Hidden Places

-- Inglis says, "Don't worry, meteor strike as likely as mandatory vaccines"--

After two exhaustive meetings with Congressman Bob Inglis, of South Carolina's 4th District (Upstate), I'm totally aghast. I supposed I should feel better after a precinct member-only meeting AND a subsequent town hall but I am having trouble making it all come together on paper as the political puzzle pieces flood down to interlock on the table of my mind. These meetings with Inglis only bade me more confirmation, "witness" within my heart, something is very wrong. I think I have seen every single political and psychological trick in the book in just two meetings with Inglis. I admit I am a recovering Pollyanna but truly expected my congressman to have more back bone or at the very least, not flash his "see-through finesse" so readily and condescendingly upon his constituents. Within two days, he knew some of us could read him like a book, yet refused to concede one iota on any of our points. Will these men and women of our congress not be humbled?

Inglis seems to be refuting the people's petitions of him, if not rebuking a lot of his supporters in their quest for answers regarding the current actions of international, federal, state and local issues. What I hear Inglis replying is: "Trust Us" in a "You can't live without the security big government affords you" sort of way -- while at the same time telling us we must be "unafraid" to be considered leaders.

I witnessed several games, I don't know their names but know them when they are being played. Inglis is very good at double speak, playing up the front end of his suggestion, then dragging in counter, unanswerable arguments and only "chasing the dog's tail" instead of full disclosure. Rarely is a pat answer given. I suppose it's only in the best interest of national security that he won't really level with the people?

Both meetings I confronted Inglis. I suppose I was a little brazen but had prayed before hand, both times, for the right words to use. I rely on the idea that "what needs to be revealed will be revealed" but actually in the case of Inglis, what he refused to reveal in humbleness and his attitude of non-concession on our claims against his actions, proved us his facade and an unwillingness to listen thoughtfully to the people.

I told you all that to tell you this: I will give you a list of "highlights" that I feel need to be relayed concerning both meetings...I cannot possibly tie all the political mumbo-jumbo, legalese and shell games together to present the entire verbatim picture however video was taken of the second, very fiery meeting amongst a crowd of 300+, hopefully it will be uploaded soon.

Meeting #1 Highlights - 08/04/09
11 GOP precinct members present

1 - We were all concerned about the health care bill. Bob said he had not read it, but would be voting against it because of the abortion provisions and the government option. (The second meeting he explained that when he was introduced a bill that he "skimmed and automatically rejected", he would read no further and simply vote no. It would be a waste of "our time" for him to read any further. My argument would be, what else is in the bill that you have no idea about should it pass? Particularly items that could be avoided in the future were they addressed today.)

2 - "T" is worried about mandatory swine flu vaccinations. "I" is concerned about privacy concerning electronic medical records. Bob looked at them as though he could not believe his ears. "I" described it as “Inglis looking at us as though we have 10 heads. "J" is furious about Medicare and his inability to get his own insurance now that he’s turned 65.

3 - Bob looked at "J" the same way and said that his own parents have Medicare and it is wonderful; anyone turning down Medicare would be making a huge mistake, says Bob, because the government pays 75% of the cost. (He reiterated this same point in meeting 2.)

4 - Bob lectured us for not talking about things the average Joe is interested in and asked us not to mention our concerns in public for fear we would scare away the average Joe’s that just want jobs and health care. What he did not talk about was the Constitution, the need to reduce the size of government or how we can constructively oppose the administration’s ill-conceived plans for our country, such as the health care plan and Cap and Trade.

5 - "I" tried to explain to Bob that he might be wrong to shut his ears to what people like us are trying to tell him. He can’t know everything. She reminded him about the 1994 Crime Bill and how she pointed out negative provisions of that bill, only to have Inglis say they would not be used the way she feared— but they were.

6 - Speaking of crime, the citizens were concerned about martial law and the possibility of it being implemented in case of flu pandemic. Here’s how "T" remembers the conversation:

"I just asked my husband what Inglis said to re-confirm myself and he said when we brought up martial law his attitude (Inglis) was that we needed to have the ability to have martial law. Not like Inglis was running around saying he wanted it but he endorsed martial law as a resolution to certain issues. We were discussing the mandatory swine flu vaccines so I'm supposing he meant in that event. Please ask "I" or "C" how they took it because they were there too. All I can say is after he made the particular comment, which I can't remember verbatim (I want to say it was something like "What's so bad about martial law?" but maybe just the way "I heard it"), 1/2 the table gasped at him. He seemed to not know anything about posse comitatus or he would not have said that. So that's scary.

Inglis acts like he knows nothing. I read off the 1,2,3's on our SC Sovereignty Bill and asked him, “If everything is okay, why do state leaders feel the need to reassert themselves?” He was CLUELESS! I gave his chief of staff some vaccine info.

My main note would be that Inglis was aloof and poo poo'd most everything anyone said, unless it was typical pro-conservative rhetoric. I felt he wrote us off as conspiracy kooks or "hysterical women" OR is playing dumb.

My emphasis would be on his lackadaisical attitude toward martial law and his lack of knowledge of the county sheriff's position of authority as asserted by PRINTZ vs. US."

At least the staff member acknowledged that he had seen Internet traffic about the possibility of mandatory swine flu vaccinations. Again, as "T" puts it, Inglis was clueless.

"K’s" contribution in her own words:

I called the sheriff's office for Spartanburg County about Martial Law. I spoke with the Deputy Chief when the first pandemic "beta test" occurred back in April/May. (Since most Americans at that time did NOT raise much of a voice, it is a strong indication that many Americans will submit easily to Martial Law). The response to my question was "Yes, we have plans to cooperate with the military should people not 'comply' during a pandemic. I asked if that also meant - refusing to be vaccinated. He was not aware of that particular point. He also stated that the command comes from the governor. I called the governor's office and got a call back with a vague answer.

"T" asked the congressman and his chief of staff, Wayne Roper, to research "The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act", "The National Security Directive/NSPD 51", "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20", "International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza", "The Patriot Acts" I and II, "BARDA" and an Austrian criminal suit filed against vaccine makers.

7 - After stating our unhappiness with DHS/MIAC type labeling and profiling Americans coupled with the mainstream media's willingness to ignore our righteous distrust of the media and the government, "T" also wondered if refusal of vaccines (or for that matter, any up and coming health care mandate) would target us with the label "extremists".

Notes: I was not quick enough on my feet or I should have pinned him down as to whether or not, yes or no, congress was threatened with martial law before the TARP. How can he admit that he has some warm fuzzies for martial law but seem oblivious to the fact that congress members were threatened with the same by the former Treasury Secretary, to which he folded? Perhaps personally, he was not threatened. We don't know, but I'd gander it safe to say that he has some clue as to the threats we're facing. (During meeting 2 Inglis did mention the unbelievable stress congress was under during TARP, he’s glad he voted for it because had he not, we would certainly be in a terrible financial depression.)

While reporting Tuesday night’s issues with a fellow upstate South Carolinian, the friend advised me that he had been listening to Russ Cassell’s (who is becoming fiercely constitutional) talk radio show this morning, 08/06/09, and stated “I don’t know if you heard but Inglis had a conference call with Russ Cassell and his boss, and railed on him about what people were saying about him and he said Russ is committing a "jihad" against himself (Inglis) and the Republican Party. Even more disturbing was Russ said Inglis said there wasn’t even a H1N1 vaccine yet. He’s clearly lost.”

“Jihad” could not be a more unsouthern, uncared-for label adorned us “Constitutionalists”, and by our very own congressman.

Meeting #2 Highlights – 08/06/09

Inglis actually brought up our meeting Tuesday evening tonight and said (in front of 300 or more) that the people who were worried over mandatory vaccines were like the people that worried about a meteor hitting the earth!!! (Some guy hollered from the back "Congress IS our meteor!") Inglis said it was unbelievable to think that someone may “enter our homes, hold us down and give us a shot”. I wonder how the thoughts of this could possibly differ from the very real proposal of someone from “Life Stage Services” coming by mandate, in-home, for end of life decision mediation?

Since he was talking about me and how unbelievable it was that our group was “afraid”, I stood up silently, faced him, waited for him to take a breath and then asked if he could assure us that we will not be forced to take the vaccine and had they researched it as I asked Tuesday night. He said they had researched it but he would say nothing to assure us, only not to worry about it. I asked him if he was going to take the shot and he did not reply but ignored me. A solid gentleman from the back asked him “Bob are you going to take the shot?” to which Inglis again ignored. Inglis brought up the "TB guy run amok" to try to incite fear and make the people not question my issues but only think of their safety during a potential pandemic of crazed sick people running loose among the population. He also did this at the Tuesday meeting.

Another lady that I did not know brought up the “mandatory vaccine question” tonight.... but according to Inglis, it’s regrettable that “these dear people are frenzied” over such impotent, impossible happenings.

Inglis also reiterated his lack of understanding regarding the sheriff's authority again (probably because this effects HIS power) this evening when he answered another woman’s question and said that state and local police should have no part in hunting for illegal aliens.... This was following a statement by him that ICE (federal right?) officers probably get paid $100,000 each.

There were many, many things said at these meetings but mostly a cycle of fear exacerbation, followed by nanny-state fear quelling. All while being belittled by our congressman for being "afraid". I can attest that the crowd was upset, perhaps some afraid but most uncomfortable and angry. The people are finally seeing they have been played by both parties.

To cap off the nights events and following up on the assault of our integrity and implied unleader-like wimpiness, Inglis finished off by insinuating we’re all misguided kooks by stating lastly: “Everybody needs to turn off the TV when Glenn Beck comes on”.
--The crowd was not at all amused by this--

2 or more precinct members affirm all statements contained herein.