Thread: Obama ‘cannot guarantee’ benefits checks will be paid if debt deal isn’t reached

BREAKING: the federal government deployed more security to protect the now closed WWII memorial from WWII vets than Obama deployed to protect the US consulate the night of the Benghazi attacks.




Rand Paul: Obama Sent More Guards to War Memorial Than Benghazi
by Evan McMurry | 2:56 pm, October 2nd, 2013

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) tweeted stinging criticism of the World War II Memorial closure on Wednesday afternoon, claiming the Obama administration had dispatched more security guards to man the barricades at the D.C. memorial than they had to the embattled U.S. consulate in Benghazi last year.



The World War II Memorial was closed on Tuesday, along with a number of other government installations, angering veterans who had traveled to Washington, D.C. to visit it, and drawing outrage from Republicans, some of whom accompanied the vets on Wednesday to remove the barriers.

Paul, meanwhile, has been one of the most vocal lawmakers on the subject of Benghazi, routinely calling out both President Barack Obama and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for what he considered an inadequate response to the September 11, 2012 attack on the consulate.

The internet quickly reminded Paul that GOP funding approval played a role in both events:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/rand-...than-benghazi/

Obama manages the White House, which manages the Office of Management and Budget, which manages the National Parks Service. And according to a Parks spokeswoman and reported by Buzzfeed's Ben Johnson, the OMB ordered the barricades erected. https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/sta...13993579687936

..

Check this out and it even shows a video of what actually happened not just some puff piece saying everything is just grand. I bet that talking points memo site is owned and operated by obummer and the dnc.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/01/ob...d-rejected-it/

If you don't want to read watch and listen to what actually happened then simply google - 'did obama reject veterans request to visit the WWII memorial'

Why did obama deny the request in the first place? Why was the park closed in the first place when in fact all it is is a sidewalk? Why did he administration threaten to throw anyone in jail that breached the barrier?

Answer me those things and if you are honest with yourself and others out here you will see something truly ugly resides in the white house.

It's not until this became a big issue all over the media that the park service and the admin capitulated.

...

I'm with you on this. Also, when the Ohio Honor Flight President Lee Armstrong called the parks service, he was told that if the veterans tried to gain access to the memorial, they would face arrest.

“I said, are you kidding me? You’re going to arrest a 90/91-year-old veteran from seeing his memorial? If it wasn’t for them it wouldn’t be there. She said, ‘That’s correct sir.’”

http://americanmilitarynews.com/2013....kz2U0910.dpuf

..

How do you figure the republicans shut down the government - when all the time before the shutdown all we heard from the dems and BO was that they will not negotiate? What happened to the bi-partisan compromise that the dems used to love and spout when W was in office?

Basically the dems are saying you give us everything we want, no compromise with anything even though we are $17 Trillion in debt and are on an unsustainable fiscal path. Is that governing or is that tyranny?

I know they weren't arrested because that would have looked real bad in the press so they capitulated and let the vets in.

Is that any way to govern from both sides? Aren’t they supposed to compromise? Do you think that these congressmen and senators just all of a sudden woke up and said let's stop government and don't fund obamacare?

In case you don’t know, its because of their constituents and a majority of the public doesn’t want this law to be fully enforced. Even obama doesn’t want it fully enforced as he has given waivers to some and subsidies to others like government workers while still wanting to stick it to us ordinary Americans. If obama can not enforce the law entodo' then why enforce it on the people who don't have lobbyists in the WH? I guess these few true American law makers are our lobbyists while the POTUS and the dems don't seem to care about the regular folk.

Obamacare can be defunded without Senate approval
Posted on 2 October, 2013
via examiner http://www.examiner.com/paulding-cou...topher-collins
By Christopher Collins

When the House passed legislation to defund ObamaCare but would keep the government running through mid-December, the Senate, led by Senate Majority Leader, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) stated that they would not budge on Obamacare and the legislation was defeated.

On Monday, Dr. Harold Pease, an expert on the United States Constitution, stated that the authority in dealing with Obamacare funding belongs to the U.S. House, not the U.S. Senate and that the House is doing this all wrong.

Pease said, “Everything hinged upon funding which was given exclusively to the House of Representatives, the only power that they alone had.”

Pease went on to say, “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. To fund anything, in this case Obamacare, first approval is required by the House of Representatives.”

“If that does not happen taxpayer money cannot be spent. The people, through their representatives to Congress, have determined, after a three-year closer scrutiny of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), that it does not protect the patient, is not affordable and is not even workable; hence in the interests of the vast majority of the people needs to be defunded.”

When the United States Supreme Court ruled on Obamacare in 2012, Chief Justice Roberts stance on Obamacare coincides with the intent of the U.S. Constitution, explained by Pease, and the powers between the House and Senate.

According to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Obamacare cannot be implemented and is not considered the law of the land, contrary to Democrat claims.

Bubba Atkinson of the Independent Journal Review wrote, “Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That is how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything, ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.”

“Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax,” said Atkinson. “He struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — “comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.” Roberts ruled that is a no-no.”

When the House attached Obamacare to the legislation in funding the government, it made a mistake in doing so and the funding of Obamacare should have been separate, thereby giving the Senate no power in denying the Houses’ request to defund Obamacare.

Pease said, “House opposition to funding Obamacare would have been far more powerful if made a “stand alone” bill not attached to general funding, but it is not. “Stand alone,” having no other parts, would have left the Senate no wiggle or compromise room once it went to them, nor would there be for the Joint Conference Committee thereafter that reconciles any differences between the two houses. There would be nothing to reconcile, Obamacare is merely defunded.”

“Still, the intent of the Founding Fathers was to give the people, through their House of Representatives, the power collectively to say no to any proposed federal tax, which she is decidedly doing.”

If Obamacare is removed from the government budget, presented, and voted on as a separate bill, Obamacare can be defunded by the House and the Senate and the President has no constitutional authority to override the House decision.

http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/10/0...nate-approval/

Harry Reid makes a shocking statement that proves he and the Senate Democrats are playing games. It's their #GovernmentShutdown.

‘Why Would We Want to’ Help One Child Who Has Cancer?

Progressive Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid (Marxist – NV) was interviewed today by CNN reporter, Dana Bash, who asked why Senate Democrats wouldn’t want to fund the National Institutes of Health to “help one child who has cancer.”

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

DANA BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

HARRY REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is…to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless…

DANA BASH: I’m just asking a question.

Dems aren't telling you that it's Republicans who want to compromise on Obamacare, or that it is Obama and they Democrats who are saying "All or nothing... my way or the highway". They are the ones holding the gov't hostage, but they are lying to their own people about that.

http://teapartyheadlines.streamshare.com/posts/7629

comments

It is not out of context. He clearly answered the question with "Why would we want to do that?" There is no mistaking it. He sounded confused and his thoughts seemed out of order. Then he gave priority to some furloughed adults over a child suffering from cancer.

No mistaking it. Go back and listen to it again.

⚑

Its funny how everybody else but him is reckless and irresponsible... In addition, the House has offered bills funding the Department of Defense and Veterans Administration also. Reid and Obama also reject these bills. For them it is everything or nothing. They are the ones holding the country hostage.

⚑

Ask the big question: "If obamacare is so good, then why doesn't the senate use it?"

⚑

Reid has no problem with Obama picking and choosing what part he wants to remove from the ACA, like a waiver for Big Buisness and certain unions, he had no problem choosing to change the law so the senate gets a exemption. , but the rest of us, "why would we do that?" The democrats are acting like punks, do they realize more Americans want the bill pushed back?

⚑

Reid asks "What right do they have to decide what parts of the Federal Government to fund." They have every right. The Constitution gives them that right. It specifically states spending bills begin in the House of Representatives. There is nothing that says they must fund everything the Senate or President wants. The House has the authority to fund what they want.

⚑

And the efficiency of 'visiting a local doctor but sending your money to Washington, have it filtered through layers of flim-flam for them to send it back to pay your local doctor'. Much different than having an insurance company compete with other's putting forward their efficiency against others to win your business.

⚑

I seem to remember the Dems arguing that 'if only one child is saved' that taking guns away from ALL would be worth it... (anyone else?)

Obama admin even ordered the closing of unmanned, unstaffed biking & hiking trails... The Capital Crescent Trail in DC is the most heavily-used trail in the United States, with more than a million users a year. Since the bike route is managed by the National Park Service (NPS), they decided that they would close the routes despite them being unmanned or unstaffed. Yes, they actually had staffers spend time erecting gates ahead of the shutdown, sounds like a great use of taxpayer cash.

Sums it up nicley

Ten things you cannot do during the government shutdown
Tuesday, October 1, 2013 9:37 pm - Alyson Gaharan

1. No visiting national parks, national monuments and most D.C. museums. This includes the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Park, which celebrated its 123rd birthday Tuesday. Those spending camping or spending extended time on national property will be given 48 hours to make alternate arrangements and leave.

2. You might not be able to get a flu shot. According to a memo from the Department of Health and Human Services, the agency will be “unable to support the annual seasonal influenza program” in the absence of appropriations.

3. Although citizens must keep paying taxes during the shutdown, the Internal Revenue Service will suspend all audits and close all taxpayer services, including toll-free help lines.

4. Even though Tuesday -- the first day of the government shutdown -- was NASA’s 55th birthday, 97 percent of its employees must stay home. The 3 percent still keeping our satellites up and running and the astronauts safe from harm totals 549, according to the Washington Post.

5. No safety and health inspections! Federal occupational inspections are halted except in cases of imminent danger. According to the HHS memo, the FDA will “have to cease safety activities such as routine establishment inspections.”

6. You can’t receive a gun permit. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is unable to review any applications until the shutdown is resolved.

7. No leaving the country -- unless your already have a permit or visa. No new applications will be processed until the end of the shutdown. During the 1995 and 1996 shutdowns, roughly 20,000 visa applications from foreigners went unprocessed and 200,000 U.S. applications for passports were not processed.

8. You’ll have trouble fulfilling public records requests. “All FOIA processing at EPA is suspended due to the shutdown of the federal government. We will begin processing your request when normal government operations resume,” wrote the Environmental Protection Agency headquarters.

9. Hope you weren’t relying on that check. Small business and home loans from the government won’t be processed, as well as many veterans’ benefits.

10. You can’t watch the National Zoo’s Panda Cam. Fortunately, Time magazine set up a replacement, kind of. Essential personnel will still take care of the zoo’s animals, though.

http://www.lsureveille.com/news/poli...a4bcf6878.html

6. You can’t receive a gun permit. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is unable to review any applications until the shutdown is resolved.

There are no federal permits to purchase a firearm. All permits (if required) are through local and state governments. The only applications they are postponing are the other forms to be approved to purchase silencers, transfer automatic weapons, purchase short barreled rifles or shotguns, etc. The ATF still handles background checks during the shutdown.

10. You can’t watch the National Zoo’s Panda Cam.

Even tho it is fully funded by the Ford Foundation and is in no way staffed or implemented by the Federal Government.

Obama unhinged: 'Imagine if workers could shut down a plant because they wanted to get something'




This one ...well, I don't even know where to begin. Today, during a speech President Obama clawed his way through the looking glass into serious bizarro territory. The man who has long prided himself on being the best friend the unions would ever have went on an anti-strike, anti-organized labor rant that must have shaken the very foundations of AFL-CIO headquarters.

Speaking to a group of workers in Rockville, Maryland, Obama railed against the very core concept of organized labor in order to attack Republicans over the government shutdown.

"Everybody here just does their job, right? If you're working here and in the middle of the day you just stopped and said 'you know what, I want to get something, but I don't know exactly what I'm gonna get. I'm just going to stop working till I get something - I'm just going to shut down the whole plant until I get something' - You'd get fired, right?

Cuz the deal is, you've already gotten hired. You've got a job. You're getting a paycheck. ..And so you also are getting the pride of doing a good job, and contributing to a business, and looking out for your fellow workers. That's what you're getting. It shouldn't be any different for a member of Congress."

Ummmmmm.....seriously? This might honestly be the craziest thing we've ever heard the man say.

Obama may be the best friend of the unions, but he clearly hasn't heard of the concept of a "strike" - which is, to the letter, what he's describing here.

Don't get me wrong. It's lots of fun to hear Obama twist the libertarian labor notions of Ayn Rand into a defense of big government. It's insane, but it's fun. If he actually believed anything he's saying here, the country would be in much better shape.

However, given his history of big-labor cronyism and anti-capitalist policy, one has to wonder if he has any idea what he's going to say before opens his mouth.

This little tirade makes him sound like he's come completely unhinged....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=HEHKBqlpYwM


This was a Community Organizer? Has he even studied that job? I guess he has never heard of a labor strike?

..

Always pay attention to what he says. He always speaks the truth about what he is doing but he blames everyone else for doing it. He is actually the one doing these things when he blames the Republicans, Bush, Putin, or whomever. Pay very close attention to him. Also, most of this is a distraction for what he is doing behind the scenes. Go back to Benghazi and never let that go. Every time we talk about Benghazi, a new distraction arises, i.e., Syria, Otraumacare, Debt Ceiling, Egypt. Keep going back to Benghazi.

..

And don't forget Fast and Furious, IRS targeting, phone tapping

..

You have to understand. He is a celebrity playing president. Everything he says is calculated and measured for effect. He is manipulating everything. If it is not him, he silently directs other to do in his stead so he can have plausible deny-ability (Benghazi comes to mind). Benghazi was a distraction to what really happened. The CIA emptied their arms annex in Benghazi into the hands of the Syrian rebels. The attack at the Consulate was a distraction to keep the focus off the arms trade.

As for the slowdown, the entire political class is using all of this to eradicate the middle class and prop up the poverty class. Just wait until the healthcare act is in full swing. The middle class will cease to exist. You see this now with all of the people trying to sign up for the exchanges and finding out that they make too much for Medicaid and too little to be able to afford the bronze plan. Not to mention they are told they do not qualify for any type of assistance to bring them up to even the bronze level. Do not even think this is by accident either. This has been planned out for decades, if not longer

The White House says it’s "winning,” but this isn’t a game.

The American people don’t want their government shut down and neither do I.
All we’re asking for is to sit down and have a discussion and to bring fairness
- reopen the government and bring fairness to the American people under ObamaCare.

Who Shut Down the Government?
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.

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/tho...6292/page/full

http://twitchy.com/2013/10/04/white-...hutdown-quote/

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article, an unnamed Obama administration official proudly admitted what we’ve known all along: for the White House, the shutdown is a political game.

HotAir.com @hotairblog

Senior admin official admits: We're winning so it doesn't matter to us when the shutdown ends
http://hotair.com/?p=281600

10:21 AM - 4 Oct 2013

Here’s the full quote from the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...436540284.html

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning … It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Politico’s chief economic correspondent Ben White was rather taken aback:

Ben White ✔ @morningmoneyben

Because if the White House does not actually care how long the shut down goes on that's a really bad thing.
Furloughed workers care.

8:41 AM - 4 Oct 2013