This issue of Newsweek magazine has an article written by Kathleen Kennedy that essentially says that Obama represents Catholics in the USA more than the Pope.
She concludes the article with this "pearl" of left wing wisdom that the Kennedy's have demonstrated since they tried to cover up the Chappaquiddick debacle when Mary Jo Kopeckne drowned and Teddy Kennedy survived, after Teddy drove his car off a bridge.
She is correct in one assumption. Apparntly 58% of people who call themselves Catholics voted for a man for President who not only supports abortion but partial birth abortion! Go figure!!

But some one with a family history of sex scandals and chicanery is no one to take seriously when she writes about the moral leadership of Catholics, as I will outline in the following.
The eldest of Robert F. Kennedy and Ethel Skakel's 11 children, she is part of the Kennedy family. She was named for her aunt Kathleen Kennedy Cavendish, Marchioness of Hartington, who died in a plane crash in 1948. And like all elitists and wealthy Liberals she thinks she is a good judge of what all people including the Pope should do and act!
Of course ,Ms. Kennedy Townsend should not be blamed for her family members imprudent acts, but her association with two organisations gives insight to why she wrote this article.

In 1986, Townsend ran for Congress in Maryland's second Congressional district, losing to Helen Delich Bentley 41% to 59%, thus becoming the first Kennedy to lose a general election.

Mrs. Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the contributing staff of the National Catholic Reporter that gave a voice to Father Roy Rourgeois until he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church in 2008.
The paper is based in midtown Kansas City, Missouri. The founding editor in 1964 was Robert Hoyt. In 1968, the NCR was officially condemned by bishop Charles Herman Helmsing. [1] When the paper was first founded, Bishop Helmsing provided diocesan office space and funds until the paper was able to move to the building where it continues to this day. In the late 1960s, Bishop Helmsing objected most specifically to the paper’s strong stands on birth control, priestly celibacy and criticism of the hierarchy, citing an imbalance in news coverage. A total of 66 Catholic journalists signed a petition during this time to support the stances of NCR.

Unlike diocesan publications or those of religious institutes, it is independent of ecclesiastical oversight. Therefore, the NCR often dissents from official Catholic Church teachings in some areas.Catholics like me call the rag The National Catholic Distorter! It is no wonder she took the time to write such a stupid and heretical article!

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is also a member of the Center for American Progress, a Liberal organization that has such other left "wingnuts" as Tom Daschle and John Podesta as members. The Center was often featured prominently on the Al Franken Show on the Air America Radio network, where Christy Harvey and Al Franken criticized the Bush administration at length, accusing it of dishonesty and incompetence.

The Center has no information on its website about its funding, but the Washington Post reported that "seed money pledged by such deep-pocketed Democrats as financier George Soros (and mortgage billionaires Herbert and Marion Sandler)" assisted its formation.[9] The authors of Her Way, a biography of Hillary Clinton, also assert that the Democracy Alliance, a progressive donors collective, has funded the Center. They also assert that the Sandlers and Soros provided seed money.Source: Wikapedia

Then there was the incident in 2006 when Patrick Kennedy crashed his car at 3 a.m. into a security barrier outside the U.S. Capitol, returning to rehab and then pleading guilty to driving under the influence of prescription drugs. He's admitted battling depression, bipolar disorder, an addiction to prescription drugs and bouts of binge drinking.

And before that, in April 2000, when 39-year-old Michael Skakel finally appeared in court to plead not guilty to the charge of murdering a teenaged neighbor named Martha Moxley in Palm Beach, in 1975. The event was reported as the latest scandalous episode in the ongoing dramedy of the self-styled "clan" that has long stood in for royalty in these lamentably egalitarian United States.
Skakel is, of course, a Kennedy. To be precise, he is a nephew of Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert F. Kennedy.
And the continuing saga of the ethically challenged Kennedy clan shows that in 1997the Kennedy family was involved in another scandal. Michael Kennedy's plea for forgiveness for "serious mistakes" he has committed. Kennedy had been accused of having an affair with his family's underage baby sitter. Statutory rape in most States!

Prosecutors decided to drop the investigation against Kennedy in response to the young woman's refusal to cooperate. Michael Kennedy's father was the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.You think maybe she was offered a "offer she could not refuse"?

Norfolk County District Attorney Jeffrey Locke said that he had no compelling evidence that would warrant any further investigations into the statutory rape accusations brought against Kennedy. However, the prosecutor did say that he would be "ready, willing, and able" to reopen the case if the baby sitter, now a 19-year-old college sophomore, decided to cooperate.

Hours after Locke's announcement, Kennedy publicly asked for forgiveness from his wife and family and the family of the baby sitter for his "serious mistakes."

In her article she wrote this absurd statement, despite the fact that most American Catholic Bishops condemned the action of Notre Dame in conferring a honorary degree on Obama!
"Notre Dame awarded the president an honorary degree because it saw the need to highlight the best of Catholic teaching as applied to politics: the ability to open the eyes of those who would prefer to keep them closed, and to open the hearts of those who would prefer not to know the pain that their actions cause. The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him".

She must have ignored the fact that The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004, specifically forbade giving "awards, honors or platforms" to "those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles." And as a result the Bishop of Fort Wayne/South Bend, Indians Bishop John M. D'Arcy refused to attend the graduation eremony at which Notre Dma gave an honorary degree to Obama.
Abortion is a fundamental violation of Catholic doctrine, and anyone who supports it is in violation of the basic principles of the Church. So be it!

Ms. Kennedy joins a long list of people who call themselves Catholics, but by their actions and words have effectively excommunicated themselves from the Church
Latae sententiae for supporting an abortion advocate.

The amount of lies coming out of the Obama operatives and Democrat Congressmen and women is appalling for an administration that campaigned on having an open and honest administration.

The lies are too numerous to list in this brief post, so I will review some of the most egregious.
The excuse for firing Independent Counsel Gerald Walpin is a good place to start. The Obama administration said he was fired without notifying Congress thirty days ahead of the firing as require by law,because he was mentally incompetent and unable to perform his duties. This was absurd, as it was proved by Conservative TV personality Glenn Beck, when he gave the same test on camera that is used by doctors to test the mental ability of a suspected senile people. Walpin answered every question correctly and quickly.

Then there was the Campaign promise by Obama that he would not tax the middle class.
The administration has an extremely difficult educational problem on its hands,” said Henry J. Aaron, a health care expert at the Brookings Institution. “They understand that at some point tax increase are going to be necessary across the board.

“Yes, for the middle class, too,” he added.

Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.Did he lie or are we to assume he is too naive to realize that he cannot do what he is proposing without taxing more than the "rich"?

In February, President Barack Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill while making lavish promises about the results. He pledged that "a new wave of innovation, activity and construction will be unleashed all across America." He also said the stimulus would "save or create up to four million jobs." Vice President Joe Biden said the massive federal spending plan would "drop-kick" the economy out of the recession.

But the unemployment rate today is 9.5% -- nearly 20% higher than the Obama White House said it would be with the stimulus in place. Keith Hennessey, who worked at the Bush White House on economic policy, has noted that unemployment is now higher than the administration said it would be if nothing was done to revive the economy. There are 2.6 million fewer Americans working than Mr. Obama promised.

And now there is the "whopper" told by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, about the CIA never advising her that the CIA was using "waterboarding". This despite the fact that members of the Intelligence committee, have said that the CIA did inform the committee.
If that was not enough to illustrate the ingenuousness of the Democrats. This will show you that they will do anything to cover up the Speakers lies.

On June 26th, the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-TX, 82%), sent a letter to ranking Republican member Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI, 88%); Reyes claimed that two days earlier, in a classified briefing by CIA Director Leon Panetta (a hyper-partisan Democratic former House member), the director admitted the CIA routinely misled and even lied to Congress under George W. Bush.
Of course, all eight accusers coyly refuse to say exactly what the CIA is supposed to have misled them about. They just allow the nation to draw the “obvious,” but not necessarily accurate, conclusion.
Democrats are using this bit of "bs" to prop up the wobbly Speaker of the House, insinuating, with no lawful way to debunk it,that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury) was truthful when she said the CIA “never told her” we had already waterboarded a terrorist detainee and planned to waterboard a couple more.
CIA spokesman George Little told the Washington Independent late Wednesday that the claim that Panetta admitted his agency has misled Congress is “completely wrong.” He added, “Director Panetta stands by his May 15 statement.”

Nobody privy to the actual intelligence, not even Reyes and the "seven dwarfs" who signed the letter, has explicitly claimed that Panetta said the CIA lied about briefing Pelosi or anyone else on waterboarding; but neither can anyone explicitly dispute it. a. And for that matter, Panetta’s spokesman denies that Panetta said any such thing in the first place. Source: The Politico

One of the seven members of the Committee who signed the letter to the CIA is the next ranking Democrat on the committee, is Rep. Alcee L. Hastings (FL, 100%)… a former federal judge who was impeached and removed from office for accepting a $150,000 bribe, then perjuring himself when caught.Not exactly the type of person who should be accusing anyone of lying!

And another questionable character is Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA) ,who flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position. The quiz included such tricky, unfair questions as whether al Qaeda is Sunni or Shiite. (Reyes’ answer: “They are probably both,” followed by “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”)

When President Bush was in the Oval Office. Sens. Feinstein (D-CA, 100%), Russell Feingold (D-WI, 100%), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI, 90%), all current members of the Senate Intelligence Committee — Feinstein is the chairman — wrote a letter in July, 2007, demanding a “special prosecutor” be appointed to investigate then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for perjury… because of a trivial difference between Gonzales’ testimony and that of then-FBI Director Robert Mueller over the exact subject of a hospital-room discussion between Gonzales and former Attorney General John Ashcroft three years earlier.

Mueller, who was not present during the conversation itself, gained the impression afterwards that the discussion had been about the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP); but Gonzales testified to Congress three years later that it was about a different but similar surveillance program. And for that, four Democratic senators wanted to send Gonzales to federal prison — the three mentioned above, plus Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%).

This demonstrates such onerousness's of purpose at a time when the Iraq war was floundering,and Gen. David Petraeus’ new counterinsurgency strategy was just starting. It was important that we needed our government to show solidarity and steadfastness. I question whether any of these three should even be allowed to serve on such a delicate and supposedly bipartisan committee as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Turning to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the current chairman, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-CA), flunked an intelligence quiz just a month before he was slated to assume that position.

And to end this exposure of lies that Obama and his minions tell. I will list just six more of a list that is found at any site on the internet. If you ask the question "how many times has Obama lied to the public".
# 1.) Selma Got Me Born - LIE, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)

At one point in the speech, Obama described how that was the environment in which his father came to the United States and met his mother. Then he said, "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma, Alabama."

The Selma Voting Rights March was in March, 1965. Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 so he was not born in the shadow of what happened in Selma.

2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - LIE, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government-Truth! & Fiction!

3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - LIE, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.

4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - LIE, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya .. It is the first widespread violence in decades.

Raila Odinga is a well-known politician in Kenya who ran for president in 2007 and challenged the election results when he lost. The resulting violence killed hundreds and left thousands homeless. Odinga has claimed to be Obama's cousin but Obama has never acknowledged the relationship.

5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - LIE, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.

6.) My Name is African Swahili - LIE, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language.

When will a majority of Americans wake up, SHAKE OFF THEIR NAIVE TRUST OF THE FEDERAL GOVT, and realize that we have a man in the Oval Office that does not honor the Constitution and will say anything to acomplish his goals?

We have seen news reports that Al Gore stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars in CO2 credits trading via his new trading organisation. And I suspect most of the politicians who have jumped on to the band wagon of Cap and Trade have visions of dollars floating in their empty heads!

Despite the fact that more than half the real climatologists who were surveyed, said the world is actually cooling not getting warmer. The politicians all over the world are pushing this new Ponzi scheme.

Well, the fly in the ointment just may have spoiled there vision of control and riches for themselves. A report by a respected organisation was introduced to the members of the G8 meeting in Italy that may start people thinking about flushing CAP and Trade!

The Kyoto Protocol requires leading economies, by 2012, to cut by specified amounts carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change. It allows for trading in carbon “credits” among lighter and heavier emitters.

A conference in Copenhagen late this year aims to deliver a global agreement for action after 2012, the end of the Kyoto-applicable period. Activists are pushing for much bigger emission-reduction targets and more stringent timetables than those set by Kyoto.

But the new report says Kyoto and its underlying approach have had no meaningful impact at all. To the contrary, cap-and-trade schemes – which set a limit on emissions and allow trading in emissions permits or carbon offsets – had seen emissions continue rising.

The report comes from a consortium of research institutes in Europe, North America and Asia, led by the London School of Economics’ (LSE) Mackinder Program and the Institute for Science, Innovation and Society at the University of Oxford.

It says the only policies that will work are those focusing directly on improving energy efficiency (reducing the amount of energy needed to provide the same service) and decarbonizing the energy supply (finding ways to reduce the amount of carbon released per unit of energy consumed), through developing and deploying technology.

“Policy should focus directly on decarbonization rather than on emissions; on causes instead of consequences,” the authors say.

“Worthwhile policy builds upon what we know works and upon what is feasible rather than trying to deploy never-before implemented policies through complex institutions requiring a hitherto unprecedented and never achieved degree of global political alignment,” lead author Gwyn Prins of the LSE Mackinder Program said in a statement.
Source:CNSNEWS

Prins and his co-authors find fault with initiatives like the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation – passed by the House of Representatives late last month – as well as the European Union’s emission trading scheme and Britain’s Climate Change Act.

Instead, they point to Japan’s climate strategy – setting a realistic, concrete target, “to be met by real-world efficiency gains and decarbonization through deployment of efficient and low-carbon technologies.”

“The Japanese target does not depend on the froth of purchased offsets,” they add.

The report notes that Japan, ironically, was slammed by environmentalists and the U.N. climate panel for what were seen as unambitious targets, even though its policy is actually working.

“Evidence from the best studied and most efficient example, namely the Japanese iron and steel industry, shows a 19 percent reduction in CO2 1991-2008 as a result of direct efficiency gains.”

‘Don’t put dogmatism ahead of pragmatism’

Despite the experts’ appeals, carbon trading looks set to stay ,there is too much money invested in the trading of CO2 credits to allow it to fail. And it will expand! To the average citizens detriment and to fill the pockets of the political aristocracy!

Obama met with Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt at the G8 gathering Wednesday and, according to Reinfeldt, expressed interest in linking a U.S. carbon trading market with one run by the E.U. and, possibly, Australia. Sweden holds the rotating E.U. presidency.

Writing on a Nature magazine Web site, Jeff Tollefson voiced doubt that the idea of reversing course put forward by Prins and his co-authors would garner much enthusiasm.
How much money will Obama and his henchman make off this canard we will never know. But one thing we all know is that it will cost US a lot more in the cost of living because of the incumbent increase costs of energy

Despite the fact that the highly touted stimulus spending has not reduced the unemployment rate, nor has it limited it to 8.5% as Obama predicted.With an unemployment rate of over 10% and climing the Democrat controled Congress is proposing another round of stimulus spending.

The "royalty in Washington apparently are either out of touch with reality or simply do not care what those who put them in the priviledgrd position by voting for them.
Congress has appropriated so much money that the Congressional Budget Office forecasts that Obama’s spending plan would leave a deficit of $672 billion by the end of 2013. Explaining the differences between his projections and CBO’s, Obama said his administration projects a higher growth rate.

Well he is being overly optimistic or flat out lying, as most sane economists predict a growth rate of less than 2%! It makes sense when you consider the negative affect that his Cap and Trade Bill
will have.
It is also important to understand that “cutting the deficit in half” is a deceit for the fact that it means he’ll still be running up a record deficit of over 600 billion a year. That is not progress in deficit reduction or “fiscally responsible” government. But it sounds good when thrown out there in a sound bite. Maybe this will help make my point:

Both the most “pessimistic” and his own projections see huge deficits projected well into the future, and as many economists have said, unsustainable deficits.

So let’s get a few facts straight concerning spending and deficits before Obama took over as president and after. The then and now!
Obama has been trying to pass himself off as a fiscally conservative leader, but his true tax-and-spend identity is starting to show through as he claims that a government “rescue” of the economy (as if any such thing were even possible) is more important than budget deficits or the federal debt.In simple terms obama believes(or at least wants us to believe)that spending money that is worthless, because it exceedes the GNP, will get us out of the economic mess we are in!

President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama has added another $1 trillion.

President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course at breakneck speed.

China, the biggest overseas holder of U.S. Treasuries, trimmed its holdings of government notes and bonds by $4.4 billion to $763.5 billion in April. Premier Wen Jiabao said in March that he was “worried” the dollar would weaken as U.S. President Barack Obama sells record amounts of debt to fund his $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

“The objective is to develop a substitute for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency,” said Tim Condon, Singapore- based head of Asia research at ING Groep NV, part of the largest Dutch financial-services group. “That will reduce the ability of the U.S. government to finance deficits with impunity.”

Even Germany has said at the G8 summit, that we should cut back on spending!

Government isn’t the solution, it’s the problem! Ronald Reagan

On June 19,2009 “The White House fired Gerald Walpin. The firing apparently stemmed from Walpin’s investigation of a non-profit group, St. HOPE Academy, run by Kevin Johnson, the former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California (and a big Obama supporter).
Walpin found that Johnson, a former all-star point guard for the Phoenix Suns, had used AmeriCorps grants to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car,” the AP reports. In April, the U.S. attorney declined to file any criminal charges in the matter and criticized Walpin’s investigation. But at the same time Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay about half of the $850,000 it had received from AmeriCorps.

Bottom line: The AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.The prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money. Obama fired AmeriCorps IG, Walpin.
The Congress passed a law to protect Independent Prosecutors from just this kind of underhanded firing. The IIRC bill required that the President would have to notify Congress in writing 30 days prior to any action being taken. Given the reports that Teh One’s staff reportedly tried to force him to resign within the hour or be fired, it appears that they do not pay attention to their own legislation, or, conveniently ignore it.Either way Obama and his henchmen violated the law by firing Inspector General Walpin!

This unlawful act by the Obama administration was a violation of a law passed by the Congress, and as such it should be an affront to all members of Congress regardless of party affiliation. But as predicted it is ignored by the Democrats and some Republicans who support Obama.
As a result, key Republicans in both the House and the Senate are accusing the White House of giving “incomplete and misleading” information to investigators probing the president’s abrupt firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. In return, the White House is hinting that documents concerning its actions in the Walpin affair may be protected by executive privilege.

Both developments are part of an escalating conflict between GOP lawmakers and the Obama administration. Republicans are deeply skeptical of the White House explanation for the June 10 firing of Walpin, a tough investigator who had been probing misuse of AmeriCorps money by Sacramento, Calif., mayor — and prominent Obama supporter — Kevin Johnson. And the administration seems determined to conceal its dealings with AmeriCorps and the organization that oversees it, the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Walpin was dismissed without warning on June 10, when he received a call from Norman Eisen, the special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform. Eisen told Walpin he had one hour either to resign or be fired — an apparent violation of a law giving special job protections to inspectors general. When Walpin refused to quit, he was terminated.

After lawmakers demanded an explanation, the White House said Walpin had been “confused, disoriented [and] unable to answer questions” at a May 20 meeting with the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service. The Johnson case was discussed at that meeting, with Walpin harshly criticizing board members for their support of a decision to let Johnson off easy.

There’s no question that members of the board, both Democrat and Republican, were unhappy with Walpin’s criticism of them. They agreed that Alan Solomont, the Democratic fundraiser appointed by President Barack Obama as chairman of the board, should tell the White House what had happened.

But now, at least three board members have told congressional investigators they did not specifically recommend that the administration fire Walpin. Instead, they simply wanted the chairman to express their concerns.

The White House claims it investigated the matter; Eisen told House and Senate aides that officials did an “extensive review” of complaints about Walpin’s performance before deciding to fire him. But there are serious doubts as to whether the White House did, in fact, conduct a serious investigation before getting rid of Walpin.

The three board members have told Congress that the White House did not contact them during the review. (One was told about Walpin’s firing at about the time it happened, and the other two were contacted days later.) No one from the White House contacted Walpin himself, or his top assistant, as part of the review.

Republican aides want to step up the pressure on the firing, because, as one senior committee aide put it: "What's at stake isn't just one man's job: it's how $6 billion in taxpayer money is going to be used by this Administration on an agency with no independent oversight." The six billion was given to the CNCS this year by Obama. This is tax payers money being used to promote Obama special interest plans!

The aide is referring to the Corporation for National and Community Service's primary entity, AmeriCorps, set up in the 1990s by the Clinton Administration to increase public service among young people -- mostly college grads and young professionals -- largely via grant-making to a network of state and local community nonprofit groups.

"Just how AmeriCorps is going to be used by the Obama Administration -- and what steps the administration has taken to ensure that it can do with AmeriCorps what it wants -- is at the heart of our concern," says the GOP House staffer. "We think that the removal of Walpin was part of that agenda." Source:American Spectator

The resources allocated to CNCS amount to more that $6 billion in funds, and those plans include turning AmeriCorps into a supersized, taxpayer-funded ACORN-like organization, focused on the Obama Administration's policy agenda, including health care reform, targeted stimulus spending, and possible work on the upcoming U.S. census in 2010.
Meanwhile, a White House source says the White House is trying to find out if dispersal of parts of the $6 billion budget for CNCS can be sped up under a Presidential request that the funds be considered part of the economic stimulus program. Stimulus?? Sounds more like war chest funds for Obama!!

In the past, AmeriCorps volunteers lobbied and organized groups against the "three strikes" rule in California, and had plans in place to identify groups to support a second attempt at health care reform after Hillarycare went down in flames. Some AmeriCorps resources have gone to assist ACORN projects around the country, including anti-Republican demonstrations in state capitals and in Washington, D.C.
And you can be sure this group will have an affect on the 2010 and 2012 elections to the detriment of fair and honest election results.
And if you doubt my words. I have enclosed a quote from the head of one of ACORNs affiliates that describes the pupose of ACORN and it's "sinister" organizations very well.
"SOCIAL POLICY asks what is to be done to secure basic structural changes in American society. Its pages will provide a meeting ground — and battleground — where ideas, tactics and strategies for radical reconstruction of American institutions can be expressed and exchanged, tested and debated, expanded and deepened.”

When the Berlin wall fell and the Soviet Union apparently collapsed everyone assumed the Cold War between Russia(USSR) and the USA was over.
Wrong, the Soviet Union collapse was a financial debacle because the dictators thought they could keep up with the USA in the arms race, but since they were a totalitarian country with no free enterprise incentive they were not able to generate enough GDP to stay in Reagan's race to dominance.
But the KGB members just changed their uniforms and mannerisms for business suits and tried to begin a quasi-free Enterprise system.

There were cronies associated with the government a few oligarchs that became billionaires off profits from the vast mineral deposits and oil supplies that are found in the large land mass that is Russia.
But the average person. The so called middle class never really developed to sustain the conversion to a real Free Enterprise system.

In 1991 Yeltsin came to power with a wave of high expectations. On 12 June 1991 he was elected president of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic with 57% of the vote, becoming the first popularly elected president. But Yeltsin never recovered his popularity after a series of economic and political crises in Russia in the 1990s. The Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption, economic collapse, and enormous political and social problems. By the time he left office, Yeltsin had an approval rating of two percent by some estimates.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991, Yeltsin, vowing to transform Russia's socialist command economy into a free market economy, endorsed price liberalization and privatization programs. Due to corruption and other factors, a good deal of the national wealth fell into the hands of a relatively small group of people. Source:Wikapedia

Today as President Obama pays a visit to the Kremlin to talk nice with President Medvedev, he is talking with the "puppet" of KGB member Vladimir Putin. The real power and aspiring dictator of the Russian people.
In his talks we can assume that Obama will try to smooth over the animus that the Russian leadership has for America. The talk will be pleasant, but all the promises will be for naught if we really think that Putin and his KGB fellow travelers will co-operate in any effort to accommodate the USA!

For decades the Russian leadership and via the propaganda network of government controlled media, the Russian people, are hateful and jealous of US Americans.

The one thing that stands out in all the speeches and news that comes from Russia is that they blame the USA for their problems. Not the degradation caused by Communism and lack of Religion in the country. The Daily Der Spiegel has a revealing article in today's issue that reveals the attitude toward the USA. The following quote should give some insight as to how Russia feels about any concessions or demand( more like requests from Obama) will be received.

"Putin's explicit goal upon assuming power in 2000 was to reverse as much as possible of the geopolitical imbalance imposed upon Russia during the 1990s. He believes that in that decade of Russia's extreme financial weakness, the country effectively lost its sovereignty. The US and its NATO allies, he argued, used the opportunity to re-constitute the world order over Russia's head. They expanded NATO eastward and reshaped other international institutions to serve their agenda. They treated Russia's domestic economic, political and social policies as their own project, engaging in a crusade to shape Russia in their own image for their own interests. Putin's priority during his tenure as president, from 2000-2008, was to reverse the West's leverage over Russia".

"It would be a mistake to believe that the Russians will view any concessions that Obama makes as something that requires counter-concessions on their part. The Russians will be happy to use US concerns about Iran or arms control to elicit concessions if they can. But they will not consider themselves bound by any "deal." Stationing of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, admission of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO and Western involvement in the North Caucasus -- none of these are bargaining chips for the Russians. They oppose them without qualification, and they are non-negotiable".

It is not hard for me to come to the conclusion that the Russians see the softness in the U.S. president by observing his willingness to allow North Korea to provoke war with their violation of the ban on nuclear weapons and their firing of at least 12 missiles in the last few weeks. His willingness to talk to Iranian leadership without any preconditions is also a sign of his timidity toward foreign threats even though he is quick to use intimidation within our own country to establish his socialistic goals.The firing of the special prosecutor over the telephone,and the way he intimidated bond holders of Chrysler Corp. are just a few examples.

In the negotiations going in Moscow, both sides seemed to try to skirt a dispute that should be discussed but could have derailed the summit — the fate of an American missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, which was proposed by the Bush administration.

American officials have said the system is intended to ward off attacks from countries like Iran, but the Kremlin views it as a threat to Russia.How can a missile defense system intended to defend against incoming attacks be a treat? This is just so much verbal bovine excrement!

Before the summit meeting, Mr. Medvedev asserted that the United States would have to compromise on the system before Russia would sign off on an arms control agreement.

All this tells me that the Cold War is still on, we just do not recognize it as such, or we choose to ignore it at our own peril!

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!

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

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

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!!

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?

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!

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 gestured 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!!

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?