President Obama and John Kerry Blame Israel First

 

This week we had some of the most anti-Israel and anti-Semitic Comments from the Administration. The statements from Secretary of State Kerry were given in an in-depth interview given to the Administration’s favorite and very supportive reporter, Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic newspaper. Secretary Kerry made claims that the nuclear deal with Iran is “as pro-Israel as it gets.” The Secretary of State further stated resolutely that he “doesn’t know” if the Iranian leadership is serious about destroying the State of Israel. One can only wonder what universe Secretary Kerry’s mind is wandering, lost and all alone, to make such ludicrous statement of this magnitude of self-deception. Kerry predicted that the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei would never negotiate stating, “The ayatollah constantly believed that we are untrustworthy, that you can’t negotiate with us, that we will screw them. This will be the ultimate screwing. He will not come back to negotiate. Out of dignity, out of a suspicion that you can’t trust America. America is not going to negotiate in good faith. It didn’t negotiate in good faith now, would be his point.” From what we observed, the Iranians, especially there Quran memorized genius extraordinaire Ayatollah Khamenei, have yet to negotiate once they had read Secretary Kerry and his boss, President Obama, were neophytes splashing in the toddlers’ wading pool claiming they were fighting off the circling sharks and thus ended any hopes for negotiations and opened the doors for schooling. The Iranians realized that neither Secretary Kerry nor President Obama had a solid conviction, they could never compromise and as such would accept every rejection as final, never to be brought back and pushed again, and further were taking dictation from the Iranians for the wording of the agreement and thusly Iran dictated and the Americans simply wrote what they were instructed bobbing their heads in agreement like a bobble-head in the rear window of a car riding the cobblestone streets of Annapolis.

 

There is little doubt that what has been presented to Congress for their taking an up or down vote is at best a disastrous compendium of failed and spineless representation of the United States committed without even a modicum of American pride and care for the future of a once great nation or at worst it is simply a shameless, weak-willed, cowardly, bald-faced surrender of the United States, Europe, Israel, the Western World, and every former American ally the world over before the greatest state sponsor of terrorism responsible for uncounted deaths of American military men in Lebanon, Iraq and within the United States itself and that was merely their initial volleys. Just wait until they have their nuclear stockpile guaranteed by this deal to come as early as eight years and likely less. I apologize for that long-winded prose but as they might have said in any number of states within the United States, “They needed a sayin’!” The deal which has been made public and the admission that the public deal, as atrocious and dangerous it is to the United States and the world beyond that, is only the welcome mat placed at the door to nuclear weaponry with the blessings and assistance of the best the United States has to offer, there is a further secret deal so much worse for the free world and anyplace not currently ruled by Shiite believers in the Twelfth Imam, that it has not and never will be made public. This deal that is being offered which implies acceptance of the secretive deal forbidden for the lawmakers in Congress to even read while in a closed session of Congressional members holding Top Secret clearance from the Pentagon, State Department, the FBI, the CIA and the Department of Homeland Security, has the stench of making Obama Care smelling like a rose. Giving this deal the ratification which President Obama is demanding is even worse than Nancy Pelosi and her statement, “you have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill,” as with this deal it is “you have to pass the deal and still you will never know what’s in the deal until it happens and thus too late.”

 

The secretive deal which was accomplished with the professional assistance of the IAEA has been produced using the IAEA as the middle men for the additional deal such that neither the United States nor the Iranians talked directly to the other side but instead were required for all communications go through the IAEA such that all negotiations and the final agreement will necessarily remain inaccessible to all but the persons directly involved in its crafting. By having the IAEA withhold any information until after the fact that the deal has been passed and approved by both sides. There is a remote possibility that the super-secret additional treaty will contain elements put into the final writing which the IAEA actually felt were necessary for them to complete their assigned duties which come from its charter and that of the United Nations as well as their enforcement of the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) which the IAEA felt were necessary to complete their requirements and duties independent of any agreement between the P5+1 and Iran. Any stir or complaining over the secretive deal would necessarily emanate from the Iranians as the United States appeared to be negotiating more like a gameshow host with the name of the show is ‘Giveaway’ which attempts to give people more prizes than they walk away with. As Carly Fiorina stated about the negotiations and the efforts directed by President Obama and carried out by John Kerry, “They broke every rule in the book.”

 

The rule they broke and broke constantly with Secretary of State Kerry starting his tirades with and ending his tirades with condemnation at Israel or at Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Obama declared that Prime Minister Netanyahu to be a warmonger. There were innuendos that somehow any Israeli condemning, or even dare commenting at all, about the Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA), are traitors to their country and they are defaming the President. President Obama has made particular mention of Israeli, and Prime Minister Benyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu’s opposition to the deal and claiming ad-nauseum that all the Israeli leader, and the rest of the Israeli leadership, wanted was to drag American troops back to the Middle East to fight their fight for them. They also implied that the Israelis were the only nation who was objecting to the deal and this must be because they just want to stir up trouble. While President Obama claimed Israel was blowing smoke and trying to vilify those who worded with great dedication to get such a strongly negotiated deal and that the JCPA was the equivalent of John F. Kennedy’s stand-off with the Soviets and ranked right up there with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s work in his terms in office; Secretary of State Kerry was denoting that if the deal was not approved by Congress that Israel would find herself alone in the world and more international isolation of Israel was to result from their rejection of the greatest deal since the Ten Commandments were “negotiated” on Mount Sinai. Actually the entire deal was very much like receiving the Ten Commandments as Moses must have trembled in awe as the stones were carved and taken right out of the bedrock by Hashem and it is fairly safe to claim that Moses simply agreed to the terminology and meanings behind the Ten Commandments while Secretary Kerry and team sat there while Iran dictated the terms it wanted and cleaned the slate of any other concerns or left them with an aside which simply watered down any inconvenience Iran might have faced.

 

Between Secretary Kerry and President Obama’s deriding Israel, castigating Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and their blame Israel first, last and foremost should the JCPA fail in the Congress that Israel is to blame despite the small but consequential fact, Israel had absolutely no input on the terms, the one way terms, in this deal which is what will destroy its enactment as Israel would have demanded significant changes and most definitely refuse to allow the Iranians to delay any snap inspection and place it on a series of hearings and other deliberations and further delays from an appeal system which if taken through every delaying tactic, by our calculations, Iran can delay a snap inspection for as long as anywhere from 45 to 52 days which really does not make them all that snappy, immediate, or a surprise at all; and this system is the one for their supposed known facilities used strictly for civilians purposes. The snap inspection of a military instillation, if permitted at all by Iran which means a strong suspicion will possibly be approved after almost six months and If Iran can prove that such would harm their standings in the world and that the inspection is solely for Western spying, then the approval may not come, ever. Meanwhile, the collection of soil samples from the Parchin facility, which somehow survived in some form, permitting the IAEA to investigate by the use of soil samples has been tainted by the collection method of those samples. The Iranians have been noted through satellite pictures and reported sightings to be replacing the soil and gravel roads and putting down new soil for at least the second time. The soil samples from the Parchin will be provided by the Iranians themselves and not by a neutral or outside of the sight and simply labelled that they were taken from Parchin. They could guarantee the soil was the same as was now used in Parchin even if they used the soil from there and did not take it from the quarry or from wherever the current new soil is being taken.

 

The constant drumbeat of accusations against Israel and Israeli leadership for their lack of cooperation in assisting the administration in attaining approval for the JCPA began to wear thin as I am sure was also the feelings in the White House towards Bibi’s speech to Congress and his continued refusal to cooperate and get behind what he feels is an inadequate agreement. The inevitable blaming the Jewish leadership and Jews generally as being unsupportive and displaying an unhealthy affinity towards Israel and were guilty of putting Israel before their home nation, the United States will be the first step to rising anti-Semitism. Where this accusation was probably more targeting the Jewish members of Congress and potentially a remote few in media who are opposing the deal, the reality is it was also a warning shot across the bow for all Jews in the United States that under the remainder of President Obama’s term in office that the Jews have been put on notice that their loyalties are in question and they will also be held accountable should the JCPA fail in the Congress. So, should the JCPA fail in Congress then the problem is disloyal Jews who put their Judaism before their loyalty to the motherland, fatherland, hinterlands, any accusation of disloyalty or misplaced emotions for their ancestral homeland. By making this accusation against the Jews and only the Jews we have finally hit the official Nazi style denunciations of Jews as traitors. Where I am concerned is whether this is being drummed up solely to place an albatross around Senator Schumer, the Senior Senator from New York, is Jewish and is voting against the JCPA as of the latest news on his position attempting to force him back in line knowing full well that a number of other democrats will also follow his lead should he vote for the JCPA or is this a lead-up to convicted spy for Israel, Jonathan Pollard, who has been granted his parole and will be released from an American jail on November 21, 2015 after being incarcerated for thirty plus years with a number of that time held in solitary confinement. Perhaps President Obama is considering nullifying Pollard’s parole should the JCPA fail in the Congress as punishment for what he perceives as further Jewish treason and the sole person that President Obama can actually affect is Jonathan Pollard. Such spite is not beyond President Obama and one hopes that he is not mulling such a hate filled move should his precious not be passed.

 

At the other end of the scale, there has been rumored that a Republican Senator is planning to propose legislation forbidding the signing of the JCPA instead of simply relying on the proposed JCPA to fail in either side of the Congress but wishes to go the extra step of emphasizing the opposition to the Iran deal. This would be the worst possible idea and would only serve to empower President Obama’s use of his veto. Any legislation calling for the Iran deal to be nullified, never ever signed, discarded and try again, or any other manner of describing the distaste for the deal that was negotiated is wrongheaded and a potential disaster. Any such legislation proposed in either side of the Congress should be quashed immediately as should any legislation of this sort actually be passed challenging the Administration’s desire would open the entire effort to a Presidential veto. A bill demanding there be no signature on the JCPA gives President Obama veto power which he does not have should the JCPA be voted down. Should the JCPA be voted down in the Congress, that is the end, fini, terminated, and dishonorably discharged thus nullifying the Iran Deal. Once the JCPA is voted down it goes nowhere, not to the White House and does not even need to reach the other side of the Capital Building. Further, Presidents do not get to veto legislation which has not passed both sides in the Congress. A Presidential Veto is used to prevent legislation from the Congress become the law of the land and cannot take anything which failed in the Congress, veto their voting the deal down, and by doing so reinvigorate the monster deal giving it life again. If either side of Congress says no to this deal it is all over, especially should the Senate turn it down. President Obama does not get to change the rules in the Congress and make their voting something down come back to life by his vetoing their defeat of any vote, and challenge them to override his veto, as his veto has no weight if the Congress turned the bill down even if by a single vote in both sides of Congress. That is how democracy in the United States functions. The fear I hold is what ramifications might the Congress turning the JCPA down produce, as they most definitely should. They should demand in its place a real treaty where both sides get some of what they demand, not just sit there like sheep when the Iranians reject a proposed clause, and hang their head and acquiesce when the Iranians make a demand and nod approvingly as it is incorporated into the eventual final JCPA and then made into international law. The Jews will be held to account and the anti-Semitism that is running rampant in Europe will then take its first real foothold in the United States.

 

It is well known that President Obama has transformed two things in the United States. The first item he transformed was the Democrat Party which he remodeled into the far leftist realm of the ultra-socialist labor parties found in most European nations or whatever their main leftist, socialist party might be named. Additionally, President Obama has changed the United States and made it a faded copy of any European nation one might care to choose, even poor Greece as the United States debt is even worse than that of Greece in total Dollars or Euros. The only missing element has been overt anti-Semitism. Has anti-Semitism in the United States increased? You better believe it has as the reading of headlines for the past weeks would show. Anti-Semitism in the United States is fortunately nowhere near as bad as it is in Europe, but the potential is there for it to explode. Just remember the vote taken at the Democrat convention where the effort to include support for Israel and recognizing their capital city as Jerusalem, even if it did say Western Jerusalem, and to place “In G0d We Trust” into the Democrat Party Platform where they had to take the vote three times and never got the required majority but called it passed despite the votes by the delegates refuting these inclusions.

 

 

 

 

If the Democrat Party had that much difficulty that they had to operate by ignoring the rank and file delegates whom voted evenly split on whether or not to recognize Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel, and for placing devotion to G0d into their Party Platform, then it would not be much of a step into anti-Semitism and the first call for rejecting the Jews in the United States separating them from the body of the Republic is always the same throughout history, the Jews are accused of treason, unfaithfulness to the nation, too involved with their religion to be true citizens and all of those start with the claim that they are not normal citizens and have an unhealthy allegiance to Hashem, Israel, Torah, their brethren amongst the enemies of the state, refusal to fight like everyone else in the last great war despite their service percentage of their population being higher than the average of the rest of the nation. The reason always used was to ask a group, ‘Who served in the last conflict,’ then with almost half the hands raised they ask the clincher, ‘Who had any Jews serving with you?’ When the majority of the hands go down the point is made but only because the Jews in the nation are almost always below two and more often below one or even one-half of a percent and thus even if every Jewish man, woman, child and infant were to serve in the last conflict and make a point that they were Jews, something rarely done often out of uncertainty and fear, still the majority would not have had a Jew serving with them. But that makes no matter and even if a mere three percent of the nation supports these haters, that still means they outnumber the Jews often two to one so at any rally the anti-Semites almost always outnumber the Jews simply due to numbers.

 

People are often amazed to find out what the percentage of Jews in the world, including those who barely have any attachment to their religion except perhaps holding a shortened Seder dinner with family at Passover and possibly attending Synagogue for high holy days of Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur, the total percentage of Jews in the world stands around zero-point-two percent, that is 0.2 percent. When one figures in the Jewish populations for the United States and Israel accounting for just over 80 percent of the Jews living in the world, that makes the percentage of Jews in the remainder of the world at 0.04 percent on average for the rest of the world. The total number of Jews in the world is approximately a whopping 14.25 million out of a world population of 7.25 billion and President Obama claims that the Jews in Israel and around the world are going to defeat his international diplomatic triumph simply to punish his Jewish perceived scorn for Israel and its Prime Minister and their reaction, if it were to exist, is based on how it will treat Israel and not out of concern for the potential of an Iranian attack on the United States. Really? Give me a break.

President Obama is attempting to tap in on the world’s longest hatred and make out that he is the victim and will point at Senator Schumer, the Senior Senator from New York, is Jewish and is voting against the JCPA and ignore the small fact that the journalist, actually White House go to man at the Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg, who also happens to be Jewish and is the man of the hour whenever the President or John Kerry or other Administration personnel need to get promising and glowing report into print, they just call Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic newspaper. and the deed is done.

 

A four picture montage of John Scary Kerry at his long-faced best. Hopefully once he is done failing and flailing at being Secretary of State we will be done with John Kerry. His ineptitude and at times traitorous actions have shamed the United States ever since his treacherous testimony before the Senate accusing his supposed, though never in Kerry’s mind or heart, fellow soldiers equating them with the ruthlessness of Genghis Khan and his opinions have little changed with the years.

 

So, President Obama, let me inquire as to whom it was the Secretary of State Kerry ran to with his tale of woe and despair that we mentioned at the top of our editorial. That’s right, Jeffery Goldberg and out came the long-faced tale of woe and how again John Kerry was forced to carry the weight of the world on his broad shoulders and that his long-face, a genetic thing we assume as he always appears to be deeply sorrowed and long-faced, that aside, Kerry spoke with Jeffrey Goldberg on the record explaining the wondrous Iran deal and then with his long-face he told of the woe as he was not being given the expressions of thanks and lauded for the great deal he snuck into the Iranian crafted deal in such a way as they would never notice, which is largely because he snuck absolutely nothing into the agreement nor overtly insisted on anything in the agreement and bent over backwards and with a long-face all seriously drawn even further he has slogged his way through these tough and harried negotiations without receiving any thanks. Well, I thank you Secretary Kerry as without your tales of woe what ever could I poke so much fun at and we all know that this train of long-faced tales of woe will continue into the future for at least fifteen more ever tedious months. Thank you Secretary John (long-faced) ‘sKerry.’

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Will the Initial Vote in the Houses of Congress Be Meaningless?

 

We have the deal of a lifetime, presumably the perfect and deeply complex agreement which if the Administration spokespeople are to be believed, and who would know better than those who fashioned the deal, such that the complex minutia weaves a web of inspections and requirements which Iran will be incapable of extricating themselves without being betrayed by the particulars combined with snap unannounced immediate access inspections at which time any failure to be within the web that has been tediously structured would result in total snapback of the most severe sanctions bringing Iran to its knees; thus Iran will not progress as a nuclear power for at least a decade. But if one has also paid any attention to the celebrations and excessive elation raging out of control through the halls of power in Iran, one might suspect that either the Iranians have not figured out the brilliance by President Obama and the State Department mediators who once again have made an airtight box just as they had with North Korea, as the very same members of the North Korean negotiations committee were once again put into service to similarly fashion an ironclad nuclear deal with Iran. Imagine the shock and awe that will eventually end one side or the other’s elation when the truth shows its hand and either Iran never becomes a nuclear armed power for at the least a decade and a half or does so far more rapidly. Still, despite the unanimous approval of the P5+1 and Iranian Agreement with a chapter seven enforceable ratification which some are claiming makes any vote by the United States Congress potentially meaningless, but is this true?

 

The ratification by the United Nations Security Council will only become an issue if there can be a vote taken which manages to recognize and demand enforcement of United Nations sanctions being reimposed. It would still require the five permanent members, France, Britain, United States, Mainland China and the Russian Federation not to use their veto power to block enforcement, those very same nations who have millions or billions or conceivably trillions of Euros or Dollars in trade deals to vote to end such deals, even should Iran test a nuclear device in the middle of the waters to their south. That is far beyond reasonable and should not be expected unless the Iranian test was over Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and even then it would be doubtful. The other P5+1 (France, Britain, China, Russian Federation and Germany) have already announced their willing compliance with the deal and are ready for full ratification which is waiting on the United States which has a far more complicated approval system than any Parliamentary system which is found throughout most of the world, so, every eye is on Washington D.C. and while the world waits the media are thrashing every conceivable turn of the cards of fate possible to come out of Washington in the next sixty days Congress has set as the limit before they must present their final verdict. So, what comes next?

 

 

Photo of the Lead Negotiators Taken After Agreement Reached with the Smiles on the far left two Iranian Lead Negotiators and neutral bored look by the man in the middle representing the European Union with the two on the right no more aware that they are posing for the picture which will mark them in history than they were during the negotiations themselves while they either are looking at the real winners or posing as if this was an after frat party picture with the thumbs up, who are they kidding?

 

 

The United States House of Representatives often limits the debate speaking time to each of the State’s Representatives ten minutes each to express their opinions and attempt to persuade their cohorts before the vote is taken. With four-hundred-thirty-five Representatives that results in four-thousand-three-hundred-fifty minutes of debate or seventy-two-hours and thirty-minutes. That means that if we allow for procedural delays and Representatives speaking beyond their allotted time or outbursts which leaving a mere four hours of time per day this results in a minimum of fourteen and a half days or approximately four weeks before every Representative had made their feelings known. Perhaps this mathematics is why the time allotted for Congressional approval or disapproval to be decided and a final vote taken on the proposed Iran nuclear agreement and the results be made known to the White House and an eager media who will waste no time chewing on every piece of gristle fed to them and pretend that they found the finest filet mignon and then pretend their perception is the finest cut of the votes taken in both houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate.

 

There are some very unusual conditions stipulated in the Congressional approval of this Agreement which is not a treaty and not exactly just a Presidential decree as the Congress insisted and received oversight, but not merely the usual Senate only ratification required by a normal treaty but because President Obama’s successful labeling unusual and break from norm claiming that arms agreements are not normally treated as a treaty but instead simply demand the straight up majority in both houses rather than the two-thirds approval (sixty-seven of the one-hundred) Senators. President Obama suspected, it would be impossible to receive such ratification from a Senate controlled by a majority Republicans even were it to garner one-hundred-percent support from the Democrats, both Independents who caucus with the Democrats and possibly a half dozen Republicans who honestly believe that the President is to be granted leeway on items pertaining to foreign affairs matters. It was likely beyond any conceivable probability that the President could find a full dozen minimum Republican Senators to vote for the deal, thus it was this frightening reality facing President Obama who decided his sole chance was to invent a new class of agreement where because there were six other nations involved and this presumably made the United States an co-equal partner to an agreement, an executive agreement by a President who was but one amongst many in reaching this agreement making it an agreement amongst executives and thus it was a Presidential Agreement requiring only passage by both houses of Congress. This will presumably provide to grant the President a veto over any vote taken which refused the Congressional approval of the Agreement thus then requiring the Congress to then override the Presidential veto now requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses in order to prevent the Agreement taking effect, a complete reversal of fates. Now, it would appear, there will be required that both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, would be required to attain a two-thirds vote each to override the veto and end the ratification by the United States.

 

Oddly enough there are a number of presumptions which make much of these arguments completely erroneous. Let us look at the realities. The first item that requires investigation is exactly how the wording of the presentation of the Iranian agreement before Congress is read. Any initial investigation one would expect that a ‘Yea’ vote would be in favor of the Agreement and any ‘Nay’ vote would be against the Agreement. So, if the Senate voted fifty-one in favor and forty-nine against while the House of Representatives voted two-hundred-eighteen in favor and one-hundred-seventeen against, then both houses would have approved the Agreement with minimal votes required and the passage would permit President Obama to sign the Agreement placing the United States to be in compliance of the terns, limitations and obligations within the Agreement just as President Obama desires. So, the House and Senate both approve the Agreement even by the narrowest of margins, then there would be no need for any veto and everybody limps away satisfied they had performed their duty as they saw best to be committed.

 

But we all know that what we have been told is that the problems arise should the Congress oppose the will of President Obama and not approve the Agreement. It would make absolutely no difference should the Senate, the House of Representatives or both deny passage to the agreement sent before them by whatever margin, then what comes next. We have been led to believe that President Obama could veto their vote to turn down their initial vote and now place the two Houses of Congress into having to reach a two-thirds vote to override President Obama’s veto by voting by a two thirds vote in both Houses of Congress in order to have the Congressional advice be heard and President Obama be instructed not to sign the Agreement thus removing the United States from any of the particulars of the Agreement and should this occur, then and only then would the Agreement be kept from becoming binding on the United States. There is one grievous mistake in the reasoning here as long as a ‘Yea’ vote means ratification of the Agreement and a ‘Nay’ vote indicates one is opposed to the Agreement. Once either House of Congress votes against the Agreement and thereby not approving it that is the end of the Iran Nuclear Agreement as far as the United States is officially concerned because the President is not empowered to veto a negative vote. He can only veto those items brought before him as passed legislation by both houses of Congress. In order to have his Iran Deal passed, he must present the deal to both houses for an up or down vote and not propose some finagled legislation asking if they oppose the Iran deal, thus turning approval on its head and making support a ‘Nay’ vote and opposition a ‘Yea’ vote thus making turning down the deal available for him to veto as, despite what he believes, that is not presenting the agreement for a vote by Congress, that is perverting everything that is holy and true about the American confirmation process and turning a negative into a positive and vice-a-versa twisting the affirmation process. By this method it would become near impossible to oppose any appointment or treaty made by a president and makes them a virtual dictator for their time in office and as far as that goes, also impossible to make them relinquish their office claiming their declaration that their removal from the Presidency was itself a threat to national security. The vote over the Iran Nuclear Agreement has to proceed as a ‘Yea’ vote as in favor of the agreement and a ‘Nay’ vote a vote against ratification and thus either house refusing to approve the Agreement would spell the end of the Agreement in so far as the United States would be concerned. The President could ignore that and sign the Agreement but his signature would be meaningless as the courts would override any demand then made under that signature void; thus, all of the Iranian sanctions made by the United States would stand and any monies held by United States banks would remain frozen, period, game-set-match.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

House of Representatives Votes to Defund Obamacare

Following Representative Tom Graves, a Republican from Georgia, introduction of a continuing resolution to continue funding the government with the expressed exception of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act onto the House of Representatives the House of Representatives ignored threats from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to kill the legislation in the Senate and from President Obama who promised to veto any legislation which denies his signature healthcare plan further funding. Because of the guarantee that any continuing resolution to finance the government going forward that excludes Obamacare will never get past either the Senate or, should it somehow miraculously be passed by the Senate, past the President without being vetoed there are those, particularly in the mainstream media, who are accusing the House of Representatives Republican Conservatives of grandstanding on a dead issue. The promise that is constantly being touted by the scoffing media is that those Representatives who have pushed defunding Obamacare will back down as they would never risk being blamed for shutting down the government. What is interesting about the entire argument over who gets the blame for shutting down the government over whether or not to fund Obamacare is the previous history, especially the two most prominent shutdowns over funding resolutions. When President Ronald Reagan and the Democrat controlled Congress were at loggerheads over increasing spending and lowering taxes and the Government was shutdown for a fairly short while, the blame was squarely placed on the White House and the obstinate bullheadedness of President Reagan. Then approximately a decade later when President William Jefferson Clinton was contesting over the budget in particular with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and they refused to find a middle ground, the government was again closed in a shutdown and the media placed the entire blame on the fact that Speaker Gingrich was obstinately refusing to work towards any agreement with President Clinton who was without any blame for the situation. So, one thing we can be totally assured of should the government end up shutdown, the blame will be placed squarely on Representative Tom Graves and his fellow Conservatives for their refusal to pay the government’s debts, especially paying for previously passed legislation which the media will claim they have no right to prevent its funding.

 

The only problem with that line of thinking is that it ignores that the Constitution states plainly that the House of Representatives controls the purse of the government and through this control are empowered to defund any item, department, enforcement of legislation or anything else the majority of the House of Representatives decide they object to the point of defunding. Yes, the Constitution does recognize that the House of Representatives resorting to such defunding is a radical use of the powers of the purse which would seldom be utilized, but the power is there to be used if such case of extremely unpopular legislation exists and cannot be prevented in any other manner. The reason the House of Representatives was given the primary responsibility for such defunding was expressly because the House of Representatives was the peoples’ representation and was to respond to the public pulse, especially if the people were found to be opposed to previously passed legislation. This power is placed initially in the House of Representatives but can also be exercised by the Senate though they theoretically must await funding legislation from the house of Representatives to be passed and sent on to the Senate. Once such legislation has reached the Senate they are able to remove funding for particular items just as the House of Representatives is empowered when originating any spending legislation. Should the Senate change the legislation by removing funding or replacing the funding which the House of Representatives chose to omit, then they are required to send the legislation back to the House of Representatives. If the two houses of Congress find themselves unable to reach an accord they will usually form a committee made up of members from both the House and Senate and from both Parties in ratios that represent the balance of powers for each party in each of the two houses of Congress. This committee is tasked with reaching an agreement which will be passed by both sides of Congress. Should the committee be unable to hammer out a compromise before the funding for the government runs out, then we have a government shutdown.

 

What exactly would be the consequences and inconveniences of a government shutdown. By the way the mainstream media have talked and referred to a potential shutdown one would be led to believe that it would be very similar to the Earth stopping rotating; day would never turn to night and those on the dark side of the planet would never again see the sun and would soon freeze and old people would be starving and not receiving their medications while airplanes would fall from the skies and the horsemen of chaos would be loosed on the nation. The amount of scare tactics borders on the ridiculous. Perhaps you remember the predictions over the sequestration which President Obama cautioned the public that should the Republicans in Congress not take the steps and raise the necessary funding to avoid the sequestration then the calamitous catastrophes that would befall the public and many government functions would paralyze the nation in ways unimaginable and so completely cause upheavals that it would threaten people livelihood and possibly their actual lives. Well, just in case you don’t remember the horrendous catastrophes which struck your life, we did suffer the horrors caused by sequestration except for one small item, almost nothing that President Obama predicted actually came to fruition and life pretty much continued unaffected and smooth as anyone could have hoped. The few places where difficulties were experienced, such as longer lines for a few days at some of the nation’s airports, were the result of a concerted effort to maximize difficulties wherever such was possible. There was a report leaked from one administrator who released a memo he had received from higher-ups which instructed him to make any sequestration adjustments in such a way as to maximize inconvenience on the public if at all possible. The memo claimed these instructions had come from the White House.

 

So, what catastrophes and other calamities should we brace for should the Conservative Republicans decide not to play nice and allow the government to run out of operating funds and go into shutdown? Well, Social Security checks and payments will continue, welfare, food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, Veteran’s Checks and virtually every funding program which benefit the public will continue unaffected. The FBI, CIA, Military, DEA, BATFE, Border Patrols, Coast Guard and all law enforcement activities of the government will continue. Actually everything considered to be vital services or even necessary services which assist the people and public services will all continue. There will be some catastrophic exceptions which will be shutdown such as most Federal roads projects, some, but not all, wildlife projects, and other functions which shutdown on snow days when all unessential personnel are advised to stay home after a bad snowstorm. Those of you who remember either the Reagan or Clinton Administrations I have a question, do you remember the chaos and unbelievable discomforts and disasters which plagued every corner of the United States during the two shutdowns referred to earlier in this article? For the life of me I just cannot recall any difference between the days under shutdown and any regular period and I doubt we would this time despite any efforts to try and make it uncomfortable. The one thing we can count on, it will be those nefarious Conservative Republicans who will once again be credited with forcing the shutdown and once again displaying exactly how little we actually need the government.

 

Beyond the Cusp