At least 30 residents of El Porvenir, located about four miles from the Texas border town of Fort Hancock, have crossed into the U.S. and asked for political asylum, telling authorities that they fear for their lives. Did they come across with permission or did they cross as illegal immigrants? If we give 30 residents political asylum now then how many more should we allow in illegally?

A tiny Texas community, which is on high alert and preparing for a surge of  illegal immigrants should a street battle break out with another cartel – or if gunmen begin carrying out a threat to start killing the town’s children in El Porvenir. According to Doyle, the cartel posted signs in El Porvenir earlier in the month ordering people in the town of 10,000 “to get out or pay with blood.” He said he was not sure of the deadline that was given. “We have heard anywhere from a week to 40 days”.Since then, Fort Hancock, population 1700, has been in the grip of fear. The school district has seen a rise in the number of enrolled students as families in Mexico send their children to live with relatives on the other side of the border. Where are all the illegal immigrants going to live? Can their relatives afford to keep them WITHOUT getting government aid from us? How long would they be allowed to stay? We are in a recession {On the verge of heading to the next great depression according to Obama} so we CAN NOT take in 10,000 more people that are either unemployed or working here illegally taking jobs from Americans. They already know children are being sent to America to live with relatives illegally. So why are they allowing them to enroll in school?

A former law enforcement officer who lives in Fort Hancock and asked not to be named said the siege of El Porvenir is important because the town straddles one of the oldest, least defended smuggling routes on the Mexican border.

“It is one of the key staging areas for the cartel and has no fences,” he said. “All they do is wait for shift change at the border posts and walk across. There is no obstruction to crossing the border here.” How stupid is our government?!?!  Our government knows about this…….the drug dealers know about this…..even every Mexican that lives in the area knows. Why have they not secured the area?

While the problem has been seething for some time, it has finally gotten attention from both Washington and Austin. Last week Texas Gov. Rick Perry ordered a multiagency task force to the area. Rep. Kay Granger, the area congresswoman, pushed through the sale of three helicopters to the Mexican government to monitor the area. And the local sheriff has shifted patrols to the area in the hopes of stemming any violence that might spread across the border.

**My thoughts below**

It is now time to take up arms to protect the border states. It is clear that our government is not willing or able to protect the United States. It’s now up to the people to protect themselves. Should the people in Fort Hancock, TX live in fear the rest of their lives?

Is this truly what America is going to look like? Are we willing to STAND UP to keep America ours and FREE??

This blog was contributed to by Mr. Kole Jean. 

March 21, 2010 

So, if these people are not greedy then who is? The answer is the person who offers nothing by means of production but expects to reap the benefits of it, the American recipient class. Asking for, expecting and taking that which they have not earned is greed. Instead of applying that nasty word to the life blood of society, we need to apply it where it belongs. We have to stop demonizing the productive people of the world and understand that they are essential. We must also demand that people earn what they receive. It is time to decide which way of life we want. Do we want the social justice world, where property (money) is taken from the producer and given to the non-producer, or do we want the world where capitalism demands that all produce. 

 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid unveiled a sweeping health care bill Wednesday that would expand health insurance coverage to 30 million more Americans at an estimated cost of $849 billion over 10 years.

What they are not saying is that you are going to be taxed 10 years before the Health Care ever goes into effect.

Reid and other Senate Democrats cited an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office for the coverage and cost figures.

In addition, they said at a news conference, the budget office estimated that the proposal would reduce the federal deficit by $127 billion over the next 10 years and by more than $600 billion in the following decade. Is that because the are hoping to pass the cap and trade bill so that it makes all the illegal immigrants legal?

The CBO figures were preliminary, the Senate Democratic leadership said in a media briefing. The CBO was expected to provide its final analysis later Wednesday or on Thursday, according to the briefing.

President Obama hailed what he called a “critical milestone” in the push to meet his top domestic priority for 2009.

Read the health care bill (PDF)

“From day one, our goal has been to enact legislation that offers stability and security to those who have insurance and affordable coverage to those who don’t, and that lowers costs for families, businesses and governments across the country,” Obama said in a statement, adding that the Senate proposal “meets those principles.” How would our health care being affordable be good for governments across the country?

The proposal drafted from two separate bills approved by Senate committees now goes to the full Senate, where Republicans have vowed to try to block it. Did he forget some Democrats vowed to help the Republicans?

Reid, D-Nevada, needs 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to overcome a certain GOP filibuster attempt and open the chamber’s debate on the bill. It would take another 60 votes to close debate that could last for weeks, while final approval of the bill would only require a simple majority.

Democratic leadership sources have said a Saturday vote to start debate is possible. It remains unclear, however, whether Democrats will have enough votes to fend off a filibuster. Even if they do, the ensuing debate is expected to last weeks, challenging the goal of Senate Democratic leaders to pass the bill by the end of the year.

Reid met with Senate Democrats late Wednesday afternoon before a news conference with the party’s Senate leaders. At the news conference, Reid touted the proposal as providing health care to more Americans “in a fiscally responsible way,” while Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, proclaimed the projected deficit reductions “real savings for Americans.”

Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who succeeded the late Sen. Edward Kennedy as chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, expressed sorrow that Kennedy was not present to continue supporting “the cause of his life.”

The 2,074-page Senate bill seeks to reduce long-term costs of health care for the government, businesses and individuals while reforming how services are delivered to increase efficiency and effectiveness. It includes controversial provisions such as a government-run public health insurance option unanimously opposed by Republicans.

The bill would prohibit illegal immigrants from participating in a health insurance exchange created for those unable to afford health coverage, and it also would prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion coverage in the exchange, according to the briefing for journalists.

According to information at the briefing, the bill includes a range of tax increases and new fees. The Medicare payroll tax on individuals earning $200,000 a year and couples earning $250,000 a year would increase by half a percentage point, from the current 1.45 percent to 1.95 percent.

In addition, insurers providing costly health coverage — known as “Cadillac” plans — would face a 40 percent tax on policies worth more than $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families.

The bill also includes a 5 percent tax on the cost of elective cosmetic surgery, as well as new fees on insurers and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The total projected revenue raised by all the taxes and fees exceeds $200 billion. Who do you think that are going to pass this coast on to?

The bill would require individuals to purchase health insurance, with a fine for noncompliance of $95 in the first year that would escalate to $750 by 2016. Parents would be responsible for providing coverage for their children up to 18 years old.

Unlike the House version, the Senate bill does not mandate that all employers offer health care. Instead senators focus on larger companies. In businesses with 50 or more workers, where at least one employee qualifies for government subsidies, the business would face a penalty of $750 for every full time employee if it does not offer health care coverage.

The Senate bill also would expand government-run Medicaid coverage for the poor to everyone making less than 133 percent of the national poverty level.

Earlier Wednesday, Reid met with Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, moderate Democrats who have expressed concerns about the cost and scope of health care reform proposals.

The trio will play a pivotal role in the success or failure of health care reform in the Senate. If Republicans stay unified in opposition to the health care bill, Reid would need the support of all 58 Senate Democrats as well as independent Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut to overcome a filibuster.

Landrieu said she has concerns relating to the bill’s costs to small businesses and individuals. She also expressed opposition to a public health insurance option “that will undermine the private insurance market.” If that’s included in the measure, she said, “it needs to come out at some point.”

She stated, however, that Reid gave her multiple “assurances … that he’s working hard toward those goals.”

Nelson released a statement Wednesday noting that the likely weekend vote represents an opportunity “to commence debate and an opportunity to make changes” to improve the bill.

A source close to Nelson indicated that the Nebraska senator may be willing to vote to start debate even if he doesn’t support everything that’s in the bill.

Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson have all indicated that they want a chance to read the budget office-scored bill before deciding whether to back a vote starting debate.

Reid has spent the past several weeks melding bills passed by two Senate committees. A version passed by the House — by a 220-215 vote — was crafted by Democratic leaders who merged legislation from three House committees.

The House measure is projected to cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the Senate manages to pass a bill, a congressional conference committee would need to merge the House and Senate proposals into a consensus version requiring final approval from each chamber before moving to Obama’s desk to be signed into law.

Democratic leaders in both chambers have been wrestling with a series of controversial issues tied to health care reform, including abortion and immigration. They’re also at odds over how to pay for reform.

They have, however, reached agreement on a broad range of changes that could impact every American’s coverage.

Among other things, they’ve agreed to subsidize insurance for a family of four making up to roughly $88,000 annually, or 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

They’ve also agreed to expand Medicaid and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small businesses, the self-employed and the unemployed to pool resources and purchase less expensive coverage.

They also would limit total out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Insurers under the Democratic plans would be barred from charging higher premiums based on a person’s gender or medical history.

Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel

 The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. If I go for a complete physical that includes a breast exam other wise it is just a pap smear.

Breast self-exams are of no value the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded. Screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women’s odds of survival.”The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s,” said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel. Contact Dr. Diana Petitti at : diana.petitti@asu.edu   ask her when she got her first exam. Let her Know you do not agree with her.

 Oh REALLY? I for one am glad I learned how to do self exams because in my late 30′s ……..yes 30′s not 50′s ….I found a lump. I had a lump the size of a small grapefruit removed. Was it cancer? No. Could it have turned into cancer? Maybe. It was a solid gray mass. Was I willing to take a chance and wait to see? NO!

Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. Oh so after 75 you may not be worth the expense?

*** The Obama administration wants to pass a universal health care. Is this how they are going to take care of us? They are going to tell doctors to stop teaching self exams and to have the doctors stop checking women’s breast until they are 50.

International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years. The World Health Organization recommends every 2 years….humm…is the government panel of doctors going by the WHO recommendations already?

“You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The over diagnosis increases in older women,” Mandelblatt said. Aren’t we ALL destine to die of something? None of us get to pick how we die but all of us SHOULD get to decide our health care NOT the GOVERNMENT.

** We need to put a stop to this now!! This is just the beginning stage of the GOVERNMENT RUN HEALTH CARE. What will be next?

Obamacare