What’s interesting in the news today?
1. Tone deaf.
From TheDailySurge “The rather overused term “tone-deaf” doesn’t even begin to describe the performance from White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today in defense of Team Obama’s actions to combat the current crisis on the border. In a rather shocking display of sheer lunacy, Earnest insisted that “we’re seeing the benefit” of the Obama administration’s investment in border security right before our very eyes (see the video above). If that’s the case, can we please get our taxpayer money back? Sheesh. We are indeed seeing the result of the administration’s efforts — or lack thereof — to address our porous border. But “benefit” is the last adjective in the world I’d ever use to describe it.”
“Earnest spent much of the remainder of today’s briefing defending the administration’s $3.7 billion dollar request in “emergency” funds to address the crisis, but offered few explanations for why it appears that the bulk of that money will go towards helping illegals, rather than actually beefing up the border to help stop all of this from happening in the first place. He repeatedly insisted that the money is needed so that the Department of Homeland Security can exercise “greater discretion,” whatever that means. The term is so vague that I can almost guarantee some questionable plans are afoot.
The Press Secretary also asserted that Obama will make no effort to try and offset that huge funding request with commensurate budget cuts. But that should come as a surprise to absolutely no one.”
Illegal immigrants may be seeing the “benefits” of Obama’s policies, but cities being overrun by them, not so much.
______________________________________________
2. So what do they plan on using the 3.7 billion they requested on, because you know it won’t be used to seal the border?
From TheWaPost “The White House on Tuesday formally requested $3.7 billion in emergency funding from Congress to deal with an influx of Central American minors along the southern border. But the proposal was quickly met with broad skepticism among Republican lawmakers, who were doubtful that the package would be approved quickly — if at all.
Administration officials said the request is part of a comprehensive strategy aimed at building more detention centers, adding immigration judges, and beefing up border patrols and air surveillance. President Obama has said he hopes such steps will speed deportations and discourage adults from sending children on a dangerous, sometimes deadly, trip north.
But GOP leaders, who have called on Obama to take stronger action, said they were reluctant to give the administration a “blank check” without more-detailed plans to ensure that the money would help stem the crisis at the border.
The president “is asking to use billions of taxpayer dollars without accountability or a plan in place to actually stop the border crisis,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement.”
______________________________________________
3. The number of Americans receiving some type of welfare is at an all-time high.
From CNSNews “According to the 2014 version of a report that the Department of Health and Human Services is required by law to issue annually, the percentage of Americans on welfare in 2011 was the highest yet calculated. The data for 2011 is the most recent in the report.
HHS has calculated the percentage of all persons in the United States who live in families that receive “welfare” going back to fiscal 1993. It has not calculated a percentage for years prior to that.
As defined in the report (“Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors”), a welfare recipient is any person living in a family where someone received benefits from any of just three programs—Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (formerly Aid to Families With Dependent Children), Supplemental Security Income, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (or food stamps).”
“By this measure, according to the report, 23.1 percent of Americans were recipients of welfare in 2011. Since 1993, the earliest year covered by the report, that is the highest percentage of Americans reported to be receiving welfare. A startling 38 percent of all children 5 and under in the United States were welfare recipients in 2011, according to the report.”
______________________________________________
4. Another Obama foreign policy success story. 🙄
From YahooNews “The Islamic State extremist group has taken control of a vast former chemical weapons facility northwest of Baghdad, where remnants of 2,500 degraded chemical rockets filled decades ago with the deadly nerve agent sarin are stored along with other chemical warfare agents, Iraq said in a letter circulated Tuesday at the United Nations.
The U.S. government played down the threat from the takeover, saying there are no intact chemical weapons and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to use the material for military purposes.
Iraq’s U.N. Ambassador Mohamed Ali Alhakim told U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a letter that “armed terrorist groups” entered the Muthanna site on June 11, detained officers and soldiers from the protection force guarding the facilities and seized their weapons. The following morning, the project manager spotted the looting of some equipment via the camera surveillance system before the “terrorists” disabled it, he said.”
“The last major report by U.N. inspectors on the status of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program was released about a year after the experts left in March 2003. It states that Bunker 13 contained 2,500 sarin-filled 122-mm chemical rockets produced and filled before 1991, and about 180 tons of sodium cyanide, “a very toxic chemical and a precursor for the warfare agent tabun.”
If there’s no threat from it, why were they still guarding it?
______________________________________________
5. The Navy is warning that it can’t meet it’s 30 year funding needs.
From Bloomberg “The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034, according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.
The congressionally required blueprint, submitted late last week and obtained by Bloomberg News, says the Navy’s plan “requires funding at an unsustainable level” unless spending on shipbuilding is increased.
The document outlines challenges facing the plan to increase the Navy fleet to 306 vessels from the current 289 while building 12 new Ohio-class submarines, part of the nation’s nuclear triad of air, land and sea weapons.“
Here’s an idea… stop wasting money on this nonsense, and you’ll have all you need. Even with the cuts left in place.
From USNews “Just about everyone agrees the purpose of the United States Navy is to protect the “freedom of the seas,” a time-honored tradition that effects not just America but just about every nation on earth. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, however, seems to have a different idea—which may be why he has been leading the charge on behalf of the Obama administration to show off the fleet’s green potential.“
“The military says it’s necessary to find alternatives to traditional energy sources. Others, including Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, have branded it a public relations stunt, and an expensive one at that. The fuels used in the exercise were anywhere from two to four times as expensive as standard fuel, a not inconsiderable expense at the time the Defense Department faces defense cuts and a previously unthinkable sequester of funds that will seriously impact military preparedness and effectiveness.”
The “Green Energy” scam is sucking resources.
From TheBlaze “The Defense Department has 680 renewable energy projects in the works encompassing all five branches of the U.S. armed forces as part of President Barack Obama’s continuing effort to create a “green” military sustainable by alternative energy sources, TheBlaze has learned.”
“U.S. lawmakers, however, were up in arms last year over the Navy’s so-called “green fleet” where the cost of the alternative biofuel was a whopping $26 per gallon. The Navy spent $12 million for 450,000 gallons of biofuel to power a carrier strike group off the coast of Hawaii in 2012.
“That $26.6-per-gallon purchase is nowhere near the $2.50 the service pays for each gallon of petroleum. (It has been stated that it would be about $16 per gallon if it were mixed with standard jet fuel.),” National Defense Magazine wrote at the time.”
Problem solved? (This is a govt. press release, so I can post as much as I want without violating copyright restrictions)
From McClintock/House.gov ” An amendment by Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04) to the Defense Appropriation Bill to forbid defense dollars from being spent to meet the Administration’s “Green Energy” mandates was passed by the House in a voice vote. The Congressman’s remarks in support of the measure are attached:
Mr. Chairman:
The amendment before the House forbids Defense dollars from being spent to fund two executive orders and several other provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of dollars on so-called “Green Energy.”
For example, according to the GAO, the Navy has spent as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy purchased 450,000 of biofuel for its so-called “Green Fleet,” at the cost of $26.60 per gallon, at a time when conventional petroleum fuel cost just $2.50.
What taxpayer in his right mind would pay $26 per gallon to fill up his car when next door they’re selling it for $2.50?
Yet that is precisely what our armed forces are ordered to do – except they’re not just filling their cars – they’re filling entire ships and aircraft. And this all comes out of our precious defense dollars.
The Air Force paid $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012 – ten times more than regular jet fuel.
It’s not just biofuels.
The Pentagon expects to purchase 1,500 Chevy Volts, at a subsidized price of $40,000 each – and a production price of $90,000 paid for by other subsidies.
As Sen. Coburn’s office points out, “EACH ONE of these $40,000 Chevy Volts represents the choice NOT to provide an entire infantry platoon with all new rifles, or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot be used for realistic training.”
Under these “green energy” mandates, the Army and Navy have been required to install solar arrays at various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million dollars to install a 10 acre solar array – which will supply a grand total of two percent of the base’s electricity.
According to the Inspector General’s office, this project will save enough money to pay for itself in just 447 years. (Of course, solar panels only last about 25 years).”
Here’s the video with the above and more.
Stop wasting money on agenda driven fantasies and use it for defense. You know, like you’re supposed to.
______________________________________________
Wandering Views 
#1-2 Don’t give Obama no money.
#4 And why is everyone saying no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq?
None of this makes sense. I believe that’s by design.
On Fox News last night, some were debating whether Obama was on the list of “worst presidents” Up there with Millard Fillmore, U.S. Grant and others. I say he tops the list.
The reason is that Obama is not incompetent, he is pushing his agenda.
i.e. This is deliberate. All of it.
LikeLike
What we need for the next two years is an obstructionist Congress
The more obstruction, the better.
A do nothing congress is the next best. (Besides obstruction, that is.)
LikeLike
I couldn’t take it. I didn’t finish watching the video.
LikeLike
Chas, the problem with an obstructionist Congress is that they are countered with Executive Orders.
LikeLike
#3 — raise the min. wage
#4 – not sure how this is Obama’s fault, the negotiated withdrawal of US troops was done by Bush and Obama implemented agreement. Perhaps the US should have left Hussein in charge at least there would’ve been stability and UN monitoring of such sites. As fro Syria — the rebels receive much of their funding from the Saudis and American refreshing with the Saudis go way back.
Domestically, there may be policy differences between Republican and Democrats but in terms of foreign policy the focus of US foreign policy hasn’t changed in the post-WWII world — maintain US power and interests in the world. Isolationism, human rights (with the possible exception of Carter) and any other focus or idea has taken a back seat to the promotion of US interests abroad.
Chas — I think you already have your wish. The 2103 edition of Congress was the least productive congress in the modern era (I imagine that means post Theo Roosevelt) with fewer laws passed than in a century. Obama then has responded in a way I wold think any president would (at least one interested in accomplishing something)— by using current regulatory bodies. As for executive orders — he’s pass less executive orders than any president since Grover Cleveland. American hasn’t enjoyed such limited government in the last 125 years.
LikeLike
how did my auto-correct go from friendship to refreshing in my comment about the Saudis
LikeLike
hwesseli,
Thank you for more information. Your friend seems like he knows what he was talking about. A couple of observations.
1. Like anything else, it takes practice to get good at anything. The Americans who shot at him were obviously mistaken about his identity. They were new at the “Art of War.” They didn’t know how to do war. It is too bad they didn’t know the difference between French and Arabic. More practice is a second choice for getting ready for battle. This takes money, money used to practice killing people and breaking things. There are trade-offs for spending money. This is one of the things politics is good for.
2. You seem to have a completely different mindset about government than I do. I don’t think it is the business of the government to see that anyone have a job. It should not be the job of the government to see that everyone has training for jobs. It is not the job of the government to make sure everyone has the same amount of money as the next guy. The job of the United States government is
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
I would never think of our US armed forces as “…the US army but despite its volunteer nature it stills serves as a welfare institution…” Do you suppose that the people who thought of the Army as a welfare institution thought that that is the job of government in general? I don’t think of government that way. As a matter of fact, I spend more time figuring out how to keep the government from taking my money from me than I do thinking of ways to get more money from my government.
Evidently you and I think of government differently.
LikeLike
hwesseli,
This is almost an hour long but I learned how American education has changed America. Not for the better, either, from my point of view. It answers many of your thoughts about the US today.
http://www.hoover.org/research/hoover-senior-fellow-victor-davis-hanson-discusses-learning-ancient-warfare
LikeLike
HRW,
Yes Bush negotiated the withdrawal. Obama was left to negotiate the status of forces agreement. He dropped the ball and didn’t get it done, mostly over the issue of immunity for US troops. An adequate size force remaining could have prevented all of this, at least in Iraq. He took credit for Bush’s action and timetable to claim he ended the war, but now has flip-flopped on the immunity issue anyway.
It was all preventable, but Barry’s an amateur. Even Hillary had a clue, but was ignored.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/23/obama-does-a-u-turn-on-immunity-for-u-s-troops-in-iraq.html
“President Obama pulled U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011 because he couldn’t get Iraq’s parliament to offer U.S. soldiers immunity from Iraqi prosecution. But now Obama is promising to send in hundreds of special operations forces based on a written promise that these soldiers will not be tried in Iraq’s famously compromised courts for actions they are taking in defense of Baghdad. ”
“The debate has echoes of 2011, when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton favored keeping more troops in Iraq past 2011 than President Obama.
According to multiple administration officials involved in the process, senior members of the State Department have argued internally that limited U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) are needed—along with more direct assistance to the Baghdad government—to push back the terrorist group.”
“Back in 2011, when the United States tried to negotiate for several thousand U.S. military personnel to stay in Iraq past the end of that year, the White House demanded Iraq’s parliament approve modifications to what is known as a status of forces agreement (SOFA) that included these kinds of legal protections. This month, Colin Kahl, the senior Pentagon official in charge of Iraq policy at the time, explained why the White House insisted on Iraq’s parliament approving the changes to the SOFA.”
“Yet this time around, Obama is willing to accept an agreement from Iraq’s foreign ministry on U.S. forces in Iraq without a vote of Iraq’s parliament. “We believe we need a separate set of assurances from the Iraqis,” one senior U.S. defense official told The Daily Beast on Sunday. This official said this would likely be an agreement or exchange of diplomatic notes from the Iraq’s foreign ministry. “We basically need a piece of paper from them,” another U.S. official involved in the negotiations told The Daily Beast. The official didn’t explain why the parliamentary vote, so crucial three years ago, was no longer needed.”
Blaming Bush is getting old, especially when it’s so obvious who really is at fault.
LikeLike
HRW,
“American hasn’t enjoyed such limited government in the last 125 years.”
True…. in Congress.
But in case you hadn’t heard, we’re a dictatorship now anyway.
Regulations and rules by executive order is how it’s done now.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/ali-meyer/new-epa-regs-issued-under-obama-are-38-times-long-bible
“Since President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued 2,827 new final regulations, equaling 24,915 pages in the Federal Register, totaling approximately 24,915,000 words.
The Gutenberg Bible is only 1,282 pages and 646,128 words. Thus, the new EPA regulations issued by the Obama Administration contain 19 times as many pages as the Bible and 38 times as many words.”
__________________________________
http://thehill.com/regulation/administration/299617-government-report-shows-spike-in-regulations-under-obama
“The recent spike shows a heavy output of regulations in the first three years of the Obama administration, followed by a drop last year. In fact, 2012 included the fewest finalized rules — 2,482 — of any year dating back a decade and a half, the report found.
The Obama administration has come under fire for its aggressive regulatory policies, with congressional Republicans complaining that the wave of new rules is costing businesses and amounts to executive overreach. ”
And that’s just the first term.
___________________________________
And then there’s banking, ObamaCare regs, small business regs…. the list goes on and on.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/waynecrews/2013/02/06/small-business-regulations-surge-under-obama/
“Despite President Obama’s claims to have issued fewer rules than predecessor George W. Bush (“In fact, I’ve approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.”), rules impacting small business have bumped upward in the past several years.
As the table below shows, at year-end 2012, overall rules in the pipeline (active, completed, and long-term) affecting small business according to federal agencies stand at 854.
In fact, the number of rules with small-business impacts under Obama since 2010 has regularly exceeded 800. The last time rules in this category exceeded 800 was back in 2003. Policy makers at least should be aware of the matter and should examine the rules in question, and administration claims of less regulation, in more detail.”
Limited govt? Please. 🙄
LikeLike
Aj, the purpose of an agency is to issue regulations.
If it isn’t issuing regulations, it isn’t doing it’s job.
Issue regulations, it will do.
If it has to invent an issue, it will.
LikeLike