Oil Industry Next Obama Take Over

by Ronnie Spangler

After 55 days of government incompetence in the way they are handling the Gulf Oil leak you have to wonder if President Obama is just waiting for the right moment to declare a state of emergency and take over the American oil industry. It is no secret the President has always been opposed to drilling in this country unless the drilling is government owned and operated by government workers.

Is it really such a stretch to believe this President and Democrat controlled Congress would be willing to wait until the oil has devastated our coastal areas, before the government takes a larger role in solving the problem? Before answering yes this is crazy, consider past statements of members of Congress and the actions of this President during the economic crisis.

Remember Maxine Walters:



Remember Rahm Emanuel:



The 5 areas Rahm is talking about we now find out means complete government control.

Where is the media in this, all but silent. If this had been the Bush Administration after 33 days of leaking unknown amounts of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, would we be saying this is another Katrina and proof of government incompetence?

Here is David Axelrod admitting the government is incompetent in finding answers to stopping the leak. He admits only the oil industry has the equipment and the knowledge to handle the leak.



With this in mind can we really expect government to run the oil industry? Will we become so angry with the oil industry that we sit idly by watching while President Obama fulfills another goal of government take over and fundamentally changing America into another European Socialist State?

Technorati Tags:oil spill, oil, gulf, obama, oil industry, government, government take over, maxine walters, rahm emanuel, david axelrod, congress, socialist
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Throw The Bums Out Enough Said

By Ronnie Spangler

I couldn't have said it better, Click on link. Thanks Ray Stevens

Technorati Tags:ray stevens, politics, music, videos, democrats, rinos, throw the bums out, taxes, government, vote
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

F-16s Scambled Over Arizona Mexico Border

by Ronnie Spangler

NORAD scrambled two F-16 fighter jets out of Luke Air Force base at 6:10 a.m. Sunday to intercept an ultralight aircraft that entered Arizona from Mexico. The ultralight aircraft was sighted on radar and by the Border Patrol's air patrol. Border Patrol personnel suspect the ultralight was carrying bundles of drugs, typically marijuana.

NORAD released the following statement, "Upon intercepting the aircraft, the F-16s shadowed the aircraft for 30 minutes until it turned and flew back into Mexico," the release states. "The F-16s returned to base."

According to Border Patrol personnel this is nothing new except, this is the first time NORAD has scrambled jets to intercept the violation of US air space along the southern Arizona border.

Using ultralights to deliver drugs is a common practice by Mexican drug cartels. The drug lords in Mexico know that the federal government will never use military personnel to shoot down this type of aircraft. In the past the Border Patrol has been successful in capturing the drugs and smugglers on the ground, once the drop has been made. On a couple of occasions the Air Border Patrol using Apache helicopters have been able to force these aircraft down and agents on the ground have apprehended the pilot and secured the drugs.

Incidents like this are common all along our border and it's becoming more and more frequent. While the Yuma Sector under Operation Streamline where this incident occurred makes it more difficult for the smugglers to get away, but it raises questions about just how serious Homeland Security under Secretary Napolitano takes encroachment of US airspace along our borders.

What if this had been a terrorist with a bomb strapped underneath the ultralight instead of drugs? I am certain the Air Force pilots were under strict rules of engagement and probably forbidden to fire upon the aircraft unless they were fired upon first. The Yuma Marine Air Base was closer than the Luke Air Base that is stationed in Phoenix. The Marines have both jets and helicopters that could have easily forced the ultralight to the ground and allowed Border Patrol Agents to find out if the bundles were in fact drugs or worse.

President Obama and Secretary Napolitano like to talk about Arizona and proclaim the border is "as safe now as it ever has been", but the facts do not support their claim. Incidents like this is another reason why terrorist have been successful bringing bombs on planes and into Times Square. It's only a matter of time before one comes into the US from Mexico.

You probably won't hear about this incident on the mainstream or national news media. It was mentioned by the local Tuscon news but again the ultralights crossing our border is not news, only the fact that NORAD scrambled 2 jets made it news worthy. My question and I'm sure it has to be on the minds of some Border Patrol Agents, what was the point? If you are not going to take action to stop the incursions why scramble the jets and waste the fuel. The Mexican cartels are laughing at us.

Technorati Tags:news, border patrol, f-16s, military. illegals, drugs, drug cartels, arizona, mexico, homeland security, obama, napolitano
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Civil Revolt Message To The President

From YouTube

This message to the President should be shown to every politician running for office. The country is on the verge of another revolution. We will not destroy our country through violence but with our votes this government will be replaced with honest people that will follow the Constitution and respect the Republic.

Please watch:

Technorati Tags:youtube, message, president, congress, politician, revolution, revolt
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Arizona The Next Alamo

by Ron Spangler

The entire state of Arizona has become the modern day version of the Texas mission, the Alamo. We all learned how the Alamo came under siege when Texans tried to resist the tyrannical rule of the Mexican government under President Santa Anna. Americans were outraged and showed support for Texans with men, weapons, and money to help Texans fight for their freedom. Today Arizona has come under siege by not only illegal immigration and drug smugglers, but since passage of the new law they are under siege by the Obama administration and their own fellow Americans.

At a hearing before the Homeland Security Commission Secretary Napolitano had the nerve to publicly lie to the commission. She told the committee her department and this Administration had increased the budget, manpower and overall support for the Border Patrol along our southern borders more in the last 15 months than at anytime in recent history. This is a flat out lie.

She failed to point out that her Department directed the transfer of Border Patrol personnel from our southern borders to the northern borders where the threat to our nation is greatly reduced. She failed to mention that through attrition the numbers of border agents will be reduced over the next 4 years. She failed to mention that in order to increase technology at our ports of entry she cut the budget for Border Patrol agents along our southern borders. This is what has led to the decline in apprehensions not what she said, (paraphrase) "a reduction in the numbers of illegals attempting to cross our southern borders."

People have already forgotten the 2 Border Patrol Agents that were killed in less than a 2 year period along our Southern Border. Both were killed by illegals that fled back into Mexico. The National Media failed to fully investigate the killings and the actions taken by Homeland Security or the Department of Justice. Instead the killings quietly fell off the American News Media's radar. Evidently killing of our Border Patrol Agents is not as important as Arizona's attempt to stop criminal activity by passing state laws that mirrors federal law.

Napolitano tried to paint a picture of our southern border as a less violent place than is currently being reported by the media. This is hypocrisy to the highest degree. Like President Obama, Napolitano says one thing but in reality does just the opposite. In her statement she said they have increased the number of canine units along our border to better curtail smuggling of money and weapons heading south. In reality the Border Patrol, in an effort to save money, has been directed to change their practice of boarding their dogs with their handlers and set up a system where the dogs are kept in one kennel in each sector.

The handlers will no longer have complete control of the dogs they have trained with and they will no longer be allowed to drive their vehicles home. This and the fact that overtime pay for canine handlers and other agents has been eliminated will save money, but it will also result in less time agents will have to complete their missions. In the case of canine units the Border Patrol follows the same procedures as every law enforcement agency in the country. To create a working bond with their handlers the dogs stay with the handler both on and off duty. To save time handlers are provided individual vehicles to transport their partner canines to and from their areas of responsibility. If this new policy is enacted the handler will have to travel from his home to the kennel to pick up not only his partner but also a vehicle. After inspecting the vehicle for any damage that could have happened prior to the handler's acceptance of the vehicle, he then must pick up his partner. Before leaving the kennel he must inspect the canine's kennel and clean it if the canine has soiled it overnight.

After leaving the kennel the handler must report to his area headquarters for shift muster. It is only after all this has been accomplished can the canine unit report to his area of responsibility to look for illegal drugs or other items being smuggled in or out of the country. What all of this simply means is the handler will have less time to perform his actual mission and will in the end allow more drugs and other illegal smuggling activities to go undetected. Remember the handler can no longer work past his normal 8 hr shift so everything from picking up his canine and vehicle to returning them to their staging areas must be completed within their respective shifts.

Isn't it time Secretary Napolitano and this Administration begins to be honest with the American people and Congress? What is going on in Arizona is proof of how little concern this Administration has for the explosion of violence along our border states. This Administration has proven they are part of the far left open border crowd. Like other rank and file government employees Border Patrol Agents cannot comment on what is really happening within their agency. Retribution by higher ups including Homeland Security would be swift and costly. For this reason concerned citizens must educate themselves on what is truly going on in our government and along our southern borders. The time has come that we can no longer believe anything coming out of the mouths of Homeland Security or the politicians.

As we once supported our Texas friends at the Alamo it is time to support our friends at the new Alamo called Arizona. If we do not stand with them they will surely meet the same fate as the Arizona of Pear Harbor.

Technorati Tags:arizona, border, border patrol, alamo, texas, homeland security, napolitano, obama, illegal immigration, drugs, pearl harbor, congress, politicians, law enforcement, canines, dogs
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Senate Retirement Pension Not Automatic

by Ron Spangler

A large misconception amongst the general public is all Congressmen and Senators automatically receive a pension upon their retirement from serving as a member of Congress. This is not the case. A good example is the recent announcement by Senator Bayh that he will retire and not seek re-election in 2010.

Reading the eligibility requirements for retiring members of Congress Senator Bayh will likely fall under the Deferred Retirement Provision because of his age (55) and he served less than 15 years as a Member of Congress. His pension or annuity could also be reduced by 1% for every year he retired before reaching full eligibility requirements. Unless Senator Bayh has had prior Military service he will be 3 years short of the 15 year requirement.

Under this provision if a Senator elects to leave his retirement contributions in the retirement fund, he can start drawing his annuity after reaching age 60. Requirements for Congressmen and Senators differ in some degree.

There are other options that members of Congress have when considering retirement. All of them have penalties and reductions in the amount of annuities payed to the retiree. Under all provisions members must be at least 50 years old with 20 years of service, except for the additional provision that a member may retire at age 60 with 10 years of service and age 50 with service in 9 Congresses (18 yrs).

While I am not defending the amount of benefits and sweet deals provided to Members of Congress, everything we think we know or things we hear may not always be the case. If you would like to know the facts they are available at CRS Report For Congress, Retirement Benefits For Members of Congress

There are a lot of plans available and every Congressman or Senator must decide which plan is best for them. The bottom line, no Congressman or Senator automatically becomes eligible for a immediate full or reduced pension just because he has been elected to Congress.

Following are some of the plans:

Retirement with an immediate, reduced pension is available to Members aged 55 to 59 with at least 30 years of service. It is also allowed if the Member separates for a reason other than resignation or expulsion after having completed 25 years of service, or after reaching age 50 and with 20 years of service, or after having served in nine Congresses.

Retirement with a deferred, full pension is available if the Member leaves Congress before reaching the minimum age required to receive an immediate, unreduced pension and delays receipt until reaching the age at which full benefits are paid. A full pension can be taken at age 62 if the Member had five through nine years of federal service, or at age 60 if the Member had at least 10 years of service in Congress. At the time of separation, the Member must leave all contributions in the plan in order to be eligible for the deferred pension.

Retirement with a deferred, reduced pension is available to a Member at age 50 if he or she retired before that age and had at least 20 years of federal service, including at least 10 years as a Member of Congress.

Retirement Under FERS. There are four possible retirement scenarios for Members who are covered by FERS:
Retirement with an immediate, full pension is available to Members at age 62
or older with at least five years of federal service; at age 50 or older with at least 20 years of service; and at any age to Members with at least 25 years of service.

Retirement with an immediate, reduced pension is available at age 55 to Members born before 1948 with at least 10 years of service. The minimum age will increase to 56 for Members born from 1953 through 1964 and to 57 for those born in 1970 or later.

Retirement with a deferred, full pension is available at age 62 to former Members of Congress with at least five years of federal service.

Retirement with a deferred, reduced pension is available at the minimum retirement age of 55 to 57 (depending on year of birth) to a former Member who has completed at least 10 years of federal service. The pension annuity will be permanently reduced if it begins before age 62.4

Like everything in government and the media the truth is sometimes hard to find.

Technorati Tags:congress. retirement, senate, money, pension, government, media
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Obama Address and Buyer Remorse

by Ron Spangler

As part of President Obama's State of the Union Address word has been leaked that he is going to announce a partial spending freeze. Pundits on the right see it as a political gimmick and pundits on the left see it as surrendering his sole to the right. State_of_America sees it as just another con or bait and switch tactic by this centuries' greatest con-artist.

With the left hand he has increased spending by $24 Billion per year but with the right hand he will freeze future spending that will save less than $15 Billion per year. If passed he knows Congress will find ways to get around this partial freeze and continue spending like drunken sailors of olden days (sailors today have nothing to spend). If it doesn't pass he can blame Republicans and regain the trust and votes of Independents in the upcoming November 2010 elections. It is pure politics designed to help Democrats and stymie some of the spending criticism coming from his political opponents.

In a earlier post date September 24, 2009 Buyer's Remorse in America I called President Obama the greatest con artist of the 20th century and possibly the 21st century. If this latest scam wins favor with Independents it will confirm my analysis. In that post I said in part:

'The con artist or confidence artist has gone by many names throughout history. Flim Flam man, hustler, shyster, grifter and sham artist are only a few of the more common names of people that work off of the naivety, honesty, trust, and sometimes greed or dishonesty of the victims they encounter along their paths.

A huge misconception about the perfect con is that the con man is in it only for the money. After a few cons the money doesn't mean as much as the power and confidence he gains from pulling off the perfect con. There are many forms of con artist and con games going on around the world. The biggest con of all is in American politics.'

Unlike working people that see harder times coming their way and try to save as much as they can, this Administration and Congress will continue to spend outrageous amounts of money making the dollar worthless. By the end of 2010 this could end in bankruptcy for America. This idea of spending your way out of recession or depression is nothing new, witness the former Soviet Union. They more than any other country in recent history proved that a central government having total control of the economy and involvement in running private industry only ends in disaster.

Why are Democrats doing this? Are they really that stupid? The answer is pure elite arrogance. In their greed for more power and their arrogance in believing they have the answer for every question, they believe their progressive ideology is the answer. They believe a nation of one party rule is the answer for the 21st Century. They also believe this one party rule must closely follow the philosophy of the great philosopher Mao and the the freedom fighter Che Guevara. If you believe in this philosophy or idea then it is not stupid to believe you can make it happen. If you are so arrogant that you believe you have all the answers or the government is the answer, then this is the natural path to follow.

If on the other hand you look back in history you will find this idea to be stupid. Why, because you will find other world leaders have followed this path and led their countries to a complete and disastrous failure.

In the 20th century alone Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che and others believed in and followed this path. All of these people had one thing in common. They were crazed power hungry ideologues. They believed government was the answer to everything and they must control the thoughts and minds of the people they governed. They did not believe in an individual's right to succeed or fail. They did not believe in an individual's right to question the path their government was taking. They believed people were too stupid to understand what was in the best interest of the country. They believed the common man was too stupid to understand the economy and how it works.

History today glorifies people like Mao especially CNN.com

"Few people in history deserve sole credit for changing the fate of an entire nation. One of them is Mao Tse-tung, the man who rose from the peasantry to become the pre-eminent revolutionary theorist, political leader and statesman of Communist China."

In reality all of these men were mass murderers and they all came to power during or after the Great Depression when the world was facing an economic collapse. They promised their people better times and a better way of life. By taking control of the market and nationalizing all of the industries, they had a short term success in turning around their economies. They built roads, bridges, buildings, and automobiles. But in the case of Germany the biggest industry was military arms. Everyone in one way or another worked for the government.

The problem with this type of Totalitarian, Communist, or Socialist society is it never works. To some extent they all followed the Marxist doctrine. Followers of Marxism or Mao don't understand a few simple truths. People demand their right to succeed or fail. People demand the right to question their government. People demand to decide what path their country is taking. People demand the right to decide how they are taxed and how the money is spent. People expect the media to be free from government influence and tell us the truth about what their freely elected officials are doing. Simply put people demand to be the free and independent people that controls their government, not the people that are controlled by the government. People in America desire and expect nothing less than the dreams our founding fathers envisioned in the Declaration of Independence and the rights given by the Constitution of the United States. American people will tolerate nothing less.

With the last few elections, especially in Massachusetts, America has sent Washington a message. It is not clear if they understand or if they are just too arrogant to care. One thing is certain, America will no longer be conned. Great speeches and grandiose promises will no longer allow the politicians to disregard the American people. President Obama can no longer treat us like he did the 6th grade class with his Presidential podium and teleprompters. Either change directions or your progressive supporters will be voted out and like President Clinton you will be isolated and forced to bow to the demands of the American people.

Technorati Tags:president obama, buyers remorse, america, depression, recession, economy, congress, unemployment, government, industries, market, industry, politician, polls, groups
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Elite Washington D C Insults America

by Ron Spangler

After watching the Sunday talk shows I could not help but feel the elite Washington D C talking points from the Democrat Party was insulting the intelligence of the American people. Their message coming from President Obama himself seems to be,

"Americans just don't understand. Even though we tried to spell out the benefits of the Health Care Bill, Americans are just too stupid to get it."

Even faced with the fact that Massachusetts Democrats and Independents rejected the Health Care Bill as written the elite Washington crowd insist that the voters just didn't understand. Could this be true? Could Americans really be this stupid, as President Obama once insinuated by saying we as Americans,

"...get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Their attitude is they must treat us like children or second class illiterate citizens much like Arlen Specter did Rep. Michele Bachmann when in a condescending tone said, "Now, wait a minute, I'll stop and you can talk," he said. "I'll treat you like a lady. Now act like one."

Her reply was, "Well, I am a lady."

Our reply to the elitist should be;

We did listen, we did understand but we do not agree.

We don't like the backdoor deals.

We don't like the government take over and government mandates.

We don't agree on such a wide sweeping government intrusion into our private lives and we don't agree on this Health Care Bill.

The news that President Obama is bringing back his old campaign manager David Plouffe can only mean President Obama and his team didn't get the message. They are determined to pass their idea of Health Care Reform regardless of what the people think or say. Evidently what Senator Obama insinuated, he really believes. Maybe we really are second class illiterate citizens that are: 'bitter, gun toting, bible thumping, anti-immigrant rednecks and must be treated like children'.

Or maybe, if we act intelligent and continue to stand together just maybe they will finally get our message. We are not too stupid to understand the direction they are taking us in. We see it, understand it and we refuse to follow their lead to further destroy our economy and our way of life.

We understand the economy better than they give us credit. It is not creating universal health care that will lead to lower unemployment rates, it is the higher the employment rate the higher number of people will have insurance coverage. It is really simple. If you have a permanent job you can either afford your own insurance coverage or odds are you will have the opportunity to join your employer's health care plan.

What people understand and know to be the truth is economics 101, without jobs this country can never afford universal health care. The message is clear, stop the spending and help business to put Americans back to work. Health Care Reform can be done on a smaller scale that will reduce the cost but if Americans have no place to live or food to eat health care reform will mean nothing.

Technorati Tags:health care, obama, government, economy, jobs, health, business, reform, washington, elite, democrats, politics, news guns, religion
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

Common Sense Measures To Cut Health Care Cost

By Ron Spangler

With the Democrat Health Care Bill lying int its coffin maybe it is time for Congress to take a simple approach to lowering the cost of health health care in the United States. Some simple measures that could be acted upon and immediately passed come from ordinary people regardless of party affiliation. These are basic common sense measures that will not allow the government take over of health care or add to the cost of health insurance premiums.

Here are some simple measures that come to mind. Passing these in incremental bipartisan steps would allow Congress to take action now and move on to more important issues like reducing government spending, creating tax incentives so business can expand and start hiring again, helping small business entrepreneurs hire or expand, reducing taxes on consumers so they have more to invest or spend, reducing the debt and deficit, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil by allowing more drilling of our own domestic oil.

Reducing Health Care Cost Measures:

Encourage younger people to carry health insurance that is similar to a annuity life insurance policy. A percentage of the premium payed by the insured or the insured person's employer would be set aside and invested into a separate account to draw interest. After a set accumulation period not to exceed five years, the policy holder could have access to a percentage, not to exceed 50%, of the amount accumulated to help pay for out of pocket medical expenses or to cover the cost of any future premium increases. After the accumulation period has been reached the insurance would follow the policy holder throughout life regardless of a change to their employment. After reaching their full retirement age the policy holder would have full access to his account and have the opportunity to use this account to pay the monthly premiums of their policy. This type of policy could not be restricted to one particular age group and must be offered as a single or family option plan. The cost of this type of policy could not exceed the fair market value of other plans made available by insurance companies offering this plan.

Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

Ban preexisting condition exclusions in insurance policies.

Ban insurance companies from canceling policy due to catastrophic illness or injury.

Ban hospitals and medical practitioners from charging people with insurance more than they would charge people without insurance.

Reform Anti-Trust Law for insurance companies.

Pass Medical Tort Reform.

Restrict hospitals and medical practitioners from charging patients with insurance more than they have agreed to pay the insurance company. If hospitals or practitioners have entered into an agreement with insurance companies to accept x amount of dollars for services rendered then they should not be allowed to bill the patient for any additional amount the insurance company refuses to pay.

Restrict insurance companies from arbitrarily deciding what the going rate for a particular procedure for a given area should be.

Restrict hospitals and practitioners from charging none medical fees to patients, i. e. administrative fees, professional fees, etc. All non medical charges should be considered as the cost of doing business and should be tax deductible instead of fees passed on to the patient. Processing paperwork, maintenance of a facility, cost for new construction, or additional cost to cover the uninsured should have nothing to do with the actual treatment received by a patient.

These are simple things that can be passed with bi-partisan support and would immediately reduce the cost of medical care and insurance premiums. Hospitals charging $25-$50 for an aspirin or insurance companies arbitrarily deciding the acceptable rate for a particular procedure and then paying only 80% of that rate is ridiculous. Allowing the medical field to charge administrative and professional fees to patients is unethical. Allowing the medical field to overcharge patients and then ruin the patient's credit for not paying anything the insurance company refuses to pay is extortion. Not holding lawyers responsible for frivolous lawsuits and fraudulent claims is criminal.

Technorati Tags:insurance, health care, health care cost, government, insurance company, health, business, family, jobs, congress, tax, united states, premiums, hospitals, doctors, medicine
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

After Boston Tea Party, What Now For Health Care

by Ron Spangler

After the Boston Tea Party 2nd revolution what will the Democrats do about Health Care? It is clear the White House didn't get the message. According to David Axelrod on MSNBC: "Mass vote was more about jobs (Fault of Bush) than it was about Health Care" REALLY?

Again on MSNBC Axelrod and Gibbs would not agree Brown victory was meant to be a "Wake-Up Call" to Obama and the Democrats:



According to Axelrod and Gibbs halting health reform 'not an option'.

Evidently they just don't get it. The message from Massachusetts voters was the same as the message from the majority of voters around the country, 'Stop the Health Care Bill, Stop Expanding Government, Stop the Spending, Stop What You Are Doing'.

Some Democrats did hear the people and they are listening. Some in the House are suggesting they go back to the basics. They are taking the Republican view of reforming Health Care incrementally. What does this mean, breaking it down and fix Health Care issues one step at a time.

Where could they start?

Cut the cost:

Open up insurance across state lines.

Ban precondition exclusions in insurance policies.

Ban insurance companies from canceling policy due to catastrophic illness or injury.

Ban hospitals and medical practitioners from charging people with insurance more than they would charge people without insurance.

Reform Anti-Trust Law for insurance companies.

Pass Medical Tort Reform.

Restrict hospitals and medical practitioners from charging patients with insurance more than they have agreed to pay the insurance company.

Restrict insurance companies from arbitrarily deciding what the going rate for a particular procedure for a given area should be.

Restrict hospitals and practitioners from charging none medical fees to patients, i. e. administrative fees, professional fees, etc.

These are simple things that can be passed with bi-partisan support and would immediately reduce the cost of medical care and insurance premiums. Hospitals charging $25-$50 for an aspirin or insurance companies arbitrarily deciding the acceptable rate for a particular procedure and then paying only 80% of that rate is ridiculous. Allowing the medical field to charge administrative and professional fees to patients is unethical. Allowing the medical field to overcharge patients and then ruin the patient's credit for not paying anything the insurance company refuses to pay is extortion. Not holding lawyers responsible for frivolous lawsuits and fraudulent claims is criminal.

Massachusetts and the American people have spoken. Obama and every Washington politician better listen. Neither party is safe come November 2010. As for Keith Olbermann on MSNBC: Race Has Nothing To Do With It!!

Technorati Tags:obama, health, health care, democrats, medical, hospitals, washington, boston, voters, tea party, message, msnbc, insurance
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator