OBAMA TO FORCE INCREASE IN GAS PRICES

Any person who understands the impact of gasoline and diesel prices have on the costs of food and almost every product sold in stores. Will be disturbed to know that Obama has knukled under to the "tree huggers" and Environmental movement by canceling a Bush directive, and announcing that he may punish oil refiners who do not meet his standards of reducing emissions from the refineries that produce the life blood of our economy.

Overall, U.S. demand is down to 18.8 million barrels a day, almost 2 million barrels below demand in the first quarter of 2007. But within the general picture, there has been falling demand for distillates, mainly consumed by industry, which reflects the general industrial gloom, along with steady to robust demand for gasoline.It also should make the "glbal warming zealots happy!

According to the International Energy Agency, global demand for oil this year will be 83.2 million barrels a day, 3 percent or 2.6 million barrels below last year. Global supply in April was 83.6 million barrels a day.

The White House suspended a ruling signed by President George W. Bush four days before he left office that found refiners were adequately controlling benzene and other cancer- causing gases, said Cathy Milbourn, a spokeswoman at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Obama is trying to convince the populace that way to renewed prosperity is through elimination of the oil industry and substituting new energy sources such as LED lighting, new concrete products that last longer than conventional concrete.
Obama held a press conference yesterday, and he said we must not look backwards, but change how we produce energy, rather than continue to rely on old ideas.
Of course,He is still blaming Bush for the state of the economy, despite the fact that people are getting tired of waiting for the stimulus programs to show positive results on the economy and unemployment rate.The problem is that his nw way is a march toward government control and socialism!

A perfect example of how Obama will force the increase in the cost of gasoline at the pump is this story from Bloomberg.com
" While U.S. law doesn’t cap toxic emissions from refineries, which convert crude oil into gasoline and diesel fuel, it does require plants to match what the best refiners are achieving at reducing hazardous pollution. Thirteen of the 20 largest refineries are in Texas and Louisiana, according to the U.S. Energy Department.

Standards were last set in 1995. If Obama finds those measures insufficient, the government may take six to nine months to propose new requirements and a similar amount of time after that to adopt them, Walke said.

Valero Energy Corp., Exxon Mobil Corp. and other oil companies together spent $100 billion from 1990 to 2007, and $8.3 billion in 2008, to cut pollution at refineries, according to the American Petroleum Institute. Further regulation may increase refiners’ costs and raise the gasoline prices paid by consumers, according to the lobbying group. You would think that a reasonable person would take this as a good faith effort to comply with environmental concerns, but apparently not Obama!

Fumes from refineries, factories and utilities account for about a quarter of man-made emissions in the U.S. that are claimed to be potentially hazardous to human health, the EPA has said. While it’s impossible to estimate the potential cost of new rules the agency may propose, additional pollution controls will add to the cost of making gasoline, said Howard Feldman, the API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs.

“It’s hard to attribute any final retail price to any specific control but it certainly does impact the cost of manufacturing, which ultimately will impact the cost of fuel,” Feldman said in an interview. It doesn't take an economic genious to realize that any additional costs to the refineries will either be passed on to the consumer, or will force the refinery to shut down!

Limits on carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming were adopted by the House on June 26 in a 219-212 vote. ConocoPhillips Chief Executive Officer Jim Mulva said the legislation may lead to the “potential shutdown of refineries and investment and, ultimately, employment.” This will mark the begining of a slide toward a third world power for the once proud USA!

TO DATE OBAMA AND CONGRESS HAVE VIOLATED THE 4TH, 9TH AND 10TH AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION

The fourth amendment to the Constitution guarantee that contracts legally made are enforceable and non-violate. When Obama and his henchman the Car Czar put the interests of the auto workers union before the interests of the bond holders of Chrysler corporation, he violated the fourth amendment of the Constitution.
Thus began the litany of violations of the oath of office of the President that includes the duty to uphold and defend the Constitution!

The 4Th amendment states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.The key word is "seizures". By putting the Union ahead of the bond holders . Obama in effect seized the bonds out of the hands of their lawful owners and gave the rights intrinsic in the bonds to the union!


In the House bill, the health insurance exchange, governed by a commissioner, would be a national institution and function as a powerful regulatory agency. Combined with federal benefit setting and a public plan, it would effectively limit personal choice and reduce competition, as the federal government would erode private coverage and limit the kind of plans that could enter and compete in the market. States could only set up a state-based exchange with federal permission.

Under the House bill, Congress would not forge a federal-state partnership; rather, it would enact federal domination of the states. It would also undermine, not advance, state innovation in the provision of new health insurance options.

Contrary to the House sponsors' claims, it is hard to imagine a "level playing field" where Congress creates a special government plan to compete against private health plans while also creating the rules for its competitors.

The 9TH amendment states:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And the 10TH amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.In plain English this amendment to the Constitution says that the Federal government should not abrogate the God given rights that are too numerous to list.
The 10th specifically states that if the Constitution does not delegate to the President, Congress or the Supreme Court the right to carry out specific duties. It is the States rights that apply.

The 10TH amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.Source: Wikapedia


No where in the Constitution is there a listing of the right of the Federal Government to decide who shall treat a citizen who is sick, or to limit the treatment for the individual for the sake of saving money or to gain power over the citizens.The Obama and Congressional Health plans are nothing less than a power grab of socialistic proportions!

While the House bill would set up an account within the Treasury for the deposit of start up funds and premiums, the bill would also require taxpayers to retain the risks and depend on Congressional restraint in the appropriation of additional taxpayer funds for the public plan. In light of recent Congressional bailouts of automakers and financial institutions, belief in such restraint would amount to a triumph of imagination over experience.

And if the fact that the Federal govt. has no constitutional right to enact a universal health care scheme. This fact may be enough to convince open minded people that all the proises and statements that this debacle can be funded by taxing only the rich is a lie. Consider this. "When Medicare was set up in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1990 to be $3 billion -- which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1990 dollars. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion -- eight times as much." Source:Patriot Post

UNION SPOILS SYSTEM REARS IT'S UGLY HEAD!!

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan

The best chance for compromise legislation on health care may be a plan under construction in the Senate Finance Committee that would pay for a public plan in part by taxing some worker health benefits.

But the union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax.

With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.Just like all taxes they will begin taxing only those earning over 100K, but when they admit the tax reciepts will not bring in enough money. They will report the crisis as a threat to the health plan now in force, and tax all wage earners!

Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.
The key words are " not yet determined". They are asking us to buy a "pig in a Polk"!

But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion. Another pay off to the Union movement. Are Americans ready to accept this pay off to unions?

Union workers enjoy some of the most extensive and costliest health benefits, and union officials complained their members would be unfairly burdened by a health care tax because their contracts cannot be changed quickly enough to avoid it. This is an absurd claim made by the group that was necessary in the days of Samuel Gompers, but has made the Auto Industry and many others non-competative due to their absured salary and bnefit demands.This is no more or no less than a payoff for poiltical support in the last two elections!

Union members represent one of the biggest and most powerful Democratic constituencies and their support of any health care reform proposal is viewed as essential to getting a bill passed in Congress.Who is the Congress of the United States responsible to the general population, or the Unions?

Baucus has proposed the tax threshold on health care benefits be set higher than the cost of policies available to federal employees and he has proposed exempting until 2013 those plans negotiated as part of union contracts.

“It’s a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” said Henry Aaron, a health care policy expert at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

I believe the Baucus proposal to exempt unions from a health care benefits tax ,could be used to lure into unions employees who are anxious to avoid the benefits tax.Another unintended perk for a select group that is not available to the general population.

President-elect Obama during his campaign pledged to build a health care system in which Americans can be assured of access to affordable health insurance. He guaranteed Americans who already have insurance that nothing would change except that their coverage would be less expensive. He pointed to the health system that Members of Congress have as your model for expanding coverage. And he agreed that choice of doctor and care is a basic principle. These laudable themes struck a chord with Americans.But it appears to be just another lie that Obama is telling to the guilable American public.

Even worse than congressionally mandated benefits would be mandatory coverage designed by the powerful Federal Health Board proposed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD). Daschle envisions a remote board of "experts," perhaps modeled on the Federal Reserve Board. This board, he says, would be "insulated from politics. Congress and the White House would relinquish some of their health-policy decisions to it." Shielded from public opinion and from representative government, it would have "teeth," says Daschle, potentially deciding such things as premiums and appropriate services, and "all federal programs would have to abide by [its recommendations]." He also imagines that the board would "link the tax exclusion for health insurance to insurance that complies with the Board's recommendations."

Tom Daschle's Federal Health Board would have enormous power over medical decisions affecting every American. This is unacceptable, and would break Obama's pledge to give Americans choice. This scheme should be rejected!!
Source: Thomas Sowell

THE CAP AND TRADE SCAM OF THE CENTURY

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
Despite the fact that Obama campaigned on having an open and transparent administration when elected. This president has been anything but open in the way he "governs" the administration. He and his fellow travelers have passed two bills that no one got to read, and to add insult to injury. The Democrats added 300 pages to the already 1000 plus Cap and Trade bill in the dead of night. And when a group of Republicans asked to have a copy of the additional pages they were denied the pages!

Obama has appointed 14 Czars without consulting Congress, and made them his private sub-cabinet, responsible to no one but him! He violated the 4TH amendment of the Constitution when he put the auto workers union interests before the interests of the Bond holders when he reorganized the Chrysler auto bankruptcy. In my mind an impeachable offense that will never happen.

So it is not surprising that his administration suppressed a report that would have influenced the close vote on Cap and Trade in the House of Representatives.

Ben Lieberman, produced a stellar paper on the Cap and Trade bill. Based on available evidence and analysis, Lieberman concludes 'that both the seriousness and imminence of anthropogenic global warming has been overstated.' But even if we assume the problem is as bad as the hysterics claim, the proposed bill 'would have a trivial impact on future concentrations of greenhouse gases.
The bill would reduce the earth's future temperature by 0.1 to 0.2 degree C by 2100, an amount too small to even notice.

The bill would bind only the U.S., not other nations, many of which, like China, are 'polluting' at a record pace. Also note that many European nations that have already imposed similar emissions restrictions have seen their emissions rise. But what would the costs be for this quixotic legislative paean to earth goddess Gaia? Contrary to the flawed analyses being advanced by the bill's proponents, Heritage estimates that the direct costs would be an average of $829 per year for a household of four, totaling $20,000 between 2012 and 2035. But when considering the total cost as reflected in the cost of allocations and offsets, the average cost to that family unit would be $2,979 annually from 2012 to 2035. Adding insult and hypocrisy to injury, the bill would hurt the poor the worst because they would bear a disproportionate burden of the higher energy costs the bill would trigger. Now here's the kicker. The bill is also projected to harm the manufacturing sector and cause estimated 'net' job losses, averaging about 1.15 million between 2012 and 2030. The overall gross domestic product losses would average $393 billion per year from 2012 to 2035, and the cumulative loss in gross domestic product would be $9.4 trillion by 2035. The national debt for a family of four would increase by $115,000 by 2035. Enough already. Throw the bums out." Source: David Limbaugh

If that is not enough to make your head spin think on this. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote, "As I watched the (global warming) deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet."Sounds like a writer for Nazi Germany in 1939!
Don't get me wrong. It's not really newsworthy when leftists incline toward criminalizing their political opponents. Both Krugman and his colleague Frank Rich wrote columns last month essentially blaming President Barack Obama's critics for the murders of abortion doctor George Tiller and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum security guard.

While President Obama says that global warming "science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear" and Krugman says the "warming deniers" have "contempt for hard science," the record reveals a different story. If anyone has contempt for hard science, it is the Krugman leftists, who, either because of their political agenda or ideological predispositions, refuse to acknowledge -- let alone consider -- opposing opinions, even when they come from "hard scientists."

One way they deal with the very real fact that there is significant opposition to their dogmatic conclusions is to personally attack their opponents, usually saying evil corporations with vested interests in destroying the planet have bought them off. Just as often, they simply out-yell, ridicule, ignore or attempt to silence them. Remember when MIT's Richard Lindzen acknowledged that many scientists refuse to publicize their dissent to make "their lives easier"?

I would like to know how Krugman and Obama would explain away the fact that more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming agreement known as Kyoto -- "and any other similar proposals" -- because the "the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind." Another 100 scientists have endorsed a newspaper ad by the Cato Institute challenging the president's "facts" on global warming.

But these authoritarian leftists don't just scoff at the hard science contradicting their conclusions about global warming and the extent to which man is contributing to it. In their close-minded arrogance, they completely ignore any scientific inquiry into whether cap and trade legislation would have any appreciable impact on the alleged problems.

But if they are so sure of their scientific position, why are we reading reports from the CBS Political Hotsheet, that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages"?

That's correct! the Hotsheet reports that "less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.'"

So much for honesty and transparency in the Obama administration. It is past time that Americans wake up and realize that Obama is He## bent on destroying the Capitalist system and our freedoms so he can have better America. A socialist one!!

IS HOLBROOKES DECISION O.K. WITH OBAMA?

The Obama administration has been busy reversing or nullifying most of ex-president Bush's policies, but the latest decision by the US envoy to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke to stop destroying the poppy fields has me wondering if this decision came down from the Oval Office in D.C., or was it a unilateral decision by Holbrooke?

If Holbrooke made the decision he should be removed from his position as envoy, but if Obama directed him to stop the eradication of the poppy fields, that produce a major portion of the heroine that is sold on the streets of the USA. Then an investigation should be begun on the reasons why Obama decided to stop destroying these field of misery and death! Who put pressure on Obama to stop doing what stops heroine producing at the source?

The London Telegraph has a story on the Net today that explains Great Britain's decision to continue eradication of the poppy fields despite the decision by Holbrooke.

The British Government said destroying poppy fields remained a key deterrent to growers and one of the "seven pillars" of its anti-opium strategy in Helmand province, just a day after Richard Holbrooke, the US envoy to Afghanistan, said that destroying the crop only drove poor farmers to join the insurgency.

In a reversal of policy, he said the United States would stop funding poppy eradication and instead concentrate on encouraging farmers to grow alternative crops.It sounds to me like one of the continuing policies of the erudyte talker we elected a president, who thinks we can talk anyone out of doing things we percieve as bad.
It is a fallacious argument, and planting agricultural products is a lot harder and requires proper cultivation. Whereas the planting of poppies is a simple and money making crop the Afgans have been doing for decades. I doubt talking will make them change. Destroying the crops make sure that the heroine does not get made, and the Britts realize that!

The Afghan government backed Britain's stance and defended its previous efforts, which relied heavily on ripping up or flattening poppy plants, as "perfect

General Khodaidad, Afghan minister for counter narcotics, said his strategy had been "the right path".

"We are happy with our strategy and we are working according to our strategy. I don't see any deficiencies in our strategy, our strategy is perfect, our strategy is good."

Mr Holbrooke's reversal is the latest change in policy as the US struggles to stem a growing Taliban-led insurgency.Unfortunately the only way to stop the Taliban is to kill as many as we can. Talking and teaching them to grow crops will not stop those who hate us from trying to kill us. All out war including destruction of towns and hamlets that are known hiding places of Taliban leaders must be done! Else we are fighting a war of attrition like Viet Nam, and should leave for home now!

Ten thousand US troops have arrived in Helmand this month with commanders admitting overstretched British troops are at a "stalemate".

International governments have repeatedly disagreed on how to tackle Afghanistan's rampant opium business which supplies more than 90 per cent of the world's heroin and feeds hundreds of millions of dollars to insurgent fighters.

Britain and other Nato allies strongly opposed former US plans to destroy poppies with crop-spraying planes saying it would only strengthen the increasing insurgency.

Mr Holbrooke, speaking at a Group of Eight summit dedicated to Afghanistan, said he now felt eradication was "a waste of money". He said it "might destroy some acreage, but it didn't reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar".

He added: "The farmers are not our enemy, they're just growing a crop to make a living. It's the drug system. So the US policy was driving people into the hands of the Taliban."

Britain leads international reconstruction efforts in Helmand province, where 60 per cent of the Afghan opium crop is produced.

The British government is spending more than £290 million on a three-year-programme of eradication, support for farmers and pursuit of drug barons and traffickers.

And the British have good reason to want to eradicate thepoppy fields.According to the NHS report, most new heroin users are aged 18 to 35, but a significant number are between 14 and 16.
In some areas, children between 10 and 12 have even been trying the drug.
Heroin use is spreading out of inner cities across the country due to cheap and easily available supplies, said the report.
Users are both smoking the drug and injecting it.

British officials denied there was tension with the US over the policy change and said the detail had not been decided.But they made the right decision!

A spokeswoman at the Department for International Development said: "Eradication is a key part because of the deterrent effect, not because we are going to destroy the whole crop." She said eradication targeted big growers rather than poverty-stricken small farmers.
What I want to know is why did we change our policy. The reason that they will join the Taliban if we destroy their crop of poppies doesn't wash. What are they using as statistics to back up their disastrous decision to stop eradication?

OBAMA'S ANTI-MILITARY FEELINGS RAISE IT'S UGLY HEAD!!

President Obama rammed through his "stimulus" appropriation without a single Congressman or Senator reading the bill, and then proceeded to sign bills that put the American taxpayer on the hook for trillions of dollars in increased taxes. These appropriations included billions for "pork" and a few billion for the disgraced and indicted 16 times, ACORN.
He didn't veto the 900 billion dollar stimulus bill. Even though it contained such absurd items are listed below:

• $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Department of Energy defunded last year because it said the project was inefficient.

• A $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film.

• $650 million for the digital television converter box coupon program.

• $248 million for furniture at the new Homeland Security headquarters.

• $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees.

• $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion

• $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

• $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration.

• $850 million for Amtrak.

• $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint.

• $75 million to construct a "security training" facility for State Department Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies

But Obama has threatened to veto a bi-partisan military appropriations bill that would make our country stronger militarily, because it contains things the "messia" doesn't think are necessary!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – "The U.S. House of Representatives was poised to approve on Thursday a $550.4 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal 2010 that has drawn a veto threat from President Barack Obama because it contains money for fighter jets he does not want.

The bill also authorizes $130 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fiscal year that begins October 1.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said it supported the overall bill but the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto unless some provisions were dropped.

One congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, described the White House veto threat as "a bargaining tool."

The Senate Armed Services Committee was to unveil its defense authorization bill for 2010 later on Thursday, but the legislation was unlikely to be approved by the full Senate until September. House and Senate negotiators must then hammer out a compromise version before final passage.

The OMB said it strongly objected to the House decision to include $369 million in advanced procurement funds to buy 12 more F-22 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin Corp despite a Pentagon decision to halt production at 187".

The F-22 will replace the aging F-18 and the even older F-16, as our front line of defense if we get into a hot war with North Korea. A Communist country that indubitably has a well stocked air wing of the latest Chinese Communist jets. They may even have the latest MiG from Russia, for all I know!
And since Obama has slashed the anti-missile program. The F122 may be the only defense we have if a nuclear missile manages to get through what must be a porous missile defense system with the cuts that Obama has made.

It is obvious to me that Obama is nothing less than a progressive leftist who has animus for the military and our free enterprise system. When will America wake up to the fact that the Obama Change is a breakdown of the Capitalist system, and the establishment of a Marxist type regime where all citizens are subservient to the government. A system that has failed through out the World, but which we appear to be He## bent on establishing here in what once was the Land of the Free!

THE BLAME GAME WORKS FOR PUTIN AND OBAMA

In the USA president Obama blamed the mortgage crisis on the bankers and mortgage brokerage firms despite the fact that any one who studies the cause of the mortgage problem realizes it is not entirely their fault. The fault lies at the feet of Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chris Dodd, who forced the mortgage lenders and the banks to loan to minorities who were financially not qualified to obtain a regular home loan, and were in no way going to be able to make the payments based upon their low incomes.
And now that the "spendulus" program has bailed out the banks, Frank is at it again. He is encouraging sub-prime mortgage loans again!
Not to be out done, Obama is blaming the doctors for doing too many tests for the high cost of medical care. While still refusing to advocate limits on pain and suffering lawsuits brought by plaintive lawyers. No wonder the Lawyers along with the Unions, stand behind every thing he does.

It appears that all new legislation that Obama wants passed in this session of Congress, is a remedy for an evil that Obama has identifid, targeted and attcked to motivate the Congress and the people of the USA to support. And it seems each is a reaction to an "emergency".

The truth of the matter is that foreign trust in the strength and reliability of the United States T-bonds has suffered to such a great degree that fewer and fewer foreigners are purchasing its government bonds. That's why the Federal Reserve is now buying securities that it has printed itself. The Fed's balance sheet has more than doubled since 2007, making the US central bank one of the world's fastest-growing companies. The purpose of this company, though, is to create money out of thin air.

Over seven thousand miles away in the former Soviet Union, Prime Mister Putin is using the same tactics that Obama is using to defect any blame for the terrible state of the economy in Russia.
The London Telegraph has an article that illustrates my point.

"In keeping with a new strategy of deflecting blame for the country's economic woes onto the standard-bearers of Russian capitalism, Mr Putin excoriated supermarket executives for their greed as ordinary shoppers looked on in bewilderment.

The prime minister abruptly interrupted a meeting with senior retailers at the Moscow White House, the seat of the Russian government, to drag them on an impromptu visit to a nearby branch of the Perekrestok supermarket chain.

Vladimir Putin, Striding angrily through the aisles with a retinue of glum executives in tow, Mr Putin came to a halt in the supermarket's cold meat section and gesticulated towards a packet of sausages priced at just under £5.

Rounding on Yuri Kobaladze, the chain's head of corporate relations, Mr Putin demanded: "Why do your sausages cost 240 roubles? Is that normal?" "But these are high quality sausages," Mr Kobaladze tried to explain!
With a host of cameramen and photographers there to capture the scene, the stunt was likely to ensure Mr Putin's reputation as a man of action, and thereby absolve him from carrying any blame for the worst economic crisis in Russia for over a decade.

"Having primed his victim, Mr Putin moved in for the kill. Consulting his crib sheet, he pointed towards a packet of pork fillets.Putin uses crib sheets like Obama uses his two telepromters!"This is double the (cost) price," he said to Mr Kobaladze. "Is this normal?"

"Is 120 per cent a high mark up?" Mr Kobaladze responded timidly.
"Very high," the prime minister said.

Not unlike the way Obama targets industry leders with his oratory skills.
The exchange between Putin and Kobaladze was a classic example of the political theatre in which Mr Putin excels. It came just two days after an opinion poll revealed that the principal concern of 75per cent of Russians was high food prices.

Perhaps Putin read Sal Alinsky's book!!

POTUS HAS A UNION LABEL ON HIM AND DEMOCRATS

IF YOU SPEND 50 MILLION DOLLARS TO GET DEMOCRATS ELECTED TO THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. It is expected that you will get something in return, and the Union movement is reaping rewards in spades.
First there was this: President Obama, who campaigned on a promise of greater disclosure and transparency, has taken a step in the opposite direction. Under his administration, the Department of Labor has announced it will delay and review implementing a requirement from the Bush Administration that union managers and employees fully disclose how union dues are managed.

This foot-dragging by the Obama Administration — which could lead to a gutting of key disclosure regulations affecting labor unions.— This is the second misstep by the new president in the area of labor. The first was his embracing the controversial and blatantly misnamed Employee Free Choice Act. This act would strip union members of their right to a secret ballot.

The great irony is that, in both cases, Obama and his labor supporters would argue that these policies protect union workers. In fact, they work against the rights of union members by extending preferential treatment to labor unions' managers, top-level officials and staff employees.

Then there was the outright gift of 55% of the ownership of the new Chrysler to the Auto workers union retiree health-care trust fund. Fiat the supposed new owner gets 20%, with the rest of the company staying in the government’s hands.

And on the heels of this payback the new GM(aka government motors),
The United Auto Workers get GM stock for at least half the $20 billion the company owes to a union-run trust that will assume retiree health care expenses starting next year.

Combined, the union and government own 89 percent of the century-old automaker, which was bleeding red ink and was saddled with more than $62 billion in debt.

Now the ultimate payback and insult to ll taxpayers who are not involved in either government or unions, and our numbers are diminishing as the days Obama is in the Oval Office, is the law being proposed by senator Max Baucus of Montana.

Liberals believe the best chance for compromise legislation on health care may be a plan under construction in the Senate Finance Committee that would pay for a public plan in part by taxing some worker health benefits. And they will have a lot of help from two left-wing heavyweights joining the HCAN parade: the corruption-plagued SEIU (which has battled numerous(16) embezzlement scandals among its chapters across the country while crusading for consumer and patients' rights) and Obama's old chums at fraud-riddled ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.

These union workers who helped Democrats win Congress and the White House and whose support will be key in getting a health bill signed into law would not pay the tax!
HCAN( Health Care for America Now)has a $40 million budget, with $10 million pitched in by The Atlantic Philanthropies, a Bermuda-based organization fronted by Soros acolyte Gara LaMarche. Also in the money mix: famous Democratic donors Herb and Marion Sandler, the left-wing moguls who made billions selling subprime mortgages and helped Soros fund his vast network of left-wing activist satellites. By their side is billionaire Peter Lewis of Progressive Insurance, whose "Progressive Future" youth group has dispatched clueless volunteers armed with clipboards and literature bashing Rush Limbaugh and Fox News to scare up support for Obamacare.
Source: Michelle Malkin


With cost estimates already as high as $1.6 trillion, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., has proposed paying for the bill in part by taxing health care benefits for workers who earn more than $100,000, or $200,000 for married couples, according to those familiar with the discussions.

Baucus is also weighing a tax based on the value of health care benefits that exceed a yet-to-be determined cap. A tax on benefits that exceed the cap by a mere $3,000 could amount to $750 in taxes annually for a worker who earns as little as $34,000, say experts.

But those union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would not be subjected to the tax, according to proposals under discussion.

Union workers enjoy some of the most extensive and costliest health benefits, and union officials complained their members would be unfairly burdened by a health care tax because their contracts cannot be changed quickly enough to avoid it.

Union members also represent one of the biggest and most powerful Democratic constituencies and their support of any health care reform proposal is viewed as essential to getting a bill passed in Congress.Big money from unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, as well as the Internet-fueled MoveOn have put the full force of their money behind the push for socialized medicine.

Senator Baucus has proposed the tax threshold on health care benefits be set higher than the cost of policies available to federal employees and he has proposed exempting until 2013 those plans negotiated as part of union contracts.

“It’s a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” said Henry Aaron, a health care policy expert at Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Critics of the Baucus proposal to exempt unions from a health care benefits tax said the exclusion could be used to lure into unions employees who are anxious to avoid the benefits tax.

.Is it any wonder that Unions are pushing hard for a government health plan. The union bosses can transfer their liability for health insurance for retirees and current employees from fee for service plans to a socialized plan that you and I will be responsible to pay for!
IS THIS HE CHANGE YOU VOTED FOR?

IS IT TIME FOR OBAMA TO TURN HIS ATTENTION TO FOREIGN THREATS FROM NORTH KOREA?

"Time is running out fast and we will be lucky if it doesn't happen in the first term of this president. If he gets elected to a second term -- which is quite possible, despite whatever economic disasters he leads us into-- our fate as a nation may be sealed".
Thomas Sowell

It appears that our current president has a lot on his plate with the determination to pass Cap and Trade and socialize our health Care System, despite his repeated denial that he wants to substitute free enterprise medicine with a government plan.
So it is not surprising that his press conference yesterday had no reference to the threats that KimJong sent his way in the last few days.

The following is an excerpt from the Tokyo Times editorial page,
and it illustrates that the little mad man who runs North Korea wants the World to know that he is now a member of the Nuclear Weapons club.

"North Korea has confirmed the worst suspicions of those who fear the destabilizing consequences of nuclear proliferation by announcing that it will become a full-fledged nuclear state, able to build both uranium and plutonium bombs and fit them to the nose cones of its missiles.

In its latest act of defiance, Pyongyang is reportedly preparing a new series of ballistic missile launches and another nuclear test, after a long-range missile test in April and the second test of a nuclear explosive device in May.

These and other actions have reversed steps the North had taken to abandon its nuclear program, coaxed by security, aid and other incentives offered in six-party negotiations with the United States, South Korea, Japan, Russia and China.

North Korea's breakout announcement June 13 followed the unanimous approval by the U.N. Security Council the day before of a resolution demanding that North Korea halt nuclear weapon tests, suspend its ballistic missile program and rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

The resolution marked a significant hardening of Chinese and Russian positions toward Pyongyang. They had previously counseled patience and opposed sanctions. China was particularly concerned about upsetting North Korea in the midst of a sensitive leadership transition, as its ailing leader Kim Jong Il reportedly prepares the country for rule by one of his sons.

The Security Council resolution extends penalties on North Korea by targeting its financial transactions and arms industry. It authorized U.N. member states to inspect suspect sea, air and land cargo going to or from North Korea. They are required to seize and destroy goods shipped that violate the sanctions, including nuclear or missile supplies. Pyongyang has financed its weapons' program with the sale of missile technology.

But as recent history has shown there is little affect on those who are placed on sanctions by the United Nations. Case in point, Saddam Hussein and the Mullahs of Iran.
And to provoke the USA even more this item was found in the North Korean offical paper.
"On Monday, North Korea's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper called it "nonsense" to say the country is a threat to the US, and instead claimed Washington was the one threatening the North. The paper also warned in a commentary that the country is prepared to strike back if attacked.

"As long as our country has become a proud nuclear power, the US should take a correct look at whom it is dealing with," the editorial said. "It would be a grave mistake for the US to think it can remain unhurt if it ignites the fuse of war on the Korean peninsula."

The North Korean newspaper also denounced Obama's recent pledge to defend and protect South Korea - even vowing to keep Seoul "under the US nuclear umbrella" - as an attempt to attack North with atomic bombs. Obama made the pledge in a joint statement after a summit last week with the president of South Korea Lee Myung-bak.

I believe a total embargo on all commerce is in order as the first move toward stopping North Korea from becoming a nother 1941 Japan. If that does not work. It is time to re-evaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan, and possibly turn our miltary attention to North Korea.
Of course the "talker" president will never do this until we are attacked and many people have paid the ultimate price!

CIVILIAN AFGHANISTANS MORE VALUABLE THEN OUR TROOPS?

Beginning during the Viet Nam war the Press and the anti-military ilk began to decry the death of indigenous peoples more than they did our own soldiers.
What was once considered the cost of winning a war, a tactic that was used in Germany and most notably in Japan. The killing of civilians to break the will of the people to continue fighting, was called "collateral damage". An unfortunate part of winning a war, but a necessary evil that was accepted in the battle plans of military leaders and the public at large.

Now it appears the lives of the people who are dressed in civilian clothes, and appear to be non-combatants are more important than the lives of the men and women our government puts in harms way!
This directive is reported in the Wall Street Journal as coming from the new general in charge of the troops in Afghanistan, but as anyone who has had any association with the military knows. The directives come from Washington, where, these days, being in a war seems to be more important, then winning a war!

The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan is finalizing a far-reaching change in tactics that will generally require U.S. troops taking fire in populated areas to break contact rather than risk civilian casualties, military officials said.

The rules being crafted by Gen. Stanley McChrystal are the clearest indication yet of how the new U.S. command team in Afghanistan plans to reduce civilian fatalities, a cause of public anger against U.S. efforts there.

When did our military get off track, and start worrying about what the civilians feel about the our presence in their country. If we are trying to win the hearts and minds of those who don't like us, we should withdraw all forces from Afghanistan now. Every man, woman and child could have a rifle or bomb inside their burka , as they all hate Americans. Send the peace corps. not the military if the object is to win the hearts and minds!

U.S. officials said the rules were designed to reduce the use of bombs, missiles and other heavy weaponry in populated areas. They will require U.S. forces that come under fire from militants operating out of houses and other buildings that may contain civilians to end the engagement and leave the area, officials said.

The restrictions could force commanders to be more cautious in the mission-planning stage and eschew operations likely to require operations in populated areas, according to an officer serving in Afghanistan.

The rules make clear exceptions for situations where the lives of U.S., North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Afghan personnel are in danger, U.S. officials said. The guidelines allow U.S. personnel to call in airstrikes or use powerful weaponry if they fear being overrun, can't leave the area safely, or need to evacuate wounded colleagues.But this is a decision that men and women in harms way should not have to make!

Gen. McChrystal, who arrived in Afghanistan last week, is "trying to make it as clear as possible that risking civilian lives for the sole goal of killing the enemy is not acceptable," said his spokesman, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith.

I am sorry, but if we don't kill the enemy, they will kill us! There is no way this war cannot turn into another Viet Nam if we try to fight a "clean surgical" war. Besides the direct order to wait until the field commander in the battle determines that they are about to be "over run" will result in more casualties of our troops you can be sure. As any captain who wants to advance in rank will not want to be brought up on charges that he applied excessive force! This is no way to fight a war, but it is consistent with our current presidents attitude toward our enemies. Talk, talk, talk and they will do our bidding. Bovine excrement!!!

COMMERCE WITH THE AXIS OF EVIL?

During former president Bush's administration the Iranian regime was called the "Axis of Evil", and there was a lot of talk about sanctions. The sanctions were supposed to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.
But the sanctions were not really effective in motivating either the people or the regime to stop their nuclear quest.

Perhaps the reason the sanctions did not motivate the people of Iran to put pressure on their leaders to stop short of making fissionable material for a nuclear warhead. Was the fact that the sanctions did not include food stuffs, medical supplies and many other items of commerce. These ARE considered "humanitarian" aid.

My question is what good is it going to do if you allow the supposed enemy, who has sworn to eliminate Israel and the USA, to buy food supplies from US when we are faced with rising costs for products made of grains like wheat and soy beans?
Talk about sanctions is cheap! Real sanctions to be effective must include an embargo on all products. Especially when Americans are paying over $3.00 for a loaf of bread, and cereal products have doubled in price in the past year.

I remember when I was a child and milk prices got so low in the years following the great depression. The farmers started dumping milk, and the federal government started buying up butter and storing it in caves to bring the price up.
This analogy has very little to do with what is going on with Iran, as Iran is our sworn enemy by their own admission. But it appears that the government appears to be more concerned with finding markets for farmers than in bringing pressure on the Mullahs!

This article was found in FoxNews.com: "Iran spent nearly twice as much on U.S. imports during President Barack Obama's first months in office as it did during the same period in 2008, showing that despite trade penalties and tense relations, the two countries are still doing business.

The U.S. exported $96 million in goods to Iran from January through April, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. government trade data compiled by the World Institute for Strategic Economic Research in Holyoke, Mass. U.S. exports to Iran totaled $51 million during the same period in 2008 and $27 million over those months in 2007.

Soybeans, wheat and medical supplies -- all considered humanitarian items exempt from U.S. trade sanctions -- are among the top exports this year.

The latest trade figures reflect an increase in Iran's agricultural imports over the past year due to poor harvests there, said Bill Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council, a business group in Washington.

"I wouldn't read too much into it as far as trends are concerned," Reinsch said. Of course he would say this, or he would go the way of Special prosecutor Walpin!

Reinsch said he is hearing from more businesses interested in Iran. But beyond an effort by the Obama administration to encourage talks with Iran, he hasn't seen any policy changes that would lead to more opportunities for U.S. businesses.
Several countries have been more than willing to do business with Iran. Those exporting more than $1 billion in goods to Iran last year included China, $8 billion; Germany, $5.7 billion; Italy, $3.2 billion; France, $2.6 billion; and Japan, $1.9 billion.

That compares with about $747 million in exports to Iran by Britain, $689 million by Belgium, about $685 million by Spain and $683 million by the U.S.

It can be difficult to stop even sensitive goods and technology from making their way to another country. It is common for Iran and other sanctioned countries to use transshipment points such as the United Arab Emirates to try to obtain U.S. goods undetected.

The value of U.S. exports to Iran rose exponentially under Bush, even as he called the country part of an "axis of evil." In 2001, Bush's first year in office, they totaled just $8.3 million, a tiny fraction of last year's number.

Exports during the Bush years included a range of agricultural products and medical supplies, but some more surprising items also made it to Iran: brassieres, fur clothing, sculptures, perfume, musical instruments and military apparel.

Humanitarian shipments are an example of the tricky line the United States has walked in dealing with Iran -- even more so during Iran's election protests. Esprcially since Obama has taken a hands off stance on the violence in the Iranian streets!

IF ONLY THIS ACTION WAS IN OUR CONGRESS

The news informs us that Obama is ready to push legislation to grant AMNESTY to illegals. Those who are for amnesty always speak of a Nation of Immigrants, and that we must know who is here legally by registering all residents in the USA now.
They also stress that because they will never voluntarily leave, we must "fix" the immigration system by making all those here illegally, legal.

But across the Pacific Ocean where illegals are not counted in the millions but in the thousands, in Japan. The Diet is passing a law to tighten up the regulations that regulate people who are in their country legally on visas and people who are there illegally as this article copied from The Japan Times English version illustrates.

"The Lower House passed bills Friday making it easier for the Justice Ministry's Immigration Bureau to keep tabs on foreigners who have overstayed their visas as well as others residing legally in the country.

The Upper House is also expected to pass the bills, which have the support of both the Liberal Democratic Party-New Komeito ruling bloc and the Democratic Party of Japan, the largest opposition party.

The Immigration Bureau and lawmakers worked out the bills to reduce the number of undocumented foreign residents, which the bureau estimates to be about 110,000.

"The bills suggest the government has set its sights on cracking down on undocumented foreigners," said Amnesty International Japan official Sonoko Kawakami. "But it remains unclear how people in a difficult situation, like those applying for refugee status, will be dealt with."

The bills will abolish the Alien Registration Act and revise the immigration control and resident registration laws. Responsibility for overseeing foreign residents will be shifted from municipalities to the Immigration Bureau, which will keep track of personal information, including name, address, visa type and expiration date.

"Municipal officials are simply doing their jobs registering foreigners in compliance with the Alien Registration Act," immigration lawyer Shogo Watanabe said, adding that local governments issue alien registration cards to overstayers with the words "no residential status" typed on them.

With the passage of the bills, undocumented foreigners who are not granted special permission to stay will be detained for deportation.

To prevent the deportation of overstayers with a legitimate reason to reside in the country, the bills also require the Justice Ministry to clarify and announce the standards for granting special permission to stay.

Since 2003, about 10,000 foreigners a year on average have been granted special permission to stay, according to the Immigration Bureau. Granting permission is entirely at the discretion of the Justice Ministry.

A new form of identification, called a "zairyu" (residence) card, will replace alien registration cards, with the information on them kept by the Justice Ministry.

Foreign residents will be listed on the Juki Net resident registry network, a computer network linking municipalities that contains demographic information of Japanese residents.

The punishments for failing to report one's address and other personal information will become harsher. In order to curb fake marriages, the bills give the justice minister the authority to revoke the spousal visas of those who fail to conduct "activities spouses normally do" for six months. Special consideration would be given to spouses who live separately because of mitigating circumstances, including abuse".

I realize Japan is a small country geographically and it makes keeping track of aliens an easier job. But it would be nice if our elected officials considered the granting of citizen status to the 10 to 12 million illegals a violation of the public trust and a direct insult to all those who came here legally and assimilated into our culture!

It is unfortunate that people didn't pay attention to the news item in 2007 from KTLS, Los Angeles, Ca.
"LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich has announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families in Los Angeles County collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

"Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,"said Antonovich. "In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year -- this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education."

People often imply that illegal aliens aren't hurting anyone when they break our laws. It's useful to remember that the illegal aliens are ripping off a billion dollars a year from the legal residents of LA County alone".
CALL, EMAIL, SHOUT AND SCREAM at your Congress person and Senator to vote against this travesty!

REFLECTIONS ON GOVERNMENT HEALTH INSURANCE

It is apparent that president Obama and his merry band of leftist followers plan to destroy the private health Insurance industry that covers over 65% of the populace of the USA, and replace it with a government single payer program. Socialized medicine!
This despite the fact that polls show that in early 1993 the sense of a health care crisis was far more widespread than it is today – a 55% majority in 1993 said they felt the health care system needed to be “completely rebuilt” compared with 41% today. Health care costs were also a broader problem in 1993 – 63% of Americans said paying for the cost of a major illness was a “major problem” for them, compared with 48% currently.


In my life I have experienced government medicine first hand by being a Navy veteran with a service connected disability that makes me eligible for Veterans medical care and medicines.
Persoanally, I think the Congress of the USA doesn't allow enough money for the VA to care for the varied wounds and mental traumas that have occured to our brave warriors from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Of the 23.4 million veterans currently alive, nearly three-quarters served during a war or an official period of conflict, and the 2009 budget for this 12.7% of the U.S.population is 40 billion dollars!

But,my experience with the VA medicine is good, even though I have to travel 42 miles each way to See my VA doctor twice a year, and the yearly blood and x-ray exams. I am lucky to get the medicines I need from the VA pharmacy via the US mail at a deep savings.

So I am offering a plan to cover the estimated 46 million people who do not have medical insurance by utilizing special clinics for those who either cannot afford medical insurance, or choose to not spend the money to buy it.
If it is good enough for those who put their lives on the line for the Country, why not utilize special clinics for those who don't have insurance?

There will be those that cry second class treatment for these people, but if it is good enough for those who risked life and limb for their Country. Why not for those who cannot or will not buy health insurance?

There is the question of how do you staff these clinics with doctors and nurses?
It is a fact that most medical and nursing students utilize government guaranteed loans that accumulate in some cases to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I suggest that instead of relying on the doctor and nurse graduate to pay back the loan. Many never do! The requirement should be for every year the medical student or nurse attends school on a government loan, they must pay back one year of service to the government by serving a year in these clinics.

All clinics should be placed on regular bus lines so that no one could say they were inaccessible, and emergency rooms would be open 24 hours a day, unlike the VA clinics!

Of course there are horror stories about VA clinics as this post on VETERANS TODAY illustrates, but then there are many such cases in the private practice of medicine. Else there would not be any malpractice lawyers!

"The Veterans Affairs Department appears poised to hit a milestone it would rather avoid. That's a backlog of 1 million claims to process.

The milestone approaches as the agency scrambles to hire and train new claims processors. VA officials are working with the Pentagon to create by 2012 a system that will allow the two agencies to electronically exchange records. The process is now done manually on paper.

Former Marine Corporal Patrick Murray of Arlington, Virginia, says the first claim he filed was lost. The second ended up at a VA office in Colorado.

The 25-year-old Murray was severely burned and his right leg was amputated after a roadside bomb explosion in 2006. He says it's mind-boggling to have spent 11 months in Walter Reed Army Medical
Center and in outpatient care, only to find out he had to mail his records to the VA to prove he was injured".

Before we dismantle the present private medical system that is the envy of the World. I believe we should consider the establishment of clinics for people without insurance.
And do not tell me that this concept is degrading to those who have no insurance! If it is good enough for us veterans, then it is good enough for those who have done nothing to warrant medical care except get sick!

OBAMA ACTS LIKE A USED CAR SALESMAN

If any of you have ever bought a used car, not a previously leased car, but a car with a lot of miles on it. A car that may or not be in good mechanical order.'
You have experienced as I id when I purchased my four year old ford coupe. The salesman wanted to make a deal and he highlighted the fact that the car had low mileage, even though I later found out that the speedometer had been turned back a few thousand miles. He lighted the good points of the car never letting on that the car would be a mechanical nightmare for me later.
So I bought the car, fat dumb and happy I drove home in my first car. Then the fuel pump failed, the carburetor vapor locked almost every day and the transmission developed a strange noise. Turned out they had put sawdust in the transmission!
I bought a lemon!

Well, I believe Obama is trying to sell a lemon to the American taxpayers in his health care bill. A bill that is not even finsihed being dratted, but has over 700 pages detailing rules, regulations and all manner of bureaucratic BS.

The American people have a right to know what’s in the Bill and I would hope that our elected representatives get to read the bill before they vote on it. But with Obama setting a July 31st deadline that possibility is doubtful. Maybe they will have a speed reader read it to the Congress!

Just like a used car salesman, Obama has to make the sale quick on this massive expenditure that presently does not even cover about 30,000 of the uninsured poor!Senator Kyl offered several reasons why proposed health care reform may fail if the Senate does not pass it quickly.

“There’s a reason why the president has said ‘if we don’t get this done soon, it’s not going to happen,’” Kyl said. “Why? Why does he say that?

“Because he knows that momentum will inevitably slow for something that’s extraordinarily costly, will deny people the coverage that they already have, will ration their health care, and could provide some kind of government insurance company that’s going to drive out the private insurance companies that provide all these options,” he said.

“It will impose new taxes, it will tell employers that they either have to pay a certain amount of money to cover people or they’re going to be fined,” Kyl added.

Obama’s clock may be ticking, but some lawmakers say more time is needed to ensure effective reform of America’s health care system.And I agree with those who say it is time to slow down and thoroughly examine a bill that will affect our lives and those of our children for generations to come!

If you look at the rhetoric coming from the White House and from members of Congress, they’re using the same rhetoric that they had with the stimulus bill – that this ‘needs to be done,’ it ‘needs to be done quickly,’ and when it comes to the cost it’s like 'Yeah, but you've got to think about the cost of what will happen if we don’t pass this,'” McClusky said.

The text of that bill, which was 1,071 pages, was not made available in final form for public inspection until the night before it faced a final vote in Congress.

“They (congressional Democrats) don’t deal with facts and figures when they’re talking about it. They’re just dealing in psychic projections, basically, in what they think this legislation will do,” he added.
Source: CNSNews.com
The president is playing the "shell and pea" game with the American public, when he says that he does not want Socialized medicine. He wants it but through the back door of regulation and squeezing the life out of PRIVATE insurance that today covers over 65% of the American public with the best medical coverage in the World!
Yes, it is expensive, but so is bailing out car companies that should have been allowed to go bankrupt!

Will the unions and the :eftists prevail, or will the silent majority rise up and roar no to this dastardly attempt to sneak in another socialism scheme?