Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Govt. Shutdown: House begins Obama’s impeachment proceedings!

osundefernder ^ | staff

Republicans in the House of Representatives have scheduled impeachment proceedings against President Obama, claiming his inability to halt the federal government shutdown makes him unfit for office.

bachmannCongresswoman Michele Bachmann introduced a resolution to impeach Obama this morning and referred the matter to the House Judiciary Committee. Senior aides close to judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte say hearings will begin Thursday.
“I think it’s high time President Obama be held accountable for his crimes,” explains Bachmann. “For two weeks now, vital government services have been disrupted, federal workers have gone without pay and national memorials have been closed, all because of the president’s refusal to negotiate over Obamacare.
“This isn’t just poor leadership. The Obama administration is corrupt to the core. The scandals surrounding the IRS, Benghazi, the Fast and the Furious (sic) and Solyndra have shown us this cabal will do anything to stay in power.
(Excerpt) Read more at osundefender.org ...

White House rips new GOP plan; Obama to huddle with Dems

The Hill ^ | October 15, 2013 | Justin Sink

The White House appeared to reject a proposal by House Republicans Tuesday morning to end the government shutdown and raise the debt ceiling, calling the proposal "a partisan attempt to appease a small group of Tea Party Republicans."
"The president has said repeatedly that Members of Congress don’t get to demand ransom for fulfilling their basic responsibilities to pass a budget and pay the nation’s bills," said White House spokesperson Amy Brundage.
The White House also announced that the president and Vice President Biden would meet with House Democratic leaders at the White House at 3:15 Tuesday afternoon. Attendees will include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).
House Republicans are considering legislation that would fund the government until Jan. 15 and extend the debt ceiling until Feb. 7. It includes language that would prevent members of Congress as well as Cabinet members, the president and the vice president from getting taxpayer subsidies to help offset their coverage under ObamaCare. It would also delay a tax on medical devices under the law.
The Republican language strips out a provision in a developing Senate plan that would delay a tax on reinsurance that labor unions have protested.
The House bill does not include provisions that could be seen as a concession to Democrats — a potential sticking point in the bill, after the White House and Senate Democrats have repeatedly insisted that they would not negotiate over the debt ceiling. The president has said that he does not want to set a precedent by which the president's party provides ransom in exchange for keeping the government open.
Instead, the administration signaled support from the legislative package emerging from the Senate, calling it a "bipartisan, good-faith effort to end the manufactured crises that have already harmed American families and business owners." On Monday, the president discussed the proposal by phone with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
"With only a couple days remaining until the United States exhausts its borrowing authority, it’s time for the House to do the same," Brundage said.
Still, the White House stopped short of an explicit veto threat in their statement denouncing the House language.

The Twenty-First Century “Ineptocracy” of America (being ruled by the inept)

capitalismmagazine ^ | 2012.06.18 | Michael J Hurd

When you place power in the hands of inept idiots, then you foster the rule of “ineptocracy.” You give power to the least capable and the least deserving. In the process, you may wonder why there is less and less in society to admire and enjoy. It’s because the idiots given the power they never deserved are not capable of producing anything.
I ran across a t-shirt that says everything about the state of our country today:
Ineptocracy: A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
It’s not sarcasm or exaggeration to say all this. Every word of it is true.
Witness the spectacle of Barack Obama and his court jester, Joe Biden, heading a government which is supposed to create jobs and bring a dying economy back to life. How? By literally stealing trillions of dollars from that private economy, most of it in future debt, and moving it from the productive sphere to the government sphere.
How can a third of Americans assume this is the way it works, while another third feel it might?
In concrete, day-to-day reality nobody would ever expect it to work this way. You wouldn’t say, “I’m going to hire a nitwit to take a gun, hold it to a productive person’s head, force that productive person to go to work and then pay me his salary.” Even the people who support the nitwits in high office would never dream of attempting this on a real level. Somehow, when we cloak it in “democracy” and the faux-sophistication of Big Government, it’s suddenly supposed to be economic and moral to do this.
They wonder why it hasn’t worked. They wonder why, even if we ignore data suggesting the unemployment rate is higher than claimed, the economy continues to sputter and go splat.
They insist it’s a partisan issue. “We tried Bush’s way. His capitalism got us into this mess.”
No such thing is true.
Bush’s way was simply a different version of Obama’s way. Bush inherited and maintained, even expanded, Big Government. He lowered taxes a little, only temporarily. However, under his watch federal regulations went up, not down—just as they always do. Under his watch, government committed trillions more of future dollars into the Medicare prescription drug program. Under Bush’s watch, the federal government expanded its role, and spent billions more, on socialized education, popularly and fondly known as public schools. Under Bush’s watch, the federal government continued the policy of the liberal Democratic Clinton Administration, to use government manipulation and regulation of the marketplace to ensure that everybody got an easy mortgage—ultimately leading to the mortgage industry’s collapse, when those mortgages could not be paid back.
Bush’s policies were those of capitalism? I don’t think so. Capitalism is a system in which government stays completely out of the economy, except in instances of criminals initiating force, fraud, or violations of legally binding contracts. We haven’t had anything close to that for a very long time, and in some respects never totally had it. Capitalism has never been given a chance, while socialism is tried over, and over, and over again — each time with a different name — and people, like the fools they elect, keep expecting different results.
If they want to blame Bush for a lot of this, they should. But they should do so for the right reasons. Blaming Bush’s “capitalism” for our disaster is ridiculous. The only thing Bush did in the direction of capitalism was to make income taxes slightly lower than they had been under Clinton. This isn’t capitalism.
The problem is deeper and wider than Bush or Clinton, Republican or Democrat. The problem is that our federal government is, and for a long time has been, at war with production. To be at war with production, you have to be at war with the productive.
People like Bush and Clinton are less willing to admit this than Obama.
Obama outright declares class warfare. He’s open and unapologetic about it. He says, in essence, “Some people make too much money. It’s THEIR fault that you suffer.” He has created such a bad situation in this country psychologically that production finds itself both unwilling, and unable, to really soar again.
In a subtle way, capital in America has gone “on strike,” as it did in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged in a more literal way. American businesses have for the most part stopped expanding. They’re scared to death of what the inept politicians are going to do to them next. And on a daily basis the President and Vice President hammer away at how evil they are.
Why should they take any risks? The nitwits in high office are going to take it all, if they do make a billion — and call them moral creeps for having accomplished something great.
People ought to be smart enough to understand that the success of another is NOT an attack on you. If your life is impoverished today, it’s not because somebody else has done well. You can set a well-off person’s big house on fire, and if you were living in a slum before, you’re still living in a slum now. The well-being of one has no cause-and-effect relationship with the lesser well-being of another.
Politicians and others who tell you that you should hate others for their success are actually hurting you, not helping you. They are appealing to the worst within you. They are hoping that you’re weak enough to want to blame others for your (real or alleged) misfortune instead of being strong enough to stand up and take care of yourself.
This isn’t leadership. It’s manipulative and destructive.
When you place power in the hands of inept idiots, then you foster the rule of “ineptocracy.” You give power to the least capable and the least deserving. In the process, you may wonder why there is less and less in society to admire and enjoy. It’s because the idiots given the power they never deserved are not capable of producing anything.
If you want to live in a society which constantly improves, and the standards of living are better from one generation to the next, then you ought to be in favor of wealth being in private hands—not government hands. The socialists and Marxists who run just about everything in our society have taught you just the opposite. And look where it got us.

ACORN Operatives Reappearing as ObamaCare Navigators

Coach is Right ^ | 10/15/13 | Doug Book

The shortcomings of ObamaCare continue to seep into the light, putting the lie to virtually every claim made by Barack Hussein about his namesake “healthcare” scheme. But one part of the law remains as much a mystery now as when it was written.

Section 1555 of the Affordable Care Act is quite short. It reads:

“No individual, company, business, nonprofit entity, or health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall be required to participate in any Federal health insurance program created under this Act (or any amendments made by this Act), or in any Federal health insurance program expanded by this Act (or any such amendment), and there shall be no penalty or fine imposed...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

...worth a thousand words

2prwxp4.jpg

Please Wait

k0m4g2.jpg

Others

21osktv.jpg

Gummit

34y5m2w.jpg

Show

100913.jpg

Jury of Peers

33mtlyo.jpg

MORON

2aim3vm.jpg

Low Ratings

23qykd5.jpg

Dear Sir:

26405k9.jpg

CLOSED

2gudx5w.gif

Our Paid Reporters

1394780_594695987243655_1298901688_n.jpg

Three Monkies

image.jpg

Obama's Rules

shutdown-rules.jpg

NUMBERS

Poster_Obamacare_Enrollment_Secret.jpg

Socialized Medicine

Cure_Obama_Prescription_500.png

Puppets

Hitch_T20131008.jpg

'Bold Colors,' Not 'Pale Pastels' Key to Winning in 2014

Brietbart.com ^ | 14 Oct 2013 | Tony Lee

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Republicans have a chance to take back the majority in the Senate in 2014 only if the party boldly differentiates itself from Democrats.
“I think 2014 can and should be a very good Republican year and I think if Republicans stand for principle, we’re going to win in 2014," Cruz said in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Cruz argued that the 2006, 2008, and 2012 election cycles were "disastrous for Republicans," because in "all three of those cycles Republicans followed the philosophy of keep your head down, don’t rock the boat, don’t stand for anything, don’t take any risks and we’ll just somehow magically win at the polls."
Cruz contrasted those election cycles with 2010, where "Republicans stood strong for principle, we stood against Obamacare, we stood with the American people and we won a tidal wave election."
"Now what do all of the voices of Washington say now? ‘We need to return to the pattern of ’06,’08, and ’12. We need to return to not standing for anything, not risking anything, not rocking the boat,'" Cruz said. "That is a path to losing. The way you win elections is you paint in bold colors not in pale pastels. You stand strong for the American people just like Ronald Reagan did."
Cruz said "that’s the path to victory" and emphasized that "if Republicans do that I think in 2014 Republicans can and should take a majority of the U.S. Senate."
"But if we don’t stand for principle we’re not going to win in November," Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

'Bold Colors,' Not 'Pale Pastels' Key to Winning in 2014

Brietbart.com ^ | 14 Oct 2013 | Tony Lee

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) said Republicans have a chance to take back the majority in the Senate in 2014 only if the party boldly differentiates itself from Democrats.
“I think 2014 can and should be a very good Republican year and I think if Republicans stand for principle, we’re going to win in 2014," Cruz said in an interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Cruz argued that the 2006, 2008, and 2012 election cycles were "disastrous for Republicans," because in "all three of those cycles Republicans followed the philosophy of keep your head down, don’t rock the boat, don’t stand for anything, don’t take any risks and we’ll just somehow magically win at the polls."
Cruz contrasted those election cycles with 2010, where "Republicans stood strong for principle, we stood against Obamacare, we stood with the American people and we won a tidal wave election."
"Now what do all of the voices of Washington say now? ‘We need to return to the pattern of ’06,’08, and ’12. We need to return to not standing for anything, not risking anything, not rocking the boat,'" Cruz said. "That is a path to losing. The way you win elections is you paint in bold colors not in pale pastels. You stand strong for the American people just like Ronald Reagan did."
Cruz said "that’s the path to victory" and emphasized that "if Republicans do that I think in 2014 Republicans can and should take a majority of the U.S. Senate."
"But if we don’t stand for principle we’re not going to win in November," Cruz said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

GOP, tea party are the only adults in the room!

The Baltimore Sun ^ | October 14, 2013 | Peter Morici

Democrats may think they've won, but the nation will lose if warnings about spending, debt go unheeded.

If congressional negotiators fail to raise the debt ceiling and reopen the government, voters will blame House Republicans, but it's the president and fellow Democrats that are behaving like teenagers by wanting to spend irresponsibly.
Studies by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office and Medicare and Medicaid actuaries indicate if Washington continues spending and borrowing as current law requires, then all Americans, and not just the wealthy, will be paying higher taxes and more on private health care.
Federal spending on Social Security and medical care will squeeze out spending on roads, education and other activities necessary to support the economy and protect public safety. Budget deficits and the national debt will jump to unbearable levels.
Like in Italy, economic growth will slow to a snail's pace, unemployment will become unbearable and working Americans will become much poorer. In the end, Uncle Sam will default on its bonds and obligations to the elderly, and many Americans will be deprived of decent health care.
Since winning control of the House, Republicans have sought to focus the president and his allies in Congress on those challenges, but Democrats have resisted any meaningful changes to entitlement programs....
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...

Democrats Seek Delay For Obamacare Union Fee, Sequester Roll Back

Political Realities ^ | 10/15/13 | LD Jackson

Mitch McConnell-Harry ReidThere is a deal being negotiated by Senators Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell that is purported to be a possible way to end the impasse in Washington and reopen the government. The fact that all legislation that deals with revenue is supposed to come from the House notwithstanding, I couldn't but wonder what these two yokels were coming up with. Thus, I started reading a few of the details with some interest. I wanted to see what we may be getting ourselves in to, if they are able to negotiate a final deal to end the government shutdown. What I found is not comforting, to say the least.
When the government shutdown began, the Republicans wanted to defund Obamacare. When that failed, they moved to asking for a delay in the individual mandate that is the backbone of Obama's signature legislation. Personally, I thought it was a reasonable request, given that businesses had already been granted a delay in their mandate and the unions have been given an outright exemption. No matter, it seems the delay of the individual mandate is gone with the wind. What we are left with is not encouraging. The complete details are not finalized, but the bits and pieces that are emerging give me great cause for concern.
Fox News - Fox News has learned that the emerging framework would raise the debt ceiling through February, and include a spending bill meant to last through Jan. 15.Importantly, a tentative provision to repeal or delay the medical device tax in ObamaCare has been taken out, a senior Democratic aide said. But the proposal could include other modest items pertaining to ObamaCare, including income verification for those getting subsidies and a one-year delay of at least one obscure fee which had been sought by unions.
In an effort to learn exactly what fee was being discussed, I started browsing different news sources. What I discovered troubles me greatly. Emphasis added is my own.
CNN - In addition, provisions involving Obama's signature health care reforms could be included, such as strengthening verification measures for people seeking federal subsidies to help them purchase health insurance required by the 2010 Affordable Care Act, the sources said.Another possible change to the health care reforms would delay a fee on employers, unions and other plan sponsors that raise money to compensate insurance companies for taking on high-risk customers in the early years of Obamacare.
Let me get this straight. The Democrats flatly refused to delay Obamacare's individual mandate, but they will negotiate another delay for businesses and unions? As much as this sticks in my throat, the fact that the Republican leadership in Congress is caving in such a grand manner is even harder to swallow. And there is more.
Not only are the Democrats refusing to negotiate a delay in the individual mandate, they have moved to something else entirely. Much of the negotiations are now centered around how much the debt ceiling will be raised and how long the government will be funded. And finally, we move to the sequester. We all know the Democrats hate to cut spending and that fact is making itself known. This comes from the previous article on Fox News.
Republicans want to continue current spending at $986.7 billion and leave untouched the new round of cuts on Jan. 15 that would reduce the amount to $967 billion.Democrats, though, want to figure out a way to undo the reductions, plus enact a long-term extension of the debt limit increase and a short-term spending bill to reopen the government.
Republicans bristled at Democrats' demands. A House Republican leadership aide said Sunday that Reid "moved the goalposts" by trying to "violate" spending levels set in the 2011 Budget Control Act.
But Democrats denied they were trying to violate those levels.
A Senate Democratic leadership aide said "the suggestion that Democrats insist on breaking the budget caps is false and belied by the facts."
Essentially, Democrats argue that they would accept current spending levels for a short period -- just not as long as Collins proposed -- so they can have another go at the sequester cuts in the near future.
Finally, we are beginning to see what the Democrats really want. They have never really liked the sequester, simply because it required them to cut the growth of spending. It should come as no surprise that they are now trying to roll back the cuts that were mandated by the sequester. From the news reports I have read, the main sticking point for the Democrats is how they can orchestrate another crack at changing the sequester more to their liking. In other words, roll it back so they don't lose the money they want to spend.
I have been accused of not wanting to compromise with the Democrats and I'll be the first to admit that I can be stubborn when it comes to things like this. It just strikes me as totally wrong for one side to compromise away everything they wanted at the start of the negotiations, just to strike a deal with the other side. If this deal goes through and is approved by the Democrats and Republicans, that is exactly what will have happened. What started as an effort to defund or delay Obamacare has turned into more of a fight over spending and as is usually the case, the Democrats are pulling the wool over the eyes of the Republican leadership.
I hope my Congressman, Mark Wayne Mullin, and the rest of the rank and file Republicans, both in the House and the Senate, balk at this so-called compromise. It needs to be pointed out that the Democrats are getting most, if not all, of what they wanted at the beginning of this fight. They are also setting the stage for another fight over spending, giving them another chance to roll back the sequester. Conservatives (clearly, some Republicans are not conservative) aren't getting squat.

President Know-It-All

American Spectator ^ | October 15, 2013 | William Murchison

Unto the jungle gods of politics we commit the bodies of our Republican brethren; earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust, in sure and certain hope of these ignoramuses’ political extinction…
Well, now, isn’t that the media narrative as to the hooting and hollering in Washington, D.C. over debt ceilings, government shutdowns, and so on and so on?
Is there anything to such talk? I suggest that before moving that discussion forward we acknowledge and bewail the barren naïveté of those Republicans — are you listening, Sen. Cruz ?— who thought all they had to do to make Obamacare go away was fold their arms and clamp their jaws. I cannot think of a serious politician of 50 years ago — Ev Dirksen, Sam Rayburn, Lyndon Johnson, Dick Russell, Barry Goldwater — who would have believed such a fantastic notion for longer than it took to empty a shot glass of bourbon. Politics was then thought of as the art of the possible, not the fruitless.
Nevertheless, it took two parties to trash this particular ballroom — with the invaluable encouragement of the President of the United States, his favorite response to suggestions being, would you kindly shut up? Or would you just plain shut up?
Absent Obama’s know-it-allness, matters would hardly have built to this pitch and intensity. From the start of his stewardship, the President seemed not to care that he was dealing with flesh-and-blood people on Capitol Hill, few of them in need of regular instruction from him as to their constitutional duties.
Obama, as we know by now, never...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

Who Shut Down the Government?

Section 7

1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
This is true. They are simply following the Constitution (Law of the Land). It is the basis of government law....ALL government law. The opposite is anarchy....no law.


This is the clearest, most honest, factual, explanation I have read on this subject. Well Worth Sharing.
Another excellent article that should've been published in at least half the newspapers in the country, but wasn't and won't be, because most mainstream media are running scared of Obama's thugocracy.
Who Shut Down the Government?
Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013
Even when it comes to something as basic, and apparently as simple and straightforward, as the question of who shut down the federal government, there are diametrically opposite answers, depending on whether you talk to Democrats or to Republicans.
There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.
This is not a matter of opinion. You can check the Congressional Record.
As for the House of Representatives' right to grant or withhold money, that is not a matter of opinion either. You can check the Constitution of the United States. All spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, which means that Congressmen there have a right to decide whether or not they want to spend money on a particular government activity.
Whether ObamaCare is good, bad or indifferent is a matter of opinion. But it is a matter of fact that members of the House of Representatives have a right to make spending decisions based on their opinion.
ObamaCare is indeed "the law of the land," as its supporters keep saying, and the Supreme Court has upheld its Constitutionality.
But the whole point of having a division of powers within the federal government is that each branch can decide independently what it wants to do or not do, regardless of what the other branches do, when exercising the powers specifically granted to that branch by the Constitution.
The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.
Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government." But we do know who had the option to keep the government running and chose not to. The money voted by the House of Representatives covered everything that the government does, except for ObamaCare.
The Senate chose not to vote to authorize that money to be spent, because it did not include money for ObamaCare. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says that he wants a "clean" bill from the House of Representatives, and some in the media keep repeating the word "clean" like a mantra. But what is unclean about not giving Harry Reid everything he wants?
If Senator Reid and President Obama refuse to accept the money required to run the government, because it leaves out the money they want to run ObamaCare, that is their right. But that is also their responsibility.
You cannot blame other people for not giving you everything you want. And it is a fraud to blame them when you refuse to use the money they did vote, even when it is ample to pay for everything else in the government.
When Barack Obama keeps claiming that it is some new outrage for those who control the money to try to change government policy by granting or withholding money, that is simply a bald-faced lie. You can check the history of other examples of "legislation by appropriation" as it used to be called.
Whether legislation by appropriation is a good idea or a bad idea is a matter of opinion. But whether it is both legal and not unprecedented is a matter of fact.
Perhaps the biggest of the big lies is that the government will not be able to pay what it owes on the national debt, creating a danger of default. Tax money keeps coming into the Treasury during the shutdown, and it vastly exceeds the interest that has to be paid on the national debt.
Even if the debt ceiling is not lifted, that only means that government is not allowed to run up new debt. But that does not mean that it is unable to pay the interest on existing debt.
None of this is rocket science. But unless the Republicans get their side of the story out -- and articulation has never been their strong suit -- the lies will win. More important, the whole country will lose.

Five thoughts on the Obamacare disaster [the author of this is a liberal]

Washington Post ^ | October 14, 2013 | Ezra Klein

1. So far, the Affordable Care Act's launch has been a failure. Not "troubled." Not "glitchy." A failure. But "so far" only encompasses 14 days. The hard question is whether the launch will still be floundering on day 30, and on day 45.
2. According to Bob Laszlewski, those problems aren't resolved.
3. What didn't the White House know and when didn't they know it?
4. One thing has gone abundantly right for the Affordable Care Act: The Republican Party. Their decision to shut down the government on the exact day the health-care law launched was a miracle for the White House. If Republicans had simply passed a clean-CR on Oct. 1 these last few weeks would've been nothing -- nothing at all -- save for coverage of the health-care law's disaster. Instead the law has been knocked off the front page by coverage of the Republican Party's disaster.
5. This isn't about politics. A lot of liberals will be angry over this post. A lot of conservatives will be happy about it. But it's important to see the Affordable Care Act as something more than a pawn in the political wars: It's a real law that real people are desperately, nervously, urgently trying to access. And so far, the Obama administration has failed them.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...