Here's a link to the webinar about the heart scan I've been talking about that I had at Piedmont Heart Institute so you don't have to go hunting around for it.

Barack Obama and his entourage of 500 have made their way to London for this G-20 summit. Basically what we have here is a little grin and grip with leaders of 20 nations, which represent 85% of the world's economy. Their goal is to figure out how to stabilize the global financial markets and re-start economic growth.

But the difference lies in how they want to do it.

France leads a group of nations who want to create some sort of a global financial regulator. Nobody, particularly the US and Great Britain, seems to be biting on that one. Do you fully understand what this would mean? Well don't feel pregnant. Not many of us do grasp this idea fully. Here's one option. Many high-tax nations, and that would include France, aren't happy with the international economic competition they get from lower-tax nations. They tend to get their berets in a bunch when private businesses chose to do business, create jobs and boost the economies of nations with lower taxes. So ... the solution? You create a global financial regulator and give him the power to dictate tax policy. That way when Ireland, for instance, decides to lower its corporate tax rate in order to lure businesses, jobs and investments France's global financial regulator could step in and put a halt to that nonsense. When nations cannot compete against each other with tax policy the road is cleared for ever-increasing tax increases and big all-powerful government.

Then we have President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. These two are leading the "tax and spend" contingent. Clearly we know how Barack Obama plans to stimulate the economy - government "investment." This, as you know, is the word that has replaced "spending." Governments don't spend any more. They invest. Anyways .... Obama would like to see other nations match his stimulus package. And Great Britain's Gordon Brown was willing to go along with that plan. Remember his proposed $2 trillion plan called the "global new deal"? That one got shot down by European leaders before they even made their way to London. Particularly Germany's Angela Merkel who said, "I will not let anyone tell me that we must spend more money." That seemed to be the resounding response from European leaders - they don't want to spend more money to stimulate the global economy. Merkel, by the way, is absolutely on board with Sarkozy with this global economic regulator idea. Get this ... she wants the global regulator to be able to regulate executive bonuses. Oh man ... where do we start?

By the way, you really need to know why Merkel isn't hyped up on the spend-till-you-choke-on-it plan for economic revival. She knows something about German history. She knows that Germany experienced hyperinflation during the so-called "Great Depression," and that people were hauling wheelbarrows of money to the store to buy schnitzel. The voters really got their lederhosen in a wad over this and elected some twerp name Hitler to fix things.

So now that Gordon's global new deal has been shot to hell, what can we really expect from this summit? Irwin Stelzer of the Hudson Institute says,

1. Leaders will promise to avoid protectionism (which they won't do)
2. They will promise to help developing countries by increasing contributions to the IMF. That's international welfare that enriches tyrants.
3. They will discuss the need for financial regulators to cooperate. Share information, maybe .. but this cooperation idea sounds dangerous.
4. They will shake hands and take pictures
5. Joke with one another about the asinine know-it-all anarchist demonstrators who are, for now at least, providing untold entertainment to Londoners.
6. Make endless comparisons between Michelle Obama and Carla Sarkozy

But then there is China. China is asking the G-20 to replace the dollar as the world's currency with a global currency managed by the IMF. Considering that China is currently sitting on more than $1 trillion of our IOUs ... this doesn't bode as a very comforting move for the United States. For right now this idea isn't going anywhere. If we manage to screw up our economy any more it might gain some followers.

Well ... Obama has already gotten his way with the auto industry by ousting Rick Wagoner. So who will be next? Wagoner certainly won't be the only sacrificial lamb.

If the Service Employees International Union had its way .. the next one up to the chopping block would be Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. The president of the union says, "It defies logic, common-sense, and responsible governance to punish the auto industry while letting financial institutions off the hook ... Firing GM's CEO is a positive step towards restructuring a broken industry .... But the Obama Administration needs to apply the same lesson to the financial sector: replace failed leadership and shepherd the industry into a new era."

The unions are working a power play here. Success in engineering the firing of Bank of America's CEO would result in a massive increase in power for union leaders. Then the unions can set about seeking punishment for any business leaders out there that they perceive as unfriendly to unions. This would, of course, include any business leaders working against the union's precious card check bill.

Did you know that Obama is supposed to be the most powerful player in business? Doesn't this blending of the government and business sector bother you just a little bit?

By the way ... why does the president of the United Auto Workers still have a job? Surely Obama recognizes (if he won't acknowledge) the role of the labor unions in destroying our automakers. Now if that doesn't qualify to be the stupid question of the day, then I certainly have no idea what would. Democrats - unions. Waggoner contributed heavily to Republicans. Do the math.

Slobbering Barney Frank has never held a private sector job in his life. That might explain why this man holds the private sector in such disdain. Just two weeks ago, he was up there in Washington spitting nails about these AIG bonuses and how the government needed to "recover" this money. But people finally came to their senses and the bill quietly died.

But the latest move from the House Financial Services Committee .. which is led by Sylvester the Chairman has approved legislation that could be even more outrageous than the 90% tax on bailout bonuses. This new legislation is called the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009." Pay for performance? Since when has the government been one to pay anyone based on level of performance? If Barney is so hot about paying for performance, why not apply that to teachers in government schools? For right now Barney's legislation would impose government control on the pay of all employees at companies that have received bailout money from the government. The controls would be retroactive. That would mean that our government could walk into one of these workplaces, pick out one employee, and tell him that he has to "give back" some of the money he has already received.

So tax cheat Timothy Geithner - a government hack - will be determining the pay of thousands of employees of private American companies. Not only that, but the government will come up with the way in which to evaluate employee performance. And what is the excuse, according to the bill? In order to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards."

OK .. I know what you're saying. You think that Barney is serious when he says it would only be limited to companies receiving bailout funds. You may have been born at night, but was it last night? You really don't see that Barney and Friends would soon be looking for a way to extend these compensation controls to the rest of our economy? Look ... they have already put a floor on compensation with minimum wage laws. Why should they not believe they can install a ceiling?

When the Obama administration said that there wouldn't be any tax increases this year or next year, they were lying. It was a conscious and willful lie. Obama wants to increase the death tax in 2010. He wants to increase it from 0% to 45%. That, my friends, is a tax increase.

Here's the deal: There's a footnote on page 127 of the President's budget. It's footnote No. 1 and reads: "The estate tax is maintained at its 2009 parameters." And according to the Wall Street Journal, "This means the death tax won't fall to zero next year as scheduled under current law, but estates will be taxed instead at up to 45%, with an exemption level of $3.5 million (or $7 million for a couple)."

This is perhaps the vilest of all taxes. All of the wealth that the government confiscates through the death tax has already been taxed. In simple terms .. you pay taxes on the money when you earn it. You paid taxes on any investment earnings. Then, when you die, the government walks in and takes almost 50% of what you have left.

How does Obama feel about this one more grab on your life's earnings when your life comes to an end? Well, remember that PrezBO tells us that we have a tax code based on "fairness" and "neighborliness." Sounds real neighborly to me.

When it comes to rescuing the financial system, the Congressional Black Caucus has one thing on its mind: the government better not forget about minority-owned companies.

I thought that you would enjoy this quote from one of the most ignorant politicians in Washington, Maxine Waters. She says, "We are not going to sit back and allow billions of dollars to be dumped into this economy and watch the same old players be advantaged by it .. We're not going to sit back and watch some of the players who are responsible for the economic mess we're in today be the recipients of these taxpayer dollars and provide services and make even more money despite the fact they have mismanaged their own businesses."

Yup .. here comes Maxine, and she's going to make the bailout a racial issue. Well .. that's what she does. She might as well dance with who brung her.

The Senate has voted to use revenues from cap-and-trade auctions to pay for higher gas and electricity prices .. I assume this will be limited to "poor" people.

Rick Wagoner got the boot from Obama in order to "start a new vision" .. why didn't the UAW's Ron Gettelfinger get "a new start" as well?

More than half of Americans do not support Obama's plan to bail out troubled banks.

Lawmakers in Washington want to end the travel ban to Cuba. This one won't go down without a fight.

Did you really think that every single penny of this economic stimulus package was actually going to be used to stimulate the economy and not wasted on pork projects?

Here are some more details of Obama Motor's government guarantee. Speaking of which, someone has created a mock phone call to the White House's auto warrantee department.

What are politicians having the taxpayers cough up the cash for their car payments? Needless to say, they aren't worried about your wallets.

A science advisor to Hillary Clinton says that there are too many people living on our planet.

Mark Steyn quickly highlights what happens when people slip from government "investing" to government control.

Here's an article from Forbes magazine explaining how our government has gone wild.

Just what we need .. air pollution monitors around our government schools. It's the kid's minds that are being polluted, not their lungs.

Residents in Washington are having to smuggle dishwashing detergent from Idaho because of local laws which ban detergents that actually work .. because of their effect on the environment.

Did you know that the taxpayers are funding government education experiments like teaching 4th and 5th graders in Baltimore City about a career in transportation technology?

What happens when a school in Canada installs an illegal cellphone jammer?

A redneck DUI.