Obama slams Republicans for threat to blow up entire economy

[Clinton Huxley]

The West Coast and the East Coast will join Canada, effectively becoming Canada's sideburns and everything in the middle will go a bit "Handmaid's Tale".

[Tyrannical]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And Obama only has himself to blame for the stupid shit he pulled during the shutdown such as evicting people from their own homes located on federal park land or blocking off open memorials in D.C. These are classic "dick" moves and everyone can see it was done out of spite instead of necessity.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure the 37% approval rating of B.O. will be central themes of CNN, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, FoxSnooze, and ABC news. All the media outlets will discuss the stunning news of Obama's plummeting ratings, won't they?

[Clinton Huxley]

It's SOOOOOOOO unfair!

[Coito ergo sum]

Biased, yes.

[Tero]

Polls are asking congress to deal with it, without including Obamacare, despite Obama ratings. The public knows this is how we get on with life.

They want chips and beer and rah rah USA.

[Seth]

Sowell's take on the shutdown --- http://www.gosanangelo.com/news/2013/oc ... e-federal/

I'm honored... Sowell's channeling me.

[Coito ergo sum]

Polls are asking congress to deal with it, without including Obamacare, despite Obama ratings. The public knows this is how we get on with life.

They want chips and beer and rah rah USA.

What does that mean "asking congress to deal with it, without including Obamacare...?"

What polls?

[piscator]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And Obama only has himself to blame for the stupid shit he pulled during the shutdown such as evicting people from their own homes located on federal park land or blocking off open memorials in D.C. These are classic "dick" moves and everyone can see it was done out of spite instead of necessity.

Well, if someone is squatting on a National Park or other US Public Lands, it's not really "Their home" is it?
And last I checked, access to national monuments is not "Essential to the protection of life and property". Don't like it? Blame the Boehner clique in the US House of Representatives. They shut them down.

[Ian]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And what story does the Republicans' 28% approval rating tell?
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165317/repub ... d-low.aspx

FYI: Obama is at 44%, not 37%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presi ... enter.aspx

[Seth]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And Obama only has himself to blame for the stupid shit he pulled during the shutdown such as evicting people from their own homes located on federal park land or blocking off open memorials in D.C. These are classic "dick" moves and everyone can see it was done out of spite instead of necessity.

Well, if someone is squatting on a National Park or other US Public Lands, it's not really "Their home" is it?

Yes, it is, in every legal sense and meaning of the word because they have a CONTRACT with the government to occupy that land, a contract that the President cannot lawfully interfere with using his executive authority. He is prohibited from simply declaring contracts or permits from the government to be null and void and/or suspended. I hope these folks sue the ever-living fuck out of Obama and the Park Service and get big bux.

And last I checked, access to national monuments is not "Essential to the protection of life and property".

You misunderstand. What's not "essential" are the actions of government employees keeping the public from using and enjoying what belongs to THEM, not to the bureaucrats, politicians or the President. They are violating the law by expending effort doing non-essential duties. What's essential for the NPS is to provide life-saving and property-protecting services to the members of the public who choose to enjoy the use of what belongs to them, not the enforcement of regulations or rules not associated with essential services such as regulations authorizing the NPS to manage or supervise or even steward public lands. Since "essential" activities (and ONLY essential activities) have been approved by appropriations, they can perform those activities. What they CANNOT lawfully do is to "close the gates" on public lands pleading poverty or insufficient staffing, because their mandate to MANAGE and SUPERVISE the public's use of it's property has been suspended.

Don't like it? Blame the Boehner clique in the US House of Representatives. They shut them down.

Wrong. Obama himself shut them down, by executive order. No getting around that simple fact. He's the only one who has that authority.

The House sends over bill after bill to fund the government, and the Senate just ignores them. So who is not doing their job again?

[piscator]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And Obama only has himself to blame for the stupid shit he pulled during the shutdown such as evicting people from their own homes located on federal park land or blocking off open memorials in D.C. These are classic "dick" moves and everyone can see it was done out of spite instead of necessity.

Well, if someone is squatting on a National Park or other US Public Lands, it's not really "Their home" is it?

Yes, it is, in every legal sense and meaning of the word because they have a CONTRACT with the government to occupy that land....

No they don't.

He is prohibited from simply declaring contracts or permits from the government to be null and void and/or suspended. I hope these folks sue the ever-living fuck out of Obama and the Park Service and get big bux.

If they have a lease, the courts are at their disposal. They may find that according to the terms of their leases they have to abide by a shutdown, and find some private land to live on.

And last I checked, access to national monuments is not "Essential to the protection of life and property".

You misunderstand. What's not "essential" are the actions of government employees keeping the public from using and enjoying what belongs to THEM, not to the bureaucrats, politicians or the President.

You misunderstand "Essential to the protection of life and property". It's essential for the protection of property to keep graffiti artists and other vandals out of the Lincoln Memorial if the normal staff is not being paid to prevent that.

Don't like it? Blame the Boehner clique in the US House of Representatives. They shut them down.

Wrong. Obama himself shut them down, by executive order. No getting around that simple fact. He's the only one who has that authority.[/quote]

So he should come up with the $$ out of his own pocket. Why didn't I consider that?

The House sends over bill after bill to fund the government all loaded with illegal improper extraneous bullshit related to unilaterally defunding or eliminating the ACA, and the Senate just ignores them. So who is not doing their job again?

Fixed.


Fixed

[Warren Dew]

FYI: Obama is at 44%, not 37%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presi ... enter.aspx

Half right. He is at 44% in your Gallup poll, but the AP poll does have him at 37%:

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%2 ... LITICS.pdf

[Ian]

FYI: Obama is at 44%, not 37%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presi ... enter.aspx

Half right. He is at 44% in your Gallup poll, but the AP poll does have him at 37%:

http://surveys.ap.org/data/GfK/AP-GfK%2 ... LITICS.pdf

Look on Page 8 - he's at 44% in that poll too.
Correction - that's his personal approval number.

With Boehner at 18%...

[Seth]

The media can keep spreading the blame Republicans lie, but the latest Obama approval rating of 37% tells a different story

And Obama only has himself to blame for the stupid shit he pulled during the shutdown such as evicting people from their own homes located on federal park land or blocking off open memorials in D.C. These are classic "dick" moves and everyone can see it was done out of spite instead of necessity.

Well, if someone is squatting on a National Park or other US Public Lands, it's not really "Their home" is it?

Yes, it is, in every legal sense and meaning of the word because they have a CONTRACT with the government to occupy that land....

No they don't.

Yes, they do. In order to conduct ANY private activity of a permanent nature on federal lands you MUST have a Special Use Permit or other type of permit issued by the applicable agency. The permit is issued pursuant to regulation, which specifies the circumstances under which it can be revoked. People with "inholdings" of private land within National Parks and other federal lands have a constitutional right to access and use their property that cannot be unreasonably obstructed by the managing agency. If it's a building ON federal land, such as a legacy structure (like a cabin) that occupied the property before the park was created, for the most part that "grandfathered" use is a permitted use with which the NPS cannot interfere.

While special use or occupancy permits may be revoked for cause, or may not be renewed if they expire, they are a binding contract between the user and the government that may not arbitrarily and capriciously and without legal authority suspended by the administration.

Trust me, I checked that with the District Ranger who oversees my dam and reservoir rights some time ago. Even if nobody else is allowed into the National Forest for whatever reason, I have a contractual right to use the roads and access my dam and water 24/7 365 that the FS cannot interfere with lawfully.

He is prohibited from simply declaring contracts or permits from the government to be null and void and/or suspended. I hope these folks sue the ever-living fuck out of Obama and the Park Service and get big bux.

If they have a lease, the courts are at their disposal. They may find that according to the terms of their leases they have to abide by a shutdown, and find some private land to live on.

Nope. Congress cannot unilaterally abrogate or even suspend its contractual responsibilities as far as occupancy or use of federal lands under a valid permit it issued. Such permits are considered to be property rights under the 4th Amendment. This is as true of a permit to run a diner in Yellowstone as it is for the rancher who runs cows on a family-owned allotment in the National Forest. The Supreme Court has been perfectly clear on that point.

Those private permitees, unless their contract SPECIFIES that it can be suspended during a financial shutdown, have every right to walk right past the cops and do what they are allowed to do, including running cattle, logging, irrigating and anything else the government has issued a permit for.

In fact, it's illegal for the agency to spend public funds to keep them out. A felony in fact.

And last I checked, access to national monuments is not "Essential to the protection of life and property".

You misunderstand. What's not "essential" are the actions of government employees keeping the public from using and enjoying what belongs to THEM, not to the bureaucrats, politicians or the President.

You misunderstand "Essential to the protection of life and property". It's essential for the protection of property to keep graffiti artists and other vandals out of the Lincoln Memorial if the normal staff is not being paid to prevent that.

Yes, the park police can arrest vandal...if and when they attempt to vandalize government property. But someone not committing a crime on federal property that is open to the public, as the Mall is and has always been because it's the "quintessential public forum" of our nation, the cops can't kick them out. it's a suspension of government ACTIVITIES, not a "closure" of anything. The government can lock public buildings because the employees have gone home, but open public lands? Nope.

Don't like it? Blame the Boehner clique in the US House of Representatives. They shut them down.

Wrong. Obama himself shut them down, by executive order. No getting around that simple fact. He's the only one who has that authority.

So he should come up with the $$ out of his own pocket. Why didn't I consider that?

Why yes, yes he should. He should personally be fined for all of his illegal acts in this mess and their impact on the public.

The House sends over bill after bill to fund the government all loaded with illegal improper extraneous bullshit related to unilaterally defunding or eliminating the ACA, and the Senate just ignores them. So who is not doing their job again?

Doesn't matter what the House puts or does not put in an appropriations bill, it''s the House's absolute constitutional right and power to do exactly that, and it's been doing exactly that, whether under the control of either party, since the very beginning. It's called "legislating by budget" and it's perfectly lawful and appropriate. Nothing whatever in the Constitution requires one house of congress to capitulate to another house of congress on any bill provision merely because not doing so annoys the President or the other party. It's set up that way precisely so that one party cannot force legislation through without some bipartisan support when the houses are held by different parties, which is exactly what the People voted to set up after Obama's shenanigans in his first term when Obamacare was rammed down everyone's throat without any debate or negotiation.

He set this conflict up when he and Congress did so, and he fucking well KNEW he was doing so, which is why they were shattered when the Republicans retook the House. They fucked themselves by being arrogant and now they are getting exactly what they deserve.

If the Senate wants money appropriated, it has to go hat in hand to the House and politely ask and negotiate for a spending bill to fund their desired programs. If the House says "no, sorry, we don't like that program and we're not going to fund it," then the Senate and the President are shit out of luck. Same applies to the House if the Senate doesn't agree, which is what's happening right now.

The House is sending over spending bills right, left and center, but the Senate doesn't like them so they aren't voting on them. But the House is doing what it does, just as it's supposed to. If the Senate won't approve a bill and the President won't sign it, then it's THEIR fault for not negotiating an acceptable compromise with the House in order to get their programs funded. That's exactly how it's supposed to work.