Protest Obama’s Healthcare – This Monday!

Stand Up for Health Care Freedom – Monday, August 17

Wake Up! Obama is Coming!

This is Your Big Chance to STOP Nationalized Health Care.

The Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity is joining allied Tea Party organizations this coming Monday, August 17th, at 7 am, for a protest in downtown Phoenix at the corner of Adams and 2nd Street, outside the Phoenix Convention Center.

President Barack Obama will address the Veterans of Foreign Wars at the Phoenix Convention Center that morning. We need to assemble peacefully outside the Convention Center and protest Obama, Congress, and the big insurance and drug companies who are supporting the Obama-Pelosi plan. We need to send them the following message:


Paid parking is available in lots all around the Convention Center. We strongly suggest arriving downtown by 6:00 am to park and walk to the rally point at Adams and 2nd Streets. Those Tea Partiers who need to get to work to pay taxes and support their families should arrive early, park in a farther lot (such as the one at Washington and 5th Street) and depart by about 8:00 am to go to work. The rest of us will stay until 9 am or later, if necessary. Please bring water and sunscreen/umbrella. Optional: blue balloons, medical smocks, and signs with large letters. (You guys come up with great signs, but some sign ideas are pasted below.)

KFYI radio is going to broadcast live from Tom’s Tavern, at the NE corner of Washington and Central. Coincidentally, the NE corner of Washington and Central is also where the pro-Obama group, Organizing for America, is planning to congregate… The AFP rally point is just around the corner, at Adams and 2nd, a five-minute walk from Tom’s Tavern.

for more information please visit the website of the Arizona Chapter of Americans for Prosperity.


  1. There’s an interesting commentary on NPR about your movement’s anger and rage coming out of lower-class, less-educated white people who don’t understand their place in a new, more diverse USA that rewards education and expertise.

    This is clearly a real anxiety, and the analyst says the Democratic party is at fault for ignoring the fears of poorer, less educated, mostly older people like yourselves.

    There is no doubt your anxiety is real. You uncomfortable with an African American president, a Latina Supreme Court Justice, and other Ivy-educated people you are used to seeing below you on the economic and social scale in positions of power and authority.

    That is behind this and the “birther” movement and so much else.

    You people are scared out of your minds.

    I feel pity for all of you – when I can avoid treating you as what I do, basically a humorous interlude in my day when I can hear what ridiculous people in a remote place are saying.

    I do think you would do better if you discussed your real fears about your own lives more openly.

    Are you having trouble paying your mortgages? Are you laid off? Are your bills – including medical bills – going unpaid?

    Well, we will never know because you all hide behind pseudonyms and never get personal. You just hide behind your ideology, and the fewer of your fellow citizens share that outmoded and rigid point – especially among your own children – the more scared you become.

    Don’t panic. There are not going to be “death panels.” Not much in your lives will change if you try to join the 21st century.

    Seek counseling if necessary.

  2. Richard – actually, now that us “lower-class, less-educated white people” are passionately (and very effectively) opposing Obama’s leftward lurch head-on, I’m not scared at all. I’m very much emboldened. It fills me with glee to see support for Obama’s socialist agenda coming apart like wet Kleenex. Please click on the link below to see a chart that nicely summarizes the situation. WE are scared out of our minds? You’re projecting. Your dream is evaporating.

  3. I see a bunch of people who have found themselves in the minority for the first time in their lilly white lives. And the big insurance companies and other “activist” organizations such as the one Dick Armey’s been with are just fanning the fear and hate in people who could be financially ruined with one unexpected illness. THAT’S what they should be afriad of…not socialism.

    There’s been quite a bit debunking of “Americans for Prosperity” and their actual interest in seeing the President’s health care program. And if you’re so opposed to socialized programs, then you’ll have no problem opting out of Social Security and Medicare, right? I think every person who is genuinely concerned about “socialization” of this country should go ahead now and opt out of every single social program.

    You don’t want it? You don’t get it. NEXT!

  4. No surprise to see Richard Grayson put his typical race baiting, socialist, two-cents in this post. It’s a thin ice argument. What’s the matter, you can’t actually defend the proposed health care legislation and point to specific pages to defend your arguments? I guess you would need to actually have an argument first to do that. No, just resort to calling people racists to divert from the topic actually being discussed. Nowhere do you specifically address to legislation being discussed. Are the paid organizers at ACORN so highly educated? How typical of a neo-marxist to not actually use facts and logic in an argument.

  5. Annie Hoyle says

    Richard Grayson,
    You are funny! Chill out… be of good cheer!

    Why do you have to be so insulting? You are talking about people like me, normal, middle class, college educated fellow Americans! We disagree on healthcare. That is what makes this Country so great… diversity, the right to have your own opinion and voice it!

    This is still a REPUBLIC! I love this country and can honestly tell you that I am absolutely NOT scared out of my mind!

    NPR isn’t such a good source!

  6. Annie Hoyle says

    I forgot to mention the something you said in your post that really just made me giggle…. “more diverse USA that rewards education and expertise”. Please tell me that I’m wrong when I’m picturing you walking around your apartment wearing an ascot and calling your cat “Lovey”!

    Seriously, sometimes it is hard to extract tone from written word… did you mean to sound like such a pompous *@#? I mean, I know you live in sofisticated New York and we live in the desert and all!

    I still love this country and will protect your right to insult us! I just don’t think it is necessary!

  7. Annie Hoyle says

    Oh, and “sofisticated” was meant to prove what bumpkins we desert dwelling conservatives are! Just a little humor to mask my anger and rage!

  8. Tucson Vice says



  9. kralmajales says


    Funny…and right on. When I first posted the linkages to Freedom Watch and American’s for Prosperity the folks on here and on Gila Courier went has far as to call em a conspiracy theorist.

    Truth was that they just didn’t like the truth coming out and might even be a bit worried when those who are angry at corporate America and its excesses find out they they were simply their servants.

  10. Richard and Donna:

    After commenting on the background of others, what is your own?

    Tucson Vice: Perhaps we’re emulating A.C.O.R.N and the S.P.L.C.?

    Why should you be upset?

  11. Carlist:

    My “background”? Literally a nobody, man. A parent, tax payer, and voter who’s tired of the hate, tired of the misinformation, and ready for the adult in the room to stand up and move this country forward.

    Sexy enough for ya?

  12. Looks like we won – “public option” is dead.

    Key quote – “Such a concession probably would enrage Obama’s liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.”

    Obama has retreated, but us “lower-class, less-educated white people” will not relent. I’m very certain that the White House is still hoping for “a much-needed victory,” and will attempt to extract some kind of win out of this. We will continue to push back. It’s no longer just about Obamacare. It’s about the Obama agenda in general, and we will keep fighting it.

  13. John,
    Likely the rather tame public option is dead. Wouldn’t start celebrating ‘winning’ yet, I have a feeling there may be more than one act to this.

  14. Donna:

    There seems to be a contradiction in goals

    You want to move the country forward and yet put its basic services under the dead hand of a most inept master….government!

    That’s stupid not sexy!

  15. kralmajales says

    I would put government over corporate America any day with respect to the term “most inept master”. After all, wouldn’t you agree Carlist that corporate America has taken us on what is much like Mr. Toad’s wild ride, but with far greater consequences.

    Although, I know you would have let all the banks and the auto industry fail of course.

  16. Why Carlist, did you just call me stupid? Did you fall on your head and lose your manners?

    You mistook what I wrote. I wrote in response to your questioning what I thought was my background, not my goals. And believing you were trying to figure out who I am and where I fit into this “dialog” I gave you the bland “blah” that is me. Which isn’t sexy, it’s average. I am the average Jane in need of health care that I can afford, that will cover my spouse’s pre-existing condition, that won’t break our budget and make it impossible to send our children onward and upward.

    So while you may disagree with my “goal” I assure you, I am not stupid. I am trying to figure it out like everyone else, man. Concessions will likely have to be made, and the chaos will settle. It always does. But hard feelings will remain if we can’t remember to use our manners.

  17. Donna:

    In answer to my first question you included that you were interested in moving the country “forward” by supporting a “Public Option”

    Given government’s track record in this endeavor along with others (see U.S.S.R) I would suggest your solution doesn’t match your goals.

    As to affordable health care, one always pays, either through medical fees, insurance plans or in the case of nationalized medicine, taxes!

    There’s no “silver bullet” The tax levels in Britain and France are far higher than ours, and in Scandanavian countries, downright confiscatory. And they don’t have huge military expenditures!

    There’s no such thing as a free lunch! If someone is getting something for next to nothing, he’s getting nailed from another angle or someone else is getting next to nothing for something!

  18. Carlist:

    I’m not going to argue against your “U.S.S.R.” point. I think that’s way off base and a bit extreme.

    And as far as Britain and France and “Scandanavian” [sp] countries…well, look at the quality of life in those regions. I think they’re mighty nice. In fact, aren’t Scandinavians like the happiest people on the planet? Oh, but blerg they’re so repressed by their “confiscatory” regimes.

    No one is suggesting a free lunch. No one is suggesting something for nothing. We’re talking about taking care of our citizens. We’re talking about creating options for some who otherwise have none in the land of milk and honey.

    So go ahead. Call me a socialist stupid head. Tell me my goals are all misguided and such. Whatever, man. I know what I’m for and I’m all too aware of what you’re against.

  19. My cat’s name is not Lovey.

  20. But I love you all anyway.

    Cheer up! We’ll all be getting a fun look at Arizona on The Daily Show this week that should give everyone a laugh.

    Seriously, I understand your fears are real. But they are misplaced. Obama is not a socialist; he is a corporatist. And I don’t support his “plan” because there is no plan yet, and it was never his: he left it to Congress and they’ve come up variously with nothing (Senate) and various plans (House).

    I ran for Congress last year, and I have long supported, Medicare for all. Medicare is popular. It is not “socialized medicine,” which is where the doctors actually work for the federal government. That would be akin to Britain’s National Health Service (which is very popular there; the Conserative party leader and probable next prime minister has joined the current Labor PM in praising it) – or our own VA hospitals, where the doctors are federal employees.

    Medicare for all would be more like the French system. Yes, there are problems with cost containment.

    With the probable no-public-option plan — which the Obama administration, totally flexible and eager to call anything a success, will obviously endorse — we’re talking about something like the Swiss system or pretty much what Gov. Mitt Romney instituted in Massachusetts, with mandated coverage for everyone and maybe that employers have to cover everyone.

    I am opposed to businesses having the burden of providing health insurance precisely because I’m not a socialist but a capitalist. In a global economy, US corporations have to compete with those in other countries that don’t have that cost. US auto companies, for example, have been called “HMOs on wheels” because the health care costs add about $1500 to the cost of their cars, and the Japanese, Korean and European car makers don’t have that choice. Also, with family members who run small businesses, the burden of smaller employers providing is increasingly crippling small companies’ ability to meet expenses. They have to lay off people or keep salaries lower or just not provide insurance.

    I don’t see why my employer has to pay my health insurance or your employer has to pay yours. Why is that inherently more efficient or better in any other way? It happened as a curious result of the WWII price controls: companies were unable to raise salaries so they added the benefit of health care.

    Conservatives opposed Medicare in the early 1960s as “socialist,” but I don’t see any of you calling Medicare socialist. Just the opposite. The main protestors seem to be people on Medicare, worried about rationing of health care – which prompts the worries about the mythical “death panels.”

    But you’re losing your own argument about the government not being involved in health care by saying the federal government needs to spend MORE money, not less, on Medicare.

    As Republican conservative columnist Ross Douhat writes in today’s New York Times on most of the older protestors:

    “That’s because they’re the ones whose benefits are on the chopping block. At present, Medicare gives its recipients all the benefits of socialized medicine, with few of the drawbacks. Once you hit 65, the system pays and pays, without regard for efficiency or cost-effectiveness.

    For liberals trying to find the money to make health insurance universal, these inefficiencies make Medicare an obvious place to wring out savings. But you can’t blame the elderly if “savings” sound a lot like “cuts.” When the president talks about shearing waste from Medicare, and empowering an independent panel to reduce the program’s long-term costs — well, he isn’t envisioning a world where seniors get worse care, but he’s certainly envisioning a world in which they receive less of it.

    This is politically perilous, to say the least — and Republicans have noticed.

    Conservatives have marshaled various briefs against the Democratic health care proposals. They’ve argued that the plans will be too expensive, that they’ll cramp innovation and raise premiums for the already-insured, that they’ll encourage employers to drop coverage and discourage them from hiring.

    These arguments have been effective, up to a point. But they aren’t nearly as effective as warning senior citizens that Barack Obama wants to take away their health care.

    That’s why Republicans find themselves tiptoeing into an unfamiliar role — as champions of old-age entitlements. The Democrats are “sticking it to seniors with cuts to Medicare,” Mitch McConnell declared. They want to “cannibalize” the program to pay for reform, John Cornyn complained. It’s a “raid,” Sam Brownback warned, that could result in the elderly losing “necessary care.”

    The controversy over “death panels” is just the most extreme manifestation of this debate. Obviously, the Democratic plans wouldn’t euthanize your grandmother. But they might limit the procedures that her Medicare will pay for. And conservative lawmakers are using this inconvenient truth to paint the Democrats as enemies of Grandma.

    You can understand why Republicans, after decades of being demagogued for proposing even modest entitlement reforms, would relish the chance to turn the tables. But this is a perilous strategy for the right.

    Medicare’s price tag, if trends continue, will make a mockery of the idea of limited government. For conservatives, no fiscal cause is more important than curbing this exponential growth. And by fighting health care reform with tactics ripped from Democratic playbooks, and enlisting anxious seniors as foot soldiers, conservatives are setting themselves up to win the battle and lose the longer war.

    Maybe Republicans will be able to cast themselves as the protectors of entitlements today, and then impose their own even more sweeping reforms tomorrow. That’s the playbook that McConnell, Brownback and others seem to have in mind: first, save Medicare from Obama; then, save Medicare from itself.

    But for now, their strategy means the country suddenly has two political parties devoted to Mediscaring seniors — which in turn seems likely to make the program more untouchable than ever.

    And if you think reform is tough today, just wait. We’re already practically a gerontocracy: Americans over 50 cast over 40 percent of the votes in the 2008 elections, and half the votes in the ’06 midterms. As the population ages — by 2030, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 — the power of the elderly and nearly elderly may become almost absolute.

    In this future, somebody will need to stand for the principle that Medicare can’t pay every bill and bless every procedure. Somebody will need to defend the younger generation’s promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say “no” to retirees.

    That’s supposed to be the Republicans’ job. They should stick to doing it.”

  21. And as to the subject of my late cat’s name, you can see by this blog post from my Democratic campaign against Jeff Flake that my cat was actually named for a REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT!:

  22. Donna: “blerg”?

    I wouldn’t know if Scandinavians are the happiest people on earth..their high suicide rate indicates otherwise.

    But then again, if I was forking over half my salary to the government I’d be depressed also!

    But I do see quite a large number of folks from National Health Care countries coming to the U.S. for health services.

    Canadian doctors have set up cottage industries in Washington state, Duluth and Buffalo!

    I don’t see a stream in the opposite direction!

    Qualitatively, government has always been a poor competitor in service areas, that’s why it needs a legal monopoly!

    It’s in the business of consuming, not creating wealth!

    Therefore anyone seriously maintaining that a society “advances” by inserting it as a market place entity requies a mental enema!

  23. Donna:

    I mentioned the my examples of leftist intellectual solutions and personality types since it represented the “nanny state” par excellance!

    The other entities have sought to emulate it in one form or another but statist Utopias dependent upon philisophic speculation as opposed to individual and group experiences have a nasty tendency to backfire on their creators, from Plato to Marx. This also applies to would be “facilitators” who try to establish dependency regimes!

  24. kralmajales says

    “It’s (GOVT) in the business of consuming, not creating wealth!”


    Defense industry? Privatized prisons? Road industry? Building the wall between US and Mexico?

    Seems like govt creates wealth to me.

  25. By the way, Joe M wrote, “No surprise to see Richard Grayson put his typical race baiting…”

    I appreciate your calling me on this, Joe, especially since I know that you also criticized Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for calling Justice Sotomayor “a racist Latina woman” and you criticized Glenn Beck for saying President Obama had “a deep-seated hatred of white people.”

    In fact, I have to congratulate Sonoran Alliance for being even-handed in its criticism of race-baiting. I apologize for bringing race into this discussion. I wonder where I could have gotten the idea that race baiting was acceptable in political debate.

    My bad!

  26. Kral:

    The Government via the Defense Dept. relies on taxpayer funds. That’s not creating wealth but disposing of it. This is not to say that private entities will now benefit. (And some rather shadily through “no bid” contracts)

    Same goes for roads and highways, although there is a move to have privatized road building relying upon tolls.

    A border wall would be built to ensure the stability of the government. Government IS tasked with protecting the borders, although in our case it has refused to do so for the past quarter century.

    Perhaps the private sector will step in and handle the job efficiently!

    We shall see!

  27. Annie Hoyle says

    How did I know you were a cat person! I think you missed the joke!

    Incidentally, I don’t believe employers should be responsible to pay for health insurance for employees (we are small business owners). I also believe that health insurance should only be used for catestrophic conditions. I would love to see us all paying cash for routine doctor visits, test, etc! How’s that for capitalism?! (dare I say, I’m not a big fan of Medicare!)

  28. kralmajales says


    The point I was making, and that you acknowledge, is that govt. takes tax dollars all the time and distributes them to private sources to creat wealth. What I get at quite well is that when those dollars are spent on building walls, prisons, roads, and fighter jets, most conservatives just don’t seem to see that as “govt in action” or even “big govt. subsidizing our economy”…when that is where is does MOST of the subsidization and socialism.

    So once we agree with that, we can get past the mindless and moronic attacks on govt made by conservatives and start talking about things you really lose on. Without the demonization of “GOVT” and after you admit the truth of your longing for it, you must fight out the fact that we can spend a scintilla less and get things that benefit more Americans…make more Americans better off…and that spreads those tax dollars WE pay to those who pay it.

    THAT is what this is about. Not some mindless moronic theory about big govt that only libertarians have a right to claim without being hypocrites.

  29. kralmajales says

    Oh…and the liberatarians don’t really believe it either. They only want to dismantle govt because they have already made “theirs” in this govt. fostered economy and now want to keep the govt and the benefits they sucked from it, from taking any of it away.

    It called GREED and the libertarians stand for it more than anyone.

  30. kralmajales says


    If the market will deliver my mail more cheaply, faster, and will guarantee mail to the rural most areas of our country (e.g. Graham County) then I would be pleased to take your offer of a market based program and I would vote to shut er down.

  31. Carlist:

    “Overall, these countries’ high-tax, high-benefit welfare systems have been acting as stabilisers to their economies. If you lose your job in Sweden, you can expect to receive 80% of your wages for the first 200 days of inactivity, up to 680 kronor (£55) per day, dropping to 70% for the following 100 days. If you lose your job in Norway, you will receive 62% of your previous salary for up to two years.”

    “‘In these days, we see that a strong welfare state, together with free education and healthcare, has acted as a buffer that stabilises the economy,” says Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s finance minister.”

    Yeah, there’s a “confiscatory” regime for ya…just repressin’ and keepin’ the people down and out. Oh, the humanity.

  32. Donna:

    You’re only getting a percentage back of what you initially put in!

    The money given to the state over the years by Scandinavian taxpayers would have been better off deposited in a bank and drawing interest.

    And, once again, as in all countries whose health care is government run, medical assistance is rationed, with those past work force age, getting the short end of the stick!

Leave a Reply