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.
______________________________________________