First, meet Anthony Wiener, a re-elected Congressman who claims “the healthcare bill and I are one” and “I read the bill” apparently he reads faster than the fastest reader on Earth, or, did he mean after he voted on it unconscionably? In any event, recently he suggested New York find alternatives to Obama's healthcare overhaul that was done against the Will of The American People (thus indisputably shoved down our nation's throat, dictated from Washington D.C.:
“Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.
“Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.
“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.” . . .”--Links ommitted, http://www.nationalreview.com/the-feed/262962/anthony-weiner-new-york-city-needs-look-alternatives-obamacare
Of course he is well supported by Soros', ala Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/research/201103240025 citing left of center news outlets such as Politico here:
“Politico: Weiner "Used The Waivers As [A] Way To Describe How Flexible The Law Actually Is." A March 23 Politico article pointed out that in his speech for the Campaign for America's Future, Weiner "was trying to debunk Republican 'myths' about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how 'this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people's throats' is not true.”-- Politico, “Anthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York,” http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51840.html”
Now let's make sure that this Soros funded propaganda campaign has absolute accuracy.
Please consider that you elect someone to represent you, and that in doing so you expect them to consider the weight of something fully informed. You, expect their vote, to be based on using a means of discernment to cast their yea or nay vote. At no time do you expect them to rely on osmosis, or, merely the talking points of their party as the means of determining their vote. These expectations are what define their conscionability and quality of service to the people they represent.
Thus I give you John Conyers, in July, 2009, as he explains why they cannot read the Healthcare Bill [UPDATE: ORIGINAL VIDEO REMOVED BY USER ON YOUTUBE, NEW VIDEO EMBED]:
But, not so fast! Mr. Conyers, later, speaks for himself and Dennis Kucinich, recently, March 15, 2011:
Let's make sure we heard that right:
“We view, the Healthcare Reform Bill as a platform on which we are now able to move forward.”
And later, in an interview by a reporter, Conyers enthusiastically interrupts:
Reporter: You see a Single-Payer Healthcare System ultimately...(Conyers interrupts)
Conyers: “Of course...”
They continue with the reporter pursuing confirmation of the answer:
Reporter: “And you see this bill ultimately leading to a Single-Payer Healthcare System?”
Conyers: “Well it's a platform, I don't think they flow smoothly, but, without that...If we didn't have this [Healthcare Reform Bill] then Healthcare, Universal Healthcare, would be an even more difficult legislative objective.”--Emphasis mine.
Is this man, or those who voted for a 2300 page bill without reading it, representing the people or purely a party agenda?
Can this man vote for a bill he's never read, then bind the American People to be subjected to the criminal and civil implications of his actions, just because of the title “Congressman?” The first Amendment provides:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”--Emphasis mine, http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
“Congress shall make no law...” is an express statement, in no uncertain terms, of an already existing limitation on Congress, further emphasized by the recognition, “abridging the freedom of speech” that already exists, further emphasized by “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” again demonstrating existing rights before the Bill of Rights was even ratified. In its entirety, the First Amendment is a statement of limitation on Congress, as to those things they have no say over at all, and because expression takes on many, many forms, and to deny one is to allow government to filter its input so as not to hear us. Seem familiar to our current reality?
A perfect example: How do we show our dissatisfaction for a product or service, be it a doctor or the insurance company? Answer: using our Unalienable Right to Freedom of Speech. Healthcare's mandated purchase with IRS enforcement, violates our freedom to express our dissatisfaction with government's parameters as to what qualifies as healthcare. This purchasing power is a means of expression, is another form of vote, and a political statement in our being peaceably assembled to not purchase the product, and/or the idea, being sold.
Instead, due to the acts of people such as John Conyers, we are being unconscionably bound to service to an idea, system, expense, and taxation, that we have vehemently shown opposition to.
Further, Congress is legislating away our Unalienable Right to Redress of Grievance by the lack of an administrative process to question the information used by the IRS to prosecute or apply civil penalties to us without a judge, court, jury, or any other aspect of due process that Congress and the United States Government is required to assure!
I close with Dennis Kucinich's statements regarding what he'd do if republicans pursue repeal of healthcare, January 11, 2011:
“Kucinich said that Republican efforts to starve the new healthcare law could inadvertently push the country toward a single-payer system.
“If you demolish the new bill and we go back to square one, you still have 50 million who don't have any coverage, then what's the option if you can't have the government, say, by private insurance, which -- believe me, as someone would[sic, probably “who”] has fought that system I understand that -- then the only other option is to say what other industrialized democracies say, healthcare is a basic right, we've got to provide for everyone, we'll have a single-payer system,” as quoted from, http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/135569-kucinich-gop-push-against-healthcare-law-could-revive-single-payer-push
Note his confusion of America as a democracy and you understand his vehement need to pursue a communist agenda:
“Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”-- Italic emphasis mine, 1848 Communist Manifesto, Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61/pg61.html
May we awaken quickly to save Our Republic and Our Individual Liberty,
Friday 25 March 2011