Conservative Blogger
Monday, February 26, 2018
Rep. Mac Thornberry: We need a strong vibrant economy to fund our military
 |
| This 2007 image shows two U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor aircraft during a training mission. (AP/ U.S. Air Force) |
The primary job of the federal government is to
provide for the common defense, yet today only 15 percent of the budget
is devoted to that task. While our military personnel will always try
to do whatever is asked of them, years of inadequate and unpredictable
funding have taken a real toll. Much of their equipment is old and worn
out, and too often they have not been getting the training they need to
do what the nation asks. In 2017 about four times as many service
members lost their lives in routine training and operations than in
hostile actions.
Defense Secretary James Mattis
testified recently that “our competitive edge has eroded in every domain
of warfare – air, land, sea, space, and cyber.” Others have put our
position compared with rival states, such as Russia and China, in much
starker terms. There can be little doubt that this erosion of American
military strength has encouraged a variety of adversaries to be more
aggressive and that the world has grown more dangerous as a result.
The budget agreement recently passed by Congress and
signed into law begins to reverse this decline. At the same time,
sufficient resourcing comes with additional responsibility, for both the
Congress and the Department of Defense. While the added funding will
allow us to begin to repair our planes, ships, and equipment, we must
also continue to drive significant reforms needed within the Department
and other agencies to stay ahead of rapidly changing technologies and a
wide range of current and anticipated future threats. In addition, the
first full audit of the Department will occur this year, which will help
uncover areas for financial improvement.Over the past three years, Congress has enacted significant reforms with strong bipartisan support. We have modernized military benefits, reorganized much of the Defense bureaucracy, and reformed the way the Pentagon buys goods and services. All of this was done with a goal of making the Pentagon, and especially the acquisition system, more agile. As a result, anyone entering military service today will witness these reforms, over the course of their career, save the taxpayer billions. We have more work to do, and top officials in the Department seem willing to work with Congress towards this important goal.
Still, some have opposed restoring military budgets by trying to revive the old “guns versus butter” debate. In fact, American economic prosperity and our national security are more like the chicken and the egg – we cannot have one without the other.A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically.
We need a strong, vibrant economy to produce the tax revenue to fund our military. We also need economic growth and innovation to ensure that our military technology stays ahead of authoritarian, directed economies like China’s that can force a whole-of-nation effort against us.
But a strong military is also an essential prerequisite to a healthy economy and to our quality of life. Since World War II, the rules-based international order created and maintained by the United States has benefited peoples around the globe and none more so than Americans here at home. We are living longer with a higher material standard of living than ever before.
When we talk about the necessity of a strong military, it is not only to protect our people and allies from North Korean missile and terrorist attacks. It is also to guarantee freedom of navigation in the sea and in the air and to ensure that there are fair, enforceable international rules that give American companies and American workers a fair chance to compete.
Allowing our military strength to continue to wane adds fuel to China’s narrative that America is a nation in decline so that Asian nations would do better to enlist in China’s alternative economic and military order. If China sets the rules for much of the world’s economy, America will feel the consequences in our pocketbooks as well as in our security.
A military starved of resources, training, and equipment will not long be able to protect the country physically or economically. That is why Congress came together this month and ended the era of asking our troops to do too much with too little. To make the most of that investment, we must now apply equal effort to agility driven reforms.
The brave men and women in the military serve the nation unconditionally, and our support for them should be unconditional as well. They deserve the best training, equipment, and support that our nation can provide. By providing that kind of support for them, we are also helping ensure that future Americans will inherit a country of growth and opportunity.
Republican Mac Thornberry represents Texas' 13th District in the U.S. House of Representatives where he serves as Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
What is DACA and why is the Trump administration ending it?
DACA: What is it?
President Trump is expected to make a decision on the fate of Obama-era immigration Executive Order DACA. But what is it?
It’s down to the wire for President
Trump and lawmakers to come up with a plan for the hundreds of thousands
of young, undocumented immigrants living in the U.S.
In September 2017, the Trump administration officially announced its
plan to phase out the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program
(DACA) – which provides a level of amnesty to certain undocumented
immigrants, many of whom came to the U.S. as children – with a six-month
delay for recipients. However, two federal judges have recently ruled
that DACA must continue while litigation is pending.
Here’s a look at the DACA program and why the Trump administration dismantled it.What is the DACA program?
“Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services stated. “Deferred action does not provide lawful status.”
Individuals were able to request DACA status if they were under the age of 31 on June 15, 2012, came to the U.S. before turning 16 and continuously lived in the country since June 15, 2007.
Individuals also had to have a high school diploma, GED certification, been honorably discharged from the military or still be in school. Recipients could not have a criminal record.
It did not provide “legal status.”
How many people are affected by DACA?
Nearly 800,000 undocumented youth are under the program's umbrella.Thousands of people could lose their jobs if the DACA program is rescinded permanently, according to a study by the left-leaning think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Daniel Garza, president of the conservative immigration nonprofit Libre Initiative, told Fox News that DACA offers a “reprieve from a life of uncertainty for innocent kids who didn’t break the law.”
“It’s rather disappointing to think they could return to a state of anxiety and fear,” he said.
Why did the Trump administration dismantle it?
The Trump administration announced in September 2017 that it planned to phase out DACA for current recipients, and no new requests would be granted.Since the announcement, Trump has offered to work with lawmakers on a solution for the hundreds of thousands of people in the U.S. who fell under DACA’s umbrella of protections. He has also repeatedly blamed Democrats on social media for lack of a solution.
On Feb. 13, a Brooklyn federal judge ordered the government to let people already in the DACA program continue enjoying protections but declined to guarantee the program to new applicants. In January, a San Francisco judge ruled that DACA must remain in place while litigation is ongoing.
The Supreme Court reportedly held a close-door meeting to discuss the court decisions on Feb. 16.
Earlier this year, Trump released his “four pillars” of immigration reform, which included a provision for legal status for DACA recipients and others who would be eligible for DACA status. The White House estimated that total to be 1.8 million people.
Republicans – and some Democrats – opposed Obama’s order establishing DACA from the start as a perceived overreach of executive power.
Obama spoke out on social media after the Trump administration announced the plan to dismantle the program, stating that it's "self-defeating ... and it is cruel" to end DACA and questioned the motive behind the decision.
One thing to consider: Trump's decision to end DACA could throw a wrench into his administration's other immigration reform efforts.
Do any DACA recipients serve in the military?
Despite some rumors circulating online to the contrary, Dreamers were eligible to serve in the U.S. military since 2014 when the Pentagon adopted a policy to allow a certain amount of undocumented immigrants to join.In the fiscal year 2016, 359 DACA recipients had enlisted in the Army – which is the only branch to accept immigrants of this category.
A Department of Defense official said in April 2017 that the military would continue to accept noncitizen recruits, but it is unclear if that will continue to be the case.
Russia official calls US charges a joke worthy of actor Jim Carrey
A spokeswoman for Russia's Foreign Ministry
spokeswoman says the U.S. indictment charging 13 Russians with trying to
influence the U.S. presidential election is ridiculous enough to be the
work of a professional comedian.
State news agency Tass quoted
ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova saying Sunday: "I sometimes get the
impression that ... behind these statements that are made in the U.S.
are some of their most popular comedians, maybe Jim Carrey."
The indictment issued
Feb. 16 alleges a businessman linked to President Vladimir Putin and a
dozen other Russians ran a "troll farm" that created false social media
content.The indictment – the first filed against Russian nationals as part of Mueller’s probe – effectively returns focus to the meddling activities out of Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election, following a string of charges relating to the actions of Trump associates.
Further, the DOJ made clear that the indictment does not allege that any of the interference changed the outcome of the presidential race.
“There is no allegation in this indictment that any American was a knowing participant in this illegal activity. There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who oversees the special counsel probe, said at a Friday press conference.
Tass says Zakharova commented during a talk show on state Rossiya-1 TV: "It's really very ridiculous to blame 13 Russians from a legal company with influence on the U.S. election and seriously discuss it as evidence."
Oakland mayor warns of impending ICE raid, ramping up sanctuary-city tension
 |
| Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf warned on Twitter that ICE would possibly raid the city's Bay Area as soon as Sunday. (City of Oakland) This woman needs to see the inside of a jail cell. |
The mayor of a sanctuary city in California issued a
warning that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could be
conducting a raid in the area as soon as Sunday — ratcheting up tension
with the feds while giving her constituents an early heads-up.
Libby Schaaf, the Democratic mayor of
Oakland, shared the warning — which she said she “learned from multiple
credible sources” — in a press release on Saturday, “not to panic our
residents but to protect them,” Fox 2 reported.
The mayor said she didn’t know further details of the
ICE operation, but claimed she felt it was her “duty and moral
obligation as Mayor to give those families fair warning when that threat
appears imminent.”The feds detained at least four people Sunday, a program manager for the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Education Network told the San Francisco Examiner, although the paper noted it was unclear if the detentions were related to any broader ICE operation.
Schaaf during a news conference on Sunday also said she told mayors of other Bay Area cities of the impending ICE sweep, SFGate reported.
Her tweet on Saturday aligned with previous reports that law enforcement officials in Northern California would not cooperate with ICE, and noted state law “prohibits business owners from assisting ICE agents in immigration enforcement and bars federal agents from accessing employee-only areas.”
Schaaf, who is seeking reelection, said in January that she’d be willing to go to jail to defend the city’s sanctuary city status, and has openly opposed the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
“It is no surprise that the bully in chief is continuing to try to intimidate our most vulnerable residents,” Schaaf said at the time. “We're very clear that our values are to protect all of our residents regardless of where we come from. We want to protect families, not tear them apart.”
WHAT ARE SANCTUARY CITIES?
And California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who’s running for governor, commended Schaaf’s public warning, telling SFGate: “We can and must protect immigrant families from Donald Trump’s mass deportations. I want to thank Mayor Schaaf for her courage and hope more local leaders will follow her lead.”
ICE told KGO-TV on Saturday that the bureau was unsure what Schaaf was referring to as “There are ICE operations every day.”
Sunday, February 25, 2018
Supreme Court case seeks disclosure of credit card fees to benefit consumers
 |
| FILE -- This April 4, 2017, file photo, shows the Supreme Court Building is seen in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) |
Every time a consumer swipes his or her credit
card, the credit card company collects a fee. Do most consumers know
this? Probably not. That’s because American Express rules prohibit
retailers from educating consumers about these fees or giving consumers
benefits for using lower-cost cards.
Although retailers are fighting for
the right to disclose these fees, credit card companies are determined
to keep consumers in the dark.
To change these rules, retailers support a lawsuit that
will be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. The case, Ohio
et al. v. American Express, began when the federal government and 11 states sued American Express, claiming that its rules violate U.S. antitrust laws.After weeks of testimony and extensive briefing, a federal district court agreed. An appellate court later reversed the decision. Now the final determination will be made by the Supreme Court.
Retailers have been fighting the credit card networks’ unfair rules and anti-competitive practices for decades. The rules the Supreme Court will consider are but one example. They prevent consumers from getting basic information about the true costs of their payment choices, and prevent retailers from offering their own incentives or rewards to consumers who choose lower fee payment options.
Keeping consumers in the dark has allowed the banks and credit card networks to control the rewards they give to select customers while jacking up the fees charged to merchants – fees that are ultimately passed on to every customer in the form of higher prices.
For retailers, the solution is simple: let in the light.
Consumers crave transparency. They want to know the origins of their salmon and their T-shirts. They want to know what chemicals are in their water bottles and the calorie content of their breakfast. They use smartphones to read reviews and to compare prices on products right in the store.
Consumers use this information to make purchasing decisions that best fit their lifestyles and their budgets. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to know how much they’re paying to use their credit cards? Or be given the option at checkout to choose additional benefits for using a less expensive payment option?
The informed consumer is at the core of modern retail. Empowered consumers increase retail competition, which in turn gives consumers more choices and lower prices.
The absence of similar transparency in the credit card market – because of American Express’s rules – has stifled competition in the payments space. The resulting higher fees increase prices for all consumers whether they pay by card, cash, check, or government benefits.
Transparency is the best way to prevent those with market power from stifling competition and innovation. Amex’s rules are the antithesis of the free market principles retailers embrace.
As the U.S. Supreme Court hears this case, America’s retailers hope the court will strike down American Express’s rules in order to allow transparency, marketplace competition and consumer choice to prevail.
Deborah White, senior executive vice president and general counsel for the Retail Industry Leaders Association and president of the Retail Litigation Center
Trump talks Dems' memo, guns and border wall in exclusive interview with Fox News
President Donald Trump urged the
nation “to all come together” Saturday night as he discussed the
Democrats' FISA rebuttal memo, potential new gun legislation and plans
for a border wall in an exclusive interview with Fox News.
Speaking with Jeanine Pirro, host of
"Justice with Judge Jeanine," Trump said the Democrats' FISA rebuttal
memo “verified” the contents of Republican U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes' memo,
which was released previously.
The president asserted that that was likely the reason why Democrats didn’t push hard for their own memo to be released. Nunes, R-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, asserts in his document, made public Feb. 2, that the FBI may have relied on questionable sources to obtain a surveillance warrant in connection with the investigation into possible Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
The Democrats' memo, released Saturday, defends the FBI's actions.
Pirro noted that months of investigation into possible ties between the Russians and the Trump campaign and administration have not led to any “reference of collusion.”
“There is no collusion,” Trump replied.
“I don't want to sound braggadocious, but I was a far better candidate than [Hillary Clinton]. ... Frankly, that's what it was all about. It was nothing to do with Russians,” he said.
When asked about Twitter comments by U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee and a harsh critic of the president, Trump responded by calling for national unity rather than division.“I don't want to sound braggadocious, but I was a far better candidate than [Hillary Clinton]. ... Frankly, that's what it was all about. It was nothing to do with Russians.”
“We need intelligence that brings our nation together and a lot of people are tearing our nation apart. ... We have to come together as a nation.”
'I get things done'
The president was also asked about the accomplishments of his administration during its first year -- and what made them possible.
“I think that I’ve had a lot of good ideas and I have a lot of energy. I get things done,” Trump said.
Trump added that the Republicans' tax cut bill -- signed into law in December -- was a key reason why his approval ratings were high, but suggested that cuts in regulations may have been even more popular.
“I don’t think any administration has done as much as we’ve done in the first year, I don’t think it’s even close,” Trump said.
Action on guns
He also spoke about gun regulation in wake of the Feb. 14 massacre in Parkland, Fla.
“I’ve spoke to many senators, many congressman ... and I think we’re going to have a great bill put forward very soon having to do with background checks,” Trump said.
But he added there was “no bigger champion of the Second Amendment” protecting the rights of gun owners than him -- and reiterated his stance that teachers should be able to protect schools through with “concealed [carry] permits.”
Trump said that assuring gun purchasers' mental stability would also be a strong part of improving background checks.
“Somebody who is mentally ill should not have a weapon, should not have a gun,” he said. “We’re drawing up very strong legislation right now having to do with background checks, mental illness. I think you’re going to have tremendous support.”
'I'd like to have a parade'
Trump also spoke about his idea of having a military parade to celebrate the nation's service members and veterans.
“I’d like to have a parade, a lot of the generals would like to have a parade to celebrate what we’re doing,” he said, adding that the event could possibly be held July 4 or on Veterans Day in November.
Trump also discussed his progress with immigration legislation, saying that although Democrats have agreed to support a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, he “needs more” in order to finalze a comprehensive immigration plan.
“We need something to do with chain migration, we need something to do with visa lottery ... We want people to come in through merit,” he said.
Trump ended with some thoughts on first daughter Ivanka Trump’s visit to South Korea for the Winter Olympics.
“There is no better representative we can have go over to a pretty tough place right now in the world," he said. "We cannot have a better, smarter representative.”
Condoleezza Rice says US needs to consider Second Amendment's place in 'modern world'
 |
| Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (2010 Getty Images) |
This month's massacre in Parkland, Fla., seems like
a key moment in the nation's ongoing debate about the Second Amendment,
former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said during a radio
interview Friday.
“I think it is time to have a
conversation about what the right to bear arms means in the modern
world,” Rice told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday. “I don’t understand
why civilians need to have access to military weapons. We wouldn’t say
you can go out and buy a tank.”
More specifically, Rice said weapons like the AR-15
rifle that authorities say shooting suspect Nikolas Cruz, 19, used to
kill 17 students and teachers Feb. 14, shouldn't be available to
civilians, the Washington Times reported.But Rice, who served under President George W. Bush, made clear that she remains a believer in the Second Amendment.
“We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First,” she said, adding that she considers the first two amendments to the Constitution to be “indivisible.”
Hewitt then asked if Rice -- being an educator herself as a political science professor at Stanford University -- supports the idea of teachers carrying guns as a deterrent to potential campus shootings.“We can’t throw away the Second Amendment and keep the First.”
Rice said she doesn’t think that is “going to be the answer,” the Washington Times reported.
“I don’t really like the idea, frankly, of a gun in my classroom,” she said.
Rather, she supports looking to law enforcement and guards as ways for protection.
Rice, 63, was exposed to senseless violence at an early age, having grown up in Birmingham, Ala., where the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in 1963 resulted in the deaths of four young girls. She has written and spoken frequently about the impression the horrific event made on her.
She told Hewitt that despite her reservations about weapons in the classroom, the proposal merited a serious discussion.
“Look, if people need to train people to protect our
schools, and perhaps even communities want to consider whether or not
they need guards to protect the schools, it’s a sad thing to think that
we might, then that’s something that we should look at,” Rice said. She told Hewitt that talking across “our differences is extremely important” and that communities have to “pull together.” “We have to start listening to each other, first and
foremost,” Rice said of the people from all sides of the debate on gun
control.NRA defends itself after corporations pull away
 |
| A cap and shirt are displayed at the booth for the National Rifle Association (NRA) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at National Harbor, Md., Feb. 23, 2018. |
The National Rifle Association defended itself in
no uncertain terms Saturday after numerous companies sought to cut ties
with the gun lobby following the nation's latest mass shooting.
“Let it be absolutely clear,” the
organization said in a statement. “The loss of a discount will neither
scare nor distract one single NRA member from our mission to stand and
defend the individual freedoms that have always made America the
greatest nation in the world.”
The statement came two days after Wayne LaPierre, the
NRA’s executive vice president, delivered a fiery speech at the
Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland.The NRA, which represents about 5 million members, has faced public outcry following a mass shooting Feb. 14 in Parkland, Fla., that killed 17 people. That outcry has mostly taken the form of calls for gun control legislation and for boycotts of companies that partner with the NRA on discount offers and other consumer inducements.
On Saturday, United and Delta Airlines joined the list of companies separating themselves from the gun group. Previous companies to do so include MetLife, Symantec and rental car companies Hertz, Budget, Avis and Enterprise.
Those moves prompted Saturday's response from the NRA, which asserted that those corporations had “decided to punish NRA membership in a shameful display of political and civic cowardice.”
NRA BACKLASH: THESE ARE THE COMPANIES CUTTING TIES
The NRA's statement argued that other factors besides gun ownership were to blame for events like the Parkland massacre.
“The law-abiding members of the NRA had nothing at all to do with the failure of that school’s security preparedness, the failure of America’s mental health system, the failure of the National Instant Check System or the cruel failures of both federal and local law enforcement,” its statement said.
However, the Washington Post reported that the NRA fought the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers, suing the federal government once the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was up and running. The NRA had argued that the entire law, including the NICS provision, be struck down as unconstitutional, the report said.
15 brands have now ended their relationship with the @NRA:
1. @MetLife
2. @symantec
3. @BestWestern
4. @Wyndham
5. @Alamo
6. @NationalPro
7. @Enterprise
8. @FNBOmaha
9. @Hertz
10. @Budget
11. @Avis
12. @NortonOnline
13. @northAmericanVL
14. @SimpliSafe
15. @ChubbNA#BoycottNRA
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
-
How many times do we need to say this? If you’re here illegally and get caught, you’re going back. It’s the la...
