Jeff Sessions “State of the Union” Speech On Amnesty

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) delivered a speech from the senate floor on Wednesday that was “State of the Union” quality, and should have been broadcast in prime time on every network.  He very eloquently debunks the myth that there is ANY kind of labor shortage in America, especially any shortage that importing millions of low-skilled illegal aliens would solve.  He also very deftly exposes the democrats (especially Harry Reid and senate democrats) for their support of Obama’s lawlessness and unconstitutional behavior, and their encouragement of Obama to “go big, or go home” when it comes to signing his illegal amnesty.

The time where this type of statesmanship could have actually changed the course of our nation away from becoming the Marxist clone of Venezuela which we are becoming likely passed a few years ago.  The liberal/progressive media will not give it air time, and the people who need to understand the truth which Mr. Sessions is speaking are either profiting from the flood of illegals, or they are ideologically blind to the truth.
+
+

---

September 11, 2014 2:38 PM

Don’t Give the Masters of the Universe Their Amnesty

The Senate isn’t doing anything to stop Obama’s plans — thank the plutocrats.

By Jeff Sessions

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, delivered a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday evening about Senate Democrats’ refusal to support legislation to block the president’s proposed executive actions on immigration policy, and the interests supporting amnesty. Following is an adapted version of his remarks.

Earlier this week I spoke about the president’s promise that he would issue an executive amnesty to 5 or 6 million people. The planned amnesty would include work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers for millions of people who illegally entered the U.S., illegally overstayed their visas, or defrauded U.S. immigration authorities.

An Open Letter to Valerie Jarrett

We’re pretty sure Valerie Jarrett is a communist. We know she is Iranian-born. And based on the advice she has apparently been giving Barry on giving access to the administration to muslim terrorists and terrorist sympathizers, it becomes reasonable to at least suspect that Jarrett is at the very least a terrorist sympathizer. Either way, she is one of two people whom Obama will NEVER say “no” to, and she is obviously giving him advice which is dangerous to America. Mr. Dean’s letter to her is entirely appropriate.

---

An Open Letter To Communist Valerie Jarrett

August 15, 2012 By Robert Philip Dean

Iranian-born Communist sympathizer Valerie Jarrett, Barack Obama’s Senior Adviser, spoke recently during a forum at the John F. Kennedy School of Government, in which she implied members of the TEA Party needed simple instructions and outlines to understand Obama’s major government overhaul of healthcare, the stimulus package, bailouts, and his road to socialism. When asked if she thought a simple booklet would help us conservative simpletons understand Obama’s desire to “fundamentally transform America,” she agreed, stating ““Hope and Change were so catchy because it was really very simple and it was something everyone understood the definition. And so I think part of what our challenge is is to find a very simple way of communicating.” Her condescending attitude and remarks garnered a historical retort from The American Patriot Alliance in an open letter to Ms. Jarrett.

Dear Valerie,

Greetings and salutations in the name of Our Lord & Saviour Christ Jesus.

It saddens me somewhat that recent events and situations developing from within the White House have caused me to write this letter, though in reality it should have been done much sooner. I understand there must be a devastating conflict raging within the walls of ‘The People’s House’ between your boss Obama’s Muslim faith and Wednesday’s Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day, showing that we are STILL a “Christian Nation.”

Dishonorable Disclosures

Obama and those in the White House and the administration who have been leaking national security secrets are TRAITORS, guilty of betraying American servicemen and women, our intelligence community, and our allies. They have jeopardized the safety of our people, and compromised national security. This has all been done for purely political purposes. The warriors who are defending this nation, who are putting their lives on the line to defend us, are BEGGING you to simply SHUT UP.  When they get tired of dying unnecessarily because you continue to compromise their safety for political reasons, they may not ask so nicely.

---

---

US economy has never been on the road to recovery, says Paul Krugman

In cases like this, I normally just smile smugly and go on about my business. However, in this case I’ll indulge myself and say those 4 little words that I usually leave unspoken.

I. TOLD. YOU. SO.
+

---

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/recession-us-economy-has-never-been-on-the-road-to-recovery-says-paul-krugman/articleshow/9490804.cms?curpg=1

5 Aug, 2011, 01.35PM IST, Paul Krugman,New York Times

In case you had any doubts, Thursday’s more than 500-point plunge in the Dow Jones industrial average and the drop in interest rates to near-record lows confirmed it: The economy isn’t recovering, and Washington has been worrying about the wrong things.

It’s not just that the threat of a double-dip recession has become very real. It’s now impossible to deny the obvious, which is that we are not now and have never been on the road to recovery.

Public Housing

The problem with public housing is that the residents are not the owners. The people that live in the house did not earn the house, but were loaned the property from the true owners, the taxpayers. Because of this, the residents do not have the “pride of ownership” that comes with the hard work necessary. In fact, the opposite happens and the residents resent their benefactors because the very house is a constant reminder that they themselves did not earn the right to live in the house. They do not appreciate the value of the property and see no need to maintain or respect it in any way.

The result is the same whether you are talking about a studio apartment or a magnificent mansion full of priceless antiques. If the people who live there do not feel they earned the privilege, they will make this known through their actions. The picture below illustrates the point…

Didn't EARN it, so doesn't respect it.

The Resolute Desk was built from the timbers of the HMS Resolute and was a gift from Queen Victoria to President Rutherford B. Hayes.  It is considered a national treasure and icon of the presidency.

Mr. Obama, with all due respect, get your @#$% feet off our desk!

---

Know Your Czars

These are the people that our thug, communist, dictator-wanna-be, Barack Obama, is surrounding himself with.  They are just about all, each and every one, self avowed communists and socialists.  They are all radical ‘progressives’ who think they are smarter than you, and that they should be able to run your lives for you.  They all, EACH AND EVERY ONE, think the United States Constitution is an impediment to their agenda.  They will do all they can to destroy it.

Listen to the audio “Know Your Czars” below for a Cliff’s Notes summary of the people currently advising Obama, and running our government FROM OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTION.

Following that is an article on one of Obama’s latest HAND PICKED ADVISERS.  Remember the no-talent-keister-clown who said that conservatives, military veterans, people who disagree with abortion, and people who have Ron Paul or other conservative bumper stickers on their car should be considered ‘domestic terrorists?’  Yep.  He’s Obama’s new adviser on “military activities in the United States.”

First of all, unless you subscribe to, i.e. believe that to be true, why would you have someone who does ADVISING you on such matters?

Next, and the obvious 800 pound gorilla in the room, what does Obama mean by “military activities in the United States?”  Based upon his established history of trying to oppress and usurp power which does not belong to him, I can’t help but believe that this is something that can’t be good for America.

Keep an eye on these creeps.  Pretty soon we’re going to have to put a stop to this mess.

---

Know Your Czars_1

---

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=124238

Obama’s new pick: Gov. of state that linked Christians, violence

Missouri report tied ‘domestic terrorists’ with opposition to abortion, immigration

---

Posted: February 07, 2010
9:24 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Missouri Gov. Nixon

President Obama has picked to advise him on military actions inside the U.S. the Missouri governor whose state “Information Analysis Center” last year linked conservative organizations to domestic terrorism and said law enforcement officers should watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers from Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin.

Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama’s special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s replacement when she moved to Washington.

They are among Obama’s nominations for the 10 positions on Obama’s new “Council of Governors” that he will use for advice on “military activities in the United States.”

(Complete article HERE)

---

REAL Class Was 1st on the Scene at Ft. Hood

Hope and change.  I was HOPING enough voters would wake up and CHANGE their minds about voting for a narcissistic, undocumented communist.

Sadly, that didn’t happen.  For those who pulled the lever for Dumb-O, the big eared communist, how’s that hope and change workin’ out for ya’?  Wait, don’t answer yet.  I’ll ask you again when all of the Obama non-tax increase tax increases hit your wallet this year and next.  Answer me then, and when you see what’s left of the private sector evaporate and the economy collapse.  Answer when you see the Obama government controlling EVERY aspect of your life.  Don’t you weren’t warned.

---

This reply is from a retired Special Forces soldier in Fayetteville, NC who was sent a copy of the picture below.

What is even better is the fact George W. Bush heard about Fort Hood, got in his car without any escort, apparently they did not have time to react, and drove to Fort Hood.  He was stopped at the gate and the guard could not believe who he had just stopped.  Bush only asked for directions to the hospital then drove on.  The gate guard called that “The president Is on Fort Hood and driving to the hospital.”  The base went bananas looking for Obama.  When they found it was Bush they immediately offered escort and Bush simply told them to shut up and let him visit the wounded and the dependents of the dead.  He (George W. Bush) stayed at Fort Hood for over six hours and was finally asked to leave by a message from the White House. Obama flew in days later and held a “photo” session in a gym and did not even go to the hospital.  All this I picked up from two soldiers here who happened to be at Fort Hood when it happened.

Class shows up…

The doctor had his tv on in his office when the news of the military base shootings came on. The husband of one of his employees was stationed there.

He called her into his office and as he told her what had happened, she got a text message from her husband saying, “I am okay.”  Her cell phone rang right after she read the message. It was an ER nurse,”I’m the one who just sent you a text, not your husband. I thought it would be comforting but I was mistaken in doing so. I am sorry to tell you this, but your husband has been shot 4 times and he is in surgery.”

The soldier’s wife left Southern Clinic in Dothan and drove all night to Ft.Hood. When she arrived, she found out her husband was out of surgery and would be OK. She rushed to his room and found that he already had visitors there to confort him. He was just waking up and found his wife and the visitors by his side.

The nurse took this picture.

"Class" showed up. Obama couldn't stand being upstaged, so he asked Bush to leave. As usual, Obama was putting his own image and desires ahead of the greater good, and the welfare of "his" soldiers. This is why not a single soldier, sailor, or airman I know is in a hurry to jump in front of a bullet headed for Obama.

What?  No news crews and cameras?  This is how people with class respond and pay respect to those in uniform.

+

---

State of the Union-Loving, Narcissistic, Undocumented President

Lie after lie after lie.  David said it quite well when he said “Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda.“

Here are a few of the adjectives I would use to describe Chairman Maobama’s State of the Union(s) speech: angry, narcissistic, disjointed, dishonest, unrepentant, unpresidential, classless, lacking decorum, and pathological.

The writer of his speech should be fired, then taken to the woodshed for the number of lies, lack of facts, and other breaches of decorum in the speech.  But we know that will never happen, because O-bow-ma believed just about every word of the speech (except, of course, the part about drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants.)

The few democrats left that might remotely consider themselves as AMERICANS need to head for the life boats.  The true “progressives,” the followers of “the one,” are going down with the ship.

It’s time to start whispering “IMPEACHMENT.”

---

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/dlimbaugh/2010/dl_0129p.shtml
There Was the President’s Speech, and There Is Reality
By David Limbaugh
January 29, 2010

Watching President Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech makes me wonder whether the reason he tells so many fibs is that he believes them himself. Either that or he is an even better actor than he is a teleprompter reader.

Obama not only wasn’t contrite about his broken promises and disastrous record; he was on the attack, daring anyone to oppose his agenda — even in the face of the Massachusetts rebuke. But let’s see how some of his statements match up with reality.

On health care, he taunted congressmen to “let me know” if any of them have “a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses,” as if his own plan would do those things.

Even the Congressional Budget Office has said most of the Democratic plans would increase the budget. Besides, you can’t reduce overall costs when government forces an increase in demand, even if it caps insurance premiums and shifts costs elsewhere and/or imposes rationing. The CBO has also reported that with Obamacare, millions would remain uninsured. So under his plan, costs would rise, quality and choice would decrease, care would be rationed, millions would remain uninsured and, worst of all, the government would acquire an unprecedented level of control over all aspects of our lives.

Do conservatives have better ideas? Of course. Restore market forces through tort reform, strengthening health savings accounts, abolishing government coverage mandates, allowing consumers to purchase policies across state lines and eliminating the tax laws incentivizing employer-provided health care, which unnecessarily increase demand by making prices invisible to consumers.

A candid Obama would have said, “If any of you have a plan that does not involve restoring market forces and reducing government’s role in the health care industry, I’ll at least pretend to look at it.” “Make no mistake,” neither Obama nor his Democratic colleagues will support genuine health care reform, because to reduce costs, we must reduce government control, and they can’t abide that. Period.

As for spending, Obama didn’t once apologize for his reckless expenditures. Instead, he blamed his soaring deficits on his predecessor, completely misrepresenting the projected deficits under President Bush and ignoring his own deliberate doubling of the national debt over the next 10 years. That’s the issue Americans are losing sleep over, and he offers only Band-Aids and smoke and mirrors.

He says he will freeze a portion of the discretionary budget, but as Cato Institute reports, 83 percent of the budget will be off-limits. Other than his “stimulus” insanity, the real explosion in spending is occurring in the entitlements that he refuses to touch. Even his mini-freeze wouldn’t begin until 2011 (why wait?), and it would be dwarfed by his planned spending increases for other socialistic projects, including a new “stimulus plan.” And how about that assault on personal and fiscal responsibility with his promise to forgive student loans after 20 years?

How Obama can stand before the nation and insist on spending more borrowed money to accomplish something his first “stimulus plan” didn’t achieve (job creation), but exacerbated, is beyond me. How he can blame President Bush for his own broken promise that unemployment wouldn’t exceed 8 percent if his “stimulus” bill were implemented is jaw-dropping. He even said he saved 2 million jobs. Scary delusional! Or scary sinister!

Speaking of chutzpah, did he actually dare to utter the words “transparent” and “accountable”? How about those phantom legislative districts receiving stimulus monies, Mr. President? How about that promise to televise the health care debates on C-SPAN?

He said he hadn’t raised income taxes “a single dime” on 95 percent of the people. Yet in almost the same breath, he promised to redouble his efforts on cap and tax, which would increase the average family’s energy costs by almost $3,000 per year. I don’t believe his campaign promise was limited to income taxes, by the way. (He also said he had CUT taxes on the middle class. Being solidly in the middle class, I think I would know if that had actually happened. Reducing my withholding so it looks like I’m getting a tax break, when it actually pushes me into a higher tax bracket forcing me to pay that much and more on April 15th is NOT a tax cut. A “stimulus” check, which just gives back a small portion of what was mine to begin with, is not a tax cut. Giving that same “stimulus” check to those who don’t pay taxes at all is just a handout, and communist redistribution of our hard earned money.)

How about his righteous ranting on earmark reform? Sorry, we’ve been down that twisted road with you before, Mr. President. (There were some 9,000 earmarks in the O-bow-ma porkulus bill. I’d call that a step in the right direction, wouldn’t you? (facetiousness intended))

Then there was his audacious riff on lobbyists. Been there, done that, too, Mr. President, with your phony promise to keep lobbyists out of the White House.

Obama also railed against “partisanship, shouting and pettiness” as he filled most of his speech with just those things, even castigating the Supreme Court, erroneously, for opening the door to foreign corporations’ campaign contributions.

How about his statement that “America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity”? Hmm. Tell that to the Iranian and Honduran peoples. He must have meant once he’s out of office.

Then there was his bizarre out-of-body pivot, when he blamed Washington for our problems. (Narcissistic clown.)

All of this, especially Obama’s obvious incapacity for self-doubt, is disturbingly surreal. (It’s like the speech he gave the other day on “tax cuts.” In that speech, he said “I” over 120 time while mentioning the subject of the speech, tax cuts, only TWICE. It’s kind of like the Toby Keith song “I wanna talk about me.” (I wanna talk about me, Wanna talk about I, Wanna talk about number one…) He is a self-centered, communist/progressive, anti-America, probably NOT American danger to America, our constitution, and our way of life.)

—

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book “Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today’s Democratic Party” was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at http://www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

---

Give Thanks for Veterans

“We have always been here. Since the American Revolution. We will always be here, waiting in the shadows ’til America needs us again. We are your Veterans and we love you more than our own lives, America.” –Anonymous

This venerable and much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his seventy-plus years of service to patriotic organizations and causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a government official, until now.  He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.

So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:

” We’re no longer a Christian nation”

” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world,”America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts, who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president.You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

When a 95 year old hero of the “the Greatest Generation” stands up and speaks out like this, I think we owe it to him to send his words to as many Americans as we can.

Please pass it on.

Mr. Obama: I’m calling you out

This is what the REAL mainstream of America is thinking and feeling.

---

http://www.semissourian.com/story/1586060.html

Wednesday, November 11, 2009
By William Piercey Sr.

The new era of government control over our lives and freedoms has begun. This week, it got personal, and I felt helpless.

The doctor overseeing my health care advised me to get an H1N1 flu shot. I’ve been under a six-year treatment program for a chronic infection, plus I have heart and lung problems. Therefore, I am considered a high risk. Fortunately, my doctor had three shots available, but I would have to get approval from my county health department. Much to my surprise, the woman at the health department apologized and told me that even though I was a senior citizen at high risk, the health department had been instructed to approve shots only for children and pregnant mothers. I asked when a shot for my situation might be available. “We really don’t know. Check back with us sometime in December.”

What? The terrorist detainees in Gitmo are getting shots this month. Why not a high-risk senior citizen?

Mr. Obama, this is what we call health care rationing, which you claim won’t happen under a government-run health care program.

If George W. Bush was considered the Barney Fife of executive power, then welcome to the Chicago-style politics of the new Vito Corleone family. The president himself, like a strong-armed enforcer, said in a nationally televised speech, “If you misrepresent anything in this plan, I will call you out.” This administration has turned the once dignified and esteemed Oval Office into a war room for its liberal propaganda.

On his first day in office, the president signed the Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel executive order. During the campaign he vowed to keep lobbyists out of the administration. But in Section 3 of this order is a waiver clause. The director of the Office of Management and Budget “may grant” a written waiver of any restrictions. Former lobbyists were given waivers and now hold key positions in government. Mr. Obama, you lied.

At the same time lobbyists were coming in the front door, dozens of new unvetted, hand-picked ideologues were being shuttled in the back door. Many of these people were placed in key policymaking positions. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was worried about 18 of these unvetted czars, 10 of whom worked in the White House. An amendment to force these appointees to testify in oversight hearings was shot down by the Democratic leadership. Collins was especially concerned about Carol Browner, who negotiated fuel-economy standards with the auto industry. She even sent a letter to Obama, and one of his counsels replied that no one would be made available. This administration fears no one, especially a senator who dares to enforce something as minor as checks and balances. Obama promised transparency. He lied.

On the topic of transparency, the $787 billion stimulus bill was a progressive Trojan horse. It’s loaded with political favors and programs that set up the infrastructure for education, health care and climate change. It was passed and signed in a matter of weeks. This was not a bill to put Americans back to work. Obama said it would produce 3.5 million jobs in two years. Over the past year the administration has changed its story daily but finally settled on the “create or save” propaganda. Obama also said the bill would keep unemployment under 8 percent. The rate has climbed to over 10 percent. Either his economic advisers are incompetent and need to be fired, or, once again, Mr. President, you lied.

Mr. President, you said you didn’t want to run our car companies and banks, but you do. With the $350 billion in TARP funds left by President Bush, Obama’s people continued the surge of bailouts. Americans might be shocked to know the recipients of bailout money now total 727 institutions. This government control in the private sector is unprecedented.

Government-run health care, card check, cap-and-trade, net neutrality, control of radio stations and possible newspaper bailouts are just part of this administration’s agenda.

It’s time for Americans to get in this government’s face and call it out. This coup d’etat can be defeated. We have the numbers, the votes and the will power to turn back this assault on our individual freedoms.

With 15 million unemployed Americans, I’m sure we can find a few willing patriots to fill all those upcoming vacant seats in Washington, especially with an annual salary of $170,000, office, staff, insurance, expense account and, best of all, a three-day workweek. The only requirements for this job are honesty, integrity and a love of country.

William Piercey Sr. is a Cape Girardeau resident.

+

---

Obama’s Narcissistic Rage

Talk about the nuts running the asylum…  People suffering this severely from serious psychosis need to be institutionalized, not be put in charge.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html

Return to the Article

October 28, 2009

Narcissistic Rage in the White House

By James Lewis

The term “narcissistic rage” gets 26,000 citations in Google Scholar. It is a common feature of extreme or pathological narcissism.

While psychiatrists often say they can’t do long-distance diagnosis, it really isn’t that hard if you have a lot of information about a person and can watch how he operates from day to day. Intelligence agencies around the world have psychiatric staffs for exactly that purpose.

While most people are pretty hard to predict, extreme narcissists are comparatively simple. They constantly hunger for ego gratification (sounds like a certain always-in-the-spotlight president I know), they are immature (constantly lashing out at those who disagree with him), constantly need to demonstrate their own superiority (or perceived superiority), often need endless sexual conquests (like Bill Clinton), are manipulative (right again), constant liars (NAILED IT!), are completely cold about the human beings they harm (like John Edwards), and they deal with frustration by uncontrollable fits of rage.  (the classic clinical description of “pathological narcissism” describes Barack Hussein Obama to a T)

I think that’s what we saw last week with the White House lashing out at Fox News.

According to the New York Times,

“Speaking privately at the White House on Monday with a group of columnists and commentators, including Rachel S. Maddow and Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and Maureen Dowd, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert of The New York Times,

President Obama himself gave vent to sentiments about the (Fox) network, according to people briefed on the conversation… ” (italics added).  (“Waaahhh, waaahhh, waaahhh!  Those mean people disagree with me!  I’m going to beat them up!)

So Obama didn’t even keep this thing on background. He allowed himself to be quoted in his favorite rag, the New York Times. Dowd, Maddow, Herbert, and Rich did their part by going into attack-dog mode against conservatives. They know exactly what Obama needs and wants, and to keep in good stead with this White House, they feed that hungry ego with the most outrageous flattery and imitation.

It is a perfect symbiosis. Obama is easy to manipulate, and liberal commentators are used to demonize the opposition. They’ve all been raised on Rules for Radicals.

Obama’s thin skin is shared by his coterie. US News and World Report wrote:

Team Obama was pushed over the brink by a growing list of what it considered outrageous anti-Obama conduct by Fox that showed no sign of stopping. Obama’s advisers say that they seethed while Fox commentators used their shows to encourage protests against Obama’s healthcare proposals last summer. Team Obama fumed as Fox personalities tried to pressure some controversial Obama advisers to resign.

White House officials say that Fox has continued to stir the pot against Obama in a regular pattern — raising a criticism, having Republican congressional leaders comment on it, and then using those comments to keep the criticism alive.  (In other words, Fox News was doing EXACTLY what journalists are supposed to do.  They are supposed to be skeptical, supposed to question EVERYONE, and supposed to verify EVERYTHING.)

A break point came when Fox tried to create the impression that angry anti-Obama protesters at congressional town hall meetings last summer signaled that Obama’s healthcare proposals were dying, a story line that other news organization picked up. White House officials say this was untrue, that those proposals were not dying at all.

Another break point came when Fox commentator Chris Wallace called White House officials “crybabies.” A senior Obama adviser tells U.S. News that White House staffers developed “a growing realization” that the president would never get a fair shake from Fox.  (To Obama and his zOmbies, it’s only fair if it’s what Obama thinks and wants you to say.)

Notice the need to have total obedience from the whole press. Fox News is a small part of the total media, but they’ve driven the Obees into a fit. Of course, every single president in American history has been targeted by the media, and generally much, much worse than Obama has. Take George W. Bush, for example. (But I forgot…Bush was Evil, and Obama is Good.  Well, that explains it.)

Last week’s coordinated Obama attack on Fox News made no PR sense. Fox increased its viewership by 10%. Obama lost points in the polls; you can give the American people only so many demonstrations of the Chicago Way before they figure out you aren’t the Great Healer after all.

Obama is far and away the biggest and most naïve narcissist in living memory to occupy the White House. He hasn’t been smoothed and polished by years of deal-making in the Senate like LBJ. The outrage looks like it was just an uncontrollable expression of who Obama and his crew are. If we get more of this, Obama’s carefully buffed sheen will be permanently damaged for the saner 70% of the population. The other 30% will always fall for him anyway.

Pathological narcissism is a reflection of weakness, not strength. Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics points out how much of it has been happening in less than a year of this administration, including months of a honeymoon period. Obama constantly uses wild and irresponsible accusations against his perceived enemies. Bevan writes:

In the first nine months in office President Obama and/or members of his administration have accused doctors of performing unnecessary medical procedures for profit; demonized bond holders as ‘speculators’; produced a report suggesting military veterans are prone to becoming right wing extremists; attacked insurance companies and threatened them with legislative retribution; ridiculed talk show hosts and political commentators by name from the White House podium; dismissed and demeaned protesters and town hall attendees as either unauthentic or fringe characters; maligned a white police officer for arresting a black man without knowing the facts of the case; launched an orchestrated campaign to marginalize the country’s biggest pro-business group; and publicly declared war on a news organization.

When Obama runs into brick walls, he seems to reflexively go into a state of rage. Bill Clinton was the same way, and so was LBJ. But Clinton and LBJ had a lot of time to learn to moderate their own worst instincts. The best thing that ever happened to Bill Clinton as president was the election of the Gingrich Congress in 1994, which forced him to deal with reality. Jimmy Carter has been on a constant narcissistic revenge campaign since he lost to Ronald Reagan and never got a second term. It explains a lot about Jimmy’s amazing destructiveness against his favorite whipping boy, Israel.

The same thing will happen to Obama if and when he loses the election in 2012. Since narcissists in power keep people around them in a constant state of fear — everybody gets targeted and feels insecure — you can expect a ton of dirty tricks in elections to come. But then Democrats constantly use dirty tricks.

I fear two things with Obama. One is if the GOP fails to elect a House majority in 2010 to keep Obama within the bounds of sanity. A GOP majority is essential for the safety of the country and the world. But even if Obama is defeated in 2012, he will just turn into an angrier version of Al Gore and Jimmy Carter. He will haunt the political future of this country as long as he is alive, because that famished ego never gets enough. Malignant narcissism often gets worse over time. And on the Left and among blacks, Obama will still have love and adoration enough to keep him supplied. He is an easy target for flattery by the Saudis, even the Iranians — in fact, by all the real enemies we have.

So even if the voters throw out this very dangerous cult-like administration, you can expect Obama to be popping up in our politics for years to come. He will haunt the Democrats, which might be a good thing. But he will haunt the United States as well, even if he is defeated in 2012.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/narcissistic_rage_in_the_white_1.html at October 30, 2009 – 03:02:26 PM EDT

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Is the (Formerly) Mainstream Media Growing a Spine?

There may still be a chance that EVEN the liberal media may wake up and realize that they can either be JOURNALISTS with the freedom to think for themselves, or they can be PROPAGANDISTS who print and say what they are told by the government or whichever dictator happens to be in power.

It doesn’t matter if a journalist is liberal or conservative, but what a REAL journalist MUST be is OBJECTIVE.  They have to ask the tough questions, they have to play devil’s advocate, and they have to be skeptical.

It would appear that some in the media are seeing that Obama isn’t just attacking Fox News and Rush Limbaugh.  Obama, the White House staff, and the Commu-crats are attacking journalism and the freedom of speech.

There is a spark of hope…

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.

FOXNews.com

Friday, October 23, 2009

The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of an administration official, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.

The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.

But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.

The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.

The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks “ought not to treat them that way.”

Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration’s gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on “Fox News Sunday,” even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.

“I’m really cheered by the other members saying “No, if Fox can’t be part of it, we won’t be part of it,'” said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg’s availability “outrageous.”

“What it’s really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy — we know this — only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information,” he said.

Several top White House advisers have appeared on other news channels to criticize Fox News’ coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news network.

On Wednesday, Obama, speaking publicly for the first time about his administration’s portrayal of Fox News as illegitimate, said he’s not “losing sleep” over the controversy.

“I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes,” Obama said when asked about his advisers targeting the network openly. “And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that’s one thing. And if it’s operating as a news outlet, then that’s another. But it’s not something I’m losing a lot of sleep over.”

Obama’s comments also came after he met Monday with political commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC; Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; Ron Brownstein of the National Journal; John Dickerson of Slate; Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert of the New York Times; Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, Gloria Borger of CNN and U.S. News and World Report, and Gwen Ifill of PBS.

House Republican leaders rushed to the defense of conservative commentators Thursday after the president’s comments.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said conservative commentators speak more for Americans than the national media outlets that have targeted them for criticism.

“Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television,” the Indiana Republican said on the House floor. “Suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists and even suggesting in one report today that Republicans in Washington are ‘worried about their electoral effect.’ Well, that’s hogwash.”

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

Obama Using Communist Thug Intimidation on Insurance Industry

Here is yet another example of how our Comrade Thug-in-Chief, Mr. Obama, is employing his community organizing/Saul Alinsky/Hugo Chavez/Vladimir Lenin/Joseph Stalin/Adolf Hitler-like tactics to further his anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-choice, big government agenda.  This latest move has nothing to do with decreasing the cost of, or improving the quality of, or improving availability and access to healthcare.  It is a blatant attempt to make the insurance companies “toe the line.”  Either support our healthcare “reform,” or at least keep your mouths shut.  The evidence is out there for all to see if people are only willing to look.  This is about intimidation.

One and only one “mainstream” news outlet offers ANY alternative point of view to the Obama administration, or questions ANY of his policies and appointments, and the left led by Obama attack and intimidate them calling them “illegitimate,” and worse.  Obama and the “White House” attack individuals such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh for voicing their opinions (which have proven to be factual nearly 100% of the time).

Can’t you see what’s REALLY happening here?

Obama is attacking and attempting to destroy the 1st Amendment.

When he succeeds in silencing the likes of the insurance companies, car companies (already done), banks (already done), Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and conservative talk radio, do you think YOU will be allowed to voice your opinion if it differs from Obama’s?  If you do, you’re a fool.

Below are some of my previous posts with supporting articles which further illustrate Obama skullduggery and the media bias that is covering it up.

(Formerly) Mainstream Media Pronounced Brain Dead, Plug to be Pulled

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn Idolizes Communist Dictator

The Obama Way:  Intimidate, Silence, and Eliminate the Competition

Lesson in Objective Reporting (Wisdom of Solomon Blog) (youtube link HERE)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704500604574485160248832466.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode

• OCTOBER 21, 2009, 9:47 A.M. ET

Competition and Health Insurance

Contrary to Democratic rhetoric, repealing the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption won’t reduce prices or profits.

By SCOTT HARRINGTON

During his weekly radio address last Saturday, President Obama attacked health insurers for allegedly making excessive profits and paying excessive bonuses, for spreading “bogus” misinformation about the impact of Democrats’ reform agenda on the cost of health insurance, and for “figuring out how to avoid covering people.” He opined that health insurers are “earning these profits and bonuses while enjoying a privileged exemption from our antitrust laws, a matter that Congress is rightfully reviewing.”

Mr. Obama’s comments followed hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. In an unusual move, Majority Leader Harry Reid testified as a witness, alleging that “exempting health insurance companies [from antitrust] has had a negative effect on the American people” and that “there is no reason why insurance companies should be allowed to form monopolies and dictate health choices.”

Such populist rhetoric might exert additional pressure on insurers to fall (back) into line behind the Democratic reform agenda. But there is no evidence that their antitrust exemption has contributed to higher health insurance costs, premiums or profits, or, as implied by Sen. Reid, of “health insurance monopolies . . . making health-care decisions for patients.”

The legislative basis for the insurance antitrust exemption is the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, which also codified state insurance regulation as national policy. This statute exempts the “business of insurance” from federal antitrust law provided that the activities are (1) regulated by state law and (2) do not involve boycott, coercion or intimidation. Its passage followed a 1944 Supreme Court ruling that insurance was interstate commerce and therefore subject to federal antitrust law—a ruling that cast doubt on states’ exclusive regulatory role, and the legality of then typical agreements among property and casualty insurers to use rates developed jointly by state or regional insurance rating organizations.

Most states responded to McCarran-Ferguson by enacting or modifying laws giving regulators authority over property/casualty insurance rates, including those developed by rating organizations. The next several decades saw a steady erosion of the role of collective pricing systems in conjunction with increased price competition, less price regulation, and a significant narrowing of the antitrust exemption’s scope by the courts.

The traditional debate about the antitrust exemption involved property/casualty insurance and medical malpractice liability coverage. Subject to state regulation or prohibition, property/casualty rating organizations collect and analyze loss costs and disseminate projections of future losses. And insurers, subject to state law, can incorporate these forecasts in their ratemaking.

In principle, this system helps produce more accurate rates, thus improving financial stability. More important, it reduces entry barriers for small insurers or insurers entering new markets. Small property/casualty insurers are particularly strong supporters of the antitrust exemption, which allows the sharing of loss projections.

None of this is germane to health insurance, where insurers do not jointly develop forecasts of future medical costs for use in pricing. The antitrust exemption also does not prevent review and challenge of mergers of health insurers by the Department of Justice, which, for example, challenged the 2005 merger of UnitedHealth Group and PacifiCare, and obtained a consent decree requiring the divestiture of certain portions of PacifiCare’s commercial health business.

Mergers and acquisitions of health insurers also are generally subject to approval by state regulators. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario derailed a proposed merger between the state’s two largest health insurers, Highmark and Independence Blue Cross.

Repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers would not significantly increase competition, and it would not make health-insurance coverage either less expensive or more available. There is no evidence that the exemption has increased health insurers’ prices or profits or contributed to higher market concentration.

Repealing the antitrust exemption would also not lower the cost of malpractice insurance, or prevent future malpractice insurance crises, such as those that occurred in the mid-1970s, mid-1980s, and earlier this decade. It would instead tend to reduce rate accuracy and undermine competition in already fragile malpractice markets.

In other words, the insurance industry’s antitrust exemption is inconsequential to the health-care reform debate. It just distracts attention from important issues and further demonizes private health insurance.

Rhetoric about monopoly notwithstanding, Congress’s reform proposals are not designed to increase competition in private health insurance. The House bill proposes a government-run insurer. The Senate Finance Committee proposes creation of quasi-public cooperatives. Both bills (and the Senate HELP bill) include restrictions on health insurance underwriting, pricing, profitability and policy design that would essentially turn private health insurers into regulated public utilities.

If the goal were to promote robust concentration in private health insurance, Congress would focus on reducing impediments to competition. It could do so by allowing consumers to buy insurance across state lines at terms that do not require them to subsidize other buyers or to buy coverage for state-mandated benefits they are unwilling to pay for. Congress could also eliminate tax and regulatory rules that favor employment-based coverage over individual coverage.

In short, the rationale for repealing the insurance antitrust exemption is—to borrow a word used by Mr. Obama in his radio address—bogus.

Mr. Harrington is professor of health-care management and insurance and risk management at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-

(Formerly) Mainstream Media Pronounced Brain Dead, Plug to be Pulled

This just proves that there is no brain activity in the media formerly known as mainstream.  They are doing the usual liberal “you didn’t hear me say what you heard me say” routine, a.k.a. REVISIONIST HISTORY.  First, Obama and the state run media sell Stimulus 1 as “shovel ready” for immediate results in the economy.  Now they are saying they didn’t say that.  Sorry, we have it on record.  Then you get this real gem of sound logic from the NY Times.

They also knew that the size of the final package – which was whittled down in part to ensure its passage in Congress – was not big enough to completely offset the projected drop in the nation’s economic output, which administration officials believed at the time would perform at $2 trillion below its capacity over the next two years.

Let me see if I can simplify their logic for you.  I have a one gallon bucket (representing the economy).  That bucket gets a hole in it and begins to lose water (wealth and jobs).  Rather than drilling for more water (cutting taxes and removing impediments to businesses that create jobs and wealth), I will dip water from the bucket and pour it right back into the bucket and say that I am refilling it (the “stimulus” money was taken from the “bucket” of our economy without creating more jobs or wealth).  The bucket continues to leak, and even more water is evaporating with each dip from the bucket.  Got it?

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Published on NewsBusters.org (http://newsbusters.org)

Media Campaigning for Second Stimulus Package

By Candance Moore

Created 2009-10-13 14:21

Eight months after President Obama signed a stimulus package worth $787 billion, less than half the funds [1] have been spent and nearly half [2] of Americans want the remainder to be repealed.Of course, that hasn’t stopped the mainstream media from pushing for more.

Recall that before the first bill was even signed, Reuters [3] hailed a statement from billionaire George Soros warning that it wouldn’t be enough. In July, NewYork Times columnist Paul Krugman called the bill [4] “inadequate” and bemoaned fiscal conservatives for their “bittter and unrelenting” skepticism.

Now, despite unemployment approaching double digits [5], the federal deficit [6] exploding, and rumors flying that the world is dumping its dollars [7], liberal newpapers have unabashasedly increased their call for more “stimulus.”

An October 6 article [8] from the NY Times first provided some revisionist history to advance the fiscally-challenged cause:

The stimulus was never intended to be a put-shovels-in-the-hands-of-people-on-relief type of New Deal public works program: it was, rather, a combination of tax cuts, aid to states and money for infrastructure projects that would be put out for bid to private contractors and take time to get going.

Those of us with functioning memories know that President Obama did [9] sell the stimulus as a “shovel ready” program. But no matter to the Times.

Aside from that detail, what came next in the article was the real jaw dropper:

They also knew that the size of the final package – which was whittled down in part to ensure its passage in Congress – was not big enough to completely offset the projected drop in the nation’s economic output, which administration officials believed at the time would perform at $2 trillion below its capacity over the next two years.

Yes, according to the Times, an effective stimulus package would have pumped $2 trillion into the economy. Considering that the entire national debt currently stands [10] around $12 trillion, that much spending would increase it tremendously.

Regardless, the Washington Post [11] continued the drumbeat the very next day:

But this has been such a profound, job-destroying recession that even $787 billion wasn’t sufficient. And changes made to secure some bipartisan support in the Senate last February rendered the stimulus less effective than it might have been…The White House is in the position of defending the stimulus and urging that we do more.

And don’t look now, but Congress appears to be working on doing more. The AP noted [12] on October 8 that politicians are trying to craft a new stimulus without actually calling it a stimulus.

Not to worry, for with media that are clearly enthusiastic about more spending, President Obama should have no problem finding support for the new measure irrespective of the name it’s given.

After all, to today’s so-called journalists, a stimulus by any other name would smell as sweet.

---

Source URL:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/candance-moore/2009/10/13/media-call-second-stimulus-growing

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Obamanomics: Deficit Has TRIPLED, and Will Likely Increase by at Least $1 Trillion a Year

By the White House’s own estimates, the deficit over the next decade will increase by not just $1 Trillion, but by $1 Trillion EACH YEAR! That’s a conservative estimate, as most experts are beginning to feel that under Obama’s “leadership” our deficits will increase by nearly double that.  Russia and the Soviet Union already tried this and failed.  WHY ARE WE LETTING THIS COMU-SOCIALIST AND HIS DEMOCRAT MINIONS TRY IT AGAIN HERE IN AMERICA?

THEY MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COST.

With this new admission of debt guilt, shouldn’t this pretty much drive the last nail in the coffin of Health Care Reform/Takeover?  Not to mention Cap-and-Tax.

Our economy and nation can’t hide behind fake figures and phony numbers for much longer.  Not with the staggering debt Obama is piling on to the next 10 generations.  It’s like Michael Moore trying to hide behind a blade of grass.  As the rate of decay of our economy increases at a blistering pace, pretty soon everything we own will be worthless, our currency will be worthless, and no one will earn enough money to buy even a loaf of bread.  Anyone remember pre-war Germany?  A wheelbarrow full of D-Marks wouldn’t buy a loaf of bread.  We will all be peasants.

The scene towards the end of “History of the World, part 1” is especially poignant here.  As the peasants are storming the castle, the king is told by his adviser that “the peasants are revolting!”  The king ignorantly and snobbishly replies “They certainly are!”  Dictator Obama and the liberal rats in Washington better wise up before they find themselves roasting on a spit.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090824/cumulative-deficit-estimate-for-next-decade-increasedtrillion-since-may.htm

Cumulative Deficit Estimate for Next Decade Increased $2 Trillion… Since May

By Trader Mark
Posted 24 August 2009 @ 07:45 am ET

I guess we’ll post this along the lines of “if you pass the stimulus plan, unemployment will only go to mid 8%” or “if you don’t give Goldman Sachs the TARP money, the world will end immediately” and other such incorrect mythologies. Long time readers know where I stand on government figures which are backwards looking; not to mention guestimates of the future… if the guess from government is correct THIS time around (chuckle here) the budget deficit for the next decade now will stand at $9 Trillion.

Last time government chimed in with an estimate? Way back… 3 whole months ago; when they said the deficit would be $7.1 Trillion. Missed it by *that* much. That’s ok, government estimates are made to be broken. Usually I try to give them more than 3 months to be wrong by a factor of 27% but I think within government circles that accuracy (+/- 25%) is considered “dead on”, and reason for promotion.

$9 Trillion over a decade is just under $1 Trillion a year. Consider until this year (partly by phony accounting for wars and financial rescues that were not counted in the budget by the former administration) the largest annual budget deficit we ever had was under $500 Billion. [Jul 28, 2008: US Budget Deficit to Half a Trillion] This year we have an excellent chance of $1.6 Trillion. Heck we just put up a $180B month [Aug 12, 2009: July Budget Deficit $180.7B]. With the economy only slowly recovering in 2010 (and subject to a double dip with higher inflation), and the main drivers of tax revenue (employment, real estate, consumption) not expected to be recovering much next year I think we have an excellent chance for another $1.5ish Trillion year in ’10. Especially after Obama and the Dems number fall this winter as the “Main Street” economy is not quite so awesome as the “Wall Street” economy and plans for Stimulus 8.0 are drawn up. Plus the next housing program give away; the next cars program; and helping the states out with their budget shortfalls in 2010. Oh yes, increased food stamps, another 13 week extension of long term unemployment, increased welfare for those who still fall out of unemployment, and I am sure a few other things I am forgetting. (cursory green shoots inserted here)

Now the good thing by layering on debt to inflate asset values AND stoke “prosperity” [Jun 5, 2009: 1 in 6 Dollars of Income Now Via Government; Highest Since 1929] [Jul 30, 2009: Cash for Clunkers a Bit Hit, Government Asks “What Can we Buy You Next?”] , is you might punish your currency month after month, but it should drive incremental tax revenue gains from stocks and (gosh) even real estate as more (ahem) “wealth” is created. Not in real terms, but in nominal… and most Americans only live in a nominal world. So if the currency drops 15% and your government is able to stoke some combination of your 401k, and house up 15% – you really gained nothing but you’ll feel great because most people only look at their 401k and housing values, without understanding the currency. Now if you happen to be one of those American souls who simply is trying to get by in a harsh world, and you don’t happen to own stocks or real estate? Well, you’re job then is to pay for your life with 15% more of a devalued currency – making everything 15% more expensive in real terms. But really, it’s not about you – we have a financial and political elite to take care of and only by coming together as one can we do it. Reverse Robin Hood style. Remember, inflation is GREEEEEEAT! (as long as your are not in the bottom half) [Aug 18, 2009: Bloomberg Opinion – Deflation Theory is Lemon We’ve Been Sold]

Even more funny is that the nominal increase in tax revenue (created by government shuffling money from the future to now to create “GDP growth”) might put a dent in near term deficits … by pathetically adding to long term deficits. Remember – in a nominal world there is no cost benefit analysis; only benefit benefit analysis. We get our goodies today, and the costs get stuffed “somewhere else” for “someone else” to deal with. Listen to the masses with the siren call of “free government money, I want mine!” not realizing they are taking from themselves… with interest. That’s called living in a nominal world. And not being real.

***********************

(Don’t miss this last paragraph.  This sums up why our money and economy will be worthless in the very near future if we don’t STOP THIS INSANE SPENDING AND ALL OF THESE SENSELESS BAILOUTS.  Obama and the democrats are killing our country.  We MUST stop them, any way we can.)

America is (but not for long) still under 100% debt to GDP. We are on a clear path to surpass Japanese debt to GDP (a staggering 200% debt to GDP) within the decade. US Debt Clock (as of Aug 09) read $11.7T; GDP is say $13.5T. Throw the next decade’s (conservative) $9T on top and you are at a juicy $21T debt circa 2019 aka 150% of GDP. I think that’s conservative – we are overachievers and will “beat” that. Since the government figures just were raised $1.9T in 3 months you can see how quickly we could jump from $21T in 2019 to (some higher number). Once we pass 200% debt to GDP, it will all be uncharted territory for a modern developed country. Our annual growth rate of debt is now trouncing Japan, so it’s the story of the tortoise and the hare. Although in this case you don’t really want to be the hare. I also conveniently left out the $40T in unfunded liabilities (i.e. IOUs) sitting in Medicare. I’ve also left out the healthcare “reform” – considering the original estimates of Medicare were off by a factor of 10x within the first year of it’s implementation… well, you can do the math. And just for kicks let’s throw in the $1 Trillion pension disaster that is looming (currently being hidden by… accounting tricks) [Mar 4, 2009: Bloomberg – Hidden Pension Fiasco May Foment Another $1 Trillion Bailout] That’s just sort of icing on the cake at this point.

Did I mention how the debt will increase even more quickly if government debt interest rates permanently jump up as the world sees the increasing risk of investing in America?

Stanford University economics professor John Taylor, an influential economist, told Reuters Television Friday the U.S. budget deficit poses a greater risk to the financial system than the collapse in commercial real estate prices.”If that gets out of control, if interest rates start to rise because people are reluctant to buy all that debt, then that can slow the economy down. So, that’s the more systemic concern I have,” Taylor said.

Via Bloomberg

• The U.S. government’s long-term budget outlook is darker than expected, with projected deficits over the next 10 years totaling $2 trillion more than had been forecast, according to an Obama administration official.
• A White House budget review set for release Aug. 25 will show cumulative deficits over the next decade amounting to $9 trillion, up from $7.1 trillion that the administration predicted in May, the official said on condition of anonymity because the figures haven’t been made public.

Really a trillion here, a trillion there – what does it matter. All I know is many Americans were gleeful per my review of national news this weekend they got new cars. (granted many now have a new layer of debt) Others are gleeful they can get their first house via money trees grown in D.C.. (and when many default on their close to no money down mortgages in 3 years – it will be ok, no skin in the game after all) Citigroup and Bank of America bondholders are happy that they never had to take a hit despite the biggest crisis in 80 years. Goldman Sachs is happy they got fulfilled dollar for dollar on AIG counterparty risk. AIG is just happy to be in existence and seeing its stock surge 20% a day, subsidized by US taxpayer. And we’re all happy these actions plus more are making the stock market inflate. It’s really all about happiness after all. Can we put a price on that?[Mar 31, 2009: Financial Rescue Pledges Now $12.8 Trillion] Hey! That was supposed to be a rhetorical question!

[May 29, 2009: In 1 year, US Taxpayer on the Hook for $55,000 More per Household] Stop it! There is no price too high to bear for happiness of our people and concurrent transfer of wealth from the middle to our financial oligarchs. Get with the program!

For another source to fact check the Administration:

• The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated deficits between 2010 and 2019 will total $9.14 trillion.

Considering the CBO thought we’d be $1.1 T in hock for 2009 in (one third of the way into the fiscal 2009 year) December 2008 – they only understated the reality by 45% …Now we want them to guestimate how bad things will be not 1 year but 10 years out, so let’s take it all with multiple grains of salt. If they are only off in the decade by the same amount they were off in this 1 year it is really +/- $5 Trillion over 10 years. And since no one really knows how it will turn out, the best course of action is to continue policies as is and buy happiness (not to mention higher equity prices). “Someone else” (benefit benefit) analysis will worry about these things in 2019.

[May 23, 2008: David Walker on CNBC this Morning]

[Mar 26, 2008: Annual Spring Entitlement Warning Falls on Deaf Ears]

[Nov 23, 2008: David Walker in Fortune Magazine]

[Jun 12, 2009: NYT – America’s Sea of Red Ink was Years in the Making]

[Aug 5, 2009: Federal Tax Revenue Plummeting]