Recall the moment Barack Obama, seeking to position himself as being the champion of the middle-class, notoriously lamented with regards to the increasing cost of arugula from among the nation’s most sumptuous food markets?

Quoting the faux arugula-muncher-in-chief: “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” the Illinois senator stated in 2007. “I mean, they’re charging a lot of money for this stuff.”

This was Obama almost five-years back when looking for his Party’s nomination, prior to pulling off his unforeseen triumph from the Democrat Iowa Caucus. He subsequently guaranteed that an Obama administration would definitely reduce explosive food expenses, that, indeed, had been less formidable compared to his various other pledges associated with healing the earth and blocking glaciers from melting.

And guess what, he essentially achieved a campaign promise. No, the cost of food is not more affordable currently compared to what it had been before Obama acquiring office. In reality, the food index is actually significantly greater. That satisfied promise to Iowans originates through ObamaCare, which in turn funneled $327,500 in “grants” to “help the Scott County Health Department market well being and great health lifestyle in the region,” noted the Quad-City Times prior to the beginning of 2012.

The huge taxpayer “slush fund” which is ObamaCare carves away this sort of financing for “wellness” activity beneath the rubric associated with “preventative care.” As the White House’s distinctive line of thinking goes, bureaucrats inside the Beltway provide the sagacity as well as competence to assist 300 million US citizens try to make wholesome lifestyle choices concerning their day-to-day lives superior to those individuals do. Therefore, when it comes to Iowa, Scott County is now bequeathed with taxpayer dollars to produce “roads and paths more amenable to bike riding and walking” in addition to promoting “community gardens and the wide availability of locally grown fruits and vegetables.”

While we all consider this, we’ve got no clue whether it may reduce the price of wholesome foods, in addition to contemplating Obama’s terminated assurances to date, anticipate the cost of leafy greens to sky rocket. Far more ’08 discussion continues to be in limbo.

Yet, Whole Foods is subsequently launching a store in Iowa, hence Michelle Obama at any rate boasts a destination to purchase high-priced fresh fruits and nuts somewhere between flying about the nation on board her carbon-spewing campaign aircraft.

As one Republican operative comments, “So at a time when the federal government is running trillion-dollar deficits, ObamaCare is using taxpayer dollars to fund projects to help reduce the price of arugula and other vegetables in Iowa.”

Essentially!

Preventative solutions, incidentally, had been precisely the protection Democrats hid behind in order to place tens of millions of dollars directly into ObamaCare in an effort to construct jungle gyms about play grounds throughout America.

Additionally, the Liberals ponder exactly why health care expenses are ascending north. It’s actually reached the level in which the Administration is actually hyping the belief that that they’ve had the capacity to push insurance providers to reduce the cost of increases when it surpasses ten percent. Call to mind it had been candidate Obama who promised that getting the federal government to take control of one-sixth of the US economy which is health care would definitely reduce insurance premiums by $2,500.

Today the White House boasts whenever insurance premiums don’t rise beyond ten percent. This is nothing less than Obama conveniently shifting the goal posts.

As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation, insurance premiums with regard to households and individuals currently have increased by 9 and 8%, respectively. “The 9% growth rate in family premiums for 2011,” estimates Kaiser, “is significantly higher than the 3% growth rate in 2010.”

Prepare for Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to claim if it weren’t for Obama “The One”, expenses for health care may very well be 25 % greater. Due to the fact Liberals under no circumstances wish themselves evaluated relating to the measures ensuing from their own policies. Not a chance. They wish to be assessed based for their motives exclusively.

Take pleasure in the extravagant vegetables following Iowa Caucus night, beloved Iowans. All things considered, we’re all assisting to finance them!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Barack Obama is undecided on allowing an exemption to the Catholic Church concerning his health care law and abortion. In case anyone is wondering the Catholic church and all pro-life institutions and individuals believe taking a life is murder. Leftists, Marxist, Democrats, NARAL and other ilk believe taking the life of an unborn child is pro-choice.

In August, Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius proposed a regulation–that would take affect next fall–that would require all health care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including abortifacients. The proposed regulation includes a very narrow religious exemption that does not cover individual Catholics, or Catholic universities, hospitals or charitable institutions.

First off, this is discriminatory because the exemption only includes Catholics not other religions or institutions who have a problem with murdering an unborn child. Despite what the courts have said, mainly nine people in black robes, the United States Constitution does not cover abortion. This is a feminist concept near and dear to women who have unprotected sex and then whine at the consequences. OK, you’re going to ask me what about rape and incest. I might answer think – about adoption.

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops have called the regulation an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” and have called on American Catholics to contact HHS and demand that the regulation be rescinded. I would call on the whole health care law to be rescinded but the US Supreme Court is going to have a go at that in March 2012. If they decide in the affirmative than we need the law repealed by Congress in 2013.

What we have is religious freedom as set down in the Constitution vs. feminists, liberals, Marxists, radical leftists (fill in the blank) who want something unconscionable to stand while erasing one of the principle portions of the Constitution and one of the main reasons people fled to America to avoid religious persecution. Feminists and their ilk are now persecuting religion.

Obama, surprisingly enough, may let the exemption stand. This would be remarkable as he enjoys funding abortion at the taxpayers expense and is all for infanticide. Obama spokesman Jay Carney has the following remarkable statement: (Emphasis LCs)

“The President has–this decision has not yet been made,” Carney continue. ”You can be sure that we want to strike the right balance between expanding coverage of preventive services and respecting religious beliefs.  And that’s the balance that will be sought as this decision is made.”

Whoa! Health care and preventive services are NOT a right but religious freedom is. By the way, murder is against the law in all fifty states. It’s also a federal crime.

The Catholic Bishops are spot on in their comments:

“Indeed, such nationwide government coercion of religious people and groups to sell, broker, or purchase ‘services’ to which they have a moral or religious objection represents an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.”

Many believe abortion aka murdering an unborn child is a Constitutional right, it isn’t. If you can find it in the Constitution I will pay you $1,000 no questions asked. However, religious freedom is a right in the Untied States and if you find that to be untrue I will pay you $5,000.

Obama will make his decision based on politics and votes. He has no use for religion or the Constitution but he may be counting on Catholics to vote for him again. Have they learned their lesson yet?

If you’re on the side of abortion than do us all a favor – abort yourself!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Last week I wrote about Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s Conflict of Interest concerning Obama’s health care law and challenges that will appear before the Supreme Court in March 2012.

Eric Holder gave Senate hearing testimony that has been called into question and the Department of Justice is refusing to cooperate with requests for information from Senate Judiciary Committee members on the Republican side.

Senators are urging Attorney General Holder to comply with requests that have been submitted to the Justice Department by Congress seeking information about Kagan’s involvement in the matter and expressed their view that Kagan’s activities as solicitor general may have triggered two different provisions of a federal law that governs when a Supreme Court justice must recuse from a case.

“Unfortunately, your Department has rejected all Congressional oversight requests for information about her role in the Obama Administration’s defense of this law,” said the letter to Holder, which was signed by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Lee (R.-Utah), who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“You recently told the Senate, incredibly, that you were not even aware of Congressional requests on this topic, and that your Department handled her duties as relates to such matters in a way that is belied by the facts, namely that you physically removed her from all meetings discussing litigation,” the senators told Holder.

The plot thickens as Holder is caught in his own law to the committee.

In a July 6 letter to Holder, House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R.-Texas) had requested Kagan-related documents and witness interviews so that the committee could “properly understand any involvement by Justice Kagan in matters relating to health care legislation or litigation while she was Solicitor General.”

On Oct. 27, Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich sent a letter to Smith informing him that DOJ would not comply with the committee’s request. Weich said in the letter that the committee’s request was “unseemly.”

The next day, on Oct. 28, Chairman Smith sent a second letter directly to Attorney General Eric Holder. This letter repeated the House Judiciary Committee’s July 6 request for the Kagan-related documents and witness interviews. Here Smith told Holder that he wanted DOJ to either comply with the request by Nov. 4 or assert what legal privilege DOJ was invoking in refusing to comply with the request. DOJ has failed to respond to this request also.

On Nov. 8, Holder testified at an oversight hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At this hearing, Sen. Lee asked the attorney general if the Justice Department was going to comply with the House Judiciary Committee’s request for the Kagan-related information. Despite the fact that the request had twice been sent to Holder in writing by the chairman of the House committee, and despite the fact that Holder’s assistant attorney general had formally rejected the request in a letter sent to the House committee the previous week, Holder testified that he was unaware of the request.

“I’m not familiar with that request. I’d have to look at it,” said Holder. “I’m just not familiar with the request that has been made or what materials have been sought in that regard.”

In response to additional follow-up questions by Sen. Lee, Holder repeated his testimony that he was unaware of the requests from the House Judiciary Committee.

“Again, I don’t know what the nature of the request is,” said Holder. “I can certainly look at it.”

The full story is at CNSNews with a short video of Holder testifying.

There is a disturbing pattern with Eric Holder and his Department of Justice where they feel compliance with Senate and House requests aren’t required to be answered. They believe stonewalling will buy them time while Elena Kagan remains a part of the healthcare reform debate and rulings from SCOTUS.

What we have is a runaway DOJ being led buy Eric Holder, a terrorists best friend.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

CNSNews has reported that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointment, and Harvard Law Prof. Laurence Tribe discussed the pending health-care vote, according to documents the Department of Justice released late Wednesday to the Media Research Center.

The date was Sunday, March 21, 2010, the day the House of Representatives passed Barack Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and Kagan was Solicitor General and Mr. Tribe was then serving in the Justice Department. The discussion was carried on in an email exchange (Pdf. heavily redacted)

The subject of the email stated: Re: fingers and toes crossed today!

“I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing,” Kagan said to Tribe.

According to 28 USC 455, a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The law also says a justice must recuse anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

However, Mr. Tribe claims there is no reason to believe 28 USC 455 would require Kagan’s recusal from cases involving PPACA. Imagine that!

If you remember Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan did not want to sign on to Obamacare because of abortion funding. The following is a note from Tribe to Kagan in the email exchange:

“So health care is basically done!” Tribe wrote to Kagan in this message. “Remarkable. And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!”

The “Stupak group” is a reference to Stupak, who led a group of House Democrats who had indicated they would not vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act if it permitted federal funds to pay for abortions.  Stupak and his allies decided to vote for the bill, even though no additional language would be added to it prohibiting abortion funding, after Obama agreed to sign an executive order the administration said would prevent federal funding from going to abortions. Of course Obama never signed anything to prevent abortion funding, a liar always.

Kagan and Tribe went on to set up a dinner engagement to further discuss the matter and celebrate.

Carrie Severino at Judicial Crisis Network has written a 10-page memo entitled – “Elena Kagan: The Justice Who Knew Too Much” (Pdf.)

Ed Whelan at National Review Online sums up Ms. Severino’s memo neatly for a quicker read.

National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro writes, recusal from either looks a little less likely after Monday’s action:

Significantly, the Court’s orders on the health care cases contained no indication that any of the nine justices is recusing. . . The Court’s order to accept or deny review in a case is usually the first occasion for a justice to signal his or her recusal.

It should be noted there have been calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the healthcare case because  his wife Virginia Thomas, who for a period operated the “Liberty Central” blog with ties to the Tea Party movement, had received donations from conservative businessman Harlan Crow, a longtime friend of the justice.

A leading expert on judicial ethics said neither Kagan nor Thomas is really required to recuse under the federal law governing judicial conflicts of interest.

Jeffrey Shaman of DePaul University College of Law said that in Kagan’s case, it is not uncommon for judges to begin their jobs with a history of some connection as legislators or member of the executive branch to issues that may come before them.

“Before they join the bench they make all kinds of comments about things, they work on legislation, make speeches and comments,” Shaman said, but that does not disqualify them from serving.

Both sides will keep pressuring to have Kagan an Thomas recuse themselves. I believe Kagan is certainly much closer to this debate than Justice Thomas.

Talk radio host Mark Levin writes that his Landmark Legal Foundation will be involved in the suit. He talks about the individual mandate; there is no Constitutional requirement to force a person into purchasing health care, and how the liberals have wanted to do this for years.

LLF has filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the Court to immediately take up several lawsuits in federal trial and appeals courts around the country challenging Obamacare and provide a final determination on the constitutionality of the law. A .pdf copy of the brief is available at: Landmark’s Amicus Brief on Obamacare

Keeping our “fingers and toes crossed” we pray the SCOTUS will find Obamacare  un-Constitutional. If not, we need to vote to have it repealed in the next election by throwing out more Liberals, especially Barack Obama.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

This is a parody written & sung by Paul Shanklin via Rush Limbaugh.

At “Take Back the GOP” I wrote and identified the foibles of green jobs, Obama’s Solyndra fiasco a similar connection between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.

It’s already out that as governor of Massachusetts team Obama visited no less than 12 times with Romney advisers to discuss Romneycare, using it as the blueprint and model for Obamacare.

Mr. Romney is vehemently denying any connection but one adviser in particular has come out publicly confirming any and all suspicions to the direct connection.

The Washington Post has exposed the meetings:

But there’s actually a much simpler way to see the connection between Romneycare and Obamacare: It’s the people.

The folks who worked on the Massachusetts law didn’t exactly fade into the background once the health reform law passed and implementation got underway. Instead, many former Romney officials are now working for both the Obama administration and state governments to ensure that that the Affordable Care Act gets set up.

Oh really?

Jon Kingsdale, who served as the first executive director of the Massachusetts Connector was awarded a contract by Health and Human Services to help plan a federal health exchange, the fallback option for states that do not set up their own marketplaces by 2014.

“We’ve been helping [HHS] think through operationally how it would work,” Kingsdale told WAPOs Sarah Kliff.

Kingdale estimates that former Massachusetts officials are now working in about 20 to 25 states on implementing the federal law, Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare.

 Isn’t it odd that the exposure connecting Romneycare with Obamacare is coming from the Washington Post and also NBC/MSNBC, bastions of mainstream Leftist thought?

Michael Isikoff reports

Newly obtained White House records provide fresh details on how senior Obama administration officials used Mitt Romney’s landmark health-care law in Massachusetts as a model for the new federal law, including recruiting some of Romney’s own health care advisers and experts to help craft the act now derided by Republicans as “Obamacare.”

The records, gleaned from White House visitor logs reviewed by NBC News, show that senior White House officials had a dozen meetings in 2009 with three health-care advisers and experts who helped shape the health care reform law signed by Romney in 2006, when the Republican presidential candidate was governor of Massachusetts. One of those meetings, on July 20, 2009, was in the Oval Office and presided over by President Barack Obama, the records show.

Jon Gruber, an MIT economist who advised the Romney administration on health care attended five meetings at the Obama White House in 2009, including the meeting with the Barack Obama.

“They really wanted to know how we can take that same approach we used in Massachusetts and turn that into a national model.”

Romney’s defense is pathetic at best. He says he is adamantly against a “one-size-fits-all national health-care system” imposed on all 50 states. “I will repeal Obamacare,” he has said. “And on day one of my administration, I will grant a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states.”

When called upon the “waiver” idea Romney quickly added he would then move to repeal the law. This is simply more backtracking answers to questions Romney should already expect.

Asked about about the White House records Tuesday at a press conference announcing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s endorsement, Romney said the people involved in the White House meetings were “consultants,” not “aides.” He added that “one person (Obama) should have talked to was me.”

The response echoed comments that Romney made last April after Obama suggested the White House had borrowed from his law in Massachusetts.

“He does me the great favor of saying that I was the inspiration of his plan,” Romney said of Obama. “If that’s the case, why didn’t you call me? …Why didn’t you ask what was wrong? Why didn’t you ask if this was an experiment, what worked and what didn’t. … I would have told him, ‘What you’re doing, Mr. President, is going to bankrupt us.’”

If Romney’s law was being mentioned in comparison to Obama’s law then why didn’t Mr. Romney become more vocal during the implementation when Democrats in Congress were keeping Republicans out of the debate and passing the legislation from backrooms and private meetings? Romney should have held a press conference disputing the difference and showing his dissatisfaction with the federal law. Simply put, Mr. Romney should have denounced the law and separated himself from the aides or advisors.

It’s always different when your running for president.

Romney signed Romneycare with an elaborate ceremony — complete with a fife and drum band — at Boston’s historic Faneuil Hall on April 12, 2006. It was attended by an array of prominent political figures in the state, including the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, a longtime champion of health-care reform.

Kennedy warmly praised Romney at the event, saying:

“You’ve led the way over the long and winding path to this moment.”

Romney himself touted the historic significance of the act.

“Massachusetts once again is taking a giant leap forward.”

Key to both laws is the individual mandate which is being questioned by 26 state attorney generals in federal court and being advanced to SCOTUS.

Rush Limbaugh put’s the Romney backpedal into context:

Romney saying, (paraphrasing) “If Obama had just talked to me, I could have spared him,” is like Bill O’Reilly saying, “If Algore had just come on The Factor he’d be president today.”  (laughing)  (imitating Romney) “He talked to the wrong guy.  If Obama would have called me I’d-a told him why it wasn’t gonna work.”  Romney’s advisor, “It’s the blueprint.  It’s the foundation,” and told him what would work and how to get the money for it.

With Perry attacking Romney on this issue and everyone attacking Perry on immigration and his “job creation” in Texas the door is wide open for the surging Herman Cain.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals cites those prophetic words in its decision yesterday finding President Obama’s individual health-care mandate unconstitutional, and they do seem more relevant than ever. The 2-1 opinion is another landmark in restoring the government of limited and enumerated powers that the Framers envisioned.

In the exhaustive and rigorous opinion finding for a group of 26 states led by Florida, Judges Frank Hall and Joel Dubina write that the seven words in the Commerce Clause—”to regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”—have “spawned a 200-year debate over the permissible scope of this enumerated power.” Even amid this argument, they write, the individual mandate stands out, which starting in 2014 will require everyone to buy health insurance or else pay a penalty.

That is “breathtaking in its expansive scope,” the court wrote.

“The government’s position amounts to an argument that the mere fact of an individual’s existence substantially affects interstate commerce, and therefore Congress may regulate them at every point of their life. This theory affords no limiting principles in which to confine Congress’s enumerated power.”

In other words, if the government can impose this kind of “economic mandate“—if it can force individuals to enter contracts with private companies “from birth to death“—there are no longer limits on what it cannot do. “These types of purchasing decisions are legion,” Judges Hall and Dubina write.

“Every day Americans decide what products to buy, where to invest or save, and how to pay for future contingencies such as their retirement, their children’s education, and their health care. The government contends that embedded in the Commerce Clause is the power to override these ordinary decisions and redirect those funds to other purposes.”

The Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has expanded and contracted over the years, the apogee being the New Deal precedents. Though the commerce power “has since come to dominate federal legislation,” as Judges Hall and Dubina note, the Court has always maintained that it “is subject to outer limits,” as the 1995 Lopez decision affirmed.

“Even in the face of a Great Depression, a World War, a Cold War, recessions, oil shocks, inflation, and unemployment, Congress never sought to require the purchase of wheat or war bonds, force a higher savings rate or greater consumption of American goods, or require every American to purchase a more fuel efficient vehicle,” the majority writes.

Obamacare is merely government overreach and by creating an individual mandate this overreach is like none other in American history. Obama and his minions claim health care is like no other economic decision. The 11th circuit disagrees proclaiming this instrusion:

“… ad hoc, devoid of constitutional substance, incapable of judicial administration—and, consequently, illusory.” They are “not limiting principles, but limiting circumstances” that “imperils our federalist structure.”

This argument is sure to land at the step of the US Supreme Court, maybe as early as Spring 2012.

‘The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written.”

—Chief Justice John Marshall, writing in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Here is a video interview (6:44 min) with David Rivkin former Reagan legal advisor David Rivkin on the ObamaCare lawsuit and last week’s 11th Circuit ruling.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Those so-called American’s are Marxists, Bolsheviks who are constantly playing the race card, the class warfare game, the anti-rich, anti-prosperous, anti-successful bunch who want redistribution of wealth, they want the so-called rich to pay up with their sweat equity.

Barack Obama was to be the left’s hero but many don’t like the fact that he hasn’t totally transformed America into a banana republic, third world afterthought. These people want hardcore socialism and the don’t want Conservatives getting in the way. Afterall, the Conservatives are radical, extremists, bent on destroying the America the Marxist have desired for decades.

Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, would change all that. Rick Perry isn’t a Beltway, status quo, DC parrot. Rick Perry has contempt for the politico’s in Washington and his record is one of success in Texas that hopefully would translate into success in all 50 states.

From the UK Telegraph:

It is a pocket of rural America that has changed little in a century and is about as far removed from the bustle and marble monuments of Washington DC as one could imagine.

But Paint Creek, where ranches and wooden homes, some now abandoned, are dotted beside cotton and wheat fields, is the place that defines the man who some Republicans believe could unseat President Barack Obama next November.

Governor Rick Perry was part of the fifth generation to work the land at Paint Creek, some 200 miles west of Dallas on the flat expanse of plains known as “the Big Empty”.

It was here that he was imbued with the country values of church, family, neighbourliness, thrift and hard work that now seem part of a bygone America beyond places like West Texas.

Back in the late 1950s, he was known as Ricky Perry, a mischievous boy, always smiling, who lived with his parents and older sister Milla in a rented wooden house that lacked indoor plumbing. He wore a cowboy shirt hand sewn by his mother, a locally renowned quilter, and his highest ambition seemed to be to become an Eagle Scout.

You won’t read positive stories about Gov. Perry in the United States press. They fear Rick Perry like they fear Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin.

“There were three things to do in Paint Creek: school, church, and Boy Scouts,” Mr Perry said last year, looking back on the late 1950s.

“That’s it. And it was plenty.” Paint Creek was “one of the most beautiful places or it could be one of the most desolate” depending on the weather. As a child, he ventured, it was the home of “some of the most principled, disciplined people in the world, and faithful”.

America needs principled people, faithful people, the kind that believe in the can do American spirit of exceptionalism. Ronald Reagan was principled and we need a principled leader in the White House who will faithfully abide by the US Constitution, shrink the federal government, bring back optimism and pride in America the way President Reagan did. We need someone to reverse course in American and a leader who will, to paraphrase Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), “compromise means going along with my plan.”

Rick Perry will cross the aisle to inform the Leftist opposition that he won’t compromise his principles, he won’t compromise the Constitution and he won’t compromise American exceptionalism. Rick Perry won’t compromise our freedom and liberty.

Mr. Perry, who has championed Israel and called for a muscular foreign policy, has the ability to appeal to all five elements of the party – fiscal, social and national security conservatives plus the Tea Party. However, the “establishment” isn’t real crazy about Rick Perry and that’s a good thing. If you want change with plenty of real hope thrown in for good measure than Rick Perry is your man, your candidate.

Mr. Perry’s friends believe he never intended to run for president but now feels he has to move beyond his beloved Texas because his country is in peril. The coming months will tell whether the boy from Paint Creek could be hailed by voters as a potential national saviour.

I believe Rick Perry is the antidote for Marxism and Barack Obama. I now have my candidate for President of the United States.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Adults can quit screaming “Are we there yet” because we have been “there” and may be headed to the next financial crisis destination unless Conservatives in Congress get their way, implement their plans and stop the massive hemorrhaging of the American economy.

But how did we actually get to $14 trillion and counting in national debt, and in a position to default on payments? Was it George W. Bush? Was it Barack Obama? Was it men from Mars?

FDR began the entitlement era with the New Deal and Social Security. However, spending fell dramatically after the end of World War II and the US debt burden fell rapidly from the 100% of GDP from World War II.

Everything changed in the mid-1960s as LBJ ushered in the “Great Society” and the rise of the American welfare state. In 1965 Medicare and Medicaid were launched with the false promise of low future costs. The adding machine surely was broken.

Initially, Medicaid was supposed to cost $12 billion by 1990 but somehow escalated to $110 billion. Sleazy politicians like California Democrat Henry Waxman expanded eligibility and coverage while measured in inflation-adjusted dollars, Medicaid cost $4 billion in 1966, $41 billion in 1986 and $243 billion in 2010. Instead of bending the cost curve down, the government, as a third-party payer, led to a medical price that led America over the financial cliff.

LBJ did stop with Medicaid and Medicare launching public housing, food stamps and many more entitlement programs that didn’t encourage freedom, independence, self-sufficiency but supported growing welfare roles and government subsistence programs for people to get on and stay on the dole. Welfare programs spent about $20,000 for every man, woman and child in poverty, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.

In 1972 Social Security reared its ugly head with bills that increased benefits immediately by 20%, added an annual cost of living adjustment, and created a benefit escalator requiring payments to rise with wages, not inflation. This and other tweaks by Democrat Wilbur Mills added trillions of dollars to the program’s unfunded liabilities. And get ready for this – these 1972 amendments were added to a debt-ceiling bill.

There was no annual review of these costly entitlements, they were simply place on automatic pilot to run amok silently to finally reach their day in infamy which is now.

With all inventive terms the government creates this was called “mandatory spending” because Congress is required by law to make payments to those who meet eligibility standards, regardless of other spending needs or tax revenues. This is what a true meaning of “entitlement” is – government must pay out regardless.

Let’s take a look at data of who is on what in government programs.

• 50.5 million Americans are on Medicaid;
• 46.5 million are on Medicare;
• 52 million on Social Security; five million on SSI;
• 7.5 million on unemployment insurance’
• 44.6 million on food stamps and other nutrition programs;
• 24 million get the earned-income tax credit, a cash income supplement.

******

By 2010 such payments to individuals were 66% of the federal budget, up from 28% in 1965. The US government now spends $2.1 trillion a year on these redistribution programs, and the 75 million baby boomers are only starting to retire while the so-called “trust fund” is filled with IOUs.

Mr. Obama continues to blame wars in Afghanistan and Iraq along with his personal favorite, George W. Bush. But what Obama doesn’t wish to display on a nice color chart are the real numbers.

1. National defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965;
2. National defense spending was 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010.

Defense has not caused the debt crisis so maybe, according to Obama and his Democrat ilk, it was Ronald Reagan’s fault. Once again the numbers don’t support the claim coming out of the Left.

1. Debt increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion and victory in the Cold War;
2. Debt held by the public at the end of the Reagan years was as a share of GDP was(41% in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008;
3. Estimates are 72% in fiscal 2011.
4. Ronald Reagan’s economic policy provided a peace dividend allowing Bill Clinton to balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988.

To be fair we will blame George W. Bush and spendthrift Republicans too. You see, politicians of non-Conservative stripes worry more about their next election than the American bank account.

Republicans launched a Medicare drug benefit, record outlays on education, the most expensive transportation bill in history, and home ownership aid that contributed to the housing bubble. GOP’s blunder was refusing to cut domestic spending to finance the war on terrorism. I call this the Tom Delay/George W. Bush economics blunder. My graduate school economics adviser would call it a “guns and butter blowout.”

Enter Barack Obama and his Marxist elves Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and a Democrat Congressional majority.

Spending as a share of GDP in the last three years is higher than at any time since 1946. In three years the debt has increased by more than $4 trillion thanks to stimulus, cash for clunkers, mortgage modification programs, 99 weeks of jobless benefits, record expansions in Medicaid, and more. The forecast is for $8 trillion to $10 trillion more in red ink through 2021 and Obama has hinted that he’s like another “stimulus” but is being blocked by House Republicans.

OOPS! I failed to mention Obamacare, which will place 30 million more Americans on government health rolls and push the fiscal health of the nation into the abyss known as Greece.

Obama keeps demanding more taxes but it would require taxes to rise 60%, 70%, even 80% to raise the revenues to finance decades of government promises that can’t be kept. From an economics standpoint tax increases would only service and one more nail in the coffin holding the promise of American exceptionalism.

Are we there yet? Yes, and we’re about to drive over the cliff and become Greece on steroids.

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Barack Obama want’s to raise taxes which have been estimated at a range of $800 billion to $1 trillion dollars. Obama and his free spending colleagues in Congress have raised the national deficit to over $4 trillion and the national debt to over $14 trillion.

As Republicans and Obama banter back and forth about taxes and spending we have Mr. Obama demanding raising the debt limit or he’ll have to throw senior citizens under the Beltway Bus and won’t be able to send out social security checks. And those brave troops in the military – your paychecks may be put on hold. Grandma is going over the cliff.

This is how Barack Obama deals with difficult matters. He marches out, suddenly finding press conferences to his advantage, spelling out doom and gloom while telling Republicans to “eat their peas.” In the long-run Obama policies will have American’s eating an excrement sandwich in the form of higher taxes up and down the income scale, more loans defaulted upon and more foreclosures. Are bread line far behind?

Obama keeps telling us he prevented the next Great Depression. Obama is a pathological liar if he is anything.

If you raise taxes, cut spending here and there without meaningful reductions, and go after “loopholes” like legal deductions for mortgage interest, student loan interest, very large medical deductions you cut right into the heart of the middle class who can’t move money quickly to avoid a complete financial catastrophe. Taxing the “rich” only hurts reinvestment and who has really defined what “rich” is? $250,000 per year in income for a married couple is not “rich.”

Politicians say they don’t want to target the middle class. I say why do you want to raise taxes on anyone since it’s proven that you only stifle economic growth and do little to increase revenue and you don’t reduce the debt or deficit. There simply isn’t enough income at the top to tax, nor enough spending on people at the bottom to cut.

“You can’t address our fiscal situation without asking the vast bulk of the middle class to make a contribution,” says Robert Reischauer, a Democrat and former Congressional Budget Office director.

“It’s pretty clear that there isn’t enough money to just tax the rich,” says Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a Republican and also a former CBO director. “I don’t think the strategy will be let’s hammer the poor. By process of elimination, you end up touching many more Americans.”

Obama’s hope to end Bush-era tax cuts just on the $250,000-a-year set, after 2012, would raise only $700 billion over a decade. Meanwhile, deficits would total a projected $10 trillion over a decade if Bush-era tax cuts stay in place for all, other tax and spending policies also remain unchanged and the economy recovers as currently predicted, according to an analysis of Congressional Budget Office data.

The deficit is now about 10% of gross domestic product. To get it to 3%, a level many economists deem sustainable, by 2015 solely by raising taxes on $250,000-plus households would require more than doubling their top tax rate to 76.8%, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan number-crunching think tank. That is political poison, and, in the view of most economists, it would also be economically imprudent, discouraging income-earning work and encouraging tax-sheltering.

Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY)  suggests allowing Obama to propose three debt-limit increases adding up to $2.5 trillion over the coming months. Senate Republicans (with Majority Leader Harry Reid’s cooperation) would use a convoluted procedure to vote for three resolutions of disapproval on the bills. Mr. Obama could veto the resolutions and 34 Democrats could vote to sustain. Obama would get his debt-limit increase, but without Republicans serving as his political wingmen.

Wall Street Journal op-ed guru’s justify this approach suggesting Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege. He’ll have reinforced his well-earned reputation as a spender with no modern peer. He’ll own the record deficits and fast-rising debt. And he’ll own the US credit-rating downgrade to AA if Standard & Poor’s so decides.

In case you’ve forgotten, Obama signed into law the largest tax increase since 1993. Here is your refresher course:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

As usual Obama is dancing around the truth, using scare tactics, proclaiming with tax cheat Timothy Geithner, that the world will end if the debt limit isn’t increased. We always like to bring facts to counter the Liar-in-Chief:

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it,” Obama told CBS News anchor Scott Pelley in an interview.

According to the Daily Treasury Statements published by the U.S. Treasury Department, the ongoing flow of federal tax revenue since the Treasury declared that it had hit the debt limit on May 16 has been more than sufficient to cover the combined costs of federal spending on interest payments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Veterans Affairs department and federal workers wages and insurance benefits (including wages and insurance benefits for military personnel). A complete breakdown of how Obama and Geithner lie is here.

These plans won’t stop spending, and they will only fall further into Obama’s trap and ultimately hurt the American people. It’s just more of, “Pay now and cut never.”

Scare tactics from the Left – Economic Terrorism Packed with Lies

Minority Leader McConnell first spoke the truth:

“After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this president is in the Oval Office, a real solution is unattainable,” he said.

But then Mr. McConnell joined Obama’s Kabuki dance with his plan to allow Obama to raise the debt limit which may very well be uncontitutional.

ForAmerica Chairman Brent Bozell released a scathing statement, accusing McConnell of writing the president a “blank check” to continue the government’s spending binge.

“If Mitch McConnell thinks caving to President Obama and allowing him to raise the debt ceiling without cuts is the way to become Senate Majority Leader, he is sorely mistaken,” said Bozell. “It’s these sort of shenanigans that got Republicans thrown out of power in 2006.”

Peggy Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America, also blasted McConnell’s proposal.

“It is nearly unbelievable that the Senate Minority Leader would suggest a deal that would give the President power to raise the debt ceiling without any kind of significant opposition,” said Nance. “What kind of deal is one that further drives our nation into spending oblivion, putting the country at significant risk of a permanent recession?”

Obama is in big trouble with the American people and his policies will continue to destroy the fabric of America. We don’t need Republicans like Mitch McConnell aiding and abetting the enemy and destroying freedom and liberty while skirting around the US Constitution or rewriting it.

What is unconstitutional is every Obama policy and his failure to present a budget during his time in office. That is economic terrorism!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines: