posted May 22, 2012 02:40 PM              

that is from YOUR post. who is talking about only women college grads???let me think...

posted May 22, 2012 02:46 PM              

i don't know any such thing. that is just one point, but i know plenty of people whom others might describe as "detached" "cold" who are really nothing of the sort. they might have a sense of perspective, be shy, or just be sparing with words in a social setting, preferring to speak only when THEY choose, not when someone else considers it "normal".

it is generally the ignorant and undisciplined who judge others from a distance or by what someone else has decided, hearsay is so often twisted by people's agenda, don't you think?

posted May 22, 2012 06:14 PM            

Even among his own White House staff which did hire women, O'Bomber pays women much less than the men he hired.

posted June 13, 2012 09:00 AM            

On the evening of Tuesday, June 30, 2009—just five months into his administration—Barack Obama invited a small group of presidential historians to dine with him in the Family Quarters of the White House. His chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, personally delivered the invitations with a word of caution: the meeting was to remain private and off the record. As a result, the media missed the chance to report on an important event, for the evening with the historians provided a remarkable sneak preview of why the Obama presidency would shortly go off the rails.

Today, with Mr. Obama in full campaign mode, that event—as well as two more unreported White House dinners with the historians—is worth examining. Together, they shed light on the reason this president is likely to find it much harder than he expects to connect with the public and win reelection to the White House.

At the time of the first dinner, the new president was still enjoying a honeymoon period with the American people; according to Gallup, 63 percent of Americans approved of the job he was doing. Brimming with self-confidence, Mr. Obama had earlier confided to David Axelrod, his chief political strategist: “The weird thing is, I know I can do this job. I like dealing with complicated issues. I’m happy to make decisions.…I think it’s going to be an easier adjustment for me than the campaign. Much easier.”

That the adjustment from campaigner to chief executive would prove harder—much harder—than anticipated had still not dawned on Mr. Obama when he sat down to dine with the historians. He was in an expansive mood as he tucked into his lamb chops and went around the table addressing each historian by name—Doris Kearns Goodwin, Michael Beschloss, Robert Caro, Robert Dallek, Douglas Brinkley, H. W. “Billam” Brands, David Kennedy, Kenneth Mack, and Garry Wills.

During the presidential campaign, most of the evening’s dinner guests, like their liberal counterparts in the media, had dropped any pretense at objectivity. For instance, Michael Beschloss ('Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989') described Obama as “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” which appeared to put Thomas Jefferson in his place.

Judging from Mr. Obama’s questions, one subject was uppermost in his mind: how could he become a “transformational” president and bend the historic trajectory of America’s domestic and foreign policy?

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure.

These characteristics had already set the pattern of his administration. Mr. Obama personally conducted his own foreign policy more than any president since Richard Nixon. He made all the decisions, because he believed that only he truly understood the issues. He spent his evenings writing decision papers on foreign affairs when, instead, he should have delegated that chore to experts and devoted his time to schmoozing members of Congress and convincing them to support his programs. He still loved making speeches to large, adoring crowds, but he complained to foreign leaders on the QT that he had to waste precious hours talking with “Congressmen from Palookaville.”

“Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn’t been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president.
- Anonymous Historian

The senior people in his administration proved to be just as inexperienced and inept as Mr. Obama when it came to the business of running the government. Members of his inner circle—David Axelrod, campaign manager David Plouffe, press secretary Robert Gibbs, and éminence grise Valerie Jarrett—had proven their mettle in the dark arts of political campaigning, but they had no serious experience in dealing with public-policy issues. If they could be said to have any policy exposure at all it was their ideological enthusiasms for the left.

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F. Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto.

“Why not?” the president asked.

“It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

That fall, I spoke to one of the historians who attended all three of the dinners. We met in a restaurant where we were unlikely to be seen, and our conversation, which lasted for nearly two hours, was conducted under the condition of anonymity.

I wanted to know how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the president’s promise with his performance. By this time, most of Mr. Obama’s supporters were puzzled by the sense of disconnect between the sharply focused presidential candidate of 2008 and the dazed and confused president of the past three years. The satirical TV show "The Onion News Network" had broadcast a faux story that the real Barack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.

“There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator."

If the verdict of this historian is correct, and Barack Obama’s fundamental failure as president is his inability to connect with people, he is in far more serious trouble than most people realize as he seeks a mandate for a second term in office. Or, as this historian put it: “I wouldn’t bet the ranch on his getting reelected.”

"More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets. Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter."

posted July 29, 2012 02:00 PM            

Presidential busts: The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?)

Editor's note: It's a presidential election year, so we thought we'd weigh in with our list of the five worst presidents. We start with, yes, the current incumbent. See our other choices at U-T Opinion online.

He took office at a time when the U.S. economy was on its worst slide in 75 years, but pushed policies using borrowed money that were more meant to preserve government jobs than broadly help the private sector where the great majority of Americans work, ensuring the jobs crisis continued.

Let us know. Take our survey and pick your five worst U.S. presidents

Presidential busts The worst of all: Barack Obama (2009-?)

The runner-up: Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

Third place: James Buchanan (1857-1861)

Fourth place: Richard Nixon (1969-1974)

Fifth place: Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)

He railed against the heavy spending and big deficits of his predecessor, but blithely backed budgets that had triple the deficits ever seen in American history.

He promised a smart, sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system, but ended up giving us a Byzantine mess promoted to the public with myths: that offering subsidized care to tens of millions of people would save money; that people would keep their own doctors; that access to care wouldn’t change; and that rationing would never happen.

He promised a more sophisticated approach to the economy than that of his predecessor, but had so little common sense that his health law actually gave businesses a big financial incentive to discontinue providing health insurance to their employees.

He offered hosannas to genius entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs in his prepared remarks, but when speaking off the cuff betrayed his faculty-lounge view of the world, saying of businesspeople, “if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.”YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT..SOMEONE ELSE DID THAT!

He swore to bring overdue oversight and honest accounting to the corporate world, but made flagrantly dishonest claims about General Motors paying back its government loans that would have triggered a criminal fraud investigation in the private sector.

He promised to set a high new standard for ethics in the White House, but used a baffling claim of executive privilege to shield his embattled attorney general from the repercussions of a cover-up involving the death of a federal law enforcement officer.

He denounced his predecessor for permitting harsh interrogation tactics with suspected terrorists, but once in office somehow concluded that a better, more moral approach would just be to use drones to assassinate such suspects without getting any information from them.

He presented himself as a shrewd student of Washington politics, but once in office displayed a counterproductive standoffishness to many Democratic lawmakers eager to embrace him, never developing the broad range of personal relationships that often mark a successful presidency.

He ran as a unifying force who would bring in a new era of civility and racial healing to Washington, but once in office embraced ugly, Chicago-style political hardball that saw nothing wrong with his supporters’ loathsome practice of depicting opposition to his policies as being driven by racism.

He constantly offered praise for the wisdom and insights of the American public, but reacted to the broad discontent over Obamacare, high unemployment and vast deficits by saying it was a failure of his administration to properly explain its glorious record to a confused populace – not a predictable reaction to his struggles and ineffectiveness.

And in December 2011 – at a time in which one-quarter of American adults who wanted full-time work couldn’t find it, after a year in which the federal deficit was a staggering $1.3 trillion – here was what Barack Obama had to say for himself in a CBS interview: “I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president, with the possible exceptions of Johnson, FDR and Lincoln.”

Unbelievable. If self-reverence were a crime, our current president would be facing a life sentence. For the good of America, let’s pray we have someone else in charge of the federal government come Jan. 20, 2013.

posted August 10, 2012 10:47 AM            

O'Bomber is also exactly what I said he is. A Marxist phony, a made up persona who is all fluff and no substance. Every single thing O'Bomber has done in office has blown up in America's face and he's asking for 4 more years to completely destroy the American economy.

Barack Obama Runs On Empty And Toward Defeat
Mon, Aug 06 2012
By DOUGLAS MACKINNON

The social experiment that was Barack Obama's election and presidency is over. Way over.

As one who was born in the heart of Boston and worked the political world of Washington for 20 years, I know quite a few Democrats. Some are family, and many are close friends. Most voted for Obama in 2008. None at this point is inclined to vote for him in 2012.

Why? Because they view him as an abject failure across the board and have decided to put the welfare of their families and themselves before the empty rhetoric of the Obama campaign before it's too late.

Because of my time in Washington and past positions there, I also know and am friends with quite a few journalists. I speak with many on a regular basis, and it's safe to say that the majority of them lean left politically.

That said, in off-the-record conversations with my left-leaning journalistic friends, not one believes Obama is going to win re-election. Not one. While most believe Mitt Romney to be a weak candidate, they are still convinced that he will comfortably defeat Obama on Nov. 6.

These liberal and jaded journalists privately admit that Obama has been exposed for what he is: an overhyped, self-invented candidate with no real-world experience who has been frozen into inaction by the enormity of the office he holds.

Obama has no domestic policy to speak of. He has no foreign policy to speak of. He has no jobs program to speak of. His signature health care plan is driving doctors out of the field, crippling small businesses and putting thousands of Americans out of work.

The Obama of 2012 has nothing positive to run on. Nothing. And guess what? He, more than anyone else in his White House or campaign, knows it.

He knows his election and presidency were social engineering gone wrong. He knows his biography is unraveling faster than the baseball that Roy Hobbs crushed into the rain in the movie "The Natural." He knows that he has run out of all options but one: Go negative on Mitt Romney 24/7 and hope a heretofore compromised mainstream media will once again unethically act as his surrogate.

Unfortunately for Obama, two massive holes exist in his "demonize Romney with an assist from the media" campaign tactic.

First, most Americans who are paying attention to this contest have come to the conclusion that Romney is a very decent and moral person who does have a fairly impressive business background coupled with some other real-world experience.

Second, as mentioned above, more and more members of the Journalists In The Tank For Obama club seem to be having second thoughts. As one of my friends in that club said, "Hey, we have kids in school, have to pay mortgages and want to keep our jobs just like everyone else."

In 2008, Obama won a fairly impressive victory against an incredibly weak and inept Republican challenger. To pull off that victory, Obama had pull a significant number of Republican and independent voters away from John McCain. To his credit and to his ability to spin himself along with the American voters' sense of fairness and history, Obama did just that.

In 2008, Obama was an unformed piece of pottery clay molded into shape by his own false rhetoric combined with a media narrative that sought to canonize him in anticipation of having his face carved into Mount Rushmore.

Today, in 2012, Barack Obama stands on his own — an unqualified man who did not have the gifts to grow into the presidency.

While noble in many respects, the social experiment that was Barack Obama's election and presidency is coming to its natural and expected conclusion.

• MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official and author of the memoir "Rolling Pennies in the Dark."
http://news.investors.com/article/620954/201208031733/barack-obama-h eads-for-a-loss-in-november.htm?p=full

posted August 10, 2012 02:41 PM              

but i believe there will be a very different congress come jan 13, one you won't like very much.

you aren't the only one who doesn't like the stagnation we have been experiencing.

just to refresh your memory, if you ever studied history, FDR's first term was FULL of sabotage from congress and the SC. he went on to win THREE MORE TERMS. while that is no longer possible, it should put your wishful thinking in the bucket it belongs in.

if you think those who are watching haven't noticed that congress WHOLE GOAL these last 2 years was to bring failure to obama no matter the cost to the rest of us, you should probably think again.

posted August 11, 2012 11:51 AM            

My personal opinion is that you're going to be gravely disappointed on November 6th...if you think demoscats are going to take back the House of Representatives. I think demoscats will be extremely lucky to hold on to their majority in the US Senate.

posted August 11, 2012 01:39 PM              

meanwhile the conservatives are busy bankrupting the post office (among other national treasures) by insisting it OVERFUND its pension funds, with a greedy eye to privatising both the post office and said pensions...ie, a la bain capital, padding out pensions at the expense of a company and then robbing the pensioners of what they have been paying into for however many years.

all in line with what buckminster fuller called "legally-piggily" some 50 years ago. it has been going on forever. build up a bureau/dept/safety net for the general public's use with taxpayer money, then come in and privatise/steal it with not a penny returned to those who paid for it in the first place.

of course romney is the perfect choice. he is very good at finding profit at the expense of those who gave their labour to make a company thrive. and paul ryan - the perfect cohort!

time to reform not just campaign finance but the lobbying game whereby congress and all in government can get rich as croesus while/(FOR) doing nothing!

posted August 11, 2012 01:47 PM            

Last time I looked demoscats control the US Senate and the White House. That's 2/3rds of the decision making process. Yet here you are blaming republicans for "starving the post office".

posted August 11, 2012 01:54 PM              

"Despite the fact that the bill, introduced in April last year, has 229 co-sponsors, it has yet to reach a vote on the House floor. House Government Reform Chairman Darryl Issa, R-Calif., is blocking it because he 'wants to privatize everything, and destroy union jobs,"' according to Sally Davidow, communications director for the American Postal Workers Union....

posted August 11, 2012 01:59 PM              

yes as time told in 08 when you were sure obama could not win and i said he would.

posted August 12, 2012 06:59 PM            

Yeah, no doubt Mitt Romney is just fronting for Sarah Palin and Romney will fail to get enough votes at the Republican National Convention to win nomination on the first ballot. Then, Sarah Palin will be nominated by acclimation!

posted August 12, 2012 07:06 PM              

i can read, something you seem handicapped at. maybe some new glasses?

posted September 21, 2012 05:03 PM            

September 21, 2012
The Commonness of Barack Obama
By Mark W. Hendrickson

Both admirers and detractors of Barack Obama have commented on what a unique historical character he is. In a narrow sense, and particularly within the context of American history, we may grant that Obama is different.

For the first time, Americans elected a president whose formative years were spent far away from the American mainland -- a man who (along with his mentor, wife, minister, and others who have been closest to him) has an intense, deep-seated dislike for the country that elected him. Obama was dead serious when he said he wanted to "remake" America -- just as his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, wasn't fooling when he sided with Stalin against Truman's America; just as Michelle wasn't fooling when she said in 2008 that it was the first time she was proud of her country; just as Rev. Jeremiah Wright wasn't fooling when he raged, "God damn America!"

So, yes, the president is unique among American presidents. However, against the backdrop of human history, and compared to other heads of state, Barack Obama is drearily common.

I was struck by Obama's commonness while recently rereading Frédéric Bastiat's timeless essay, "The Law," with my public policy class. (As a teacher, I find it helpful to review some of the classic thinking on the purpose of government and law before delving into specific governmental policies.) Although Bastiat died in 1850, he "knew" Barack Obama as well as most people living today, because he understood Obama's type so well.

So Obama has repeatedly shown by word and deed that he wants to remake America, to change our country from what it has been into the country that Obama envisions. In having this goal, Obama is like countless political leaders -- socialists, fascists, emperors, dictators, caudillos, welfare statists, etc. -- who have shared the egomaniacal belief that the world would be a much better place if everyone would simply do what the "enlightened planner" wanted them to do.

According to Bastiat, politicians like Obama "look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist [planner] whimsically shape human beings into groups [etc.]. ... And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does [the political planner] need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings."

Elsewhere, Bastiat likens the relationship that Obama seeks to have with the mass of Americans to "the relationship between the clay and the potter."

Another long-departed thinker who understood the Obama-type of leader was Adam Smith. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, first published over a quarter of a millennium ago, Smith used the term "the man of system" for what we today would call progressives, socialists, political planners, or social engineers -- the type of leader who, like Obama, desires to remake society.

According to Smith, this type of person "is apt to be very wise in his own conceit. ... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board; he does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chessboard of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the [planner] might choose to impress upon it."

Smith then offers this comment on Obama's modus operandi: for him "to insist upon establishing ... in spite of all opposition, every thing which [his agenda] may seem to require, must often be the highest degree of arrogance. It is to erect his own judgment into the supreme standard of right and wrong. It is to fancy himself the only wise and worthy man in the common-wealth, and that his fellow citizens should accommodate themselves to him, and not he to them. ... When such imperial and royal reformers, therefore, condescend to contemplate the Constitution of the country which is committed to their government, they seldom see any thing so wrong in it as the obstructions which it may sometimes oppose to the execution of their own will."

When reading about the would-be social engineer's disdain of constitutional government, how can one help but think of Obama, who has explicitly stated his dissatisfaction with the Constitution's limits on the exercise of executive power?

No, Barack Obama is nothing new. The human race has seen his type in countless guises and forms throughout history.

He is the cheap demagogue, seeking to divide and conquer by vilifying targeted minorities (e.g., "the rich" and "big oil corporations").

He is the cynical manipulator, playing upon citizens' fear and ignorance.

He is the clever corruptor, appealing to people's baser impulses, such as envy.

He is the sociopath, who, due to some combination of hatred and disrespect for others and inflated love of self, suffers from the delusion that he is morally and intellectually qualified to remake society as if his fellow man were (to use Bastiat's terms) "clay," "sand," "manure."

Through most of American history, a man like this never would have gotten close to the presidency; however, we have arrived at that stage of democratic degeneration in which huge numbers of citizens believe in the myth of the political "superman" who will use the power of the state to take save them from life's problems and relieve them of the tasks of thinking and providing for themselves.

posted October 07, 2013 10:30 AM            

So now, your little Marxist Messiah is throwing a temper tantrum because Republicans won't give him everything he wants...NO NEGOTIATIONS! The Marxist Messiah is wheezing, whining, sucking his thumb, stamping his feet and screeching, howling and shrieking and...deliberately ruining American's vacation plans, closing private businesses, parks and memorials and in general showing Americans what a narcissistic little A-Hole he really is.

In addition to being a sick, sick, sick man, he's also a small, small, small man.

National Park rangers ordered to keep visitors out of privately run businesses
The Washington Times
Sunday, October 6, 2013

The National Park Service has closed privately run marinas, restaurants and inns throughout the country and in some cases even posted guards to keep people from using them during the government shutdown, arguing that it doesn’t have the money, manpower or authority to let them operate.

But the moves, which likely have thrown thousands of people out of work, are drawing scrutiny from Congress and don’t rest well with many voters who believe the administration is making the effects of the shutdown worse than necessary.

On Friday, the Pisgah Inn on the Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina decided it would buck the Park Service’s order and remain open — only to find park rangers come and block the driveway to the inn to prevent anyone from entering. The parkway itself remained open, but the administration said all concessions in national parks must shut.

“I’m questioning their authority to shut me,” Pisgah Inn owner Bruce O'Connell told The Washington Times on Friday as he fought to stay open.

Several congressional committees have said they would look into the Park Service’s decisions, accusing the Obama administration of trying to make the shutdown as painful as possible for Americans.

In the meantime, Americans across the country have embraced the chance to flout the closures as a defiant act of civil disobedience.

The Internet has been flooded with photos of people going around traffic cones and vehicle barricades to get to parking lots, bicycle paths and hiking trails.

Still, campgrounds, ski areas and basic services have been closed at all parks, the monuments the Park Service runs in Washington have been barricaded, and rangers are doing their best to keep folks away.

In Philadelphia, the park closures have shuttered the City Tavern.

On Cape Cod, the Nauset Knoll Motor Lodge is closed.

But not all private companies on park land have been shut down. Two high-profile places in San Francisco, the Argonaut Hotel in San Francisco Maritime National Park and Cavallo Point, a luxury hotel in Golden Gate National Park, are open.

The Park Service says those are operating under lease agreements rather than as concessions, which means they are allowed to stay open.

“Concessions operations are required to close; leases are permitted to remain open,” Mike Litterst, a spokesman for the parks, said in an email to The Washington Times.

The discrepancies are difficult for some to understand.

One man wondered why Skyline Drive, the road running through Shenandoah National Park, was closed but the Blue Ridge Parkway remained open.

In the Washington region, the George Washington Parkway is open for traffic, and the bike trail that runs alongside the Potomac for much of the road is also getting heavy use — but the Park Service has barricaded the parking lots, leaving visitors to park on nearby streets and cross through traffic to get to the path.

Other federal land agencies have taken different routes. The Army Corps of Engineers, for example, has said some of its concessionaires can remain open.

Although some Army Corps marinas are open, the Park Service has shut down all of its marinas.

“We consider the National Park system to be a single entity, and without an appropriation, the entire system is closed and cannot reopen until funding is restored,” said Mr. Litterst, the parks spokesman. “We do not believe it is appropriate or feasible to have some parts of the system open while others are closed to the public.”

Mr. Litterst also said that the 3,000 employees still on the job are needed to protect safety and property, and can’t staff “visitor services” such as campgrounds.

Mr. O’Connell, who runs the Pisgah Inn, said he never received a certified letter or even a call from the park superintendent telling him to close, but rather got an email from someone in the park business office.

Other concessions had similar stories.

Mr. O'Connell said his workers are federal employees, and his fire, police and rescue services all come from the county, so he isn’t drawing any federal funds. Indeed, the rangers posted at his driveway to turn away patrons Friday likely used more resources — and made it tougher for them to respond to an actual emergency had one occurred elsewhere on the parkway, he said.

Derrick A. Crandall, a counselor at the National Park Hospitality Association, an organization for park concessionaires, said the Park Service is showing less leniency this time than it did during the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns.

“Last time around, we saw some superintendents that tended to recognize hardship and perhaps be a little more forgiving of hard deadlines, just attempting to make sure any special needs were accommodated,” he said. “This year, from what I’m being told, there were some superintendents who acted to shut down ops before the Thursday 6 p.m. deadline.”

He said his organization plans to sit down with the Park Service and ask about trying to find “creative ways” to let the concessionaires get back up and running.

House Republicans have passed a bill that would open the national parks, but President Obama has vowed to veto it. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said either all of the government must be funded or none of it will be funded.

posted October 07, 2013 01:23 PM            

------------------
Want To Ask Any Question About Bible Prophecy? Go For it. It is Free, of course.

posted October 07, 2013 02:19 PM            

I think you have your slang mixed up. I'm totally committed to seeing the end of the reign of the Marxist Messiah, O'Bomber I.