So much for campaign promises. It appears that another betrayal of trust of American voters who were confused by the silvery tongue of Obama, is about to happen.
Remember Obama the "Messiah" demonizing rich people and corporations who give large bonuses, who were the Target of massive tax hikes to pay for his myriad of social programs.
Well, they found out there is not enough money to pay for his socialization of America even if he takes all the money the "rich" have. Even if he begins with people who make 250K a year. The middle class small business owners! The back bone of the middle class.


Appearing on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” Sunday, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner floated President Obama’s next big move: a tax increase on middle-class Americans.

Geithner made it clear during the interview that the administration believes that new federal revenues are needed, and he declined to rule out raising taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000 per year to get those revenues.

During the interview, host George Stephanopoulos pointed out to Geithner that the “Congressional Budget Office estimates that your budget will add $9 trillion to the national debt over the next decade.”

Stephanopoulos also noted that former Clinton Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Roger Altman has said that a tax increase is needed.

“Independent analysts also say ... you're going to have to find new government revenues,” said Stephanopoulos. “The former deputy treasury secretary, Roger Altman, said: ‘It is no longer a matter of whether tax revenues must increase, but how.’ Is he right?”

Geither did not disagree with Altman.

“George it is absolutely right and very important for everyone to understand that we will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we are--can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established,” said Geithner.

Geithner said the country is going to have to face what he called “a very difficult challenge: in getting the size of the deficit down.

“And the necessary path to fiscal responsibility, the necessary path to getting this country living within our means again is not just health care reform, to bring down those costs, but we're going to do a range of other things,” Geithner said. “And that's going to be a very difficult challenge to this country. We can do this, it just requires the will to act.”

Asked Stephanopoulos:”Including new revenues?”

“Well, we're going to have to look at--we're going to have to do what is necessary,” said Geithner. “Remember the critical thing is people understand that when we have recovery established, led by the private sector, and we have to bring these down, deficits down very dramatically. We have to bring them down to a level where the amount we're borrowing from the world is stable at a reasonable level. And that's going to require some very hard choices. And we're going to have to try to do that in a way that does not add to the--unfairly to the burdens that the average American already faces.”

Stephanopoulos then tried to get Geithner to rule out a tax increase, which Geithner would not do.

“So revenues are on the table as well?” asked Stephanopoulos.

“Again, we're not at the point yet where we're going to make a judgment about what it's going to take,” said Geithner.

“But you're not ruling it out. You can't rule it out,” said Stephanopoulos.

“Well, I think that what the country needs to do is understand we're going to have to do what it takes,” said Geithner. “We're going to do what's necessary".
SOURCE:CNSNEWS/COM

The 2008 OECD study found that the US taxed the top 10% more than all other OECD countries. Yes, more than Sweden, France, etc). If they're going to spend money like water, it's almost inevitable the tax revenue extracted from the middle class had to increase. What's ironic is that the Obama administration keeps claiming health reform is needed to address budget deficits!

With Obama's poll approval numbers falling and the polls showing that a majority of Americans oppose the government take over of the best health care in the World.
The Speaker of the House of Representatives is using an Obamaism to deflect the anger that the voters have toward her and Harry Reid for trying to ram through socialized medicine.

The Reuters News Service has this report in which Pelosi attempts to demonize the Insurance Industry. The same people who made it possible to put down the HMO Industry's attempt to control and dictate who and how Americans could be treated by doctors. The insurance industry brought us the PPO concept, that allows patients to select any doctor and pays the doctor a decent fee unlike the HMO's who dictate that you use one of their panel doctors and limit the amount of payment that is covered under the provisions of the HMO contract!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday "the glory days are coming to an end" for the health insurance industry and predicted it will fail to stop healthcare overhaul legislation moving through Congress.

Speaking to reporters as the House prepared to go into a monthlong August recess, she cited the example of cancer patients who "will not have a cap on the benefits that they receive," if the current proposals are passed.

She said Democrats in August will counter the insurance industry's "shock and awe" campaign against healthcare reform and said the industry is "the biggest opponent of this passing with a public option in it." The House bill would include a government-run public insurance option to compete with private insurers.

Maybe "the glory days" for Pelosi should end. She flies home with her entourage very frequently on a military plane, an if it is not a big plane she complains to the military authorities.

Representatives for Judicial Watch, which obtained e-mails and other documents from a Freedom of Information request, said the correspondence shows Pelosi has abused the system in place to accommodate congressional leaders and treated the Air Force as her "personal airline."

Pelosi's office disputed the claim, pointing to White House policy enacted after the Sept. 11 attacks allowing for the House speaker to travel to his or her congressional district via military aircraft whenever possible for security reasons. Her office said she typically uses the same kind of aircraft used by her predecessor, Dennis Hastert.

But Judicial Watch said that Pelosi was notorious for making special demands for high-end aircraft, lodging last-minute cancellations and racking up additional expenses for the military.

The e-mails showed repeated attempts by Pelosi aides to request aircraft, sometimes aggressively, and by Department of Defense officials to accommodate them.
According to the group, she took at least 50 military flights between February 2007 and November 2008.

Using private charter rates, 50 flights coast to coast would cost close to $1 million.
This is not about her having secure communications and secure aircraft available to her. It's about an arrogance of extravagance that demands a jumbo jet that cost $22,000 an hour to operate to taxi her and her buddies back and forth to California.

CNN and The Washington Times reported that it's the equivalent of a 757 military aircraft. It has 42 seats. It's what the Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense use to travel to the Middle East. . This is what we use for cabinet secretaries to get halfway around the world.

Pelosi is the last one who should refer to any business as living the "the glory days"! But then as a Democrat and a devotee of Obama, she comes by the identity demonizing naturally!

Behind the slippery smooth talk that president Obama spins almost every day is a calculating community organizer who wants to "change" our Republic into a collective "nanny" state.
He is a student of history in some areas, even if he did not know that Hirohito was NOT the Japanese representative that signed the surrender on the battleship Missouri.He apparently is trying to follow the methods and procedures that Roosevelt used to get Social Security passed, and LBJ used to pass the original Medicare bill.

If you bear with me, and work your way through this lengthy Blog. You will see the comparison.

In 1965 the Social Security Act was amended and Medicare became a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over, or who meet other special criteria.To begin with the thrust was to help people pay for M.D. and hospital care!

Medicare operates as a single-payer health care system. The Social Security Act of 1965 was passed by Congress in late-spring of 1965 and signed into law on July 30, 1965, by President Lyndon B. Johnson as amendments to Social Security legislation. At the bill-signing ceremony President Johnson enrolled former President Harry S. Truman as the first Medicare beneficiary and presented him with the first Medicare card.

Now America stands on a precipice that may turn 1/6th of the GNP over to government control.The medical care industry is the greatest and admittedly the most expensive in the world. Therefore, it is appropriate to study how we got to this point.
Democrats and Socialists in Congress did not wake up on Obama's inauguration day and decide we need to Nationalize the health care!


This attempt to socialize our medical care began decades ago, and this blog will review how we go to this point.
Americans now face the transferring of massive additional powers over their personal health care to the federal government. Politico-economic techniques used to pass the original Medicare legislation in 1965 are being employed again in 2009 to secure passage of expansive new health care measures despite resistance of the public at large. Passage in 1996 of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act,whose less publicized provisions criminalize aspects of the practice of medicine and jeopardize the privacy of doctor-patient relations through a compulsory nationwide electronic database,was achieved largely through techniques similar to those used to pass Medicare.

Correct interpretation of Medicare's politico-economic history is therefore central to understanding ongoing attempts to enlarge the federal government's role in the market for medical care.

Like the Social Security Act that it amended, the 1965 Medicare program was ostensibly a vehicle for reducing dependency in old age. In reality, both laws were dependency-shifting rather than dependency-reducing: mandated dependence of the elderly on the federal government and taxpayers replaced potential dependence on family and charity. This blog describes how and why Medicare became law and considers what the observed pattern of institutional change implies for America's future.

For more than 50 years before the 1965 enactment of Medicare, the American people repeatedly rejected the idea of government-mandated health insurance. Yet advocates of such federal power inside and outside of government did not take no for an answer. Year after year they kept coming back--pursuing incremental strategies, misrepresenting their proposals, even distributing propaganda paid for with government money in apparent violation of existing law. In the end Medicare's passage was anything but a spontaneous societal embrace of one of the pillars of President Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society."

The federal government's involvement with this issue began in earnest in 1934. In that year President Franklin Roosevelt established the Committee on Economic Security (CES) and charged it with drafting a Social Security bill. Although the original CES report on Social Security stated with Roosevelt's approval that a "health insurance plan would be forthcoming," the CES statement caused such a stir that Roosevelt decided to postpone the health insurance issue, fearing that it jeopardized passage of the Social Security bill (Corning 1969: 38).

The provision in the original Social Security bill proposing a "Social Insurance Board" and authorizing study of health insurance was changed so as to delete all reference to health and "rechristen" the board as the "Social Security Board" (Chapman and Talmadge 1970: 342). President Roosevelt had decided that "health insurance should not be injected into the debate at that point, nor should the final report on health be made public as long as the social security bill was still in the legislative mill." Indeed, as of 1969 the final CES report on health still had not been made public.

By 1964 sustained efforts to legislate compulsory health insurance at the national level had continued for three decades. For 30 years since the Committee on Economic Security first endorsed the idea, Congress and the public repeatedly rejected it. In these circumstances, how could a Medicare bill possibly be passed in 1965? First, as shown below, the 1965 bill and the procedures employed in its passage were rife with transaction-cost augmentation, allowing government officials who supported it to impede public opposition.

Consistent with the theory, concurrent changes in the variables posited to be determinants of this behavior more strongly encouraged legislators to support such transaction-cost-increasing measures on the Medicare issue than at any previous time in U.S. history.

Politically, what changed in 1964 was the resounding victory by Democrats in the general elections in November.( sound familiar?) Many perceived the election of Lyndon B. Johnson as an endorsement of compulsory national health insurance and other social programs regarded as pillars of his personal vision of the "Great Society." Congress was heavily in the hands of the Democrats.(This is the way we find ourselves today).
A Gallup poll released on January 3, 1965, showed that efforts to sway public opinion on the national health insurance issue had been at least superficially successful: 63 percent of respondents now approved of the idea of a "compulsory medical insurance program covering hospital and nursing home care for the elderly. To be financed out of increased social security taxes",even though 48 percent of those interviewed still did not know why the AMA opposed the program (Gallup 1972, Vol. 3: 1915).

Political and ideological winds had shifted, nursed by the incremental politics of preceding years. But they had not shifted enough to procure compulsory health insurance for Social Security beneficiaries without deploying a full arsenal of transaction-cost augmenting stratagems to deflect and silence the opposition.

A major obstacle to Medicare legislation was widespread fear that compulsory federal insurance would result in federal control over medicine and over doctor-patient relationships. To counter this fear, the bill's authors drafted a provision specifically disavowing such control,( sounds strangely similar to Obama, Pelosi and Reid's line) the same strategy used to secure passage of public education bills in 1958 and 1965 (Twight 1996).

Questioned about whether the 1964 bill represented socialism, Celebrezze directly addressed the issue of control, stating: "There is nothing in this bill which tells a doctor whom to treat or when to treat him.There is nothing in this bill by which the Government would control the hospital, and as I understand socialism, it is Government control and operation of facilities.It is merely a method of financing hospital care, and that is all" (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 50).

He added,we are a paying agency and I don't see where you get any control of any kind out of that.(today we know he who pays the piper, calls the dance) Naturally, there will be minimum requirements like these which are required now under Blue Cross. I see no evidence where this would lead to control over the doctors [U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 54]. Note: In those days Blue Shield was still run by the Doctors!

Underlying government officials' support for the insurance approach and the myth of the separate trust fund was their desire to remove the associated taxing and spending from the official budget. Such off-budget strategies exemplify a recurrent form of political transaction-cost augmentation in the United States (Twight 1983). Testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee, HEW Secretary Celebrezze stated that "what we are attempting to do,is that we are trying to get away from making the assistance program our first line of defense. To get away from heavy Government expenditures out of general funds"( a flat out lie!) (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 67).

They succeeded, at least initially. As Marmor (1970, 1973: 22) noted, the Social Security programs were "financed out of separate trust funds that were not categorized as executive expenditures; the billions of dollars spent by the Social Security Administration were until 1967 not included in the annual budget the president presented to Congress." But in 1967 that came to a screaching halt!!

In addition to manipulating political information costs in the ways described above, governmental supporters of national health insurance used a variety of other transaction-cost-increasing strategies to increase the costs of taking political action to resist the Medicare proposal. Even in 1965, proponents of compulsory health insurance feared that it could not be passed as a stand-alone measure. Accordingly, they packaged it with the "Social Security Amendments of 1965." Most politically irresistible among the measures contained in the amendments was an across-the-board 7 percent increase in cash benefits to Social Security recipients, a benefit increase made retroactive to January 1, 1965.

The Social Security amendment package also contained politically appealing benefits such as grants for maternal and child health services, liberalization of disability coverage, and the like. Without doubt, these linkages increased the political transaction costs facing the public and facing members of Congress of resisting the compulsory medical insurance proposal.

The tying was not happenstance. In 1964 hearings held by both the House and Senate on Social Security amendments, including compulsory medical insurance as well as an increase in Social Security benefits. The House and Senate passed different versions of the bill increasing benefits, with the medical insurance provisions omitted from the House bill but included as an amendment to the Senate bill. When the conference committee appointed to reconcile the two bills ended in deadlock over the Medicare issue, conferees decided to forgo the Social Security benefit increase passed by both the House and the Senate in a deliberate effort to give Medicare another chance in the following year. As Rep. Byrnes (R., Wisc.) put it, "The amendments to the old-age survivors disability insurance sections of this bill could have been passed last fall if the word had not come down, and the insistence made that 'Oh, no, you have to tie all of these together because of the fear that the medical part of this program could not stand on its own merits'" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 7 April 1965: 7219). The administration's insistence on this linkage was central to its transaction-cost-increasing strategy.

In 1965 the executive support, party support, ideology, and media publicity variables more strongly favored transaction-cost augmentation on the Medicare issue than in any previous year. Both President Roosevelt and President Truman had favored compulsory national health insurance, but for a variety of reasons,Social Security, World War II, the Korean War,each put Medicare legislation on the back burner. President Kennedy was constrained by his narrow electoral margin.

In contrast, after making Medicare a major campaign issue, President Lyndon Johnson won a landslide victory and proceeded to support Medicare actively as one of the pillars of his "Great Society" agenda. Active presidential support for Medicare and the transaction-cost-increasing measures needed to pass it thus encouraged other government officials to employ transaction-cost-augmenting measures on this issue as never before.

The fact that no public hearings were held in the House of Representatives in 1965 meant that the media was less able to inform the public regarding transaction-cost-increasing features of the legislation. Rep. James F. Battin (R., Mont.) noted that if open hearings had been held "the working press of the country could then have advised the people of all 50 States on what the proposals were, the arguments for and against, and then we as representatives of the people could have had an expression from our constituents on their thinking" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7399). The lack of publicity given to transaction-cost-increasing features of the legislation also favored government officials' support for such measures.

Moreover, following the general practice of the Ways and Means Committee, Mills insisted that the committee's bill be considered by the House under a "closed rule" that prevented floor amendments. In floor discussion, representatives complained bitterly about these transaction-cost-increasing strategies. Rep. Curtis (R., Mo.) said he had "urged that there should be open hearings and people with knowledge in our society on this subject should be given the opportunity to come before us" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 4 April 1965: 7229). Curtis recounted the secretive nature of the committee's deliberation:

Congress members knew in 1965 that in passing Medicare they were legislating for all time to come. Political transaction costs had been molded to accomplish precisely that end. Senator Mundt (R., S.D.) regarded it as an "irreversible step" in that Medicare "would be exceedingly difficult to discontinue without breaking faith with those who have to pay the tax" (U.S. House Hearings 1963-64: 264). Senators and administration officials alike understood that they were "legislating in perpetuity" and would face strong pressures to expand the program (U.S. Senate Hearings 1965: 134).

They also knew that Medicare would create a vast new public dependence on the federal government for financial security in old age, continuing the pattern set by Social Security in 1935. Senator Mundt (R., S.D.) described it as "another step toward destroying the independence and self-reliance in America which is the last best hope of individual freedom for all mankind" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 9 July 1965: 16122). Moreover, legislators knew that Medicare would take money from the poor and middle classes to subsidize the rich. Senator Gordon Allott (R., Colo.) described it to the Senate as a "program of 'Robin Hood in reverse'" that showed "complete disregard for need in disbursement" and represented a "giant step" toward making "every citizen as dependent as possible on his Government for his every need" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 8 July 1965: 15935).

But they also knew that Medicare would serve their political interests. As majority leader Rep. Carl B. Albert (D., Okla.) told his colleagues on the House floor, H.R. 6675 "is a bill which in my opinion will serve well those of us who support it, politically and otherwise, through the years" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7435). Or, as Rep. Phillip Burton (D., Calif.) more crassly expressed it, "This bill is going to put into the pockets of my fellow Californians some $213 million its first year.

All in all our fair State and its people in the first year will be favored to the tune of some $550 million, a not modest sum" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-House 8 April 1965: 7429). Without doubt, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 were "so drafted that quite a bit of honey had been placed under the beehive in order to attract the bees" (U.S. Cong. Rec.-Senate 9 July 1965: 16071). TODAY WE CALL IT PORK!

We have seen that political transaction-cost augmentation enabled government officials to embed Medicare in America's institutional structure at precisely the time when all the theoretical determinants of such behavior supported its pro-Medicare use for the first time in U.S. history. Indeed, the strategies most influential in passing and entrenching Medicare had as their goal and effect the manipulation of political transaction costs. By tying Medicare with a 7 percent increase in Social Security benefits, proceeding incrementally, narrowing the bill's coverage, misrepresenting its content, concealing its costs, and using countless other transaction-cost-increasing strategies described in this blog, government supporters of Medicare were able to achieve their objectives. These same tools, so instrumental in passing Medicare, today continue to serve those who seek further increases in federal control over U.S. health care. SOUND FAMILIAR?
Source: Ihe Cato Institute

(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.Is this part of Obama's grandiose schemes?
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

To quote Judie Brown "The current debate over health care is one of those scenarios that might play well in a science-fiction thriller, but must not be allowed to play out on the backs and over the dead bodies of the uninformed. The intent to create a nationalized health-care system appears more and more like a behind-the-scenes project based on government control over who lives and who dies".

In the draft now circulating in the House of Representatives is an alarming concept, but apparently interests only a few of those who should be warning the public about it. The target audience should be those who are approaching age 65 and, of course, those who are elderly and needing care. This target audience is going to become the walking target of Obama’s health-care “reform.”It was not long ago when people like me warned that the culture of death would not be satisfied with abortion, but would push for euthanasia soon. Well, the time is NOW!!

It is time to review the tragedy that beauracratic medicine begets! The following is from an article entitled "IT COULDN'T HAPPEN IN GREAT BRITAIN" PUBLISHED ON THE NET BY NHS BLOG DOCTOR.
• Assessing the priority of care for patients in accident and emergency (A&E) was routinely conducted by unqualified receptionists.

• No all-day, on-call cover by consultants because of shortages meant junior doctors were not adequately supervised.

• The trust had two clinical decision units (CDUs) which staff said were used as dumping grounds to avoid breaching the four-hour target for being treated in A&E

• There were not enough nurses to care properly for emergency patients

• Nurses lacked training

• The shortage of nurses on wards meant call buttons went unanswered…patients were sometimes left for hours in wet or soiled sheets...

• Delays in operations were commonplace

• There was often no experienced surgeon in the hospital after 9pm

• Few patients were given the drug warfarin to help prevent blood clots

• Essential equipment was not always available or working

• The trust board was more concerned with finance, targets and achieving foundation status, with little evidence that poor standards of nursing care were identified or discussed

• The trust was poor at identifying when things went wrong and managing risk

As a result of hospital's "appalling" emergency care, many patients died needlessly! The NHS watchdog has said about 400 more people died at Staffordshire General Hospital between 2005 and 2008 than would be expected, the Healthcare Commission said.Note the words "then would be expected"! If Obama Care is passed all patients "too old" and infirmed will be encouaged to die!

It said there were deficiencies at "virtually every stage" of emergency care and said managers pursued targets at the detriment of patient care.

One of the most damning provisions of the bill being circulated through the House of Representatives and the Senate, includes provisions to designate MEDICAL HOMES!
Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.

The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.

The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.

At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.

The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.

If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."

According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.

Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectivness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”

“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.

A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.

“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.

“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”

The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.

While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, the state is denying some cancer patients care that could extend their lives and is offering them physician-assisted suicide instead. DO AMERICANS WANT THIS TO SATISFY THE 47 MILLION UNINSURED!!

For decades our presidents have recognized that Communist China is one of the "bad Guys" in our universe. They violate the basic human rights of their citizens, have provide arms, materials and soldiers to fight our troops in the Korean and Viet Nam wars.
Now they have backed the USA into a corner with their buying of a massive amount of our Treasury Bonds that are the result of profligate spending by our Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration, and the first six months of Obama has made it worse!

At any rate, the attitude of the Communist Chinese has not changed toward their quest to dominate the economy of the world. And for the past decade our Congress has helped them to attain that objective. Now Obama is poised to make it easier for them with his Cap and Trade and Card Check legislation that will drive what little industrial jobs we still have to either China or India.

As a result of China's holding so much of our debt, and the apparent propensity of Obama for liking totalitarian leaders such as Chavez, Putin and Medvedev and an apparent devotee of One World Order. The attitude of our present government in Washington has softened toward Chinese Communists.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has really gotten the Obama diplomatic routines down pat in the last six months. And right now she's laying things on especially thick. Clinton stood before the assembled journalists, next to the head of the 100-person strong Chinese delegation that's come to Washington for two days of talks, and really let it fly. "Thorough, comprehensive, very open' are the words she uses to describe the two days of talks. She throws in 'direct' and 'very useful' for good measure."What Ms.Clinton did not mention was that China executed 1718 people in 2008. Some for political corruption! Whereas the USA which is a target for anti-death penalty people executed only 37!!

"Enthusiastic words, even for a top diplomat who's practically obliged to be welcoming all high ranking members of foreign countries. And Clinton wasn't alone with her praise. President Barack Obama sounded like a fan of the Chinese Communists in his address. "Cooperation, not confrontation,' he said, should be the goal with China. The US-Chinese relationship would shape the 21st century."

"That's perhaps the most telling part of his message to this meeting, which many experts see as carving a sort of 'G-2' alliance in stone. A new world order, where the US and China will set the tone."
Source: DerSpiegel.com

America is rarely this softspoken. They are ( our elected officials) not quite kowtowing, but bowing quite low to greet the dignitaries from China who have traveled to Washington for bilateral strategy and economic summit. Gone are the days when US politicians made long (and honest) speeches about human rights to the powers that be in the Middle Kingdom. Likewise, they've abandoned the old ritual of criticizing the way China subsidizes its exports, and devalues their money to make their products more appealing to foreign buyers like the USA!

Instead, it is exercising humility. Washington knows what it owes Beijing! The Chinese hold US bonds worth at least $800 billion in their hands. No other nation in the world is in as much debt as is the USA!
The Obama administration should remember that it needs all the friends it can get at this point,and many allies like Germany , England and France are not as inclined to cozy up to China the way Obama's minions are. For example, China shouldn't talk about the USA responsibility, but instead act on their own. And it would be helpful if China was on our side with important problems like North Korea, and Iran.

Obama should be trying to get the Chinese to stop manipulating its currency. It’s buying about $400 billion a year of U.S. dollars with their yuan that it prints, giving them to us by buying our "paper", and that basically keeps their currency cheap and makes those products artificially cheap in our markets.

Yesterday,the Obama administration began a two day high level meeting with the Chinese Communists. President Obama kicked the "pow-wow" off with a speech that implied he and his administration want a partnership with the Chinese.
U.S. President Barack Obama set the tone of his administration's first high-level talks with China Monday by focusing on "mutual interests" the two countries share rather than growing tensions on trade and currency issues.

I guess he and his followers forgot that it was 56-years ago on the same day that the U.S. and North Korea signed the armistice that ended active combat in America’s forgotten war. More than 36,000 Americans gave their lives defending South Korea from invasion first by the communist North and then by the Red Chinese Army.
With the exception of pressing China on respect for human rights, Mr. Obama laid out a broad range of areas where the U.S. will seek to find common ground over the course of the two-day talks, from the economic crisis and climate change to nuclear and terrorist threats.
How he will bring China to adhere to reducing CO2 emissions after they have already announced that they will not reduce them because it would affect their economy negatively, is a question to ponder.

What kind of partnership can you have with a country that does not have religious freedom, freedom of speech and is run by a dictatorship?
The Chinese are holders of 900 billion dollars of our national debt, and are concerned that the socialist spending of Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress is devaluating their investment.

China is threatening to liquidate the $900B in U.S. bonds that they hold, which would likely send the U.S. tumbling into a recession and send the value of the dollar plummeting. China scares me. It was just a decade ago that the U.S. had more soft power than any other nation in the world. Now it’s China. Maybe this is the main reason for the Chinese visit to Washington!?

As a wise man once said: "It will be a cold day in H**l when China does anything to destabilize the U.S. Dollar because the U.S. is by far China’s number one customer, and also because the United States is also China’s number one investor. If the U.S. dollar is worth less then we have less money to invest in China. They will just sell some if not a major portion of the bonds they hold to African nations and some unsuspecting European Country. They will not be caught holding the bag!

China's deplorable record on human rights cannot be "redeemed" by
the economic progress that took place mostly because U.S. industries have moved their plants to China.
Major industries and politicians do not care about slave labor. They do not care about the execution of the innocent. They do not care about human rights. They care about copyrights and profits, and China satisfies both!

But what they( American companies) have done is to help turn China into an economic and military giant. But it is still a communist giant which crushes human beings.Make no mistake about this point!

Is this the type of country we should be partnering with? Remeber bad things happen in the world when there is uncertainty about the U.S. commitment to defend freedom against oppression!

VINCE LOMBARDI THE PATRON SAINT OF THE GREEN BAY PACKERS. Once said: "victory isn't
everything, it is the only thing"!

Of course Vince was a football coach, but in his mind if you put on the pads you should want and expect to win!
Unfortunately we now have a Commander in Chief of our armed forces who thinks it is perfectly all right to send our young men and women into harms way(aka war) without the objective being to attain victory!
The "meat grinder"of war has claimed 58,159 victims in Vietnam, 52,246 in Korea without a victory, and now as I said in a blog six months ago, apparently Obama wants to repeat the debacle of those two killing fields.

OBAMA has ordered 21,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan, mainly in the south where Taliban militants have made a violent comeback after a U.S.-led coalition topped them from power in late 2001. The U.S. expects 68,000 troops here by year's end, double last year's total.

When the president sends men into a war zone, peace keeping action, or United Nations police action as the Vietnam and Korean war were called. There are deaths, serious wounds to mind and body of those who are sent to fight. I think it is tantamount to dereliction of the duties of the office of POTUS, to send troops off to die unless they can be allowed to win! The words out of Obama's mouth apparently indicate that he thinks differently! As this statement illustrates:

"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 Thursday 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, the smart and eloquent man who speaks with a silver tongue does not know that the Emperor was in his palace while the Prime Minister signed the surrender on the battleship Missouri!!
Since Obama took office 33 Americans have been killed in action. Untold number have been wounded, since the media no longer reports the statistics.But it appears 4330 brave troops have been killed in a valiant effort to win a victory over the Taliban.However, their commander in chief thinks it is not important!

Not only has the CIC said victory is not his objective, but apparently his commander in the field is more concerned with "collateral damage" than winning at all costs. He said this recently.
"We must avoid the trap of winning tactical victories - but suffering strategic defeats - by causing civilian casualties or excessive damage and thus alienating the people," McChrystal said in a recent statement.

Once again I want to state that it is criminal to send men to war unless you allow them to win!!

9:27:05 AMThe London Telegraph site on the Internet has this to say about Americans reaction to his attempt to "ram" through Obama Care.
"A USA Today/Gallup survey suggested that six months into his presidency, his popularity was lower than George W Bush's at the same stage of his tenure.

Amid rising unemployment and falling confidence in his economic plans, Mr Obama's job approval rating has dropped by nine points since January to 55 per cent, a point below his predecessor in mid-2001.


The Washington Post also showed Obama's job approval falling below 60 per cent for the first time since he was sworn in as the nation's first black president, with a marked drop in the last month.

The president is facing criticism about how he is going to pay for $1 trillion plans to reform the US health care system. Half of respondents in one poll disapproved of his health care policy compared with just 44 per cent who approved".

If voters at home do not already realize that Obama and the Democrats in Congress are pushing to add to the voter supporters by pushing Amnesty for illegals. This quote from the Congressional Record will illustrate how far they are willing to push US that believe in the rule of law!
"Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called "public health insurance option." Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure!

And to top it off the National Review is reporting; "Immigration analyst James R. Edwards Jr. reported last week that "no health legislation on the table requires federal, state or local agencies -- or private institutions receiving federal funds -- to check the immigration status of health-program applicants, so some of the money distributed via Medicaid and tax credits inevitably would go to illegal aliens." Moreover, the Senate Finance Committee plan creates a new preference for illegal aliens by exempting them from the mandate to buy insurance.
So illegals are given an exemption that allows them to not be forced into Obama Care that we citizens will not have. Who do the Congress "potentates" represent?

How do these arrogant, presumptuous politicians believe they can know enough to plan for the rest of us? Who do they think they are? Under cover of helping uninsured people get medical care, they live out their megalomaniac social-engineering desires, thus putting our physical and economic health at risk in the process.

When will the American people say "Enough!"?

The special inspector general for TARP Niel Barofsky will testify Tuesday before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The office of the special inspector general was created to serve as an auditor of the federal bailout by the same legislation that launched the TARP program itself.

Originally, TARP was intended, Barofsky writes, to facilitate “the purchase, management, and sale of up to $700 billion of “toxic” assets, primarily troubled mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.”

But that plan was soon rejected, and the TARP instead became a grab bag of bailout initiatives, including bailouts for GM, Chrysler and auto parts suppliers as the federal government struggled in real time to contain a spiraling economic disaster.

Barofsky reports that TARP has come to include 12 separate programs that include a total of as much as $3 trillion, “including TARP funds, loans and guarantees from other agencies, and private money.” Of the initial $700 billion allocated by Congress, Barofsky found that the Treasury has so far announced how $643.1 billion will be spent, and it has actually spent $441 billion as of June 30

Barofsky’s calculation of a $23 trillion figure took into account a wide-ranging group of federal programs set up by disparate agencies within the federal bureaucracy. Secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geitner, will probably have him waterboarded for saying things like "Yeah, nobody at Treasury even knows where the banks put all that money we gave them."
The special inspector general counted approximately 50 initiatives or programs launched since 2007 to fight the economic collapse.

The Federal Reserve, he found, has increased its balance sheet from $900 billion to more than $2 trillion, and Barofsky estimated that the total amount of support to the economy by the Fed. is at least $6.8 trillion, because it is exposed to significant losses if many of the assets guaranteed by the Fed deteriorate in value.

Barofsky points out the non-TARP programs, which are far larger than the TARP itself, do not come with the strings that the high-profile TARP money itself comes with, including executive compensation, and they don’t necessarily require congressional approval. And beyond the ability to tally their costs, Barofsky has no authority as an auditor over the non-TARP programs.

I believe that if your aim is to "remake America" as Obama has promised to do, you must first examine the following definitions. Then you will realize that the "CHANGE" is a radical turn toward socialism at the very least!

Socialism - when Government owns the means of production.
Fascism - When the Government controls the means of production.
Marxism - when the workers own the means of production

This quote by Obama illustrates that you can not judge a man by what he says, but what he has done and proposes to do.

Obama has said this: “I want to disabuse people of this notion that somehow we enjoy, you know, meddling in the private sector,” Any thoughtful person will quickly note that for a man who profess to not want to "meddle" in the private sector.His Health Care Plan, Cap and Trade, and take over of General Motors put the LIE to his protestations!
In particular, the actions in dealing with Chrysler and GM, this seems to be true. The main problem is, for those that believe in the Rule of Law, the Right to Private Property, in fairness and equality, and the free market of capitalism (which has created more wealth for more people than any other system in the world's history!), this headline from John At Powerline seems to say it all.

"The Chrysler reorganization was another milestone in the decline of the rule of law under Barack Obama. We've said for quite a while that bankruptcy is the only viable option for Chrysler and General Motors, not--as Obama claims--because they don't know how to make the right kinds of vehicles, but because their unsustainable union contracts make it impossible for them to be profitable. That reality has now been turned on its head, as the administration has tried to bully Chrysler's secured creditors into going away, while the United Auto Workers Union, solely on the basis of political clout, would be paid at an implied rate of 50 percent and would emerge owning 55 percent of the company, with the government also holding a stake.
When some of the secured creditors refused to be intimidated, Obama libeled them in the press, saying, outrageously, "I don't stand with those who held out when everyone else is making sacrifices." Actually, under Obama's plan the politically favored parties, principally the UAW, will benefit--will steal money, to put it crudely--from the parties who held out. Those parties call themselves the "non-TARP lenders", and instead of getting placed in the front of the line for re-reimbursement as the Constitution demands. Obama put them literally, "in the back of the Bus"!

Not only is this an act that shreds the Constitution, but shows how people who have the temerity to oppose Obama will be treated--intimidation!
Remember this - the Obama's Government HAS to make these Trillions of our dollars actually work or he AND the Congressional Democrats are toast! They have to have private investment to assist in order to be successful. Ask yourself this question: while the lure of profits is strong, what sensible fund manager is going to partner with the Destroyer-of-Wealth-in-Chief as long as Obama keeps throwing our money away?

There was supposed to be a midsummer budget report released a few days ago, the middle of July. But Obama has conveniently hidden it away for an extra month. Why? Health care legislation. Global warming cap-and-trade legislation. He is hiding the fact that these initiatives, futile as they are anyway, simply cannot be paid for under any scenario whatsoever. Not the best-case rosy scenario that Obama and his minions painted back in February, and certainly not under the worst-case, which is far closer to where we are. The White House has been forced to paint an economic picture that is at best smoke and mirrors, and at worst an outright fraud! Source:thebogproof;Obama

There was no stimulus in the stimulus bill. Most of the money is to be spent in 2010, an election year! The facts are in the numbers that "porkulus" was and is an utter failure. Even worse is that the actual unemployment rate is only as low as it is because many of the unemployed have simply given up on finding a job and are thus off of the statistics.Nationally we are at 105, BUT IN MANY STATES THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ARE APPROACHING 12except for Michigan that stands at 15%!

The nation's debt ( the total of accumulated annual budget deficits ) now stands at $11.6 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and totally ignores previous indebtedness that is still outstanding.

This is supposed to be a representative government, and facts such as the mid-summer budget report should not be hidden from the population to foist upon them something they would not want if they had been informed. But that is exactly what is happening under Obama. Wasn't this supposed to be the most transparent administration in U.S. history? The only transparency here is in the seeing of the dishonesty at every step of the way. When will the electorate finally wake up? In fact, when will most of the MSM wake up? They've been in bed, with a smooth-talking Obama, and if and when the wake up.That next morning will be a doozy for them!

And as I bring this tome to a close I just learned that the Senate has voted to strip $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets that President Obama said was unnecessary and would doom a $680 bill authorizing defense spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

The 58-40 vote prevents Obama from carrying out a threat to use the first veto of his presidency if senators had kept the designation in the defense bill.

Obama thanked the senators for approving the amendment that he says will "better protect our troops." Absurd statement or a Commander in Chief!

Obama said he rejected the notion that the country has to "waste billions of taxpayers dollars" on outdated defense projects.
When has the newest fighter jet, that is operational, an outdated weapon? This president is dangerous!

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" RONALD REAGAN

The way Obama is trying to ram his health Care socialisation is by telling us that if Congress does not pass by the end of summer, children will die and many people
will go bankrupt---FEAR!!
If you an get by the intimidation and fear generated by Obama and look at just what the Progressive Socialists want to slip by US. You will find some of the demands,in fact most of the proposed legislation is about control!!
In a blog short enough not to turn off any potential reader. I can not list all the negatives , but I will list a few that should make you get really angry if you are not inclined to Socialism!

"CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports that "the legal use of tobacco products is the only vice for which insurance companies will be able to charge their customers higher premiums," adding, "a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium." Jeffrey further notes that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of "reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits" to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Private individual coverage will be outlawed by attrition.AND YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVE TO THE IRS THAT YOU HAVE AN APPROVED HEALTH CARE PLAN OR YOU WILL BE FINED THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS AND ENROLLED IN THE OABAMA CARE! If you do not believe me read pages 150-156 of the plan.

During the presidential campaign, Republicans, including candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain, warned about the tax implications of electing Obama president. They were right. House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) announced late last Friday that Congress would pay for health care by hiking taxes on the households earning more than $350,000 per year and individuals earning $280,000. The hike would put New York's top bracket at nearly 60 percent. Rangel predicts revenue of $540 billion over 10 years. Democrats' ultimate goal is to have the highest income earners pay for health care for everyone else. But even the liberal Washington Post editorialized, "There is simply no way to close the [funding] gap by taxing a handful of high earners."

To cover part of this deficiency, Democrats propose cutting tax breaks for hospitals because they don't provide enough charitable care to earn them any longer. According to the American Hospital Directory, fewer than half of the 5,482 hospitals in the country actually pay federal, state or local taxes. That will change. Furthermore, the hospital industry agreed this week to take $155 billion less in payments from the government, leaving the money to cover the uninsured.

Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) added an amendment to the bill that would require all health insurance companies to provide unspecified "preventive care and screenings" for "pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age." Asked if this would include abortion, Mikulski sidestepped: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate." Source: Patriot Post

To say that this will help all Americans is nothing less than a bold faced misrepresentation! They(DEMS.) say that there are 47 million uninsured. What they do not tell you is that over 20 thousand of this group make over 50 thousand dollars year, are under 40, in good enough health that they would rather spend their money on a new car or a bigger home!
Another 12 million are illegal aliens!

Before we allow Congress to pass this heinous legislation we should look at what is happening in Tennessee. A state that tried to run a government controlled health plan.Of course the Liberals say we can run it better than the state of Tenn. but when has the Federal government run a program better? Medicare, Social Security, Amtrak, Postal Service? I think NOT!

Tennessee is in the process of cutting about 150,000 people from the TennCare program after a reevaluation of enrollee eligibility to participate in the state-run insurance program.

TennCare, the managed care Medicaid program that began in 1994, now serves about 1.2 million people in the state and has a $7 billion budget. That’s after cuts were made.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was a Tennessee state senator through much of the TennCare problems and believes it is a forecast of what would happen under federal health care “public option” plan. While supporters of the Tennessee program said it would save money, it wound up eating 38 percent of the state’s budget, she said.

“As a result of this, insurance rates for those who have private coverage were going through the roof,” Blackburn told a gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week.Source:CNS NEWS

“There is no example that you can point to that shows where having private insurance in competition with the public option brings the costs down. It leads to exploding costs,” she said.
WE are already in debt up to our noses. Obama will take us to the drowning point!