You don't hear these numbers when professional athletes or movie stars protest Arizona.....Washington D. C. cannot understand that there is a problem. The following information IS compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports: * 83% of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens. * 40.1% of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals * 53% plus of all investigated burglaries reported in Arizona are perpetrated by illegal aliens. * 63% of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63%, 97% are illegal aliens * 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the US to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.* 97.2% of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers And we haven't even touched food stamps, subsidized housing, medicare/medicaid costs, education costs (including special bilingual teachers and extra police to patrol the halls), traffic problems, etc., here. What part of illegal do you not understand?

Lost Love, never to be regained.

--> Every love affair has it’s lifetime. This that as long as it has a start it has a finish. Some relationships last to the end of partners lifetime, some die soon after they started.
Love may start as the strongest passion but time passes and the storm of emotions calms down, relationships once so bright and full of surprises become routine. It drags on for a while and than comes crisis. A couple can either survive through it or fall apart.
Even when the love is gone it’s always hard to realize that you have to quit something once so good. There’s no certain way to decrease the sad feelings about falling apart. You may only try to stay civilized people about it and to let the one who’s leaving do it without making up grandiose scandals and hysterics.
Although some think that it’s better to stay enemies than friends because then you will have nothing to regret about and won’t execute meaningless attempts to get things back. But is it so right to ruin all the memories about the happy time two people have spent together with ugly scenes screaming and blaming each other in the worst sins?
It’s over when it’s over and sometimes it’s obvious that all is over. Two people scream and shout one at the other almost everyday, they have nothing to talk about and if they do every conversation turns into a quarrel, one finds faults with everything the other does, they both simply annoy each other. That’s definitely the end.
The question is where the love’s gone. Nobody knows it. Maybe they’ve been spending too much time together and finally have started to bore each other. Maybe he has stopped telling her about his love and she has stopped feeling it. Maybe time has made the illusions disappear and the reality has turned to be not what they both expected. Maybe there was only passion and after it’s gone nothing has left. There can be plenty of those maybes. Every misfortune has it’s own face. It may even be that nothing is over but people need to take a little rest one from the other or try to diversify their relationships. In fact when each one of a couple is willing to fight to make love stay they’ll find the way to do it.

--> The real tragedy is when one still feels the love but the other is bored and wants to leave. If the feeling is really gone no tricks will help to keep the partner, sooner or later he or she will finally leave and those few more weeks together won’t make you happier. The only thing you can really do in this case is to try to get over him/her as soon as possible. That misery will pass as the happiness did.Sometimes men and women lose interest in each other because they have given up their job, interests, friends and etc. in order to become the part of the other's life, to be everything he/she needs. He /she doesn’t have to conquer her any more, he/she has stopped being a personality with their own life that they had once fallen in love with. If fact this is one of the general mistakes people do. They get too comfortable and stop fighting for each others love. And than when a partner starts packing bags they wonder where did I go wrong.
But still in very many cases lost love isn’t anyone’s fault. It is just the way things go. We should never stop believing that next time the feeling will be real and will finally last to the very end. We have no limit of times that we can fall in love and so although it’s sad to lose love, each time we do we should try to look at it as on the chance to find a new better one.  Is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved before?  Of course.  We always want to find that one person who truly loves us as we love them....one that always has our back and that love that will last to the end of our life.

Obamacare's doctorless world

Physician shortage will get worse under 'reform'

In rural areas of the country, obtaining a doctor's appointment is practically mission impossible. Even in cities such as Boston and Manhattan, it can be very difficult for patients to attain the medical care they badly need, particularly for Medicare and Medicaid patients. From New York's Upper East Side to the heartland to San Francisco's Haight Ashbury, a striking physician shortage exists in this country. The reasons for the dearth of doctors are complex, but one thing is certain: The "health care reform" that President Obama ardently pushed down the public's throat and recently signed into law will not increase the scant supply of doctors. In fact, it will make the problem worse.

There is a huge investment in both time and money before one is qualified to practice medicine. Medical school, which future doctors complete after four years of undergraduate studies, is another four years of expensive schooling. Then, to be able actually to practice and make a living, doctors must complete a rigorous residency program ranging from an additional three to six years of training, depending on the specialty. The majority of physicians do a fellowship on top of that, which is another two to three years. By the time most doctors start their careers, they are in their 30s and have accrued more than $150,000 in education-related debt.

It is true that in every profession one must pay one's dues, so to speak. Yet, the "dues" in medicine considerably trump those of any other field. Medicine is not only mentally challenging, but incredibly physically and psychologically demanding as well. The training is brutal - 30-hour shifts, 80-hour-plus weeks, four days off per month, lunch breaks nonexistent. The salary, which hovers just above minimum wage on an hourly basis throughout the training marathon, bears no relationship to the responsibility, education and skill set. While contemporaries move on with their lives, buy homes and take vacations, a vacation for a young doctor often is merely the opportunity to sleep in his or her own bed and not at the hospital. A break on a 30-hour shift can be little more than five minutes to scarf down dinner, praying you are not interrupted by a page. You usually are.

It takes tremendous sacrifice to become a physician. If anything, doctors should be rewarded to give up so much to pursue this noble calling. They certainly should not be disincentivized, which is precisely what the newly passed law will do.

Obamacare is brutal for physicians, and the detriment transcends dollars and cents. The law establishes approximately 159 new committees, agencies and bureaucracies, each with incredible power and flexibility to dictate physician decisions and burden an industry already regulated to death with even more red tape. This will further strip doctors of their autonomy and drown them in ever more bureaucracy and paperwork. It will make doctors even more beholden to the whims of unaccountable bureaucrats and lawyers than they already are, at the expense of the patients' best interest. Doctors will have to waste valuable time complying with inane regulations that are superfluous and sometimes harmful to patient care. This will result in physicians having even less time to administer to patients. The problem will be magnified as declining reimbursements compel doctors to see more patients to maintain the same income. It will hamstring a physician's ability to practice good medicine and will drain job satisfaction.

Obamacare will dissuade bright young minds from entering medicine in the first place, while many doctors already practicing will either retire or switch careers. New patients will be unable to find doctors, and many patients content with their health care will eventually encounter similar difficulty. Obamacare is certainly bad for doctors. Ultimately, however, it is the patient - haplessly facing restricted access, long waits and rationed care - who suffers the most.

Mr. Obama has correctly noted the shortage of primary care physicians, but his prescription to resolve the problem will only exacerbate it. Furthermore, there are shortages in many specialties and subspecialties as well. A policy of "Regulate more, pay less" will prove a very difficult recruiting motto.

Obamacare's secret surveillance

The O Force wants government snooping on you

Blog sites have been buzzing about the National Medical Device Registry, a new office in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that was created in the Obamacare reconciliation package. Concern centers on the registry's authority to conduct "postmarket device surveillance activities on implantable medical devices," including those that feature radio-frequency identification. The word "surveillance" conjures ominous images of government tracking and reporting. Some have suggested the law lays the groundwork for compulsory microchip implantation so the state can keep tabs on everyone - for their own good, naturally.

But there is no compulsory microchipping in the new law, and "postmarket surveillance" is a term of art in the medical community that in this case refers to monitoring devices to make sure they do what they are supposed to do, and do not pose a health risk. The FDA has been involved in this for more than a decade. The innovation in the new law is to federalize and centralize what used to be a public-private partnership.

No doubt, privacy concerns are justified. The law is vague on what types of data may be collected and how, so while people may not be required to have radio-chip implants, those who get them for medical reasons may fall under the authority of the registry, whether they want to or not.

The Obama administration has gone on the record in favor of using innovative means to follow people's movements. In February, the Justice Department argued before the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that government agents should be permitted to track citizens by triangulating the locations of their cell phones. The Obama administration argued this can be done without the need for warrants because Americans have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" when it comes to their personal communications devices.

If the O Force believes it's OK for the government to track citizens by their cell-phone signals, it's not a great leap to believe the same rule would apply to an implanted radio chip. This concern fits within a general disquiet over the Obama administration's incessant drive to expand government power over Americans' private lives.

The health care law's provision mandating the purchase of health insurance, for example, is an unprecedented and unconstitutional claim of power under the Commerce Clause, which uses the IRS as its enforcement mechanism. A Congress that believes it can wield this type of power will determine that the government should mandate the type of electronic chips currently used to keep track of pets, livestock and convicts. The government already seems to believe that citizens can be divided among these three categories anyway.

Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate

Health care reform now in court's hands

The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats' health care overhaul - a move that would threaten the entire law.

Two major constitutional challenges have been levied against the new law, one by the state of Virginia, which enacted a law exempting its citizens from the federal health insurance mandate, and another by Florida and 12 other states. Legal scholars are divided on the merits of the cases, and even Congress - through its research service and its budget scorekeeper - has said it's an open question whether the provision could pass constitutional muster.

At issue is the scope of the federal government's power over states and individuals. Critics of the law say the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine, if allowed, would mean that Congress has virtually boundless authority to compel actions. Proponents argue that legal precedents support an expansive reading of the legislative branch's license to regulate such activity.

"This is one of the most consequential lawsuits in our generation," said Baker Hostetler lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr., who is serving as outside counsel to the 13 states that have filed suit. "The fact you have so many different state attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats, from a variety of states coming together to do this just underscores how strongly they feel that the act infringes core constitutional interests of their respective states."

The mandate, which doesn't take effect until 2014, is central to Democrats' goal of insuring about 32 million more Americans. The law would offer tax credits to low-income individuals and allow young adults to remain on their parents' policies longer.

Both of the state lawsuits challenge the federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Florida case also cites a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves those powers not spelled out under the federal government in the Constitution to the state governments, and argues that the health care law's expansion of state Medicaid programs threatens state sovereignty.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines - the insurance exchanges are state-based - the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

"Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state's lawsuit. "To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would ... create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers."

While a requirement to buy health insurance might be new, some legal analysts say, Congress can in fact define an economic activity as something that results from not taking an action.

"The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race and thus prohibits inactivity," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, noting that law relied upon the Commerce Clause. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Buying or refusing to buy insurance is economic activity. The effect on the economy is enormous."

Democrats Death By Suicide

The government takeover of health care will go down in history as the worst piece of legislation to emerge from a Congress held in general disdain by the American people. The only bipartisanship on the health bill was in the opposition.

Usually autopsies are reserved for after the patient has died, but in this case it is useful to get ahead of the matter. The malformed health legislation is not the only reason Democrats are facing political extinction in November, but it is one of the most dramatic. The legislative process in this country has never been so unseemly. Arm twisting, backroom deals, special privileges and potentially criminal "government jobs for votes" agreements became a normal way of doing business. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fixated on the mantra that the Democrats' health plan is "historic," but so was the Black Plague.

President Obama went to Capitol Hill on Saturday to give a final pep talk to Democrats, where he absurdly called his socialist health care measure "one of the biggest deficit reduction measures in history." This contradicts the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, who says his staff currently has no idea what the impact of the plan is "due to the complexity of the legislation." Democrats have been hoodwinked into believing they won't pay a political price for their actions, but they will soon discover they miscalculated.

The new system will suffer a tsunami of bad publicity when states sue the federal government over unfunded mandates, when the IRS begins enforcing the aspects of the bill that voters never knew existed, when small businesses start firing employees because they cannot afford the higher costs of the new system, when new and unforeseen costs blow out the already record federal budget deficit, and when seniors begin to feel the impact of Medicare cuts. All of this is what Mr. Obama euphemistically calls "bending the curve" but which seniors will find out is better termed "denial of care." Whether the formal "death panels" will convene before the November elections is still to be determined.

Many members of Congress probably don't know exactly what is in the bill. The 2,300 pages of "fixes" to the Senate bill presented last week were only a draft, and no member can be certain what has been slipped in. A frantic Democratic Party memo sent out Thursday instructed members -- twice, in italics -- not to "get into a discussion of details of the [Congressional Budget Office] scores and the textual narrative" with the bill's opponents. But the devil was in those details. Mrs. Pelosi's offhand statement that members would learn what was in the bill after it was passed should have been a warning.

The majority party was even having problems over the weekend determining if they could vote to amend a law before it was signed by the president. It is a sad day for America when senior members of Congress either dont understand the Constitution or no longer think it applies.

Democrats in Congress refuse to believe the contempt with which the American people hold them. Gallup shows congressional approval ratings in the teens and headed downward. Gallup also found that "more Americans believe the new legislation will make things worse rather than better for the U.S. as a whole, as well as for them personally."

Democrats are in much worse shape than in 1994 when they lost power, and the opposition is far more energized. Once voters have a chance to tell the most irresponsible government in American history that enough is enough, the Democrats' brief reign will expire, and be deemed death by suicide