Only One Side Cares About Illegal Problem

Just to sum up Trumps Oval Office address:

“Democrats in Congress have refused to acknowledge the crisis. And they have refused to provide our brave border agents with the tools they desperately need to protect our families and our nation.

The federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only: because Democrats will not fund border security.

My administration is doing everything in our power to help those impacted by the situation. But the only solution is for Democrats to pass a spending bill that defends our borders and re-opens the government.

This situation could be solved in a 45-minute meeting.”

That covers it. That could also be the State of the Union

Then Trump had a meeting with Pelosi and Schumer where he asked if they reopened government would they negotiate wall money in 30 days? She said no. No negotiation, no border wall? What is the purpose of reopening Gov’t without full border security?

I know, they all flunked physics. Borderless Democrats.
So they only care about government being shutdown. It’s a Govern-Mental Shutdown.


Chuck Schumer’s lies:  “ineffective, unnecessary border wall. ”
Effective where employed, proven, and necessary for DHS and Border Patrol professionals.

REFUSED by Bordeless Democrats who care only about the Gov’t Shutdown…
not our Border Security. Who also reside in the vast State of Denial.

Selective Shutdown Scrutiny

As the farm in Mt Vernon was closed in the spite shutdown:

Mr. Jarvis, director of US Park service, testified that his department supplies sewage, trash service, and plows snow to the Claude Moore Colonial Farm. But there is no sewage there, and they have their own trash pickup, and have the snow plowed.
What an ignorant liar.

Dow drop in Washington’s plan?

DC wants Dow to drop 1,000: Bove

Published: Monday, 14 Oct 2013 | CNBC

Financial analyst Dick Bove thinks gridlocked politicians are asking for a market sell-off.

“What do they think will convince the American public that they as our leaders must act? It is becoming very clear that what they want is panic in the equity markets. They want to see the Dow drop 1,000 points,” Bove wrote in a note to Rafferty Capital Markets clients Monday.

“An event of this nature would be blasted around the world by the media and it would constitute a threat that all Americans could understand. Once the public’s attention was obtained and focused, Congress and the President would act to resolve the current issues.”

Bove urged investor caution.

“The message to shareholders is ‘Watch Out!’ Buying shares at the present bravely arguing that this crisis will pass without harm to anyone is not a good strategy,” he said. “The only good strategy at the moment is to get out of the way. The politicians will get the panic they seek.”

Bove’s comments echo those made to CNBC recently following President Barack Obama’s interview with John Harwood.

“They feel that a severe market sell-off would be helpful to break the logjam,” said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group in Washington. “It would be helpful in making the Republicans sue for peace. Obama and [Senate minority leader] Harry Reid believe that.”


Related: Wall Street wonders if Obama wants a selloff

A little market crisis—not enough to crash the economy into recession but enough to stir public fear that would push Republicans to the negotiating table—could be just what settles the impasse in Washington and reopens the government, according to investing pros and market observers.

In an exclusive interview with CNBC, the president warned Wall Street that this shutdown could be different. Previous halts in nonessential government activities have caused little market reaction, with major averages actually rising most of the time in the month after the shutdowns are settled.

The politics of fear.

Three birds of a feather…as most dictators are

I’ve watched some of the pre-Sunday talk blitz. The word from Obama’s media comrades is this shutdown is more likely than ever. Then they talk about what the resident is doing about the situation.

Now he says he will not discuss anything with the Republicans under the threat of Government shutdown. Even though he is the one threatening to shut it down. And he says he would be happy to talk about items and changes to Obamacare with Republicans. He claims he is more than willing to negotiate and meet them halfway on changes they want. But that he will not do it under the threat of force, or in other words, negotiate only if they drop the shutdown threat.

Flash back a month when he was talking about making an agreement with Syria. He heralded the threat of force for bringing about the discussion. (even if the discussion is a walking failure — never mind that) It was only due to his threat of force he said.

In an interview with Chris Wallace this past Sunday: Mr Wallace mentioned there has been an interesting development. Today, the Russians say they’re going to push Syria to put chemical weapons under international control. The Syrian foreign minister says he welcomes that. Will you delay a strike to see how that plays out?

OBAMA: I think it’s fair to say that we would not be at this point without a credible threat of a military strike

Now he condemns Republicans strategy, which is the only way they could get him to address the problem-plagued Obamacare.

And now he talks to the new Iranian president, sending the message loud and clear that while they are on the cusp of talking, it means no one including US would take action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. But that is the whole strategy of Iran to delay possible opposition actions, with rhetoric, so they can become a nuclear power. Enter Obama, giving them almost exactly what they were looking for: time and delay to get to their objective.

At home, Obama has big problems with talking. He wants it all his way or the highway. Wait a minute, aren’t the Syrian president, the Iranian president and Obama doing exactly the same thing? Using the same strategy? Or, as my friend Gene says, isn’t that the manual of tyrants? They “promise” to talk in exchange for dropping the threat of force, to get what they want. (marginalize their opposition) Never mind that their promises are an illusion, just like Obama’s other promises.

Obama said referring to the current loggerheads:

“No Congress before this one has ever, ever, in history been irresponsible enough to threaten default, to threaten an economic shutdown, to suggest America not pay its bills, just to try to blackmail a president into giving them some concessions on issues that have nothing to do with a budget.”

Let alone that he called it an “economic shutdown”, what the hell is he referring to?

Angela Wiltz | September 21, 2013

“…… during the Carter administration the government shut down each year he was in office for about 11 days at a time. “During President Reagan’s two terms, there were six shutdowns, typically just one or two days apiece. Deals got cut. Everybody moved on.

In 1995-96, however, shutdowns morphed into political warfare, to the dismay of Republicans who thought they could use them to drag Clinton to the negotiating table on a balanced budget plan.”

For the most part, they were done under a Democrat-controlled House in Congress. They were called “funding gaps” and did not involve shutting down the entire government operations. There were 17 shutdowns.

PS: he didn’t mind shutting down offshore-drilling, fracking, or threats to bulldoze the coal industry, but don’t jeopardize his beloved tool.