Browse By

Ted Cruz Calls For The Shutdown Of The Entire Federal Government

Ted Cruz isn’t just a United States senator. He’s also a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. As such, he’s asking to be trusted with the power of executive leadership over the entire U.S. federal government.

Today, Ted Cruz let America know what he wants to do with that power: Shut the whole thing down.

Upon hearing that John Boehner is resigning from his position as Speaker of the House of Representatives, Cruz told a crowd, “If it is correct that the Speaker, before he resigns, has cut a deal with Nancy Pelosi to fund the Obama Administration for the rest of its tenure… that is not the behavior that one would expect from a Republican Speaker of the House.”

Actually, funding the Obama Administration, which is really nothing less than the entire U.S. federal government, is exactly what one would expect the Speaker of the House to do, regardless of what political party the Speaker belongs to. It’s the job of Congress, one house of which is led by the Speaker, to fund our federal government. How to fund it is open for disagreement, but whether to fund it isn’t.

Without funding, the federal government of the United States of America will die. When that happens, the United States of America will die.

Ted Cruz is openly calling for the beginning of the dissolution of the United States of America, simply because he has a political grudge with Barack Obama. That may play to the frenzied fantasies of the most extreme fringe of the Republican Party, but it’s not an idea any reasonable leader would would even toy with.

6 thoughts on “Ted Cruz Calls For The Shutdown Of The Entire Federal Government”

  1. DrRGP says:

    This will work for me so long as the plan is not to reopen it–ever. Instead, let’s start all over. The result couldn’t be any worse than what we have now.

  2. J Clifford says:

    DrRGP, are you serious? Do you really think things couldn’t be much, much worse? You would have us descend into anarchy and Revolution, presuming that we would come out of the bloodbath in better shape. I think raw totalitarianism would be a more likely result, and that yes, that would be much worse than what we have now.

  3. Dave says:

    “How to fund it is open to disagreement, but whether to fund it isn’t.” What to fund is open to disagreement too, and that’s what this is about.

  4. ella says:

    Pure drama, worthy of the stage, but not an Oscar. This travesty has been going don since it was discovered that people could be led around by their emotions. And without a clue as to why. Even if the entire government, every single civil servant, in every single department, was sent home for one day, this is what would happen. If it was without pay: the government would save possibly billions of dollars to put toward the debt: Every required service of the government would continue with government employees, non-civil service, manning the presses to send out Social Security checks and handle Medicare as well as the government payments on debts: possibly some new debt projects that the houses of Congress didn’t care how much more debt was required to spend, might be delayed. Without media hype to tell them, the people would have a hard time knowing what happened and the workers would have an unpaid holiday. But we know that won’t happen – the debt has to be INCREASED and that means spending more borrowed money. You gonna pay it back, Jack? Funding is not a mandate to the people who will pay the debt. It is an escape for the politicians who have gone mad with power and spending what is not now, and has never been theirs. With abusing the trust of people who pay their salaries in good faith and have been lied to. But will that happen, will the gluttony stop until the money runs out? Not likely. But the rats will leave the sinking ship in numbers when they realize just how long they actually have. Is that already starting?

  5. Tom says:

    Anarchy just means no rulers – great idea! This government is corrupt beyond repair and spies on the entire world – including its own citizens! It should have been abolished years ago, but now has become the norm (which continues to get worse). It wouldn’t immediately become totalitarianism because no one could take over that quickly. It would be local governance by all parties involved or it wouldn’t work (why else would anyone go along with it?).

    1. ella says:

      Tom: “It wouldn’t immediately become totalitarianism because no one could take over that quickly.”

      Oh, I don’t know, have you thought how long it would take Bill Clinton to tear down the door to the White House?

Leave a Reply

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

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!