Six months ago, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi rammed Obamacare down the throats of an unwilling American public. Half a year removed from the unprecedented legislative chicanery and backroom dealing that characterized the bill's passage, we know much more about the bill than we did then. A few of the revelations:

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» As written, Obamacare covers elective abortions, contrary to Obama's promise that it wouldn't. This means that tax dollars will be used to pay for a procedure millions of Americans across the political spectrum view as immoral. Supposedly, the Department of Health and Human Services will bar abortion coverage with new regulations but these will likely be tied up for years in litigation, and in the end may not survive the court challenge.

» Obamacare won't allow employees or most small businesses to keep the coverage they have and like. By Obama's estimates, as many as 69 percent of employees, 80 percent of small businesses, and 64 percent of large businesses will be forced to change coverage, probably to more expensive plans.

» Obamacare will increase insurance premiums -- in some places, it already has. Insurers, suddenly forced to cover clients' children until age 26, have little choice but to raise premiums, and they attribute to Obamacare's mandates a 1 to 9 percent increase. Obama's only method of preventing massive rate increases so far has been to threaten insurers.

» Obamacare will force seasonal employers -- especially the ski and amusement park industries -- to pay huge fines, cut hours, or lay off employees.

» Obamacare forces states to guarantee not only payment but also treatment for indigent Medicaid patients. With many doctors now refusing to take Medicaid (because they lose money doing so), cash-strapped states could be sued and ordered to increase reimbursement rates beyond their means.

» Obamacare imposes a huge nonmedical tax compliance burden on small business. It will require them to mail IRS 1099 tax forms to every vendor from whom they make purchases of more than $600 in a year, with duplicate forms going to the Internal Revenue Service. Like so much else in the 2,500-page bill, our senators and representatives were apparently unaware of this when they passed the measure.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

If you wonder why so many American voters are angry, and no longer give Obama the benefit of the doubt on a variety of issues, you need look no further than Obamacare, whose birthday gift to America might just be a GOP congressional majority.


Read more at the Washington Examiner:


Is it any surprise that the government is surprised about their predictions not being on target?

It seems that the government is surprised about everything it is predicting, or has predicted, and that somehow all the magical things that should have happened, have not in fact happened at all!

The simple fact is that the government honchos, most of whom have never lived in the real world, or were elites looking only at theory rather than reality through their university positions or the like,do not have a "connection" with the daily realities we all face. These include creeping increases in the cost of daily necessities such as gasoline,electricity, heating and cooking gas, and just about everything else.

Most importantly, the businesses that employ the majority of Americans, are carefully watching their dwindling profits collapsing and thus are forced to consider layoffs, just to remain viable. The thinking that they will keep a long time employee "just in case" business picks up is no longer the case, as realities take hold.

There is no surprise in the jobless claims, the increase in only the beginning of what will be a continuing trend as long as the nasty new mandates are in place and more are schduled to start in the future.

There is a little ray of hope in that some of the future mandates can be killed, or defunded after the November elections which foretell a backlash by voters, and may sweep in a new majority opposed to the continued destruction of jobs and finances of working people.

When the jobless start to have no jobs to replace those they lost, it becomes a strange circle of lower paying future jobs that will be replacing the ones that were lost, and this will cause a lower living standard for this entire group of people.

Thus, it will be no surprise when the jobless claims continue for a while to rise and the unemployed will stay that way or will finally accept lower paying jobs...which will inevitably cause a domino effect on the entire economy.

The result will be the continuation of loss of value in homes, in less demand from consumers for hard goods, clothing and automobiles most of which will be beyond the cost afforded by the average worker.

Government needs to get out of the way, and follow the advice of a former famous CEO, Lee Iaccoca, who said, " lead, follow or get out of the way". Right now it is only standing in the way, leading the country on the wrong path, and refusing adamantley to follow the will of the people.


AS UNBELIEVABLE AS IT SOUNDS. the UK's tax collection agency is putting forth a proposal that all employers send employee paychecks to the government, after which the government would deduct what it deems as the appropriate tax and pay the employees by bank transfer.

This is also something that the administration supports!

The proposal by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) stresses the need for employers to provide real-time information to the government so that it can monitor all payments and make a better assessment of whether the correct tax is being paid.

This is one of the craziest schemes yet proposed by the government which now needs to be removed, and sane people elected.

Currently employers withhold tax and pay the government, providing information at the end of the year, a system know as Pay as You Earn (PAYE). There is no option for those employees to refuse withholding and individually file a tax return at the end of the year.

If the real-time information plan works, it further proposes that employers hand over employee salaries to the government first.

"The next step could be to use (real-time) information as the basis for centralizing the calculation and deduction of tax," HMRC said in a July discussion paper.

HMRC described the plan as "radical" as it would be a huge change from the current system that has been largely unchanged for 66 years.

Even though the centralized deductions proposal would provide much-needed oversight, there are some major concerns, George Bull, head of Tax at Baker Tilly, told

"If HMRC has direct access to employees' bank accounts and makes a mistake, people are going to feel very exposed and vulnerable," Bull said.

And the chance of widespread mistakes could be high, according to Bull. HMRC does not have a good track record of handling large computer systems and has suffered high-profile errors with data, he said.

The system would be massive in terms of data management, larger than a recent attempt to centralize the National Health Service's data, which was later scrapped, Bull said.

If there's a mistake and the HMRC collects too much money, the difficulty of getting it back could be high with repayments of tax taking weeks or months, he said.

"There has to be some very clear understanding of how quickly repayments were made if there was a mistake," Bull said.

HMRC estimated the potential savings to employers from the introduction of the concept would be about £500 million ($780 million).

But the cost of implementing the new system would be "phenomenal," Bull pointed out.

"It's very clear that the system does need to be modernized… It's outdated, it's outmoded," Emma Boon, campaigner manager at the Tax Payers' Alliance, told

Boon said that the Tax Payers' Alliance was in favor of simplifying tax collection, but stressed that a new complex computer system would add infrastructure and administration costs at a time when the government is trying to reduce spending.

There is a further concern, according to Bull. The centralized storage of so much data poises a security risk as the system may be open to cyber crime.

As well as security issues, there's a huge issue of transparency, according to Boon.

Boon also questioned HMCR's ability to handle to the role effectively.

The Institute of Directors (IoD), a UK organization created to promote the business agenda of directors and entreprenuers, said in a press release it had major concerns about the proposal to allow employees' pay to be paid directly to HMRC.

Are you kidding, "major concerns?" is that all they can say. The government does not have any idea of handling some of the simplest tasks, now it wants this?


Feds Spent $800,000 of Economic Stimulus on African Genital-Washing Program
We discivered another necessary use of STIMULUS MONEY.

AS YOU MAY RECALL THIS stimulus WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO SAVE THE UNITED STATES. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), spent $823,200 of economic stimulus funds in 2009 on a study by a UCLA research team to teach uncircumcised African men how to wash their genitals after having sex.

The genitalia-washing program is part of a larger $12-million UCLA study examining how to better encourage Africans to undergo voluntary HIV testing and counseling – however, only the penis-washing study received money from the 2009 economic stimulus law. The washing portion of the study is set to end in 2011.

“NIH Announces the Availability of Recovery Act Funds for Competitive Revision Applications,” the grant abstract states. “We propose to evaluate the feasibility of a post-coital genital hygiene study among men unwilling to be circumcised in Orange Farm, South Africa.”

Because AIDS researchers have been unsuccessful in convincing most adult African men to undergo circumcision, the UCLA study proposes to determine whether researchers can develop an after-sex genitalia-washing regimen that they can then convince uncircumcised African men to follow.

“The aim of the proposed feasibility study is to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a post-coital male genital hygiene procedure, which participants will be asked to practice immediately post-coitus or at least 12 hours after,” reads the abstract.

Entitled “Community-Based HIV VCT: South Africa,” the name of the broader umbrella project, the program plans to test how well received the penis-washing regimen is among South African men.

If most of the men in the study wash their genitals after sex, are willing to do so after the study ends, and report that their partners accept the regimen, the researchers will develop another study to see if the “penile cleansing procedure” actually works to prevent HIV infections.

“If we find that men are able to practice consistent washing practices after sex, we will plan to test whether this might protect men from becoming HIV infected in a later study,” the grant says.

The study’s lead investigator Dr. Thomas J. Coates was the fourth highest-funded researcher in the country in 2002 and is currently conducting HIV research on three continents. asked both Coates and NIMH the following question: “The Census Bureau says the median household income in the United States is $52,000. How would you explain to the average American mom and dad -- who make $52,000 per year -- that taxing them to pay for this grant was justified?”

Coates, who was unavailable for comment, directed to ask grant-related questions of his assistant, Darya Freedman, who did not respond.

The NIMH also declined to respond to’s question.


During the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama's inauguration.

By contrast, President Reagan was sworn into office on Jan. 20, 1981 and left office eight years later on Jan. 20, 1989. At the end of fiscal 1980, four months before Reagan was inaugurated, the federal debt held by the public was $711.9 billion, according to CBO. At the end of fiscal 1989, eight months after Reagan left office, the federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion. That means that in the nine-fiscal-year period of 1980-89--which included all of Reagan’s eight years in office--the federal debt held by the public increased $1.4788 trillion. That is in excess of a trillion dollars less than the $2.5260 increase in the debt held by the public during Obama’s first 19 months.

When President Barack Obama took the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, the total federal debt held by the public stood at 6.3073 trillion, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. As of Aug. 20, 2010, after the first nineteen months of President Obama’s 48-month term, the total federal debt held by the public had grown to a total of $8.8333 trillion, an increase of $2.5260 trillion.

In just the last four months (May through August), according to the CBO, the Obama administration has run cumulative deficits of $464 billion, more than the $458 billion deficit the Bush administration ran through the entirety of fiscal 2008.

The CBO predicted this week that the annual budget deficit for fiscal 2010, which ends on the last day of this month, will exceed $1.3 trillion.

The first two fiscal years in which Obama has served will see the two biggest federal deficits as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product since the end of World War II.

“CBO currently estimates that the deficit for 2010 will be about $70 billion below last year’s total but will still exceed $1.3 trillion,” said the CBO’s monthly budget review for September, which was released yesterday. “Relative to the size of the economy, this year’s deficit is expected to be the second-largest shortfall in the past 65 years: At 9.1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), that deficit will be exceeded only by last year’s deficit of 9.9 percent of GDP.”


The U.S. has slipped down the ranks of competitive economies, falling behind Sweden and Singapore due to huge deficits and pessimism about government, a global economic group said Thursday.

Switzerland retained the top spot for the second year in the annual ranking by the Geneva-based World Economic Forum. It combines economic data and a survey of more than 13,500 business executives.

Sweden moved up to second place while Singapore stayed at No. 3. The United States was in second place last year after falling from No. 1 in 2008.

The WEF praised the United States for its innovative companies, excellent universities and flexible labor market. But it also cited huge deficits, rising government debt and declining public faith in politicians and corporate ethics.

"There has been a weakening of the United States' public and private institutions, as well as lingering concerns about the state of its financial markets," the group said.

Mapping a clear strategy for exiting the huge U.S. stimulus "will be an important step in reinforcing the country's competitiveness," it said.

The report was released in Beijing ahead of a WEF-organized gathering of global business executives next week in neighboring Tianjin. The group is best known for its annual Davos meeting of corporate leaders.

The report ranks 139 countries by assessing business efficiency, innovation, financial markets, health, education, institutions, infrastructure and other factors.

The United States was followed by Germany, Japan, Finland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada.

Switzerland held its top rank due to its strong innovation, evenhanded regulation and one of the world's most stable economic environments.

The WEF cited education and regulation as key areas for improvement in a number of economies and warned leaders not to lose sight of long-term needs as they struggle with the global crisis.

"For economies to remain competitive, they must ensure that they have in place those factors driving the productivity enhancements on which their present and future prosperity is built," one of the report's co-authors, Columbia University economist Xavier Sala-i-Martin, said in a statement.

China performed best among major developing economies, rising two places from last year to 27th based on its large and growing market, economic stability and increasing sophistication of its businesses.

Japan gained two places, helped by strong innovative abilities, though its status was hurt by the country's two-decade-old financial malaise.

Greece plunged 12 places to 83rd, plagued by a debt crisis and mounting public concern about corruption and government inefficiency, according to the WEF.


GM, as the undead creature formed by a government committee, having shafted its previous stockholders is attempting to shaft some new ones once again though its new IPO stock offering. The purpose of the IPO is to generate funds to pay off old loans and to give a value to the unions and other constituencies created in that financial debacle orchestrated by the Obama administration which circumvented all bankruptcy laws.

General Motors Co. will have to persuade investors to look past declining market share, less than a year of profitability and management new to the auto industry to buy shares in its initial public offering.

GM, 61 percent owned by the U.S., said yesterday its North America market share may fall by 2014, while the company has forecast earnings growth will slow in the second half of the year after a two-quarter return to profitability. The automaker must have a market capitalization of $69.4 billion after the IPO for the government to be able to break even on its investment, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

GM’s filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission yesterday laid out the challenges the Detroit-based company will face generating enough investor demand to complete an offering that people familiar with the plan have said may be as large as $16 billion.

“It will be a tough sell because the company has only posted two quarterly profits and the CEO is stepping down,” said Peter Jankovskis, who oversees $2.3 billion as co-chief investment officer at OakBrook Investments in Lisle, Illinois. “Those aren’t the normal types of things associated with an IPO that’s going to be highly subscribed.”

The company must be worth even more than the $69.4 billion for the U.S. to fully recover its investment if the bondholders and the United Auto Workers union exercise warrants and dilute the government’s stake, data compiled by Bloomberg show. That’s more than three times the value of GM’s equity at the end of the last bull market in U.S. stocks and 65 percent higher than Ford Motor Co.’s market capitalization of $42 billion.

Profit Forecast

GM posted profit of $865 million in the first quarter and $1.54 billion in the second quarter. Chief Financial Officer Chris Liddell said last week he expected earnings to moderate in the second half, without giving a specific target.

Recent economic reports have signaled the U.S.’s recovery from the longest recession since the Great Depression is deteriorating. Unemployment claims unexpectedly rose in the first week of August and sales at retailers increased less than forecast last month, reports showed last week. The Federal Reserve said Aug. 10 that the pace of recovery will probably be “more modest” than forecast.

“This is going to be harder than it would have been if the economy and the auto market were in better shape,” said Joe Phillippi, principal of AutoTrends Inc., a consulting firm in Short Hills, New Jersey. “Every week, people are ratcheting down their outlook for the economy and that will affect the price of this deal.”

Fleet Sales

GM and other automakers have sold more vehicles this year to rental and government fleets, which tend to be less profitable than retail sales. GM said yesterday that fleet sales were 32.3 percent of its volume in the first half of this year, up from 24.7 percent last year. Ford got 31 percent of its sales from fleets this year, according to Automotive News.

Such purchases will account for 25 percent to 27 percent of sales for the year, Liddell said last week.

Retaining its share of the North American auto sales also will be a challenge, GM said. The company now has 17.8 percent of the market and forecasts that will slip to 17.6 percent by 2014.

GM’s past dominance of U.S. auto sales has shrunk steadily since its market share peaked at 51 percent in 1962. Since 2002, when the company’s share of new vehicle sales in the U.S. was 28.4 percent, it’s fallen every year to just 19.2 percent this year through July.

The last time GM accounted for a smaller share of new U.S. vehicle sales on an annual basis was in 1925, according to data from trade publication Automotive News.

‘Public Perception’

GM said competitors have succeeded in poaching its customers because of a “negative public perception” of its products.

“It’s something they have been working on for a few years, said Rebecca Lindland, director of IHS Automotive, in Lexington, Massachusetts. ‘‘They’re starting to see some results, but it’s an ongoing battle for them.”

GM also may face a decline in the Chinese market, where the company is a top performer and highly profitable, AutoTrends’ Phillippi said.

GM’s second-quarter sales for the Chinese market fell to 586,000 from 624,000 in the first quarter. GM’s share in China fell to 13.1 percent in the second quarter from 13.3 percent in the first quarter, the company said last week.

New Management

GM flagged its new management team as a potential risk yesterday. Chief Executive Officer Ed Whitacre, 68, said last week that he would step down as CEO Sept. 1 and as chairman at the end of the year, ceding both titles to Dan Akerson, a managing director of the Carlyle Group. Akerson, 61, has been on GM’s board since July 2009 and previously served as chairman and CEO of XO Communications, Nextel Communications and General Instrument Corp.

In its prospectus, GM said the lack of automotive industry experience for Akerson, the company’s fourth CEO since April 2009, and Liddell, who previously CFO for Microsoft Corp. and International Paper Co., was a risk.

Steve Rattner, who led the Obama Administration’s Auto Task Force, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television that Whitacre should have stayed longer.

“It is not optimal for a company to have four CEOs in a year and a half,” Rattner said. “That is not best management practice.”

Some investors will be willing to shoulder the risk because GM has potential for greater profits and growth, said Michael Yoshikami, who oversees about $1 billion as chief investment strategist at YCMNet Advisors in Walnut Creek, California.

“It’s going to well-received by investors,” Yoshikami said. “People believe GM is coming back.”

He said he doesn’t plan to buy the shares for his firm because it’s not a conservative enough investment. Ha ha, better than saying its very stupid as a buy.

Wait till you see how many people do not buy the products it is being forced to sell like its 40 mile electric power car..??

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- For those who are interested in buying General Motors once it goes public again, you won't be able to say you weren't warned.

The GM prospectus has plenty of scary material in it. Admittedly, every company does -- that's their lawyers' job. But there are plenty of factors worth giving pause to snapping up the company when it re-lists, above and beyond the larger concerns about the state of the automotive markets.

The first version of course doesn't list the price of the 500 million common shares it plans to sell. But in any event, those shares would be buying a company that earned $2.2 billion in the first half of this year on revenue of $64.7 billion -- a profit margin of 3.4%. Ford /quotes/comstock/13*!f/quotes/nls/f (F 11.93, +0.13, +1.10%) earned $4.5 billion on revenue of $59.4 billion, so it's more than twice as profitable.

Now it's no shock that Ford is in better shape than GM -- that's how Ford avoided bankruptcy in the first place. A Wall Street analyst could well say that GM has more upside, and that's undeniably true.

But look at all the balls GM is going to juggle. It's getting rid of 700 U.S. dealers and has axed four brands -- which, given other companies' experiences has led GM to conclude that "our market share could decline because of these reductions" from its current top position of 19% in North America.

GM is also worried that four years down the road, it may have to make "significant contributions" to its U.S. defined pension plan that was underfunded by $17 billion at the end of 2009 -- when the interest rates of corporate bonds were higher.

The old GMAC, now called Ally Financial, doesn't have the financing power of old; the vaunted Chevy Volt relies on battery power "that has not yet proven to be commercially viable"; the top two executives don't have previous automotive experience; and, not to be ignored, its controls over financial reporting "are currently not effective."

Just as with Ford, there are no dividends on offer, and while it's dumped previous healthcare obligations, new ones are coming on stream.

Now granted, GM's strong in China, has virtually no short-term debt obligations and has $31.5 billion of cash. But as GM has shown, cash can get burned up rather quickly.

Plus, there's the small matter of the economy on shaky footing.

Until the price is set, it's obviously impossible to say whether GM is a buy or sell. But investors may want to pause before joining the United States and Canadian governments and the United Auto Workers as co-owners.


When the nation elected the new President who had touted HOPE AND CHANGE, they expected a positive change and hoped for it to happen.

The new President, being a totally inexperienced and naive community organizer, really has no idea about how any business really operates. He had chosen then to attempt to demonize every "big" business as somehow bad for the country, and oil companies, health care companies and the auto companies were the first recipients of the "change" announced previously.

Furthermore, the new President then decided to make executive level appointments of even more politically driven, agenda driven equally inexperienced people to run this country. So they proceeded to demonize more industries, more entrepreneurs and business in general.

Where do these guys think all the USA population will work? The answer is in a business!

After noticing that their rhetoric is not adding to business, the administration then concocted a variety of "business friendly" incentives to stimulate the hiring of employees. However, none of these stimulants are related to the "real world" of business, but are rather academic mumbo-jumbo concocted by inexperienced and agenda driven politico operatives that do not understand anything, (emphasis added anything) about what motivates a business to hire new employees.

For instance the center piece of their strategy was a TAX CREDIT, for every employee hired, but as usual there were so many restrictions and conditions, that no business has really even bothered to be incentivised to use such a credit.

There is absolutely no reason for a business to hire a new employee until there is a NEED FOR THE EMPLOYEE! Hello, does anyone out there understand this?

A tax credit also means that there has to be a taxable income to offset, and for many businesses, that is a very small amount, so there is no incentive per-se to add an employee. Why would I hire a new employee, if I got now stuck paying for health care, the added taxes at all levels for such an employee, and then receive a one time credit that I may not be able to use?

Clueleess is not the name of a movie, it is reality coming from our elected officials who are just adding to the problems of a business which is already burdened with needless regulations, taxes, tax forms, reports, compliances, mandates and threats of fines for every little thing.

The new OBAMACARE plans would force the providing of health care to employees, and that cost will become astronomical with all the conditions put on those plans.

So, the bottom line is that there will not be any job growth, when businesses do not see a pick up in business, since business adds employees wisely, unlike the government, and adds them when necessary not due to a tax credit.

HELP save us from our incompetent government...what have they done well, ever?

Every single government program, which was touted as the end all be all, is a disaster, every one: Social Security is broke; New Orleans rebuilding is broke; stimulus is broke; banking guarantee funds are broke; the budget is impossible and the country is only borrowing but is technically broke; welfare handouts, housing vouchers and medicaid is broke, AND SO ON AND SO ON.

Now, the government wants to make all business broke....what will then be left?

As a famous movie hero said, " stupid is as stupid does!".


Barack Obama ordered the federal government to post signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state of Arizona.

The signs were put up by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) along a 60-mile stretch of Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, a major east-west corridor linking Tucson and Phoenix with San Diego.

The signs warn travelers that they are entering an "active drug and human smuggling area" and they may encounter "armed criminals and smuggling vehicles traveling at high rates of speed." Beginning less than 50 miles south of Phoenix, the signs encourage travelers to "use public lands north of Interstate 8" and to call 911 if they "see suspicious activity."

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, whose county lies at the center of major drug and alien smuggling routes to Phoenix and cities east and west, attests to the violence. He said his deputies are outmanned and outgunned by drug traffickers in the rough-hewn desert stretches of his own county.

"Mexican drug cartels literally do control parts of Arizona," he said. "They literally have scouts on the high points in the mountains and in the hills and they literally control movement. They have radios, they have optics, they have night-vision goggles as good as anything law enforcement has.

"This is going on here in Arizona," he said. "This is 70 to 80 miles from the border - 30 miles from the fifth-largest city in the United States."

He said he asked the Obama administration for 3,000 National Guard soldiers to patrol the border, but what he got were 15 signs.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer condemned what she called the federal government's "continued failure to secure our international border," saying the lack of security has resulted in important natural recreational areas in her state being declared too dangerous to visit.

In a recent campaign video posted to YouTube, Mrs. Brewer - standing in front of one of the BLM signs - attacked the administration over the signs, calling them "an outrage" and telling President Obama to "Do your job. Secure our borders."

BLM spokesman Dennis Godfrey in Arizona said agency officials were surprised by the reaction the signs generated when they were put up this summer.

"We were perhaps naive in setting the signs up," he said. "The intention of the signs was to make the public aware that there is potential illegal activity here. But it was interpreted in a different light, and that was not the intent at all."

He said there should be "no sense that we have ceded the land," adding that no BLM lands in Arizona are closed to the public.

"I kind of liken it to if I were visiting a city I were not familiar with and asked a policeman if it were safe to go in a particular area," Mr. Godfrey said.

Rising violence along the border has coincided with a crackdown in Mexico on warring drug gangs, who are seeking control of smuggling routes into the United States.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has waged a bloody campaign against powerful cartels, yesterday announcing the arrest of Texas-born Edgar "La Barbie" Valdez - a powerful cartel leader captured outside of Mexico City on Monday evening.

More than 28,000 people have died since Mr. Calderon launched his crackdown in late 2006, and the bloodshed shows no sign of ending. Law enforcement authorities have been warning for more than two years that the dramatic rise in border violence eventually would spread into the U.S.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,500 of the Border Patrol's front-line agents, said areas well north of the border are so overrun by armed criminals that U.S. citizens are being warned to keep out of those locations.

"The federal government's lack of will to secure our borders is painfully evident when signs are posted well north of the border warning citizens that armed and dangerous criminals are roaming through those areas with impunity," he said. "Instead of taking the steps necessary to secure our borders, politicians are attempting to convince the public that our borders are more secure now than ever before.

"Fortunately, some responsible civil servants are candidly warning the public about the dangers that exist not just along the border but, in some cases, well beyond," he said. "This situation should alarm all sensible people, and should spur endless demands that our legislators take whatever actions are necessary to restore law and order to these areas."

Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, said the federal government's new border security plan apparently is to "erect some signs telling you it's not safe to travel in our own country."

This process of non-action by the federal government has exposed this country and its citizens to dangers that can only result in the Destruction of America.