I would like the Obama Administration to provide complete transparency behind two programs, one where he is driving the auto industry, as CEO of Corporate America, to the production of minicars to economize on fuel and secondly explain the true motives behind a National Health Care plan he is trying to ram through Congress without objection.

Could both be population control?  Think about it, population control could have extraordinary economic benefits over a period of time; or is it truly an administration looking out for we the people?

The two programs I’m referencing, energy conservation, which would also include alternative forms of energy other than oil, which would require midget cars, and national health care for all, something on the surface, not only sounds socialistic, but is; and altruistically sounds like it’s all inclusive and something we should have done a long time ago.  Where we’re all our other leaders on these issues?

Why is it that we are not where we should be and it’s not until we now have a celebrity (or Messiah)  in the White House that we see the light?

There is unequivocal evidence that passengers in minicars do not stand a chance of survival when slammed into midsize ones, an SUV, or, least of all a truck or 16-wheeler.

Furthermore under the current fuel efficient plan, I see no proposal by the administration to remove previous model trucks, SUV’s, or 16 wheelers from the road before we introduce these midget cars to the public.  Some are already available.

Studies conclude that while driving smaller and lighter cars saves fuel and even alternative energy, downsizing and down-weighting is also associated with an increase in deaths on the highway.

Has the administration considered this? Because the effect is — big not small.  A major loss of life.  There was a reason the public did not heretofore gravitate to small cars — safety.

Now as much as minicars have been studied with respect to safety and the loss of life, so has socialized national health care.

Again an unequivocal study in Sweden shows that the American health care system, as it now exists, outperforms the socialized systems in Europe.  The difference saves lives, and the Western European systems force people to die at higher rates from the same diseases.

Under socialized medicine, some die before they get to see a doctor.  Others die because the protocol of the system does not cover the condition for one reason or another.  If this were not true why are persons coming from socialized health care systems elsewhere to the US for their medical treatment?

Now do these two administration programs have ulterior motives?  Are they as transparent as Obama promised and we were looking for?

Could it be that the true transparency of these programs is population control for economic reasons?

For if we carefully examine both of these administration programs death comes sooner than later.  Sooner because of small cars; sooner because of socialized medicine.

If we look at the facts of longevity, we are living longer than ever before because of science and medicine.  Obama lauded this today before a scientific/medical body and used the platform to take advantage of the crisis surrounding the Swine Flu pandemic.  Somewhat disingenuous I thought.

We currently have a shortage of doctors; under national care there will be fewer.

For after all, if the true transparency of fuel conservation and national health care is population control for economic reasons, the concepts are sick.

But we might want to examine the economic motives of the proposals from Obama’s perspective.  Death lowers the cost of: social security, Medicare, Medicaid, health care, welfare, corporate pension plans and health care plans, hospital costs and long term living costs among many other economic reasons.

We need some transparency about these two issues Obama wants to rush to judgment on without debate.  This is a think piece — think about it!