Did Panetta Say That He and Obama Seek OK of Intern’l Powers to Deploy Troops; Declare War; Forget the U.S. Congress?

Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice
Rose Colombo, author, Political Activist &, Legal Consultant for Justice

by Rose Colombo – original pub.(C) 3/21/2012 -(you may listen to the archived interview with myself and Chuck Wilder dated 3/27/2012 at www.crntalkradio.com/chuckwilder

Did  Secretary of State, Leon Panetta, just inform the U.S. Congress, that the U.S. Congress hasn’t  any authority over the actions of Panetta, the military, or the U.S. President?  

In a stunning congressional hearing, which included General Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and led by the Hon. Sessions, the testimony of General Dempsey and Panetta boggled the minds of the congressional members and that of the American people on or about  March 2012.  Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, stated that he and president Obama may or may not inform Congress of their actions when declaring war or deploying U.S. troops around the world because they intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission from international powers such as NATO, the U.N., or E.U. or an international assembly.  Panetta referred back to the attack on Libya when he and Obama did not inform Congress of their intent to attack Libya and assassinate Gaddafi, but the question remains, whose “legal basis” or “permission” did they seek to fire off 220 Tomahawks?

Consequently, Panetta’s statements beg the question if he referred to Libya as justification for his current stance so he could cite Libya as a case precedent for justification of their intent and desire of eliminating the sovereignty of the United States of America preserved as an inheritance by our Fathers, who were natural-born or native-born Americans, to be passed down to the natural-born or native-born children, which should be the desire of all public servants;  but on the contrary, it appears that such actions as stated by Panetta would grant absolute powers to Panetta and Obama as he referred in his testimony, not only to Obama, but stated “we” intend to seek a “legal basis” and seek permission of international powers and that they may or may not inform congress of their intent in the future.  Therefore, it begs the question if it is possible that Libya was attacked as a test case for future justification should they deploy our troops around the world or attack another nation without congressional and constitutional authority?

Obviously, the American people were not pleased when they heard the news that Panetta and Obama ordered the assassination of an unarmed leader of a nation, Gaddafi, who didn’t attack or threaten America, without congressional authority and without being captured alive and provided due process of law.  For if one man is denied due process of law how then should any man be provided due process of law thereafter?  The news reported that Obama with Panetta’s blessings ordered 220 Tomahawk missiles fired off at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 per Tomahawk, and those costs were passed onto the over burdened U.S. taxpayers, who are struggling to survive.  So, shouldn’t Congress have considered that they should investigate the reckless spending of U.S. tax dollars and the risk to the country’s welfare and safety  since they control the purse strings as part of their fiduciary duty?  Also, the attacks on Libya,  in the name of freedom, and congressional approval cost the lives of an undocumented number of innocent civilians and Freedom Fighters, whose families are now seeking compensation from the U.S. government for their losses.

Did Panetta state that they may or may not inform Congress of their decisions to declare war or send U.S. troops around the world, but will base their decisions upon the “legal basis” of international powers and permission from NATO and the U.N. or E.U. and other international assemblies?  Isn’t that like lawyers playing games with words such as “legal basis” similar to Bill Clinton spinning the word “is” or the Obama administration spinning the word “war” with “mission” to avoid congressional authority?  Are they attempting to use Libya as a pattern to circumvent the will of the American people represented by the U.S. Congress and disrespect the American people who pick up the tab for their decisions?

Hon. Sessions informed General Dempsey and Panetta that the U.S. Military answers to the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President and the U. S. Constitution.  He informed them that the U.S. Congress is not dependent upon NATO or a U.N. Resolution to execute foreign policies consistent with the National Security of the United States

Rep.  Sessions asked Panetta if he was saying that Obama is taking the position that he would not act if it was in the best interest of the U.S., if the U.N. did not agree.  Panetta commented that when it comes to military action that he and Obama would like some “international legal  basis.”  He said, “We want to build a coalition – we want some sort of legal basis as we did in Libya.”

Rep. Sessions said, you worry about some “international basis” but you didn’t worry about the fundamental constitutional legal basis this Congress has over the War Powers Act.  He said that congress wasn’t asked whether or not Obama and Panetta were in direct violation of the War Powers Act.

Panetta answered that “we would come to Congress and inform you.”  He said, we’re going to seek international approval and we’ll inform you.  If we’re working with an international coalition or NATO, we will want to get appropriate “permission” to do that – all of these countries would want to do that – we will reserve the right.

Rep. Sessions asked if he was stating that NATO would give Panetta and Obama a legal basis. Panetta said that if he and Obama developed an international coalition – an ad-hoc coalition of nations of NATO – who would give them a “legal basis.”  Rep. Sessions inquired as to who they were asking for a legal basis.  Panetta said that if the U.N. passed a Security Resolution as it did in Libya- we would do that.  If NATO came together as we did in Bosnia, we would rely on that so we have options here.  We want to build an international support.

Rep. Sessions assured Panetta that he’s all for international support, but stated he was baffled that Panetta was stating that he and Obama needed an international assembly to provide a legal basis to deploy U.S. troops into combat.  Rep. Sessions informed Panetta that they provide “no legal authority and the only legal authority they should be seeking is from the U.S. Congress, a U.S. President, and the U.S. Constitution.  Rep. Sessions said he was “breathless” by  Panetta’s statements.

Panetta said that when it comes to the National Defense of this country, [Obama] the President of the United States, has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country and if it comes – and “we will” – if it comes to whether we are trying to build a coalition of nations to work together to go in and work in Bosnia – operate as we did in Libya – Afghanistan – then we want to do it with NATO or the international community.

So, did Panetta state that he and Obama have absolute power over YOUR sons and daughters, who are in the military, to do with whatever they want and deploy them anywhere in the world without Congressional authority and globalize the U.S. military without the consent of the American people and authorization of the U.S. Congress?  Congress is paid wages by We The People to represent Americans, not relinquish our sovereignty and the laws established for 235 years rooted into the U.S. Constitution.  It is immoral, and should be illegal and unconstitutional to use America’s troops for deployment anywhere in the world without the authority of the U.S. Congress and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, to whom the military swears their allegiance, and in accordance with the will of the U.S. Citizens, who must pick up the tab for war, as well as sacrifice their loved ones and suffer the losses when they occur.

In other words, did Panetta state that he and Obama view congress as meaningless and the U.S. Constitution as meaningless and their allegiance is to NATO, the U.N., the E.U., and international powers, not the citizens of the United States of America who pay their wages?

The country is established by the founders who become the Fathers of that nation, such as the Forefathers, who establish the original set of Constitutional laws, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights rooted into the Ten Commandments and the Law of Nations, which shall be passed down to U.S. Natural Born and Native citizens from their fathers for the preservation of the country, not foreign-born inhabitants, born to one or both foreign-born parents, who are known as naturalized citizens and foreigners permitted to settle and live in the country peacefully alongside the U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the book, ‘The Law of Nations,” pub. by Emerald de Vatell, pub. 1758; which is rooted into our U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it states, “Right of the Citizens, when the nation submits to a foreign power,” (Chapter XVI, 175).   It states, “In the case of a real subjection power, the citizens who do not approve this change are not obliged to submit to it.  They ought to be allowed to sell their effects and retire elsewhere.  For my having to enter into a society does not oblige me to follow its face when it dissolves itself in order to submit to a foreign dominion.  I submitted to the society as it then was, to live in that society as a member of a sovereign state and not in another.  I am bound to obey it while it remains a political society, but when it diverts itself of the quality in order to receive its laws from another state, it breaks the bond of union between members and releases them from their obligation.”  In other words, the law of the land infers that U.S. Natural born and Native Citizens have the right to secede from the union and remove itself from the union legally and peacefully resisting a takeover by foreign powers or under the U.S. Constitution, remove those public servants from power who have surrendered their powers to foreign nations and pledged their allegiance to a foreign entity against the objections of the majority of U.S. Natural Born and Native American citizens.

According to the televised video of a congressional hearing of March 2012, Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, who answered questions of  Rep. Sessions, inferred that he and president Obama had the authority to deploy U.S. troops around the world without congressional authority and they would seek international permission of NATO, the U.N. or E.U., and may inform the U.S. Congress of their actions as they did in Libya.

Where then should the blame fall, on the executive office, or the congressional leaders, for failing in their fiduciary duty to properly vet a U.S, President under Article II; and secondly for not holding him accountable, when he fired off 220 Tomahawks at Libya at a cost of about $600,000 each, passed onto the American taxpayers?  How many freedom fighters in Libya depended on our help, but were met with Tomahawks, which created their disillusionment, when they witnessed civilian men, women, children killed as well as  Gaddafi’s grandkids, and his 16-year old son and friends.   How is this any different then the U.S. soldier who killed 17 Afghans while they slept and the White House calling out “murder” before an investigation took place?  At the very least, shouldn’t congress have suspended Obama and Panetta, while congress performed their fiduciary duty and investigated the actions taken in Libya on behalf of the military and  the American people as it is their fiduciary to uphold just and fair actions against American citizens or foreign nations.

Consequently, it isn’t just the fact that Obama and Panetta claimed attacking Libya was only a “mission,” but it’s also the fact that the U.S. Constitution requires that America must be under threat or attacked before attacking a foreign nation.   How is it that Libya didn’t threaten or attack America, yet the Obama administration fired off 220 Tomahawks at taxpayer’s expense, which cost the lives of innocent people, as they by-passed congress and the constitution?  For example, we should ask if the attack on Libya without oversight is any different from Obama funding Fast and Furious under the watch of Eric Holder,  without oversight, which cost the lives of U.S. agents, Mexican police, and thousands of innocent foreigners. It is immoral to think, oh well, the lives of the victims, whether legal or not, is worth the price.  If the government were to add up the number of people who died in Libya and Mexico at the hand of the U.S. government since 2008 versus 3,000 lives on 911 – what would that number be?

Furthermore, isn’t this exactly why oversight is established and written into the U.S. Constitution?  Isn’t the fact that abuse of power can’t be monitored if congress grants one man or  2 men the right to knight themselves with  absolute power as if they pledged their allegiance to the British Queen?  Obama called the attack on Libya,  a “mission.” and said he didn’t need congressional authority because there wouldn’t be boots on the ground and the mission would only take but a few days.  Today, the Muslim Brotherhood has taken control of Libya and established Sharia Law, so why did we attack Libya and assassinate an unarmed foreign leader who didn’t threaten the U.S. if we couldn’t deliver freedom to the citizens of Libya? Shall we ponder if the  answer lies in the fact that if Gaddafi had been captured alive, it may have set off questions as to the constitutional and legal justification for the attack as required by constitutional law?

In conclusion,  if the congress continues to approve absolute power to Obama and Panetta, then they are failing, in their duty to country.  If congress allows this pattern of self-government, without congressional authority to continue, which could establish a consistent pattern,  it could be the “legal basis” that Panetta and Obama are seeking to exercise and claim that they have absolute authority to declare war and deploy U.S. troops anywhere in the world without congressional authority, based on the fact there wasn’t any opposition by congress or the citizens. This unconstitutional behavior could lead to spreading our military troops too thin and creating a financial burden upon the American taxpayers.

Furthermore, if  the presidential executive office continues to assassinate foreign leaders because they “think” specific foreign leaders are “evil” people, then who in America is next to be targeted as an enemy, based upon their opinion?  America has leaders, who foreign nations believe are evil, so what’s the difference should foreign leaders  conspire to attack America’s leaders if we’re behaving in the same manner?

How then does congress justify that the Obama administration and the 112th Congress is denying the American people their constitutional right to exercise Due Process of Law since they voted to deny Due Process of Law  rendering Americans helpless by shredding Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and approving the unconstitutional and tyrannical law known as NDAA?  By the way, what’s the difference between a law that allows public servants to place them on a “hit” list versus the mafia creating a hit list knowing innocent people will die without a trial?  Even a guilty person should be given a trial!  In fact, our laws are based upon just laws that allow even the guilty to defend themselves until now.  The NDAA law has caused the American people to fear their government and places mistrust of the federal government in their minds.  The NDAA law places grave doubt in the minds of the citizens knowing that the government is spying on Americans as  potential targets of their own government for indefinite detention and assassination based upon an accusation only.  By the way, how is that even legal in America?  It is the love of country of our natural-born and native-born fathers who preserve the laws and pass them onto their U.S. Natural Born children or Native born children for the preservation of our culture, lifestyle, and laws.  Shame on the U.S. Congress for not invoking their powers and agreeing to shred Article IV, Due Process of Law, that targets Americans who pay their wages!  Americans didn’t agree to pay their wages and provide them jobs and retirement in exchange to suspend or shred and replace constitutional law, but to uphold, defend, preserve, and protect the U.S. Constitution. ***(This Article May be Shared but Not Plagiarized by a Third Party)

Click the like button and leave a comment, please.  You may share this blog with anyone and check out my website which includes my bio, awards, videos, photos, laws I’ve proposed, and my book, “Fight Back Legal Abuse” on Amazon or visit   Disclaimer:  Nothing said in this blog is meant to be legal, political, medical, or financial advice but a dissemination of information for educational purposes only. www.fightbacklegalabuse.com

Thanks for the read…..

Obama: First President in History To Increase U.S. Debt From $13T to $14Trillion in 7 Months!

King Obama says, "Eat Cake, America!"
King Obama says, “Eat Cake, America!” Rose Colombo, original (c) July 14, 2011. rev. 1/12/2014

Rose Colombo, 7/14/2011, rev. 1/12/2014

Under which Job Description or Constitutional Authority does the non-vetted U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama, applying that would grant him or Congress the authority to cut Social Security, which is a mandated Retirement Savings since the money does not belong to Obama or Congress, but to the U.S. Citizens who paid into the Retirement Savings?  Social Security has been pilfered for years and millions or billions missing without accountability removed by the federal government.  Which constitutional authority applies that would justify punishing senior citizens and forcing them into possible homelessness by stealing their money?  After all, the federal government who lived off these seniors for years and still live off the taxpayers were promised that their earnings would be returned upon retirement?  Social Security is not an Entitlement Program, so if,  Obama and Congress were to deny millions of Seniors their earnings were safe and wouldbe returned upon retirement and if not, explain how Obama’s denying or cutting Social Security which isn’t an entitlement program any  different from Grand Theft or a Ponzi Scheme?

Cut the Spending!  Those three words are not pleasant-sounding to the ears of President Obama!  He is the Print and Spend President.  Obama made history as the president who increased the national debt within seven months to the highest level ever from $13 trillion in June 2010 to $14 trillion in December 2010!  Where’s the 350,000 shovel ready jobs Obama promised?

One lucky guy was George Kaiser, Obama’s bundler, who Obama granted $40,000,000 in US tax stimulus dollars and told his audience at a meeting that he was going back for more because the White House [Obama] was shoveling more money out of the door than any president in history and America would never see that again – and guess what – he went back for more and Obama granted George Kaiser, co-owner of Solyndra, an additional $535,000,000 more!  And, the U.S. Solyndra employed workers lost their jobs afterwards; and Solyndra’s executives were reported to take out huge bonuses and wages before they bankrupted Solyndra! And, that’s on the backs of the U.S. Natural Born hard-working Americans!  I read an article that stated American taxpayers were ordered to pay about $14M to cover the costs of those who lost their jobs.

So, instead of the executive office and congress acknowledging that social security funds were misused by congress, they continue to point the finger at the recipients of social security who worked for 20 – 60 years and were forced to by the federal government to contribute to social security from each pay check. The federal government removed the money from the paychecks of the seniors and veterans during their work years, which the government  promised to save as a retirement fund, and deposit into a “Trust” fund.  If seniors had been allowed to deposit their earnings into an IRA or a CD or a savings or 401K for 20 – 60 years, they would have earned interest and wouldn’t be at the mercy of the federal government and would have access to their own money.  Social Security does not belong to President Obama or to the Congress, but to the American Retirees!

Remember, if Americans were allowed to invest their earnings into an interest bearing retirement account versus the Federal Government demanding that they pay into a mandated Federal Retirement Account, it stands to reason that their retirement savings would have increased substantially and they would have control of their retirement savings. Instead, what began as a voluntary system by the federal government turned into a mandatory tax, but in reality, retirement savings isn’t a tax. The federal government made seniors and veterans dependent upon the federal government through the social security program and the government which is socialism.

In fact, the federal government took away the independence of seniors and the federal government is their parent who decides how much seniors can earn or receive from their social security savings each month.  The government doesn’t pay interest on the earnings they pilfer from seniors, but Obama threatens to deny social security checks to seniors, veterans, and military families. Seniors are paying double taxes on social security money. Taxes were already removed from their earnings and then the government calls the social security payment a tax and then they tax the social security again once they begin receiving it. This is the same as Obama-Care.  Americans forced to pay-up-front for services not rendered and may never be rendered and then after the people’s money is diverted like usual, healthcare will be denied or rationed and people will die in my opinion.

In 2008, Congress opened the purse strings containing $5 Trillion in taxpayer money and one might say gifted it to President Obama!  No strings attached or accountability for his “redistribution” of America’s wealth.  The stimulus funds resulted in more tax dollars spent than any president redistributed in 235 years.  The $5 trillion granted to Obama as stimulus funding did not stimulate the economy, but it exceeded the amount owed on the national debt or owed to China.  Today, the Obama administration hasn’t created any new jobs. The Clinton’s and Obama outsourced jobs to Communist China including solar jobs.  It’s small businesses that create more jobs.  Instead,  Obama created more government  jobs and didn’t provide loans so small businesses could expand, but instead created more regulations and punishments.

Now, Obama is fear mongering by targeting the most vulnerable of our society, the baby boomers, seniors, veterans and the disabled. What sort of person elected to public office threatens the vulnerable of society who were ripped off by their government?  Baby boomers and seniors worked most of their lives and paid taxes.  Seniors and veterans helped make this country great and weren’t welfare recipients.  Social security is money earned, not welfare.  Not only is Obama’s  threat immoral but disrespectful to every American citizen who worked for their living.  So, one must wonder if  Obama has disdain for seniors, veterans, and the disabled as well as the unborn?

Furthermore, the housing crisis affected jobs and it devastated the home building industry and real estate.  Many Baby Boomers are forced to retire early because the group which Obama funded and mentored known as Acorn pressured congress.  In turn, congress pressured the banks and ordered the bankers to issue fraudulent loans. Social Security is not a welfare or entitlement program, but a promised retirement fund.  Americans were led to believe that their earnings, which the government removed from their paychecks,  was deposited into a “Trust” Account.

Actually, isn’t it considered a crime to remove money from a “Trust” Account without the permission of the owners since earnings are private property?  How is diverting  the retirement money removed from the paychecks of U.S. citizens  considered ethical?  How was it ethical for the federal government to threaten seniors and veterans by stating that Obama may not reimburse the social security savings owed to seniors or veterans if the GOP didn’t agree to his budget? Americans should ponder how denying social security is any  different from a Ponzi Scheme perpetrated by Made-Off, oops, I mean Madoff.  Madoff was prosecuted for diverting his clients’ retirement funds which he promised to invest after the clients discovered that their investments had been diverted.

Also, an excessive number of prisons throughout the country have been built at taxpayers expense since the Clinton administration, instead of factories, which would have provided jobs, but U.S. factories and jobs have been outsourced by our presidents to Communist China and India. It’s a fact that high unemployment creates more crime. Prisons generate about $60 billion in tax revenues each year, which is excessive, yet, they are arresting more people in the U.S. than any country in the world making the prison system unaffordable.  In fact, there are projections that under the NDAA law, more Americans could be indefinitely detained in the future if Obama is re-elected.  Yet, the Clinton and Obama administration cut back on NASA, Defense, and education funding.

So, are they creating the Prison Industrial Complex and about to use every American man, woman, and child as human commodities for profit – to fill the prison beds – after all, they’re creating so many laws – and denying due process of law – how can an American win against a dealer who is stacking the deck?

In fact, outsourcing jobs to China and India helped create an increase of unemployment in America.   President Clinton outsourced U.S. jobs, technology, and businesses to Communist China as well as Obama.  Clinton opened the borders and signed NAFTA.  China and India are employing more people and building more factories thanks to the Clinton’s and Obama who catapulting Communist China’s economic status as a potential economic super power. How is it that the Clinton’s and Obama are so dedicated to outsourcing U.S. jobs to a Communist Nation instead of channeling that same energy into the U.S.?

About 1993, Communist China threatened to blow Los Angeles off the face of the map. .  On the other hand, Soros is alleged to be one of Obama’s primary donors and supporters.  Soros strategic stated goal is to devalue the U.S. dollar and help build the economic status of Communist China which congress should be addressing.

Furthermore, wars cost billions of tax dollars.  Recently Obama attacked Libya without the approval of congress at a cost to the taxpayers ranging between $600,000 to $1.4 million per tomahawk.  Obama fired off 221 tomahawks  – multiply 221 x $600,000 – $1.4 million at taxpayer’s expense and figure out the additional hefty debt to the American people.  Obama ordered the firing off of the tomahawks without congressional authority during a deep recession according to the news.  He created a fourth war at taxpayer’s expense cleverly referring to his act as a “mission.” Imagine how many U.S. jobs could have been created if those same U.S. tax dollars had been redistributed to small businesses.

Therefore, I’ve gathered some information relating to the National Debt.  For example, did you know that the Total Debt per Citizen in 2011 is $176,281 and the Total Debt per family is $669,103 and the Total Savings per Family is only $6,953.  Think about that!

How is it that the U.S. National Debt was at $284,705,907,078 in 1959, which was only 50 years ago and reported at a startling $5,656,270,901,615 in 1999 while Clinton was president.  In 2004, the national debt was reported at $7,379,052,696,330. Bush was said to have started his presidency with a surplus, but he managed to substantially increase the national debt within 8 years reported at $10 trillion dollars when he left office in 2008.  Although, Obama promised not to raise taxes and support small businesses, increase jobs, and stimulate the economy, he did not.

But, Obama made history.  Not only was he the first 1/2 white and 1/2 Black U.S. President, but he kept none of his promises and he skyrocketed the U.S. National debt with in 24 months to a whopping $14 trillion!  He’s the first U.S. President who has managed to increase the national debt within 7 months from $13 trillion in June 2010 to $14 trillion by December 31, 2010.

Obama appointed U.S. Attorney General, Erick Holder.  Holder commented that the American people will be “polarized” in the future and that the change coming will be that the American people won’t recognize the face of their own nation, so is a part of the polarization coming from this administration including the polarization of seniors and veterans, the sick, and the challenged?

Although, everyone is told by the media and the federal government that China is the biggest threat to America if the U.S. defaults on the national debt, I believe the biggest threat to America are public servants who are in bed with Wall Street and are using U.S. citizens as commodities for profit through global agendas by funding private corporations of billionaires like Soros through employees of the federal government such as Michael Chertoff and his Rapiscan business with stimulus tax dollars, prisons, Obama-care, Planned Parenthood; and denying Americans the right to collect rain water, while the wealthy are allegedly buying up the water reservoirs, and destroying the farms.

Therefore, let me ask and answer who owns the U.S. National Debt?  China owns 21.09%; Japan owns 20.4% or nearly an equal share along with China; and the remaining U.S. Debt is owned by other nations in the world at 58.51%.

The business owners and politicians don’t talk about the debt as related to the outsourcing of jobs to China and India as a major reason America is out of work.  The U.S. National debt has doubled since Clinton was elected into office and he and Hillary were the catalysts who worked with Wal-Mart and COSCO (the largest communist Chinese importers into the U.S.) to import more products made in China than any other retailer in the U.S.A.  Because of the Clinton’s efforts, U.S. consumers rarely see “Made in the U.S.A.,” any longer.  President Clinton outsourced U.S. jobs and U.S. technology to Communist China along with globalist corporations.  He opened the borders and signed NAFTA making it easy for retailers like Wal-Mart and COSCO skyrocket in sales of products made in China instead of Made in the U.S.A.  Hillary Clinton introduced universal healthcare and now Hillary-Care has morphed into Obama-Care against the will of the American people for a second time, which could create an economic collapse in the future.

In 1959, the National Debt was at $284,705,907,078.  Under, Clinton, the national debt increased substantially in 8 years.  By 1999, the National Debt was at $5,656,270,,901,615.  In 2004 under Bush, the National Debt increased and read $7,379,052,696,330, but by 2008, the debt as I stated was at $10 trillion.  But, the U.S. Historical National Debt record and award for increasing the debt limit by trillions in 2 1/2 years is credited to President Obama, with the support of the U.S. Democratic and Rhino U.S. Congress, who has managed to hit the debt ceiling at $14 Trillion by 2011.

But, President Obama also receives the Historical National Debt Award for being the first U.S. President in 235 years who with the blessings of congress, increased the National Debt within 7 Months from $13 Trillion to $14 Trillion!  Alas, Obama doesn’t intend to stop there.  He demands that congress hand over the purse strings and push the debt ceiling even higher.  So, when should Americans expect the bubble to burst since congress has been mush in Obama’s hands since 2008? How can congress have allowed the economic outsourcing of jobs to a communist nation and why would they want to build up a communist nation with knowledge that it is destroying the U.S. economic status which could collapse?

2011:  U.S. Population = 311, 756,198  (2008 = 304,421,946)

2011:  U.S. Income Taxpayers = 111,741,291  (2008 = 108,228,953)

2011:  Official Unemployed = 14,055,369  (2008: unemployed 9,503,495; the 2008 U.S. Work Force = 144,672,980)

2011:  Actual Unemployed = 24,814,674 (2008: = 13,495,738)

2011:  State Local Employees = 15, 892,215

2011:  Federal Employees = 4,305,706

2011:  U.S. Work Force = 139,813,347

2011:  U.S. Retirees and SSI = 65,602,765 (2008 = 50,418,079, a substantial increase between 2008 and 2011)

2011:  U.S. Families = 82,102,337  (2008 = 79,288,871) [could the increase between 2008 and 2011 be related to Obama’s illegal aliens made legal and his push for more Palestinian refugees and immigrants into the U.S.?]

2011:  Food Stamp Recipients = 45,037,907  (2008 = 31,042,554) [Is the substantial burden on the taxpayers due to the corruption in the government and banks having to do with the fraudulent loans as well as increased unemployment since 2008 to 2011?]

2011:  Bankruptcies (major increase) = 1,582,470

2011:  Foreclosures (major increase) = 990,799

2011:  Social Security = $15,117,687,999,999* and rising

2011:  Rx Drug Liability = $20,002,863,999,999* and rising

2011:  Medicare Liability = $79,542,296,999,999* and rising

2011:  U.S. Unfunded Liability = $114,661,849,999,999* and rising

2011:  Liability per taxpayer = $1,026,138

2011:  Small Business Assets = $4,518,191,999,999* and rising (2008 = $6,461,734,999,999* and rising) [ Is the substantial decrease between 2008 and 2011 a result of Obama’s failure to help small business expand resulting in the downsizing and businesses closing their doors?]

2011:  Corporate Assets = $13,239,232,999,999* and rising (down from 2008, but note corporate assets are nearly 3 x as high as small business assets) (2008 = $14,8780,440,999,999* and rising)

2011:  Household Assets = $57,928,343,999,999* and rising

2011:  Total National Assets = $75,685,772,999,999* and rising (2008 = $78,713,574,999,999* and rising  – a substantial decrease as of 2011)

2011:  Assets Per Citizen = $242,722  (2008 = $259,250 substantial decrease as of 2011))

2011:  U.S. Total Interest = $3,630,227,999,999* and rising [How can Americans afford the interest, let alone the debt?]

2011:  Interest Per Citizen = $11,644 per year (meaning Americans are getting poorer)

2011:  U.S. Total Debt = $54,934,996,999,999* and rising  (in 2008 the National Debt was $10 Trillion which was an 8 year increase of debt under Bush vs. Obama’s 7 month doubling of the National Debt)

2011:  Total Debt Per Citizen = $176,281

2011:  Total Debt Per Family = $669,109

2011:  Savings Per Family = $6,953  [Note the Total Debt versus Savings]

2011:  U.S. Public Debt Subject to Limit:  $14,291,025,999,999 and rising *

2011:  National Debt Per Citizen = $46,503

2011:  National Debt Per Taxpayer = $129,747

2011:  Income Tax:  $946,651,562,999 and rising *

2011:  Payroll Tax – $840,371,075,999 * and rising

2011:  Corporate Tax = $196,354,114,999* and rising [Please note the huge difference between income tax, payroll tax, and corporate tax]

2011:  U.S. Federal Spending – $3,590,923,999,999* and rising

2011:  U.S. Federal Budget Deficit – $1,393,586,999,999* and rising

2011:  U.S. Total Interest – $3,630,226,999,999* and rising

2011:  U.S. Interest Per Citizen = $11,644 *(that’s how much each U.S. citizen must pay out in taxes just for interest only on the debt each year and rising)

I believe that the Total Mortgage Debt is the major portion of Personal Debt which was caused by our own government after Acorn pressured Congress and Congress pressured Banks to commit a crime and issue fraudulent loans.  Another example of waste is the  multi-millions for the Gun-running program “Fast and Furious launched by Obama as well as the trillions spent on Imams, restoring mosques, trying terrorists in civilian courts, and diverting the trillions to groups like Acorn, Planned Parenthood, the IMF, AIG, and so forth…instead of creating U.S. jobs.  But most business and political leaders don’t mention the wasted $5 Trillion recklessly spent since 2009!

2011:  U.S. Total Debt = $934,999,999,999* and rising every second

Note:  The * and the 999’s at the end of the round numbers listed above are symbolic as those numbers (999)are continually increasing each second of every day!

Imagine in 1959, the U.S. National Debt was at $284,705,907,078!

(Disclaimer: This information is based on Rose Colombo’s personal research and personal opinions as a political activist, not as a government expert on the National Debt, so, I suggest you always seek out economic experts working on issues relating to the National Debt).    Rose Colombo, is the author of the award-winning book, Fight Back Legal Abuse,” featured in the Daily Law Journal and her latest political satire, an Orwellian take on today’s political agendas.  You’re invited to read Free 5 Star Reviews and Complimentary Pages of her book at www.amazon.com

Follow:  www.Facebook.com/RoseColombo  and  Twitter@Rose4Justice