posted October 12, 2013 12:20 PM            

That means 83% of the federal workforce is working and getting paid. The federal government is not shut down. It's not even well slimmed down considering how fat, bloated and obese it is.

Community Organizer Runs Amok
Janice Shaw Crouse on 10.9.13 @ 6:08AM

The shutdown reveals our president at his most unbalanced.

From its earliest days, the Obama Administration has operated from a “community organizer” worldview, characterized by an “us” against “them” perspective. The President has repeatedly and in a variety of circumstances said, “Elections have consequences, and I won” as an excuse for yet another executive order, non-Constitutional decision, or “in-your-face” arrogant action. The President goes through the motions of listening to others: he claims to be bipartisan; he hosts White House confabs and talks about the need for compromise, but he always ends up saying, “I won,” and ends any pretense of discussion or negotiation. He explains that, as President, he shouldn’t have to “bring something to the table” and declares that he will not negotiate, as though that his beneath his dignity as President. He goes to play golf and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s snide remarks become the Democrat voice.

Obviously, the President did win the election; he won the presidency. But, as noted by James Joyner in Outside the Beltway: the President is not a king or a prime minister. Granted, he is the most powerful person in America and, indeed, in the world (though, sadly and increasingly, less so), but he does not control the other two branches of government. They have the responsibility to balance his power for the good of the people. The Legislative and Judicial branches of government are independent entities. And, as clarified brilliantly and effectively by Thomas Sowell, the House of Representatives has the right –– indeed, the authority and responsibility –– to grant or withhold money: they voted “all the money required to keep all government activities going except for Obamacare.” The decision of the House of Representatives determines independently where money is to be spent. It is called “legislation by appropriation.”

Thus, the House deemed, as representatives of the people, that Obamacare was not ready for implementation nor was the timing right given the high levels of unemployment and the national debt and deficit figures creating a financial crisis.

Let me repeat: The House authorized funds to operate the government except for ObamaCare; the Senate refused to accept the money for operating the government unless funds were also appropriated for Obamacare. As Sowell notes, “That is their right. But that is also their responsibility.”

In other words, the Senate chose to shut down the government rather than delay funding for Obamacare. And, even if the Senate had voted the same as the House, the President said he would veto that vote. The bottom line is that neither the Senate nor the President would accept the appropriations authority of the House.

Thus, the Senate and the President bear sole and complete responsibility for the government shutdown. If they had been willing to accept the constitutionally determined role of the House of Representatives, there would have been negotiations on the controversial issues while government operated as usual. A reporter who worked for two decades as a New York Times reporter described the Obama Administration as the “most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

All the political posturing of the Obama Administration and Senate leadership –– including unprecedented vindictive actions, name-calling, pettiness and juvenile behavior –– comes straight out of a “community organizer” playbook, not from constitutional government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Community organizers ensure that the consequences for opposing them are “as painful as possible.” By now, everyone is familiar with all the unprecedented “trivial and petty” measures taken by the Obama Administration to ensure that the public is as inconvenienced as possible. Park Rangers were told to “make life as difficult for people” as they could. They were forced to close down national parks –– even those that are outdoors and normally not guarded and have no entrance or exit; instead, the monuments or areas were barricaded with metal fences wired together. The National Mall and other historic areas were turned visually into police crime scenes with police tape draped over barriers and police cars blocking entrances to parking lots and driveways with red and blue lights glaring.

Community organizers demonize opponents. Wes Pruden, veteran columnist for the Washington Times, described Sen. Harry Reid as “weary from exhausting his thesaurus for synonyms for ‘arsonist’ and ‘terrorist’ and ‘pillager’” –– just a few of the derogatory terms he used to refer to the Republicans and anyone whose views differ from the Democrats intent on forcing Obamacare against the public will. Mr. Pruden compared the shutdown politics to grade-school one-up-manship with the point being “to see who can squeeze hardest, make the most pious speech and listen for the applause.”

Community organizers always proceed forward within the ideological framework (worldview) that pits “us” against “them.” A tour guide at Yellowstone National Park was leading a group of tourist at the park when the shutdown went into force. The tourists complained about the “Gestapo tactics” that confined the group to their hotel and would not even let them take pictures of the scenery. Catholic priests in the military were threatened with arrest if they conducted mass. A jogger at the Valley Forge National Historic Park was fined $100 for “trespassing” on public property. Campers, bikers, and hikers were issued fines at Acadia National Park.

Community organizers believe that the ends justify the means and that there are winners and losers with the winners taking all the “marbles” and the losers trod under foot. A senior administration official told the Washington Examiner, “We are winning; it doesn’t really matter to us how long the shutdown lasts.” The President has just upped the ante by reiterating that “he won’t negotiate on a government-funding bill or debt-limit increase.” The White House is eliciting what they called “sob-stories” from the public about how the shutdown is hurting them with plans to use those emotional tidbits to sway public opinion their way; after all, anything goes when you are the winner and everyone else is the loser.

posted October 15, 2013 07:20 PM            

I've heard quite a few people bring up Britain's Parliament. When Parliament comes to such a stalemate, and elected officials are not getting the job done they throw them out and start anew, correct?

posted October 15, 2013 07:45 PM            

The PM can step down when their party doesn't back them (tho not mandatory) in order to pass the job to someone in the party and keep them in power. If they refuse then the party needs enough votes to "depose" him/her.

posted October 15, 2013 08:15 PM            

So only the queen can dissolve all. I wonder when this has happened.

And if throw the bastids out, can occur?

sorry for the derail cat
Cat said:

quote:

---

The House has been taken over by a small faction who have LOCKED OUT legitimate attempts by members to bring the resolution vote to the floor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1bNEQkqc5w

---

posted October 15, 2013 11:08 PM            

Our parliamentary rules are necessarily different in places than Britain's...no queen and the president can't just turn the reins over ti, say, Biden and leave...also their elections follow a somewhat more fluid blueprint

But US Parliamentary rules say any member of the house can call for a vote.

The rules committee has decided to amend that rule (as of Oct 1 i believe) so that only the majority leader or his chosen stand-in can bring this to the vote.

posted October 15, 2013 11:11 PM            

Too bad demoscats never listen to their constituents. If they did, they'd know the majority of Americans don't want anything to do with O'Bomber's Abomination.

Perhaps after the next election their constituents will be yelling in their ears when they've been sent home..."Can you hear us now"?

posted October 16, 2013 12:03 AM            

You appear to have missed the trend signalled in 2012, when the senate increased its majority(dem) and the Republican majority lost a seat or six despite gerrymandering ...

posted October 16, 2013 08:22 PM            

Though I am aware he thinks they should still be hanging the govt and all of us out to dry, spot on there!

Well at least they finally did listen to their constituents, who really didn't want the country crippled when they saw what that meant...at least enough of.them to stop this game of chicken.

posted October 17, 2013 09:02 AM            

Senator Barack O'Bomber called extending the debt limit.."irresponsible and unpatriotic" when Bush was president. What a tin plated hypocrite. Now he's asking for a blank check to spend America into oblivion.

Voting to extend the Continuing Resolution to fund the government is not constructive. It's destructive to the congressional process long in place whereby each part of major funding bills..usually 12 bills, are passed one by one and not in one big stew mess a continuing resolution produces.

Hairy Reid and the Socialist comrades in congress have been in violation of the law for more than 3 years by failing to pass an annual budget by April 15th. Hairy Reid and his comrades should be fired, prosecuted and fined...at the very least.

posted October 17, 2013 01:41 PM            

quote:

---

Voting to extend the debt limit is not constructive. It's destructive to run up the national debt which future generations will be unable to pay...pay that is and still enjoy a decent standard of living.

Senator Barack O'Bomber called extending the debt limit.."irresponsible and unpatriotic" when Bush was president. What a tin plated hypocrite. Now he's asking for a blank check to spend America into oblivion.

---

It's ironic for you to call Obama a hypocrite, when you were perfectly fine with Bush's increasing the debt limit seven times.

During Bush years we could have afforded to spend less. The economy wasn't in crisis for most of his tenure. There's a far better rationale for spending during Obama's tenure than there ever was for Bush.

quote:

---

Hairy Reid and the Socialist comrades in congress have been in violation of the law for more than 3 years by failing to pass an annual budget by April 15th. Hairy Reid and his comrades should be fired, prosecuted and fined...at the very least.

---

Once again I find myself saying, "I don't know why you...", but here it is, I don't know why you make things that aren't under legal scrutiny whatsoever out as being illegal. It's happened under Republicans, too:

For fiscal 1999, 2005 and 2007, the House and Senate failed to reconcile their different bills and pass a compromise measure. In these latter three cases, the Republicans were in the majority in both chambers of Congress. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/26/jo hn-boehner/john-boehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/

Here's the deal, for anyone curious enough to know:

Since the passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Senate and the House are supposed to pass budget resolutions in the spring. These budget resolutions set a framework for spending, taxation and other fiscal items in the coming fiscal year. They also lay out general plans for the next four years. If these budget resolutions differ, the chambers are supposed to hammer out a compromise.

Budget resolutions are policy plans. They are not appropriations bills, or spending bills, which actually allocate money for specific purposes.

If a budget resolution doesn’t pass, the federal government won’t go dark. In the absence of a budget resolution, appropriations bills have continued to allocate money. http://www.politifact.com/ohio/statements/2012/apr/26/jo hn-boehner/john-boehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/

quote:

---

It's laughable congress listened to their constituents by passing the monstrous CR to kick the budget can down the road for a few months. The vast majority of Americans want smaller more efficient, less costly, less meddlesome government and they don't want O'Bomber's Abomination at all.

---

posted October 17, 2013 02:07 PM            

O'Bomber is a tin plated hypocrite for saying Bush was "irresponsible and unpatriotic" for raising the federal debt limit...then screeching and shrieking to do the very same thing...TWICE. The Marxist Messiah also said Bush raising the federal debt limit was a failure in leadership.

posted October 17, 2013 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by jwhop:
Listen up irrational one.

O'Bomber is a tin plated hypocrite for saying Bush was "irresponsible and unpatriotic" for raising the federal debt limit...then screeching and shrieking to do the very same thing...[b]TWICE. The Marxist Messiah also said Bush raising the federal debt limit was a failure in leadership.

As far as I know, Bush never ripped anyone for raising the federal debt limit...therefore, Bush is/was NOT a hypocrite on that subject...but, O'Bomber most certainly is a tin plated hypocrite.[/B]

---

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

posted October 18, 2013 11:25 AM            

Tea Party aligned Georgia Rep. Tom Graves (R), who castigates Washington for fiscal irresponsibility, reached an out of court settlement Wednesday after he was sued for defaulting on a $2.2 million loan -- which his attorney argued is the bank's fault for lending him the money in the first place

The argument also contended that since the project the money had been borrowed for had been passed on to someone else, the borrowers were no longer responsible for the loan payments...

posted October 18, 2013 12:21 PM            

Whatever I said...and it wasn't that, does not excuse the utter hypocrisy of Barack Hussein O'Bomber in calling raising the debt limit.."Irresponsible and Unpatriotic" and "A failure of leadership" by Bush when O'Bomber was Senator O'Bomber.

posted October 18, 2013 12:46 PM            

A few posts up you call voting to raise the debt limit "not constructive". Basically saying you don't agree with doing so.

posted October 18, 2013 12:51 PM            

Ha ha

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

posted October 18, 2013 01:02 PM            

quote:

---

Voting to extend the debt limit is not constructive. It's destructive to run up the national debt which future generations will be unable to pay...pay that is and still enjoy a decent standard of living.

---