A THREAT TO OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

"To say that the United States should be answerable for twenty-five millions of dollars without knowing whether the ways and means can be provided, and without knowing whether those who are to succeed us will think with us on the subject, would be rash and unjustifiable. Sir, in my opinion, it would be hazarding the public faith in a manner contrary to every idea of prudence." --James Madison

The corner stone of our Republic is the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution includes the right that most of us have taken for granted for the last two hundred years. But now the Freedom of Speech is endangered by the radicals who have taken over the reigns of power in Washington D.C.

The Congress and the FCC led by a radical Black activist want to change the way we can speak and the way our medium of communication via radio and TV are controlled. They want to let diversity put its grasp on the free enterprise way of communicating news and ideas to satisfy what they believe is unfair to minorities because of Republican regulations that they claim inhibit minority ownership or radio and television stations.

A 2007 report commissioned by the FCC and conducted by researchers from Duke University found that while minority ownership had increased slightly, the reasons for the disparity between minority and white ownership remained.

“Since the observed ownership asymmetries are economy-wide, they are undoubtedly linked to broad systemic factors,” the report said. “The most direct explanation lies in unequal access to capital. Many businesses require individuals to sink substantial financial investments upon entry. This is likely to be especially true in media enterprises.”

The only way to change this, the 2007 report said, was to redistribute wealth or increase minorities’ access to capital markets. The report did not mention license terms, renewal procedures, or ascertainment.

“In order to change ownership patterns we need to either change the aggregate distribution of wealth or otherwise increase access to capital markets,” said the report.(sounds socialistic to me, and right in line with what Obama and his czars are fomenting)
Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), claimed that communications policies enacted by Republicans negatively impacted the civil rights of minorities.Chief Diversity Officer Lloyd is virulently anti-capitalist, almost myopically racially fixated and exuberantly pro-regulation. He is a frightening guy to have having any power at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). And yet that is exactly where he currently stands, astride
the private radio industry he loathes like a Socialist Colossus.

It does not bode well for free speech on the radio airwaves, but as Seton Motley, the Media Research Center's Director of Communications, says to Glenn during his TV appearance, "That's irrelevent to these people."

And he is not alone in the drive for government intrusion in the airways. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told CNSNews.com on Thursday that she supports an amendment to a Senate bill that would force the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” source:CNSNEWS.com
This despite the fact that all who have attempted to do a Left Wing talk radio or TV show have failed miserably. This is because the nation is with the exception of the East and West Coast predominantly Conservative!

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this past spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. (what happened to the right of privacy in your own home?)

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license. SOURCE:DRUDGE REPORT

And Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their operations as the private companies do.

Lloyd presented the idea in his 2006 book, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press.

Lloyd’s hope is to dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.(this would bankrupt the private sector broadcasters)

Not only does he want to redistribute private profits, he wants to regulate much of the programming on these stations to make sure they focus on “diverse views” (Progressive Views) and government activities. I am all for that when I see on PBS a conservative voice next to Bill Moyers. And when I hear a conservative voice on NPR!!

And across the Atlantic in England where they have had Socialism since Clement Attlee replaced Winston Churchill as Prime Minister.
Mr Murdoch, chief executive of the European and Asian operations of News Corporation, parent company of The Times, said: “In the regulated world of public service broadcasting, the customer does not exist: he or she is a passive creature — a viewer in need of protection".
He said that the “chilling” expansionism of the BBC meant that commercial rivals and consumer choice were struggling. In particular the “expansion of state-sponsored journalism” in the form of BBC News online was “a threat to plurality and the independence of news provision, which are so important to our democracy”.

Mr Murdoch criticised Radio 2’s effort to woo younger listeners by hiring presenters such as Jonathan Ross on “salaries no commercial competitor could afford”. Sound familiar?

“No doubt the BBC celebrates the fact that it now has well over half of all radio listening. But the consequent impoverishment of the once-successful commercial sector is testament to the corporation’s inability to distinguish between what is good for it and what is good for the country.”

“The consensus appears to be that creationism — the belief in a managed process with an omniscient authority — is the only way to achieve successful outcomes. There is general agreement that the natural operation of the market is inadequate, and that a better outcome can be achieved through the wisdom and activity of governments and regulators. This creationist approach is similar to the industrial planning which went out of fashion in other sectors in the 1970s. It failed then. It’s failing now.” source:London Daily Mail.com

To my knowledge there is no Law or FCC regulation that denies a person of color access to the radio or television. If there were there would have been no Bill Cosby, Oprah, and the myriad of Black Judges on TV shows.
The problem is the Left is the purveyor of hate and dissension, that spent the last eight years comparing President Bush to Hitler, and people are tired of hearing the character assassination and lies from the Leftist.
And if you doubt my charge of hate just ask the Black man, Kenneth Gladney,who was passing out flags outside the St. Louis, Missouri Townhall meeting that was beaten and kicked by union thugs of the Left!

THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL!!

If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace." —Thomas Paine · "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" —Samuel Adams

I only spent four years in the regular Navy, so my interaction with Admirals was limited to a brief visit to 50 Fell Street in San Francisco to submit my resignation to the Admiral Ryan, the chief of the division of the 7th Fleet that I was a part of, at his office in the heart of the San Francisco Civic Center.
Since I was a lowly lieutenant, I entered his office with great trepidation, but after I told him my "sad" personal story, he allowed me to resign with a stern lecture about what I was giving up and what the Navy had invested in me!
What has this got to do with anything that would interest some one who bothers to read this post, you say?

Well, even though it was not a pleasant experience for me. I noticed the zeal and dedication to the service that this Admiral had for the Naval service and the men whom he commanded that he felt I was letting down because of my resignation. WE did not have women in the Navy Fleet in those long gone days!

Fast forward to today, and I find a difference in attitude that Admiral Mullen, the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has than the Flag officers of the "old" Navy
Admiral Mullen serves as the principal military advisor to the president, the Secretary of Defense, the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.A military bureaucrat! A product of the new military high command who seem to me to be more politically correct than Flag Rank officers were in the days of my service and both of my brothers who served in the Army and Marines.

Why, You ask do you feel this way. Well,not only the CJCS but the General in Charge of "winning"( that's a dirty word to our president) the war in Afghanistan seem to be preoccupied with winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. A people who hate us because we invaded their country! They hated and defated a Russian force of over 100,000 troops, and are dedicated to drive us out!Yet our Flag leaders appear to be more interested in their attitude towardus than winning the war!

To back up my charge that Admiral Mullen is politically correct. I include an excerpt from a speech he gave to the media today. A speech he gave regarding our mission in Afghanistan.
"No amount of public relations will establish credibility of the United States if American behaviour overseas is perceived as arrogant, uncaring or insulting, the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff has said in a critique of the government’s efforts at ‘strategic communication with the Muslim world’.

‘To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate,’ Admiral Mullen wrote in an essay published on Friday by the Joint Force Quarterly, a military journal.

According to the New York Times, the admiral’s views were significant as they coincided with the Obama administration’s fresh efforts to counter militant propaganda as part of its strategy to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
How about winning the war and then worrying about rebuilding the Country. Or are were just there to destroy the military by attrition?

Fortunately we have not heard that our men lack clothing and "KIT" as some British mothers have told the London Times as recently as yesterday. One poor women said she had spent over a thousand pounds( their version of dollars) during the past year buying boots, socks,a thermal sleeping bag and t-shirts for her son who is serving in the British Army in Afghanistan. She had to buy these items from a military surplus store, because the Army only issued one pair of boots,a non-thermal sleeping bag and two t-shirts, and had no replacements!

Yet, as Oliver North reports in today's Patriot Post that "On Capitol Hill, members of Congress have threatened to cut the budgets of federal agencies that use security contractors instead of government employees to protect key personnel and sensitive installations.

At the Pentagon -- which uses more civilian contractors in the war effort than any other U.S. government entity -- the response to the criticism was capitulation.

In April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to hire 30,000 additional DoD employees to cut the percentage of work being done by contractors. The fiscal year 2010 defense budget request replaces nearly 14,000 contractor personnel with government employees -- even though the "lifetime cost," counting government benefits and retirement, will more than double the expense to American taxpayers.

The numbers don't mesh, but when it comes to getting the press and politicians off the backs of Pentagon poo-bahs, cutting contractors loose is apparently a small price to pay".
Maybe this is how Obama plans to get more people off unemployment by enlarging the Federal government workforce!

Across the Atlantic,the British politicians are ignoring the fact that they are in a war more than our politicians and media are here at home. This story from London should remind us where we are leading our troops if our politicians don't start concentrating on the war we are involved in, and give less attention to socializing our health care industry!

In a column in The London Times newspaper, Lord Guthrie wrote: "And muddle is the word, as was manifest in a scathing report into defence procurement leaked this week.

General Lord Charles Guthrie,"Its author, the former Labour adviser Bernard Gray, an experienced observer of the defence scene, blamed incompetence and "political fudge" for £35 billion of defence project overspending.

"Moreover, The Times revealed that poor decisions about software have kept eight Chinook helicopters, costing a total of £259 million, in climate-controlled hangars during the Iraq and Afghan conflicts.

"Such an error would never happen in the private sector without dismissals and a plain identification of where the buck stopped. (Socialism raises it's ugly head)

"The revelation is all the more appalling because Chinooks are lifesavers. They are the safest way to evacuate injured soldiers from the battlefield - and a brilliant tactical device to get behind Taliban lines to confuse and mystify the enemy.

"Chinooks also help resupply and reinforcement where land movement is dangerous.

The Afghanistan dilemma is best explained by the size and structure of the Ministry of Defence. The department employs 87,000 civilian staff for 175,000 servicemen and women.

"At the head of this unwieldy edifice are six ministers, each enjoying a private office and their own staff - six private empires, with their own turf to be jealously guarded. Sadly, bigger does not mean more efficient; usually quite the opposite.

"Ministers change, but permanent staff ought to be there to provide continuity and experience. Unfortunately, too many senior civil servants in today's MoD lack a defence background.

"Instead, they are parachuted in to lead this complex department with little idea of how it works."

Meanwhile figures showed the Armed Forces are thousands of personnel short of requirements. (maybe it is because little old ladies have to buy "KIT" for their sons and grandsons who are fighting a war that no one wants to recognize), and to top it off their government officials made a deal apparently, to release the plotter of the Lockerbie airplane disaster so he can be back in Lybia with his fellow Britt and American haters!

IS OBAMA COMMITTED TO WIN IN AFGHANISTAN?

Despite deploying up to 120,000 soldiers, supported by 300,000 Afghan government forces, the Soviets failed to crush the insurgency by Afghan mujahideen fighters who were backed by U.S. guns and money and had bases inside neighboring Pakistan. Some 15,000 Soviet troops were killed before Moscow decided the war could not be won and pulled out its forces in 1989. By that time, 1 million Afghans had lost their lives and another 5 million become refugees in neighboring Pakistan and Iran.

The tables are now turned and the United States is considering whether to send another 25,000 troops to add to the nearly 70,000 Western forces locked in a bitter stalemate with Taliban-led insurgents in south and eastern Afghanistan. "I tell you this for sure, that if NATO and America put all their attention on fighting, and invest only in the military, they will not win," former mujahideen leader and ex-President Burhanuddin Rabbani told Reuters.

And the Soviets also tried to bring progress to deeply conservative and traditional Afghanistan and in many ways their record was more impressive than that of the West so far. Most of Afghanistan's roads, ministries, major schools and hospitals were Soviet-built. Even now, many of the upper echelons of the civil service, army and police are Soviet trained.


But any gains the Soviets made through development and building the Afghan government's capacity were scuppered by the resentment and anger their devastating bombing raids caused. That is a lesson U.S. and NATO forces should learn from the experience of their former Cold War adversary. "I don't think NATO has fully understood just how serious this issue is," said a Kabul-based Western analyst. "They certainly have done what they can to try to avoid civilian casualties from air strikes, but I just don't think they have grasped how central it is to informing the views of the nation." Source:CNSNEWS.com

My question is are those who are sent to fight in Afghanistan being sent to die for a commander in chief who does not believe in victory? He has cut the defense budget,as this report indicates.
The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion.
A senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News President Obama has put securing Afghanistan near the top of his foreign policy agenda, but "victory" in the war-torn country isn't necessarily the United States' goal, he said in a TV interview.

"I'm always worried about using the word 'victory,' because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur," Obama told ABC News.First of all Hirohito never left his palace in Tokyo. A senior general of the Japanese arm signed the surrender. Strange such a supposedly smart man does not know this!

This statement from the Commander in Chief of the armed forces is troubling to me. The troops are sent 10,000 miles to potential death or crippling wounds and their CIC does not want victory. Sounds strangely similar to the attitude of McNamara during the Vietnam debacle!!

Obama, apparently is preoccupied with the quest to socialize our health care industry to pay attention to the fact that last month we had 4 killed in Afghanistan, and this month is is worse, casualties in the eight years the USA has been fighting there. More warriors were killed last month(44), and although August is not over it is the worst month (45) than any month in the last 8 years!

We have presently 64,000 troops in Afghanistan in harms way for a commander in chief who apparently does not think victory is the Object of their sacrifice!

THE LION OF MASS. WAS AMBIVILANT ABOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN HEALTH CARE

THIS BLOG IS ABOUT THE AMBIVALENCE OF SENATOR TED KENNEDY WHEN IT COMES TO GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN OUR HEALTH CARE.

Before I explain why I believe Kennedy was bi-polar on the role of government in our health care. I must take exception to the statement uttered by Obama and repeated in the media, that Senator Kennedy was the greatest Senator.

Kennedy personally began the politics of HATE during the Senate hearings of the proposed nomination by president Reagan of Judge Bork. The words Kennedy used to demonize Bork where nothing short of calling him a member of the Ku Klux Klann who was a threat to our way of life. I could quote what he said, but I remain repulsed even when I read the hateful words that sunk any chance of Judge Bork being confirmed by the Senate. Thus a man who was devoted to the Constitution as it was written, not as interpreted by Liberals like Sotomayor was not allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.
And during the Senate hearings for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Kennedy tried the same character assassination, but failed to stop his confirmation.

The following is an excerpt from a speech that he gave in the Senate to support his opposition to the bill that banned partial birth abortion during the Bush administration.

Sen. Ted Kennedy’s March 12, 2003 Senate floor speech in opposition to a ban on partial-birth abortion as it appeared in the Congressional Record:
"The Republican leadership has chosen to make as its top priority a flatly unconstitutional piece of legislation at a time when so many families across the country are facing economic hardship, when communities are struggling to deal with homeland security needs, and being forced by State budget crises to cut back on education and health care.

The role of the Senate is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Each of us in this body has taken that oath of office, and that oath of office and the Constitution require me to oppose this legislation. This bill unconstitutionally seeks to restrict abortion in cases before viability. It does not provide an exception to protect the mother's health after viability. It also impermissibly attempts to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. For all these reasons, I oppose this bill.

As all politicians do the quotes I have inserted in this post were preceded and followed by a lot of verbosity defending his position for the Roe vs Wade abortion "right". But he was not consistent in 2008 when he supported "Obama Care"
which is the ultimate case of the government interjecting itself between the decisions made between the patient and doctor.

And instead of allowing over tens of millions of babies being killed in the womb by abortion, the Government Health plan he supports will ration care and limit services to the elderly and infirmed that will eventually cause many thousands to die because of economics while running our country further into bankruptcy!

"The role of the Senate is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Each of us in this body has taken that oath of office, and that oath of office and the Constitution require me to oppose this legislation. This bill unconstitutionally seeks to restrict abortion in cases before viability. It does not provide an exception to protect the mother's health after viability. It also impermissibly attempts to interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. For all these reasons, I oppose this bill".

Now it appears that the Democrats will name this heinous intrusion upon the personal rights of U.S. citizens, The Kennedy health care Bill or some variation of this name!
The only two things that will not be rationed by the Health Care Administrator, soon to be named a Czar I believe, will be abortion and Euthanasia! Kennedy opposed the bill to outlaw partial birth abortions on the premise that government had no right to interfere with the doctor/patient relationship.
The five versions of the government option being considered by the House of Representatives and the Senate all have all or some of the following provisions that show the government is "in your face" and personal finances is we pass any bill being backed by the Democrats!
Pg 16: SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE. lines 3-26 of the HC Bill – OUTLAWS PRIVATE INSURANCE by forbidding enrollment after HR 3022 is passed into law.

Pg 21-22: SEC. 113. INSURANCE RATING RULES of the HC Bill MANDATES the Government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 29: SEC. 122. ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE DEFINED: lines 4-16 in the HC bill – YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

Pg 30: SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE of HC bill – THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.

Pg 42: SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER of HC Bill – The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits for you. You have no choice!

PG 50-51: SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE in HC bill – HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, ILLEGAL or otherwise.

Pg 59: SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATIONHC Bill lines 21-24 Government will have DIRECT access to your BANK ACCOUNTS for electronic funds transfer. This means the government can go in and take your money right out of your bank account.

Page 280: SEC. 1151. REDUCING POTENTIALLY PREVENTABLE HOSPITAL READMISSIONS The Government will penalize hospitals for what Government deems preventable readmissions.

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 4-12 Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

Pg 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 17-19 Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!

PG 425: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death!

PG 427: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 15-24 Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends!

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 1-9 An “advance care planning consultant” will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates.

PG 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 10-12 “advance care consultation” may include an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429: SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION Lines 13-25 – The Government will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

There are many more provisions that show Kennedy was at the very least equivocal and at worst hypocritical in his objection to government interference in the case of partial birth abortion, but for "Obamacare"!

DO WE WANT THIS IN PLACE OF WHAT WE HAVE?

Most Ovarian Cancer Victims Face Delays In Diagnosis That Can Kill
By Jenny Hope
25th August 2009, Daily Mail.com


More than half of women with ovarian cancer face delays in diagnosis that can be fatal, warn researchers.
Even when women with symptoms seek help from their GP, many doctors miss vital signs that could result in a life-saving early diagnosis, it is claimed.
The disease, which affects almost 7,000 women a year, is dubbed the 'silent killer' because symptoms are often diagnosed too late.

Silent killer: Early detection of ovarian cancer means 95 per cent of women will survive, but researchers warn doctors are missing vital symptoms
About 4,400 women die each year from ovarian cancer, which claims the lives of over 85 per cent of patients if not found until a late stage when it has spread to other parts of the body.
Detection in the early stages means 95 per cent of women will survive.
Experts writing in the British Medical Journal warn that doctors may be missing a key symptom of ovarian cancer because it is not included in current guidance for urgent investigation.
Women reporting a distended abdomen need to be urgently seen for tests because the symptom more than doubles the risk of having the disease, according to researchers from Bristol University.


More...Breast cancer 'wonder drug' INCREASES risk of rare tumour by 440%

But UK guidance on urgent referrals says women should be sent for investigation only if they experience abnormal bleeding or if they have a palpable mass that is not obviously fibroids.
The study involved 212 women aged 40 and over from across 39 general practices in Devon, and were compared with more than 1,000 healthy women.
The four most common symptoms are abdominal distension, pain, bloating and loss of appetite.
Others include increased urinary frequency, constipation or diarrhoea, abnormal bleeding, weight loss and fatigue.
But some women reporting abdominal distension, urinary frequency and abdominal pain waited at least six months before a diagnosis was made.
Dr William Hamilton, who led the study, said: 'Abdominal distension is not included in current guidance for urgent investigation; if it were, some women could have their diagnosis expedited by many months.
'Quite simply ovarian cancer doesn't spring to the GP's mind. Unquestionably some women have their cancer missed and have to return - sometimes repeatedly.
'Ovarian cancer is not a "silent killer" - it is just not being heard.'
Annwen Jones, chief executive of Target Ovarian Cancer, said the latest findings echoed its own research, which found more than a third of women waited more than six months from first visiting their GP to getting their diagnosis.
She said: 'The UK's high rates of late diagnosis have played an important part in keeping five-year survival rates low at just 30 per cent - amongst the lowest in the western world.
'In the last 12 months there has been progress with the Department of Health and charities agreeing key messages on symptoms of ovarian cancer for both health professionals and the public, but knowledge of these messages is woefully low.'

If that is not enough to convince you that our private health care is better than a single payer system run by the government. Read this!

Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds.
The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000.
Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full.
Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least:

63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;

117 births in A&E(emergency) departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas;

115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors;

399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas.
Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year.
Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services.
One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust.
Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full.
Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas.
Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places.

Setting aside the arguments of limiting services that are life saving to seniors. It appears that the "common folk" have a real problem with the type of health care that Obama and the Democrats want to ram down our throats!

THE REAL THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE

"The federal government keeps two sets of books…the set the government doesn't talk about reports a more ominous financial picture."
--Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

We've all heard about the federal debt. But most of us haven't heard the truth.
Politicians will tell you that the federal debt is around $11 trillion.

That sounds bad enough—but it gets even worse. Together with unfunded liabilities (all of the benefits that the government has promised to seniors, Baby Boomers, and other citizens) our nation is in the hole for nearly $62 trillion dollars.

That's more than $200,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it's growing
The American people are told that the federal debt is around $9 trillion. That sounds bad enough—but it gets even worse. Together with unfunded liabilities (the benefits that the government has promised to seniors, Baby Boomers, and other citizens) our nation is in the hole for more than 54 trillion dollars. That's more than $175,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, and it's growing daily. Bold leadership, citizen engagement, and tough decisions will be required to face our nation's financial challenges. Without accurate financial information, none of these is possible.


State and local taxpayers are in trouble. Over the years, state and local governments have promised, but not paid for, roughly $1.5 trillion dollars in retiree health care and other non-pension post-employment benefits--and the bill is coming due as millions of baby boomers begin to retire. Until recently, few officials even knew the size of their obligations but a new accounting rule will, for the first time, hold state and local governments to a similar standard that applies to private sector employers, forcing them to calculate their unfunded liabilities and publicly disclose them on their financial statements.

David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, warns, "there are no quick fixes" and that stark fiscal challenges need to be "addressed with a greater sense of urgency by policymakers since time is currently working against us."State and local officials should not expect a bailout from Washington, which is facing its own challenges with the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. State and local officials must solve this problem themselves. Fortunately, there are several creative, market-based solutions that could fit the bill.

Taxpayers are increasingly becoming aware of a new challenge: The rising costs of retiree health care and other non-pension, post-employment benefits for state and local employees, which amount to approximately $1.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities. State and local officials must somehow pay for these promised benefits, while reforming the way these benefits are financed and delivered. A failure to act responsibly guarantees a negative impact on the state and local government bond ratings.

There are no quick fixes and no escape from the consequences of inaction. This is another reason taxpayers should keep a close watch on their local and state elected officials. source: HERTITAGE FOUNDATION

THE NEXT BAILOUT THAT I EXPECT WILL BE THE REQUEST FROM States TO Obama AND CONGRESS TO BAIL THEM OUT, BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS SO DEEPLY IN DEBT, THAT ANY BAIL OUT FOR THE STATES WILL ONLY SLIP THE USA DEEPER INTO THE HOLE OF BANKRUPTCY!

THE POWER OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT THIRD CIRCLE OF POWER

"With respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age..." --Thomas Jefferson

WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE THREE SEPARATE PARTS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.they list the Executive, Legislative and the Judicial.
But I believe there are three other levels of power and influence that make things happen or conversely stop things and ideas from occurring. I will explain this theory,that you will not find in any civics or government studies books, but I believe they exist.
With more than 1.8 million civilian employees, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service is the Nation’s largest employer.

First you have the Executive branch and all the people who support and advise the president, This group even includes 44 Czars that are not confirmed by the Senate, are accountable to no one except the president!The President also makes around 2,000 executive appointments, including members of the Cabinet and ambassadors, which must be approved by the Senate!

Today, the executive branch consists of well over 3 million people who work in one of three general areas: the Executive Office of the President (EOP); the cabinet and 15 executive departments; and an extensive collection of federal agencies and corporations responsible for specific areas of the government, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Postal Service.

The second level of government is the Legislative and Judicial, and I deliberately lumped them together because since FDR packed the Supreme Court with Progressives, the Supreme Court has acted in the capacity of making Law! Roe vs Wade being a perfect example.
Each Member of the House of Representatives and the Senate have employees that comprise their administrative staff. These are the bureaucrats that are part of the 150,000 Federal Employees that comprise 30 agencies.
It is a fact that their are presently 74 Congressional Staff employees who are relatives of Congressmen/women and Senators.This is the third level of government I believe.

Each member of Congress has a office budget allotment which provides enough money to hire a sizable staff both in Washington, D.C. and back home in their states or districts. These staffers assist members in their efforts to be effective, well-liked representatives. In addition to money for staff, members of Congress also have travel allowances for trips between Washington and their constituencies as well as for trips inside their states or districts. One of the most widely recognized "perks" of House members and Senators is the ability to send postage-free informational letters or announcements to their constituents on a regular basis.

The Congressman and Senators are so busy attending Cocktail Party's given by foreign embassies and high roller Lobbyists, campaigning for re-election and attending Committee meetings. They hardly have time to take the hundreds of "junkets" that Congressional elected officials take each year to foreign and exotic places.
They hardly have time to read, much less write the Bills that are presented for votes in the Chambers of the House and Senate.
That is where the invisible part of our Federal government operates. The "staff" put together the thousand page Bills that are presented to their "bosses, the elected Congressman and Senators to vote up or down.

The power that these apparatchiks comes into play at this point. The staff know what they put into the proposed legislation and they make their recommendations to vote either for or against based upon their own biases and philosophies, not whether the proposed bill is good for the Republic and the economy. Many of the executive departments and independent agencies employ legislative counsels who are charged with the drafting of bills. These legislative proposals are forwarded to Congress with a request for their enactment.

The drafting of statutes is an art that requires great skill, knowledge, and experience. In some instances, a draft is the result of a study covering a period of a year or more by a commission or committee designated by the President or a member of the Cabinet. The Administrative Procedure Act and the Uniform Code of Military Justice are two examples of enactments resulting from such studies. In addition, congressional committees sometimes draft bills after studies and hearings covering periods of a year or more.Source:Library of Congress, Thomas

In the United States, the civil service was established in 1872. The Federal Civil Service is defined as "all appointive positions in the executive, judicial, and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, except positions in the uniformed services." (5 U.S.C. § 2101). In the early 19th century, government jobs were held at the pleasure of the president — a person could be fired at any time. The spoils system meant that jobs were used to support the political parties. This was changed in slow stages by the Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act of 1883 and subsequent laws. By 1909, almost 2/3 of the U.S. federal work force was appointed based on merit, that is, qualifications measured by tests. Certain senior civil service positions, including some heads of diplomatic missions and executive agencies are filled by political appointees. Under the Hatch Act of 1939, civil servants are not allowed to engage in political activities while performing their duties.

The U.S. civil service includes the Competitive service and the Excepted service. The majority of civil service appointments in the U.S. are made under the Competitive Service, but certain categories in the Diplomatic Service, the FBI, and other National Security positions are made under the Excepted Service. (U.S. Code Title V)

U.S. state and local government entities often have competitive civil service systems that are modeled on the national system, in varying degrees.

As of January 2007, the Federal Government, excluding the Postal Service, employed about 1.8 million civilian workers. The Federal Government is the Nation’s single largest employer. Although most federal agencies are based in the Washington D.C. region, only about 16% (or about 288,000) of the federal government workforce is employed in this region.

There are over 1,300 federal government agencies. Source: Wikapedia]