Chuck_U_Farley's Blog

Bet ya'll illegal immigrant sympathizers think I'm a racist for posting this. Guess what, I don't give rats azz!!!


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1868836,
00.html

In 2006 nearly 680 Million dollars in Health Care services were provided by Texas hospitals to illegal immigrants. These hospitals are not compensated for this by the State or Federal governments. Which means higher health care costs for the rest of us not to mention the increased burden on hospital staff and delays in getting care to those who are legal US citizens. When is the Texas public going to stand up and get active about the illegal immigrant issue? Have you been to the emergency room lately? It is overrun with illegal immigrants seeking care. Will it take one of your loved ones dying because timely care was not available? How about your communities hospital closing and now you have to drive your pregnant wife an additional 50 miles while she goes into labor.

Uncompensated cost to area hospitals
Parkland Memorial, Dallas…$135 million

John Peter Smith, Fort Worth…$133 million

Campbell Health System, Weatherford…$4 million

Wise Regional Health System, Decatur…$3 million

Other hard-hit Texas hospitals

Ben Taub General, Houston…$203 million

R.E. Thomason General, El Paso…$38 million

University, San Antonio…$25 million

Source: Texas Health and Human Services Commission report

WAKE UP TEXAS!

What are the benefits to society in establishing a special class of victimization based on motive? The family grieves no less, the victim is never less victimized. I have compiled a partial list of obvious negatives. Hate crime laws:

• devalue the dignity of all victims by creating artificial hierarchies of worth;
• cheat the families of victims whose murderers are given milder sentences because the state says their motives were less egregious;
• create the false notion that mere men can judge the thoughts of other men;
• burden police and prosecutors with the expectations and demands of social engineers, advocacy groups, political activists and – worst of all – the feds;
• because of the selectivity of their enforcement, produce more resentment, anger and hate;
• federalize a vast universe of crimes: murder, rape, aggravated assault, simple assault, intimidation, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, car theft, arson, vandalism – among "other crimes against society";
• increase the police and prosecutorial power of the federal government over areas which the Constitution does not allow;
• have proven to be useful political tools and will therefore be used as political tools of influence;
• because of their inherent defects have been – and will continue to be – an object of abuse by people claiming falsely to be victims of hate crime;

Why is it in today's world it is more "newsworthy" to report White on Black crime than vice versa? Is Black on White crime more acceptable or less egregious? Maybe it is condoned as some sort of societal payback for slavery? Or are there even more despicable and evil forces at work?

note: the same can be said about White on Brown crime

What say you DFW?

President Bush is enacting a slew of 11th hour Federal Regulations designed to make it easier for companies to do business in the United States that heretofore had been shackled by loony environmentalist lawsuits, This should translate to more jobs for Americans as companies will be able to afford to build new plants and factories without having to conduct multimillion dollars studies on the effects of their efforts on some frog or mouse or bird. You get the idea. Anti-second amendment nuts are upset because Bush is removing restrictions on carrying guns in National parks which as drug criminals are encroaching at an ever increasing rate can only mean a higher state of safety. Many other common sense laws are being enacted by Bush and I say STICK IT to all those sorry liberal elitist environMENTALists and anti-gun *ussies.

Go Bush Go!
Drill Baby Drill!

Rumors that the cruel murderer of anchorwoman Ann Presley was committed by a black man, have been confirmed. Police have arrested a suspect.
The media had previously been very secretive about who the police were looking for, which led to online rumors that the media was hiding information because the suspect was black.
Police retrieved DNA from the suspect at the crime scene, which experts can use to determine the race of the perpetrator.
As reported by CofCC.org in the past, the Los Angeles Times actually publicly admitted on their internet website that they routinely hide the race of crime suspects and perpetrators so as not to “unfairly stigmatize certain ethnic groups.” So in others words, there feel it is better to endanger the public that report accurate information about crime. All in the name of defending diversity.

See latest Dept. of Justice stats:

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}

U.S. Justice Department 2006 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0602.pdf
Scroll to Table 42. --> 32,443 White women raped by Negro men, zero Negro women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2005 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0502.pdf
Scroll to Table 42. --> 37,460 White women raped by Negroes, zero Negro women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2004 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0402.pdf
Scroll to Table 42. --> 11,611 White women raped by Negro men, zero Negro women raped by White men.

U.S. Justice Department 2003 rape statistics URL: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0302.pdf
Scroll to Table 42. --> 20,309 White women raped by Negro men, zero Negro women raped by White men.


White on Black crime= hate crime
Black on White crime= hush crime

"Yes We Can . . . Ban Guns"--Obama Announces Gun Ban Agenda Before The Final Vote Count Is In   Friday, November 07, 2008  

Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign slogan, "the audacity of hope," should have instead been "the audacity of deceit." After months of telling the American people that he supports the Second Amendment, and only hours after being declared the president-elect, the Obama transition team website announced an agenda taken straight from the anti-gun lobby--four initiatives designed to ban guns and drive law-abiding firearm manufacturers and dealers out of business: 

"Making the expired federal assault weapons ban permanent." Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime-about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet. 

"Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment." The amendment--endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police--prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone other than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation. Anti-gun activists oppose the restriction, because it prevents them from obtaining tracing information and using it in frivolous lawsuits against law-abiding firearm manufacturers. Their lawsuits seek to obtain huge financial judgments against firearm manufacturers when a criminal uses a gun to inflict harm, even though the manufacturers have complied with all applicable laws. 

"Closing the gun show loophole." There is no "loophole." Under federal law, a firearm dealer must conduct a background check on anyone to whom he sells a gun, regardless of where the sale takes place. A person who is not a dealer may sell a gun from his personal collection without conducting a check. Gun prohibitionists claim that many criminals obtain guns from gun shows, though the most recent federal survey of convicted felons put the figure at only 0.7 percent. They also claim that non-dealers should be required to conduct checks when selling guns at shows, but the legislation they support goes far beyond imposing that lone requirement. In fact, anti-gun members of Congress voted against that limited measure, holding out for a broader bill intended to drive shows out of business. 

"Making guns in this country childproof." "Childproof" is a codeword for a variety of schemes designed to prevent the sale of firearms by imposing impossible or highly expensive design requirements, such as biometric shooter-identification systems. While no one opposes keeping children safe, the fact is that accidental firearm-related deaths among children have decreased 86 percent since 1975, even as the numbers of children and guns have risen dramatically. Today, the chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident are less than one in a million.

Here we go down the road to perdition!

Barack Hussein Obama's comments about his radical associates are so devoid of even the most minuscule crumbs of plausible deniability it boggles the rational thinking mind!

Case in point in his own words:

When asked about involvement with Bill Ayers
"Oh he's just someone who lives in the neighborhood"

When asked about belonging to Trinity Baptist Church for 20 years and Rev. Wright's anti-American, anti-White, and anti-Jewish comments and teachings
"I never heard any of those comments when I was attending church there"

When asked about his dealings with convicted felon Tony Rezko
"That's not the Tony Rezko I knew"

When asked just yesterday whether or not he was aware that his Aunt has been living in a Boston slum for the past 4 years and is an illegal immigrant
"No I have no knowledge of that"

Now I know that most of you Liberal Democrats have discounted and condoned this pathological behavior so this appeal for rational thought is not directed towards you, its for all the undecided Independents and Conservative Democrats that have yet to vote.

Please ask yourself if you can vote for someone who is so pathologically narcissistic that he actually thinks "We the people" are so ignorant as to actually believe his lies.

Even if you see merit in his policies you must consider his woeful lack of character.

There I've said my piece and that is all I know to do.

Vote McCain/Palin 08
 

Blacks aren't voting for Obama because he's black. Their voting for him because they think he's McCain!

Just listen to these fine folks. lol

http://www.bpmdeejays.com/upload/hs_sal_in_Harlem_1001
08.mp3

Again Barack can't seem to help himself. roflmao


He's on the campaign trail trying to debunk and smear Gov. Palin about all the "ear marks" she has obtained for the state of Alaska.

Big O's words paraphrased:

"She hired a lobbyist to go to Washington to get money for her town of Wasilla when she was Mayor."

Whoopty frickin' Dooo!!!
Hiring a lobbyist is normally has its done and Obama fails to mention that he has worked while a US Senator to bring 932 million dollars in pork barrels and earmarks to the state of Illinois. Thats over 1 million dollars a day for everyday he's been a Senator.

"She was for the bridge to "nowhere" berfore she was against it"

Whoopty frickin' Dooo!!!
At least she came down on the right side of the issue. She cut property taxes by 60% while Mayor and as Governor balanced the states budget and actually produced a surplus which she distributed to the people of Alaska.

Even if Obama could balance a budget and had a surplus, where do you think it would have gone?

Can you say perpetuation of the welfare state?

One thing I will say about Obama he sure can call those kettles black.

What a buffoon!

I find it amazing on one hand and completely disgusting on the other that the "media" has exercised more scrutiny on Gov. Palin in the past week than on Sen Obama over the past 18 months.

It truly is a statement to me that objective un-biased journalism is dead, gone, a thing of the past.


The question I have to ask is do the raving fanatic followers of Obama realize and accept this or are they just oblivious lemmings.

Intelligent comments welcome.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I know that was a bit subjective but then again it is my blog. lol

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) President is set to speak at the Damocratic  National Convention. This groups goals call for advancing the cause of Islam in North America. The "cause of Islam" is code for soft jihad. It is also a fact that this group is named as a co-conspirator named in an up coming terrorist trial. Again B Hussein Obama seems incapable of hiding his affiliation with extremist muslims. Americans need to ask themselves a very important question this election year. Do I want a President that is sympathetic and accomodating to muslims especially ones with ties to terrorists? HELL NO!!!!! Is my answer.

B Hussein Obama is trying very hard to hide the fact that he smokes cigarettes. Makes you wonder what else he's trying to hide. HMMMM

"The Global Poverty Act of 2007 (S.2433) is coming up for a Senate vote...  according the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. Once Harry Reid and the Democrat leadership put it on the calendar, we could have as little as a week to prepare for the vote."

Senator Barrack Hussein Obama's only major legislative accomplishment as a United States Senator -- which according to some conservative leaders is potentially an $845 billion United Nations give away of your hard-earned tax dollars -- could be coming up for a stealth vote any day now!

Is it really possible that our federal legislators are planning to pass Barack Hussein Obama's Global Poverty Act while they think we aren't looking?

"Rumors have been circulating around Capitol Hill that a few activist groups have renewed their surge and have begun lobbying full force for a bill introduced by presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). The bill has already passed out of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee without any public hearings, and it also passed the House earlier this year.   It is important to note that both of these votes were 'voice votes,' which was a deliberate strategy of the congressional majority so that no record would be kept of those who voted in favor of this problematic bill."

"While Senator Barack Obama struggles to keep the public in the dark about the nature of his pro-U.N. Global Poverty Act, a recent 'Bay Area Interfaith Leaders' Luncheon' was held to lobby for Senate passage of the bill,  whose cost has been estimated at $845 billion..."

"Meanwhile, a concerned parent alerted us to the fact that a Christian preschool in Long Island, New York was handing out a coloring page for children which included a plea for Congress to pass Obama's Global Poverty Act. 'Dear Parents,' said the letter that was sent home. 'We would like to join efforts with the congregation of St. David's to stop world hunger. You and your child can help by coloring and signing the enclosed sheet. This sheet will be sent along with many others to our representatives in Washington....

"The [enclosed] sheet said 'Dear Senator: At Preschool, I learned to thank God for the food I eat. I also collect coins to help those who don't have enough. Today, I ask you to help, too, with more and better aid for the world's poorest countries. We want Congress to pass the Global Poverty Act. Please cosponsor S. 2433. Thank you.' The child's name and age were supposed to be filled in.

"The pictures to be colored included what appeared to be an angel holding a bowl of food (with a Valentine heart on the robe and the bowl) and a basket with apples."

And just how much is $845 billion?

Vincent Gioia, writing in Right Side News, translates this incomprehensible figure into language every American can understand:

"This amounts to a tax of over $2,000 on each man, woman and child in the United States. The foreign aid budget now stands at $300 billion; the Act would add the additional expenditure to the already huge amount allocated to assist the world."

Where do you suppose they'll get the $845 billion?

Professor Jeffrey D. Sachs of Columbia University -- Director of the UN Millennium Project and Special Advisor to United Nations -- knows EXACTLY WHERE -- "through a global tax preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels."

He doesn't mean a tax on gasoline, does he? 

OH YES HE DOES!

He doesn't mean a GLOBAL TAX, does he? 

OH YES HE DOES!

In a 2005 report to Kofi Annan, the Secretary General's old friend Sachs criticized the United States for giving only a mere $16.3  billion a year to alleviate global poverty .

Specifically Sachs advocated a GLOBAL TAX:

"We will need, in the end, to put real resources in support of our hopes. A global tax on carbon-emitting fossil fuels might be the way to begin."

In other words, you get to pay even more to fill up your tank so some leader of a third-world country can build two or three more palaces while his people are starve to death -- all in the name of fighting global poverty! 

Won't here this from the liberal leftist elite in the tank for barry media:

B. Hussein Obama while on his magical mystery tour saw fit to meet with Mahmoud Abbas leader of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas is also buddy buddy with Hamas and Hezbollah but thats another story. Anyway just days before barry and his muslim brother met, Abbas celebrated and gave praise to Samir Kuntar and his family upon release from Israeli prison. Even had a cake baked for this scumbag.

Samir Kuntar, a Lebanese terrorist responsible for the murder of three Israeli civilians, including a 4-year-old girl, has been released by Israeli authorities along with four Hezbollah terrorists in exchange for the bodies of two kidnapped Israeli soldiers.

Samir Kuntar led a terrorist raid on Israel as part of a four man Palestinian Liberation Front team. They landed by boat at the coastal town of Nahariya. They murdered an Israeli policeman who had come across them. Then they entered a private home and took a thirty year old man named Danny Haran and his four year old daughter hostage. Smandar Haran, Danny's wife, their two year old daughter Yael, and a neighbor managed to hide in a crawlspace.

The terrorists with their two hostages were intercepted on the beach by Israeli policemen and soldiers. During the ensuing shoot out, Samir Kuntar shot Danny Haran in the back of the head in front of his daughter. Then Samir Kuntar smashed the little girl's head in before he was captured with one of the other terrorists.

Meanwhile, back in the crawlspace, Smandar accidentally suffocated the other daughter, Yael, to death while covering up her mouth to stifle her outcries.

B. Hussein says he is running on his superior judgment to qualify him for President of the USA, yet he meets with terrorist sympathizers and comes up with 9 different excuses for not meeting with our wounded soldiers. Am I missing something? What say you America?

Some of you already know some of this but the Illegal Alien aspect gave me cause for pause.

Last October Earlesville, Maryland resident and former 7th grade teacher and nutrition consultant Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, touted for decades as "Baby-Boomer Zero" or "First Boomer," filed for Social Security benefits. Sixty-one year old Casey-Kirschling was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at midnight, Jan. 1, 1946—the first official baby boomer. Her filing for benefits was a momentous occasion for her and a frighteningly symbolic event for the nation. Casey-Kirschling's filing is believed by many in government to be the financial straw that will ultimately break the camel's back. She represents the first of the World War II war babies to begin drawing from dollars that have not existed since Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The Democratic leadership which controlled both Houses of Congress for 80 of the last 100 years spent the money that, by law, had to be invested in high yield securities since this money did not belong to the US government. The money belonged to the American people who, by law, were obligated to invest it for their old age.

After she filed for her Social Security benefits, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling completed the day at a special luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, DC where she told reporters she was looking forward to collecting her benefits. "I'm thrilled," Casey-Kirschling said, "to think that after all these years that I'm getting paid back the money that I put in." Any senior level politicians in attendance were probably squirming in their seats as they smiled politely for the cameras, wondering deep in the dungeons of their minds where thoughts they don't ever want to voice are chained, most of them wondered just how many baby boomers it would take before Baby Boomer Armageddon occurred. Casey-Kirschling was the first of 3.2 million baby boomers who will reach 62 this year—which amounts to 365 an hour. Statistically, about 49% of men and 53% of women will take early retirement and reduced benefits.

The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1937. Funds collected through payroll deduction could not be placed in the general treasury as "tax revenue." Social Security deposits are assigned to the US Treasury where, by law, they must be invested in marketable Treasury securities. In 2007, the US government received Social Security deposits to the Trust of $1,069 billion. During the year of 2007, the Social Security Administration paid out $879 billion, leaving a net surplus of $190 billion. There's only one problem with the government's rhetoric. Uncle Sam is paying current benefits from current revenue. That's a Ponzi scheme. And Uncle Sam knows that when the flood of baby boomers creates the human tsunami that President George W. Bush has been warning the American people about, the floodgates will open and what is left of the US economy will be swept out to sea.

Why is there no money? Not because too many people filed for earned benefits. It is because the money in the Social Security Trust Fund was used to finance handouts to the Welfare Generation from 1964 to 1994. In 30 years the Democrats, who used generational welfare to chain minorities to the feeding trough of the State and to the voting booth where they were forced to vote Democratic to keep their welfare checks coming, stole your retirement funds and replaced them with worthless IOUs.

The government, in turn, argues that far from issuing "worthless IOUs," the "investments" held by the trust funds are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the US government. The bureaucrats insist the federal government has always repaid the Social Security Trust Fund—with interest. And, that's the problem. The Social Security Trust Fund became a "passbook" savings account for the government rather than an investment in which the "people" purchased high yeild securities. Instead of earning the types of returns you would expect from high yield securities, the government paid the American people 4.656% simple interest on their money.

Only, today, the Social Security Trust Fund reserve is almost virtually nonexistent. What should still be a cash reserve in the trillions of dollars is almost an empty vault filled with worthless IOUs that Uncle Sam can't repay. The trust fund is a virtual reality illusion. The government says it exists, so in the virtual reality world of politics, it exists. However, the virtual reality trust fund exists only in the virtual reality ledger sheets kept by the federal comptroller of pipe dreams and mirages.

Because of government smoke and mirrors, three out of five middle-class retirees will run completely out of money if they try to maintain their pre-retirement lifestyles when they accept their gold watch and collect their first Social Security check. A new study by the accounting firm of Ernst & Young, released on July 14 shows that Americans, who expect to live independent of their children when they retire, are going to be faced with some tough choices —ten or more years before they retire. Those tough choices will almost completely eliminate their discretionary income in order to have a post-retirement life that is not an economic nightmare. The choice they face is one that leaves them with a greatly reduced amount of discretionary income for the last decade before they retire, or destitute and dependent on their children after they retire.

The Ernst & Young study indicates that middle-income Americans must find some way to trim their standards-of-living by approximately 25% so they can put that money into 401Ks or some other form of high yield securities. In addition, retirees will have to cut their spending by at least 37% to make sure they don't outlive their money. About 77 million baby-boomers are expected to retire within the next five to seven years. What that means is not only will there be 77 million high-income middle class workers suddenly removed from the US tax roll, but there will be 77 million new retirees expecting monthly checks from Uncle Sam with 77 million fewer taxpayers paying the withholding taxes that currently "cover" the SSI and DI checks that go out every month to the current Social Security and disability insurance recipients.

Tom Neubig, national director for quantitative economics and statistics at Ernst & Young noted that most people believe they will be able to "...maintain roughly the same standard of living after retirement. Our study suggests they are going to have to make some changes. People are going to have to adapt in a number of ways that they weren't anticipating or hoping for."

Married couples with joint household incomes of $75,000 per year, whose supplemental retirement incomes come only from passbook savings or CDs and not from 401K investments, have a 31% change of running out of money before they die if they try to maintain the same lifestyle they enjoyed before retirement. Those who are obligated to depend solely on Social Security have a 90% chance of becoming destitute in their old age. Sadly, many Americans who worked for some of the nation's premiere corporations that moved their operations to the human capital-rich third world, were forced to cash in their retirement plans to keep them afloat financially as they sought new employment, or used their retirement nest eggs to finance startup ventures because new jobs were not to be found without relocating somewhere else.

Government statisticians have calculated that by 2030 the cost of the federal government's Ponzi scheme—Social Security—will outpace the contributions from its unwilling participants and, from that point, the shortfall will have to be drawn from what is left of the Social Security Trust Fund—which will be completely bankrupt in 2041. This will happen largely because of the legalization of abortion in 1973 and the removal of over 65 million consumer taxpayers through the saline baths and scalpels of the abortionists. Abortion was also the culprit that made the exodus of the factories of Corporate America to the third world inevitable since the United States and the industrial nations of Europe, with 0.5 to 0.7 population replenishment rates, were no longer producing enough "homegrown" consumers to support the consumer industry.

Medicare is in the same boat as Social Security. Only, Medicare is already paying out more than it takes in. Advocates of reducing Social Security benefits or, once again, raising the "premium," or advancing the age when recipients will be eligible to receive benefits, with partial benefits available at age 67 and full benefits at either 70 or 72 years of age insist that Social Security will begin negative payments in 2017 not 2030. To keep Social Security solvent until 2041 requires a 16% increase in payroll taxes and a parallel 13% cut in benefits. To keep Medicare solvent past 2017 requires a 122% increase in premiums and/or a 51% decrease in hospital stays.

Every year that nothing is done makes the problem worse. In 2005 President George W. Bush tried to bully the Republican-controlled Congress into beginning to fix Social Security by creating private investment accounts and removing a portion of their Social Security "contributions" from the greedy hands of politicians in order to protect their benefits. Bush and the GOP was blocked from carrying out the plan by House and Senate Democrats who said privatizing any part of Social Security would drain needed money from the Trust Fund. Clearly the liberals know just how fragile the program is, and what happens to the US economy when the house of cards falls.

Today, more and more congressmen and Senators on both sides of the aisle realize the prognosis is so bad that its just a matter of time before this nation will not be able to afford the cure because the problems in the Social Security system, Medicare and Medicare's prescription drug coverage plan are compounding themselves. Congressmen Jim Cooper [D-TN] and Frank Wolf [R-VA] argue in unison that its no longer a partisan issue. It's not red or blue. "It's as foolish as a food fight on the Titanic."

While the Democrats still believe that Social Security, Medicare and Prescription Medicare can be patched with rate hikes, anyone who has examined the problem with both eyes open knows that's no longer possible. The only thing that's going to solve this problem is replacing the taxpayers going on Social Security with new taxpayers entering the taxable work force. Which is precisely what Bush-43 tried to do in 2005-06 by offering amnesty to illegal aliens. (Conservative alarmists flooded cyberspace with emails suggesting Bush-43 was going to provide illegals with amnesty, grant them citizenship and then provide them with an immediate windfall—Social Security benefits. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The SSI benefits for the "new citizens," like the rest of us, comes at the end of our life's travels, after we have paid into the system for at least 40 quarters (10 years).

When Bush-43 advocated amnesty to draw the illegal aliens who are working in the shadows of the underground economy into the light of day, he drew fire not only from his political adversaries but from many of the transnational corporations which not only supported both of his runs for the White House, but other Republican candidates as well, since legalizing illegal aliens and getting them into the Social Security system puts them under the protection of federal employment laws. That means employers must pay these new citizens incomes that more closely approximate what US citizens earn in that job environment. (However, having two or three people bidding for the same job will lower the wage structure, but not as much as when the employer was able to hire the illegal under-the-table for a fraction of the wage paid to US workers.)

Working under the table, illegals earn enough money to feed and house themselves while those dollars which should have gone to Washington, DC (and that State's capital) in the form of taxes, were wire transferred back to Mexico, or some other Central American country, to provide for the sustenance of the illegal's family back home. In 2007, trackable "remittances" from illegals to their families in Central America totaled approximately $66.5 billion. Since Ronald Reagan's first amnesty bill passed in 1986, illegals have remitted $1,965.6 billion to family members in Mexico. Keep in mind, that wasn't their total earnings since 1986. It was that portion of their illegal incomes sent back to Mexico. Assuming each of the illegals sends 20% of their income home, we can assume since 1986, the illegals who are taking US jobs under the table earned some $147.4 trillion dollars at the expense of the US worker.

Are you beginning to see the big picture? Or rather, the real picture. It's ugly. We are faced with what can only be called "Baby Boomer Armageddon" because if the problem isn't fixed quickly, the United States is facing an economic Armageddon from which it will not survive. The solution—the only solution other than letting the liberals tax us into oblivion—is so repugnant to most of us that we are almost prepared to become destitute oversleves to keep it from happening.

No national politician in the United States other than President George W. Bush has had the guts to tell the American people that the Social Security system is broken beyond repair. Bush's problem is that he presented the problem and the solution in a split screen narrative. But the American people weren't watching correctly. They saw the problem followed by a viable solution as two problems. The problem: (Social Security is bankrupt). The solution: (adding from 20 to 25 million new taxpayers to the tax rolls immediately will buoy the economy and give us time to find a permanent solution.)

The problem is, the politicians we continue to elect have a real problem with the truth. They just flat out won't utter it. And, more than anything else, partisanship aside, it's time for the truth. Congress screwed up. They spent most of the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Welfare Society. The high-interest securities that were supposed to dramatically increase the yield of the dollars invested didn't happen. What funds still existed in the Treasury brought in a feeble return of 4.656% interest. Subtract from the roster of taxpayers 77 million baby boomers who are now beginning to retire, and who will begin to withdraw money from the US Treasury at an alarming rate rather than depositing it in the form of payroll taxes. Also subtract 65-plus million humans from our society whom the environmentalists decided were a detriment to nature. We legalized abortion in 1973 and killed the future taxpayers whose contributions today would have kept the system solvent as the baby boomers hung up their work spurs.

Had Bush told the truth—the whole truth—about what happens to the economy when the incomes of 77 million baby boomers becomes 77 million new monthly Social Security recipients (with no new workers to replace them), and then make it clear that every American still in the work force can expect to see their taxload tripled because there will be a lot less of you supporting those baby boomers as they prepare to enjoy their golden years on your dime because Congress spent all the dollars.