POLITICALPYRO CONTRIBUTORS

They say… Whats good for the goose, is good for its gander… or if you like, If you can’t beat them join them.

As they blame Bush, ‘W’, GW… Which ever you prefer, for everything that is wrong with the world, I thought a bit of turn about, tongue and cheek was way over due. Hence the reason for the title of this post. Now, lets get to the meat.

Congress Needs to Beware of Growing Populist Anger

By Norman J. Ornstein | Roll Call
Wednesday, June 10, 2009

One of the main reasons why the Democratic Party lost control of the House in 1994 was that House Democrats responded too late to growing public dissatisfaction with their actions. The 111th Congress, though very active in its passage of legislation, needs to pay attention to the current rise in populist sentiment in the electorate. In order to effectively curb these feelings, Congress should implement reforms to increase transparency in government.

Why did the Democrats lose the House in 1994 after 40 years of rule?

One can make a case that the early stumbles of the Clinton White House, including the excruciating delay in enacting an economic plan along with the failure to get health care through, created a backlash against ineffective one-party government. One can make a case that former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-Ga.) long-term plan to nationalize the Congressional elections, culminating in the “Contract with America,” finally provided a coherent and attractive alternative. But a critical element in the public backlash against the status quo in Congress was the populist anger at the elitism and corruption that the public saw engulfing Washington, D.C.

The first eruption of that populist anger came in 1989, with a pay raise for federal officials that had been endorsed by outgoing President Ronald Reagan, incoming President George H. W. Bush and all Democratic and Republican Congressional leaders from Speaker Jim Wright (D-Texas) to the aforementioned Gingrich. But that broad bipartisan support meant nothing to average voters struggling with a sluggish economy and stagnant wages.

remember vividly going to board the train at Union Station to attend the House Democrats’ retreat at the Greenbrier resort–the location itself was a public relations nightmare akin to auto executives flying private jets to D.C. to beg for public money. We had to run a gauntlet of angry protesters holding signs and hurling epithets.

The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them.

That was followed in 1992 by the House Bank brouhaha, revealed by Roll Call, which showed that a slew of House Members had overdrawn their accounts at the House Bank. It did not matter that the “bank” was not a bank in the traditional sense, but a repository for Members’ paychecks until they could be deposited in other accounts, and that the only money in the bank was from the lawmakers themselves; the story created a firestorm emphasizing that Members of Congress played by a different set of rules than the rest of us, exempt from the constraints or fines that we face. Many superb lawmakers lost their next elections (or retired prematurely) as a direct consequence.

The next train wreck was predictable. For some good reasons related to separation of powers issues, Congress exempted itself from regulation by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency and other executive agencies. But to the public (and to the minority party), this was another clear case of an imperial, insulated, pampered and arrogant Congress applying onerous laws to others while exempting itself.

Throughout 1993 and 1994, I went regularly to the leaders in the House importuning them to act to solve this problem. The answer was easy: create an independent office within the legislative branch to enforce the laws where applicable to Congress, avoiding separation of powers issues. Tom Mann and I worked with Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Dick Swett (D-N.H.) to come up with a bill creating an Office of Compliance. Early passage would signal a Congress ahead of the curve, moving to reform itself.

But the leaders did not think it was that big a deal and waited until the last days of the 103rd Congress to pass the bill–too late to avoid the surge in anger or to defend the indefensible, and they went into the 1994 election looking like they acted only after getting caught red-handed.

I raise all this history because it is déjà vu all over again. The populist anger is back, and not just in the United States–the reaction in Britain to parliamentary expense abuses is directly reminiscent of the reaction to the House Bank. So far, it has not been directed at Congress, in part because the 111th Congress has been so remarkably productive, in part because of the popularity of President Barack Obama, in part because of the ineptitude of the minority party leadership. But one can see the train wreck coming.

Some of the seeds go back to former Rep. William Jefferson (D-La.), preceded by Jack Abramoff and former Reps. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.), Tom DeLay (R-Texas), Bob Ney (R-Ohio), Jim Traficant (D-Ohio), et al. Of course, some of the cases contributed mightily to the Republican loss of Congress after 12 years of rule, but all underscored a continuing public sense that Congress was more concerned with feathering its own nest than with the problems facing average Americans in their everyday lives.

Throw in Illinois’ former Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and Sen. Roland Burris (D), a case getting more and more putrid. Add the Congressional bailouts of banks and their executives and the auto industry, amplified especially by the American International Group bonuses. The scapegoats now are AIG and auto and bank executives, but that can switch in an instant to politicians.

Now throw in the PMA Group and Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.). The Murtha case, of course, goes well beyond PMA, to include throwing sensitive national security-related earmarks with abandon to companies in his district that were inept or corrupt and to rewarding or punishing companies that used the right lobbying firm or did the right business with Murtha’s relatives. Include also executive officials in the Defense Department and elsewhere giving no-bid contracts to companies with ties to Murtha and his family members to curry favor with the powerful lawmaker. I can’t sort out from this vantage point what is illegal or not, but it all stinks to high heaven.

Simply asking whether the ethics committee is investigating the issue is not enough. I hope the committee is acting, and I believe that the leadership of the panel, under Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), is finally functional. I also am truly encouraged by the start of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, also with top-flight leadership.

But if Congress wants to avoid the kind of public anger that engulfed the political process in 1994 and 2006, it needs to go much further. The leadership needs to avoid any sense that it is protecting Members because of their personal ties to them. And Congress needs to enact further reforms to make the earmarking and contracting process work better.

The House might start with Rep. Jeff Flake’s (R-Ariz.) idea to delink earmarks from campaign contributions. My own idea to create independent commissions to rank needs and projects in Congressional districts akin to Senators’ judicial selection panels would help. And addressing the issue of contracting–which is what Cunningham did, getting bribes in return for steering sensitive defense and intelligence contracts to the corrupt companies offering the bribes–is critical for reform.

Every contract issued by the federal government needs to be put online before the contract takes effect, with a special scrutiny for every no-bid contract. There must be guidelines for making sure the process is above-board and sanctions for those who award contracts that do not meet the guidelines.

The current Democratic Congress is comparatively well-regarded by the public for its performance. Democrats are certainly in no immediate danger of losing their majority or even losing many seats in 2010. But public opinion is fragile here, and it would not take much to ignite that populist outrage. Acting now is smart politics–and very good policy.

Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at AEI.

When you look around at the rest of the world, you never need to consider the color of any leader from any other nation. You never would question it, nor would you go out of your way to wish that leader well with respects to being able to achieve the goals of his administration.

But here in the U.S. were different. Not do we only wish the guy ~Barack Obama~ well, but we granted him a form of political spin the bottle that would see him and his corrupt cronies have rights ofPolitical Prima Nocta over their republican foes… the kind that only a Clinton would enjoy.

It was early on in the U.S. that we were being told from around the world… from Super Power nations too Third World toilets, that we as a people (from White European decent) needed Barack Obama as our president.

Not for his abilities to be a great world leader, or for his wisdom and long history of steady leadership… as none of this can be or would be the case. We were told as a nation that Barack Obama and his color was his overall leading qualification.

And now that the deed has been done, Barack Obama is now in position too be the conduit for other nations with leaders of color to see the vilification, plundering and eradication of white European rule from the face of the earth.

Take for example The Summit of The Americas held in Trinidad-Tobago. Barack Obama 1 of 34 world leaders. Among the 34 represented nations, 33 were of color, only Stephen Harper ~Canada~ was white. With Barack Obama seated at the head of this group, white European nations will be held to a higher standard of color acceptance.

No longer will it be acceptable for nations to protect its citizens from radical or fanatical political groups based on their ability to use religious slander as a weapon against a government. Now, as here in the U.S., color will be the only measurement for ultra radicals and hate spewing religious groups to gain access to the reigns of government control.

Take a look at the latest move… Granting President Ahmandinejad ~Iran~ the honor of the introductory remarks at an international conference dedicated to abolishing racism. This guy makes the K.K.K. look like an all girls sleepover and dress up party.

This is the main by product of the election of a man of color in America; radical governments that would have never had a seat at the head table, now because of their color have a front row seat to the extermination of white European styled governments.

And when you take a look at Barack Obama plans for the world, you are made aware that Barack Obama has a desire to bring about a change towards global socialism.
Just as his administration would have our richest earners in America give a more significant portion of their earnings to the poorest of Americans, so too would his world socialist programs. Those programs would have the richer nations of the world, ~white European~ transfer their wealth to those poorer nations of color.

Nations such as Chile, Peru, Columbia, and yes Cuba would benefit from this transfer of wealth from white European nations to these nations of color.

With Cuba now in the mix, white European nations will be hard pressed not to back extremist Muslim styled governments such as… Iran, Syria.

Why? No nation in the history of the world has been so ostracized as Cuba, and now with Obama pushing for making an effort for normalizing relations, it is easy to assume that the poorer, muslin, and extremist nations from around the globe will be using Cuba as example for gaining access to the wealth of the white European governments.

Add to the mix the color of these nations and the perceived color of our president, and you have a Jessy and Al ~Jessy Jackson, Al Sharpton~ old fashion race baiting, suck the dollars out of those guilty ass white peoples pockets and give it to the colored governments around the world party.

White European styled governments are on their way out.

I don’t know… but thats the way I see it.

Over the past few days I have been doing a bit of research into this notion that Barack Obama, our ‘Boy King’ is a narcissist. I have received and seen articles that would argue either side of the argument. After careful thought and examination, I’m not sure his narcissistic behavior is just pure socialism or a mental heath problem. Further, when taking into account his mentors (Daddy Obama, Davis…) I find the argument looking more like the chicken or the egg dichotomy… Is it that his socialist mentoring and upbringing created a socialist or is he just a narcissist?

First I looked to the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud.

This is Freud…

An aspect frequently associated with Primary Narcissism appears in an earlier essay, ‘Totem and Taboo’, where he describes his observations of children and primitive people, which he called “magical thinking”. An example of magical thinking would be believing that you can have an effect on reality by wishing or willpower. This demonstrates a belief in the self as powerful and able to change external realities, which Freud believed was part of normal human development.

After reading this and a bit more of Freud’s thoughts on the subject, I came to this thought;

I find it hard to believe that Obama was our first narcissistic leader, and then it struck me… what we call liberalism in this country is known as socialism around the rest of the world. It is by Freud’s definition, ‘Primal Narcissistic’ behavior. Realizing this, and taking into account Barack Obamas mentors and social upbringing I came to this conclusion:

Barack Obama is not a Narcissist, he is the product of his socialist mentoring and social upbringing. Socialist believe that by the power of their thought alone, they can change the world. This is what Freud deemed “magical thinking” and is a by product of Primal Narcissism… unless you want to say that socialism it self is a narcissistic form of government, then yes… Obama would be a Social Narcissist. If so, then we could say that socialism is the product of narcissism, and therefore it is a form of government of the mentally unstable.

To back this thought up I found this…

German psychiatrist Karen Horney (1885-1952)

Horney saw narcissism quite differently from Freud, Kohut, and other mainstream psychoanalytic theorists in that she did not posit a primary narcissism but saw the narcissistic personality as the product of a certain kind of early environment acting on a certain kind of temperament. For her, narcissistic needs and tendencies are not inherent in human nature.

Narcissism is different from her other major defensive strategies or solutions in that it is not compensatory. Self-idealization is compensatory in her theory, but it differs from narcissism. All of the defensive strategies involve self-idealization, but in the narcissistic solution it tends to be the product of indulgence rather than of deprivation. The narcissist’s self-esteem is shaky, however, because it is not based on genuine accomplishments.

I then remembered that Val (Marion Valentine) also posted a thought on the subject and I have posted the link below.

A NARCISSIST CARES FOR NO ONE BUT HIMSELF

Here is one of many an article I received that puts forth that Barack Obama is a Narcissist. This one comes from Pyro Contributor, Mike T.

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our new president.

Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.

Dr. Vaknin States “I must confess I was impressed by Sen.Barack Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident - a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama’s speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi “religious” impact on so many people.
The fact that Obama is a total incognito with zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects.”

Barack Obama is a narcissist.

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes “Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist.” Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama’s language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that the Senator is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People’s Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao,Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for
life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom. When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don’t know it until it is too late.

One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse.
“Obama’s early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,” says Vaknin. “Mixed-race marriages were even less common then.
His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant (two years old). Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia, a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white)grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. She died of cancer in 1995″.

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and do not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The “present” vote is a safe vote. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him. Obama’s election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations.

The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself? Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama’s lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.

A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who has raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power.

A narcissist cares for no one but himself. This election is like no other in the history of America. The issues are insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world? I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others…They are simply self serving and selfish.

Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined. This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw. Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous.

Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks have also decided to vote for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple. The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he
will cause widespread resentment among the whites.
The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama’s detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.
The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960’s.

Obama will set the clock back decades… America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America, and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.

It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House. America is on the verge of destruction.

There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

You may draw your conclusions… Socialism/Narcissism are the face and its reflectionn as . As Mike T said and I concur: He’s (Obama) still a disaster for us.

Narcissus by Caravaggio,
A Boeotian hero whose archaic myth
was a cautionary tale warning boys
against being cruel to their lovers.

Your Social Security Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn’t know this. Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what’s what. And it doesn’t matter whether you are Democrat of Republican. Facts are facts!!!

Our Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:

1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.

2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program,

3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,

4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ rather than into the General Operating Fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and,

5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.

Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to ‘put away’, you may be interested in the following:

—————————————————-

Q: Which political party took Social Security from the Independent ‘Trust Fund’ and put it in to the General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically- controlled House and Senate.

—————————————————-

Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?

A: The Democratic Party.

—————————————————-

Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities?

A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the ‘tie-breaking’ deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.

—————————————————-

Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?

AND MY FAVORITE:

A: That’s right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, they began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them even though they never paid a dime into it!

—————————————————-

Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn’t so.

But it’s worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?

OBAMA WANTS TO DESTROY AMERICA

While doing my job the other day, a co-worker and I began a conversation about our economy. Since the subject was brought up by my co-worker, I let them speak at length… with me just adding an occasional, yeah, uhuh, right… you get the idea. The basic premise that was being put forth by my co-worker is that ~deep breath~ Obama, has really at this point done nothing for the average American worker… now I stress WORKER and not potential or current governmental employee.

What he has done is implemented a bunch of government projects that in some cases end, and in others, produce things that only our government wants or has determined in the best interest of OUR country. You can not export clean air regulated by a government. You can not produce a product that other countries don’t want and for that matter, CARE ABOUT in the first place.

Prime example is nuclear energy. France is the leader in nuclear powered energy. WHY? Because it is cheaper, more efficient and yes… CLEANER than all other energy combined. But here, in the states, we care about the environment, and government regulations make it prohibitive for private industry to even TRY! TO EVEN TRY to produce a more efficient, cleaner way.

Now follow me if you can… If America could find a better way to produce nuclear power, that would be something that other countries would want, NOT GREENER CARS!

Its like the stupid freak n Superconducting Super Collider that they (United Stateds of Pork Gut Spending), started building out there in… what the hell what it… Waxahachie, Texas. After billions and billions of tax payer money and thousands of empty jobs the project was put on hold.

What am I saying… this is what I’m saying. America needs to be producing something other then government mandated jobs and start putting money back into the private sector for real long term job creation that will produce products that the rest of the world wants to buy. We do not need any more governmental regulations that mandate that government money should produce a government product that is only viable in freak’n America.

And another thing… I don’t want me or my children and their children and their children’s, children to own any house that is not theirs. I do not want to take part in a multi-billion dollar bailout of every ass that bought a house they know that they could not afford. Not my responsibility pal. I look at it like this… Every one of us who had enough common sense, and did not buy something beyond our means is being punished for being prudent, cautious… or knowing that 1+1 will never equal anything but 2.

Thats enuff for now….

Now its MANNING TIME!

787 Billion Dollar Voodoo Bill:

Take Obama to the Woodshed:

4:05 ~ …and so I’m putting you on notice here now Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, get that jungle jive, street hustler, pimp, long legged, Mac Daddy outa the White House and get it off our television screens, get it out of our public debate.

Here is the Obama “Screwed Up” Video…

President Obama: “I Screwed Up”

I’m kinda liking the new guttural devaluing of the stature of being the most powerful leader and president of the greatest nation in the world… whats next, painting the White House gray?
Does it now lower the expectations of an entire nation… sounds a lot like communism, ehh?