Dems Lock Republicans Out of Another Debate

There’s a pattern here.

Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to keep them from meeting when Democrats aren’t present.

Towns’ action came after repeated public ridicule from the leading Republican on the committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), over Towns’s failure to launch an investigation into Countrywide Mortgage’s reported sweetheart deals to VIPs.

For months Towns has refused Republican requests to subpoena records in the case. Last Thursday Committee Republicans, led by Issa, were poised to force an open vote on the subpoenas at a Committee mark-up meeting. The mark-up was abruptly canceled. Only Republicans showed up while Democrats chairs remained empty.

……A GOP committee staffer captured video of Democrats leaving their separate meeting in private chambers after the mark-up was supposed to have begun. He spliced the video to other footage of the Democrats’ empty chairs at the hearing room, set it to the tune of “Hit the Road, Jack” and posted it on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s minority webpage, where it remained as of press time.

Towns’s staffers told Republicans they were not happy about the presence of the video camera in the hearing room when they were not present. Issa’s spokesman said the Democrats readily acknowledged to Republicans that they changed the locks in retaliation to the videotape of the Democrats’ absence from the business meeting even though committee rules allow meetings to be taped.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63941-democrats-lock-republicans-out-of-committee-room

The Democrats close and bar the door rather than face probing into their ethics and corrupt legislation.
They’ve been doing the same thing with the debate over the government-run ObamaCare bill.
(http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/us_health_care_overhaul/2009/10/15/272483.html)

Since the Democrats hold closed door meetings instead of engaging in the transparency Obama promised, the Republicans should reciprocate.

Now that the Dems have control of the executive, legislative, and pretty much the judicial branch as well, they don’t feel obligated to answer to the American people or be held accountable for their actions.

Remember that in 2010.

9 thoughts on “Dems Lock Republicans Out of Another Debate”

  1. Pingback: COACHEP » Blog Archive » Posts about Obama Health Care Failure as of October 22, 2009

  2. OK, I looked at the top three posts you linked to. So far, it seems, that the biggest complaint you have is the way the so-called tea partiers have been treated. To the extent that some were mistreated that was, of course, wrong. Personally, none of that stuff matters much to me. What bothers me is when people show up to events to protest, but they are so angry and uninformed all they wind up doing is shouting down anyone who disagrees. I am not a fan of the health care bills working their way through Congress, but just once I wish a politician had the courage to call one of those angry people up on stage and ask them to point out where in the bill the death panels can be found. Or maybe they could be asked to point out the sections of the bill that call for the rationing of health care to be more a part of medical treatment than it already is. Or Maybe they could have been asked to show us what part of the bill would have given the government the right to make them change their doctor. Had any politician done this the protestors would have been shown, unfortunately, to be uneducated about the matters they are so concerned with. The reality is that right now health care is rationed. Right now someone, your employer, can determine which health care plans you have and through that choice which doctors you can see. Protesting is a constitutionally guaranteed right. It’s too bad we could not make the exercising of that right contingent on knowing something about the topic you want to protest about.

    Lastly, did you see the video of the woman in the wheelchair who was shouted down by anti-reform protestors? Bad conduct exists on both sides of this debate. With the right to speak out should come the right to act in a civil manner and research the topics you want to discuss.

    1. Jonathan,
      Negative. I have many specific complaints.

      My complaint about the Dems response to the Tea Parties, is the concerted effort of an oppressive, dominant political party—in this case the far left Democrats—in violating rights guaranteed under the First Amendment, as well as their tactic of insulting constituents with epithets and name-calling instead of addressing their concerns.
      Many of the protesters are angry and informed; that’s what scares the politicians.
      SEIU thugs often show up on behalf of the Democrats in an attempt to intimidate people from speaking out.
      I have the courage to speak out and tell them exactly to what the Death Panels refer:
      A government-run proposal to ration health care based on its own interpretation of “need” and “urgency” of care and treatment. I read the Democrat-sponsored S 3200, and listened to Obama say, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the pain killer”.
      You cannot force everyone into government-run health care, overload the system, tax people until they’re broke, and spend trillions on a socialist fantasy without paying an awful price in quality, patient care rationing, and in a monstrous deficit. The so-called “public option” is a plan to seize total control of our healthcare system and force government-mandated rationing of healthcare. Period. People with serious illnesses would die before they ever got to see a doctor. Right now, people still have a choice of health care plans. There’s no law that tells you which one to choose or which doctor to see. Under ObamaCare, that would change. Rationing would indeed become a reality. That’s the bottom line of ObamaCare.
      That’s why people are angry. We’re not against reform, we’re against government control of our health care.

      Speaking of “contingent on knowing something”, it’s too bad that politicians aren’t held to a standard of knowing something about the policies and bills they’re trying to ramrod down our throats. Most of them have not taken the time to read them. Instead, they pass that responsibility to their staffers. If you’re going to support a piece of legislation that will fundamentally change health care in this country, you had better read it first, doncha think?

      Another complaint I have is the Dems propensity for closed-door meetings where they intend to make major policy changes without debate or input from the American people.

      Another complaint: Their violation of the Logan Act and Section 3, Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

      Did you see the videos and articles I provided in the links which showed Dem politicians bad-mouthing constituents for asking direct questions, and SEIU thugs who barged in on peaceful protesters? http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/dissent-in-the-age-of-the-one/

      Of course not, because you chose not to.

      Take your own advice and “research the topics you want to discuss”. I have.

      SFC MAC

  3. With all due respect, this is not evidence. All you have given me is links to other posts of yours. Quite honestly the things you site as evidence could have many different explanations. What you believe is unpatriotic conduct another person could see as standing up for causes that are often ignored.

    Now, I have a few serious questions for you. Do you ever read or watch the BBC? Do you ever read or watch Al Jazeera? Do you ever read any of the Chinese language newspapers? Do you ever listen to the World Radio Network? Do you ever listen to NPR? Do you ever watch MSNBC? Do you ever watch CNN? I check on all of these sources–and Fox News–a few times each week. If you read my blog at http://www.americanreality.wordpress.com you will notice that my opinion changes based on what I believe are the facts of the story and what I think is best for America. When forming my opinions I do not rely on only one source and I do not consider just the opinions of those who are likely to agree with me. For that reason, I am hard for the extreme left and right to understand.

    By the way, I agree that we will, most likely, never get rid of parties. Unfortunately, most people are not willing to put in the time to consider all sides of the important issues we face.

    1. Jonathan,
      Oh good gawd, man. The links to my posts contain OTHER LINKS to news articles which report the words, philosophy, behavior, and actions of the Democrats in question. “Standing up for causes” should not include undermining national security, censoring the free speech of patriots, or committing acts of treason. If you think so, there’s somthing wrong with that picture. If you don’t want to bother with actually reading the posts and the information I’ve provided in each one, then don’t expect me to take you seriously. Your credibilty just took a big hit.

      Yes, I’ve watched the BBC as well as Sky News, CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, MSNBC, and FoxNews. I’ve also read The International Herald Tribune, The Daily Telegraph, and a multitude of other online newspapers. I’ve read many publications and watched a variety of T.V. channels. I have a pretty good handle on the way news is presented throughout the world.

      Just so you know, you’re having a discussion with a retired Army Sergeant First Class, Iraq War veteran (twice over) and former Intelligence Analyst with a strong background in geo-political studies and counter-terrorism. I’ve been around the world, including Western and Eastern Europe, the Far East, and the Middle East. (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).
      Trust me, I’ve been exposed to many other cultures and viewpoints.
      As a result, I have very strong opinions based on my experiences. This is why, for instance, I’m a hawk on foreign policy and a vehement anti-Islamofascist.

      I consider all sides in arguments, but that doesn’t mean I won’t stick to my principles, facts, and common sense. It’s okay to take sides, Jonathan. I understand there are gray areas in life, but some things are pretty cut and dry.

      I know what’s best for America, and it’s not the Socialist Oligarcy we’re currently saddled with.

      Now….as you were saying?….

      SFC MAC

  4. I will ignore your comments about the Democrats, because I am not a Democrat and I do not believe your comments are anything more than feelings which are not supported by evidence.

    As for the party system of politics we use, I suggest eliminating all political parties and having each person who wants to run for office run as an individual. Political parties make politicians too dependent on the success of others to allow them to become individuals. Our political process, to stop being so disfunctional, needs to promote individualism and the community-based policies it would foster. No party should be able to say “no” to everything the other proposes. No party should be able to keep members of another from playing a part in the deliberative process that should mark our politics. Parties have done nothing but make the buying of our political process easier and discourage citizens from learning about the complexities associated with the issues we face. It has become too easy for people to watch or read party-driven news that comports with the values they have always had. People have a responsibility to our nation to consider all sides of a topic–not just accept as fact the words of those who agree with the point of view they wish was reality.

    1. Jonathan,

      Not supported by evidence? I don’t mean to be harsh, but what’s the area code of your cave?
      Just a few samples of Dems’ visceral hatred and anti-American behavior:

      READ:
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/the-new-democrats-the-party-of-hate/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/08/dissent-in-the-age-of-the-one/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/08/06/obama-dems-declare-war-on-grassroots-america/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/pelosi-now-we-dont-have-to-explain-process/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/stark-raving-lunatic/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/baghdad-democrats-trip-financed-by-saddam-hussein/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/09/13/kucinich-kisses-up-to-the-enemy/
      http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2009/04/08/dem-congressional-black-caucus-members-go-to-cuba-kiss-castros-ass/

      There’s LOTS more where that came from. It doesn’t matter what “party” you belong to. The evidence is overwhelming. They’ve sucked up to America’s enemies, used intimidation at Tea Party protests, bad-mouthed Americans for expressing their opposition to Obama’s socialist policies, and have tried like hell to squelch dissent. Their hubris is appalling.

      Your idea of ‘eliminating all political parties’ is unrealistic since groups of like-minded people and politicians will always categorize their groups by some kind of label. This is why “independents” don’t get much press or election to office.

      I especially like this statement:

      People have a responsibility to our nation to consider all sides of a topic–not just accept as fact the words of those who agree with the point of view they wish was reality.

      Keep that in mind as Obama attacks FoxNews for daring to question his polices, fact check his propaganda, and investigate his “czars”.

      SFC MAC

  5. Is this behavior any worse than that which was demonstrated when Republicans controlled Congress? How many times did Republicans hold votes open for hours why secret deals were made to secure votes? Can you say prescription drug bill? The answer is to end the party system. As long as people keep supporting the parties the party in power will keep playing games.

    1. Jonathan,

      I’d say the Democrats’ behavior is a bit worse, given their visceral hatred of democracy, free market enterprise, and patriotism.

      As for “ending the party system”, what would you replace it with?

      People and politicians will always identify with a particular set of principles and label it with a corresponding description, i.e.: Republican, conservative, Democrat, liberal, Libertarian, Independent, Populist, etc. Any political entity you put in place of the “two party system”, will end up distinguishing itself with a name of its own, thereby becoming a “party”.

      SFC MAC

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
Wordpress Social Share Plugin powered by Ultimatelysocial