USA & World Economics

[B][size=+1]Harry Reid's Senate Blockade[/size]
A case study in the world's greatest dysfunctional body. [/B]

[QUOTE=BigBossMan;439711]These are fair comments for the most part. However, the Republican Party lacks leadership at the moment. There is a divisive fight between the Establishment and the Tea Party. So which Republican do you propose that Obama actually negotiate with? Reagan had O'Neill. Clinton had Gingrich. Things got done. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE]May 13, 2014 7:03 p. m. ET

The U.S. Senate failed to advance another piece of popular bipartisan legislation late Monday, and the reason tells the real story of Washington gridlock in the current Congress. To wit, Harry Reid has essentially shut down the Senate as a place to debate and vote on policy.

The Majority Leader's strategy was once again on display as the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to move a popular energy efficiency bill co-sponsored by New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen and Ohio Republican Rob Portman. Mr. Reid blamed the defeat on Republican partisanship. But the impasse really came down to Mr. Reid's blockade against amendments that might prove politically difficult for Democrats.

The Nevadan used parliamentary tricks to block energy-related amendments to an energy bill. [highlight] This blockade is now standard procedure as he's refused to allow a vote on all but nine GOP amendments since last July. Mr. Reid is worried that some of these amendments might pass with support from Democrats, thus embarrassing a White House that opposes them. [/highlight]

[url]http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579560251530777852 [/url][/QUOTE]
Hey BigBossMan, who do you call to cut a deal with Democrats?

[QUOTE][B]GOP rep. : House passed a dozen VA reform bills that are DOA in Senate[/b]
May 23, 2014
While the president pounds his fist and proclaims hes madder than hell over the Veterans Affairs scandal and then just asks for more time to review and investigate, House Republicans are getting pretty tired of the do-nothing Senate and a president who claims to only learn about problems in his administration on cable news.

Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House and she told (Larry O'Connor) Wednesday on WMAL radio in Washington, D. C., that the House has passed a dozen bills for reform of the VA and they are collecting dust on (Sen.) Harry Reids desk:

OCONNOR: Are your colleagues in the House doing something about this decades-old problem so we can get something done for the vets?

REP WALORSKI: In the past 18 months, since Ive been a member of Congress, weve passed, on the House floor, at least 12 reform VA bills. Mandating the VA to fix different things, mandating the VA to report different things, mandating them to fix their website, [highlight]bipartisan bills that went to the Senate, and they are DOA on the Senate side[/highlight]

The Indiana freshman went on to say, We can pass bills all day long here on the House side, but if the Senate doesn't get in gear and be held responsible and be held accountable for these veterans, its not going to work. These things have been dead on arrival. Harry Reid has not moved one of these bills.

[highlight]So when you hear the president and the Democrats in Congress lament the do nothing Congress and proclaim their year of action in which President Obama will act if Congress fails to act, take note that Harry Reid has not brought any of the House VA reform bills to the Senate floor for consideration while veterans are dying as they wait for care. [/highlight][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/05/23/gop-rep-house-passed-a-dozen-va-reform-bills-that-are-doa-in-senate-120812[/url]

Twelve VA reform bills that Reid is blocking, really BigBossMan, really?

John Boehner may be a left leaning RINO but he still gets bills passed.

Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.

In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?

That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;439731]Thanks for the research Punter, as I pointed out and BBM just ignored, Obama is not reaching out to anyone. He is happy with his phone, executive fiat and Harry plugging up the Senate.

In a recent interview Obama said he would no longer wish to be president without the Senate under Democratic control. A very telling statement considering your post wouldn't you say Punter?

That said, Obama seems to be doing his best to lose the Senate as well with the bungled prisoner swap of the Taliban Dream Team and his new War on Coal. Can any of our liberal/progressive friends name a single Democrat running in 2014 that these two blunders have helped in their re-election bids?[/QUOTE]It's unbelievable that a sitting President would make such a remark. I was unaware of Obamas remark until now, but coupled with the links in my previous post it's very revealing indeed. Without Harry Reid running blocker Obama would have to use that Infamous pen of his for vetoes, hence exposing his true agendas and lessening his ability to point blame at others.

I know Obama promised to shutdown Guantanamo but I didn't know he was going to do it by letting all the prisoners go free. I wish he would use some of those great negotiating skills with Mexico, you know maybe trade 5 or 10 undocumented Democrats for one imprisoned U.S. Marine. They could even let them keep the guns the guy had, oh but wait they may not want those because they still have all the missing "Fast and Furious" guns.

I don't really mean to belittle the prisoner exchange because it's a very serious matter, and I keep waiting for them to give us some serious justification for such an exchange. Apparently they received absolutely no assurances of any kind that these people would not return to their terrorist activities.

This exchange has done extreme damage to the credibility of the United States Government. But can you imagine the blowback to this administration and the Democrat party [STRIKE]if these[/STRIKE] when these same terrorist are found responsible for more deaths in the future? What the hell was they thinking?

I was watching the State Department news briefing by the blond we have seen over and over on the Benghazi tragedy and was astounded to hear her say the troops who served with the POW / deserter were not in a position to judge if he went AWOL or to judge his actions before, during or after, even though they were there serving with him. When pressed by a non-Fox reporter about that statement, she clearly stated she was in a better position to judge those actions than his fellow soldiers!

Benghazi 2. 0.

Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".

It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.

In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspx[/URL]

[QUOTE]Allen West, a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel who saw action in Iraq, first addressed the circumstances surrounding Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

He couldnt recall a single instance where enemy combatants captured and held an American POW for any significant length of time; they were typically shot in the back of the head, or ritually beheaded and gutted.

So why did they keep Bowe Bergdahl for five years? West asked.[snipe][/QUOTE]Maybe Esten could answer that question for us.

On West blog he also said.

[QUOTE]
Why would the United States acquiesce to the demands of a non-state, non-uniform terrorist organization the Taliban? The Taliban is our enemy and it is not a nation-state with whom we should enter into negotiations. There are some 141 detainees at GITMO. The five released were senior Taliban officials, basically members of Mullah Omars inner circle. If we wanted to release detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, there were many others to choose from. Why these?

The rate of recidivism for GITMO released detainees has gone from 1 in 6 to 1 in 3 and why would we think a one-year travel ban out of Qatar will be respected, or even make a difference with todays modern communications technology? [highlight]Even Obama has now stated they may just return to terrorist activity.[/highlight]

Obamas breaking of the law in this case presents serious national security concerns for all Americans. This is aiding and abetting the enemy, which goes along with the collusion of this administration with Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated organizations and supplying weapons and arms to Islamists.

Obama just released the leadership of a terrorist organization, and what did we get in return? A deserter, who by his own self-proclamation harbors anti-American sentiments which it seems that Susan Rice, our esteemed National Security Advisor, didnt even realize his heinous actions or maybe as usual she just lied about it again. Bergdahl served the United States with honor and distinction? Lets not send Susan Rice out ever again.

To hear Obama state that no American should be left behind has he forgotten about Benghazi and Marine SGT Tahmooressi? How about leaving behind American veterans to die? [snip][/QUOTE]"Serious national security concerns for all Americans" and I'd say especially those of us that travel internationally. West ask hard questions and spoke strong words that are hard to argue with, unless of course you put politics above the safety of the American people.

[QUOTE=Esten;439754]Of course, if Bergdahl had never been freed, Republicans would have accused Obama of turning his back on an American POW. We can also be sure that if there is a future terrorist attack on the US, Republicans will immediately claim or suggest the freed Taliban members were involved. And if there is no such evidence, they will keep suggesting it and saying "we don't have all the facts".

It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.

In other news, Gallup today reported that the US Job Creation Index hit a new high.
[URL]http://www.gallup.com/poll/170831/job-creation-index-hits-new-high.aspx[/URL][/QUOTE]Esten, only you could come up with such unbelievable crapola! Obama's own party was against releasing the GTMO prisoners in exchange for Bergdahl. Even today his own party rails against Obama for violating the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress before the release as well as the prisoner swap itself.

I am to assume you are like the State Department Blond who asserts she knows better than the troops who served with Bergdahl? According to reports Special Ops refused to launch a mission and endanger personnel for a deserter. Other revelations from those who served with Bergdahl are even more damming. The general consensus at Bagram according to a captain in the brigade signal unit there was disbelief. Among the troops there with multiple tours the Taliban don't take prisoners and keep them alive (see my earlier post).

Everything Obama has told the American people about this has been a lie from imminent harm to Bergdahl to the prisoners were under supervision in Qatar.

Even for you Esten, this is a new low.

[QUOTE=Esten;439754]It's abundantly clear that Republicans have an unbalanced and emotional bias against government and Democrats, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility.[/QUOTE]"It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.

[QUOTE=Punter127;439756]On West blog he also said.[/QUOTE]Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;439758]"It's abundantly clear that Democrats have an unbalanced and emotional bias in favor of big government and President Obama, even in the absence of supporting facts, which explains why they have lost so much credibility" makes more sense to me.[/QUOTE]Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.

Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;439760]Please, Allen West is a vitriolic buffoon who was voted out of office after one term. He has a long history of extreme, outlandish statements to get media attention, almost as bad as Michele Malkin. Quoting him is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I'd be more inclined to believe a Fox News panelist like Charles Krauthammer. Who very interestingly actually supports Obama's decision on the freed POW.[/QUOTE]When Esten starts talking about Fox News and quoting Charles Krauthammer without saying anything derogatory you know he's desperate and in panic mold. It's very revealing that he attacked Lieutenant Colonel West, but did not address his message, and he failed to mention that Krauthammer also said "court-martial him to the fullest extent for desertion".

[B]"Obama Advisers Repeatedly Told President Not to Deal"[/B]

"President Barack Obama was repeatedly advised by several of the nation's top military and intelligence officials not to engage in the prisoner swap to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, which freed five senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo prison, according to reports."

[QUOTE] When the White House first began considering an exchange in 2011 and 2012, James Clapper, then director of National Intelligence, flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, according to The Daily Beast. [snip]

Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director, also confirmed Wednesday that he was opposed to a possible Bergdahl prisoner swap during his tenure and questioned the deal Obama reached last week.

Panetta recalled that at the time discussions of a Bergdahl prisoner swap took place, "I said, 'Wait, I have an obligation under the law. If I send prisoners from Guantanamo, they have to guarantee they don't go back to the battlefield.' I had serious concerns."

He added he "just assumed it was never going to happen."

Clapper had a similar rationale, according to the Beast, and said the risk was too high that the Taliban leaders would return to the battlefield.
Intelligence and defense officials told the Beast that the deal that was arranged was hastily done, and in a manner that suggested it was designed to squelch dissent and impose the will of the White House.

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obama-Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-prisoners/2014/06/05/id/575362/ [/URL] [/QUOTE]Maybe those guys are " vitriolic buffoons" as well, who knows?

"The Chairman of Senate Intelligence Committee (no pun intended), that Tea Party favorite, Dianne Feinstein of California, was down right angry."

[QUOTE=DianneFeinstein]I think that they expected everybody just to fall in line, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and one of those who received a personal apology from a senior White House aide.

Feinstein said the White House failed to anticipate that bypassing Congress would provoke anger on both sides of the aisle. The discovery that the five Afghans were top-ranking Taliban commanders has fueled concerns that the trade may endanger U.S. security.

This is an issue that certainly those of us on the Intelligence Committee care a great deal about, Feinstein said. Because we believe that there is potential danger from certain of these five people.[/QUOTE]She must have joined "The Party of No", next thing you know she'll want a gun permit.

Here's what Rusty Bradley had to say, maybe you'd like to spit in his face as well.

[QUOTE]Little Doubt Bergdahl Is a Deserter.

The former commander of U.S. Special Forces in Southern Afghanistan believes there is zero doubt just-freed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was under his command, is guilty of being a deserter. [snip]

Bradley said he "absolutely'' expects the five freed terrorists to once again fight American forces.

"American coalition forces members will be killed when these guys return back to the battlefield,'' he said.

[highlight]"[And] this affects every civilian who travels to a foreign country, especially where there are terrorist organizations operating. They now have open game [/highlight]

"In my opinion, the president and the administration does not understand the challenges that this decision has left us with, and it's going to far exceed this presidency and our generations because now the precedence has been set. There's no turning back on it It literally, it leaves me shaking my head.'' [snip]

[URL]http://www.newsmax.com/NewsmaxTv/Special-Forces-Bergdahl-Afghanistan/2014/06/05/id/575432/[/URL]
[/QUOTE]The evidence seems to be pouring in on Bergdahl and I tend to believe the guys that were on the ground with him. But I'm ok with letting the military deal with him as long as they're allowed to handle it.

What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.

Some people on the left and many on the right are upset. It happens with every single issue now. Especially anything Obama does but in the end, he is the president and Commander in Chief. So if some people are against a course of action, Obama still has the authority to do as he pleases. Every other president has done the same. They are not obligated to follow anyone's advise and there were people who did advise him to make the deal as well as those who were against it. Some people advised Bush against going into Iraq but he did it anyway. Becase he was not bounded by their advise.

The right needs to stop with yelling impeach him every time Obama takes action they don't like. Conservatives Krauthammer, Stephen Hayes and Lindsey Graham, all long time Obama bashers have all said that the president had the authority do make the deal and did not break the law. Krauthammer went even further by saying that these deals/negotiations are always once sided regardless of who is the President. Primarily because the US is a civilized country dealing with barbaric thugs. Former Bush adviser John Bellinger said Obama made the right decision and that Bush would have done the same thing as Obama and GOP Congressman Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) has now come out and criticize his own party for their response to this deal saying there is precedent for what Obama did.

[URL]http://ezkool.com/2014/06/former-bush-official-on-fox-obama-did-the-right-thing-to-free-sgt-bergdahl[/URL]

[URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAUI_xBtxfY[/URL]

The State department/Pentagon spokesperson most certainly will know if a soldier is a deserter because they have access to the soldier's Official Military Personnel File. The soldiers on the ground do not. There may or may not be extenuating circumstances but we will never know until the military leadership tells us what his legal status is. To change soldier's duty status from AWOL to "deserter" or DFR is a legal classification and can be made only by a unit commander. That classification could then be challenged in a military court and ultimately decided by a military judge. Innocent until proven guilty as the saying goes but in this case some are willing to dismiss that to make their point.

Some are saying Bergdahl is only a lowly Sergeant who was traded for five top terrorist so it was a terrible deal. The question I have for them is if Bergdahl was their son or father, or family member, would it be ok to leave him behind because he is only a Sergeant or would you give your blessings on a deal to bring him home? We all know the answer to that question.

Politics is now only a game and this issue is about politics. Look at how many talking points are being slung around. Conservatives voters will continue to hate Obama and bash him at very turn while liberals adore him and wish he could stay on longer. No one wins this game but this issue is done, bring on the next one so we can hear more talking points while very little of anything gets done.

[QUOTE=Esten;439761]Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL][/QUOTE]Voters like whoever promises them the most free money, period.

If the Dems were somehow prohibited from creating and operating government programs that give away free money, they'd never win another election.

Unfortunately, the reality is that the Republicans will never be able to "out promise" the Democrats.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Punter127;439767]What has me most concerned is the Taliban 5 and the terrorist acts they will commit.

When they start killing again we all know who'll have blood on their hands.

Esten this is not a left/right or Republican/Democrat issue, it's an American issue.[/QUOTE]As usual, you are on auto-pilot when it comes to Obama.

The home grown killing rampages around the country have me far more worried.

[QUOTE=Esten;439761]Very original, but in recent years facts have supported Democrats much more than they have Republicans. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the birther nonsense, the phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Republicans is emotional manipulation, which works well on the LIV.

Voters like Democrats better than Republicans on virtually every issue. But that doesn't mean they will vote for them
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/01/on-issue-after-issue-voters-favor-democrats-and-for-now-they-dont-want-to-vote-for-them-either/[/URL][/QUOTE][I]In recent years facts have supported Republicans much more than they have Democrats. There is considerable evidence, such as the lies and false predictions about the ACA, about the Stimulus, about the improving economy, the IRS scandal, etc and on and on. It's not even close. The main tool for Democrats is flat out lying, which works well on the LIV.

Male voters like Republicans better than Democrats for virtually every type of masturbatory fantasy. [url]http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=728_1333754391&comments=1[/url] [/I]

OK, it's not original, but you're pretty good with sentence structure. Why reinvent the wheel.

Damn, I love that photo of Ann Coulter, with her Colt M1911 semi-automatic pistol sighted right on some poor bastard Democrat. (jk)