skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I have been absent from the blog most of this week, because I have been trying to fight the upcoming Health Care 'Reform' bill. As many of you know, this bill will do nothing to improve the health care industry or curb costs. It is just as cumbersome, invasive, and regulatory as any other socialized program. With the programs in Cuba, England and Canada crashing down upon their heads, one has to wonder why our own government would attempt to foist the same monstrosity upon us. It amounts to the same thing that it always does with government programs - power. This is not about choices, options, improvement or the common good. It is about the government telling you what you can have, when you can have it, and at what point your life becomes economically unfeasible. Even the New York Times is giving some of the opposing information without their typical spin.
Yesterday, I attended a rally at my Senator's office. For those of you who don't live in my district, Saxby Chambliss is one of those worthless 'Conservative' turncoats who does enough to get re-elected, then leaves us twisting in the wind. I have yet to understand why he continues to win re-election after voting for the Medicare Prescription Entitlement bill, the Bush Stimulus that led to the Socialism of the banking and auto industries, and various affirmative action bills. He is also a proud proponent of Congressional pork and bi-partisan efforts to help the less fortunate. In short, he is a Blue Dog Democrat who signed up with the Republicans because he's too 'moderate' for the Progressives and Liberals running the Democrat Party. Even so, the old ladies at the rally yesterday were crooning about how 'he's got our backs on this one" because he's a 'Conservative'. I guess if you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes an acceptable imitation of the truth.
Chambliss's office sent a representative, Mr. Kendall, out to speak to us, so we wouldn't crowd the reception area. Although we met outside the building in the courtyard, we were informed by the representative and security, that we were to move from the area to a park across the street. We were not being loud or unruly, and there were not enough of us to crowd the space, but he was just doing his job so we complied. Conveniently, the park was not only across the street, but below street level, so we were effectively invisible at that point. When the representative from Chambliss's office came down with the security guard to speak to us they looked as though they were nervous. Maybe they're not used to protests, or they have an overblown perception of how people behave, because I don't find a crowd of senior citizens with two moms and a toddler threatening. Maybe the fact that they made us stand out in the sun for an hour before giving us 10 minutes to ask questions had something to do with it. Or perhaps, we looked like a bunch of homegrown terrorists. Your guess is as good as mine.
To be fair, Mr. Kendall, did offer to take us up to the office, but insisted there wouldn't be enough room for us all. He also brought us water - thanks. So, we finally put the question to Mr. Kendall: Does Senator Chambliss support or oppose this bill? Mr. Kendall's response was that he opposes it, but I suspect he is only giving us half the answer. That may be the true reason for his nervous demeanor - Chambliss's record does not support the assertion that he will oppose the bill if he is offered something he wants in return. The other reason I smell a rat on this is the lack of response I have received from their office on this issue. I have sent several letters recently on various issues, and health care is the only one they did not respond to.All of this is bad enough, but this morning I got an article from regarding the Health Care Bill. It says that Obama has given up his attempt to get 60 votes on the bill and instead has decided to use the budget reconciliation procedures to push it through with 50. I'm not an expert on how this works, so please do your homework and verify this claim. Then, do whatever you can to raise awareness of this new tactic to ram government health care we don't want down our throats.
For information on the body of the as well as those not yet up for a vote, please visit the Library of Congress
For information on the voting record of you Congressmen, please visit Project Vote Smart
I am providing a link to a letter to Congress, in the hope that it will inspire you to write your own. Regardless of your point of view, or level of agreement, you should not sit idly by while our government runs roughshod over our lives and the future of our children.
http://www.spinpolitico.com/forum/topics/letter-to-the-houses
I am currently writing my own letter to Congress and President Obama, in protest of the rampant escalation of government interference in the market and our private lives in an absurd attempt to 'correct' issues caused by government interference in the market and our private lives. I am also enclosing pages from Atlas Shrugged with important quotes and passages underlined so the people who can't even read a Bill that affects the future of our country, won't be forced to read the entire book. There is a campaign going, http://go-galt.org/, that is encouraging people to mail copies of Atlas Shrugged to Washington. Since I cannot afford to buy so many copies, and my husband assures me that they will end up in the trash, I have decided to send the most important parts in an effort to preserve my extra copy for the more important purpose of loaning to friends.
If you feel as I do, that our government is out of control, do something about it. We may not agree on all issues, but we can work together to change the things that are causing us mutual concern. The most important issue at hand is the loss of our individual liberties and the unconstitutional expansion of government. America is a Republic. God forbid it ever become a Democracy. Do you want to be at the mercy of mob rule? I don't!
More to come soon, in the mean time here's an excerpt from the letter mentioned above....
Posted by SavantNoir at http://www.spinpolitico.com/
Unalienable rights were not conferred by Man, they were bestowed by a Creator, nor was it ever intended that they be taken by Man. Our individual rights operate within the sphere of a civil society that recognizes our individuality and right to discover and exercise our potential so long as it remains tempered in such a way as to not infringe on another’s rights. Although all men are created equal in the eyes of the law, we all remain unequal in character, temperament, aptitude, drive, and spirit. Legislature that seeks to homogenize man will erode a civil society and undermine industrious productivity.
Unalienble rights are the basis for a Moral Society and the fabric of National Unity. Each individual is granted the freedom to practice their spirituality in any manner they deem fit, so long as they respect our cultural heritage. Immigrants refuse to be assimilated into our country and the Liberals tear our foundations to shreds as they deny America so as not to offend others. History has shown repeatedly that once a Society loses all moral ground, the culture disintegrates and fails. Ironically, the primary reason Terrorists seek to destroy us is because in their eyes we are morally decadent and a blight to humanity. In our own country, morality is eschewed for ever-changing hedonistic perversity which is to be accepted as normal, while religion and spirituality are deemed the new perversity. Without underlying connectivity of a Moral Code that is strengthed by the ability to communicate effectively with Societal members sharing a common language; we to will soon implode from within.
A civil society is maintained by a rule of law that is known, just, predictable, and applied equally to all people. The framework for these laws is set forth in the Constitution, which preclude the use of arbitrary manipulation and the abuse of power that such manipulations result in. The arbitrary manipulation of these laws undermines freedom of enterprise and erodes financial markets. How is it possible for a company or individual to plan for tomorrow when there is no legal certitude of what that tomorrow may bring?
Our modern Utopian Liberal leaders believe in the power of Government where the few are dictating to the many. With total abandon they seek to negate the equal opportunity of the individual to explore and benefit from his/her own unique potential, by illegally suppressing individuals into a state of equality through manipulation of the law and authoritarian pressures never intended by our Founders.
The Constitution is clear in delineating Federal power, and specifically enumerates the confines it should operate within. Beyond these narrow parameters the power remained with the states and the individuals. The Liberal’s thirst for power constantly manipulates public perception via their endless litany of false pretexts and grievances that incessantly demonize the industrious, the earnest, and the successful as the perpetrators of civil inequity that they use to rationalize further government intervention. The goodwill of unfettered man can be demonstrated over and over again in our history, and although not perfect, the benevolence of his nature that is born within the womb of freedom outstrips greatly the animosity and discord created via legislated constraints. Will a small business owner feel goodwill towards an employee he is forced to endure and compensate despite a lack of contribution, simply because of compliancy to Union contracts?
We Americans are outraged watching our Leaders commit political and economic schizophrenia. We will no longer tolerate the greed, corruption, collusion, incompetence, and manipulations. The Liberals are drunk with power and the cathexses of their impoverished and tarnished soul plays out in our Society in self-defeating contradictions. Let’s consider in small part how Government intervention and the Liberal hyperbole have undermined this country...
For those of you who don't know, I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. If you want a little perspective into my personality, read some of her work. If you're new to Rand, I suggest Anthem and We the Living first. My all time favorite, of course, is Atlas Shrugged, but no self-respecting artist would go through life without reading the Fountainhead.
That being said, I decided to follow up yesterday's EFCA post with a couple of quotes from Ayn Rand pertaining to Unions and government intervention in business.
Needless to say, I am wanting now, more than ever to have that meeting with John Galt. I probably flatter myself that my leaving society would have all that much impact on the world, but one can dream. I'd certainly like a little vacation from the current level of government sponsored insanity and generalized buffoonery.
Quotes:
Unions and trade associations are not directed against employers or the public but against the best among their own members…This is one of the most obvious demonstrations of the fact that collectivism does not aim at any kind of “justice” or “fair play”, or protection of the weak [man] against an actual infringement of his rights by the strong for the sake of the weak – stopping ability for the sake of incompetence – not just robbing the production of the able, but stopping him from producing – not raising the weak in any way whatever, but simply forcing the strong down to the level of the moron. (Of course, if you do that, you destroy the world – weak and strong both and the weak do not profit by this – not even for the moment).
…Man will not produce if all the essential elements involved are not under his rational control, i.e., if they are not understandable to him, and therefore, predictable, so that he can set his purpose and plan of action, his end and means accordingly…If his productive activity has to depend upon the arbitrary decision/whim of some human agency, against whom he has no recourse and no chance (such as the government) – he will not produce.
It has been a long time since the days when a Union performed the task of protecting the workers. The proposals by the 110th Congress of S.1041 and H.R.800, better known as the Employee Free Choice Act, are indicative of the Unions interest in their own power over the rights and interests of their employees. There was a time when one could argue the need for Unions to protect the worker to some extent, but no longer. With the advances in education and technology currently available to the American workforce, it is absurd to contend that people are trapped in jobs with unfair or unsafe working conditions. Anyone is free to get an education and a better job if they are unable to negotiate a better work environment with their current employer. There are sufficient laws in place to protect employee rights, including the right to organize in a Union.
The Employee Free Choice Act, like all bills that have such beneficent sounding names, is an attack on the rights of the individual. The intent of the bill is not to increase employee protection in the workplace, but to give more power over the company to the Union. By eliminating the privacy of employees when casting a ballot, through card check, the Union is given power to intimidate employees who choose not to join. This helps the Union, not the employees of the company.
All provisions called for under the EFCA regarding employees’ rights to organize are already provided by existing law. What the Unions are hoping no one will notice is that the new bill does three things:
1. It eliminates the secret ballot
2. It gives the Union the leverage of direct government intervention (in addition to that already in place) if their terms are not met to their satisfaction
3. It eliminates the rights of the minority of workers who choose not to join the Union by forcing Union demands upon the company without benefit of contracts
The opinion of the majority should not eliminate the rights of the minority. That is why the United States is a Constitutional Republic. All of its citizens maintain their rights under a rule of law and a government answerable to a system of checks and balances. To allow the loudest or strongest among us to take advantage of the power of government to bully the individual, we pave the way to anarchy and the destruction of the principles of the Founding Fathers.
An employer should not be forced to follow rules that are detrimental to the operation of their company, simply because a majority of employees feel disenfranchised. Those employees are free to find better jobs at any time. The job belongs to the employer, not the employee. Running a company out of business by imposing demands that are impossible to meet and unfair to employees who are content with their jobs only accomplishes the end of making everyone there unemployed. That doesn’t seem in the best interest of the worker to me.
*Because this article is my opinion I am giving the following references as documentation in support of my point. A simple Google search gives all sources available. However, please not that the Union sites and many of the sites giving summaries of the bills do not give the full text of the bill and are therefore misleading. I recommend reading the bills in full to eliminate any confusion on the issue.
Excerpt:
The automakers also suffered from the UAW's ability to kill the company at any time via a work stoppage. Management caved in to demands it had to know it had no hope of ever being able to meet absent a cartel position restricting foreign competition. I love the UAW members complaining that they were promised these retirement benefits. Yes, they were, and the promise came under their threat of beating up people who broke the picket line to keep the company in business while they striked -- a promise given under threat of violence. The best managers aren't going to be drawn to that sort of environment. The anti-trust laws made GM avoid making cars that were TOO good because then it would gain too much market share and come under scrutiny. And later, they relied on tariffs to protect them from foreign competition since domestic competition (as in fundamentally changing the way things were done) was squelched.
Full Article:
Too Big to Fail and the Problem of Bigness Thursday, January 1, 2009, 2:51 pm, by joconnor
Excerpt:
The Employee "Free Choice" Act takes away a worker's fundamental right to a private ballot in union organizing elections. Big union bosses would bypass free and fair union elections supervised by the National Labor Relations Board for a "card check" system where they could intimidate and coerce workers to sign cards authorizing the formation of a union. Under this bill, once the union has obtained a mere majority of workers signing authorization cards, a union is immediately recognized with no further discussion or debate and no secret ballot election. In contrast to a private ballot election, a card check system allows the union and employer alike to see where you stood.
The private ballot is the cornerstone of American democracy. Only when a vote is private -- free of the intimidation or coercion that open public "voting" would invite -- can the people's voice truly be heard.
The Employee "Free" Choice Act would rip apart a sacred American right in favor of an unfair and coercive card check process. That's why EFCA should really be called the Employee Forced Choice Act.
The danger of the Employee Forced Choice Act extends well beyond a denial of workers' democratic rights. EFCA would dramatically change the nature of the American workplace, inserting Washington bureaucrats into the most basic decisions about your job or your business.
Full Article:
Exposing EFCA, from the Workforce Fairness Institute
Information and fliers for distribution
Definitions of EFCA: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1041&tab=summary
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-800&tab=summary
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Free_Choice_Act
Definition of Card Check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
I felt, with the ‘historic’ Obama inauguration looming, it would be fitting to address the issue of the Fairness Doctrine. This fancy little bit of legislation is causing concern for many, regardless of political affiliation. I hope you are among those concerned. If you have no idea what this is about – find out.
A quick definition from our friends at Wikipedia:
According to Steve Rendall of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting),
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented.
This is not an appropriate action for the government to take. In conjunction with HR.1955 (Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007),
which enables the government to label innocent people terrorists, as well as McCain-Feingold, it is a nightmare. George Bush and Congress have done enough to demolish the Constitution and our Civil Liberties. The Fairness Doctrine, like so many other schemes with pretty names, is not Fair. Have you noticed that the nicer the name of the bill sounds, the more knives government is shoving in our backs? The larger issue that many are missing is that it is not the government’s job to determine what is fair. Whenever the government endeavors to level the playing field, someone gets screwed. Even if you are naive enough to believe that it’s fair to stick it to the evil rich, you’re cutting your own throat. With the exception of greedy and corrupt individuals, the average rich guy is doing the rest of us a favor. Who do you think is creating jobs? Where do you think the goods and services that make our lives comfortable are coming from? Whose money is going to keep the economy running when corruption in government and dishonest people of power screw up the economy? Who do you think pays the majority of taxes in this country?
Because the Fairness Doctrine affects speech as well as business, you would think more Liberals would be crying foul. One of their universal mantras is, after all, free speech. Most of them, however, are suspiciously silent. As a political artist and blogger, I stand to be adversely affected by this legislation because the same people working to pass it are now making noise about regulating the internet. Yes, I am looking out for myself. I certainly don’t expect anyone else to do so. If I have an opinion, I should be able to voice it without scrambling around to find someone who opposes it and giving them space on my webpage. I did all the work to put it together. It is for the promotion of my work. There should be no other content. Anyone who has worked hard to make a name for themselves deserves the reward their success has brought them. If you want to be a famous blow-hard, get off your butt and make it happen.
If you don't like a particular station, don't watch or listen to it. Lord knows I can’t stand Hannity and O’Reilly makes me nauseous. I wouldn’t listen to Air America if you ripped out my fingernails, and I have yet to figure out why tax money is used to support Public Radio and PBS. There are plenty of other avenues for news, Digg being a good example. The internet is a limitless source of information from all points of view. You have a right to your own opinion and freedom of speech. You do not, however, have a right to be protected from things that ‘offend’ you. If there’s something out there that is beyond your ability to bear, find a constructive outlet for your displeasure. Stop worrying what other people think and live your life how you see fit. You might find you feel better.
The last thing any of us needs is Big Brother breathing down our necks.
