Those rich Arab princesses should learn from lessons of history. One of the lessons to be learnt is the fate of Sadam, as well as that of his grand son and his sons. During his time as a dictator, Sadam thought he was so powerful. He was so proud of his evil accomplishments such as causing so much death and destructions as well as many other sufferings for the people of Iran, Iraq and Kuwait… Then he had to witness both of his sons as well as a grand son blown up to pieces…Meanwhile he had to find a deep and covered hole slightly bigger than a grave to hide in. Afterwards he had to endure the humiliation of jail time and a trial…And finally he was hanged…And Sadam called himself the champion of the Arab world?! Now those rich Arab princesses who think they would be such good Arab fundamentalists by supporting Al-Qaeda and other forms of extremism should know that they are neither more powerful nor dearer than Sadam was during the 80s.
Operation swamp the streets to defend your healthcare.
match until single payer, universal healthcare for all is passed.!!!
Calling on All who voted for the Obama agenda in November to match a mile a day to hand over the torch of the United State to the next persons or groups from where you are, going until we reach whashington in a human chain, to carry the torch of humanity. We are the most prosperous nation in the world, yet there is no recourse for anyone who happen to be in a bind temporarily or not, when they get sick in our nation.
We are a God fearing nation, we profess to be a christian nation, yet the answer to a crying woman who is losing her husband to cancer for lack of insurance from the republicans was " because you are here talking to me, I would be magnanimous enough to make sure you are taken care of, but anyone else can't have the same chance."
He refused to answer her pleas for a universal single payer healthcare, yet he said "he the government" would make sure her husband receives treatment that insurance companies have rationed or denied him.
What our republican speaker was saying was that, he would used his "good office" to extend government money to take care of her husband, but if she got sick herself, then too bad she would have to call him again if he is still in office.
He didn't help her by passing a law that would ensure that she gets treatement as well as all americans in his husband's condition.
He went on to say that the job of helping people belongs to the church which all depend on the taxes we pay, to the government or to the church (donations). In effect, he is putting your life in the hands of those who can only extend their services (arbitrarily)to their frock or friends.
Many people sitting in that audience may have had cases that are worse than that of the weeping lady. Yet if they didn't have the luck to have the microphone, they were not heard, and would not be helped as the lady was promised.
We need to organize and march until the single payer universal healthcare is passed.
Those concerned about H.R.3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, particularly anyone who doesn't trust our elected officials, e.g. the President of the United States of America, to do the right thing for the country, should... actually read it before they shout anyone down about it.Don't ya think?http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.txt.pdf
Read it and pass it around!
Henry M
Many people don't know any more about the healthcare reform than what they've been told by one or two pundits. Here's an article from the New York Times that you can give to people to help them get a more balanced view of the issues.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNPublished: August 9, 2009 WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.”The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies. Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”SOCIALIZED MEDICINE Or Uniquely American?Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements. For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations. Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers. The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans. An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said. At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.BLAMING INSURERS Or Ensuring Blame?Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.DEFICIT-NEUTRAL Or Budget-Buster?Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up. Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules. At this point, it is difficult to know who is right. Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law. House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress. EUTHANASIA And AbortionConservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government. On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.”Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”CUTTING MEDICAREOr Preserving It?To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.” Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.
A Primer on the Details of Health Care Reform By ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORNPublished: August 9, 2009
WASHINGTON — With the debate over the future of health care now shifted from Capitol Hill to town halls, supporters and critics of the Democrats’ legislative proposals are polishing their sound bites and sharpening their attack lines.
Increasingly, the battle looks like a presidential contest, with expensive advertising campaigns and Internet-driven efforts to mobilize local support. It can be difficult to sort fact from fiction, as angry protesters denounce the legislation at raucous public forums.
President Obama and his Democratic allies in Congress have made the health care overhaul their top priority, putting their political futures on the line. Democrats had hoped to spend the month whipping up support for the legislation, but instead find themselves on the defensive, responding to what Mr. Obama describes as “outlandish rumors” spread by critics.
Many Republicans view fighting the president as a smart political strategy, turning a potentially wonkish debate over Medicare reimbursement rates and subsidies for the uninsured into an ideological battle over the government’s role in health care.
Each side hopes to win ground by boiling down one of the most complex policy discussions in history into digestible nuggets. For beachside viewers who might be more interested in iced-tea service than fee-for-service, here is a guide to the main fight points.
KEEP IT OR LOSE IT?Mr. Obama has said repeatedly, as he told the American Medical Association in June: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
These assurances reflect an aspiration, but may not be literally true or enforceable.
The legislation does not require insurers or employers to continue offering the health benefits they now provide. The House bill sets detailed standards for “acceptable health care coverage,” which would define “essential benefits” and permissible co-payments. Employers that already offer insurance would have five years to bring their plans into compliance with the new federal standards.
The Senate health committee bill goes somewhat further by offering an “option to retain current insurance coverage.
”The legislation could have significant implications for individuals who have bought coverage on their own. Their policies might be exempted from the new standards, but the coverage might not be viable for long because insurers could not add benefits or enroll additional people in noncompliant policies. Dallas L. Salisbury, president of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a private nonpartisan group, said: “The president and Democrats in Congress are saying what they would like. Their promises may not be literally true because your health plan may change, and your doctor may no longer accept your insurance.”
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE Or Uniquely American?Republicans harshly criticize Democratic proposals to create a government-run insurance plan, or public option, to compete with private insurers. Republicans say the public plan would drive insurers out of business and lead to “socialized medicine” or a government takeover of health care. Democrats say they want a “uniquely American” system with public and private elements. For now, the Republican criticism seems overblown. Major versions of the legislation all rely heavily on a continuation of private health plans, offered by employers and by insurance companies, subject to sweeping new federal regulations. Whether a public plan would crowd out private insurers depends on details yet to be decided, including its premiums and its payment rates for health care providers.
The public plan is not even a certainty. To win bipartisan support for the overhaul, some Democrats have proposed private nonprofit health care cooperatives, instead of a public plan, to compete with private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, under the House bill, the number of people with employer-sponsored insurance would climb to 162 million in 2016, which is 3 million more than expected under current law. Further, it said, enrollment in the proposed public plan might total 11 million, far lower than estimates cited by Republicans. An additional 10 million people, most of them now uninsured, would enroll in Medicaid, the budget office said.
At any rate, the federal government already holds sway over the health care system through Medicare, Medicaid and various insurance programs for children, veterans, military personnel and other federal employees. The federal government will account for 35 percent of the expected $2.5 trillion in health spending this year, and that does not include subsidies built into the tax code.
BLAMING INSURERS Or Ensuring Blame?Democrats have unleashed a blistering attack on private health insurers as they try to convince the vast majority of Americans who already have coverage that the current system is tilted in favor of corporate profits, not patients, and that insurers are a main obstacle to passing legislation.
Insurers say they support some of the most important Democratic proposals, including a ban on denying coverage or charging higher premiums based on pre-existing medical conditions.The insurance industry does oppose a government-run insurance plan and could eventually mobilize against the overhaul. But insurers appear to be less of an obstacle than public apprehension over such sweeping change and skittishness among lawmakers, including centrist Democrats from Republican-leaning districts.Most Americans do not know the full cost of their employer-sponsored insurance. And it is easier for Democrats to paint insurers as greedy than to explain the complex math that shows current health care spending is unsustainable.
DEFICIT-NEUTRAL Or Budget-Buster?Mr. Obama has avoided dictating specific provisions of health care legislation. But he has insisted that the bill not add to the federal debt, leading Democrats to say that the overhaul will be “deficit neutral,” with the roughly $1 trillion, 10-year cost to be offset by reduced spending or new taxes. The Congressional Budget Office has yet to issue cost estimates for the latest versions of the bill approved by three House committees. But it has warned that the legislation “would probably generate substantial increases in federal budget deficits” beyond 2019, in part because health costs are rising faster than the rate of inflation and proposed new taxes would not keep up. Republicans use those warnings to cast doubt on the claim by Mr. Obama that the legislation will “bend the cost curve” by slowing the growth of health spending in the long term. Democrats say the overhaul will lead to savings that cannot be calculated under budgeting rules.
At this point, it is difficult to know who is right. Over the next 10 years, the budget office said, the House bill would “result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion,” partly because of an increase in Medicare spending to avert sharp cuts in payments to doctors scheduled to occur under existing law. House Democrats say the higher doctor payments should not count in the cost because they fix a problem that predates the Obama administration and Democratic control of Congress.
EUTHANASIA And AbortionConservative critics say the legislation could limit end-of-life care and even encourage euthanasia. Moreover, some assert, it would require people to draw up plans saying how they want to die.These concerns appear to be unfounded. AARP, the lobby for older Americans, says, “The rumors out there are flat-out lies.” The House bill would provide Medicare coverage for optional consultations with doctors who advise patients on life-sustaining treatment and “end-of-life services,” including hospice care. The legislation instructs Medicare officials to propose ways to measure the quality of end-of-life care. Doctors would have financial incentives to report data on such care to the government.
On abortion, the situation is more complex. Opponents of abortion, like the National Right to Life Committee, say the legislation would use tax dollars to subsidize insurance that could cover abortion.Under a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, health plans, including the new government insurance plan, could choose to cover abortion. But they generally could not use federal money to pay for the procedure and instead would have to use money from the premiums paid by beneficiaries.
Douglas D. Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, said, “Under either the Senate bill or the House bill, the federal government would run a huge system of subsidizing elective abortion.
”Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the bill would keep current restrictions on the use of federal money for abortion, but “would not expand the prohibitions, as many Republicans want to do.”
CUTTING MEDICAREOr Preserving It?To help finance coverage for the uninsured, Congress would squeeze huge savings out of Medicare, the program for older Americans and the disabled. These savings would pay nearly 40 percent of the bills’ cost.
The legislation would trim Medicare payments for most services, as an incentive for hospitals and other health care providers to become more efficient. The providers make a plausible case that the cutbacks could inadvertently reduce beneficiaries’ access to some types of care.
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said Democrats would make “massive cuts to Medicare to pay for more government-run health care.” Mr. Obama told AARP last month, “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits.” All the savings, he said, would come from measures to “eliminate waste and inefficiency in Medicare.” As an example, he cited duplicative tests ordered by different doctors for the same patient. But some proposals could affect beneficiaries. The major bills in Congress would cut more than $150 billion over 10 years from federal payments to private health plans that care for more than 10 million Medicare beneficiaries.
Who gets hurt by sanctions? Iranian people, so people who promote such actions against their own people are neither human nor will they ever vote for a Democrat! So dear Democrats, please do not count on their support whatsoever. However, you could bet the house that during any election, they would fully support all kinds of Palin like candidates. Let’s do a poll and ask those pro- sanctions-against-their-own-people exiles who they voted in 08 Presidential elections. Without a doubt, the majority of honest ones would say McCain/Palin.
There two ways of endangering civilians and commercial air travelers’ lives:
A-Through the ULTIMATE TERRORIST act of passenger aircraft hijacking;
B-Through Sanctions and NOT selling Modern Aircrafts and Parts to a specific country! Even modern warfare has rules and conventions such as the Geneva Convention which would very much protect civilian lives!
One can rest assured, the harder it becomes for Iranian people, the tougher they become. This too will pass, but SAD memories will remain for ever.
Happy Independence Day,
Happy Birthday, USA!
There is ONLY ONE source of inspiration for Al-Qaeda: The Saudi style Wahabism
There are a few sources of Al-Qaeda financing: drug trafficking, Saudi financing &… Now for VOA Persian, using a very unreliable source in Turkey to claim they were some contacts between the Al-Qaeda and the Shia Hezbollah in that country is a total farce. Perhaps Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda cars passed each other on a crowded Street in Istanbul?! Just recently in separate bombings in Iraq, the Al-Qaeda and their cronies killed more than one hundred Shia Moslems…Now to claim the Shia Hezbollah had some thing to do with this terrorist group who murder innocent civilians is really wrong! To date tens of thousands of Shia Moslems & about eight thousand Americans have been murdered by these terrorist extremists who think they are religious! Perhaps these Al-Qaeda terrorists and their Saudi mentors should also be listed as murderous and racist tugs who commit genocide right there on top of the list, next to Hitler…Or is there a plan to create division among Moslems and make Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan & … their battle ground. Those who finance and plan such attacks should know that in the event of such a disaster, no country involved in such planning will be safe and negative economic effects of such a conflict will be far reaching. Or perhaps they want to bog down US troops in Iraq, so they would not be able to move to Afghanistan & Pakistan were these terrorists have their head quarters.
THERE IS A METHOD TO HIS MADNESS. OUR PRESIDENT B. OBAMA HAS DONE MORE FOR OUR COUNTRY IN ONE MONTH THEN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. SO I'M GONNA TAKE ONE MINUTE OF MY TIME TO THANK HIM AND SUPPORT HIM ALL THE WAY. SO HERE IT IS (THANKYOU PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA!!!) AND YOU CAN COUNT ON MY SUPPORT. DOING SOMETHING RATHER THEN NOTHING IS WHAT SEPERATES US FROM THE ANIMALS. AMERICA IS EXPERIENCING A VERY HUMBLING TIME IN ITS HISTORY BUT WEV'VE HAD IT TO GOOD FOR TO LONG AND MAYBE SOMETHING GOOD WILL COME OUT OF THIS. MAYBE THIS WILL BRING FAMILIES TOGETHER WE HAVE BECOME A CULTURE OF EVERYONE FOR HIMSELF AND THATS JUST NOT RIGHT. WE NEED TO GATHER OUR MORALS BACK UP AND JOIN THE ONE FOR ALL AND ALL FOR ONE CLUB CALLED THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!
RANDY OF MI.....
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/HelpTheNonMilitaryDisabled
Homeless and failed by both the county/ city and VA for about a decade.
creating losss and hell wasting my healht and life and potential.
and spending a lot of charitable and taxpayer money to do it.
PLEASE SIGN PETITIONS COmmEnT IN ONLINE NEWSPAPERS and if you can ,GET OUT THERE TO AN EVENT
Please help celebrate MARTIN LUTHER KING'S DAY and help make change.
MLK MADE THIS FUTURE POSSIBLE
HELP OBAMA MAKE IT HAPPEN !
GOT MLK?
PLEASE ALSO DIGG IT
Hot Topics
Please Be Advised That Media Must RSVP For The Swearing-In and Parade Rehearsals Separately.
DRESS REHEARSAL FOR INAUGURAL CEREMONIES
6:45 AM Armed Forces Inaugural Committee (military participants only)
8:00 AM Committee of Inaugural Ceremonies and Armed Forces Inaugural Committee
9:00 AM East Front Ceremonies
Media wishing to attend the DoD West Front Rehearsal should check in at the South Screening Trailer, located on the South Lawn of the Capitol, off Independence Avenue no later than 6:15 AM.
Media wishing to attend the JCCIC and DoD Combined West Front Rehearsal should check in at the South Screening Trailer, located on the South Lawn of the Capitol, off Independence Avenue at 7:30 AM.
At the conclusion of the West Front rehearsal, those media wishing to cover the East Front rehearsal will be escorted as a group to the East Front media platforms.
Media planning to attend only the East Front rehearsal should arrive at the South Screening Trailer no later than 8:30 AM to be escorted to the East Front.
Following the East Front rehearsal, Howard Gantman, staff director for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies will be available to talk to the media, as will Armed Forces Inaugural Committee Spokespersons with the military stand-ins for the President-elect, Vice President-elect, Mrs. Obama and Dr. Biden.
DRESS REHEARSAL FOR THE 2009 PARADE
Following the rehearsal for the swearing-in, more than 3,000 people, including stand-ins for the president- and vice president-elect will march in the Inaugural Parade rehearsal. The participants will consist largely of the military personnel who will march in the Inaugural Parade.
PIC and Armed Forces Inaugural Committee spokespeople will be on hand at the parade rehearsal to answer questions.
Media wishing to attend the parade rehearsal should check in at Freedom Plaza at 13th and E Streets NW at 8:15 a.m.
RSVP INFORMATION
Media who plan to attend the swearing-in ceremony rehearsal must RSVP to the appropriate credentialing authority by 5 p.m. on Thursday, January 8:
DOD Media contact AFIC: 202.691.2059
Senate Daily Press Gallery: 202.224.0241.
Senate Periodicals Gallery: periodicals@saa.senate.gov
Senate Radio/TV Gallery: 202.224.6421
Senate Press Photographers Gallery: Press_Photo@saa.senate.gov
Members of the media who plan to attend the Inaugural Parade rehearsal should RSVP by 6 p.m., Thursday, January 8 to:
Adam Elkington at aelkington@pic2009.org, or Timothy Skoczek at tskoczek@pic2009.org
Source: David Apperson, LIFECLOUD.ORG
im homeless multi disabled but with potential.
please help give me a voice.
first please contact your fed rand local reps on inclussion of physically disabled in the 2009 homeless count today .
then please help vote to create this office.
thanks.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/white_house_office_of_diversity_policy_-covers_all_agencies
Please raise all taxes and tariffs on all imported cars, planes, and trains everything this is the only thing that will give our Country a chance. Think about it the Japanees live on an island and there running our auto industry (if it smells like fish it must be fish). Other countries treat there people like s----- and we reward then by buying there products. Just the taxes that we would get would get us out of this recession. I BELIEVE that other countries would pay and pay to be able to sell over here but we better do something before we lose all of our buying power.
Merry Christmas
Randy
