Life In North Korea Cartoons (Not Funny)

Pentagon issues warning for non-deployable personnel: 'Deploy or be removed'

The Pentagon on Wednesday announced a new “deploy or be removed” policy that could affect up to nearly 300,000 service members who have been non-deployable for the past 12 months.

“This new policy is a 12-month deploy or be removed policy,” Robert Wilkie, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, told the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on personnel and readiness on Wednesday.

The move comes after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ memo last year stressing the need to ensure that “everyone who comes into the service and everyone who stays in the service is world-wide deployable.”
The plan was first revealed by The Military Times.
According to various estimates, between 11 to 14 percent -- or well over 200,000 service members -- of the 2.1 million personnel serving on active duty, in the reserves or National Guard are currently non-deployable on any given day, hindering military readiness.
The new policy will have exceptions such as pregnancy while medical boards will continue to be able to grant exceptions for wounded personnel.
“The situation we face today is really unlike anything we have faced, certainly in the post-World War II era,” Wilkie told the Senate panel. “On any given day, about 13 to 14 percent of the force is medically unable to deploy. That comes out to be about 286,000 [service members].”
The official asked the panel to imagine Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, walking into his company on Christmas week and finding out that 14 percent of his workforce is unable to work. “He would no longer be the largest company in the world,” Wilkie said.
Command Sgt. Maj. John Troxell told the Times earlier this month that nearly 100,000 are non-deployable because of administrative reasons like not having all their immunizations or their medical exams.
Another 20,000 are not deployable due to pregnancy while the remaining service members are non-deployable because of short or long-term injuries. But Troxell said that very few of those injuries “are related to combat injuries. Or battle injuries. It’s related to everyday, doing their job, or during physical training that they were injured.”
“If you are going to serve and continue to want to serve, and if you want to make this a career, you’re going to have to learn that path of recovery and get back to being healthy. Because we need healthy, fit warriors to defend this nation,” Troxell added.
Wilkie admitted the military shares responsibility for reaching such high numbers of non-deployable personnel, as unit leaders often did not ensure those under their command received all required medical examinations and care.
“The other thing we’ve seen is that in the down years of recruiting for the military, we offered too many medical waivers,” the official said. “The medical conditions ... have followed them into the service as they progressed through their careers. We have to address that.”

VA Secretary Shulkin to pay back his wife's Europe getaway expenses

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin said Thursday he would pay back the U.S. government costs related to a trip to Europe for his wife, but will not resign following a critical internal-watchdog report.

Shulkin was the subject of the recent internal investigation that revealed he owed the government more than $4,000 for his wife’s trip to Copenhagen and London.

The investigation claimed to have found Shulkin’s top aide, Vivieca Wright Simpson, doctoring emails to say her boss was getting “special recognition” in Denmark as a way to justify his wife’s taxpayer-funded travel.
"The investigation revealed serious derelictions" by Shulkin and his staff, according to the report, which cited "poor judgment and/or misconduct." The report advised Shulkin to pay back $4,312 to the government.
Shulkin told reporters Thursday that he will follow the advice of the report and pay back any costs associated with his wife’s trip, including making a contribution to U.S. treasure equal to the cost of tickets to the prestigious Wimbledon Tennis tournament, The Wall Street Journal reported.
“Everybody is concerned,” Shulkin said after appearing before the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing. “Everybody knows how much work we have to do in the VA. We have to continue the progress.”
He added that he has spoken to President Donald Trump about the report’s findings and will meet White House officials to discuss the contents of the revelations.
In a testimony in Congress, Shulkin insisted the trip to Europe was necessary but the “optics of this were not good.”
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado, a member of the committee, scoffed at the explanation, saying “It’s not the optics that are not good.”
Coffman was among the leading voices calling for Shulkin’s ouster from his position. “It's exactly corruption and abuses like this that doesn't help our veterans,” the lawmaker tweeted earlier this week, adding that Shulkin “must resign now.”
GOP REP CALLS ON VA SECRETARY SHULKIN TO RESIGN OVER EUROPE TRIP EXPENSES
This is not the first time an official in the Trump administration came under fire for unauthorized taxpayer-funded trips. Former health secretary Tom Price was forced to resign in September after questions over his use of private jets for government trips.
The total cost of the 10-day trip in July last year was at least $122,000, the report found. Shulkin reportedly attended meetings in London and Copenhagen concerning veterans’ issues.
But the overseas trip also included “significant personal time for sightseeing and other unofficial activities” at taxpayers’ expense, including a tour of Westminster Abbey, a cruise on the Thames River, and attending the women’s final at Wimbledon tennis tournament with American Venus Williams.
Shulkin defended his wife’s presence on his work trip, telling the committee that he and his staff followed all the processes. “Everything was done properly, but I regret any of this is a distraction from what we should be doing and that’s the reason I’m following the inspector general’s recommendations.”

Mitt Romney announces US Senate run in Utah

Mitt Romney announced Friday he will run for U.S. Senate in Utah to succeed the retiring Orrin Hatch, seeking a political comeback six years after his unsuccessful presidential campaign against then-President Barack Obama.

Romney announced on Twitter: "I am running for United States Senate to serve the people of Utah and bring Utah's values to Washington."

Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, is considered a heavy favorite for the Senate seat. He has emerged as a prominent critic of President Trump and, if he wins, could be poised to cause headaches for the administration from the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue.
While a former Massachusetts governor, Romney has deep ties to Utah. He attended Brigham Young University in Provo and helped turn around the scandal-plagued 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City -- moving to the state after losing the 2012 race.
A video message posted on Twitter Friday features that Olympics background. In the video, Romney gives voters an early look at his platform: fiscal responsibility, jobs and a moderate approach on immigration -- an apparent swipe at Trump policies.
“Utah has a lot to teach the politicians in Washington,” Romney says in the video. “Utah has balanced its budgets, Washington is buried in debt. Utah exports more abroad than it imports. Washington has that backwards. Utah welcomes legal immigrants from around the world. Washington sends immigrants a message of exclusion.”
His Senate run hasn’t been welcomed by all.
Utah Republican Party Chairman Rob Anderson told The Salt Lake Tribune earlier this week that Romney was "keeping out candidates that I think would be a better fit for Utah because, let's face it, Mitt Romney doesn't live here, his kids weren't born here, he doesn't shop here." The GOP official went on to call Romney a “carpetbagger.”
Anderson released an apology later saying, “I regret that my comments about potential Senatorial candidate, Mitt Romney, came across as disparaging or unsupportive. That was never my intent.”
He continued, “I’ve no doubt that Mitt Romney satisfies all qualifications to run for Senate, and as Chairman of the Utah Republican Party, I will treat all candidates equally to ensure their path to the Party nomination is honest and fair.”
Anderson also said that Romney reached out to him in regards to his comments and “accepted my apology without hesitation.”

Life in North Korea a horror. Why are we so hesitant to tell the massive Olympic audience about this reality?

Watching the media fawning over the North Korean delegation at the Pyeongchang Olympics, I recalled a picture that my old boss, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, kept under the glass of a table in his office -- a satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula at night. At the bottom, awash in light, is the free and democratic South. Meanwhile, the North is in complete darkness, save for a tiny pinprick of light in Pyongyang. The two countries, Rumsfeld would often point out, have the same people and the same natural resources. Yet one is glowing with the light of freedom, innovation and enterprise, while the other is enveloped in the total darkness of human misery.

Keep that darkness in mind while watching the North's Olympic charm offensive over these two weeks. Kim Yo Jong, the sister of Kim Jong Un, is not the "North Korean Ivanka." She is the vice director of the Propaganda and Agitation Department, a senior leader of the most brutal repressive totalitarian regime on the face of the Earth. As one defector told The Washington Post last year, "It's like a religion. From birth, you learn about the Kim family, learn that they are gods, that you must be absolutely obedient to the Kim family."

Any perceived disloyalty to the Kim family can result in a visit in the middle of the night from the Bowibu -- the North Korean secret police -- that could send not just the offender, but three generations of his or her relatives, to a forced labor camp for life. North Korea's system of "re-education" camps, which was recently mapped by satellite by the Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, is the most extensive in the world. Under three generations of Kims, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have been imprisoned and killed in these camps. Inmates undergo the most brutal forms of torture imaginable, including being hung on hooks over open fires, while pregnant women are tied to trees while their babies are cut out of their bellies.
Yet the camps are simply prisons within a larger prison. The entire country is one giant gulag. Thanks to widespread malnutrition, North Koreans are between 1.2 and 3.1 inches shorter than South Koreans. And thanks to economic mismanagement, 97 percent of the roads are unpaved. According to my American Enterprise Institute colleague, Nicholas Eberstadt, up to a million North Koreans died of starvation in the famine that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. "It was the only time in history that people have starved en masse in an urbanized, literate society during peacetime," he notes. North Korea's people starve while the regime pours its resources into its messianic quest to deploy nuclear missiles capable of reaching and destroying American cities.
Even among the elites there is no safety. Last year, North Korea's vice premier for education was executed for not keeping his posture upright at a public event. Defense Minister Hyong Yong Chol was pounded to death with artillery fire for the crime of falling asleep at a parade. And if you wonder why those North Korean cheerleaders stay in such perfect sync, maybe it's because they saw 11 North Korean musicians lashed to the barrels of anti-aircraft guns which were fired one by one before a crowd of 10,000 spectators. "The musicians just disappeared each time the guns were fired into them," one witness declared, "Their bodies were blown to bits, totally destroyed, blood and bits flying everywhere. And then, after that, military tanks moved in and they ran over the bits on the ground where the remains lay."
This is the brutality that Kim Yo Jong represents. Yet despite this cruel reality, the media could not help fawning over the North Korean delegation. Reuters declared Kim Yo Jong the "winner of diplomatic gold at Olympics." CNN gushed how, "With a smile, a handshake and a warm message in South Korea's presidential guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public." NBC even tweeted a photo of the North Korean cheerleaders with the heading "This is so satisfying to watch." Seriously? NBC failed to mention that in 2005, 21 cheerleaders were sent to a prison camp for speaking about what they saw in South Korea.
Instead of normalizing the regime, this should be an opportunity to educate the massive Olympic audience about the realities of life in North Korea under the murderous Kim crime family that is pursuing the ability to threaten American cities with nuclear destruction.

Gun Control Cartoons

White House Budget Director Grilled Over 2019 Fiscal Budget

White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney is defending the Trump administration’s $4.4 trillion spending proposal.

Budget Director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the Senate Budget Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2018, on President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal.

During a U.S. budget committee meeting on Tuesday, Mulvaney spoke about the 2019 budget, which seeks to increase military spending, fund the border wall, and slash entitlements.
He said his job as director of the OMB is to fund the president’s priorities, adding that is exactly what the agency did.
Meanwhile, experts say the budget would add nearly one trillion dollars to the national deficit, and will likely be overhauled before it passes congress.
“It’s a lot more fun to spend money than it is to reduce,” said Mulvaney. “It’s a lot harder to reduce spending in the long-term than it is to spend, and I think that it is incumbent upon all of us to start making difficult decisions to decide together as a legislature, as an administration: are these deficits that we are really willing to tolerate.”
When asked by Senators if Mulvaney would vote on the proposed budget, he said he would have found enough short-comings to vote against it.
However, he added it’s his duty to defend the White House’s priorities.

Michael Goodwin: Susan Rice ought to explain her weird email under oath

“Don’t let up,” a friend living abroad wrote a few weeks ago about corruption at the FBI. “Trump has them all on the run.”
The note came to mind when I saw the weird e-mail Susan Rice wrote to herself on Inauguration Day last year.
At first glance, the e-mail, which purports to recount remarks President Obama made two weeks earlier to Rice, FBI head James Comey and others about the Russia probe, makes no sense. But ask yourself why Rice repeated that Obama wanted everything done “by the book,” and it smells as if she’s preparing a last-minute defense for Obama, and maybe herself.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham, pit bulls on government misbehavior, wrote to Rice about the e-mail while noting that there were lots of doubts about whether the FBI actually did proceed “by the book.”
Hopefully, she’ll have to give her answer under oath, as should Comey and anybody else in the room.

Backlash against Bill? Many Democrats would sideline Clinton in 2018

ill the changing political climate sideline Bill Clinton?

Less than two years ago, he stood on a Philadelphia stage and heaped praise on his wife as the Democratic nominee for his old job. And he was a constant presence on the trail in a campaign that they, and nearly all journalists, thought would defeat Donald Trump.

As the 2018 midterms heat up, you might expect that a former president—one who left office with a high approval rating, despite the inconvenient fact of having been impeached—would be much in demand. But apparently, not so much.
That's the thesis of a Politico piece on the party running away from Clinton:
"Democrats are looking to embrace the #MeToo moment and rally women to push back on President Donald Trump in the midterms—and they don’t want Bill Clinton anywhere near it."
Clinton's history—Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick—looks far different to many Democrats in 2018 than it did in 1998, when the Senate acquitted him, or even 2016. His presence would detract from the Democrats' ability to make the midterms about Donald Trump, Rob Porter and Roy Moore.
There's another factor, I believe, not mentioned by Politico: Bill's presence also reminds voters of Hillary. It's not his fault that she ran a terrible campaign and lacked his ability to spin stories and connect with voters. But ever since he ran on a 2-for-1 deal back in 1992, allowed her to make policy as first lady and backed her two White House runs, they have been politically joined at the hip.
And most Democrats want to move on from the Hillary debacle.
The piece says of Bill that "an array of Democrats told Politico they're keeping him on the bench. They don’t want to be seen anywhere near a man with a history of harassment allegations, as guilty as their party loyalty to him makes them feel about it ...
"Privately, many Democratic politicians and strategists are harsher and firmer: Don't come to their states, and don't say anything about their campaigns. They are still worried about saying it out loud, but they don't want him now, or maybe ever. They know Republicans would react by calling them — with good reason — hypocrites."
This is hardly the first time the issue of Clinton’s womanizing has come up. Twenty years ago, Democrats feared that he would be an albatross in the midst of the Ken Starr investigation and impeachment drive; the Republicans lost five seats and Newt Gingrich resigned as speaker.
In 2000, Al Gore barely deployed Clinton as a surrogate as he tried to turn the page, and that may have cost him the presidency in the razor-thin recount election.
Trump didn't let Clinton’s sexual misconduct fade into the history books. He alluded to it at times, and after the "Access Hollywood" tape, he brought some of Clinton's accusers to the second debate. His surrogates weren't shy about using Bill's past to blunt Hillary's attacks on Trump’s treatment of women.
But now it's Clinton’s own party that apparently wants to turn the page. Kirsten Gillibrand, elected to the Senate with Clinton's backing but eyeing the White House in 2020, recently said he should have resigned after the Monica Lewinsky affair. If most other Democrats follow suit, Clinton may have to spend more time with his family and his foundation.
Howard Kurtz is a Fox News analyst and the host of "MediaBuzz" (Sundays 11 a.m.). He is the author "Media Madness: Donald Trump, The Press and the War Over the Truth." Follow him at @HowardKurtz. Click here for more information on Howard Kurtz.

Bipartisan immigration deal pits moderates against GOP leadership, Trump

A group of senators on Wednesday came up with a bipartisan immigration deal that would increase border security and give legal status to the so-called Dreamers, but fall short of President Trump’s “four pillars,” and— if passed —would likely be vetoed.

The so-called Common Sense Coalition is comprised of eight Democrats, eight Democrats and one Independent.

The compromise calls for $25 billion for border security, including the construction of the border wall over a 10-year period. The compromise falls short of Trump’s demand for immediate funding, The New York Times reported.
Nearly two million illegal immigrants, many of who came to the country as children, would be offered an eventual path to citizenship as part of the plan. The new citizens would not be allowed to sponsor their parents. The bipartisan deal leaves the diversity visa lottery in place, an immigration program Trump wants to ax.
Trump on Wednesday reiterated the need to pass the bill proposed by Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, that takes a more hardline approach to immigration.
“I am asking all senators, in both parties, to support the Grassley bill and to oppose any legislation that fails to fulfill these four pillars,” Trump said in the statement. He added that the “overwhelming majority of American voters support a plan that fulfills the framework’s four pillars, which move us towards the safe, modern and lawful immigration system our people deserve.”
The president said he would oppose any “Band-Aid” measure that gives legal status to Dreamers in exchange for a minimal increase in border security.
Republican leadership came out in support for Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Wednesday that “the president has made clear what principles must be addressed if we are going to make a law instead of merely making political points.”
The Grassley bill would give a path to citizenship for young immigrants but it would also limit “chain migration,” beef up border security. It remains unclear whether the bill, which is favored by the White House, has a chance in Congress. Democrats oppose any plan to severely limit “chain migration,” a process when someone can sponsor a visa for a family member. Democrats are also opposed to ending the diversity visa lottery.
But it remains unclear whether the bipartisan agreement would reach the required 60 votes in the Senate to break the filibuster if brought up for the vote.
“The president’s going to have a vote on his concept. I don’t think it will get 60 votes,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham,  R-S.C., according to the Times. “The bottom line then is: What do you do next? You can do what we’ve done for the last 35 years — blame each other. Or you can actually start fixing the broken immigration system. If you came out of this with strong border security — the president getting his wall and the Dream Act population being taken care of — most Americans would applaud.”
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the bipartisan bill does not have the required votes yet, adding that he is encouraging the liberal wing of his party, who oppose compromises with Republicans, to support the bill. “There are plenty who don’t like this,” he said.