Bookeemonster: a voracious appetite for books, mostly crime fiction.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Current Events - March 22, 2013
Government Cover-up of Ammo Buys Implodes
Silence, secrecy and shoddy attempts at debunking the facts have led to Congressional scrutiny
The failure on behalf of the federal government to provide any
explanation for why the Department of Homeland Security is arming to
the teeth with high powered weapons and billions of hollow point
bullets, as well as crude efforts by mainstream media mouthpieces to
debunk the war-like preparations, have backfired massively, propelling
the story to a viral status.
As we reported today,
15 Congressman have written a letter to the DHS demanding to know why
the federal agency is buying so many rounds of ammunition and whether
the purchases are part of a deliberate attempt to restrict supply to
the American people.
The continued huge orders for weapons and bullets have prompted attendances at gun shows to explode, as gun store owners say they having to contend with significant national shortages.
Efforts to portray the very real stockpiling by the federal agency
as a conspiracy theory have fallen flat on their face, and have only
served to further highlight how suspect the DHS’ actions are.
When Media Matters and Raw Story both recently attacked Fox Business host Lou Dobbs
for daring to raise the issue on his show, it quickly became clear that
neither had any prevailing counter point, and were dismissing the
facts only by regurgitating a glib statement of a single DHS official.
Media Matters, which has been documented to be little more than an Obama administration mouthpiece,
reported that, “The claim that DHS bought a 1.6 billion bullet
stockpile is also misleading,” while simultaneously admitting that “DHS
did buy 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.”
The source of the claim that concerns over the bullet buys are a conspiracy theory or “misleading,” is a February 14 Associated Press report
which did not conduct any actual investigation into why the DHS was
purchasing the ammo, instead regurgitating a statement from DHS official
Peggy Dixon, who claimed the bullets were bought in bulk to save money
and were for training purposes only.
As we have tirelessly noted, however, hollow point bullets are completely unsuitable for training purposes because they cost significantly more money
compared to standard firing range bullets. In one fell swoop, this fact
debunks claims that the agency was attempting to save money argument
and is intending to use the ammo in training exercises.
Military veterans
and ammunition experts have also confirmed that they have never
used hollow points for training purposes, expressing confusion at why
the DHS is buying up so many of them.
When Atlantic Wire and Politico also attempted to debunk the issue, they completely ignored the DHS’ admitted purchases of close to 2 billion bullets,
instead focusing only on the Social Security Administration’s purchase
of 174,000 bullets, as if it were some how proof that the DHS is not
involved in stockpiling at all. Snopes.com,
a site that profits from debunking anything and everything, also failed
to even address the DHS bullet purchases, again pointing only to SSA
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration purchases.
Apparently, the mainstream media has failed to grasp that concerns
about government activity cannot be “debunked” by merely repeating glib
statements issued by government officials, particularly given the amount
of times the DHS has been caught lying about other issues such as TSA body scanners and most recently with Janet Napolitano’s erroneous claim that the sequester debate was causing delays in airports.
Amidst all the so-called “debunkings” of the bullet buys, the
aforementioned media sources have also conveniently omitted details
regarding the DHS’ purchase of 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, as well as a $2 million dollar relationship
with a contractor that recently had to apologize for producing shooting
targets of pregnant women, children and elderly gun owners depicted in
residential settings.
None of this has been addressed by the mainstream media. Government silence, sustained secrecy,
and media mouthpieces declaring it isn’t real has only served to
implode an already shoddy cover-up attempt, further shining a light on
the secretive prepping actions of Big Sis and her army of goons.
Dumb and Dangerous: America's Fast Pass for Saudi Arabia
By Michelle Malkin It's business as usual in the post-9/11 world. Your federal government
is back to pandering to wealthy travelers from Saudi Arabia. In the eyes
of our massive homeland security apparatus, the comfort of Saudis is a
higher priority than the safety of American citizens. And
thanks to reckless, feckless bureaucrats who fear being labeled
"racists," "xenophobes" and "Islamophobes," political correctness
remains the handmaiden of terror. According to a new report
released this week by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT),
President Obama's Department of Homeland Security plans to bestow
"trusted traveler" status to travelers from Saudi Arabia. Yes, the home
of 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers will soon enjoy the exclusive privilege
of new entry shortcuts into the U.S. Fox News points out: "Only an
exclusive handful of countries enjoy inclusion in the Global Entry
program: Canada, Mexico, South Korea and the Netherlands. According to
the IPT, some officials are questioning why Saudi Arabia gets to reap
the benefits of the program, when key U.S. allies like Germany and
France are not enrolled." Saudi suck-up Janet Napolitano, head of
the Department of Homeland Security, hailed "the bond between the United
States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" and pledged to work with the
government to facilitate "legitimate trade and travel." This
foolish move is astonishing but not unprecedented. As I noted in the
immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration had
created its own fast-pass system for Saudi elites called "Visa Express."
Thanks to this GOP idiocy, three of the 9/11 hijackers skipped the
usual consular interview process and bypassed long lines in the hot
Saudi sun. Throughout the jihadist-coddling Saudi kingdom,
applicants could simply file their visa paperwork through travel
agencies and courier companies for a small fee -- without having to
appear in person or submit to extensive background checks. The U.S.
embassy in Riyadh bragged before 9/11: "Applicants will no longer have
to take time off from work, no longer have to wait in long lines under
the hot sun and in crowded waiting rooms, and no longer be limited by
any time constraints." Investigative reporter Joel Mowbray
obtained the shocking, shoddy applications filed by the hijackers --
whose omissions about where, when and what they planned to do when they
arrived in the U.S. should have raised blood-red flags. But after the
Saudi-dominated 9/11 jihad crew murdered nearly 3,000 innocent men,
women and children on our soil, Bush administration officials bent over
backward to assure touchy Saudis that no changes would be made "in
determining visa eligibility as a result of the (9/11) attacks." Visa
Express was expanded. Moreover, State Department employees were
banned from communicating with foreign governments about their citizens'
visa applications, making it virtually impossible to verify vital
information. The Bush State Department official in charge of
implementing the "Visa Express" program that helped enable 9/11
hijackers and their colleagues was not punished. Instead, she received
"cash prizes for 'outstanding performance in the 12 months from April
16, 2001, to April 15, 2002' -- a period during which at least five of
the 9/11 terrorists received visas that should have been denied
according to the law," as Mowbray noted, "and during which September 11
happened." Since that time, consular screening has remained an
abject joke. There is still no operational tracking system to detect and
deport hundreds of thousands of visa overstayers, including untold
numbers of illegal aliens from jihad-friendly Middle Eastern countries.
Law enforcement training for consular officials is scant. And Rep. Frank
Wolf, R-Va., stated the obvious about Obama's Fast Pass 2.0: "I think
you have radical Wahhabism in certain elements in Saudi Arabia, and I
think to be more lenient there than in other places would be a mistake." Twelve
years after a Saudi-dominated cabal of young male Muslims committed
mass murder in the skies and brought down the Twin Towers, your
government refuses to do the unapologetic national security profiling
necessary to prevent another domestic attack by foreign jihadis.
Instead, they're searching your grandma's knitting bag, your Marine's
prosthetic limbs and your toddler's bags packed for Disneyland -- while
waving Saudi "trusted travelers" through the fast lane. Deadly deja vu. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/03/22/dumb-and-dangerous-americas-fast-pass-for-saudi-arabia-n1545758/page/full/
Treasonous Obama Strikes Again
The
world is laughing at us. It has come to light that the Obama
administration has allowed hundreds of Chinese nationals -- who are
closely associated with the Chinese Liberation Army -- to work in a
sensitive area of NASA's Langley Research Center. What could possibly go
wrong? Here's
what: one of these nationals, Bo Jiang, was arrested on Monday at
Dulles International Airport for apparently attempting to take sensitive
information out of the U.S. Don't give our security
apparatus too much of a slap on the back for apprehending him, though,
as Jiang had previously succeeded in leaving the country with a laptop
containing sensitive information. And what's in it for us in granting all this access to Chinese PLA operatives? Well, with stupidity you no get eggroll. In an interview
on the subject with Washington DC's WMAL-FM, Congressman Frank Wolf
(R-VA) "revealed that the program is not meant to be a cultural exchange, as Americans are not invited to work in Beijing's counterpart facilities," writesBreitbart. But
it is what we don't know that is likely most damaging. If hundreds of
Chinese PLA operatives have access to the Langley Research Center, how
many are placed in other sensitive American facilities? And if Jiang has
transferred sensitive information, how many other foreign spies have
done so but haven't been caught? There
was a saner time when an enemy power's nationals would be viewed with
suspicion. But I suppose that's considered racial/ethnic profiling now,
the kind of prejudice that Obama's minions just won't tolerate. Hey, why
would Chinese citizens place the interests of their country ahead of
those of a foreign power (that's us), except for the fact that this is
man's nature and has been the practice of virtually everyone who has
ever lived? Of course, though, since the internationalist left has no
such allegiance to their country, this fact may elude them. Vladimir
Lenin once said that we would sell the communists the rope with which
they hang us -- little did he know that we'd end up giving it away. The
Chinese regime is a foe, and a burgeoning, dangerous one at that. It has
expressed a desire to be the world's hegemon, and, of course, this
isn't surprising among nationalistic peoples (which is everyone except
Westerners, it seems). China is perhaps the biggest external threat we
face. What
Obama is guilty of here, like several of his predecessors, is nothing
less than treason. No, I don't care to argue about whether he is
purposely trying to undermine our nation is simply acting in accordance
with a multicultural, citizen-of-the-world mindset. Just because a
doctor commits malpractice without malice doesn't mean he won't be hit
with a devastating lawsuit. But
I guess Obama, like Bill Clinton before him, is just redistributing the
technology. Hey, forget Vegetius. If you want war, prepare for peace.
As
the U.S. federal debt is steadily climbing closer to $17 trillion,
President Obama and Congressional leadership are making statements that
we "don't have an immediate crisis in terms of debt." All the same, our
bloated federal debt does pose a crisis. Not only will it slow economic
growth, threaten us with higher interest rates, and increase inflation;
it also allows China to threaten our national security and status as a
world power.
How does China's ownership of the U.S. debt really pose a danger to our national security?
China
currently owns over 7% of U.S. federal debt via U.S. treasury
securities. If China were to decide to dump those treasuries, it would
greatly increase the burden of servicing U.S. debt. This could lead to a
currency crisis forcing the U.S.
to raise interest rates. Higher interest rates and higher risk for
borrowers will potentially make it difficult for the U.S. to find
creditors and will create the conditions for a recession.
Additionally,
statements made by numerous Chinese officials have expressed support
for the use of U.S. debt ownership as a weapon. Statements such as a
senior editor of the state-run media outlet China's People's Daily
who wrote, "now is the time for China to use its 'financial weapon' to
teach the United States a lesson if it moves forward with a plan to sale
arms to Taiwan." In addition, according to China Times, the country's central bank deputy governor Yi Gang announced, "China is fully prepared for a looming currency war should it, though 'avoidable,' really happen."
Despite statements such as these, most analysis of U.S.-China policy, including reports from the U.S.-China Business
Council (UCBC) as well as a report issued in July 2012 by former
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, argue that the threat of using large
holdings of U.S. debt for political advantage is nothing more than hot
air.
The
conventional wisdom is that China would never dump U.S. securities
because an abrupt movement out of U.S. securities would be detrimental
to both China and the United States. It would not be rational for China
to take huge losses because they would be harming themselves.
The
problem with the conventional wisdom is that it leaves several
questions unanswered, such as: what if China is not rational?
Alternatively, what if the potential damage to the Chinese economy is a
calculated harm, which will serve an ultimate end goal?
China
has been growing their financial sector but not for reasons of
improving the livelihood of their citizenry. The growth in their
financial sector has had little effect on the country's GDP, which they
have covered by artificially inflating their GDP growth to a reported
7.8% when in actuality, economic indicators indicate it to be closer to
3-4%.
China has pumped extensive liquidity into their internal currency markets and it is easy to assume that the growth of their currencies' liquidity is a step toward gaining international reserve status for the Yuan. This currency
liquidity requires China to have an export market to develop for the
Yuan. Over the past few decades, China has become a global manufacturing
hub with a near-monopoly on numerous key rare earth resources, China is
positioning itself as the key global manufacturing and trade
hub for an array of components and finished goods. The country now
produces 20% of global manufacturing output, rendering the rest of the
world dependent on the flow of goods out of China.The icing on the cake
of being the hub of manufacturing and trade would be to have the Chinese Yuan as the world's reserve currency.
At
present, the global financial system is centered on the U.S. dollar.
Countries from around the world keep huge reserves of our currency lying around for the sake of international trade. This reserve currency
status that the dollar possesses allows the U.S. to sustain an
assertive foreign policy. If the dollar were to cease being the global
reserve currency, the U.S. government will be much weaker
internationally. In addition, the country will have a much harder time
financing our debt, leading an already difficult to manage debt
impossible to maintain and collapsing our economy.
It
is important to note that China is not a capitalist nation. Capitalist
nations have thriving open markets and numerous freedoms such as an open
internet. The people of China do not have the luxury of capitalism;
they have a repressive communist government interested in power.
China's
power grab does not involve only financial markets. The Chinese
military has been growing at exorbitant rates over the past few years.
Not only does China have a large nuclear stockpile and a growing drone
program, the growth of their naval fleet through the development of the
aircraft carrier Liaoning -- along with several more planned in
the future -- will help solidify their status as a superpower. An
aircraft carrier will allow China to deploy troops and aircraft to
regions around the world.
The
Chinese People's Liberation Army has been linked to hacking groups that
are seeking the ability to sabotage power grids and steal intellectual
property at alarming rates. Chinese hackers have stolen terabytes of
data from U.S. corporations involved in the United State's critical
infrastructure.
Not
only is China employing a highly antagonistic posture towards America.
Their actions have grown more aggressive toward their neighbors over the
past several years. These activities continuously test America's
commitment to its Asian allies.
China
has grown increasingly belligerent towards Japan both militarily as
well as through their financial markets thanks to a longstanding dispute
over the contested Senkakus Islands in the East China Sea. Additionally,
China, which regards Taiwan as a renegade province, has threatened to
use nuclear weapons in response to Taiwan's interests in autonomy. This
makes China the only country with nuclear capabilities to threaten to
use the bomb against people and territories they consider their own.
When
one looks at their trajectory, it is not hard to conclude that China's
long-term goal is to replace the U.S. as the world's sole superpower.
While they have a lot to lose by reverting to financial terrorism and
dumping the dollar, they may feel that they will come out on top after
toppling the dollar.
With a weakened America, and the international community relying on the Yuan as a reserve currency,
it is not hard to imagine China making good on their belligerence
towards their neighbors. After island hopping across Asia and the
Pacific, it would only be a matter of time before we start seeing the
Chinese navy patrolling around Europe, Africa, and America.
Despite
statements made by various analysts, there is a real threat that China
will dump U.S. debt. The theory that they will not because it would hurt
their economy is predicated on the idea that China is a rational actor
looking for financial growth. However, any country that manipulates and
lies to prop up their financial markets; considers financial terrorism
as a viable option for getting what they want; and threaten their
neighbors as well as their own people with nuclear weapons is not a
rational actor that belongs in the category of "superpower." Our growing
national debt is a danger in and of itself, but giving China the
ability to flex its muscles by means of that debt is something that
should not be allowed to happen.
Pakistani firm whose chemicals were used to kill US troops seeks subsidy for Indiana plant
A Pakistani fertilizer maker whose chemicals have been used in 80
percent of the roadside bombs that have killed and maimed American
troops in Afghanistan is now seeking U.S. taxpayer subsidies in order to
open a factory in Indiana.
The request appears to be on hold pending further review, but the
situation has stirred outrage in Congress, where some accuse the
Pakistani government of halting efforts to clamp down on the
bomb-making.
For the past seven years, the U.S. government has known that the raw
material calcium ammonium nitrate, or CAN, is making its way across the
border into Afghanistan where the Taliban use it to fuel their most
deadly weapons, namely the improvised explosive device. IEDs have long
been the number one killer of U.S. and coalition troops.
The material largely comes from Pakistani fertilizer maker the Fatima
Group. But the Pakistani government has stymied attempts by the
Pentagon to stop the flow of the fertilizer used in these homemade
bombs, according to the director of military Joint IED Defeat
Organization, Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero.
"The producers within Pakistan have been less than cooperative,"
Barbero told a congressional committee late last year. "Despite making
minor packaging, tracking and marketing changes, they have not
implemented any effective product security or stewardship efforts.
Pakistani-based CAN producers can and must do more. Frustratingly, all
direct communication and engagement with the leaders of Fatima Group was
halted by the government of Pakistan."
The Pentagon enlisted help from the State Department to intervene and
pressure the Lahore-based Fatima Group to change their formula. In an
interview with Fox News, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., said those
efforts by the State Department "completely failed," and he blames the
Pakistani government in large part.
"The Fatima organization was willing to work with our U.S. military
to curtail the cross-border transaction of calcium ammonium nitrate
until (the) Pakistani government told them 'no, you aren't going to
curtail it, stop talking with Americans, we are going to keep shipping
across the border the way that we have been'," he said.
What's worse, Hunter said, is that now this same fertilizer group
wants to open a factory in Indiana, taking advantage of U.S. taxpayer
subsidies meant to help Indiana recover after recent flooding.
"Not only was this company Fatima able to still ship calcium ammonium
nitrate to make bombs across the border into Afghanistan, but they
were almost getting ready to take advantage of taxpayer-subsidized loans
to set up shop in Indiana to make more fertilizer while they were
sending bomb making material across the border from Pakistan to
Afghanistan," Hunter said.
Indiana's state officials have suspended Fatima's request pending a
further investigation and now, for the first time in 12 years, the
fertilizer maker appears willing to take simple steps to make its
fertilizer non-explosive.
In a statement, Barbero called the developments "positive" and said
"Fatima confirmed to me in writing that it has suspended sales of CAN
fertilizer products in the border provinces of Balochistan and Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, affecting 228 dealers in those areas."
The Fatima Group also recently released a video that it says shows a
test of a new, less explosive fertilizer they are trying to produce. "As
you can see from the video testing, the Fatima Group has successfully
created a more inert formulation of ammonium nitrate fertilizer," Fatima
said in a statement to Fox News. "Our extensive research and rigorous
testing have led to the development of a formulation that has made it
extremely difficult -- if not impossible -- to modify ammonium nitrate
fertilizer into an explosive."
U.S. Defense officials are still awaiting visas from the Pakistani
government to visit Pakistan to see the facility themselves and whether
the company's claims that they have made their fertilizer more inert are
true.
Still, many believe it's too little progress, too late. Last year,
nearly 1,900 U.S. casualties were caused by these homemade bombs. And
during the past two years in Afghanistan, roadside bomb events increased
80 percent.
"Pakistan not a good actor," Hunter said. "At some point a few months
ago this corporation and the Pakistani government cut off all talks
with the U.S. military about curtailing the transportation of this
explosive across the border until this happened in Indiana. ... Then
they reopened up the lines of communication because once again the
almighty American dollar prevails."
Her staffers can no longer afford “a good meal” on Capitol Hill due to the impact of sequester cuts. As Breitbart’s Mike Flynn notes, those poor staffers only make two- to three-times as much as the average American taxpayer, but whatevs:
Wasserman Schultz’s top aide earns around
$160k a year. She pays two additional aides around $120k a year. She
has five additional aides who earn between $60-100k a year.
The Florida Democrat also complains that offering anything less than a six-figure salary makes it difficult to fill Capitol Hill positions:
“The more we rob Peter to
pay Paul,” she said, “the tougher it is for us to compete not only with
the private sector but with other federal agencies.”
“If it’s a $100,000 reduction in your
[allowance] you really need to start preparing for a staff change,” adds
Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va. “That’s a whole person!” That’s a whole person in the public sector — it’s closer to two or even three in the private sector. It’s about time Congress started to operate more like a business on a budget.
And while her staffers are starving to death on their $100k salaries, Wasserman Schultz hopped a flight aboard Air Force One with President Obama to visit Israel. No word on where the funding for her trip is coming from…
Federal employees who don’t pay taxes would be fired under bill that passed committee
Citing figures indicating that more than 100,000 federal employees
owe more than $1 billion in federal taxes, a House committee on
Wednesday approved legislation that would require the firing of
government workers who are “seriously tax delinquent.”
The legislation, introduced by Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, advanced
through the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. It now has
to pass the full House to be implemented into law. “Most taxpayers file accurate tax returns and pay the taxes
they owe on time, regardless of their income,” Chaffetz, a Republican,
said during the hearing Wednesday. “Federal employees and individuals
applying for federal employment should do the same.” The Federal Employee Tax Accountability Act of 2013
requires the termination of employment for tax delinquent federal
employees, while also prohibiting the hiring of new federal employees
with a substantial amount of delinquent tax debt. “The intent of the bill is simple,” Chaffetz said. “If you are a
federal employee or applicant, you should be making a good faith effort
to pay your taxes or to dispute them, as all taxpayers have the right to
do.” Chaffetz explained that the term “seriously tax delinquent” is
defined as having an outstanding federal tax debt where a notice of lien
has been publicly filed. The bill exempts employees who can demonstrate financial hardships and an effort of working to settle tax liabilities. Democrats on the committee opposed the bill. Maryland
Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking member on the committee, said the
legislation “seeks to demonize federal employees rather than ensure
their compliance with tax obligations.”
More than three dozen federal workers picketed outside the Bolling
Federal Building in Kansas City Wednesday, calling for an end to the
automatic federal spending cuts known as sequestration. “Sequestration stinks,” one protest sign said. The
automatic sequester cuts went into effect earlier this month. They
require tens of thousands of federal workers to take unpaid furloughs,
and many workers are now being notified of their furlough schedule. Most
furloughs won’t take effect until April. “Federal employees are
hard-working Americans just like everyone else,” said a statement from
Shannon McPeek, president of the American Federation of Government
Employees Local 1336. “Less money in their pockets means less money to
spend locally on food, clothing, and other goods and services.” The demonstration was part of a national day of protest by federal workers and labor leaders.
"Sequestration stinks"? Hey, blame the president -- it was his idea, and he rejected every realistic option to replace it. This wasn't just a Kansas City event, incidentally; Buzzfeed compiled a highlight reel
of news coverage from around the country yesterday, as federal workers
took to the streets to vent about the brutal, across-the-board "cuts"
that reduced overall spending by...less than two percent. They were
wasting their breath anyway; the Democrat-held Senate passed their version
of the House's CR earlier this week, thus solidifying the
sequester-induced lower spending baseline for the remainder of the year.
Sorry, bureaucrats, those slightly lowered outlays are here to stay --
at least for the rest of 2013. (Senate Democrats undo the last nine
years of sequestration in their new budget, replacing the cuts with
hundreds of billions in tax increases and double counting
the "savings" while they're at it). The president is expected to sign
the funding measure, although he'll undoubtedly use the occasion to
grouse about the built-in sequester cuts that, er, he proposed. In any case, "sequester stinks" just ain't going to cut it in terms of
breaking through to the public. To accomplish that, you really need to exaggerate job losses, lie about pink slips and pay cuts, invent scary stories about denied healthcare services for little kids, needlessly shut off popular Washington frills, set criminals free, and -- if you're really soulless -- exploit accidental troop deaths to really make your point. Speaking of the penultimate item on that laundry list, Sen. Jon Cornyn is demanding
that Congress investigate the Department of Homeland Security's
decision to release thousands of detained illegal immigrants, including
some aggravated felons. DHS officials' excuses have ranged from incoherent to implausible,
and Cornyn wants a deeper probe. Here's a portion of a letter the
Texas Republican send to New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer:
I am writing to request that the Subcommittee conduct full oversight
of the recent United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
agency decision to release 2,228 persons from immigration detention,
hundreds into Texas, for no legitimate reason. These actions,
made at the direction of Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
leadership, call into question the Department’s commitment to its core
national security missions and raise serious concerns about the judgment
of high-level DHS officials. As the Subcommittee with
oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security, I
believe that it is our duty to hold hearings on this matter in the next
month. Though multiple members of Congress and state governors have
requested detailed information about these DHS actions, we have yet to
receive a response from the Department. What we do know is that at least
700 of these detainees were directly released into Texas. We also know
that at least 30 percent of these released detainees had criminal
records—potentially including aggravated assault, financial crimes,
theft, larceny, drug offenses, drunk-driving, and domestic violence. At
least 8-10 of the criminals released by DHS were classified as “Level
one offenders”—the most dangerous group of criminals detained by ICE.
This is unacceptable. I am also very troubled that senior DHS
officials, including ICE Director John Morton, have attempted to
downplay the seriousness of releasing more than 600 criminals from their custody and into the general population.
I'm sure Schumer will get right on that. Yesterday's protests and
Democrats' histrionics help illustrate why reducing spending is so
difficult in this town, even when the public supports the cuts and can smell the scare tactics from a mile away. Hell, even when a government agency wants to shed costs, Congress stands ready to stand in the way. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/22/aww-government-unions-stage-antisequester-protests-n1545772
Biden One-Night Hotel Tab: $585,000
Vice President Joe Biden stayed one night in Paris during the first
European tour of his second term racking up a hotel bill of $585,000.50,
reports the Weekly Standard.
Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, spent three days traveling Germany, London and Paris in February. They stayed at the five-star Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand
then spent $459,388.65 at the Hyatt Regency London the next day, also
according to the Weekly Standard:
The accompanying document justifying
the “sole source” contract notes that the vice president’s group
required “approximately 136 hotel rooms for 893 room nights.” Based on
these figures and the total contract price, each hotel room at the five
star hotel cost the U.S. government about $500 per night.
Senate Democrats Vote Against the Concept of Balancing the Budget
Let's face it: Budget fights aren't always the sexiest of topics, but
since yesterday, the US Senate has been debating a series of amendments
to the chamber's first budget resolution in nearly four years. Here are
a few significant developments so far: (1) Senators defeated Jeff Sessions' provided that
would have required the Democratic majority to balance their budget
within ten years using any combination of tax increases, cuts, and
reforms they'd like. This was essentially a "show us how you'd balance
the budget" amendment. It failed 46-53, with all Republicans and West
Virginia's Joe Manchin voting yes, and all other Democrats voting no.
Thus, Harry Reid's caucus overwhelmingly defeated even the concept of demonstrating to the American people how Democrats would balance the federal budget ten years from now. As others have pointed out,
a number these same Senate Democrats actually campaigned on balancing
the budget -- and several served as governors of states where the law
required them to do so every year. Balanced budgeting has broad public support, and Republicans will seek to leverage this advantage over the next two years. A group aligned with John Boehner is already going on offense
against House Democrats with new ads that will actually air in
competitive districts. An early salvo in the 2014 midterm fight:
(2) Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray introduced the House-passed budget
as an amendment, just to show that it doesn't have support in the
Democrat-held Senate. It was defeated 40-59. This may change later
today, but since 2009, every single Senate Democrat has voted against
every single budget with which they've been presented. (3) Utah's Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to repeal
Obamacare's job-killing medical device tax, over which even many
Democrats have grown anxious.
The whole purpose of this tax was to conjure up some on-paper
"revenue" to help manufacture a lower CBO score for Obamacare in 2010.
Democrats wanted to claim that the law wouldn't add to the deficit (ha!) and would cost less than a trillion dollars (ha ha!),
so every last drop of revenue they could squeeze was essential -- no
matter how damaging the actual policies would be. Thankfully, the
Senate opted to eliminate this tax in a lopsided vote lasy night, 79-20.
In the process, the Democrat-led Senate dealt another blow to
Obamacare on its third anniversary. Katie has more details. (4) Michigan Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow's amendment
to disapprove of voucherizing Medicare passed easily, 96-3.
Republicans felt comfortable backing her symbolic effort because Paul
Ryan has insisted all along that his bipartisan Medicare plan does not involve vouchers, but rather "premium support" -- a concept that has a significant lineage of Democratic support. (5) Just moments ago, Senators blocked Kelly Ayotte's proposal, which would have prevented consideration of any
budget that raises taxes, so long as the national unemployment rate
remains above 5.5 percent. Why hike up taxes on successful individuals,
families, and (especially) businesses when so many Americans are out of
work? Well, the irresponsible, unbalanced Reid/Murray budget includes
$1.5 trillion in tax increases, so it's no surprise that every Democrat
voted against the Ayotte amendment. It was beaten back, 45-54. (6) Ted Cruz's Obamacare repeal amendment was shot
down along strict party lines, 45-54. Every Republican voted yes, every
Democrat, no. But hey, the law's going great. More votes are upcoming, culminating in a "vote-a-rama" flurry of
amendments later this afternoon. Will Senate Democrats finally pass a
budget? Stay tuned for more... UPDATE - Sen. Crapo's amendment just failed, along
party lines (45-54). It would have provided tax relief for low and
middle income families by repealing Obamacare's taxes for those groups.
Forced to choose between tax cuts for the middle class and Obamacare,
Democrats sided with Obamacare. Again. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/03/22/senate-budget-debate-n1546310
No comments:
Post a Comment