Category: Politics

Dear Congressman Schauer,

Thank you for your form letter response to my personal letter to you regarding the prospective health care legislation that is creating such a stir throughout the nation.

Before I respond to the details of your letter allow me to register one small disappointment. I was most disappointed that you refused to have a town hall meeting in your district during the August recess. Certainly, Congressman, you can’t actually believe that those district wide phone calls were a legitimate replacement for a town hall meeting. The conference call methodology, which was characterized by canned questions chosen in advance, was successful only at distancing yourself from your constituency by muting your opposition. Do not think for a second that your district is any less volatile than the thousands of other congressional districts across the nation on the issue of Democratic attempts to force fascism upon this country all because you manipulated the process in your district.

Now allow me to turn to your letter.

First, you note that over a million residents of Michigan are living without health insurance. You do not tell me how many of those over one million do not want health insurance. Many young people choose to go without insurance, preferring instead to spend their dollars on other interests. Congressman, the fact that you assert, in a unsubstantiated fashion, that over 1,000,000 Michigan citizens do not have health insurance means very little unless you break that number down between those who do not have health insurance because they don’t want it and those who do not have health insurance because they can’t get it.

Secondly, you do not tell me where in the Constitution you find the authority for the Federal government to socialize health care. As a US Congressman who has taken an oath that you, “will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” surely you have justified in your mind how a Federal takeover of health care is Constitutional. I would dearly love to see your reasoning on this.

Next you tell me that you desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care situation. I am suspicious that you must have tested this phrase in a focus group setting because I notice that you use it several times in this letter and you used it several times in your “town-hall” phone conferences. Allow me to suggest that it is not possible to find a uniquely American solution to our health care woes by doing anything that has either the Federal Government taking over health care or that puts the Federal Government in the position of eventually taking over health care. That sir, as you know, is socialism and it is a contradiction of the worst variety to embrace any form of socialism (i.e. – Fascism, Cultural Marxism, Communism) as a “uniquely American solution.”

Congressman Schauer, if you really desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care woes you will pursue policies that will allow the market to do its work. You will allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. You will introduce tort reform. You will reconnect the consumer with his medical dollars spent. You will create tax free medical savings programs. You will decrease the government regulation upon the health care industry which has created our problems to begin with. You will create legislation that will allow small businesses to ban together in order to access the same cost advantage from Insurance companies that large companies get due to their size. So, you can see, I am in favor of doing many things that will help the citizens of Michigan.

Your letter to me implies that you support the public option. Please understand that at least some of your constituent understand that if a public option is crafted into this bill that means the eventual end of choice, which you say you support. Such language also means the end of private insurance options, which you also say you support. Keep in mind Congressman, we are not all blind to the slippery way that people like you use language.

As you consider your vote keep the following things in mind.

* Is the bill Constitutional? Where does the Constitution allow the Federal government to believe that all citizens have a “right” to health care?

* You say you want a bill that promotes personal responsibility. Will any bill that “promotes personal responsibility” also at the same time disallow health care or lessen the opportunity for health care by those who don’t follow the personal responsibilities guidelines as set by the Federal Government and its legislation?

* Does the plan you support shift control from insurance companies to the Federal Government? As bad as insurance companies are Congressman, I would rather deal with their bureaucrats then Government bureaucrats.

* In your desire to vote for a bill that does not raise the Federal deficit do you realize the impossibility of that without either a sweeping tax increase or severe restrictions as to who can receive health care or both?

In closing Congressman, I realize how much pressure the Democratic leadership must be bringing upon you to vote for socialized health care. Allow me to remind you Congressman how narrow your victory margin was in the 2008 Congressional race. I can say, with almost certainty Congressman, that should you vote for a Marxist health care plan that will be produced by a Democratic majority your 2010 race will be more of an uphill battle than your previous one.

Sincerely,

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church

** This morning I was watching a round table discussion on the all things neo-con Fox News Network and I heard Charles Krauthammer say, in reference to the Van Jones resignation that,

“it was the (9-11) truther signature that did Van Jones in, you know you can have a Communist or two in the White house … but you can’t have somebody in the White House who believes in a Bush Conspiracy that the government was involved in 9-11.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/07/special_report_panel_on_van_jones_resignation.html

Nobody on the panel blinked at Krauthammer’s statement.

Friends, this shows us how far out of touch the inside the beltway crowd is with both History and middle America. You can have a Communist or two in the White House? You can have a person or two in the White House who embraces the ideology that is responsible for the death of over 100 million people in the 20th century? How insane is that?

What if Krauthammer had said instead,

“it was the (9-11) truther signature that did Van Jones in, you know you can have a Nazi or two in the White house … but you can’t have somebody in the White House who believes in a Bush Conspiracy that the government was involved in 9-11.” (?)

Obviously such a statement would never have been given a pass. This another indicator to me that the worldview warfare that happens in Washington is between two different expressions of the Left. Fox News represents the Trotskyite left wing of the conversation.

** The American Pravada press insists that the reason Van Jones was fired was because of his “9-11 Truther signature,” and due to publicly calling Republican “a**ho*es.” Don’t you believe it. The reason that this reason is given for Van Jones being fired is due to the fact that if Van Jones Marxism was given as the reason for being fired then Obama might have to resign since his Marxism makes Van Jones’ Marxism look like romper room stuff. In the end they got rid of Van Jones in order to keep people from connecting Van Jones’ Marxism to Obama’s Marxism.

** If you watch Obama’s speech tomorrow night keep in mind that the man embraces the Alinsky method that teaches that the means justifies the ends and if the means to socialized health care is violating antiquated notions of being honest then so much the worse for being honest. Keep in mind in the Obama Marxist worldview honesty is not defined as speaking in such a way that words correspond to reality. Rather Obama’s Marxists worldview teaches him that honesty is speaking in such a way that words create the reality that the Marxist is seeking to bring in.

** So what if Van Jones had to leave?

Big Whoop!

For every Van Jones that has to leave this administration there are 100 more waiting to take his place. The problem wasn’t Van Jones. The problem is the Marxist in Chief who is appointing fellow travelers like Van Jones, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, Mark Lloyd, Valerie Jarret, The Emmanuel Brothers — Zeke and Rahm, etc.

** Much of what we are seeing in Washington reminds me again that the problem behind our problem of Washington Doofuses is our University system. It is our Ivy League schools and other top line Universities that keep spitting out “our best and brightest” who are thorough going collectivists, statists, and tyrants. Republicans and Democrats alike, who have been marinated in our University system, are inevitably going to be people who are tainted with a large collectivist giddy-up in their thinking.

** Prediction — The Democrats will pass a socialized health care bill with a public option.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFiab7fjak

Personally, I think he is wrong. White folk have forgotten how to resist.

Mark Sanford should resign because he is to stupid to be a Governor of a State. I mean think about this for a minute. Here is a Governor of a State who actually thought that, without getting busted, he could take a state vehicle to the Atlanta airport and hop on a plane for another Continent and pass through customs and spend six days lounging around Buenos Aires with “The Girl from Ipanema,” and then get back on a plane and go through customs again and tell his staff that if anybody questions his whereabouts to just tell them that he “just went for a hike on the Appalachian trail.” I mean he obviously concluded that he could do all that without getting busted. Word has it that next month he planned to fly to the Arctic circle to hook up with a hot Inuit babe he met while at a UN conference on the plight of baby seals.

Nobody this stupid should be allowed to govern a car, never mind a whole state. I’d rather be governed by the mother of Le-a then be governed by Mark Sanford. Her story makes more sense then Sanford’s.

The stupidity of all this really has to be an issue. I mean if Sanford wanted to cavort with strange flesh besides his wife he certainly could have been far more clever about it then taking off for freaking Argentina. What US Public official, not suffering from insanity, goes to Argentina to get laid? Not even any of Joseph Kennedy’s sons were that hormonal. I mean at least Idaho Senator Larry Craig realized that you didn’t have to leave the airport Men’s Bathroom to get a little action.

Mark Sanford should resign because if a man would break his vows to his wife there is no reason to think he will not break his vows to the state. Mark Sanford should resign because if a man will treat his sons the way that Sanford’s has treated his it is unspeakable to think how he would treat the citizens that he is supposed to be serving. Mark Sanford should resign because he obviously has no self control. Do you want somebody governing a state that is being governed by their genitalia?

Man, I hope that Argentina woman was worth it, because at age 49 this trip to meet up with his little Lolita is going to be the memory he carries with him the rest of his life and that memory will have to be his satisfaction for the rest of his life since nothing in his career from here on out will be giving him any satisfaction.

Sin never makes sense.

Never.

But sometimes it makes a little less sense then other times.

This is one of those times.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin says the U.S. under President Obama is headed toward socialism.

I’ve always contended that Palin isn’t particularly bright. This is like looking at a chicken in the oven and saying, “the chicken in the oven is headed towards the slaughterhouse.”