Thanks for the invite.
The open letter does speak the emotions of the people but, has an indirect threatening tone in some areas. I DON'T think anyone is encouraging violence and think back to the 60's opposition that resulted in the death at Kent State U..
In retrospect, some people have said had that generation worked with the government vs protesting, things might have been different. I wasn't there so I really don't know.
I don't think anyone who disagrees with policies is disagreeing to find out, either.
It is, however, important, to let those in office know, very clearly and calmly what policies result in or could result in what and cite references, imho. For example, we know socialized medicine results in lack of competition and that lack of competition has set Canadian health care and research behind the US. There are several lawsuits that the Canadian government tossed out, ending up having to foot the bill, instead of holding incompetent corporations responsible, at the expense of Canadians, which has decreased their individuals' ability to support their system. Of course we don't want that here. The USA is one of the leaders in sane medical care, that other countries look up to for both results and standards, especially in innovative research sciences. We don't want to lose that opportunity....therefore, we respectfully disagree and cannot support the proposed policy change....yadda, yadda, yadda...and use the same outline per issue.
It would take some time but if those who commented on the 60's were right, it can only help...by the time it's done that way, BHO's hearings might be over and the government might let us know first, they have more power (and insight) they want to share in a better manner, too.
Especially if something is determined very illegal about BHO's presidency, we don't want to be part of any problem or seem to promote, support, be involved in any way with any problem the Kool-aid drinkers might freak out about the FEDERAL government deciding on; those people would be the real threat to letting the legal process function and the government and the people need to know this.
POWERFUL letter but, I think we can do even better and accomplish more, still be united and get the point across - the main problem here is: "Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one." Any politician reading that will take it as a serious threat because it can't be legally done and should not be said in that tone. IF it's going to be said at all, it needs to backed up by facts (specific votes by specific politicians) and non-violent demands that person step down. For heaven's sake, you can't threaten Congress, either!
Let's just get each other killed. %-/
There's enough people who are p'o'ed in this world. Just tone it down and maybe someone will listen. Otherwise, the government is going to make decisions without thinking twice about what we feel and if threatened like that, when there are hearings already scheduled in approx two weeks, we might not be able to be productive to have any say in the future.
Sorry, count me out of this one. I get the sentiment and the need to express it but, I disagree with the approach being productive in the long-run. Some of it is helpful - again, if it were toned down to express the civility we are really asking for and have, I think, some obligation to demonstrate can be debated with. We haven't lost that freedom - yet.
I'm not willing to give it up because I don't feel as trusting as trust should feel, in America. That is where the frustration in the letter, here, becomes blurred with people who would react with outright violence. Hello....The government is going to defend themselves against people like that and I hope not, but, if taken too far, might base their decisions on those people instead of on us.
Personally, I'd like to hope not a little longer.
