5 Yr Old AARP Letter Tells It All Again

The letter below from Walt and Cyndi Miller has circulated around the Internet cosmos for nearly five years. So you ask, "Why bring it up again and now?" Because, it is important to know that AARP is already ramping up to finance Hillary Clinton for President. Everyone should be made aware of AARP's political position and whether they wish to unknowingly finance this group. 

The 'from the heart" letter has repeatedly hit a nerve with numerous AARP members who had no idea that their member donations and AARP as a broker for UnitedHealth insurance products they purchased were funding liberal causes and specifically the Democrat Party, specifically both Obama Presidential campaigns. Simply put, AARP is a political arm disguised as a "Senior's Advocacy Group" that is really a cash cow to raise and finance various left leaning, liberal causes.

AARP are also attached at the hip with the powerful Service Employees Intl. Union (SEIU) pushing for universal governmental coverage since most of those workers were lower paid positions which couldn't support it. But, since the SEIU realized they couldn't get higher wages for their members, they instead pushed for an insurance exchange through a government provided universal healthcare program--eventually called Obamacare.     

Walt and Cyndi Miller wrote their letter to Barry Rand, the CEO of AARP. Their disgust was focused on the blatant liberal rhetoric enshrouding ongoing healthcare issues and social issues. The AARP $20 Mil. 'Divided We Fail' Coalition became more of a megaphone to distort and indoctrinate with bias and misinformation under the guise of the all-inclusive AARP banner. The coalition was led by a handful of Washington’s most influential liberal-left lobbyists which included Andy Stern, head of the SEIU. Walt and Cyndi were on to something when they smelled a rat and it was the AARP and a disingenuous Barry Rand, CEO.

Here is Walt and Cyndi Miller's letter:

December 9, 2009

Mr. Barry Rand, CEO
Executive Director
AARP
691 E. Street, NW
Washington, DC 20049

Dear Mr. Rand,

Recently you sent us a letter encouraging us to renew our lapsed membership in AARP by the requested date. I know it is not what you were looking for, but this is the most honest response I can give you. Our gap in coverage is merely a microscopic symptom of the real problem, a deepening lack of faith.

While we have proudly maintained our membership for several years and have long admired the AARP goals and principles, regrettably, we can no longer endorse it's abdication of our values. Your letter specifically stated that we can count on AARP to speak up for our rights, yet the voice we hear is not ours. Your offer of being kept up to date on important issues through DIVIDED WE FAIL [AARP Coalition Lobby] presents neither an impartial view nor the one we have come to embrace. We do believe that when two parties agree all the time on everything presented to them, one is probably not necessary. But, when the opinions and long term goals are diametrically opposed, the divorce is imminent. This is the philosophy which spawned our 200 years of government.

Once upon a time, we looked forward to being part of the senior demographic. We also looked to AARP to provide certain benefits and give our voice a power we could not possibly hope to achieve on our own. AARP gave us a sense of belonging which we no longer enjoy. The Socialist politics practiced by the Obama administration and empowered by AARP serves only to raise the blood pressure my medical insurance strives to contain. Clearly a conflict of interest there!

We do not understand the AARP posture, feel greatly betrayed by the guiding forces that we expected to map out our senior years and leave your ranks with a great sense of regret. We mitigate that disappointment with the relief of knowing that we are not contributing to the problem anymore by renewing our membership. There are numerous other organizations which offer discounts without threatening our way of life or offending our sensibilities.

This Presidential [Obama] Administration scares the living daylights out of us. Not just for ourselves, but for our proud and bloodstained heritage. But even more importantly for our children and grandchildren. Washington has rendered Soylent Green a prophetic cautionary tale rather than a nonfiction scare tactic. I have never in my life endorsed any militant or radical groups, yet now I find myself listening to them. I don't have to agree with them to appreciate the fear which birthed their existence. Their borderline insanity presents little more than a balance to the voice of the Socialist mindset in power. Perhaps I became American by a great stroke of luck in some cosmic uterine lottery, but in my adulthood I CHOOSE to embrace it and nurture the freedoms it represents as well as the responsibilities it requires.

Your website generously offers us the opportunity to receive all communication in Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING??? Someone has broken into our 'house', invaded our home without our invitation or consent. The President has insisted we keep the perpetrator in comfort and learn the perp language so we can communicate our reluctant welcome to them.

I DON'T choose to welcome them.  I DON'T choose to support them.  I DON'T choose to educate them.  I DON'T choose to medicate them, pay for their food or clothing. 

American home invaders get arrested. Please explain to me why foreign lawbreakers can enjoy privileges on American soil that Americans do not get?

Why do some immigrants have to play the game to be welcomed and others only have to break & enter to be welcomed?

We travel for a living. Walt hauls horses all over this great country, averaging over 10,000 miles a month when he is out there. He meets more people than a politician on caffeine overdose. Of all the many good folks he enjoyed on this last 10,000 miles, this trip yielded only ONE supporter of the current administration. One of us is out of touch with mainstream America. Since our poll is conducted without funding, I have more faith in it than one which is power driven.

We have decided to forward this to everyone on our mailing list, and will encourage them to do the same. With several hundred in my address book, I have every faith that the eventual exponential factor will make a credible statement to you.

I am disappointed as hell.  I am scared as hell.  I am MAD as hell, and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!

Sincerely,

Walt & Cyndy Miller

miller.farms.et@earthlink.net

Miller Farms Equine Transport
P.O. Box 1702
Cheraw, SC 29520 

Bush-Clinton 2016 Presidential Campaign On

Behind the scenes - Loud whispers for Bush vs. Clinton Race!

RINO Jeb & DEMO Hillary - Both "Big Government" advocates & "Big Spenders & Big Taxers" Liberals.It looks like the "King Makers" of the political parties have already chosen their 2016 Presidential candidates. It's time to dole out the Testosterone, Viagra and Estrogen to stimulate the masses into an excitement reaching up to a frenzied orgasmic vote over the most expensive Presidential erection election in U.S. history-- $1 Billion dollars for each candidate.

What's really different in this next big election cycle? No new ideas...not much, except a lot of political Washington B.S. promises and more corruption. Sound cynical? It is, because this side-show is an insulting mockery of the democratic process for choosing leaders. So, it will be quite a dog and pony show as the electorate again takes its part on stage as the receiving end of the act - if you aren't the lead dog, then the view never changes!

RINO - DEMO Obamacon Party Logo

*The Obamacon Party* - A choice between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton is interchangeable, both liberals will spit out warmed-over pap what voters want to hear in their Presidential 2016 campaign races.

The choice is obnoxious, the fix is already in and everyone has to look surprised when this duo match-up is announced. These announcements must be early on in this 2016 Presidential election cycle because of the historic campaign run-up costs so that donors can be assured of which candidates run and PACs funded along with campaign organizations.  

Both "Progressives" aka "Marxists"Is there any "Change" we can believe in here? - Read On...

On June 29, 2004 Hillary said, "Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." During a fundraiser for Senator Barbara Boxer in San Francisco. Standing before an audience of wealthy Democrats, Clinton criticized the Bush administration's tax cuts for upper-income Americans not mentioning who the "upper-income" Americans were as many small business owners who qualify making over $200 Thousand dollars, an arbitrary income ceiling for upper-income earners.  This is more demagoguery of 'the haves'' verses 'the have-nots' and the unfairness of income inequality - marxist tenets.

On September 2, 2005 Hillary said, "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Hillary Clinton accused the big oil companies of profiteering — and used demagoguery like "trying to make money off the backs of this tragedy", however, with the off-shore rigs and refineries shut down along with the delivery delays due to Katrina, the available supplies were stressed by market demand pricing on available supplies. 

On May 29, 2007 Hillary said, "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few..... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." It was at the Granite State Independent Living Forum in Manchester, New Hampshire outlining what Clinton called her "progressive vision to aid the middle class [and] address rising income inequality" to disabled seniors. (Code name for 'middle class' is "bourgeoisie" and 'progressive' is "left-wing socialist")

On June 4, 2007 Hillary said, "(We) ....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." at a political Forum broadcast on CNN's "The Situation Room". She was addressing the difficulty of reaching a political consensus on issues such as health insurance reform and climate change concluding the government knows better about how to allocate private individuals' properties for the good of the people.

On June 4, 2007 Hillary said, "I certainly think the free-market has failed." Clinton was being asked what could be done to reduce the frequency of abortion in the United States. She began by speaking of the necessity of assisting young people in making the right choices and concluded that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. Hillary deliberately overlooks parental responsibility due to couples not married with 77% of black babies born out of wedlock. This follows closely to Hillary's "It takes a village" thinking about the government engineered child raising as the answer to the lack of family units. Is personal responsibility too much to ask and promote to individuals instead?