Who Congress should have listened to but didn't? Who should the American people should listen to - especially the first 16 seconds of this speech? The same person - Ronald Reagan.
Instead, we got this tonight.
Is there hope? Absolutely.
First, we act to oust those in office now that voted for this monstrosity or sit supported no because they were covered by House members that are more secure in their districts than the ones that voted against this bill (read: Democrats). This means that you'll have to help those outside your district and state fight the good fight. Here in Illinois, there are those in the northern region of the state that are actively working to defeat the re-election of their officials currently in office including but not limited to Bill Foster (14th CD), Debbie Halverson (8th CD), Melissa Bean (11th CD), Jan Schakowsky (9th CD), Jerry Costello (11th CD) and Phil Hare (17th CD), to name a few.
Second, the courts. At least 30 states are moving legislation to sue the federal government over the health care bill. Idaho has already passed their legislation to sue, and Virginia also passed legislation to sue. Now, Florida Attorney General Bill McCullom has vowed to sue the federal government as well. The two main reasons why the states are suing are because the health care bill violates the 10th Amendment and Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. While I believe they are right, I think it would be an easier go of things to use liberal arguments and court cases against themselves. Fight fire with fire!
Roe v. Wade. This is one of the pillars of the liberal movement's arguments. While we believe in the sanctity of life, the liberals believe in the sanctity of using the Constitution to protect abortion. That's ok though, we'll use their cherished court victories to defeat their ludicrous health care bill. If you dive into the majority opinion by the US Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, you will find that Justice Blackmun explained that the ban of abortion violated Roe's 9th and 14th Amendment rights:
The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover this right in the concept of personal "liberty"embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital, familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights or its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in result);or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth Amendment,Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring).Before addressing this claim, we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us, and then to examine the state purposes and interests behind the criminal abortion laws.
So exactly what is the difference between the US Supreme Court ruling that government cannot deny "personal liberty" via abortion and the federal government denying my personal liberty via the health care bill? In this persons layman's eyes, there isn't. And with Bart Stupak crucifying himself on the cross of the pro-life movement to placate his conscience for voting yes tonight is disgusting to say the least.
Third, get involved. You've heard it before and now you're hearing it again. GET INVOLVED! It doesn't matter which party you subscribe to, but the best way to change the major parties is from the grassroots. Become a precinct committeeman. If we get enough people at the base of EACH party, we can make people like President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Sheila Jackson-Lee, and Jan Schakowsky the fringe of their party, not the mainstream - and NOT CONTROLLING THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OF THE UNITED STATES!