HR 3400 an Alternative to Obama Care

Why don't we hear anything about the other health care reform bill in congress. HR 3400, The Empowering Patients First Act. I don't like the republicans very much, but at least their Health Care Reform considers the liberty and freedom of individual Americans, and actually promotes free market solutions (sort of). HR3400 can be summed up having the following key points:

Individuals to choose their health insurance (no mandates)

Deductibility of health insurance premiums regardless of who pays

Employers to provide flexible health-insurance options to employees

Health insurance coverage for low-income families (300 percent of the federal poverty level)

Health insurance for high-risk individuals (pre-existing conditions)

Sale of health insurance across state lines

Expansion of Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs

Individual membership association health insurance plan

Association Health Insurance Plans

Medical liability limitations (Tort reform)

It does not increase taxes, require a new government bureaucracy, require a "government health insurance" option, impose fines on workers or employers, nor add $1 trillion or more to the national debt.

If you hear the media saying that nobody is offering an alternative to Obama care, they are lying. Google H.R. 3400 and do some of your own research. It's not a pure libertarian bill, but it is closer to a libertarian methodology, and a much more libertarian than Obama care.

Is it the Government's Job

Reading Larry Elders latest column, Health Care — If Government Doesn't Do It, Who Will? which started with these words of wisdom:

Assisting the needy in health care is a "moral imperative" – not a constitutional right. The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi.

and ending with these words of wisdom:

People-to-people charity is more efficient, less costly, more humane and compassionate, and more likely to inspire change and self-sufficiency in the beneficiary. People can and would readily satisfy society's "moral imperative."

I was reminded the 1884 article/story written by Col.Davy Crocket, titled Not Yours To Give. I find it very fitting for todays health care discussions and worth re-reading.


Not Yours To Give
by Col. Davy Crockett

---

One day in the House of Representatives, a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose:

"Mr. Speaker --- I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this house, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him."

APPROPRIATE: To set apart for, or assign for a particular use, in exclusion of all other uses; as, a spot of ground is appropriated for a garden. [Webster?s 1828]

MONEY: 1) Coin; stamped metal; any piece of metal, usually gold, silver or copper, stamped by public authority, and used as the medium of commerce. 2) Bank notes or bills of credit issued by authority, and exchangeable for coin or redeemable, are also called money; as such notes in modern times represent coin, and are used as a substitute for it.If a man pays in hand for goods in bank notes which are current, he is said to pay in ready money. [Webster?s 1828]

CHARITY: Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions (Alms - Any thing given gratuitously to relive the poor, as money, food, or clothing, otherwise called charity), or gratuitous services to relieve them in distress. [Webster?s 1828]

"Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and, if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

AUTHORITY: Legal power or a right to command or act; as the authority of a prince over subjects, and of parents over children.? Power; rule; sway. [Webster?s 1828]

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt it would but for that speech, it received but few votes and of course, was lost.

Later when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation:

"Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that I should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up, I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but as I thought, rather coldly.

I began, 'Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and-'

'Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett, I have seen you once before and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering right now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.'

This was a sockdolager, I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

'Well, Colonel, it is hardly worth while to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you.

I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is.'

'I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional questions.'

'No, Colonel, there is no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings in Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?'

'Well, my friend, I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant amount of $20,000 to relive its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.'

'It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of, it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be intrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be and the poorer he is, the more he pays in proportion to his means.

What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000.

If you had the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this country as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought to appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports to be true, some of them spend not very credibly; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation and a violation of the Constitution.

So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger for the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned and you see that I cannot vote for you.'

'I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him and I said to him:

Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it and thought I had studied it fully. I have head many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law, I wish I may be shot.'

He haughtingly replied: 'Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.'

'If I don't, I said, I wish I may be shot, and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbeque and I will pay for it.'

No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbeque and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days and we can afford a day for a barbeque. This is Thursday. I will see to getting up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday and we will go together and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.'

'Well, I will be there. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.'

'My name is Bunce.'

'Not Horatio Bunce?'

'Yes.'

'Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before though you say you have seen me, but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend.'

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and have been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before. Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him - no, that is not the world - I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if every one who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But, to return to my story. The next morning I went to the barbeque and to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted - at least, they all knew me. In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened by speech by saying:

Fellow-citizens - I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to see your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error. It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so. He came upon the stand and said:

'Fellow citizens, it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised to you today.'

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before. I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress."

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday."

Is it a Right?

In virtually every other country in the world the Government rules the people and grants the people certain privileges which at the government’s discretion may be suppressed or dismissed. Even the UN charter says individuals have a duty to the state that supersedes their individual rights. Read the UN charter on human rights one day, it’s a very scary document.

The USA is the most prosperous and powerful country in the world. Unlike virtually every other country the USA was instituted by the people with very different and unique ideas. Our country and the documents we hold almost Sacred, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were created towards the end of a period of time called The Age of Enlightenment.

Historian Peter Gay in his book The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, asserts the Enlightenment broke through "the sacred circle," whose dogma had circumscribed thinking. The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society. This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means. In this view, the tendency of the philosophies in particular to apply rationality to every problem is considered the essential change.

Read these famous words from the Declaration of Independence, they hold the essence of "rights" and what makes the USA different from every other country in the world.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Because of forefathers where learned “Enlightened” men, they realized that history had proven the principle that power corrupts, thus they instituted a government designed to limit corruption. A government instituted not to rule, but to protect the people. Maybe this is why it is the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world.

Rather than put power in the hands of a man, or group of men, our forefathers put the authority in the Law, and the constitution which limited what laws could be instituted. Because men can and are corrupted by power, our forefathers instituted a government in which no man, even the president, is above the law. They specifically delegated only certain powers to the government, added to the constitution specific rights the government was forbidden from abridging, and reserving all powers not specifically granted to the government to the people or to the states. They divided the powers and gave us a system of checks and balances that further limited the government not the people. They assumed that if one branch of government tried to take more power than granted to it by the constitution one of the other branches would stop it. President B. Obama noted in a recent townhall meeting about healthcare, that our constitution was the problem, it makes large wholesale changes to society very difficult.

Unlike every other government in the world, our government was created to protect the rights of individual citizens not to make it easy for the government to rule. It was created as a Republic not a Democracy so that mob rule couldn’t take away the rights of individuals. Note what our fore fathers considered to be rights; “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. You don’t have a right to be happy only the liberty to pursue happiness. The rights protected in the Bill of Rights, are not granted by the government are considered to pre-date the government and to be “unalienable”, sometimes called “Natural Rights”. It is the government infringement upon the natural rights of individuals that our constitution forbids.

If you consider the rights protected by the bill of rights they all fall into the more general rights of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”:

Freedom from the government imposing a state religion Pursuit of Happiness

Freedom from the government restricting the Press <Liberty

Freedom from the government stopping the people from assembling peaceably <Liberty

Freedom from the government restricting citizens from bringing grievance to the government. <Liberty

Freedom from the government infringing Speech <Liberty

Freedom from the government controlling who can Keep and Bear Arms <Life and Liberty

Freedom from the government using your property to house/feed/support the military <Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

Freedom to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures from the government. <Liberty

Freedom from the government forcing you to talk (the right to remain silent). <Liberty

Freedom to be tried by a Jury of your peers, not Government Officials <Liberty

Freedom to a speedy and public trial <Liberty

Freedom from excessive bail, excessive, and from cruel and unusual punishments. <Liberty

Freedom to other rights not listed. Pursuit of Happiness

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

You don't have to pay for your rights. You only need to be left alone. Rights are not dependent upon the actions of some other person. We limit the government from infringing on unalienable rights, offering liberty and equal protection for every person, to pursue happiness, and live without interference by the government. No place do we guarantee or insure that people are happy only that they have the liberty to gain happiness for themselves.

Nobody has a right to the life of another. You own yourself; hence nobody has the right to your labor and the property you have acquired through your labor. You don’t pay for your rights. You have liberty to purchase whatever health services you choose to pay for, and should not be denied those services based on your age, sex, color, religion, etc. What you don’t have a right to is to use the labor and property of others to pay for you to receive those services.

Because of fascists and socialist ideas creeping into our government, many in government are trying to make or consider healthcare to be a right. All versions of healthcare bills currently in congress require everybody to purchase health insurance. Those who choose not to exercise their right to healthcare (actually those who choose to self insure and pay as they go) will be forced to purchase health insurance. Does this mean that everybody who chooses not to keep and bear arms is to be forced to purchase a firearm, and if they refuse, the government will issue them a firearm and the cost of that firearm added to their taxes?

How many Motorcycles does one person need.

I know this isn't about politics, but in a way it is about liberty. It is an attempt to answer a much more important quesiton, and requires deliberation and thought.

Obviously one motorcycle isn't enough, but how many does one really need.

There is nothing quite like exploring back woods and mountains on a small enduro, quite, light, easy to ride, one of the most intimate riding experiences you can have. So you need something like this:

Read a story about MythBusters, Jamie Hyneman and PM’s auto editors head into the scorching heat, rocky terrain and windy roads of Death Valley to test five new dual-sport bikes.

Now there are times when a dual sport is just not enough for real off road fun, so a true dirt bike of some kind is a definite need. Depending on your age, size, and ability of course. For most people a strong 250 four stoke motocross bike is the answer. Something with lots of travel, very low weight, and gobs of power, sort of like:


Both of those for playing and racing in the dirt are great but sometimes, you need a bike that can take you to the woods, get you through the woods, and get you back home. For this a 400cc or Bigger enduro is the right bike. There's a large selection of these kind of bikes some better in the dirt but kill you on the road, some good on the road but not so good in the dirt. So in the middle of all this a valuable road/dirt bike is a necessity. I choose the DR650.


Now then a big dual sport is great, but there is a whole class of bike for "Adventure Riders", usually lots of highway miles coupled with the worst roads in the world. I have a Vstrom but, BMW, KTM, Honda, etc. all make great adventure bikes. These are the SUV's of the motorcycle world. I couldn't decide on a single photo for adventure riding so I embedded the www.advrider.com slide show. This is my favorite kind of riding/exploring.

If you can't see the slide show CLICK HERE


Then for us old farts, something nostalgic but still capable of a dirt road is kind of a necessity. But it Doesn't have to be old. There's always the Triumph Scrambler, but to look really old skool the Royal Enfield is very cool (and neither are too expensive).



Now then not all riding requires motorcycles that can ride on the dirt. Nothing can carve mountain roads like a modern 600cc sport bike.




and at track day they are a blast.



Now for just plain fun, stupid fast, custom, cool etc. It's hard to top a ZX14 Ninja or other 1400cc superbike.




Now to be fair a new class of motorcycle has been introduced by Ducati, the Hypermotard, and everyone has to have one of these.


The above rider is a close to a motorcycle god, he's kneesliding and powersliding through a corner one handed. I'm sure that this is impossible, but I gotta have the bike that can do it.

Now sport bikes are great, they are fast, handle great, etc. Ride one for more than a few hours, and unless your young and stupid your in pain. You can still be sporty and travel long distances with a sport touring bike. These bikes have the best of long distance motorcycles (later) and sport bikes, combined into one fast long distance machine. You need one of these too.



Here's one you don't need, build a sport touring bike out of a stupid fast Ninja ZX14, but definitely on the top of a want list. The Kawasaki Concours 14 (with abs of course)




When road riding you don't always need to be fast and twisty, sometimes your just showing off and going from place to place casually with friends (some call this bar hopping). To effectively enjoy this you kind of need a custom, preferably with an air cooled V-twin.


Choppers are cool, but for every day riding on the road and for medium length trips a cruiser is a must. If you can afford it a Harley is great, if not for 1/4 the price you can get the same thing with superior engineering from other manufacturers. That said they are still not a Harley. The standard by which all other cruisers are judged is the Harley Davidson Softail


Dirt bike, sport bike, cruiser, etc. you really need a standard motorcycle, everybody quit making them. So you have to hit Craigslist and find a UJM (Universal Japanese Motorcycle). My UJM is a Honda CL350, but UJM's ranged in size from 125 to 1000cc's and are typified by the Honda CB750F. UJM's are still around find one and keep it running, this is a definite need.



Finally for that cross country trip, you must have a long distance motorcycle, The undisputed king of long distance travel and the motorcycle more IronButt participants choose is the Honda Gold Wing.




Although the Honda is the king of long distance, the Yamaha Venture Royal is my favorite for that type of riding (I'll own one one day)




Last but not least, you gotta have a hack. That's a sidecar for you none-motorcyclists. They can be adapted to fit any of the other motorcycles listed above. Like the big and strong Honda GoldWing



or stick it on your Adventure Touring Bike


You can even have them for the dirt and play like on a KLR Dual Sport:



You only really need one hack though.


So after considerable review and thought I've determined that minimally everybody needs a good lightweight dirt worthy bike, Either an Enduro or Adventure touring bike, A sport bike or a sport touring bike, a cruiser or a chopper, a long distance bike, a UJM, and some kind of sidecar. That's 7 bikes and a hack. I know that doesn't add up but because of some of the hybrid bikes sport touring, adventure touring, dual sport, etc. you really can't cover all your motorcycling needs with less than 7. Now remember this is minimal, depending on your personal motorcycle habit you may need more of a specific type to cover all your needs. If your really into sport bikes you need a 600cc crotch rocket, a vtwin sport bike and a 1 liter plus sport bike to compliment your 7 basic bikes.. If your really into off road you need a MX, Enduro, and vintage MX, to compliment your 7 basic bikes. Now if you have the custom/chopper disease your going to need a lot more than 7, hardtails, bobbers, vintage, shovelhead, panhead, evo, old skool, and that's just the Harley's, you gotta have an Indian, and a Victory if your have the OCC disease, you might even need a Japanese chopper in addition to your UMJ like this old school Yamaha 650:



As you can see clearly the scientific answer to how many motorcycles do you need is a minimum of 7.

Is the Constitution Valid?

The question is; by what constitutional authority does the federal government control the private exchange between a person and their doctor, or the private contract between a person and their in state insurance company, or the the private contract between a doctor and the in state insurance company?

Discussed between a judge and some lawyers below.



So without torturing the constitution we clearly see that the congress doesn't have the authority to take over health care. Congress has limited and specifically delegated powers, the 8th and 10th amendments specifically state that powers beyond those specifically delegated to congress are reserved to the states and the people.

President Obama in a recent town hall meeting confirmed this. Where states that the problem with our constitution is that it doesn't allow the federal government to take "bold steps" in changing the US. Thank god for the constitution.



So the constitution says the government cant take over health care, Obama admits the constitution is a "problem" to taking over health care, so why are we the people allowing this to happen?

Is that an Assault Weapon?

Here are two common American Rifles.

Which is the Assault Weapon?

What's the difference in the two?





Click on the image of each rifle and you'll see descriptions of their features, type of ammunition they use, and a brief description of how they work.

In fact at each of the above sights you'll see a link for an exploded view that shows a drawing of all the parts and how they fit.

If you actually bother to go look at the sites for those two rifles you find that they are infact. the same rifle. The only difference is one has an American walnut wood stock, and the other has a plastic adjustable stock, they have the same sights, trigger, etc. The only difference is the handle. The exploded view for both rifles is exactly the same image.

The difference in the two is like the difference between an old VW Beetle, VW Thing, and VW Karmann Ghia. Except for the body they are all the same, same engine, same wheels, same steering, etc. All based on a little WWII car design.

The above two rifles the Ruger Ranch Rifle and the Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rifle are both based on the same WWII rifle design, re-chambered for a smaller less expensive ammo the .223. This is the same cartridge used in an AR15. The ammo is inexpensive because billions of rounds are made to support various military weapons as well. The Ranch Rifle is a civilian semi-auto version of the M14 military rifle used the early part of the Vietnam war.

There been a mild media frenzy about a man carrying an "assault rifle" to a political rally in Phoenix AZ. The difference between the gun he carried, miss-labeled as an Assault Weapon, and the two above is very very slight. All use the exact same ammo. All fire exactly one shot every time you pull the trigger. All are used for sporting purposes, like target shooting, hunting varmints and small game, or home/ranch protection. The is a civilian semi-auto version of the M16 military rifle used the late part of the Vietnam war.

The gun in question is not an assault weapon. It has what some might consider "scary" looks, but then comparing a AR15 to an assault rifle is like comparing Karmann Ghia to a Porsche 911.

Don't let the alphabet media's fear of private citizens exercising their rights allow you to accept their misinformation nor demonizing of a simple sporting rifle based on 50 year old technology.

Tea Parties

Michael Ramirez's TownHall.com cartoon captures the reality of Tea Parties

Hope and Change

The Democratic Party in the US, considered by most to be the "Liberal" party, prefer to call themselves progressive. The Republican Party considered by most to be "Conservative" is happy with that label.

The Democratic candidate for president ran on a "Progressive" platform of "Hope and Change". This corresponds with the general definition of progressives who strive to promote and leave room for change, a dynamic system.

The "Dynamic" party accuses the opposition, Republicans (Conservatives) of wanting to stop change and in essence "freeze" our current system where it is. In essence the Democrats accuse the Republicans of wanting a stasis of our current place in time and history.


If we look closely at the programs the Obama administration's promote are far more static than dynamic.

Consider the cap-and-trade bill, designed to address what pathogenic global warming. It will mean paying more for electricity now for a very distant and tenuous goal. Because of the current similar law in California, they are now facing blackouts, and hugely more expensive electric. Mandating renewable energy from wind and solar power has the problem of calm days, cloudy or rainy days, and inconsistent power won't address the needs of Californians. This dramatic increase in electricity costs will result in dramatic decrease in economic growth. How is even more government control and government limiting energy options "Hope and change".

Considering Democrats vision (Obama's vision) of Health Care - In 2003 Obama said his intentions were to send us down a road that leads to government provided insurance. He has never denied this. His proposal for centralized medical procedures board that to decide what treatments the government would pay for and wouldn't', would dramatically stifle innovation in drugs, medical procedures, and medical devices. Why would anybody develop a new anything if it wasn't on pre-approved procedure for payment? You don't develop new things, if you cannot expect to be rewarded for that development. The government is very slow to accept new anything. This will kill progress in medicine. That doesn't sound dynamic either, it sounds very statist.

How about the Obama backed union check-card bill; it imposes a mandatory federal setting of wages and work rules after 120 days of union-management negotiations. Why would a union ever agree to anything, when it knows it can get the government to mandate what it wants in 6 months? Centralized mediators would determine pay and work rules. Modeled after those of unionized government workers like those in the United Auto Workers. They have multiple thousands of pages of work rules. Don't you dare help unload that truck that pulled up, you have to wait for the right union guy to do it. How will this enable employers and employees work together to utilize their creativity and initiative in the work place? Instead of dynamic work environment you have static government controlled work environments.


How do the Democrats (progressives) treat people in other countries under Obama. Obama has not only show indifference to the people of Iran protesting for freedom, but considers the Iranians protesting for an end of a regime that subordinates women and executes homosexuals, as a nuisance to negotiating with mullahs and Mahmound Ahmidinejad. That doesn't look like "Hope and Change" for the people of Iran, but looks like promotion of the status-quo of despair and oppression.

It seems the only "Hope and Change" Obama, his administration, and the Democrats want is to change this country to allow centralized authorities choose your future for you, and hope you don't revolt.

Engineering not Medicine Saves Lives

In less than a 100 years here in the USA we have indoor plumbing for all bringing us clean safe drinking water and effectively removing our waste; more than just a simple roof over our heads we have affordable heating in cold weather, and in the south it’s almost impossible to purchase a home without cooling; instead of 40% of the population required to work in agriculture to provide the nation with food, less than 3% of the population need to work the fields.

All of this has greatly added to the quality of life in the USA (and the world). When was the last time you read about dysentery killing masses of people in the USA, it was a leading cause of death less than 100 years ago. All the great advances in medicine pale in comparison to what our engineers have done to prolong our lives. Our engineering has made suburban life possible, we no-longer have to live on top of each other in cities, or spread out so far that it’s difficult to help each other in times of need. You probably have a cell phone with your right now and help is just 4 key strokes away 911-send. Most of the jobs in the USA no longer require hours and hours of back breaking work. Even carpenters use air-nailers instead of hammers to build houses, fewer people get more work completed with less physical effort. Safer working conditions, affordable food, clean water, waste removal, good shelter and protection from the elements have lead more to man living longer than anything else we’ve done.

To live and survive mankind requires first and foremost the basics; Food, Water, Shelter, Waste Removal. There are not people starving to death in the USA. Both government and charity provide food to the needy. The needy do not get the very best food available like professionally prepared prime rib, fresh asparagus, and truffles. Needy from food banks, or even government food stamps, are limited to the most cost effective foods to feed and nourish them, this way more of the needy can be fed with the charitable dollars available. Housing, water, sewer, are provided to many needy; they don’t get 6000 sq foot Mini-Mansions with pools, gardens, and gated property. Assisted and public housing is designed to provide the most housing to the most people for the least cost. It is not luxury condo’s on the beach, this way more of the needy can be sheltered with the charitable dollars available.

Medical care extends, protects, and restores life to people. Charity provides basic health services to the needy, charity tries to do this in a manner which provides basics to as many people as possible with the charitable dollars available.

Why is it that it’s fair for Al Gore to live in a house that uses 20 times more resources than the average person; Why is it fair for the rich and famous to have the very best meals prepared for them from the very best foods available; When not everybody can afford the best? Since it’s not fair for some people to get better food and shelter than others shouldn’t the government control food and shelter so that everybody gets the very best?

Arguably food and shelter are more important than doctors and drugs. If you think that’s absurd, then shouldn’t the government controlling all of health care to insure that everybody gets the very best health services be just as absurd?

Everybody in the usa has access to emergency and basic health care, not necessarily the best available cancer treatment, or super duper extreme life saving measures available. But just like the poor don't have access to the best housing or best food available from the work of those who are not poor.

Can they do that?

The Federal government is again trying to force fascist controls on “We the People”. I’m beginning to wonder if Obama, any of his Administration, or any current members of the legislature have actually read the document that the they have sworn to uphold and defend.

How can congress pass legislation governing health care, it is not one of the powers that they have? Look at Article I, Section 8, which specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of traiing the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse, because there was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.'

Madison argued in The Federalist No. 41, that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant. He rhetorically asked, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?" . . . "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

Now because of this and other worries our constitution was only ratified based on the ratification of the Bill of Rights, our first 10 amendments, which place further limits on the government and specifically the forgotten 10th ammendment which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This amendment correctly clarifies that the "general welfare" clause does not give congress the authority to pass laws not specifically granted to it by the constitution. The federal government has overstepped its constitutional authority. Many states are currently passing or have in the works legislation to prohibit the federal government from various acts. Montana, Tenn, and other states have passed laws prohibiting the federal government from regulating the manufacture, sale, and tracking of firearms made within their borders, sold within their borders, to residents of their respective states.

Go read Florida HJR 37. This proposed Florida Constitution Amendment will make parts of the current health care bills in congress and the senate void in the state of Florida. Which states that no person can be compelled to participate in any health care system, nor can direct payment of health care services by individuals or their employeers be made illegal. This will severly limit major provisions in all the current versions of federal health care.

Remember "Real ID", well laws passed by various states made it unenforceable and void in those states, and had to be repealed by the feds because if the states sued on constitutional grounds they knew they would lose and it would set a bad precedence.

The States and the people have the power to restrain the feds, but only if they say and so something. As I wrote before in The Sleeping Giant the feds have pushed too far and the people have been awakened. Hopefully it's not too late.

August LP meeting

Don't forget 1pm Saturday at Sporsters on US19
LP party of Citrus County monthly meeting
Your all welcome to come.

Is the US Govt. A Fascist State?

Current actions of our Obama lead government:

The US government is trying to take over the private and personal health-care decisions of the people and establish bureaucracies to make life-and-death decisions and banning unapproved transactions between doctors and patients.

The US government characterizes honest and open expressions of dissent as the expressions of "angry mobs".

The US government has turned the Census into a weapon designed to spy on the most personal aspects of the life of citizens.

The US government is asking its supporters to "snitch" on opponents of its policies.

The US government wants to monitor broadcasts and establish itself as the guardian of "fairness" on the airwaves.

The US government hires and fires the top executives of major corporations and redirects their corporate policies.

The US government becomes the sole arbiter of whether you can keep some of any of the wealth you accumulated legally.

The US government ignores the laws of the land and replaces them with the arbitrary whims of men. (how else would you explain ignoring bankruptcy law and giving unions unsecured debt higher preference to secured debt in the Chrysler and GM bailouts regardless of US bankruptcy laws)

The US government metes out punishment not just for criminal actions, but for "criminal thoughts".

The US government created the current unemployment crisis and now uses it promote policies of government control.

Considering what fascism is, it may be too late and the US has already become a Fascist state.

I agree with Hillary

To quote Sec. of State Hillary Clinton in her famous 2003 speach "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."



dam dam dam dam dam!

I agree 100% with Hillary Clinton, I absolutly hate saying that.

dam dam dam dam dam!

Mark Harris on facebook beat me to posting this one.

Unconstitutional Healthcare Bill

Government is instated to protect the rights of its individual citizens. Individuals have rights and individual rights end when they infringe on the rights of another. This is a simple concept that is the basis for most of our laws. I believe all rights are based on property rights. You own yourself not anybody else; all other rights derive from this. Somebody claiming the right to you or your labor without your permission is what we call that slavery.

One of our rights is the right to travel. In general in the US the primary means to exercise this right is the automobile. Since the routine consequence of exercising the right to travel, if exercised using a car, is the destruction of somebody else’s property, state governments rightly requires individuals to show proof that they can compensate other individuals for the destruction of that property. We call this proof insurance. Auto-insurance before driving a car is a logical protection of individual rights. Since it is not within the constitutional authority of the US government to require such insurance, there is no federal law requiring auto-insurance. Under the 10th amendment, that power is reserved to the states, so the protection of individual property rights from abuse by people exercising their right to travel, is accomplished by state requirements for auto-insurance.

The new healthcare bill has some very blatant unconstitutional provisions. How is requiring everybody to purchase health insurance constitutional. Again individuals have rights and individual rights end when they infringe on the rights of another. Not choosing to purchase individual health insurance does not infringe upon any other individuals rights.

You as the owner of yourself have a right to travel, to move your body from one place to another without government permission; you don’t have a right to use destroy other people’s property. State governments reasonably require you drive on public property or get permission to drive on private property, that you prove you know how to operate a vehicle, and can compensate others if your operating a motor vehicle infringes on their rights. Exercising this right generally requires you to have a vehicle. For your vehicle to function it requires fuel; you do not have the right to force others to provide you with fuel so you can travel. To function a vehicle requires maintenance and repairs, the better you maintain a vehicle and repair it the longer it will function optimally, you do not have the right to force someone else to maintain or repair your vehicle.

You as the owner of yourself have a right to life, the most important right you have, and there are and should be severe penalties for infringing on this right. For your life to function it requires food; you do not have the right to force others to provide you with food so you can live. To function a life requires maintenance and repairs, the better you maintain your body and repair it the longer it will function optimally, you do not have the right to force someone else to maintain or repair your body. You do not have a right to the goods and services of another without paying for them, including health services.

As an individual I didn’t get health insurance until I was in my mid 40’s, I paid for broken bones, birth of a child, asthma attacks, prescriptions, and doctors visits all with my own money not insurance. I shopped around when I needed a doctor’s service and changed doctors when I could receive the same service for substantially less money. Over the course of 20 years compared to purchasing health insurance through my employer I saved over $25,000 dollars. I was young healthy and took care of myself and my family, I didn’t go to the doctor for every cold (they are caused by virus’ and it takes 10 days, rest and plenty of fluids to get over them, so why pay a doctor to tell you that). I’m sorry but with a young family I’m sure that I not the government knew better what to do with that $25,000 than they did. I had health care I just didn’t have health insurance. There are around 22 million people who are young healthy and make more than $50K per year who choose not to purchase health insurance. They are not without health care. They weigh the risks and compare them to the costs, and choose to be responsible for themselves; the risk is small, and the savings huge. Their choice does not infringe upon the rights of any other individual. By what constitutional or moral authority can we force somebody to purchase health insurance if they choose not to? If you don’t have health insurance it doesn’t infringe on anybody else’s right to life, liberty, or property.

The Sleeping Giant

I’m a libertarian, which means I want to live peaceably with my neighbor and be left alone. I want the government to enforce and follow rule of law to protect me and my neighbors’ individual liberties from people (either criminals, businesses, or the government) who would infringe upon them. Libertarians believe that individuals not groups have rights. Being the type who want to be left alone to fend for themselves and enjoy the fruits of their labor, in general we ignore the government hoping it will leave us alone, mostly because were too busy living our lives. In this aspect most people are libertarian and don’t know it.

Under the Fascist tendencies of the Obama administration, in a mere 6 months he has awakened a sleeping giant. Again his actions repeat pre-WWII history, the Japanese admiral had it right, his fear that all the attack on Pearl Harbor did was awaken a sleeping giant. The result was the most independent and productive people in the world kicked Japans Ass.

The Obama administration and the "ruling elite" have awakened a sleeping giant. The Government is telling him, "You’re too stupid to know what’s good for yourself; therefore we will take care of you. We will determine your health care." Around two thirds of the US is happy with their health care. Some details of the multi thousand page document has gotten out before it could be rammed down the giant’s throat. Like the govt determining what services would be available to senior citizens, not they and their doctors; like an individual can only purchase govt insurance after the law goes into effect; like you are forced to buy insurance if you choose not to; like paying for abortions with govt tax money; like paying for the health services of illegal aliens with US citizens tax dollars.

Congressmen and Senators are out for the August break trying to talk with constituents and tell them about what they are doing in congress. The sleeping giant is tired of being told what to do, how to think, and of what’s best for us. We want, and are going to expect, our elected leaders to listen to us, not talk to us. They have refused to listen for years and now that they have awakened the sleeping giant they don’t know what to do. What used to be annual small town hall meeting with a few locals, thousands of people show up to show their displeasure. They no longer have control of the message and are scared. So they attack the people, calling them an angry mob, accusing them of being paid for by the GOP or insurance companies, anything to deflect the fact that the people are awake and mad. They can’t control the message, with CSPAN, YouTube, Talk Radio, and Bloggers everywhere, all protected by the constitution they no longer determine what people see and hear.

The problem the "ruling elite" have is that we live in a country which the supreme law of the land is not an individual or body of men. There is no Caesar to pay tribute. We live in a time and place which declared that since people are corrupt or corruptible, we will choose temporary leaders and give them limited powers to govern and protect the rights of individual citizens. We defined these powers in the Constitution, and it divided the powers so that no single man, or group of men, had all the power. We wrote that simple 12 page document with rules that made it flexible but difficult to change. It declared that the people have the power, prohibited the government from silencing them, from separating them, from disarming them, and guaranteed them equal protection, and put no person or group of people above the law. Unlike virtually every other nation the problem the "ruling elite" have here is that they govern at the consent of the people.

The "ruling elite" have awakened the sleeping giant; it is the people of this country. We don’t like what we see and are withdrawing our consent and they don’t like it; too bad for those in Washington. The libertarian party has been trying to wake the public for decades; in the end it is the "ruling elite" in Washington themselves through their own fascist actions which woke the sleeping giant.

The message from the town hall meetings, tea parties, blogs, and the people is for the "ruling elite" to shut-up and listen, we not you know what’s best for us. I fear that they won’t because they think the people are stupid that they are better than the people.

Yet Again It looks like 1930's Germany

I thought I was done comparing the Obama administration to 1930's Germany. But in glaring similarity to Hitler's Germany the Obama administration is now attacking mere citizens not just media personalities, and is asking fellow citizens to report anything "Fishy" back to the government by email, at flag@whitehouse.gov.

Can you say "Brown Shirt"? .... I thought you could.

Calling citizens who ask hard questions and criticize government officials at town hall meetings an "Angry Mob" is outlandish. His irrational nationalistic hatred of any criticism is very fascist in nature.

The Obama administration is having trouble with the first amendment and the very internet he used to help get elected. Because of these he can't control what information the people get. Truth about the government takeover of health care (not reform), and the other socialistic and communistic policies he's trying to inact, keep getting out and when exposed to the light these programs are being shown for what they are.

The first amendment and internet expose the lies he's been telling. Like no new taxes to those making less than $250K, The new Tobacco Tax disproportionally affects those making less than $250K. Or the lie of there being 47million people without health care. There are 47million without insurance but 22million make over $50K, can afford insurance but choose not to purchase it but pay cash for their health care needs, and around 12 million are illegal aliens, and a significant percentage of the remainder are people who are eligible for existing government funded medical care but haven't signed up for it. So the 47million people are not without health care, they just don't fit the traditional employer paid for health insurance users. They have healthcare, so its a lie.

How about the lie of an open debate on health care; most of the major decisions in the multi-thousand page healthcare bill were done in secret, that's not the transparency he promised. He is a liar.

I love the lie of We need the Stimulus now, and unemployment will stay less than 8%; it's now around 9% and another 1/2million are out of work in July, and retail sales are down by nearly 8%.

Watch for the Obama administration to attempt to control information on the news and internet, and try to end talk radio, blogging by just anybody, etc. It's is the logical step that Hitler took in the 1930's that Obama will try and take now. We are watching the US march towards Fascism under Obama’s leadership.

Fair Tax

This says it better than the books

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite Replies to Vote Knowledgeably Pledge

A few days ago I blogged about writing to my representatives and asked them to vote knowledgeably or don't vote. Read the entry here

Congresswoman Ginny Brown-Waite replied, here it is in it's entirity.

Dear Tom: You and I both recognize the obvious merit in requiring every Member of Congress to read bills before they vote on them. When Democrats came to the majority in Congress, they promised a new era of openness and transparency. So far they have not lived up to that promise. I have pushed for an increase in the amount of time Members have to review bills between their introduction and a vote. I would like to assure you that I fully vet every bill before me before I cast my vote; however the majority has made that nearly impossible. The most egregious instance of this occurred the same day the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454, was sent to the floor of the House for a vote. The majority added 300 pages to the text of the bill at 3:09 a.m., giving Members very little time to review the changes: not even the clerk of the House had a fully assembled copy of the bill. One must wonder why the rush and what are Democrats afraid of? Republican Leader John Boehner shared my outrage at this tactic. You can view a part of his floor speech by going to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXXZYcaSCeI Throughout my tenure in public service, I have always kept an open door and an open dialogue with my constituents. As Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Accordingly, I encourage you to visit my Web site at http://brown-waite.house.gov to email me and find useful information about our 5th Congressional District. It is my honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida's 5th Congressional District and my offices and staff are here to provide you with any assistance you may need. Sincerely, Ginny Brown-Waite Member of Congress

We The People Stimulus Package

I Wish I had Written and Did This One.

Congressional Vote Knowledge Pledge

Congress is passing laws that they don’t understand, that the people administering don’t understand, that the people who must comply with them don’t understand. They don’t even read the bills they are voting for.

Why should we the people trust any elected official that are supposed to represent us, who don’t even read what they're voting on? Take the Cash for Clunkers boondoggle; over 136 pages of instructions for car retailers came with this government giveaway. Who in their right mind would vote for such a complicated piece of garbage? We were able to establish the entire constitution, the framework for our entire government, in less than a dozen pages. Obviously the people, who vote for these huge bills either; don’t know what’s in them, don’t want to know what’s in them, or don’t care what’s in them. They obviously don’t want you and me to know what’s in them.

I like using last year’s law to remove lead from children’s toys as an example. One of the unintended consequences of this well meant law was to outlaw small motorcycles and atv's. Millions of families across this nation participate in motor sports. Including children ridding small safe slow motorcycles and atv’s with enough safety gear on to make them look like the StayPuff Marshmallow Man. There is a small amount of lead in the alloy’s that make up engine casings, higher than is allowable in the law, but unlike a small toy there isn’t a rash of 5 year old motorcycle and atv riders chewing on their engines. So we killed a $600 million dollar industry, and hurt a safe sane family activity. Now consider Health Care Reform bill H.R. 3200 is is 1,018 pages long.... who knows what’s hidden in it?

I’m writing a letter to each of my congresspersons and senators asking them to only vote knowledgably about every piece of legislation they vote on. Either vote NO or don’t vote on any legislation that they haven’t read. Please do the same.

Dear (Insert Congressman’s name here), Thank you for serving our country and specifically me as a constituent. I believe that weather I agree with your political philosophy or not, whether we are in the same party or not, you originally ran for office hoping to help and represent me. You represent me in the legislature and I thank you for that. The laws you vote on are increasingly large and complicated, as my representative I expect you to vote in my best interest. I do not believe you can do so if you don’t fully understand what you are voting for/against. I would have thought that you would study legislation before voting on it. The evidence in the news is that in congress laws have been voted on before they were even printed or sent to the members of Congress, so obviously laws are being voted on without even reading them. Not havingat least read the entirety of a bill I don’t see how you can fully understand what the consequences of that legislation will be, know if it meets the constitutionally limited powers which congress has, or if it will do what you think you’re voting for. Would you please take a pledge to vote No or abstain from voting on any legislation that you haven’t at least read in its entirety? I eagerly await your response. (Your Name, etc. here)

If I get any responses I’ll post them here.