coalition of grassroots patriots who will be a force to be reckoned in 2010 and 2012 and thereafter.

What they believe and what they're feeling - what's motivating them is captured in The Tea Party Anthem. Enjoy!

Speed-Read HR3200

I read a good portion of HR3200. I'm an relatively intelligent individual so I understood the words, but not the meanings of most of the words in the way that they were put together. I think that was the intent. It is entirely too complex and intentionally vague. Further, it continually referred back to other legislation that I didn't have on hand to read. (I wonder how long the bill would have been if those sections had been inserted rather than referred to! SHEESH!)

Conservatives, such as myself, are more than appalled that anyone would vote on any legislation that they had not read for themselves. Actually, it's the most asinine thing that a legislator can do. I would be willing to bet that the only sections of this bill or the other iterations of it that these people in the House and Senate are familiar with is the portion that pertains to their particular interests.

When called to account, some of our representatives and senators have said that they had someone else read the bill. Well, I guess that's alright, but I'll bet they didn't understand it either. Lawyers are even having a hard time understanding it. I actually heard a legislator say that they had speed readers read the bill. Take a look at this:




I've taken a speed reading course. There's no way that a significant depth of understanding of the content can be gleaned from reading a bill in this manner prior to voting.

So... if this is the way the speed readers read the bill, then there's no wonder when asked at the townhall meetings the representatives and senators couldn't say what was actually in the bill or what wasn't. In fact, almost without exception, the townhallers had a better understanding than the legislators and could quote section and page numbers in most cases.

As the bill was mentioned, the senators said there was no bill... true, enough because there hasn't be one come together in the senate. But that was a "play dumb" strategy that hasn't proven to bode well for them, because the Senate bill will be based primarily upon the HR3200, unless they completely start from scratch. When questioned on specifics of the HR3200 bill, House members were often clueless... or chose politician-speak (many words that talk around an issue without addressing it), or completely dismissed the question and moved on. It was pretty clear who had cared enough to even glance at the HR3200 bill.

Now as for the legislators actually reading the bill, if speed reading is to be the way these absurdly lengthy and highly incoherent bills are going to be handled for the legislators, I'd like to suggest a comprehension test be given to the speed readers that are on the payrolls of these elected officials. And if they don't understand 90% or better of the content and can't explain it on a junior high school level to the legislator (and that is probably over-rating the intellect of some of them!) , then the legislator should be not be allowed to cast a vote on it. Of course, my preference would be that the legislators would be considerate enough of their constituents to actually read what's in it... not just for the benefit of their states, but to protect their states from portions that might actually be detrimental to their state's interests.

But really! Who in Washington, DC cares about those folks back at home? Really!

What About All This Health Care "Chatter"

I've been watching the reporting on several media outlets on these townhall meetings. The reporting appears, of course, to be a bit slanted depending upon which media outlet you pay attention to. So, rather than give comment on either of the various reports, I'll speak of what I saw and what I think about what I saw.

Time was that the townhall was used as a place where the people had a chance to tell their representatives what was on their minds and to ask for clarification on issues being discussed in the US Congress and get straight answers! But more recently, townhalls have become successful stumping grounds for political candidates in putting forth their political agendas prior to election. Thus, because that was so successful, townhalls have become a place where the well-entrenched politicians can come and tell us what they're doing and spin their actions such as to either confound their constituents further or to make "an appearance" of being a real representative for what is best for their constituents.

These more recent healthcare townhall meetings started with Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebilius.... the first thing I noticed was that what came out of Specter's mouth was the excuse about not having time to read bills due to the rush put on them to pass the legislation, and then the same old rhetoric that has been spouted by healthcare proponents in the halls of Congress in Washington DC. At that point it became very clear that he and Kathleen were going to present the same old "blah-blah-blah" that had been spouted by all the healthcare reform supporters, and that's when those in attendance who are fed up with the same ol', same ol' began forcefully speaking out.

Yes, it was loud... and why? Because Specter and Sebilius had the microphones and they didn't, and they were determined to make their points. They saw that these two people came to present the same old propaganda with which they disagreed, and that these two standing in the front of the room really had no true answers to the legitimate questions the people had. So, their hopes of hearing something different, something to which they could ascribe, were dashed immediately and the result was that their frustration quickly grew.

I don't blame them. I've sent messages to my senators and representative and all I get for my effort is a thank you for contacting us form letter. There is no genuine statements of concern or that they were affected by my or anyone else's misgivings, nor did they give direct answers to my questions. So, if we call, email, or write letters and receive no real acknowledgement, is there any wonder that we're frustrated to the point of "getting in their face" just to be heard?

Today, I watched another of Arlen Specter's townhall meetings. Approximately 200 people or so were allowed into the hall and of those only 30 were allowed to draw numbers to ask questions. I applaud his attempt to control his meeting, but actually I found myself watching political "dodge ball" in some of the exchanges, meaning that I heard some pat "political non-answer answers" to a few of the questions to which he knew he'd get the most pushback or those he didn't want to directly box himself in on. I did hear a few promises made to not vote for certain provisions which were of concern to the audience members. Whether he keeps those promises is yet to be seen. After all, he abandoned those who put him in office, didn't he? All in all, it was a fairly respectful exchange with some passionate and pointed statements and questions. But I was still left with the feeling that Arlen Specter wasn't changed in his position by the concern and types of questions he was being asked. Rather, I feel that he was just relieved that he made it through this townhall meeting in one piece!

I feel it is really important to state that in the first townhall, I noticed the absence of what appeared to be an organized demonstration. I saw no pre-printed placards, I saw no group T-shirts. The only "union" I saw was when someone made a point that was shared by others in the audience, they stood up and applauded. For the most part they remained in their seats and a few stood to make their point before sitting down again. In the second one, I noticed the presence of law enforcement.... still no printed placards, no group T-shirts... no angry fists pumping in the air... just really concerned citizens. (But that's not what the far left and liberal media is claiming happens at these meetings.) Rather than troublemakers, I saw people who looked to be uber-mainstream... though somewhat older than those you normally see in a rowdy demonstration. No one advanced on the podium, no one shook angry fists in the speakers face, though there was some pointed fingers driving home their points. They were determined that this meeting was was not going to be a "just sit there and listen while I tell you what it is that's best for you," but the people in the smaller second townhall audience were more respectful and thanked him for showing up.

The atmosphere in these townhalls was charged no doubt, but they certainly weren't threatening. If the senators and representatives and cabinet members felt threatened, it must have come from within, knowing that what they were trying to sell wasn't a "genuine" product. And it wasn't until the White House called for their "paid grass roots" people - who are stupid enough to wear identification in the form of apparel and pre-printed placards - to attend and make their presence known - and were given preferential seating in the halls so as to present a more favorable appearance to the media - did there appear anything resembling violence. That's how they've been trained in these community organization camps - to disrupt through civil disobedience if necessary which means they can be violent, they can smack people around, they can shove and push, injure, and intimidate, etc. They better watch out, though. I've heard that little old grannies and old vets can be forces to be reckoned with!

I'm now watching Obama's townhall meeting and listening to him restate himself on some things he already said he wanted his healthcare plan to do. Standing behind him on stage are about a hundred obvious Obama supporters. The first several rows in the audience appear to be more of the same. Certain people are being selected from the audience to give their questions. In spite of the insistence that this isn't staged, it has all the appearances of an orchestrated townhall where he can relive his campaign glory days in a loving atmosphere and regurgitate his "charming" rhetoric to the viewing audience in an attempt to reset the tone and regain support for his healthcare/insurance plan.

I'm not the only one who's noticed a change in some of the terms he's using now. I'm not sure if it's due to the pressure he's feeling from some of these outspoken townhall attendees.... or a just reaction to the polls that are moving more and more to the negative. In an effort to win back those who have grievances against the original plan as published by the House of Representatives in their bill HR3200, Obama is now shifting from calling it "healthcare reform" to "insurance" reform.... just like he did when he changed the term the "stimulus" to "recovery". And why was that? Because the effects of the "stimulus" have not been evident. Recovery is a prolonged and less quantifiable term.

So far, the House and Senate leaders are sticking to their guns, though, and calling it healthcare reform. Some of these terms and other "volatile" terms continue to come out of the mouths of the House leadership. They're not following Obama's precedence. Perhaps Obama's Communications Director (or Czar or whatever) needs to communicate with the Senate and the House of Representatives about what the "term of du jour" is because they aren't saying the same things...

And it also appears that no one in Washington has actually read HR3200, or if they have, they don't know what actually is or isn't in it. You can tell that by the blank stares or excuses they're getting when asked about specific passages in the bill. Even Obama doesn't know what's in it and has said as much. No one has been able to answer what the actual cost of this legislation will be and where the funds to pay for it will come from. In fact, they want to pass it way before they know this information. That seems an asinine move. Would you commit to making a major purchase without knowing the cost and how you're going to pay for it? So I ask, are we surprised that we are somewhat confused about what is contained in this bill, what effect this healthcare/insurance plan will have on us, and what it's going to cost us not only in the immediate but down the road???

Regardless of what this piece of legislation is called it doesn't change the content of the bill and the things are that the townhallers are incensed about. I can't help but wonder. The majority of the people do not want this particular bill in either version. What they do want is tort reform, changes in insurance companies' control over cost and coverage, and they want affordable insurance premiums and healthcare. Why then are these congressmen embracing all these other things that are in this bill? Well, the answer is that's Washington. Slip whatever you can in under the radar so that you get what you've been paid for or repay those to whom you owe favors. I heard a report that pharmaceutical companies struck a deal with the White House within the last few days. Hmmm. There's only one answer for that I can think of.... lobbyi$t$!! What do you think?

I can only assume that Congress really doesn't care about how it affects everyone else because it doesn't touch them in a personal way. Well, hopefully those things are being watched more closely by the citizenry from now on, and those in the Senate and House will be held more accountable after this. Not only do we need to keep pressuring our representatives with questions for clarity on the healthcare issues, but we need to hold them accountable for all the promises they have made in their campaigns and in these townhall meetings.