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]

AND THEY CALL US RACISTS!

FRIDAY'S HEADLINES IN THE NEW YORK TIMES Included A CHARGE BY GOVERNOR PATTERSON THAT HE IS THE VICTIM OF RACISM IN HIS QUEST FOR ELECTION TO A FULL TERM.
And he follows this outrageous charge with a statement that President Obama is next.
This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to play the race card when there is no argument that as governor , he has done nothing to want the voters of New York state to re-elect him!
Thus he joins the ilk of many notorious race baiters like Obama's pastor for twenty years. The Reverend Wright!
But clouded by the propaganda of this type tripe and the health care smears going out of the White House and Congress about anyone who dares oppose Obamacare. Is the fact that our justice department has been taken over by reverse racists who refuse to obey the Rule of Law.
The following is an excerpt from Saturdays Patriot Post that explains the preferential treatment the radical group Black Panthers is being afforded.


The outstanding example of this cynical manipulation of justice is how a case against the New Black Panthers, which the Department of Justice described as a "black super-racist organization," has been quickly and quietly shelved with minimal attention to the law and the Constitution.

The evidence is right there on the videos recorded Election Day, 2008, when uniformed members of the Black Panthers showed up at a Philadelphia polling station, one of them wielding a billy club. They shouted insults and made threats: "Cracker, you about to be ruled by a black man," one of the Panthers informed a voter. Two Republican poll watchers, a black couple, were called traitors to their race -- an accusation that will be familiar to any white Southerner who stood up for simple decency back in the bad old days.

Thank goodness for modern technology, which can make any citizen with an iPhone and its camera a crusading reporter. When all this made the Internet, not even the Obama administration's Justice Department could ignore what had happened on Philadelphia's streets. Particularly after the department's own investigation revealed that the New Black Panthers had called for "300 members to be deployed" at various polling places across the country.

So early this year, the Department of Justice proceeded to file a complaint against the Black Panthers, and specifically against the stormtroopers who were captured on video. So far, so fair.

A lawyer and survivor of many a legal battle for civil rights, Bartle Bull, filed an affidavit in support of the Justice Department's complaint. He characterized the incident in Philadelphia as "the most blatant form of intimidation I have encountered in my life in political campaigns in many states, even going back to the work I did in Mississippi in the 1960s."

But the Black Panthers didn't even bother to respond to the charges -- as if they were above the law. And maybe they are. Because after a court had ordered a default judgment against them, including one of their national leaders, the Justice Department caved. It dropped all charges against the Panthers except one, and that one was settled with a light tap on the wrist. The department got an injunction forbidding a member of the Panthers, identified as one Samir Shabazz, from brandishing a weapon at a polling place through November 15, 2012. How's that for a tough defense of Americans' right to vote without risking intimidation?

There doesn't seem to be any explanation for this perversion of justice except the Panthers' political pull with this new administration. This case is no longer about the Black Panthers so much as it is about a newly politicized Justice Department. At some point the career lawyers in the Justice Department's civil rights division changed their minds about pressing charges -- or had their minds changed for them. By whom? Why? Those questions need answering. Under oath.

Why hasn't there been a greater sense outrage, betrayal or just disgust at the administration's handling of this case? My theory: Because none of this comes as a surprise. What else could be expected when The People in their wisdom elect a president of the United States who's a product of Chicago's machine politics?

H. L. Mencken said it: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
SOURCE:PAUL GREENBERG

SOCIALISTS DON'T WANT A BETTER ECONOMY

The leftist leaning Media tells the people that the TARP plan and Cash for Clunkers have been the impetus for the beginning of the economic recovery.
Conservatives like myself believe that the recovery is artificial, and we are in for a back slide in the stock market and the economy in particular.

If you analyse the effect that the TARP program has had, you will find that less than 15% of the hundreds of billions that were appropriated have actually been spent, and very little has gone to "shovel ready" plans!
The Clunker program is a temporary stimulus that is fast on car sales, but slow on payment to the auto dealers. Some dealers have as much as 45 million dollars outstanding.
Some well known economic experts, people who have analysed the clunker program, believe that once the program ceases there will be a dearth of sales as car buyers have tripled the pace of car purchases during the CFC program.

While Obama and his cohorts in Congress are "crowing" about the recovery they are responsible for. Many, including I say it is just the natural progression of past recessions taking place.All the depressions in the past have an inverse Bell curve pattern if you chart them. I believe we are still at the bottom and will remain there for another six months as there is very little encouraging news from the labor market.

We have a president who readily brags that he grew up and gravitated to radicals during his formative years, and it is possible that Obama is a Marxist/Leninist! After all he has so far appointed 44 Czars who are not responsible to anyone but him! Sounds tyrannical to me! And one is a Communist, The Green Czar!

Leninism holds that capitalism can only be overthrown by revolutionary means; that is, any attempts to reform capitalism from within, such as Fabianism and non-revolutionary forms of democratic socialism, are doomed to fail. I do not believe Obama is an advocate for revolution, but he apparently believes in redistribution of wealth and changing our free enterprise system to one where the government runs our lives from cradle to grave!

The first goal of a Leninist party is to educate the proletariat, so as to remove the various modes of false consciousness the bourgeois have instilled in them, instilled in order to make them more docile and easier to exploit economically, such as religion and nationalism. This going full force by Obama and his willing propagandists, the Media!
Once the proletariat has gained class consciousness the party will coordinate the proletariat's total might to overthrow the existing government, thus the proletariat will seize all political and economic power. Sounds like what happened to General Motors and the auto workers union!

Lastly the proletariat (thanks to their education by the party) will implement a dictatorship of the proletariat which would bring upon them socialism, the lower phase of communism. After this, the party would essentially dissolve as the entire proletariat is elevated to the level of revolutionaries.Source:Encyclopedia Britannica

Don't laugh! This is not as far fetched as you might think. If they get Obamacare and Cap and Tax passed, they will control most of our lives at home and in the work place! I believe that is the place where socialism resides!

It is my belief that what Obama wants to do to this country is based upon the "father" of Community Organizing, Saul Alinsky)1902-72), as this is where Obama spent his years before he entered politics. Community Organizing in Chicago, the birthplace of Alinsky.
Alinsky wrote a book called: "RULES FOR RADICALS"

In the first chapter, opening paragraph of the book Alinsky writes, "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky outlines his strategy in organizing, writing in the prologue,

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future.
Does this not sound like "a crisis should never be wasted", as uttered by Rahm Emanuel!!

This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default." Source:Wikapedia

This is why Obama and his associates are so attached with such organisations as SEIU, ACORN, and the Auto Workers Union to name just a few "at the ready" activists and enforcers!

Maybe I am just way off base, but something does not pass my smell test. Obama is cozy with Socialist like Chavez, and sends two billion dollars during the middle of a recession to Brazil for off shore drilling! But will not allow off shore drilling off our shores to help US get independence from oil producers that hate us and our economic system!

Americans better wake up to what the Obama administration is doing to our once strong and proud country. Uncle Sam can't run Medicaid/ Medicare/ Prescription Drug Benefit now, they are insolvent by 2017 according to a recent GAO report. I can't trust them in small things, how can I trust them in really big things?
Or maybe that is the plan? instead of reducing taxes and stopping spending, they will increase taxes, and keep spending until massive inflation occurs, and our dollar is worthless! Then we have the emergency they need to "CHANGE and SAVE" the USA with Socialism and total government control!!

SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT

Yesterday the president said it is the moral obligation of Congress to pass his Health Care Bill.
In my opinion, it is immoral to attack those who realize the intrinsic evil that Obamacare presents to the people of the USA, and oppose it for a myriad of reasons. Not the least of which is it will give control over 1/6th of our economy to the Federal Government that has traditionally been in the private sector, and 81% of the people are satisfied with!.
The main reason I oppose the bill is that it is immoral to rob from those who by the sweat of their brow or the work of their God given brain have earned it, and give it to illegals and people who choose to spend their money on wants not needs!

But there is another issue that all Christians, Jews and Muslims should be concerned about that is reason enough to scrap this Bill and start over!
It is the provision in Section 1233 of HR 3200 that speaks of the ability of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to affect support for abortion. The killing of an innocent life that is in the most protected place in the world. A mothers womb!!

Obama says that claims that abortion funding is included in the Bill are fabrications, but what he doesn't tell you is that there is a provision that allow SHHR to fund abortions as this copy of CardinalRigali illustrates.
Obama is apparently either unaware of this provision or chooses to lie again to accomplish his goal of socializing our medical care!

August 11, 2009
Dear Representative:
As you continue deliberations on the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R.
3200), I urge you to consider the overall priorities and concerns presented by the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops in Bishop William Murphy’s July 17 letter to Congress
(www.usccb.org/sdwp/national/2009-07-17-murphy-letter-congress.pdf). The bishops’
conference views health care as a basic right belonging to all human beings. We therefore have long supported health care reform that respects human life and dignity from conception to natural death; provides access to quality health care for all, with a special concern for immigrants and the poor; preserves pluralism, with respect for rights of conscience; and restrains costs while sharing them equitably.

As this debate continues we will share our perspectives on positive and negative features in this and other health care reform legislation. In this letter I am writing specifically about our fundamental requirement that such legislation respect human life and rights of conscience in the context of abortion. Much-needed reform must not become a vehicle for promoting an “abortion rights” agenda or reversing longstanding policies against federal funding and mandated coverage of abortion.

In this sense we urge you to make this legislation “abortion neutral,” by preserving
longstanding federal policies that prevent government promotion of abortion and respect conscience rights.
As amended by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on July 31, H.R. 3200
addresses two aspects of the abortion issue: The Act will not preempt certain state laws regulating abortion, and will have no effect on existing federal conscience rights on abortion.

These changes are helpful improvements. Especially welcome is the committee’s approval of the Stupak/Pitts amendment, prohibiting governmental bodies that receive federal funds under this Act from discriminating against providers and insurers who decline involvement in abortion.

The bishops’ conference had urged approval of this amendment, which applies the policy of the Weldon amendment (approved by Congress every year since 2004 as part of the Labor/HHS appropriations bill) to the health care reform bill.
On two other fundamental issues, however, the Act remains seriously deficient:

1. The legislation delegates to the Secretary of Health and Human Services the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the “public health insurance plan” the government will manage nationwide. This would be a radical change: Federal law has long excluded most abortions from federal employees’ health benefits packages, and no federal health program mandates coverage of elective abortions.

2. Because some federal funds are authorized and appropriated by this legislation without passing through the Labor/HHS appropriations bill, they are not covered by the Hyde amendment and other federal provisions that have long prevented federal funding of abortion and of health benefits packages that include abortion.

The committee rejected an amendment to extend this longstanding policy to the use of federal subsidies for health care premiums under this Act. Instead the committee created a legal fiction, a paper separation between federal funding and abortion: Federal funds will subsidize the public plan, as well as private health plans
that include abortion on demand; but anyone who purchases these plans is required to pay a premium out of his or her own pocket (specified in the Act to be at least $1.00a month) to cover all abortions beyond those eligible for federal funds under the current Hyde amendment.
Thus some will claim that federal taxpayer funds do not support abortion under the Act.

But this is an illusion. Funds paid into these plans are fungible, and federal taxpayer funds will subsidize the operating budget and provider networks that expand access to abortions.
Furthermore, those constrained by economic necessity or other factors to purchase the “public plan” will be forced by the federal government to pay directly and specifically for abortion coverage. This is the opposite of the policy in every other federal health program.

Government will force low-income Americans to subsidize abortions for others (and abortion coverage for themselves) even if they find abortion morally abhorrent.
Please consider the broader context. No federal program mandates coverage for elective abortions, or subsidizes health plans that include such abortions. Most Americans do not want abortion in their health coverage, and most consider themselves “pro-life,” with a stronger majority among low-income Americans. About 80 percent of all hospitals do not generally provide abortions, and 85 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider.

By what right,then, and by what precedent, would Congress make abortion coverage into a nationwide norm, or force Americans to subsidize it as a condition for participating in a public health program?
As long-time supporters of genuine health care reform, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is working to ensure that needed health reform is not undermined by abandoning longstanding and widely supported policies against abortion funding and mandates and in favor of conscience protection.

I urge you to help ensure that any legislation that comes up for a vote in the full House does not include these unacceptable features. Please support amendments to correct them, and oppose any rule for consideration of H.R. 3200 that would block such amendments.

By your actions on these issues, you can advance urgently needed health care reform that will truly serve the poor and needy and uphold the dignity of all.
Sincerely,
Cardinal Justin Rigali
Archbishop of Philadelphia
Chairman
USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities

You be the Judge who is telling the truth!! Remember Mr. President there are 60 million Catholics and hundreds of millions of other denominations that believe the Ten Commandments were not the Ten Suggestions!

OBAMA QUITS

Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them...Ronald REAGAN

One of the yet to be answered questions is just how an administration that is lead by a president who never ran a business, much less a candy store, can run USA's Health Care. Our nations health care industry comprises 16% of the USA total economy, and involves thousands of hospitals, hundreds of thousands of doctors and nurses and many billions of contacts with the system by patients.

If the Cash for Clunkers is an example that the government can run a large program well. It is proving to be a disaster and an example of exacerbation of a problem that plagues providers of health care services today. Late payment for services rendered!

I know as I was a provider or over thirty years, and many of those involved payments for my services by medicaid, medicare and private insurance. All were guilty of delayed payment, but medicaid was the worst!

Now we have learned that many car dealers are refusing to participate in the CFC program because the government has not paid the $4500 dollars it promised for clunkers, and the customer has his new car in his garage!

Despite this display of federal government inept administration of a plan that involves just 3 billion dollars, Obama wants to get the lawful authority to control 1/6th of our GDP! He even has the perverse guts to quote the Jewish prayer to show he is in unison with religious beliefs in his quest for socialised medicine. This despite the fact that he has consistentantly violated the Fifth Commandment of Gods Ten Commandments by being a vocal advocate of taking the innocent life of the unborn, abortion and partial birth abortion!

He said this after meeting with a group of Liberal Church leaders on Thursday.
"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is GOD who decides "who shall live and who shall die."

The president ended the call by wishing the rabbis "shanah tovah," or happy new year — in reference to the High Holidays a month from now. This from a man who has not chosen a church to attend on Sundays as yet! That is chutzpah!

ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) - Some New Mexico auto dealers have backed out of the cash-for-clunkers program and more may do so as the federal government takes its time providing cash reimbursements.

Dealers across the state are owed more than $3.6 million, according to a dealers' group which says that so far Uncle Sam has only written three checks totaling about $14,000.

Cash for clunkers--officially its the Car Allowance Rebate System--allows consumers to trade their gas guzzlers for a more fuel-efficient rides while earning up to $4,500 toward the purchase price.

Dealerships put up the cash for the rebates after being told by the Obama administration they would be paid back within 10 days of the sale.

With that much cash in limbo they've called in reinforcements.

"You simply can't ask businesses to front $200,000, $300,000 for any period of time," Rep. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., told KRQE News 13. "These applications are simply not being processed fast enough".

I can only imagine how long it will take to distribute payments for services rendered under a government option plan! And do not delude yourself. As I have said before, if we get a government option it will eventually price out of existence the private health insurance industry. They have to make a profit, but the government has the tax payer well to return to time and time again if they run low on money. Or they can just print it as they are doing now, and run the national debt up even further!

THEY ARE USING SEMANTICS BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!

"Health services should not be guaranteed to] individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."
EZEKIEL EMANUEL

One of the many lies that Obama and his sycophants are telling the uniformed public, is that we need a Government health insurance option, because there is no competition to the health insurance industry.
There are presently 30 different Health Insurance Plans offered through independent insurance agents in the State of Florida.
Among the many are some of the readily identifiable names like Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Humana, United Health Care, Pacific Care,
and Assurant. All competing for Floridians health care dollars.

Many States have laws restricting companies domiciled outside that particular state from becoming licensed in the State, or variations of that restricting customer choice.
It would be a simple matter of passing a Bill that would break down any restrictions that inhibit major, licensed Health Insurance companies from competing in all 50 states. We do not need a government option that does not need to make a profit, because it is backed by tax payer funds, as an option to reduce costs! This is just a canard!!

The other lie swirling around Washington DC and the government leaning main stream media is that if the Democrats cannot get enough votes to prevent a Conservative filibuster to block ramming Obamcare down our throats. Is the invoking of the "Reconciliation" option to allow passage of Obamcare with just a simple majority of 51 votes in the Senate.

The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Titles I through IX, includes Title III that allows a budget resolution before the Senate that is being filibustered, to allow invoking what is called the Byrd Rule!

The Byrd Rule was an amendment to the the budget reconciliation acts of 1985,86, and 1990. This allows Senators who object to the use of "reconciliation" to raise points of order that cannot be waved unless there are three-fifth of the Senators who vote to over rule the "point of order".

This is important because the White House has indicated that as they are used to doing in Chicago, they intend to get what they want despite the people's protests, and will "RAM" it through no matter what!!

The Byrd Rule requires any reconciliation that involve "extraneous"
provisions to a budet bill br subject to deffinite requirements.
There are six provision that forbid "reconciliation". If the bill or amendment-----
1.do not produce a change in outlays or revenues
2.produce changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental
to the non=budgetary components of the provisions
3.are outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure
4.increase outlays or decrease revenue if the provisions title, as a whole, fails to achieve the Senate reporting committee's reconciliation instructions
5.increase net outlays or decrease revenue during a fiscal year after the years covered by the reconciliation bill unless the provision's title, as a whole, remains budget neutral( no way Obamacare qualifies in this way!)
6.contain recommendations regarding the OASDI(social security) trust funds( what trust funds, there are none!!)

Since reconciliation of the bill for Obamacare will cover as many as ten years and probably more, the fifth provision can have the effect of requiring that any tax spending increase, as incumbent in Obamacare, must be approved by three-fifth(3/5) of the Senate!
You can see that unless they want to violate their own rules, the Democrats cannot invoke reconciliation!

TAX MONEY USED TO PROMOTE CHRONYISM!

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

WIKAPEDIA DEFINES CHROMYISM AS; "Cronyism is partiality to long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, regardless of their qualifications. Hence, cronyism is contrary in practice and principle to meritocracy. Cronyism exists when the appointer and the beneficiary are in social contact; often, the appointer is inadequate to hold his or her own job or position of authority, and for this reason the appointer appoints individuals who will not try to weaken him or her, or express views contrary to those of the appointer. Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used. The word "crony" first appeared in 18th century London, believed by many to be derived from the Greek word χρόνιος (chronios), meaning "long-term", however, crony appears in the 1811 edition of Grose's Vulgar Tongue with a decidedly non-collegiate definition, placing it firmly in the cant of the underworld.[1] A less likely source is the Irish Language term Comh-Roghna (pron. ko-ronə), which translates to "close pals", or mutual friends".

Governments are particularly susceptible to accusations of cronyism, as they spend public money. Many democratic governments are encouraged to practice administrative transparency in accounting and contracting, however, there often is no clear delineation of when an appointment to government office is "cronyism". It is not unusual for a politician to surround him- or herself with highly-qualified subordinates, and to develop social, business, or political friendships leading to the appointment to office of friends, likewise in granting government contracts. In fact, the counsel of such friends is why the officeholder successfully obtained his or her powerful position — therefore, cronyism usually is easier to perceive than to demonstrate and prove.

The Obama administration is a present day example of the resources of our society(tax dollars) being used to promote cronyism. A look at the cabinet appointments and the Czars appointed by Obama shows cronyism at it's worst. As do the way Obama and his past car czar handled the General Motors and Chrysler bankruptcy debacles. There you have a definite bias toward one of the strongest supporters of Obama and the Democrats, the auto workers union!

Another prime example is the Bail Out money and to whom it has been distributed.
The scandal some are calling “Bonusgate” has extended beyond AIG and Bank of America into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bringing to light the relationship between Wall Street contributions and their connection to Democratic negligence in the handling of Wall Street excesses. Two key figures top the list in campaign contributions from the entities involved as they did for AIG, Senator Chris Dodd (D-RI) and President Barack Obama. Many Americans are now learning that for some time the Democratic leadership in return for heavy campaign contributions has show undo favoritism to Wall Street resulting in the wasting of billions of taxpayer dollars.

According to the non-partisan research organization, employees of security and investment firms donated nearly $10 million to Barack Obama in 2008. And during the presidential election campaign, Barack Obama, strongly benefited from employees of Lehman Brothers.The Illinois senator raised approximately $370,000 from Lehman employees that year, more than three times what McCain raised from employees of the failing firm! source:CNNPolitical Ticker

In March of 2008 Politico.com revealed the following amounts of contributions that were given to Obama during his presidential campaign.
- Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
- Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [cq.com]
- Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [cq.com]
- Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston. [cq.com]
- Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [cq.com]
- Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [cq.com]
- Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [cq.com]
- Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [cq.com]
- Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [cq.com]
- Obama received $1150 from Centex. [cq.com]
- Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [cq.com]
None of these gifts were even close to the near 50 million dollars that labor unions contributed to elect Obama!

And Open Secrets.com lists the following Obama contributors:
University of California $1,591,395
Goldman Sachs $994,795
Harvard University $854,747
Microsoft Corp $833,617
Google Inc $803,436
Citigroup Inc $701,290
JPMorgan Chase & Co $695,132
Time Warner $590,084
Sidley Austin LLP $588,598
Stanford University $586,557
National Amusements Inc $551,683
UBS AG $543,219
Wilmerhale Llp $542,618
Skadden, Arps et al $530,839
IBM Corp $528,822
Columbia University $528,302
Morgan Stanley $514,881
General Electric $499,130
US Government $494,820 ?????
Latham & Watkins $493,835

And the SEIU, whose officers now meet with Obama every week, endorsed Obama, that union has 1.9 million members and has a rank-and-file that is far more politically active than most other unions’. Its political action committee spent more than $75 million for Obama's campaign. They expect and are receiving special attention from the Obama administration. And to show their appreciation they are some of the "thugs" who attack and intimidate anti-Obmacare attendees at Town Hall meetings!
Ms. Burger of SEIU said the service employees would make a big push to press the president and Congress to enact universal health coverage and the Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would make it easier for workers to join unions.

She said the S.E.I.U.’s members would make 10 million phone calls to members of Congress as part of that legislative effort!

And although this issue was dropped there is the issue of illegal foreign contributions that the Federal Elections Commission was contemplating investigation, that could be connected to the fact that some of the TARP funds have found their way to foreign divisions of American banks and investment corporations.

The FEC analyst says that Obama’s filings indicate he received large, bundled sums of donations from overseas, sometimes exceeding a quarter millions dollars. “It’s suspicious, but it’s the small donations made by credit card that need to be examined. We’ve raised red flags on many of these and the Obama campaign just ignored them.

Then there is the issue that Secretary of Treasury Geithner had a hand in the $30 billion Bear Stearns bailout and the multilevel AIG bailouts ($85 billion and $38 billion under President Bush and another $30 billion in March 2009 under Obama). Massive sums of that taxpayer money went to major financial institutions that had employed Obama's money men and their closest confidants. Goldman Sachs, for example, raked in nearly $13 billion in December 2009 from AIG in federal TARP funds -- and reported record profits this quarter with a bonus pool of more than $11 billion.

President Obama’s optimism that big government will help the economy is unwarranted and dangerous. The American taxpayer has seen billions of dollars wasted in the TARP program which has to date been of no real significance in benefit. Despite good intentions government is never efficient at replacing private commercial enterprise with public ones. Thousands of pages of law have been written of which apparently not a single member of Congress has read according to statements made by California Congressional Representative Maxine Waters on MSNBC. She admitted they rely on unelected staff to write and read the law the affect the pocket book of everyday Americans.
They are too busy campaigning for re-election and attending parties and taking "junkets" to be bothered with reading a bill before voting on it!