Monday, September 21, 2009

Solar activity may be linked to cooler temperatures

http://www.cjonline.com/news/local/2009-09-20/earth_approaching_sunspot_records

Earth approaching sunspot records
Solar activity may be linked to cooler temperatures, scientist says

BY COREY JONES
Created September 20, 2009 at 6:21pm


The average person doesn't associate coolness with the sun.
The sun releases energy through deep nuclear fusion reactions in its core and has surface temperatures as hot as 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to NASA's Web site.

Not cool at all.

But the sun's recent activity, or lack thereof, may be linked to the pleasant summer temperatures the midwest has enjoyed this year, said Charlie Perry, a research hydrologist with the U.S. Geological Survey in Lawrence.

The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are little to no sunspots on its surface.

In July through August, 51 consecutive days passed without a spot, one day short of tying the record of 52 days from the early 1900s.

As of Sept. 15, the current solar minimum ranks third all-time in the amount of spotless days with 717 since 2004. There have been 206 spotless days in 2009, which is 14th all-time. But there are still more than 100 days left in the year, and Perry expects that number to climb.

Perry, who studies sunspots and solar activity in his spare time, received an undergraduate degree in physics at Kansas State University and a Ph.D in physics and astronomy at The University of Kansas. He also has spent time as a meteorologist.

A sunspot, Perry explains, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. When there are more sunspots, the sun's surface becomes more dynamic and an opposite effect takes place, releasing more heat and energy when other parts of the sun become hotter.

A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process. Perry says the current solar minimum could continue into 2010.

"There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," Perry said.

Perry said there is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures. The year without a summer, which was 1816, was during a grand minimum in 1800 to 1830 when Europe became cooler, Perry said. Another grand minimum was in 1903 to 1913.

Perry said there is anecdotal evidence the Earth's temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity.

However, Perry said snow in Buenos Aires and southern Africa, the best ski season in Australia and a cooler Arctic region are some of the anecdotal evidence for a cooling period.

So, Perry said, sunspots may have a far greater impact on weather than previously thought.
Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends.

The cosmic ray and clouds theory was first put forth in the late 1990's by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark.

In a July 2007 issue of Discover magazine, Svensmark said the theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun's heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Perry says data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.

Johan Feddema, acting chair and professor of geography at KU, studies global warming. Atmospheric science is a program in geography at KU. He says he is skeptical of any one phenomenon being the direct cause of global warming because there are so many climate variables that factor into global temperatures.

Freddema said the warming trend earlier in the century could be attributed to anything from solar activity to El Ninos.

For more information or to view graphs of data pertaining to global climate change, Freddema recommends visiting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Web site at www.ipcc.ch/ where 2007 assessment reports on climate change can be viewed. He also recommends the Wikipedia entry on solar variation for good visual graphs of data.

Perry said he recommends www.icecap.us/ for climate information; www.discovermagazine.com to learn more about Svensmark's theory; www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/sunspot-lenght-&-teperatur... to view a global temperature and solar activity graph; and his own research Web page at ks.water.usgs.gov/waterdata/climate/.

Corey Jones can be reached at (785) 295-5612 or corey.jones@cjonline.com.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

My Take On The Healthcare Situation In America

What exactly is so bad about our healthcare system? An individual can purchase an HMO plan for around $1,500 a year or a family can purchase HMO plan for around $3,000 a year which entitles you to the best healthcare available in any country on the planet earth with little to no co-pay. Those that don't have insurance are still provided with free healthcare when needed because Federal Law requires that all hospitals must provide emergency care to anyone that comes within 250 yards of an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay. America also has an extensive system of low or no cost community healthcare centers and free healthcare clinics that provide even the basic services such as annual exams for free or sliding scale costs. Heck...Over $1,000 are spent annually on charity care for every man, woman and child that is uninsured in America (that’s over $45 billion annually). The U.S. even allows “compassionate entry” permission to Mexican citizens in border towns that need medical assistance, in which they are picked up by ambulance at the border and transported to emergency rooms in American hospitals to receive free healthcare.

Not that there are even that many people that are truly un-insured in America. Democrats claim there are 45 million uninsured but for a better look at the numbers check out www.freemarketcure.com and you will see that only about 18 million out of the 307,481,017 (http://www.census.gov/ ) Americans are truly uninsured. Less than 6% of Americans! I will break down the rest for you at the bottom of this email and you can see that the others are able to afford or receive health insurance but CHOOSE not to on their own. (see below). And keep in mind that every nation has a group of people that refuse to participate in society or take responsibility for their own wellbeing. They wouldn’t comply even if our government attempted to force them to receive regular healthcare.

Not to mention that putting our basic needs into the hands of the government (which is corrupt and doesn't care about us and refuse to even be on this same plan they are proposing for us because they know it is garbage) is extremely dangerous. Look at every program the government has been in charge of. Public education...in shambles, post office...like $13 billion in debt this year and they gave raises to all their upper execs, Retirement (social security), medicaid, medicare, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (mortgage companies)...all VERY in debt and failing. Now look at the private owned alternatives...private schools = great!, Fed-Ex or UPS=doing great, private retirement accounts like ROTH IRA's or 401K's...just fine! If there is a problem it is because the government is involved (bought off to place regulations) and they best way to fix it is to REMOVE government not add more government to it!

This isn't the first time that gov't. interference had a negative impact. We all know that this economic crisis began with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Gov't. tells us they needed to be regulated and we believe it. In reality, it was gov't. involvement that CAUSED the crisis. Fannie and Freddie were gov't. subsidized and knew full well that when the Clinton Admin. began pushing them to make risky loans, they went right on ahead with it knowing full well that they would be bailed out if needed. If gov't. wasn't in the picture, they wouldn't have made those risky loans because they wouldn't have had the safety net and would have gone out of business. Our gov't. involvement in the private sector had and continues to ruin this country that was founded on the principles of the free-market and Laissez Faire Capitalism. Coincidentally, were you surprised to find out that they paid Obama, and Hillary, and Chris Dowd and the democrats a ton of money. If you want exact amounts paid to each candidate I have them and would be happy to send them to you). They were bought off! Big surprise!

Another example...the Cash for Clunkers program: The gov't. took $2.88 billion from us in taxes to fund this program and is paying $1.22 billion to the dealers?! Where is the rest of the money going?! And we want to trust them with our healthcare?! Why do people insist on trusting government when it has always been the same through Republican and Demcrat! STOP putting your basic needs in the hands of shady people that don't care about you.


All that and if you really have a problem with insurance yet...keep in mind that the reason insurance is so high right now is BECAUSE of the government. They have been bought off by the insurance companies and currently there are regulations that only allow us to purchase insurance from the company in our state, so they have no competition and jack up their prices and we have to pay what they ask if we want coverage. If they would remove regulations and allow the competition between the insurance companies (so we could all buy insurance from ANY company in ANY state) you may see prices come down and quality go up so they have to compete for our business. So if government involvement is the reason for the current problem, how will MORE gov't. involvement help the situation?

They couldn't even make universal healthcare just for Children in one state (Hawaii) last more than 7 months because it went bankrupt and left all the kids without insurance...it will be impossible and destructive and dangerous. If you think healthcare is expensive now...just wait until it's "free"! ;-) I agree we need reform on healthcare but we need to do the OPPOSITE of putting our gov't. in charge of it. We need to free up the gov't. involvement, remove regulation and allow competition. I have some good reading material I can send you if you want on how to fix it up.

BTW...They say our economy is improving after spending only $68 billion of the $780 billion they took from us in taxes to stimulate the economy...do you think we're gonna get the rest of that money back?

I've got tons of horror stories of national healthcare from Canada and England and France. The doctors all leave to where they can make more money and aren't controlled by the government. The program starts going bankrupt just like social security and all of our other government run programs so they try to prolong it by raising taxes for it and decreasing benefits. First they say they won't cover vision or dental and then annual check ups and then cancer screenings and pretty soon they tell you that you are too old or terminaly sick anyway so they won't pay the money to help you. SCARY! They are already doing it with social security here. They have raised taxes for it, cut benefits and want to raise the retirement age. The same will happen with healthcare just like in every other country that tried it and like with every other program that our government has tried to run.

Bryan

Here is a good breakdown of the un-insured in America from www.freemarketcure.com

Who are the Uninsured in America?


45 million Americans without health insurance?
• 17 million (38%) live in households with an annual income of $50,000+
• 9 million (20%) live in households with an annual income of $75,000+
1. They choose not to spend their money on insurance even though they can afford it.

• 14 million (31%) are eligible for government healthcare programs such as Medicaid but choose not to enroll.
1. Over $1,000 are spent annually on charity care for every man, woman and child that is
uninsured in America (that’s over $45 billion annually).
2. America has an extensive system of low or no cost community healthcare centers and free
healthcare clinics that provide even the basic services such as annual exams for free or
sliding scale costs.

• 14 million (31%) are illegal immigrants but still receive free charity care.
1. The U.S. even allows “compassionate entry” permission to Mexican citizens in border towns
that need medical assistance, in which they are picked up by ambulance at the border and
transported to emergency rooms in American hospitals to receive free healthcare.

• 18 million (40%) are ages 18-34 and spend more than 400% more on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining than on out of pocket expenses for healthcare.
1. All are treated if needed, but few ever pay.
2. Federal Law requires that all hospitals must provide emergency care to anyone that comes
within 250 yards of an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay.

• 8 million (18%) of the 45 million are truly uninsured.
1. NOTE: Every nation has a group of people that refuse to participate in society or take
responsibility for their own wellbeing. They wouldn’t comply even if our government
attempted to force them to receive regular healthcare.

What Is A Revolution?

Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the CIA's National Intelligence Council. He holds the U. S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, which is the intelligence community's highest honor. He is author of The Cure for Poverty and How to Analyze Information.

There really is a Herbert Meyer. Go to this link to read his other articles. http://www.americanthinker.com/herbert_e_meyer/


May 20, 2009

Revolution By Herbert E. Meyer


During the last 30 years we Americans have been so politically divided that some of us have called this left-right, liberal-conservative split a "culture war" or even a "second Civil War." These descriptions are no longer accurate. The precise, technical word for what is happening in the United States today is: revolution.

Because of our country's history, we tend to think of revolutions as military conflicts, and of the revolutionaries as the good guys; the image of Minutemen fighting valiantly against the British forces at Lexington and Concord lies deep within our DNA. But sometimes -- quite often, actually -- revolutions aren't military conflicts, and the good guys are the ones trying to keep the revolution from happening.

In January 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany by its elected president; he would spend the next two years consolidating his power with the legislative connivance of his political allies in the Reichstag.

In October 1917, Lenin and his Bolsheviks took control of Russia from Kerensky and his Social Democrats -- who had overthrown the Czar earlier that year -- entirely through parliamentary maneuvering in Russia's fledgling Duma.

What defines a revolution -- and this is the crucial point to grasp - is that when it's over, a country has changed not merely its leaders and its laws, but its operating system.

Since most of us think of computers when we hear the phrase "operating system", let me use this analogy to illuminate my point: Every computer has an operating system, and most of us are using either the Microsoft or the Apple operating system. If you want to do something with your computer -- send an email, watch a DVD, read an online essay like this one -- you must do it the way your computer's operating system is designed to work.

No operating system is perfect, which is why Microsoft and Apple send updates to their customers from time to time. And every so often these companies launch new versions of their operating systems that incorporate a lot of modifications at once. Can you change the operating system you use? Of course you can. Two years ago, I threw out every Microsoft-based machine in our company's office and replaced them with Apple products.

Last month I met a corporate CEO who had just done the opposite, and replaced the Apple computers in his office with ones that run on the Microsoft operating system.

Democracies and Dictatorships
Now, just as computers have operating systems so, too, do countries. In fact, countries have dual operating systems - one political and the other economic. Broadly speaking, there are two kinds of each: politically, you can be a democracy or a dictatorship, and economically, you can have either a free market or a command economy. Because countries don't buy their operating systems off the shelf, the way we buy our computer operating systems, each country develops its own versions. This is why our country's democracy is somewhat different from Canada's, which in turn is slightly different from Australia's, and so forth. These countries all have free-market economies, but again they aren't quite the same. Still, the similarities among democracies and free-market economies are more striking than the differences.

Likewise, while no two dictatorships are the same, and no two command economies work in exactly the same way, the differences among them are comparatively trivial.
Since no country's operating systems are perfect, can they be improved? Of course they can! Every time our Congress passes a new law, or enacts a new regulation -- or whenever the Supreme Court issues an opinion -- that's the equivalent of an update to our political or economic operating system. Can you change a country's operating system? Yes, you can. And the precise, technical word for replacing one political or economic operating system with another is -- revolution.

When politics in a democracy is normal, the political parties all agree to preserve the operating system while they compete to improve it. This is what is actually happening when one party in Congress introduces a new piece of healthcare or education legislation and the other party opposes it or introduces its own healthcare or education bill, or when two candidates for the Senate argue over whether or not to change our immigration laws. Honorable people often will disagree about what to do -- sometimes quite strongly, just as the software engineers at Microsoft and Apple will sometimes argue through the night about whether a proposed change in the operating system's code is an improvement or just "kludge." But in normal politics the outer limits of all these disagreements are marked by a shared commitment to preserving and improving the operating system.

In abnormal politics, the objective of one party isn't to improve the operating system, but to overthrow it.

With this analogy in mind, now we can see clearly what's been happening in the United States during the last three decades. While conservatives have been working to improve our democracy and our free-market economy, liberals have been working to replace our democracy with a dictatorship, and our free-market economy with a command economy controlled by the government. The liberals couldn't say this aloud, because if they did the American people would have tossed them out of office on their ears. So the liberals worked covertly, feigning support for democracy and for the free market while working diligently to undermine both.

This is why our politics has been so partisan, so vicious, and so deadlocked. This is why words have lost their meaning in Washington, why we can never get to the bottom of anything, why we lurch from one manufactured scandal to another. It's all been part of a decades-long effort by the Liberals to throw sand in our eyes-to keep us from seeing clearly where they really want to take us. (And this explains why, when we question their judgment on some issue, they go berserk and accuse us of questioning their patriotism. They're afraid we're on the verge of catching on. If you want to have some fun, the next time you're chatting with a liberal and he goes nuts when you call him a socialist, say to him: "I'm so sorry you're offended. Please tell me, what is there about socialism you don't like?" You won't get a coherent answer; he'll just accuse you of a hate crime.)

Obama's Two-Front Offensive
With the election of Barack Obama as president, the liberals have launched a massive, two-front offensive they believe will end in victory. They have judged that our public education system is so degraded that only a few Americans are left who even understand what a democracy is, and how the free market actually works.

They are convinced that the majority of Americans are too frightened by the current recession to care about preserving the principles that made us the most powerful, productive and innovative country the world has ever known. In short, the liberals are reaching for victory because they believe that history now is on their side. The speed and reach of their offensive is breathtaking.

At the core of democracy is the rule of law, and we have already lost it. The liberals lecture us incessantly that everything is "relative," but that's not true; some things are absolutes. You cannot claim to be faithful to your spouse because you never cheat on her -- except when you're in London on business. And you cannot claim to have the rule of law if the government can set aside the rule of law when it decides that "special circumstances" have arisen that warrant illegality.

When the President and his aides handed ownership of Chrysler Corp. to the United Auto Workers union, they tried to avoid sending that beleaguered company into bankruptcy by muscling its bondholders into accepting less money for their assets than the law entitled them to collect. These contracts, and the law under which they were signed, were mere obstacles to a thuggish President bent on paying off his political supporters.

It's going to get much worse, fast. President Obama has told us time and again that among his criteria for choosing Federal judges will be "empathy."

Empathy is a wonderful quality in any human being, but a judge's job is to rule according to the law. Once our courts are presided over by judges who will reach verdicts based on how they feel about an issue -- such as abortion or the right of citizens to bear arms -- the law will be whatever the judges wish it to be; the rule of law will become an empty phrase rather than the architecture of our civilization.

We have lost our free-market economy as quickly as we have lost the rule of law. Money is to an economy what blood is to a body; life and death resides within the organ that controls its flow. The government already owns our country's leading banks, which means the government now controls our economy. (And in all fairness to President Obama, it was the Bush administration that started us down this ghastly road.) One indicator of the Obama administration's real objective: when some banks that had taken federal money attempted to repay their loans, the Treasury Department refused to accept repayment and step aside. This shows the government's goal isn't to prop up the banks, but rather to control them.

Here, too, things are going to get much worse, fast. The government now owns General Motors Corp., is reaching for control of insurance companies, and has launched plans to take over our country's healthcare industry. It even wants authority to set the salaries of executives in industries that, at least for now, aren't being subsidized or underwritten by the government.
Put all this together, and what we have in our country today isn't a democracy and it isn't a free-market economy. Reader, what we have now is a REVOLUTION.

This revolution won't be stopped, and our country won't be rescued, by the Republicans in Washington. This isn't because they lack the votes. It's because most of them are careerist hacks who've been playing footsie with the Democrats for too long; with very few exceptions they lack the intellectual firepower to articulate the present danger, and the political courage to stand up to this Administration and really fight. But for the absence of frock coats and pince-nez glasses, these Republicans in Washington remind me of those bumbling Weimar Republic politicians in Berlin who never grasped where Hitler and the Nazis were going until it was too late to stop them, or of those hapless Mensheviks in Moscow's Duma who let themselves be tossed into history's dustbin by Lenin and his Bolsheviks. (Yes, of course I realize it's explosive to keep bringing up the Nazis and the Bolsheviks in an essay about the Democrats. I'm not doing this to be incendiary; I'm doing this to be accurate.)

The Future's in Our Hands
Our country's future now lies within our own hands -- yours, mine, all of us who comprise what the Washington insiders sneeringly call the grass roots. Good, because unless I'm very much mistaken, the liberals have over-estimated their strength. There still are more of us than there are of them.

I mean ordinary, decent Americans from across the political spectrum who may disagree about specific issues, but who understand who we are and how we became who we are; who love our country, have a genius for self-organizing, and won't let the United States go down without a fight.

We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can -- or working around them when we must -- our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then -- before it's too late -- take back the power in Washington DC.

I know this isn't the kind of battle most of us want to fight; we would rather watch the talking heads slug it out on Fox News than stand on a street corner handing out campaign flyers. And given our country's history, for a while it will be uncomfortable to find ourselves fighting against the revolution and for the status quo. But we'll get used to this as we make our case over and over again -- to our friends, our neighbors, at barbeques and PTA meetings and at public rallies like those marvelous April tea parties that drove the liberals insane. And we'll draw strength as our ranks swell with new recruits.

The alternative to launching this kind of peaceful and political counter-attack is horrific. Right now sales of guns and ammunition are rising sharply. This reflects an intuitive grasp by grass- roots Americans of what history teaches may lie ahead. It was only after the Nazis had secured their grip on power in Germany, and only after the Bolsheviks had seized control of Russia, that they set out to disarm and destroy the vast numbers of ordinary citizens who - to the astonishment and fury of the revolutionaries -- just wouldn't go along.

That's when the real shooting started, and when blood began flowing in the streets!!!

Friday, September 18, 2009

Obama: Legalize illegals to get them health care

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/18/obama-ties-immigration-to-health-care-battle/?feat=home_cube_position1

Friday, September 18, 2009
Stephen Dinan (Contact)

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Republicans said that amounts to an amnesty, calling it a backdoor effort to make sure current illegal immigrants get health care.

"It is ironic that the president told the American people that illegal immigrants should not be covered by the health care bill, but now just days later he's talking about letting them in the back door," said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"If the American people do not want to provide government health care for illegal immigrants, why would they support giving them citizenship, the highest honor America can bestow?" Mr. Smith said.

But immigrant rights groups see the speech as a signal that Mr. Obama is committed to providing health care coverage for anyone in the United States legally, regardless of their citizenship status.

"It's the first time I've certainly heard, publicly, him talking more about legal immigrants," said Eric Rodriguez, vice president for research and advocacy at the National Council of La Raza (NCLR). "I think that was certainly positive progress. We were absolutely concerned about not hearing that."

On Wednesday, hours before Mr. Obama's speech, the NCLR had given the administration a public scolding, demanding that Mr. Obama needed to make "a public commitment ... to ensure that those who are here legally are covered."

A White House spokesman did not respond to questions about where the White House would make the cutoff for eligibility, and Mr. Rodriguez said he's still waiting for an answer from the administration.

"We don't know where they mean to draw the line," he said. "Our biggest concern is that most people don't realize legal immigrants are currently barred from receiving health care benefits for the first five years in the country."

Under the 1996 welfare overhaul, most federal aid programs are restricted to citizens and legal immigrants who have been in the country for at least five years. Democrats have tried this year to chip away at that rule.

Immigration has dogged Mr. Obama in the health care debate. Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican, shouted, "You lie," when the president, in an address to Congress last week, said his plans wouldn't cover illegal immigrants.

Lawmakers - who got an earful from constituents back home during August - have insisted on extra checks to make sure illegal immigrants do not have access to taxpayer-funded programs.

Senators have worked on language that would prevent illegal immigrants from buying insurance through a proposed insurance exchange envisioned in the health care reform package.

But the NCLR said that could lead to situations where some members of a family would be covered and others, including children of illegal immigrants, wouldn't be.

Mr. Obama said legalizing illegal immigrants is a way to take the sting out of the entire issue.

But Republicans said by pushing to legalize illegal immigrants, Mr. Obama is signaling that those here illegally eventually will get access to taxpayer-funded benefits.

Still, the push to pass a legalization bill is beginning to gain steam, even as advocates fret that the White House is moving too slowly.

On Thursday, Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois Democrat and an outspoken advocate for legalization, agreed to take leadership in writing a new, more generous bill.

"We simply cannot wait any longer for a bill that keeps our families together, protects our workers and allows a pathway to legalization for those who have earned it," Mr. Gutierrez said. "Saying immigration is a priority for this administration or this Congress is not the same as seeing tangible action, and the longer we wait, the more every single piece of legislation we debate will be obstructed by our failure to pass comprehensive reform."

Wednesday, September 02, 2009

Track Record Of American Gov't. Programs

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775 - they've had 234 years to get it right; it is broke, and even though heavily subsidized, it can't compete with private sector FedEx and UPS services.

Social Security was established in 1935 - they've had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - they've had 71 years to get it right; it is broke. Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; it is broke. Together Fannie and Freddie have now led the entire world into the worst economic collapse in 80 years.

The War on Poverty was started in 1964 - they've had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our hard earned money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - they've had 44 years to get it right; they are both broke; and now our government dares to mention them as models for all US health care.

AMTRAK was established in 1970 - they've had 39 years to get it right; last year they bailed it out as it continues to run at a loss!

This year, a trillion dollars was committed in the massive political payoff called the Stimulus Bill of 2009; it shows NO sign of working; it's been used to increase the size of governments across America , and raise government salaries while the rest of us suffer from economic hardships. It has yet to create a single new private sector job. Our national debt projections (approaching $10 trillion) have increased 400% in the last six months.

"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009 - - after 80% of the cars purchased turned out to be produced by foreign companies, and dealers nationwide are buried under bureaucratic
paperwork demanded by a government that is not yet paying them what was promised.

So with a perfect 100% failure rate and a record that proves that each and every "service" shoved down our throats by an over-reaching government turns into disaster, how could any informed American trust our government to run or even set policies for America 's health care system - - 17% of our economy?

Maybe each of us has a personal responsibility to let others in on this brilliant record before 2010, and then help remove from office those who are voting to destroy capitalism and destroy our grandchildren's future.


I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people under the pretence of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson