Have you ever seen a movie where the villain is beating someone? First they viciously club their victim to the floor unconscious. Then they decide that’s not good enough, so they kick him in the kidneys, walk away then come back and kick him in the head for good measure. Well that’s what happened to the American people this last week. Sunday we get the health care bill, which according to every reputable poll Americans strongly oppose, shoved down our collective throat while we yell “NO, NO, HELL NO”. As it is happening, Nancy Pelosi decides to take a victory lap through the anti-health care protestors, holding the gigantic gavel she intends to use to slam the insult home. Head held high, smiling, and ignoring everyone she walks through the angry crowd jubilantly, defiantly, to show the world who is boss.   After stoking the anger as high as she can, she and others taking the lap with her complain about things said to them from the crowd. Violent, racist, homophobic, horrible things, according to a few. Though strangely there is no footage of any of these events. This in the age of cell phone cameras and media coverage everywhere.   I digress, but it made me think of the UFO crazies who insist they have seen, heard and been taken hostage by extra terrestrials, but can never produce an image.   

Prior to the vote, Congressman Jim McDermott, Democrat from Washington, went to the floor of the House and called those opposed to the health care bill “teabaggers” not once but twice. Congressman Paul Ryan, Democrat for Ohio, recanting the supposed spitting and name calling incidents (you know, the UFO incidents) also got to the floor of the House and called people from the tea party “teabaggers.” When did it become acceptable behavior to call citizens who disagree with you sexually offensive names, and on the floor of the House? And how can they miss the irony of using this explicit and disgusting language to describe what they consider the unacceptable behavior of the other side.

Then there is the President, still trying to sell this disastrous piece of legislation to the American public, doing his victory tour and taking every opportunity to mock those (the majority of Americans) who opposed it. 

I didn’t know I was a member of the “Tea Party” when I and about 500 of my friends and neighbors showed up on the corner of our little hamlet of approximately 4800 people in April of 2009. I just knew that I was concerned and angry about the irresponsible spending that was happening in Washington, and that I felt a civic responsibility to do something more than sit back in my recliner and complain. I was surprised by the size and composition of the crowd. There were young and old, white, black and Latino, people from a wide variety of religious backgrounds and no religious background. There were people who were middle class, poor and well off. The atmosphere was light even though the subject very serious. It was apparent that most of us weren’t sure what we were doing, as it was a group that doesn’t normally make signs and go stand on a street corner. We laughed and talked with each other.   There were no signs containing racist remarks or calls to violence.   

Since that day I have attended two more “protests”. We didn’t call them “tea parties”.   Each of these other events was similar to the first. Congenial, peaceful, orderly, while still carrying a serious message that we wanted to make sure was heard by those elected to represent us. 

Here is what I have learned from my experience. While those elected to represent us certainly heard us, they refuse to listen to us. This Administration is intent on marginalizing and maligning us. They hope to turn public opinion against us and shame us into shutting up. They themselves are shameless in their tactics. President Obama is a master at the use of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. It is part of the curriculum for those who volunteer for his grassroots organization “Organizing for America” . President Obama taught these tactics to the Community Organizers he spent most of his adult life working for and with. Unlike the supposed incidents by the “teabaggers” there is actual footage of him teaching this dogma.  It’s an interesting and effective theory, and all conservatives under attack need to read it, study it and understand its principles and use. Because it is a major weapon in the attack currently being fought against Conservatives, particularly the “tea party Conservatives” right now. In order to defend yourself or fight back, you must understand your opponent’s tactics.    There are 11 rules, but two are particularly important for us to understand. They are:

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

So, “teabaggers” are a target. We have been picked, frozen, personalized and polarized. After making sure the message has been spread about this polarizing target, we have and continue to be ridiculed. Simple Alinsky strategy used by an Alinsky disciple who is a master at the tactics. 

Here’s the flaw in the very well organized campaign against the millions of average Americans who disagree with the disastrous policies that have already been enacted and those on the threshold of being enacted. First, we know who we are. In every group there is the lunatic fringe. Have you read the Huffington Post or Daily Kos lately? But the vast majority of the “tea party” members are just average citizens who go to work, pay their bills, live average lives and are uncomfortable being in the spotlight. We’ve never met for the purpose of deciding how to blow up the Pentagon, or staged demonstrations meant to incite riots, or advocated violence as the answer. We are your Mom, Grandpa, Sister, Neighbor, Church Choir member. We are America. And there are millions of us. We’re angry because we don’t like being targeted and ridiculed, and we certainly do not like being ignored. But since we are law abiding, peaceful people, we take it without getting out of control. When our protests are done, we pick up our litter and go home.

We know we are good people who have real, honest concerns for our country that are being ignored. We know we are not the vile “teabaggers” that our elected Representatives speak of so dismissively. We find the behavior of the people who use this rhetoric repugnant. We also have been through enough in our lives not to let a little ridicule stop us from doing what we so sincerely believe is our duty as citizens. We will not shut up and go home. We will defend ourselves. We will learn from the opposition and use their tactics against them. We are smart, we are educated, and we are determined.

We also know that the country has been duped. We watched a man give soaring speeches about hope and change and who seemed so bright and positive take the highest office in the land. Then we watched him break promises we knew he made, and keep promises we weren’t smart enough to know he was making, like fundamentally transforming the America we love and would like to keep intact. We have watched him behave with an arrogance which is astonishing in the way he treats us, we have watched him be ruthless in the pursuit of his ideology, showing that he is only a politician, not the shining hope of post partisan America.   We have watched him ridicule average Americans for daring to disagree with him.

We have also seen a lot of ridiculous behavior on the other side.. Have you seen Nancy Pelosi try to appear tearful and afraid of us? You must admit ridiculous is one word to describe that performance. How about trying to put Fox News out of business? Really, the cable news channel with ratings that are so high it’s really embarrassing to even do a comparison with the others? Then going on the dreaded Fox News when you think you need them and behaving like a petulant tyrant when you can’t get away with taking over the interview and refusing to answer questions. I really thought that was ridiculous. I’m going to start a list of the most ridiculous behavior by the left and encourage each of you to do the same.   Then we'll share. Having such a list available to lighten the mood while moving forward with our conscientious dissent will be fun and important.

So all of you citizens who are still concerned and still determined, get up, brush yourself off and get back to work. We are needed more than ever, and we can take it. We can dish it too. Not with violence, not with ugly rhetoric, but with determination.    It’s time to take our country back. We will do it the right way, peacefully but vocally, spread the word, keep up the work, give money to campaigns, and vote. 2010 and 2012 are going to be very good years.   

I did not watch your press conference last night.  There are several reasons.  One is that after 100 days, I find nothing enchanted or enchanting about your Administration's agenda.  I find your responses to the vapid questions you are asked to be excessively long, uninformative and misleading.  I find your demeanor to be almost unbearably self-satisfied. I know I will learn nothing but will be pained for a very long hour.  And finally, since you have no interest in listening to me, why should I listen to you?  In fact, you use feigned amusement to ridicule me and people like me, as you did in your town hall meeting yesterday, talking about people who watch "some" news channels and wave tea bags, which is a very effective tool to marginalize people who disagree with you.  You, sir, are an arrogant man who is so acclimated to fawning praise that you are unable to accept that intelligent people might not agree with your every thought and action.  When faced with honest dissent from people who are willing, in fact, eager to have an intelligent debate, you react like a spoiled child.

Your administration behaved in a pouting, childish manner again this morning when you chastised Chrysler's bond holders for not going along with your plan to hand over the company to the Unions.  Your Administration scolded these people who had a legitimate claim and, indeed, a duty to assure that the people they represented recouped as much money as they could, and told them they were not acting in the national interest.  Excuse me?  I do not believe it is in the nation's interest for the Government to decide whether or not a business should stay in business.  I do not think it is in the nation's best interest for the Government to decide that Unions should take over management of a company.  I do not think it is in the nation's interest for the Unions to manage any business. The purpose of a union is to represent employees in negotiations with management.  Unions have a very bad track record of managing their own retirement funds and spending their members dues, so why should I feel good about them managing any business of which I am a major stockholder.  And since we the people now are major stockholders of an astonishing number of banks and businesses, and since this Administration has decided we should be voting stockholders, I have the right and responsibility to provide feedback on how my money is spent.  And I do not stand with you as you feel the need to chide organizations responsible for assuring that investors, many of whom are average Americans who have invested in mutual funds, IRA's, 401k's, etc., and have already lost enormous amounts of money through no fault of their own, get back the maximum amount possible.  Why is it that you feel these Americans have not sacrificed enough?

Mr. President, I am not alone.  There are millions of us, some of whom feel even more strongly than I that the decisions your Administration is making with lightening speed have the potential to fundamentally ruin this country.  Your subtle, dismissive chiding and ridicule will not shut us up.  We are vocal, we are worried, and we feel a responsibility to question your actions.  We have a stake in our own future and the future of our country and we are not going away. 

Janeane Garofalo is a mediocre actress, a bad comedienne, a failed radio talk-show host, and a bigot.  After watching her on Keith Olbermann, I have decided I will never watch her again.  In the interest of honesty, I must admit that I have not watched 24, but I know lots of people who do and love it.  I was planning on ordering the entire series on Netflix, but now I won't.  The irony of that woman, (I just can't call her Ms. anymore and my name is Jennine so it's too painful for me to use her first name) categorizing hundreds of thousands of middle class Americans as brain damaged, sexually deviant, redneck racists, is that 24 draws an audience which includes many of these people for whom she has nothing but disdain.  In the interest of my own personal boycott, I convinced my sister-in-law to throw her personal DVD of The Truth About Cats and Dogs away after breaking it.  I don't want to take the chance that someone might find it intact and watch it.  That woman's astonishing tirade did inspire me to make a conscious list of other entertainers whose bigotry I can no longer overlook.  Bigotry is just as ugly when directed at middle class, conservative Americans exercising their Constitutional right to free speech as it is when directed at anyone because of race, religion, physical disability, or sexual orientation.   Silence is consent, and contributing to people by watching movies or television, or listening to music goes beyond consent to support. This personal boycott is somewhat difficult as much of my youth and young adulthood was spent admiring these annoying entertainers.  Now when I think of these people and the incidents which have caused them to be added to my list, the lyrics to another song of my youth come to mind - How can people be so ugly, .....especially people who care about strangers, who say they care about social injustice......   I intend to consciously not support any of the following people, and will encourage others to follow suit.  Why would anyone want to support someone who feels disdain, disgust or antipathy for you?  So here's my list.

Barbara Streisand - I grew up singing People so often that "people" wanted to hit me.  I cried through"The Way We Were" at least 4 times.  My memories are now tainted by Babs not so brilliant political observations.  While I was over her long before the advent of CD's, I own a number of albums and cassettes.  When I find those boxes deep in storage, her albums go into the fire pit.

Robert Redford - I just realized how this list is aging me.  But Robert used to be very pretty, and I grew up with a poster of him on my bedroom wall.  I once accidentally turned up in the mud room of his house in Sundance, Utah while looking for another lodge.  I thought I had died and gone to heaven.  Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, another much-watched and loved movie like the previously mentioned The Way We Were, will sadly never be watched again as I could find none of the heart-palpitating joy of previous viewings.  Now I see a not-so-gracefully aging man so out of touch with most of America he could be living in parallel universe.

Linda Ronstadt - I've been dancing to the beat of a different drum ever since she so sweetly announced that it took the joy out of her concerts when she knew there were Republicans or fundamental Christians in the audience.  I am an Independent and a Hopeful Agnostic, but I took offense at this bashing of the people who had made her famous and given her a lot of money.  Like others who became rich off the people they despise, this money seems to give them the need to publicly support the causes of the common folk.  That is, the common folk who are not Republican or Christian.  So that'll be the day when I ever listen to her again. Her albums - also in the fire pit.

Then there is the list of people I happily avoid with no nostalgic memories like Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, Alec Baldwin, the Dixie Chicks and Madonna.  In fact, does anyone right or left, really like these people?

Here's someone I add with true sadness - Tom Hanks.  I have admired him personally and professionally since I first saw him.  He's usually a very good actor and has many wonderful personal qualities.  However, I have many friends and family members who are Mormon and I was deeply offended when he singled Mormons out in California's gay marriage vote, while ignoring the fact that Catholics, the Jewish population, blacks and many other demographics voted against gay marriage.  His apology was a nice gesture, but was more politically expedient than heart-felt.  His Big Love series is a clear example of using his star power to target a group to marginalize because he disagrees with them. Even though Mormons don't practice polygamy, most people don't or won't get that and I believe he uses this confusion to demonize Mormons.  Speaking of Demons, I won't feel bad missing Angels and Demons.  His performance in the Da Vinci code was so bad I can't believe anyone would watch a sequel.  At the time I found it puzzling that he could give such a wooden, unbelievable performance in a story that was so riveting in it's written form.  But then the character was a man of deep faith and obviously this was too much of a stretch or a stretch he didn't wish to make.  Tom is one of the more dangerous anti-conservative entertainers as he is not a ranting lunatic, he is subtle, thoughtful and methodical in advancing his liberal agenda.  Watch out for the candidate Tom Hanks, as he would be lethally effective.

So there's my small but growing list.  I started this blog because I wanted to take a stand.  I will undoubtedly struggle with this issue as there will be movies, TV shows and music I will want to see and hear and talk about with friends.  Principles are tricky things, and require some sacrifice if they are deeply held and true.  So here's to you, all you entertainers who find me morally objectionable while taking my money and using it against me.  To other entertainers, here's my motto - I work hard for my money so you better treat me right.

You have concerns about illegal aliens, and actually call them aliens rather than immigrants; you're a returning Gulf War, Afghanistan,, or Iraq War veteran; you perceive the government might be infringing on your civil liberties; you're worried about the economic collapse of the country; you have concerns about gun control legislation; you are pro-life; you belong to a church whose core principles include right-to-life; you are stockpiling food; you're worried about the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability to China and India, and China's investment in U. S. real estate and corporations; you reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.

You may have read through this abbreviated list of concerns described in the Assessment of Department of Homeland Security, Rightwing Extremism, Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment, and thought, whew, I'm safe, I only worry about one or two of those things, not all of them.  Well, that would be stupid because there's a footnote in the report that reports that rightwing extemism may include groups or individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.  And if your one issue is gun control, well you're automatically on the list.

What is most astonishing about this document is that it even exists.  Someone in our Administration actually thinks these things, sits down and has meetings about them, commits them to paper, has the DHS Secretary sign off on the document and distributes it nationwide.  There is also a statement in this document that it is not to be distributed to the media, the general public or non-secure internet servers, and then makes it available for any semi-computer savy person to download  in it's entirety.  So I have to assume the real audience is you and me and it's intended to make us frightened.  If this is what is in a summary document, what do they really think?   As I said in an earlier blog, be scared, be very scared.

I have decided that it is my patriotic duty to save DHS time and money  looking for those of us who fit the profile described above.  Let's identify ourselves and send the list to Janet.  Then maybe they can devote their time and money to looking for real terrorists.   So go to the site listed below if you fit the profile and agree it would be a patriotic thing to do to step forward:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/rightwingextremists/

Congressional hearings are always narcissistic theater, but the AIG hearings rank among the most abusive and unfounded hearings ever held.  Today Congress is insisting that I be outraged that AIG executives received $165 million in bonuses, even though these bonuses were the result of legally binding contracts, and the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, Congress and the Administration knew they were going to be paid.  I am upset by these bonuses, but my outrage is targeted with lazer precision on Congress and the Administation. First, compared to what Congress expects us to pay for pork and pet projects that benefit few if any Americans, $165 million is literally peanuts.  Today Congress played Gladiator to AIG's Christians.  With malice aforethought, Congress called hearings to divert attention from themselves by throwing raw meat to the American public.  Unfortunately, it appears the masses are biting.  Instead of being furious at Chris Dodd, who was responsible for putting provisions in legislation allowing the bonuses, everyone is mad at the people who  received the bonuses they had been promised.  We need to focus our attention on the people who are responsible for this ill-conceived bailout, and holding them accountable for the entire stimulus nightmare.

Two Senators deserve more than outrage.  Senators Chuck Grassley and Barney Frank have behaved in a dangerously hypocritical manner.  When Senator Grassley encourages, angrily, AIG executives to commit suicide, why is there no outcry for his resignation?  This is the most egregious behavior I have witnessed.  During the current financial crisis there have actually been suicides.  Suicide is a tragedy that affects everyone who knows the person in a devastating and personal way.  Now Senator Grassley says he didn't literally mean that these people should kill themselves, but I can't imagine what else he could have meant.  He spent some time explaining Japanese honor and suicide, so it wasn't an impulsive off-the-cuff comment.  He had thought this through and sounded very convincing that this was the proper course of action. In 2008, Senator Grassley secured $308 million in pork for his beloved state of Iowa.   Since this is almost twice the amount of the AIG bonuses, and benefited so few, what would be the proper course of action for Senator Grassley to take to apologize for his outrageous waste of taxpayer money?  I suggest  resignation, impeachment or at the least getting voted out of an office he dishonors with his rhetoric. I do not recommend suicide.

I suggest the same fate for Barney Frank, that is resignation, impeachment and/or getting voted out of office.  Today he demanded names of each person receiving a bonus.  Even after the AIG CEO read a letter from a deranged citizen threatening death to these Congressional scapegoats and their families, and asked that names be kept confidential to protect the evil bonus acceptors,  Barney refused to guarantee anonymity.  Barney, who should have the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac debacle laid at his feet, to say nothing of the earmark he inserted for his own personal  pet bank in Boston,  needs these names to offer up each time someone gets too close to his culpability.  I do not hear Barney showing the same outrage for the excessive salaries and bonuses of the above mentioned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Administrators.

Americans, take a close look at the results of Congress taking control of private enterprise. How much money was spent by the taxpayers for this hearing?  How many more will follow in the fervor of Congress to demonize everyone involved in the financial meldown?  Except themselves, that is.  If today's circus doesn't scare us away from additional bailouts I don't know what will.  No good will come from the continuing bailouts and nationalization of industry.  Stop the madness.

Maybe Robert Gibbs is a nice man who is good to his family, loves kids and dogs, and volunteers time and money to people less fortunate than him.  I hope so.  Here is how he comes across to me as I have watched him through the campaign and now as the Press Secretary, glib, mean-spirited and not very articulate.  Today when asked a question about something Dick Cheney said on the Sunday talk shows, Gibbs responded by remarking that Rush Limbaugh must not have been available so they drug out the next most popular person from the Republican "cabal".  There was laughter in the Press Room.  There are so many different disturbing levels to this response that there is no way to discuss them all.  But a few really need some daylight.  The first is the continued Obama Administration's campaign to make Rush Limbaugh the new George Bush as a focal point for the far left's vitriol. Let's just go ahead and call the Limbaugh campaign what it is, a Nixon-era dirty tricks campaign.  It was abhorrent then, it is abhorrent now, especially coming from an Administration who got elected because they were going to rise above this kind of tactic.  And, Robert, this just makes you look so small. It reflects poorly on your boss, who looks small as well, as it is obvious that he is at the very least tacitly encouraging this ridiculous game you boys are playing.  It also makes you look like a bully, the kid in the schoolyard who stole other kids lunches, and made fun of those you felt weren't good enough to play with the popular kids.  Grow up.

The second issue is the sarcastic response about the Bush Administration.   If you disagree with Dick Cheney's remarks, be a big boy and tell the country why.  Treat the Press Corps and the American public like thinking adults.  I do understand the temptation to treat the Press Corps like children when they behave the way they did today, giggling as the bully kicks the victim.  Still, when a question is asked, we, the American people, actually want an answer of substance.  How and why do you disagree and what would you or are you, the Obama Administration, going to do differently. 

I remember Tony Snow representing George Bush in the Press Room.  He used humor, but it wasn't mean-spirited and sarcastic, and he didn't engage in the tactic of trying to look better by demeaning the former administration or the opposition party.  From everything I have been able to find out about Tony Snow, he really was a nice guy who loved kids and helped people who were less fortunate.  He was also a gracious person and a gentleman.  He didn't engage in petty bullying or childish games.  His boss, George Bush, was also a gentleman.  Although he did inherit many extremely messy and dangerous situations from the Clinton Administration, I never heard President Bush use the blame game to deflect responsibility.  Would that Obama could act half as graciously as his predecessor.  Maybe when he grows up a bit he too will learn a little humility, and how to accept personal responsibility without the need to proclaim that nothing is his fault.

Robert Gibbs is just another daily reminder that promises and reality bear no relationship to each other.  Timothy Geithner was billed as the smartest person in the country and the only person who could pull us out of the financial quagmire.  Not so much.  Robert Gibbs was going to be the best and smartest Press Secretary ever to step in front of the microphone in the White House Press Room.  Not even close.  Ah, Tony, I miss you. 

I have watched the great orator Obama selling his health care, energy, and education programs as the cause and the solution of our economic crisis, and I realize that he thinks we're stupid.  The media for the most part is giving him a pass on this agenda, which is stupendously illogical.  What's more I can't find any deep explanation of this supposed cause and effect relationship by the POTUS, or for that matter even a superficial explanation of why these issues caused our crises and how throwing money and time to have the Government intervene in these areas will help rather than continue to hurt us.  I did hear him claim that health care caused a bankruptcy every 30 seconds, a claim he has made in at least two speeches carried nationally.  This is a totally baseless claim that even his own staff couldn't substantiate.  So they just brushed it off, and said the idea was right even if the facts were wrong.  A recent study broke down the bankruptcy figures and came up with 8 tenths of 1 percent of Americans lived in a household that filed for bankruptcy because of medical costs.  Bankruptcies for all  reasons add up to about the same number cited by Obama, so I guess every single bankruptcy in America must be caused by health care. 

As President he continues his brilliant strategy of making stirring speeches that are absolutely devoid of any substance and light on facts.  Sometimes he makes things up if he thinks it will sound better.  And if pushed into a corner, he will blame someone else.  His very favorite target is Bush, which is already wearing thin.  Or Rush.  Or Rick Santelli.  Or Jim Cramer. Since he can never be wrong, then anyone who disagrees with him must be wrong, and must be punished.  Mr. Obama has an agenda and he is committed to pushing it down our throats and nothing and no one is going to be allowed to get in his way.  At some point, his continued misstatement of facts must be labeled by the proper term, lying.

He is steamrolling programs through the Congress and campaigning to sell them to all us dolts out there who are allowing this to happen.  In my opinion, going forward with Obamas health care, education or energy programs will harm us in a devastating economic way, but there also will be unintended consequences that will make bad things worse.  Has anyone heard of ethanol?  Not exactly a sound energy or financial investment.

Part of why liberals think conservatives are stupid is that we are quiet.  Come on folks, speak up.  Be noisy and rude about these programs.  Otherwise, don't complain to me when there's no gas to put in your hybrid or electricity to plug it in so you can go sit in an emergency room hoping that you aren't too old or sick to deserve rationed care.

Recently the Administration has employed an interesting forum to solve the most complex problems facing the nation.  It's called, Let's Have a Summit.  He calls together a large group of diverse people, many of whom have never met each other, and have no in-depth working knowledge of the problem to be solved.  You know things like the economy and health care.  Then he gives them an inspirational speech and sends them into breakout groups for a few hours and they bring back the answers to problems like the reform of Social Security, Medicare, tax policy, and health care.  Built into these summits are lots of time for participants to come back and share their enthusiasm and gratitude for being part of this innovative process.   When I watch this, I can't help thinking about one of his two autobiographies, which I remember were written before he had done anything or anyone had ever heard his name.  The Audacity of Hope.  Audacity is such a good word for these summits.  It is audacious to think the greatest problems of our time can be solved in an afternoon.  Brilliant, in fact.  I wonder why no one has done this before.

Of course, I cannot help but remember the many  similar meetings I have been involved in over my professional career.  We didn't call them Summits, and the President wasn't there to cheer lead, so maybe that was why most of these were a colossal waste of time and money.  We called them less grandiose things like strategic planning, which I used to think was pretty grandiose considering the outcome.  In these less audacious exercises, we too were dealing with health care.  On a much smaller lever, so maybe that was why it took us so much longer.  For instance, we actually got stacks and stacks of material to read and absorb so that we were on a similar knowledge level to start the process.  And of course, almost everyone at these meetings was actually involved in the provision of health care.  We also took days rather than hours to come up with an outline of where we needed to go.  Then we actually put together separate teams to flesh out and follow up on all the recommendations.  We had follow up meetings and reports to keep us on track and see what was happening to all our work and great ideas.  In spite of all the unnecessary time and effort, we still usually ended up with a huge document that sat in offices of participants with ideas that slowly withered and died.  I bet most people who have ever worked in an organization of even a moderate size have been through this painful process as well.

Here's the genius of Obama's summits.  The ideas will wither and die just like the ones that came out of the prolonged process, but he's saving us an enormous amount of money by limiting these exercises to hours rather than days and months.He gets to avoid his office and doing any real work for another day.  And he gets lots of air-time showing the American public how inclusive and Presidential he is while playing Facilitator in Chief.  Wow.

There is more information about the Unions and card check that I wanted to put in my original post.

Prior to his stint in the White House, Mr. Ickes represented the Laborer's International Union of North American (LIUNA) and it's then President Arthur Coia.  During the 90's, Liuna was investigated by the Justice Department for ties to organized crime.  A draft complaint said Mr. Coia was "associated withand had been controlled and influenced by organized crime figures" and that he "employed actual and threatened force, violence and fear of  physical and economic injury to create a climate of intimidation and fear."  Liuna gave over $1 million to Democrats in 1994 and Congressional investigators documented more than 120 meetings between Mr. Coia and President Clinton.  The Justice case was never filed, and Mr. Coia took an early retirement and pled guilty to tax fraud in exchange for probation and a fine.  Mr. Ickes admitted to being involved and setting up and attending the meetings between the President and Mr. Coia.  All of this is well documented in a Wall Street Journal article dated October of 2000.

So when the President recently met with Union officials and publicly welcomed them back to the White House, it didn't make me feel warm and fuzzy.  I remember all too well what happened when the Union was welcome in the White House before.  Card check has been bought and paid for by the Unions.  It's up to us to stop this attack on one of our foundations, the right to a secret ballot.  Call. Write.

Did I mention that I am a recovering Democrat?  Obama is keeping me in recovery, which is a good thing.  It was during Clinton's first term that I came to my senses.  Prior to that I have been a Democrat who completely bought the old canard that Republicans were bought and owned by Big Money and Big Business.  However, an interesting case came to my attention in the early 90's involving some very interesting people.  The case involved a scheme to illegally fund and influence a union election.  And the interesting people being investigated were Bill Clinton's Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes, and Clinton-Gore fundraiser Terry McAuliffe. 

When the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Peter Hoekstra started looking into this Teamsters Union scandal, he was asked by the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mary Jo White, not to subpoena McAuliffe, Ickes, and certain others on grounds that their testimony might interfere with a criminal investigation that she and the Clinton Justice Department were already pursuing. But after Hoekstra agreed to White’s request, as he described it, "the entire Teamsters investigation  has fallen into a black hole." Small players in the case pled guilty.  But, despite strong evidence against them, no criminal indictments were ever handed down by White or the Clinton Justice Department against McAuliffe, or Ickes.  I was able to refresh my memory on this issue with information from DiscoverTheNetWorks.Org, which has a lot more  information.  There was also a Time magazine article about this issue at the time it was happening.  So this information does not just come of my Right-Wing mind. 

Call me crazy, but this seemed more egregious than the Big Money Big Business Republican concern I had.  I also watched as Harold Ickes continued to support the Unions and intervene in an inappropriate way on their behalf from the White House.  It soured me on Clinton, the Democrats and Unions.

Now comes card check.  Cognitive dissonance is the only way to describe this administration.  The secret ballot is sacred in America for every other election other than Union elections.  Let's see, over the years, Unions have engaged in such persuasive activities as knee-capping in order to get votes.  So card check may be an improvement, as at least the intimidation probably won't be as physical.  But make no mistake, a union official confronting an employee in view of everyone in the work site and asking that person to sign a card is intimidation.  And we all know this.  The Democrats know this.  It's just another pay back for the enormous amount of union dues given to the Democrats during elections without the consent of the dues-paying members. 

It's time to burn up the phone lines and the email.  We must stop this.  Unions are part of the problem, they do not offer a solution to the economic crisis.  And individuals deserve to be protected from the kind of intimidation that is at the very heart of card check.  We have responsibility to stop this bill.  Let's do our part.  Call.  Write.  Call again.  Write again.

Since I have decided to take my political frustrations out in a blog, let me say a little about myself.  I am a moderate conservative.  In other words, I am not someone who has a history of taking hard-line polarizing political views.  During the 2008 campaign, I was ambivalent.  I felt John McCain deserved to lose as he ran a lousy campaign and I disagreed with many of his views.  I was unsure about Obama, because he wasn't saying anything, what little real record he had was liberal, and his associates were radical scary people.  But he presented himself in such an appealing way that America literally fell in love with him.  That should have rung a few more bells with all of us than it did. On Inauguration day, I sent emails to my liberal friends congratulating them, acknowledging the historic nature of the day and the excitement it was causing and saying that I wanted Obama to succeed.  By the end of the day, I was not able to make myself watch the Balls, my enthusiasm was gone and my teeth were on edge.  What I glimpsed on Inauguration Day is now shouting at me and it is scary.  As he participated in the ceremonies that day, I saw a man who was in his element.  And as the day went on I didn't see that in a good way.  He was arrogant, rather than just confident.  Since that day, I have evolved.  I no longer see him as arrogant, I see him as a megalomaniac, regardless of how paranoid and radical that may sound.  Consider this might be true, and look what has happened to countries led by megalomaniacs.   That is how I got here, to a blog.  I feel the need to shout to people, WATCH OUT.  We are in deep deep trouble.  And, God bless you Rush, I hope his policies fail.

So here I am using this forum to connect with family, friends and like-minded acquaintances.  We need to use whatever tools we have to sound the alarm and to stop the destruction of America as we know it.  One tool we have is our voice.  We need to get out of the recliner and make our wishes known.  Another tool is our vote.  We need to use our voice by calling, emailing, calling again, emailing again letting our President and our Representatives know that we will vote based on how they vote.  We need to let them know we will also use our voice to let other people know what they are doing and how we feel about it.  We need to write letters to the editor, we need attend town hall meetings, we need to be loud, individually and collectively.  We need to keep at it even when we know we aren't being listened to and when we want to just disconnect and turn off the TV.  If we don't keep at it, we lose, the country loses.  Right now the scary cult-like love affair with the President is still in effect with too many Americans.  It's like watching the Night of the Living Dead.  We can't wait for the cult members to be deprogrammed. 

Right now we have the appropriations bill, which should not be passed.  Not only is it full of pork, it is too much money.  I have already emailed Max Baucus about this bill.  Next I will email my other Senator.  Then I will call them.  Then I will send another email.  Today I sent a letter to the editor complaining about how our Senators have already voted on each of the bills which are sending us into a generational financial death spiral.  But that's not the end or even a resting point.   There is health care reform, a nightmare which Obama has on his quick-before-anyone-thinks track.  Then there is the mortgage bailout.   Yeah, we taxpayers are excited about paying for the bad judgment and poor financial habits of all the defaulters.  If I want to help someone, I think I'll choose the people I know and love, not all the idiots who think Obama means a house, a car, free gas, and enough money to keep up their unrealistic standards of living, preferably by taking it away from the rich.

So, if you are reading this, please take a stand.  Please don't disconnect.  Let's just for once try to be as tenacious and organized as the people intent on taking this country down.  More to come.