During President Reagan's presidency the leftist media used the derogatory description of His being the "Teflon President". This was because no matter what happened around him and his administration the liberals could not make it stick! He always survived their attacks and derision.

Today we have a new "Teflon Man" running for the office of President, and his name is Barack Obama. The senator from Illinois whose beguiling smile and boy next door appearance hides a man whom this blogger believes is a dedicated Socialist in "middle of the road" clothing.

No matter what outrageous statements he makes during his campaign speeches the leftist media seem to ignore and portray this man as the next Kennedy.

Well, I am here to tell you that JFK would never have advocated post partum abortions, sex education for kindergarten children, who probably can't even spell sex. Nor would he have advocated meeting representatives of our adversaries North Korea, Iran and Cuba without any preconditions. Being a white Catholic JFK would not have chosen as his Church, a Church that advocates a "Black Value System" that disapproves of the "pursuit of middleclassness" and calls for it's parishioners "to be soldiers for Black Freedom!" This is just what Obamas Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago has as it's goals and principles.

The post partum abortion statement was made when speaking to Stem Cells-R-Us Convention. His words on abortion were"what difference does 2 or 3 minutes outside the womb really make." The sex education for kindergarten children was pushed at speech to Planned Parenthood meeting.

If this were not enough to disqualify him for a seat in the Oval Office. His advocacy of Universal health Care should. Putting aside all my objections based upon his immoral secular views about the things I have written above. American cannot afford this man. His plan for Universal health insurance has been estimated by his Campaign people to cost U.S. taxpayers between 50-65 billion dollars per year if enacted.
Senator Evan Bayh has a plan that he estimates will cost taxpayers 200-500 billion dollars over ten years if enacted, and the wealthy socialist from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry has one his people say will cost 700 billion!

Senator Hillary Clinton tried to sneak her version of universal health care(aka socialized medicine)during Bill Clinton's first term as President. I have written before on this Marxist socialist proposal, but an article on the Internet illustrates far better than I can the innate problems with socialized medicine. The article is written about England's grand experiment with universal health care.
The following is a quote from that article:
"British citizens pay obscenely large amounts of taxes, but get less and less in return for this, except an increasingly hostile state: “The National Health Service, where bureaucracies have hugely expanded and entwined their interests so closely with those of private suppliers and consultancies that it is difficult to distinguish public from private any longer. Spending on the NHS has increased by two and a half times in the space of 10 years; yet it is hard to see any corresponding improvement in the service, other than in the standard of living of those who work in it.”

Senator Charles Schumer laid down the political equivalent of a "gauntlet" to all Conservative voters this week.
The New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday "the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Being a New York liberal who has voted against the nominations of President Bush's selections for the Supreme Court you would expect something like these words from him.

The Conservatives who are reluctant to get behind the President and the Republican party should consider the other side of the coin that Schumer just tossed into the political airwaves.
The Supreme Court has been twisting the words written by the founders of this great nation for over 40 years in a liberal attempt to reinterpret the "meaning " of the Constitution to suit their liberal bent. And the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution appears to be it's "whipping boy".
The Pyler vs. Doe case and the decision legalizing the murder of unborn babies, Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a landmark decision about abortion.[1] According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings. Roe is one of the most controversial and politically significant cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Quote from the Court archives.In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, the Supreme Court ruled that illegal immigrants are within the 'jurisdiction of the states they reside.' A footnote to their ruling stated that, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." With the stroke of a pen the court added a new meaning to the 14Th Amendment and overturned two Previous Supreme Court decisions. It's no wonder that people have had, traditionally, so little regard for the Supreme Court. They do not render their decisions based upon the provisions of the Constitution; they alter the provisions of the Constitution to enable their subjective will upon the people. Quote from article written by Neal Ross For News With Views.com
For this reason alone the American people who treasure their freedom from a dictatorial and anti-personal freedom government, should pull all the Republican levers when they enter the voting booth in 2008.

This country cannot allow leftists like Edwards, Clinton or Obama to win a seat in the Oval Office, and New Yorkers with any conscience, should be ashamed of it's two Senators.

Posted by BILL at Saturday, July 28, 2007 0 comments Links to this post

In 1933 during President Roosevelt's first term the depression was ravaging the farmers of America, so in the name of "The New Deal" Roosevelt and the Democrat controlled Congress passed the "Agricultural Adjustment Act". This bill created a large bureaucracy that hands over into today's government. In the Roosevelt years it was called "Agricultural Adjustment Administration."

Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, and many New Dealers were highly sympathetic to the marginal farmers who lived on the land in severe poverty, especially in the South. Major programs addressed to their needs included the Resettlement Administration (RA), the Farm Security Administration (FSA), the Rural Electrification Administration (REA), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and rural welfare projects sponsored by the WPA, NYA, Forest Service and CCC, including school lunches, building new schools, opening roads in remote areas, reforestation, and purchase of marginal lands to enlarge national forests.

The AAA was the first program on such a scale on behalf of the troubled agricultural economy, and it established an important and long-lasting federal role in the planning on the entire agricultural sector of the economy.The problem was that the program dictated that excess production of milk above government established maximums had to be dumped, and hogs bread in excess of government maximums were slaughtered. We still have millions of pounds of rancid butter stashed in cave in the Mountain states that were shipped there to artificially control prices!

In 1936, the Supreme Court declared the AAA to be unconstitutional, stating that "a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government..." The AAA was replaced by a similar program that did win Court approval. Federal regulation of agricultural production has been modified many times since then, but together with large subsidies it is still in effect in 2007.

In 1996 the Freedom To Farm Act was passed by Congress to get farmers off the dole they had become accustomed to under the FDR "New Deal" programs.The intent was for the subsidies to cease in 7years.

Subsidies for "farmers" are based upon historical land use. If it was planted with corn last year, but now lies uncultivated it still qualifies for a subsidy! What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare.

Perfect examples of the Federal bureaucracy run amok is the following report in the Washington Post.Donald Matthews lives in El Campo, Texas on his sprawling 18 acre home site. Built in was once a part of a large rice field he receives direct federal payment from the Agriculture bureaucrats $1300 each year, because the land was once a rice field.
If this isn't bad enough how about the Surgeon in Huston, Dr. Jimmy F. Howell who received $490,709 over the last ten years in subsidies. 1.3 billion dollars have been paid since 2000 to people who do NO FARMING.

The Democrats took control of Congress in the last election by promising they would stop the "corruption" of the Republican Congress and stop payments to special interests.

Well there are lies, liars, and equivocators who get elected to Congress as Democrats. Case in point: the 2006 Farm subsidies that Congress approved were reported by the Washington Post as "having over 15 billion dollars in wasteful,unnecessary redundant spending." Over 95 billion dollars of taxpayers hard earned dollars have gone to subsidising "farmers".

I put farmers in quotes because not only the 707,576 farmers received subsidies but Fortune 500 companies like the John Hancock Life Insurance Company got 2.8 million dollars, David Rockefeller received $553,000,Ted Turner $206,000, Senator Charles Grasley of Iowa $225,000 and Representative John Salazar of Colorado got $161,000 in farm subsidies!

In 2006 President Bush asked Congress to limit taxpayer financed agriculture subsidies to farmers whose annual adjusted income is less than 200 thousand, but "Queen" Pelosi and her Democrat minions re-authorized subsidies for the next five years to farmers with income as high as one million dollars.

Ten percent of the 767,596 farmers who received farm subsidies got 60% of the total dollars distributed in 2006.

Some Chicago "Miracle Mile Farmers" in the Chicago zip code 60611 that includes downtown Michigan Avenue were well funded by Senators Durbin and Obama and their Congressional representatives.
Three billion dollars was sent to addresses on the "Miracle Mile"from 2003 to 2005 as farm subsidies!

Even former Bulls basketball star, Scottie Pippen got $75,000!

The average farmer makes $81,400 dollars per the 2002 US census figures, and has a net worth of over 835,000. farming is better than ever before, and there are very few farmers who go broke as did farmers in the 1930's. Many farmers sell their land to developers for the ever increasing spread of country living by former city residents.

What began in the 1930s as a limited safety net for working farmers has swollen into a far-flung infrastructure of entitlements that has cost $172 billion over the past decade. In 2005 alone, when pretax farm profits were at a near-record $72 billion, the federal government handed out more than $25 billion in aid, almost 50 percent more than the amount it pays to families receiving welfare!

And The Spending and LIES continue!

Why Younger Voters Should Not Vote Democrat

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, however, expenditures were expected to exceed the revenues in the immediate future. In addition to fixing the short-term problem with tax increases, the Commission headed by Alan Greenspan took the projections which indicated that the eventual retirement of the numerous members of the post-World War II baby boom would cause expenses to exceed revenues. Accordingly, the Social Security tax was increased in 1983 so that it would be greater than necessary to pay for current expenditures, thus accumulating a reserve that could be drawn upon when necessary. The surplus is accounted for in the Social Security Trust Fund. As of the end of calendar year 2004, the accumulated surplus stood at approximately $1.7 trillion. [1] Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2018 or 2019. Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds. [2] The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office).
Social Security Trust Fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

The Democrat candidates all advocate more programs as "plums" for those who are dumb enough to vote for them, and for those whose hand is always out for something someone else has earned. But more programs require not only more taxes, but more government employees to run the program. For this reason the Democrat solution is to repeal tax brakes that have revived the economic health of this country.
The liberal leaning Wikapedia describes the way to avert fiscal disaster in the social security program thus: "Fiscal policies made today will impact the government's ability to make good on its debt to Social Security. For example, according to some calculations, reversing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would more than suffice to redeem all of Social Security's assets (CBPP, Brookings)."

For all the 20-30 year olds who look at the smiling faces of the Democrats running for the Oval Office. They should consider this thought. Fifty years from now when they reach retirement age in the year 2070 and maybe as early as 2050 the Medicare health program that is so important to a senior citizen will be unfunded by 40 trillion dollars! This is based on present day costs of government. No telling how fast the underfunding will occur if Obama, Hillary or Edwards gets elected.

Just remember there is no free lunch except at the Salvation Army soup kitchens! All the smiling liberal platitudes disgorged by the candidates with their 400 dollar hair cuts and designer clothes, can't disguise the fact that for them to "give" all the programs they propose they will have to raise taxes severely. We could be looking at a tax rate of 60% of earned income for the vanishing middle class if these power happy socialists gain the White House and the Congress.

This is a fight for the personal freedom of Americans, and surrender is not an option! Young voters wake up!



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It Is Time For This Churchill to Go!

The Board of Regents of the University of Colorado will meet today to determine the stripping of a "cancer" left to long among the faculty at the great University located in Bolder, Colorado.

Ward Churchill has been a disgrace and disruptive force in his never earned position as a tenured professor at the U of C. The man doesn't even have PhD and yet was appointed full tenure as professor of Ethnic Studies. A fabricated title for the self proclaimed radical.

Mr.Churchill attended Sangaman State in Illinois where he received a BA and Ma from the "experimental" school for student radicals.Not even a recognized institute of college level education to my knowledge.

Among the other reasons for his being fired, and there are many. Is his claim that he was a member of a Cherokee Indian tribe. This proved to be an honorary membership which has since been revoked, but the "straw that broke the camels back" was his reference to the victims of the World Trade Center disaster on 9/11 as"little Eichmann's".

Professor Churchill's moment of fame came when an essay he had written was disclosed in which he waxed rhapsodic about the September 11 terrorist attacks as "chickens coming home to roost," while vilifying the innocent victims inside the World Trade Center "as little Eichmanns." The article was known to UC Boulder officials long before, and considered normal academic fare. Less well known is the fact that Professor Churchill's academic career and academic collection is built around the theory that the United States is a genocidal nation, worse than Nazi Germany, because its genocides began with its settlement and have continued to the present.

If that were not enough to get this walking cancer out of his "tenure" then maybe you should consider the following pronouncements: In Professor Churchill's view, "revolutionary violence against oppressive America is not only justified, it is indispensable. One of the things I've suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary. This seems like such a no-brainer that I hate to frame it in terms of actual transformation of consciousness." Lamenting that the terrorism of 9/11 had proved "insufficient to accomplish its purpose" of bringing the United States to its knees, Churchill shrugged, "What the hell? It was worth a try."

This man should not only be fired he should be arrested as a traitor who is inciting violence and sedition!