Thursday, July 22, 2010

What Do You Think About This Obama Birth Certificate?

Wait, you did ask a short question, right? Well, here’s my not so short answer: I could expound on this as most conservatives would, but I will say that I think that we are on a train where the conductor, the brakeman, and the engineer (you could use the analogy of these as the three branches of our government) are all in agreement to run the train (our country) completely off the track (our Constitution).

These are the same people that claim the Constitution is a “living document” that can and should be changed at will (theirs), and they are determined to design and implement one to suit their agenda. They do not believe in truth as an absolute – or for that matter, period! Truth is only a perception…. Depends on what the definition of “is” is! So it’s no wonder that they believe a Hawaiian hospital certificate of live birth should suffice as “proof of birth”. Yeah, Hawaii, we all know he was born… the question is WHERE. Our Constitution has a restriction in that regard.


Through ignorance or design, those who agree with the agenda proposed by the Obama Campaign, and now Obama Administration, have succeeded in achieving part of the extreme liberals’ agenda by getting a man elected who refuses to be “transparent” not only about his birth or about his education – but anything about his personal history for that matter.

His offshore birthplace would obviously set a precedent that one does not need to be born in the US to “rule the US”, and is, in essence, the first step in re-writing the Constitution. Breaking down the foundational principles of the Constitution, like this very thing, is what is necessary to begin the total transformation of the United States of America (the only campaign promise Obama really intends to keep). I believe that the “shady way” that this topic has been dealt with is akin to acknowledgement of the fact that he was not born in the US. Further, I believe that a lie or at least a half-truth is being perpetrated, and with that lie they are forcing a perception of what is true for this situation. (I feel a blog article topic of situational ethics coming on! ) Because of bogus “legalities” and roadblocks (read Holder), though, there is no way that there is going to be any serious action taken to clear up the matter until it is too late and the precedent is fully established. And you know what? The entrenched GOP is just as guilty as the Dems, because they run around paying verbal homage to the “birther” concerns and liberal agenda issues, but they don’t really and genuinely care.

It certainly doesn’t stop with where Obama was born. Taking over corporations, banks, and regulating Wall Street make up Step Two, and a big move toward Wealth Distribution. Then Obamacare, Socialized Medicine, is Step Three and takes the US into a Social State….. and so on and so on. So, now we are coming quickly to the end of the track… Nov 2, 2010! The results of the mid-term elections will determine whether we have the same nation that was founded in 1776, in my humble opinion.

Got on my soapbox a little. Sorry. Short answer: I know that I can recreate a document like the one in the picture with Photoshop and a typewriter, plus a couple other tools. The ONLY way to verify its authenticity is to compare Obama’s footprint to that one on the certificate, which he will gladly do to clear up the matter - when Arabs kiss a pig.

Friday, June 11, 2010

President Obama Is Not Being Very Presidential

The President of the United States should be the country's leader. As a leader, he should attempt to represent the entire constituency to the best of his ability and to seek common ground among the varying points of view. I guess it's not news to you or to anyone that what Obama has succeeded in doing through much of his impromptu rhetoric, which may not be exactly what he had intended - or perhaps it is since he is not a stupid person! - is to send the country into a greater schism. Obama appears to be calculating in all his endeavors.

Even after campaigning on a platform of bringing unity, he has created a greater division among philosophical and political groups than ever existed before. In this, he receives support of his cronies and the mainstream media. Perhaps that is why he feels comfortable in being divisive even though he promised during his campaign to "bring the two sides" together. But, how can you call a significant group of your "constituency" derogatory names or "diss" them in public forums if you truly want them to be included in a unified group?

I know that this may be a peculiar claim, but President Obama has spent the last few years (well before his run for the presidency) establishing his own constituency. . . and obviously, it's not the American population at large! It has been evident from Day One of his presidency that Obama intended to establish himself not as a leader of a united American people, but as someone who will use his high office to repay those to whom he is indebted politically and those special interest groups who had financed his rise to the most powerful position in the country (dare I say the world anymore?). I could take up time and space listing all those entities, but we all know of whom I speak. Suffice it to say that he obviously has enormous debts to special groups of far left idealogues with whom he's been closely tied all of his life, and he also has political debts to repay to those within the political circles who heavily backed him in his run for the White House. To what end? I will answer that in a moment.

Rather than giving leadership to his own country, he behaves as a populist trying to "up" his image among national leaders who include the most despicable of despots. By trying to garner favorable standing with that part of the global community, he is failing miserably at maintaining his favor with the US allies; and thus, has strained if not done real harm to the foundation of those relationships. For example, one of our closest allies, Israel, has been treated with total contempt.

On the home front, in his role as leader of the free world, Obama certainly earns a low grade, perhaps an "F", surely nothing higher than a "D-". Many times he has shown he lacks the "class" and maturity that a national leader - yea, a world leader - should possess. Without his teleprompter (or when he goes off-script) he demonstrates a grammar-schoolish approach to handling himself, forgetting at times who he is. At those times, or when he has his "posse" with him, Obama likes to portray the "playground bully", belittling or "dissing" those who disagree with his politics, primarily those with a conservative point of view and who revere the Constitution as it was implemented by our forefathers.

So to what end? Ever the campaigner, Obama appears to be running for the office which is still being sought by former president Bill Clinton, that of President of the World. And, as he did as an inexperienced Senator, Obama is running for that position even before gaining experience in his present one. However, I believe he is finding it not quite as easy to do this time since there are more competitors in play. And too, Obama is finding that he's not "riding as high" as he once was in the polls with those he's supposed to be leading.

It would, of course, be important for him to remain in the good graces of the US population if he is to have any hope of a second term. (Or it may be that he's expecting to leapfrog quickly to that "new office" like he did to the White House!) In regards to 2012 elections, he obviously feels he needn't worry too much about his majority of his base of Democrats and Independents, and even some of the Republicans who "crossed over" (who have, as a rule, suffered from short-term memory loss spanning one to two elections). However, more and more of the independents, and even some of his more moderate Democratic base, are beginning to tire of his avant-garde style of presidency.

Let me remind you with examples from his own words and actions just how Obama shows the lack of character that a leader in his position should have, especially if Obama genuinely intended to make good on the claim he made to bring unity to the nation and peace to the world.

He denigrates the police force, the symbol of civil authority, who are doing their job as policy and laws dictate.

He snubs those who dare to present the opposing side of an issue, or who present both sides in fairness to all: http://tinyurl.com/mgwzbq and  http://tinyurl.com/37stlmm

He resort to name-calling when he doesn't have a legitimate response.

He employs underhanded tactics to push through his agenda rather than listening to the voice of the people and working on a compromise as a starting point to implement change.

He snubs our strongest allies: Canada, the UK, and Israel.

He embraces others with anti-American sentiments: Saudi Arabia (the infamous bow), Egypt the (Cairo University speech), and others (like the infamous handshake).




After seeing these few examples, I ask you this: Is Obama behaving like YOUR President? In my opinion, he's not acting like America's President.

Saturday, June 5, 2010

Obama and Kharsai - The Pot Calling the Kettle Black?

I first started this article a couple months ago, but didn't post it thinking that I would expound upon my thoughts; but even today, it's relevant. So, here goes.

Not too long ago, Obama made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It was also reported that Kharsai was told that he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old clich├ęs, then here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.

Here is an example of a "leader" who builds a regime of corruption by implanting and empowering czars to run his government while saying that another leader must clean up the corruption in their government. For example, Obama's czars are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people, and as a general rule, have never experienced leadership in any type of major business, capitalistic venture, or industrial enterprise. However, Obama's czars now literally have control over large portions of the nation's economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) - let's not mention how the affectation of their decisions have far-reaching implications, impacting the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, Obama recently put 15 more people into important positions while Congress was on a 2-week spring break, blaming the GOP for the timing of his actions. How absurd is that? These positions were not so critical to the function of the government that they could not be put off two more weeks for Congress to have the opportunity to at least put on their "show" of Congressional investigation prior to affirmation. He just circumvented "the old system" with his new one.

So, how is this different from some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia or, for that matter, any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democratic practices - if only in theory? Rather than standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed as the US once was, the Omabanation (AKA, the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in with countries led by thugs, vandals, and despots.

How is being just like other countries that suppress the wishes of the majority of its people a good thing? Who will now be able to hold up a standard against corruption in those countries, or in this one? It will all be the same modus operandi, only now known by different monikers, depending upon which country and which leader. The difference used to be that in this country was the standard-bearer with checks and balances to help limit corruption in its government. However, this administration has made its own brand of corruption the standard from which to perpetuate their "change" while trying to persuade others to conform - but conform to what, the US form of corruption? A rose by any other name!

So, will all this said, and with obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in any form of conscience make demands on the Kharsai regime? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye', when you fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

While the US is in an obvious downward spiral, morally and ethically speaking (with the corruption which now is more blatant and commonplace at the highest levels of our government), and with places like Afghanistan and others are being touted as "supposedly" on an upward trend (though we've seen no difference in their behaviors), will that mean, again ethically and morally speaking, that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle? If so, the US loses big. Why? Because the US will no longer be the "example" that other countries have looked up to. Where the US once was the country who led the world by example, they now will be "eye to eye" on a lower plane - down in the muck and mire with corrupted countries.

So, there you have my take on it. Simply stated, Obama is trying his best to lower the prestige and moral strength of this country while trying to compel other countries - who, by the way, don't respect his leadership - to behave according to his set of standards for behavior. He suggests that the US should lower its "standards" and compel others to "meet us halfway." Thousands of years of history tells us that this won't happen. So, who really comes out ahead in this situation?

In my opinion, as far as the US is concerned, mediocrity is not a good thing. NOT A GOOD THING AT ALL!

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Obama and Kharsai: "Pot Calling Kettle Black", Ya Think?

So, as reported it is being reported today, Obama has made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It is also being reported that Kharsai is being told he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old cliche's. Here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.


Here is a man who implants and empowers czars to run the government who are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people. These czars have control over large portions of the nations economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) not to mention how the affectation of their decisions impact the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, just this week, he has put 15 more people into important positions while Congress is on a 2-week break, blaming the GOP for the timing of it. How absurd is that? These positions are not that critical that they can't be put off two more weeks.

So, how is this different than some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democractic practices? Rather than being standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed, the Omaba-nation (once known as the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in, being just like any other country that suppresses the wishes of the majority of its people. Who can now distinguish corruption in countries. It is all the same, but known only by different monikers, depending upon country and leader.

While the US is a downward spiral in regards to the corruption that is becoming commonplace in the highest level of government and places like Afghanistan are "supposedly" on an upward spiral, will that mean that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle - but still corrupt in its government? How can that be a good thing? With the obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in good conscience demand better from Kharsai? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

Sunday, March 14, 2010

How Healthcare Works, and Why You Should Care

I haven't been able to keep posting to my blog for the last few months because I found one of those "non-existent" jobs... or rather it found me... and it has consumed all my time and energy. This new job happens to be in the medical field, an area that I have never worked in before. It has been interesting to be on the inside (in light of the healthcare debate now raging!) and to get glimpses of what is really going on. Not only have I learned how to do my job, I have been exposed to the hierarchy of the medical world and can comment more knowledgeably than I once could.

I work for a physician and here is what I have discovered. The physician can only charge fees based upon a CPT code, which is owned by the AMA (American Medical Association). Interestingly, only a small percentage of physicians in the US are actual members of this organization, and I've been told that many of those are in the area of research or teaching rather than actual practice. The physicians are required to pay a licensing fee for the use of the codes. It is also interesting that there are no other options. I believe that is called a monopoly! (By the way, do you remember the backroom deal that Obama had with the AMA EARLY ON in the healthcare debate? Don't you wonder what was negotiated at that time?)

Then there are the insurance companies that come along and create "service networks" and recruit physicians to join the network by enticing them to take less than the AMA's established fees. The insurance companies get that portion of the cut, and I don't know the percentage the insurance companies get, but you can bet your first born that they get quite a lot since insurance companies constitute a large portion of our economy. (And do you remember the backroom deals with Obama on lowering premiums on healthcare. Of course, they would negotiate on that. The mandated purchase of insurance opens up the field for them to get billions more patients into their pipeline!)

Each negotiated network is different, but I believe that you can estimate that the doctor's fees, as ascribed by the AMA, is cut by about 30 to 35%, sometimes as much as 80%, depending upon the procedure. Then Medicare and Medicaid come in and chop the AMA fees right off the top by two-thirds. What I found out over the past few months, especially in regard to the Medicare and Medicaid issue, is that in addition to that original chop, the rates they will pay have been reduced by another 21% from their "regular rates".

What the Obama healthcare plan would do is, in essence, make all healthcare a Medicare/Medicaid program. If doctors cannot make any money at 20% of what the AMA has determined as the fees, what doctor would want to remain in the profession? And where is the incentive to continue their education, to remain current in the latest techniques and procedures. That is expensive and time consuming. They would not be able to afford the staff they need to run their practices. There is a trickle effect in question here the same as there is an any business.

So, as I have been observing the healthcare issue from an "inside vantage point", I am beginning to see that it's not the doctors who are the villains in the healthcare issue, but rather the victims. Of course doctors make a good salary, but it's due to volume of patients, not the cost to the patients, where they receive their salaries. Another thing I've noticed in this particular doctor's practice is that more than 50% of the patients are Medicare patients. His income on these patients in only one-third of what he is supposed to make. (And the government wants EVERYONE in the US on a Medicare/Medicaid-type system! No wonder many physicians have threatened to leave their profession if this healthcare reform is passed. Who could blame them?)

I could go on with the above explanation, but I don't want to make this long and drawn out. It does substantiate what I have said before in my blog, and what I've read in other blogs, the problem doesn't lie in the "healthcare" provided. The US still has the best healthcare in the world. Rather, the problem lies in the system. Presently the system is a monopoly run by the AMA, complicated by the insurance industry, and though I haven't touched on this part of the equation, inflamed by the legal profession who are so eager to litigate and courts who award unreasonable settlements. These are the factors that contribute to the high cost of our healthcare and the issues that really need to be addressed. So, do we want to trade that for a government-run system as based upon the Medicare/Medicaid model, which is broken and corrupt?

In my opinion to mess with healthcare itself is a gross mistake. But what really needs to be addressed, and yea, even fixed, is the problems which lie within the system that behind our healthcare. That's where the greed lies. That's where the problems are. If the US government wanted to, they could get that under control, break the monopoly the AMA has on healthcare services provided, address the tort reform issue, then the whole issue of medical care would be just as the rest of the free market - healthily (pardon the pun) competitive. The GOP has been saying, and people are beginning to listen, that the government isn't interested in affordable healthcare in spite of what they're saying. They're interested in controlling healthcare. Healthcare is one of the more intimate and private areas of our lives. So, we as voters MUST think long and hard about this issue. Do we REALLY want to have the government involved in the most intimate and personal aspect of our daily lives?

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Obama's Transparency - It's Not Clear to Me

I have finally figured it out....

I have finally figured out just what President Barack Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid mean by "transparency". Mrs. Pelosi has said repeatedly that this is the most open and transparent Congress to date. How can she claim transparency when there are closed-door sessions where deals are cut with special interest groups and bribes for legislators? I'll tell you what Ms. Pelosi means. She looks right into the eyes of the media and says, "We're going to do this, and it's going to be done this way, by this time, and we won't accept any change or compromise." That's pretty clear.

Harry Reid has his own version of transparency. His transparency is that he tells people what the Senate is going to do (that's the transparent part), then in closed-door sessions he buys a vote or two that will put his plan over, and then ultimately proclaims the success he predicted. Come on, who cannot see what's really happening when senators exchange their votes for millions of dollars for their states? When Senators Nelson and Landrieu took Reid's bribes for their healthcare votes and support, it was well publicized on conservative talk shows on radio and TV, and through conservative blogs on the web. It became really transparent to Americans at that point that what was going on in Washington was "politics as usual" - or maybe on politics on steroids! The audacity of the Democrats was that they believed that they can get away with such underhanded dealings -- even out in the open -- because, after all, they had control in the White House, Senate, and the House of Representatives. Who was going to stop them? Seriously, who can expect real transparency when deals are negotiated behind closed doors, especially when only those of like-minds are invited inside and those holding opposing views are banned from participation in the sessions?

Obama's lack of his promised transparency has cost him in the polls, and yet he still spouts the same old rhetoric from his campaigning days, still tossing the blame for everything on Bush, still holding closed door meetings with special interest groups and congressional leaders, and still has his czars and others with far-left political views in policy-making positions who are not confirmed by Congress or elected by voters. Is that transparency? Not in my book. When Obama campaigned on transparency, the people took him at his word... And why was that? Because that would truly be the promised change and hope for a new way for Washington to operate. Who wouldn't vote for that? Only it hasn't happened - and it won't under THIS administration, for sure!

We were forewarned by deeds rather than words. Obama certainly didn't display any transparency during the campaign.... not about his collegiate career, college applications and transcripts; not by producing his actual birth certificate, not by explaining how he traveled about the globe as an unemployed individual of non-existent means, and other things - things that could be easily produced and would end the suspicions and speculations once and for all, assuming he really wanted to be transparent!

How can Obama proclaim his administration is transparent when there are special considerations for individuals and certain groups, and when what should be public information is hidden from the public? Again, what about the campaign promise of transparency, of the CSPAN-televised negotiations on healthcare reform which never materialized? In fact, Obama has laughingly shrugged that one off as a "just one of those many campaign promises politicians make" - and as everyone knows ALL campaign promises can't be kept, right? At this point, it's pretty obvious that we will never see the kind of transparency we had hoped for from this Administration or from Congress. Rather, the type of transparency now being promoted is the transparency of some of our national secrets under the guise criminally trying enemy combatants in our federal courts - the kind of transparency that can cost us our national safety - or de-classifying important documents and publicizing interrogation techniques used on terrorists. Just who is that transparency for?

As I've pointed out previously, Democrats say there is (by their own definitions) transparency in our government. I have noticed, though, there are some differences in the "applied definition" of transparency between the Legislative and Executive branches. The Obama White House tends toward (unintended) transparency where the various members of Obama's staff inadvertently reveal things simply because the players can't keep their stories in synch - or their mouths shut. The Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House do their "dirty" dealings behind closed doors, usually with a group of like-minded persons, and try to come up with a more palatable way of force-feeding their "transparency" to the voters. (Occasionally, politicians seeking the limelight will spill some beans though. I happen to be thankful that at least this kind of transparency has occurred because it has made for a wiser American public.)

Perhaps the differences between the White House and Congress "transparency successes" are because the Legislative branch happens to have had a lot more experience with "covert transparency" than the intellectuals and academics who are presently making up the Executive Branch and staff. Congress is full of professional politicians. The White House is amateurish on governing in this way, having their strength in organizing groups. However, because of the closer scrutiny by those on the right, and even independents, who have their eyes and ears open, both branches have come up short on executing their types of transparency.

For instance, remember the healthcare bill and the people who went to townhall meetings to express their opposition to HR 3200 and make their concerns known? When it came time to literally push through controversial legislation on healthcare that apparently was in direct opposition to the wishes of the majority of the American voters (you'll recall the uproar of the summer and fall townhall meetings!), Pelosi and Reid showed a surprising lack of understanding of the tenor of the public's sentiment and their grasp of what the bill actually contained. But they made no bones about what they were going to do .... that's their transparency! They had dismissed the fact that the voters were becoming more educated on the issues and beginning to become active in the process by using their freedom of speech to contact their legislators and following the examples of other grass roots organizations to come together. The conservative and independent voters have educated themselves on the issues as well as having gained a better understanding of "the game" of politics. While these newbies to politics began paying close attention to the activities of their legislators, they are also began to groom their own to rise up to replace those entrenched and out-of-touch members of Congress.

The legislators dismissed the American people and the subsequent polling that resulted from the discontent. However, with the strong showing in NYC 23 and with Scott Brown's senate seat win, there is a transparent national "routing out" of those who do backroom deals or who refuse to listen to their constituents. One only has to read the handmade placards at the rallies and look at the polls to see this is true. Concerned Americans are being transparent in their plans to unseat those who are not listening to the people who sent them to Washington. The people are outraged that their own legislators don't read the bills they are voting on, or even know what was in them. Yet the legislators will still push for a bill's passage while the people are aggressively telling them no! The people have had enough.

The biggest mistake made by the Democrats, which will cost them dearly in the mid-term elections is that they wouldn't consider that the emotion which was demonstrated in the townhall meetings was genuine, and that it would still rage strong or be as widespread this long. The people, who had placed their hope in the promises of transparency and openness and of a different Washington than previous administrations, were transparent when they expressed their concern all summer and fall. They had grown tired of Washington's favors and bribery, and they were expressing strong opposition to the Democrats' type of "transparency", yet they got more of the same.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the polls now reflect a sharp downturn for long-time incumbents who are up for relection in 2010. (Just as a reminder, it's not just Democrats who will find the going rough. Some Republicans should watch themselves as well.) Recently, public backlash has prompted several prominent, long-term, entrenched Democrats to"called it quits" rather than run for re-election and face certain defeat, and why? Perhaps they've seen the "handwriting on the wall". Or, as Rep. Snyder (D- AR) said, "I want to spend time more with my family". Perhaps they've come to realize that there really IS a grassroots movement -- NOT the "astroturf", as Nancy Pelosi called it -- that has taken hold and spread all across this nation and it will affect real change in our government and restore hope to American citizens.

When people have banded together in groups called "tea parties" and have an announced agenda of becoming politically savvy and involved for the purpose of routing out the politicians who don't really care about preserving the principles upon which this country was founded, but rather make a political career for themselves, I call this a type of transparency, too. Don't you?

The Scott Brown win has the Democrats scrambling to "embrace" the other side of the aisle, but they're still missing the transparency issue. They want the Republican "participation" but they don't want to hear Republican input! What they all should be doing is listening to the people! We'll see what happens over these next few months until the next election. At this point, though, what the Democrats are doing is pretty clear and transparent to me - more political games, not more transparency!

Saturday, February 6, 2010

UPDATE on the Reuter's Article That Was - Wasn't!

See my posting on 2/2/10 http://tinyurl.com/yjgrkg6 . It has now been reported that the person who wrote the article that was taken down almost immediately is longer with Reuters - under unknown circumstances. Terri Cullen, wrote an article that wasn't favorable at all to the way the Obama Administration has broken out how his social programs will be paid for. How this information was obtained isn't clear, but the article in question, which is no longer available on Reuters, was removed with supersonic speed (though some of the article has been reposted on blogs and elsewhere) amidst speculation that the White House ordered it removed. Why? Because it reveals that every working American will see a significant increase in the income taxes they pay. That is a direct and flagrant about-face from the campaign promises Obama made... and one of the main reasons that MOST of the Americans who voted for him gave him their support. Indeed, most of the people who supported Obama were the working middle class, the very ones who will shoulder the bulk of the cost of his programs -- and the trillions and trillions of dollars of debt.


I don't claim that this is MY interpretation of policy as presented by the Obama Administration. I'm just saying that anyone who can add 2 and 2 and come up with 4 should be able to see that money has to come from more than just the very small percentage of "wealthy" to pay for all this spending the Obama Administration is bent upon. Thus, I am issuing this statement as Liza Doolittle did: Just you wait, 'Enri Higgins', just you wait!" Just don't let it be too late before you wake up to the fact - WE ALL WILL BE PAYING HIGHER TAXES - very soon!