MoveOn, trying to intimidate the Blue Dog Democrats, asked their members to pledge money for campaigns to keep them in line:
But the vote never happens—because one Democratic senator joins Republicans to filibuster and block a vote. 2009 becomes just another year when health care reform failed.
If someone decided to take on that senator in the Democratic primary afterwards, would you chip in to help the challenger? I know I would.
Here’s the thing: If thousands of us make it clear we’d do the same, and Democratic senators know it, we might just be able to keep this nightmare scenario from ever coming to pass.
That’s why, today, we’re launching the Health Care Accountability Pledge. Everyone says how much they’d contribute, we publicize the amount, and anyone thinking of running a primary challenge against a Democrat who blocks a vote on health care reform knows how much support they’d have right off the bat. You don’t have to enter your credit card info. Just click on an amount below to pledge:
Problem is: these ‘pledges’ required no credit card information and nothing but a MoveOn login to ‘commit’ to. So, in the spirit of that, I ask people to ‘pledge’ their support for Blue Dogs who vote to protect their constituents from government takeover of Health Care. Will you help out? Click your pledge below!
Come on, people; dig deep in that fictional pocket! It’s just as real as the available money currently available to fund the government takeover of Health Care (and a whole lot less damaging to future generations!)
The Republican Party continues to surrender principle for compromise, a strategy that continues to be a losing one. It is no wonder that 73% of Republican voters say te leadership does not represent them. That leadership needs to be replaced with solid conservatives who understand that becoming the Democrats Lite will never be a winning strategy against the real thing. And only works to roll our country that much fasther toward the fiscal cliff.
As long as the GOP gives active support to liberals in the Party, and their members continue to vote for just slightly smaller paths to national bankruptcy, and support corrupt practices such as massive earmark usage, they will not see a single dime from me. And the days of pulling single-party levers are long over. This from someone who was once a GOP County Chairman.
I am an independent conservative and proud that my principles matter. Consisider me a Rogue; I have better company there. The NRC keep sending this mail to me and I’ll start adding a pound or so of iron plate to the envelope, so they can pay return postage on that as well.
The first is based on my Africa experience (and I SO need to get back; next year, when my girl graduates from college):
The second is related to that: unkept political promises are one thing; personal ones are more serious:
The guy just won an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize; the least he could do is use a little of it to honor the personal commitment he made while in Africa. If he were to do so, I’d send a letter of appreciation to the man (even while disagreeing with the politician’s policies).
Also participated in a soap box session; did so-so (though the crowd thought well enough of me that I finished 2nd out of 4):
This picture at the protest and counter-protest at Sen. Cornyn’s Dallas office Oct. 14th speaks volumes.
One sign hand-assembled from a printer’s output, the other professionally printed at significant expense with the proud MoveOn.org logo in the bottom right corner… and MISSPELLED! It’s “Whose Side are you on?”, Dolt!
After an English teacher in the Tea Party group (far larger; 80-28) pointed it out for them, another pro-Private Care supporter said’ “An example of government-run education.” When the English teacher was asked if she was offended by that statement, she said “Goodness, no! I teach in private schools!”
Maybe the ‘Obamanation’ sign was referring to the English mutilation by Obama supporters.
Oh, there are plenty of the signs made with marker and posterboard that the Tea Parties wave with misspellings and bad grammar; and you’ll fine both offenses on this blog. But all that does is diminish the individuals involved; that printshop sign reflects directly on a multi-million dollar operation. And that is amusing.
They also tried some street theater of wit, but only got halfway there. The MoveOn minions put on a street play with four dressed up as filthy rich Insurers protesting against Government Health Care. Problem is, when they mingling in with all the VERY middle class jeans and working slacks or REAL opponents of Government Health Care, it was only laughable. One of the Tea Partiers recognized the blond as someone who was arrested for deliberately spitting on a 9-12 rally participant in Ft. Worth.
The Patriot on the left has history of serving his country honorably; the Bad Actor on the right spits on such if she disagrees with them. Any questions?
If your going to imitate your opposition, learn to do it right, like Chuck does here (another vet of honorable service):
The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) have long had a huge disconnect between their liberal, big-government ‘leadership’ (a lot of which is not even old enough to be members themselves) and their rank-and-file. Nothing has so enlarged that disconnect as the current ‘under-the table’ support the AARP leadership is giving the current healthcare proposals (which counts on it ’savings’ by taking a half-trillion from medicare). I am proud to be a member of the small group (though wasn’t there personally) that generated the video that visualized it for the nation. (As you watch the video at the link, note the age of the leadership ‘defenders’; only one qualifies to actually be a member of the group).
This problem with this disconnect is that it is as wide as the video indicates and is long-term. AARP was built on an outdated model of retiring at 65 and counting on the federal ‘insurance policy’ to keep you afloat as you sit in your rocker for the next decade and kick off with little fuss (or expense). That model may have changed in advertising mindset to a more positive model, but the background structure changed to something far more negative; a greater and greater dependency on and advocacy for growing federal involement in the elder’s lives. Medicare was the beginning (and I am old enough to remember it); that program has done some good things, but it established an unsustainable model (as Reagan lectured on before it was passed) and- more seriously- a mindset of entitlement that has massively exceeded the intitial insurance concept.
Now many elders are realizing the fallacy behind this and also that the AARP is no longer their advocate, if they desire to retain as much independence from the government as possible.
Maybe it’s time for a new organization; one that recognizes those of us willing to continue to work (at least part-time, or in charitable efforts) in our retirement. one who organizes elders to help take care of themselves, to rely less on government and family. and to keep elders busy on productive activities, rather than ‘make-busy’ work. And an organization that works to protect elder from the government, rather than turn them over to the government.
So I propose the formation of the American Association of Elder Independents, a group to counter the direction of AARP. An organization to support:
Elders wishing to continue to work and not be penalized for it
Elders interested in forming cooperatives to to support each other and reduce dependency on institutions and family for day-to-day support and healthcare
Elders wanting to continue to contribute to the world right to the end of their days.
Anybody with big resources willing to take a crack at forming this?
Read through this carefully; as you do so, many of the numbers may seem ludicrous. The reason they do is after the quotation:
Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?
The reson the number look so ridiculous? Because these were the words I heard spoken by an exceptionally eloquent speaker…. Ronald Regan on May 10th, 1964in Hutchinson, Kansas (it was a canned speech he used many times). The warnings were issued even back then by the conservative movement… and have been ignored by both parties. Now the chickens are starting to roost, with our annual debt exceeding the total obligation of Social Security back then. And the Social Security/Medicare current obligation exceeds $100 Trillion.
Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?
Can Obama tell me how the Fed’s natural tendency to massively increase the second one could possibly be even offset in the others? And they say they’re going to save Money? Can anyone give a single example that the Federal government ever managed to reduce costs, rather than increase them??
Gee! 36 years after saying ‘No’ to the Mob (a long story), I find I’ve now joined it! And for free; back then, it would have paid a minimum of $75K/yr (A bunch of money back then).
Of course, one has to realize something. In the modern vernacular, this stuff above is a ‘Mob’, the stuff below is ‘Truth to Power’ (just one example of very many):
and this is ‘Debate’:
You got that? A loud question from the Right (far right, in that singular case) makes you a ‘Mobster’. Totally disrupting a discussion and taking over the stage as a Leftist makes you a ‘Concerned Citizen’. I’m glad we all got that straight!
And just for more clarity, here is my branch of the mob being massively disruptive, with a handful of MoveOn members mixed in, getting viscious Mob treatment:
To Congress: we’d like to make you an an offer you can’t refuse. Stop bankrupting this nation and we won’t send you into retirement.
Called the “SIGTARP,” Barofsky appeared before Congress this week and told them that the government’s commitment to fix the financial system could potentially reach $23.7 trillion, and criticized the Treasury Department for calling his team’s estimate “inflated.”
“I think that the Treasury Department ought to read the report before they make comments, at least the spokesperson’s office,” Barofsky said. “Our methodology is laid out in black and white in the report. … As far as the numbers being inflated, where do you think we got the numbers from? We got it from the Treasury Department, we got it from the Federal Reserve. … If these numbers are inflated, it’s because they inflated them when they put them out in the public, not because of us.” …
“Perhaps their criticism is that we dare to do math,” he said. He added that his team tried to convince the Treasury that they were wrong, and that recipients should be required to report on how they use the federal funds, and those should be shown to the American people so that they know it’s “not being thrown into a black hole.”
When the National Republican Committee keeps 
The guy just won an undeserved Nobel Peace Prize; the least he could do is use a little of it to 
