WE ARE THE WORLD

Americans that heard or read Obama’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly should not let him get away with the way he talked about our country in his disgraceful and dishonorable speech. There is no other way you can put it. You have never heard of any other American president talking in such away as he did. In his opening comments he said, "For those who question the character and cause of my nation, I ask you to look at the concrete actions we have taken in just nine months." What concrete actions? Then he proceeded to spout off those "concrete actions," such as prohibiting torture -- as if to suggest that prior to his ascension to president, torture had been official U.S. policy. Who is he kidding? It is like he is saying in a roundabout way, down with America. Why is he always in his speeches apologizing for America? When is he or his wife every going to say anything good about America?
Take notice that he didn't say, "For those who question America's character, I want to mention to you our record of international compassion, kindness, goodwill, peacemaking and peacekeeping, liberating countries from cruel tyrants, upholding democracy throughout the world, and leading the world in industrial and scientific improvements and the very advancement of civilization." Never once did he say anything about the billions and billions of “United States Dollars” that was given to hurting and undeveloped countries. Not once did he say whenever there is a major world disaster the United States is always there with over whelming man power and aid. Did he say anything like that? “NO” Instead, he made it very clear that he shares the view of the world's liberals, socialist, and communist critics that America has acted "to do what the United States wants to do without regarding or considering the interests of others," He said that the American people were "arrogant" and "sometimes dismissive." In other words, he is saying, that the we are bigheaded, arrogant, and high and mighty. Is this what we want from the man that was elected to the highest office in our land? Is this who was voted for and elected to be the leader of the free world?
For the people that still does not believe that Obama is not particularly fond of this country’s founding values, freedom and our traditions, you can at least concede that Obama has contempt for American’s outstanding and extraordinary excellence and prefers that this nation not be the world's sole superpower? He has said it and has showed it in his actions. Or that he believes Americans possess an large amount of the world's wealth, which is morally wrong and he is also not especially protective of America's national sovereignty? We can see all this by the way he speaks and by his actions. Once again this is the man that was elected to the highest office in this land.
Obama isn't content merely engaging in a scheme to totally redistribute the income and wealth of Americans internally (to the tune of some $1 trillion from the top 30 percent of income earners to the lower 70 percent through his proposals on taxes, health care and the environment, according to the Tax Foundation). He also believes Americans should be compelled to redistribute their resources to the world's poor, as well. This is who was elected as our president. Do you remember when Obama said the following in Chicago on Oct. 2, 2007? "In the 21st century, progress must mean more than a vote at the ballot box; it must mean freedom from fear and freedom from want. We cannot stand for the freedom of anarchy. Nor can we support the globalization of the empty stomach. We need new approaches to help people to help themselves. The United Nations has embraced the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015. When I'm president, they will be America's goals. The Bush administration tried to keep the U.N. from proclaiming these goals; the Obama administration will double foreign assistance to $50 billion to lead the world to achieve them. In the 21st century, we cannot stand up before the world and say that there's one set of rules for America and another for everyone else."
True to his word, though it was hardly reported in the news, Obama made this statement in his U.N. speech: "We have fully embraced the Millennium Development Goals." I'm not sure where he got the authority to make that one-sided statement, but needless to say he made it. I guess now since he is president, he thinks he can do what he wants and say what he wants instead of having to deal with the legislative process. Obama and his czars rule. Take a look at why the Bush administration opposed the harmless sounding "Millennium Development Goals"?
These goals by the united nations has a multi pronged assault on America's national sovereignty? It also commits contributing nations to be bound by the International Criminal Court treaty; (you would be tried in a world court of laws not ours) support regional disarmament measures for small arms and light weapons; (in others words we would have no second rights amendment. You would not be allowed to own a gun.) and press for the full execution of the Convention on Biological Diversity, which Wikipedia describes as "an international legally binding treaty" that includes among its goals a "fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources," the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, described as "an international bill of rights for women," and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which purports to be a "legally binding international instrument" that gives children the right to express their own opinions "freely in all matters affecting the child" and requires those opinions be given "due weight." The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as "the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development." Where does the family unit come in this goal.
Without a doubt we are becoming less and less a free nation because under Obama, "We Are the World."

SPREADING THE WEALTH AROUND – or the makers verse the takers

I was told in a comment in one of my recent articles that I beat things to death and it is time to move on. I might go overboard sometimes with my articles but to be quite frank, I'm tired of being beat to death with all the programs that this government has, or is, putting into place, which is breaking my back and all other working taxpayers in this country. It is a time for all Americans to speak out. When Barack Obama told Joe the Plumber he planned to "spread the wealth around," many people didn't realize he was not talking about spreading the wealth only of the super-rich. Now after Obama is elected, he is rapidly expanding welfare handouts for non-taxpayers, running up a incredible national debt that will without doubt lead to higher taxes on working middle class Americans. Without a doubt this is in the process of happening. Did you ever stop to think why he is doing this?

The sheer size of this transfer of money away from working, taxpaying Americans to non-taxpayers (who voted overwhelmingly for Obama for president in 2008) has just been detailed in a incredible 53-page report by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. This is a very good and informative article to read. I recommend everyone to read this. There are not enough words in the English language to effectively describe the massive amounts of money involved in the Obama administration's shocking cash transfers. He is spreading the wealth around as he said he wanted to do during his campaign.


Most people don't realize that the federal budget has become a vast machine for transferring wealth from the upper third of Americans (who pay 90 percent of federal income taxes) to the lowest third of people, who earn less than 200 percent of the government-stipulated "poverty" level and pay no income tax. The size of this massive annual transfer rose by 40 percent to $714 billion over the last 10 years and is projected to rise to $1 trillion per year by the end of Obama's first term because he is helping it along by his spreading the wealth around.

The term "welfare" embraces much more than this one program which was called AFDC that was "reformed" (and renamed TANF) in 1996. It includes 70 other programs that provide unearned cash and non-cash benefits to people living in low-income households (but does not include Social Security, Medicare and unemployment compensation, which are earned through work and available to almost everyone). Obama did not start them, he is just expanding these programs beyond all imagination. Most of these government programs was started with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society welfare programs. Like most government programs, the cost of these welfare and aid-to-poor-and-low-income-persons handouts has increased, and Obama has demanded enormous additional increases, which Congress passed in the stimulus and omnibus bills. So part of our money in the stimulus package goes to people who will not work. Maybe it is to stimulate them to work.

Welfare spending was 13 times greater in the fiscal year 2008 than it was when LBJ started the Great Society in 1964. Welfare spending then was 1.2 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP) and now has reached 5 percent. How much longer can this be put on the back of working tax payers? I wonder how much of our welfare system is being used to keep people who really could work but will not?

These programs are now the third most expensive government activity, ranking below Social Security and Medicare spending, and education spending. National Defense ranks only fourth. The real cost of these programs is unknown to the American people (one could say, kept secret from them) because the spending is dispersed and circulated by 14 departments and agencies though 71 different programs. We are fortunate that Robert Rector, a numbers expert, has made a painstaking investigation and study to show some light upon these transfers.

In fiscal year 2008, government spending on welfare or aid to the poor amounted to $714 billion, of which approximately three-fourths was federal spending and one-fourth came from state government funds. States are required to match a percentage of federal welfare outlays.

Of the total spending in Fiscal Year 2008, 52 percent was spent on medical care for the poor and low-income persons, 37 percent was spent on cash, food and housing aid, and 11 percent was spent on social services, training, child development, federal education aid and community development for low-income persons and communities. Roughly half goes to disabled or elderly persons, and the other half to households with children mostly headed by single mothers. (Where is the father in this deal?) Look at the cost of just this one thing!

Robert Rector ran an adding machine tape and concluded that handouts in Fiscal Year 2008 amounted to about $16,800 for every poor person, defined as below 100 percent of the selected poverty level. When welfare spending is related to the larger group of persons who qualify for benefits below 200 percent of the "poverty" level, we are giving $28,000 per year to every lower-income four-person household. How can a country keep this sort of thing up?

Why are we told that we have so much unfairness in the United States? Where is this unfairness? The unfairness is supporting millions of people who are truly capable or working and supporting their self and their children. It is because the Census counts only 4 percent of these welfare gifts to low-income people as their income, and most government discussions of poverty do not even refer to the massive transfers of money taking place as we can see here. To get an idea of how big the debt Obama is creating is, which in the end will have to be paid by the middle class tax payer, let's compare spending on welfare to spending on fighting wars. Since the beginning of LBJ's Great Society, our government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on welfare, which is more than twice the cost of all major fighting wars in U.S. history. We spent only $4.1 trillion (in 2008 dollars) on World War II, which was the most expensive single undertaking in U.S. history.

Under Obama's budget, which has already been passed by Congress, federal welfare spending will increase by $88 billion in 2009, plus an additional $175 billion in 2010. This two-year increase of $263 billion will bring total federal and state welfare handouts to $890 billion a year. Needless to say there are some people who need our help and we should do everything we can for them, We should be exactly like "The Good Samaritan", we should all go all out to help the needy, but the buck should stop there and it does not. We have people that have been kept by this Great Society since its conception during the LBJ years who would rather live off the government than work. The problem is that their children have been taught the same thing and their children's children are doing the same thing. This is one of the main reasons for the over load. The problem is increasing year after year. The fact is some people know that if you are a low income person you can get more money from the government by not working and still get more food, more health care, and a ton of other free benefits from this Great Society. This kind of help not only hurts the people who truly need it, it strains the tax payer, and takes away much needed resources from other important projects that are needed.

Protecting The Vulnerable

The countries of Poland and the Czech Republic are speaking out about Barack Obama's decision to cancel and abandon plans for a Europe-based missile defense system. Several officials, from different countries, in the region have said that the move will improve Washington's interaction with Moscow at the expense of the United States Eastern European allies. They are the allies who have stuck with us since 911 and supported us with troops and other things that are needed to fight terrorism. What a price tag! Obama said that the United States is abandoning plans to build a defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic aimed at intercepting missiles from other countries.
This missile based system was endorse and put forward by former president George W. Bush to defend against missiles launched from what he called "rogue" states such as Iran and North Korea.

Russia was strongly opposed and against the system, saying it undermined its national security interests and could lead to more instability in Europe. Obama has said and made clear that it wants to "reset" relations with Russia, so the two former Cold War foes can cooperate and work together on Iran, fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, and reducing their vast nuclear arsenals. The question is who is really reducing their arsenals. What will it take next to reset our relations with Russia the next time? How can a country with this country that is helping Iran? What is the real goal here?

Poland's National Security Bureau are expressing concerns and alarm about the move, saying the presence of American troops on Polish soil would have increased the country's security. They say Russia will now try to increase its influence and power in former Soviet satellite states, including Poland. Are we going backwards here?

This kind of decision presents proof to the world and our allies that the United States is recognizing Russia's wishes in this part of the world. It is like kicking our allies to the curb. This is just like endorsing what Russia wants. I think we should be very worried about that kind of approach. Nobody opposes better relations between the United States and Russia. It is what we all want. But it should never be done at the expense and security of our allies or in a manner which confirms Russia's unfounded claims to be the decisive force in this part of Europe." This is the same as turning our back on our friends when a bully is looking over them. While Moscow insists that this will lead to more stability in Europe, some analysts and officials in Eastern Europe are not convinced of that. They cite as a reason Russia's brief war with Georgia and also Russia's conflict with Ukraine over natural gas supplies last year as reasons to remain cynical about the Kremlin's goal. We know that Russia always has a motive other than what is on the table when they want something. How long will it take our "community organizer president" to understand this or could there be another reason for his actions.

THE FREE PRESS - or is it?

Ever since I was a young man I always looked forward to reading the newspapers and watching the news on TV. I always wanted to know what was happening in the world and especially this country. I was always taught at home and in school that one of the greatest rights of a free nation is the Freedom of Speech and a Free Press. From the very beginning of our country, and through its chaotic history, a free press has always been there to give us the news and supply us with the information that we needed to make up our minds concerning the problem of the day. But now I see (as most people can)
that the news outlets whether they be the newspaper, TV, radio, or magazine, no longer have a goal of showing us both sides of the issues facing this country. They no longer want to report the news in a manner that we, the people, can decide our own selves on the right choices, but they want to create news according to their own personal bias and they are being very unfair when they report it. They want the reader to have a foregone conclusion of what is right, even though it is not right. What is wrong with that picture?

Let's look at just one case in point. Do you remember the "Tea Parties" held across the nation. At the same time as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal reported on these events, the other major news sources either disregarded them or reported on them as if the tea parties were a bunch of right wing, anti-government anti-tax people who were really bunch of eccentric nut cases. As I watched the CNN coverage of the Chicago tea party by a CNN reporter Susan Roesgan, I was a witness to the deceit and partiality and unfairness of that news network. It was so plain! We have to come to the overall conclusion that the American news media extremely dislike and detest conservative and Christian America. They get satisfaction and enjoyment in mocking and criticize the conservatives because we are Pro-Life, and Pro-Gun. They also liken those of us who are against illegal immigration to the Klu Klux Klan and Adolf Hitler! If you do not go along with Obama's agenda then you are a racist!



Every reporter at major news outlets such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and the Boston Globe, are so liberal that it goes against all description! We can also add the TV news reporters of ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC! Most of the reporters that work for these stations are so bias when they report to the American Public that it comes close to being disgusting and it shows total disregard for the rights of others. Most all of these were great news papers at one time but they have lost it all because of their bias liberal reporting.



The fact of the matter is that we can no longer believe what we read or hear on the news. So how can we make the right decision when it comes to issues of the day? I no longer watch a lot of TV news, like I use to because I have better things to do than listen to a bunch of bias reporters that cannot and will not tell the truth. When I do watch the news it is Fox News, because, as they claim, they are fair and balanced. Most of the time you will hear both sides of the story. When the millions of people, in this country no longer want to be a informed citizen and no longer want to know or hear the truth, but only want to hear what they are told, then that is how you get the government we have today. That is how (as Obama calls it) we get the change we have today in our government.



.

OBAMA – looking into his closet

I wonder if most people take a look at some of the people that Obama has in his administration and what their policies could mean for this country and how they will affect them. We now have two forms of government running this country. That's right ! We have the czars which is known as The King Obama Group ( THE SOCIALIST) which no one knows what they are doing because they do not have to answer to nobody but Obama, and they tell you what they want you to know and then we have the elected congress who for the most part is not doing anything to solve the problems we are faced with. How close are we as a nation to losing our republic and having it replaced by a socialist form of government? The many different people who are in Obama's Royal Court who are under the radar is very scary. These people are (or trying to) undoing laws pasted that are for all Americans. But we can also see some of his appointed cabinet members are just as scary.

For just one example Thomas Perez is one just of the people associated in the food chain for Attorney General Eric Holder, who is overhauling (tearing apart) the Civil Rights branch of the Justice Department after the flood of dismissals and resignations in that branch of the justice department. Barack Obama has selected Thomas Perez to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Thomas Perez has close ties to Casa de Maryland, which is a far-left group that strongly supports illegal immigration. At the basis of Thomas Perez's dispute is his difference of view and opinion over the cunning and clever way of running The Department of Justice. During the Bush presidency, the justice department prioritized and found it important to defend those who were wrongfully accused of discrimination as much as they focused on defending minorities who claimed they had suffered from discrimination. This flies in the face of those who believe civil rights laws exist solely to protect minorities, which, as one can see, is the standard operating procedure for Holder's new Civil Rights division of the justice Department. Curt Levy, who is, at the Committee for Justice put it in plain words this way: "Their feeling is that when it's used to protect non-minorities is that it's a twisting of the law."

Obama, Holder, and Perez are fanatically focused in on bigger enforcement of unrelated claims that have little effect on any bodies civil rights. In other words they want to increased government meddling in business hiring practices, including enforcement of hiring quotas. For example, if an employer makes decisions that result in a lesser percentage of minorities who are hired or promoted – even without that company knowing what the results of those decisions will be ahead of time – that company could be prosecuted. No matter who was best qualified for the job.

Perez's resume is very good, but firmly biased. He is currently a part-time professor at the George Washington School of Public Health and was deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights under Attorney General Janet Reno, two-year director of the office for civil rights at the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and a counsel to the late Senator Edward Kennedy. Perez is a longtime pro-illegal immigrant activist. In other words he is for the illegals. He supported the state's recognition of ID cards issued by Mexico and Guatemala as a valid form of ID for illegal immigrants. He supports the granting of in-state tuition rates for illegals, and he has provided advice for illegals on how to deal with police. He has advocated for race-conscious admissions to medical school, saying that an increase in minority health care providers is the only way to improve minority health. He believes minorities are better treated by minority health care providers, and that all health care – presumably that practiced by minorities, for minorities – is not just a benefit, but an actual civil right. Our new supreme court judge should have no problem with that statement being se also made a similar statement about judges.

The people who defend Thomas Perez usually comes from those who disliked The Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales' Civil Rights division and are in favor of Holder's policies and reforms. The Liberal newspaper, The Baltimore Sun said Perez's nomination would usher in a Department of Justice that "can return to its traditional mission of enforcing anti-discrimination laws and protecting the rights of minorities."

Republicans, for the most part, especially particularly Sen. Tom Coburn, have engaged in parliamentary procedures to block Thomas Perez's installation, but unless there's some serious intercession, Perez is expected to be installed as soon as the debate by the senate is closed. So now as you can see we will have reverse discrimination in our country real soon. I wonder what the Obama Crowd will call it?

SOME SACIFICE ALL – new rules of engagement

I have read two different articles about the war in Afghanistan and in the last couple of days I have read some pretty disturbing things. I do not believe, what I'm about to comment on, was really reported because of our liberal news reporters that report only what they want you to hear. I do not know how it slipped through the cracks. During a recent battle in Afghanistan the United States commanders, quoted and referred to new rules of engagement to stop civilian casualties, in which they rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near any village." I bet you my last dollar that this was not the first time that it happened and it was totally ignored by the news papers and therefore went totally unnoticed by the American public. But this time there was someone to witness it, who had the doodads to write it down and publish it. I'm referring to the deaths of four United States soldiers that were killed by the rules of engagement they have to use when fighting the enemy. They are the new rules of engagement. This incident took place last Tuesday in an ambush, by Muslim terrorist, against Afghan forces and their U.S. trainers around the village of Ganjgal. There was a journalist whose name is Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers who was there and lived through the deadly firefight to write the following:

Specifically, the deaths of four U.S. Marines seemingly by the new rules of engagement (ROE) in Afghanistan. They the "U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

What Landay describes and tells sounds like a terrible demonstration of what Afghanistan commander Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal talked about all summer and what many other people have called our war on civilian casualties. It is being waged, as thinking goes, to win Afghan "hearts and minds" and thus the "counterinsurgency" against the Taliban. Forget about the lives of our brave soldiers. McChrystal and this strategy currently have the over whelming support of both Obama and the Left wingers, who, with the help of a new conservative think tank, the Foreign Policy Initiative, recently wrote an open letter to President Obama specifically congratulated the president for choosing the McChrystal team, and put across confidence in its new strategy. According to their thinking protecting the Afghan people from, "Everything that can hurt them", will not only make the people like us, but they will help us. (Please who are they kidding) These people think that this kind of thinking will upset and stop the jihad that is being waged against people who do not believe the Muslim religion. But what this policy is really doing is increasing the dangers for our troops that have been sent in harm's way. Here is a statement that McChrystal made to the BBC: "It's a balance for the young soldier on the ground who is in combat. One of the assets that he has that might
save his life, might be air power or indirect fire from artillery or mortars and we don't want to take away that protection for him."
Now that to me is talking out of both sides of your mouth. The suggestion that our troops might be called on to think twice about saving their own lives was, to me, bone chilling. And more than ever after what happened this week is less soldier-on-the-ground uncertainty than commander-at-the-base wanting to pacify the Afghan Muslims. Here is what Landay's account said about this:

U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines despite being told repeatedly that they weren't near the village."

In other words, McChrystal's soldiers on the ground wanted protection to save their lives and didn't get it. Now explain that!
This should be a national disgrace. A NATO-led investigation is under way into the incident, which on its face appears to be a natural result of the "hearts and minds" policy endorsed by Left and Right alike. As McChrystal put it last month: "We're here to protect the Afghan people. And we're here to protect them from everything that can hurt them, both enemy activity but also inadvertent activity by Afghan forces or ours. So we're trying to build into the philosophy of our forces a incredible sensitivity and understanding that everything they may do must be balanced against the possibility of hurting anyone." That is anyone but our own!

Our arm forces have come a long way since World War Two. I read in an article wrote by Diana West were she quoted a statement from General Patton which were repeated in the Movie "Patton "by George C. Scott. This is what Patton said: "I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country." Today, our generals have something else in mind as we can see when McChrystal says: "The Afghan people are the reason we're here." I might be dumb as a stick like some of you liberals think that I am But I thought the reason we were in that country was to destroy the Taliban and their network of terrorism. If that is not the case then why are we there? Why are our young men dying every day, over there serving their country.
According to McClatchey's report this week, there is a troubling and disturbing suspicion that the Afghan people, local villagers and even security personnel, were behind the Ganjgal ambush in the first place. Now what is wrong with this picture? Why are our young men and women fighting and dying in a war that they cannot win (BECAUSE OF THIS REASON ONLY) their hands are being tied by politicians and generals who want to be politically correct.

There will be some who read this article who will not agree with me but you do not take a big stick to a gun fight and expect to win. You bring a bigger gun and then you are not afraid to use it. Will this war against terrorist be won in Washington by people who want to be politically correct or will it be won by soldiers who hands are untied and given the order to get it done?

REMEMBERING THE GOOD OLD DAYS

When a person reaches my age you have seen a lot and you remember a lot. As a person remembers the past some like me wonder how we got where we are today. People think different, act different, talk different, and for the most part are different. As I thought things out the most of the difference is the loss of a lot of our liberties. Liberties taken away by the federal government over the last Fifty years. Fifty years ago. Not only liberties but the government has done so many things that no wonder we are where we are today. Just let me mention a few of them:

When you wanted to buy a hand gun, rifle, or shot gun all you did was walk into sears or some local store and buy what you wanted. Now Sears does not even sell a shot gun. You hunted most anywhere you wanted. Now most every field, every woods, has a no hunting, no trespassing sign on it and to buy a gun it is almost impossible with all the back ground checks that the government has in place, to stop the wrong ones as they say from getting guns and to stop crime. In some state you even have to sign and show identification for ammo. Does this stop crime? The answer is no. People are not safe walking down the street or even sitting in their own homes. Why is this? Some would say not enough gun control.

What about a friend of mine that was stabbed, just last week, with a knife in his own house. Are we going to ban knives now. Are the only knives that we are allowed to have going to be plastic? When someone breaks into your house now, you are told to retreat into a bedroom and call the police. This did not happen fifty years ago because if you committed a crime, especially a violent crime you did the time and it was for a long time. If you broke into a person's house and the owner of that house shot you, it was cased closed. I might add there was very little breaking and entering back then. People were free to sleep with their doors unlocked and keys in the care, knowing that all would be safe. Now if you own over three fire arms the federal government says that you are stock piling fire arms. What is happening to this country? The government needs to install judges that will not be afraid to hand out stiff sentences to criminals. They need to realize what the problem is. Get rid of these so called gun laws that for the most part do nothing and if a person is convicted of a crime send him to prison for a long long time. Do not just slap them on the wrist and turn them loose to do it again. Why do we have a government that penalizes honest citizens for the deeds of criminals? That is what the government is doing with gun control.



Remember when if you were sick and could not come to the doctor's office? The doctor would come to your house. Most of the time before he let he would open his little back bag and pull out medicine. If you did not have the money to pay him you paid him later when you had the money. Him or his wife would call you back the next day to check on you. Yes that was true fifty years ago and I know that the medical system needs to be reformed in this country but not by the federal government. The federal government was not intended for that. What ever happen to that "Friendly Home Town Doctor?"

Although we paid property taxes fifty years ago like we do today for the homes that we live in, do we really, truly own them, or does the government? In today's world we have to have a permit for everything. We are told what we can do or cannot do with our own land, how big we can build a house or if we can build a room on to a existing house. You are told how high or even if you can put a fence up. You now pay a ridicules price for permits and inspection fees for the least little thing that you want to do. This is after your hard earned money has bought the place. "What Happen?"

We use to have banks that were respectable and caring for their customers and there still might be a few that way, but for the most part not anymore. Today you can be a customer of a bank for 30 years and if you are overdrawn in your checking account by 30 cents, you will receive a $35 overdraft fee. Take a check, that is wrote out to you, to the bank the bank it was drawn on, and if you are not a customer of that bank you are charged five dollars service fee to have the check cashed. Now I personally think that is a rip off to the general public. We are already paying through the nose in bail out money for the most of those banks through our tax dollars. There are more and more schemes everyday by banks to get your hard earn money. What ever happen to the "Friendly Home Town Bank"?

We use to be able to watch TV and our parents never have to worry about what we were watching. There was never no ratings for you to see if it was able for your kids to watch. It was just good plain and decent TV for all people, young and old. Now TV has got to the point where it is near about X rated and some shows on TV now would have never been shown years gone by. WHAT EVER HAPPEN TO RANDOLPH SCOTT, TEX RITTER, THE LONE RANGER, GENE AUTREY, AND ROY ROGERS?

In our school systems, today, we have police officers patrolling the halls and class rooms because of the violence. We have sex educations classes that pass out condoms and birth control pills by the truck loads and there is still many a baby born that will grow up with no mother or no father. Years ago in schools if the student got out of hand, they got a hand across their butts and there was no problems. Then when you got home you got it again. If you miss behaved on the bus the bus driver stopped and you were made to get off. The bus driver had better not do that now. The government has taken over our schools with their way of doing things and look were we are now. "What Happen?"

Years ago police officers were treated with respect and you saw no gang violence as you do today. You did not see or have the crime that is now going on. Now the police officer has less "power of arrest" than they ever had. It is getting so bad that even our soldiers will soon, if not already, have to read the enemy there Miranda Warnings. Can you image the soldiers on D-Day doing that. We can do longer call people who kill us, behead us, and want us dead what they really are if we want to be politically correct. Fifty years ago you would have called them exactly what they are: TERRORIST" What has happen?

In the middle or late 1960 "The Great Society" was brought into existence by our government. This was a program intended to end all poverty, but instead it gave millions of people to not work, nor look for work, but instead they were kept by people who were working. Years before this people who needed help were helped by the church, charity groups, until they went back to work. Now there is no incentive to go back to work because of free housing, food stamps, free welfare money, and free medical. "What Happen?"

Now today we have a president who has so many czars that you can not name them all or what they do. He wants to take the working man's money and spread it around. In other words give it to people who will not work in a pie shop. That would not happen years ago. "What Happen?" So I will leave you with this Question;

WHAT IS HAPPENING TO OUR COUNTRY?

THE CZARS – And More

Since President Obama was elected, he has appointed at least 34 supposed "czars" to supervise and take charge of a lot of governmental responsibilities. These czars have been described as "super aides" (really super aids) that work across agency lines to move forward and set in motion the President's agendas and programs for different things that he wants. I thought that was what people were elected to congress for. CBS News (not one of my favorite places to get fair and balance news) says that these czars "report directly to Mr. Obama and
have the power to shape national policy on their subject area." This means they bypass the congress and the American people. The very future of this country is being shaped by people who were not elected or confirmed by congress. This should be scary to the reader! What about congress and the American people? Where do they come in during the Obama years?The lines defining the limitations of the czars' power are unclear, even to many in Congress. Let me give you one example that I found, Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said:"Who's in charge of health care? Is it the Secretary of Health and Human Services? (a person who was confirmed by congress) Or is the White House czar ( a person who was appointed by Obama and is answerable only to him)? Who is in charge of environmental and energy issues?" that is a good question and it needs an answer. Who is really in charge of this country? Is it the elected officials or is it Obama and his czars?

Czars do not need or require Congressional approval. {amazing} With most of this so called czars there are no confirmation hearings, no up or down votes, for this reason the czars are insulated and protected from accountability and for anything they do, from Congress and the American People. Did our fore fathers want this when they framed the constitution. Most Americans are very critical of these czars and have the view that such an arrangement (I would rather call it a pack) threatens to increase the power of the President (who by the way appoints these czars) beyond what is Constitutionally mandated. Read what Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, and he is just one of many, has said about the Obama Czar system: "It can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances … As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president. They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege."
A question that I would like to ask is this: "Where are the checks and balances with these czars". Obama promised "change" and we are sure getting that! What did Obama say, just before the elections, about being 5 days away from "fundamentally transforming America"..... I guess he was right, because he sure is doing that. Why are there so many communists and Marxists in the Obama Administration? Who are these people? Whose paying them?

Why are there so many empty posts in the Administration, that was put into place by congress, and why do we have all these un-vetted people advising our President? Why does the Administration not want the FBI to check and investigate people anymore? These are questions that have to be answered. Some who read this will say that I'm a whack job, a racist, a wing nut, but when you stop and think about it, am I? Just investigate the background of some of these czars yourself using reliable web sites and you will see the same shocking things as I did. Just read these few things that I found and then search for yourself. Some of these czars believe or have openly stated that: {1} The United States was responsible for the twin towers attack on 911, {2} Illegal's have just as much right in this country as citizens, {3} Most of them have Marxist views or socialist views, {4} some believe that the constitution should be updated, and {4} there is a lot more that you can read from reliable sources. This is the change we got when Obama and his socialist views and crowd was elected to the highest office in our land. We have not only the right to ask who these people are, but, since it is our government and our country, We have the responsibility to know who they are and what they are doing.

Not only do we have these czars, that are accountable only to Obama, we also have no checks and balances in our government and to me that is very scary. We now have the most liberal President, liberal congress, and liberal Supreme Court ever. In other words there is really no way to stop their liberal agenda and one again that is scary! Make no mistake, Obama knows exactly what he is doing. This is a first-rate power grab by a power-hungry President. (don't take that lightly). You see the great thing about czars, as I have already said and feel that I must say again) is that they operate with impunity and they are "under the radar" when it comes to making policy. No one knows what they are doing until it is done. They are accountable to nobody, except the administration. So in effect we have NON-ELECTED officials, who are backed by The White House, who are given the tools and resources to do the bidding of the President and they are accountable to NO ONE! These czars don't have to undergo Senate Confirmation Hearings, they just get appointed by Obama. What is happening here?

It seems to me that Obama is creating an alternative to the constitutionally sanctioned government administrators. This, in and of itself, creates an alternative, in other words another government which is responsible to reporting ONLY to Obama. That, folks, is what happens before someone illegally takes over a country. Read your history books. Laugh if you want and call me a nut if you want. They began to deliver the goods and promises to the masses while the legitimate government is floundering..... and then, BINGO OVER NIGHT, the alternative government supplants legitimate authority. With some key changes, making them more accountable to We The People, we can bring back what Congress is suppose to be.
I learned something interesting recently. The word CZAR is actually the Russian word for Caesar. It also means emperor.