GINA COBB

Oblama Will Cut Defense Budget $55 Billion This Year

By DemocracyRules

The word came down on Friday Jan 30. That’s about 11%.  More details on Monday.  Before the election, Obama said two things.

(1) Yes, for sure he would cut the military:

And furthermore he dislikes the military:

(2) Then, closer to the election, he denied he would cut the military budget.  "Obama adviser doesn't expect defense cuts."

Barney Frank predicted Obama would cut the defense budget 25%.  He could still be right, Obama is just getting started.  Clinton progressively cut the military budget 33%.   That’s the main way he balanced the budget in the '90's.

After 9/11, the deep cuts to the military became a serious problem because the US could not deploy enough troops to effectively wage war in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  Bush increased the budget by about 35%.

Before the election, Obama zoomed back and forth on missile defense like a Hamas rocket. The clip is quite funny, actually.

But now that he's in power, Obama has already suspended the anti-missile defense for Europe.  It was was supposed to counter any Iranian attack on Europe.  Russia constantly complained the US was building a missile shield against them.  So now they’re very happy.  But they’re not happy enough to renounce their illegal occupation of Georgia.

Obama has committed to “end” the “weaponization of space,” whatever that means.

He will cut many other programs which he decides are “unproved”.

Defense Secretary Gates seemed unprepared for this sudden budget cut.  On Jan 27, he spoke before the Senate Armed Services Committee, and told them the military was on track to significantly increase troop numbers. 

Gates also said, "One thing we have known for many months is that the spigot of defense funding opened by 9/11 is closing.”  However, I don’t see how Gates can effectively ramp up numbers for more ground action in Afghanistan while his budget is being slashed.

Pro Patria

Govt Control of Economy Set to Explode Under Obama and Dems -- and It's (Media) Silence of the Lambs

Chilling thoughts today about the silence of the (media) lambs -- and what Obama is about to do to our economy.

The Anchoress writes:

We've watched the press pretend to beat their breasts for "not asking the tough questions of Bush" in the time leading up to the invasion of Iraq. That's a distortion; they asked plenty of questions and made plenty of noise, and in the "rush to war" - which took so long any nation could have spirited their weapons somewhere else - the administration went to the UN twice, and the Democrat leadership, from Bill Clinton on down re-iterated what they'd said since 1998: Saddam had WMD, and in the face of 9/11, he could not be allowed to keep them.

Now, we're watching the press show zero curiosity about this "stimulus" package. They don't appear to even know what is in it, or want to know. They're not asking "the tough questions." The thing is Obama's baby so it must be brilliant and right and they are promoting it with all their might, unquestioningly. Just as they promoted Al Gore's Global Warming Traveling Salvation Show without asking a single hard question, without wondering about a "rush to toxic lightbulbs," the press is now pushing an extremely dubious nationalization bill disguised as healing medicine, without asking a single difficult question, without wondering about a "rush to more."

The press is enabling a new act; "Brother Love & Sister Speak's Dream-a-licious Economic Health Tonic" (only $200,000 a bottle!) and telling us we must lap it up or we will die from our lack of patriotism.

Sorry, no sale, here. I still remember 1976 to 1982, no matter how much you tell me that I don't.

More from Michael Laprarie at Wizbang:

Nor is the press seriously questioning the purpose of President Obama's continual doom and gloom rhetoric or wondering whether he is using fear to sell his political agenda -- all of this after piling on Bush and Cheney and accusing them of talking down the economy after the tech market meltdown in 2000.

And maybe the pork spending in the stimulus bill really isn't what will cause the most financial damage:

Under "stimulus," Medicaid is now on offer not to just poor Americans, but Americans who have lost their jobs. And not just Americans who have lost their jobs, but their spouses and their children. And not Americans who recently lost their jobs, but those who lost jobs, say, early last year. And not just Americans who already lost their jobs, but those who will lose their jobs up to 2011. The federal government is graciously footing the whole bill. The legislation also forbids states to apply income tests in most cases.

House Democrat Henry Waxman was so thrilled by this blowout, it was left to Republicans to remind him that the very banking millionaires he dragged to the Hill last year for a grilling would now qualify for government aid. His response? A GOP proposal to limit subsidies to Americans with incomes under $1 million was accepted during markup, but had disappeared by final passage. In this new health-care nirvana, even the rich are welcome. CBO estimates? An additional 1.2 million on the federal Medicaid dime in 2009.

Also this week, the Senate passed the massive SCHIP expansion that President Bush vetoed in 2007. The new and improved SCHIP expands the program's eligibility to families earning up to three times the poverty level (approximately $60,000 for a family of four). The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the CBO estimates 2.4 million individuals will drop private health coverage in exchange for the expanded SCHIP benefits. How will we pay for this?

The SCHIP expansion will be financed in part by a 62 cent per pack increase in the Federal cigarette tax, and partly by the elimination of Medicate Advantage, which will effectively end supplemental Medicare HMO programs and force seniors back into Medicare-only health coverage. Ironically, the working class Americans that SCHIP is supposed to help will end up footing most of the bill for it. Yet in the Stimulus Bill, there is a $75 million line item for smoking cessation programs. Why are we spending $75 million to erase the primary source of revenue for children's health care? Democrats? Media? Hello ... anyone?

Last October, the State of Hawaii was forced to suspend its universal children's health care program because of, well, freeloading:

"People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program."

No kidding. Hawaii is a shining example of universal health care failure. But the lessons learned the hard way in Hawaii seem to be of little concern to Congressional Democrats, who, now that they have complete power, are intent upon incrementally pushing our nation toward nationalized, single-payer health care.

Flashback 3 Years: "Hamas Struggles to Gain World's Acceptance" -- and It Seems to Be Winning

Three years ago today, we were treated to this headline from an AP report at Yahoo! News:

"Hamas Struggles to Gain World's Acceptance"

As I wrote at the time, the headline was incomplete.  The rest of the headline should have read:

". . . of Terrorism"

So how is Hamas doing so far?  As it seeks out the world's "acceptance," has it done anything worthy of acceptance?

Let's see, Hamas has . . .

. . . engaged in brutal armed battle with Fatah.

. . . fired thousands upon thousands of missiles and mortar shells at Israel.

. . . deliberately used civilians, including children, as human shields.

. . . continued to indoctrinate children into its cult of hate and murder.

. . . broken knees and hands of Fatah members during the recent Gaza conflict, and killed some of them.

. . . booby-trapped schools and homes to blow up.

. .  . and successfully played the victim when Israel finally responded by invading the Gaza strip . . .

. . . stirring up a new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world.

So, how is Hamas doing in it's "struggle"?

Overall, I'm sorry to say that Hamas indeed seems to be gaining the world's acceptance of its terrorism.  At least, if one were to judge by the headlines that run in the mainstream media, the global community has concluded that Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians the victims.

Indeed, the world seems to have gone mad when it comes to the Middle East -- shifting from the false moral equivalency of the last 40 years to a new paradigm of siding with the terrorists against Israel.  It is an upside-down world in which deliberately targeting non-combatant men, women and children for death is treated as if it were mildly impolite, while responding to such lethal attacks with lethal force against military targets with every effort to avoid harm to civilians is considered deeply evil.

Hamas is but the tip of the spear.  Israel is but the current target.  The jihad continues around the globe.  It should be an obvious thing, if not an easy thing, for the civilized nations of the world to unite and turn back this malevolent wave of destruction.  

Under former president George W. Bush, America and its allies took a step in that direction by establishing new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The elections in Iraq today are a testament to that achievement.  But if the scourge of Islamic terror is to be ultimately defeated, that chapter of history remains to be written.  At the rate things are going, it may be a very long wait.

Update:  More evidence that it will be a very long wait indeed:  Hamas says Tony Blair is "stupid" for asking Palestinians to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

As I wrote at the time, the headline was incomplete.  The rest of the headline should have read:

". . . of Terrorism"

So how is Hamas doing so far?  As it seeks out the world's "acceptance," has it done anything worthy of acceptance?

Let's see, Hamas has . . .

. . . engaged in brutal armed battle with Fatah.

. . . fired thousands upon thousands of missiles and mortar shells at Israel.

. . . deliberately used civilians, including children, as human shields.

. . . continued to indoctrinate children into its cult of hate and murder.

. . . broken knees and hands of Fatah members during the recent Gaza conflict, and killed some of them.

. . . booby-trapped schools and homes to blow up.

. .  . and successfully played the victim when Israel finally responded by invading the Gaza strip . . .

. . . stirring up a new wave of anti-Semitism in Europe and around the world.

So, how is Hamas doing in it's "struggle"?

Overall, I'm sorry to say that Hamas indeed seems to be gaining the world's acceptance of its terrorism.  At least, if one were to judge by the headlines that run in the mainstream media, the global community has concluded that Israel is the aggressor and Palestinians the victims.

Indeed, the world seems to have gone mad when it comes to the Middle East -- shifting from the false moral equivalency of the last 40 years to a new paradigm of siding with the terrorists against Israel.  It is an upside-down world in which deliberately targeting non-combatant men, women and children for death is treated as if it were mildly impolite, while responding to such lethal attacks with lethal force against military targets with every effort to avoid harm to civilians is considered deeply evil.

Hamas is but the tip of the spear.  Israel is but the current target.  The jihad continues around the globe.  It should be an obvious thing, if not an easy thing, for the civilized nations of the world to unite and turn back this malevolent wave of destruction.  

Under former president George W. Bush, America and its allies took a step in that direction by establishing new democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The elections in Iraq today are a testament to that achievement.  But if the scourge of Islamic terror is to be ultimately defeated, that chapter of history remains to be written.  At the rate things are going, it may be a very long wait.

Update:  More evidence that it will be a very long wait indeed:  Hamas says Tony Blair is "stupid" for asking Palestinians to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

Bye Bye Blago

Impeached on a 59-0 vote.

I don't see it on Drudge yet, but it's at BBC News.  (Apparently they're awake across the pond):

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has been ousted from office after being convicted of abusing his powers.

Senators voted 59-0 against him after an impeachment trial, despite his claim that he had "done nothing wrong" and that there was no evidence of a crime.

He was charged with trying to sell the seat vacated by Barack Obama when he was elected president.

In a second vote, Mr Blagojevich was banned from holding public office in Illinois for life.

He had been arrested in December and faces a criminal trial over bribes allegedly taken during his two terms.

Mr Blagojevich is now replaced as governor by Patrick Quinn, a fellow Democrat and the state's lieutenant governor.

No other Illinois governor has been impeached, let alone convicted in a Senate trial.

Next question:  Will Rahm Emmanuel ever pay a price?  And how about the then President-Elect, currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who, according to the secret recordings, favored an option that wouldn't have Obama's "fingerprints" on it?

During the first call cited in the Blagojevich complaint that included Yang, on Nov. 7, the governor told Harris and Yang, "I want to make money." He said he'd take a cabinet post or the Change to Win job in return for Jarrett's appointment.

Yang also participated in a Nov. 12 call where the formation of nonprofit organization was discussed, with the hope that Blagojevich could hold a high-paying position. Yang suggested the union job would lead to less questions and scrutiny for Obama, the complaint states.

"Advisor B stated that he likes the ... idea, but liked the Change to Win option better because, according to Advisor B, from the President-elect's perspective, there would be fewer 'fingerprints' on the President-elect's involvement with Change to Win," the complaint says.

Funny 1981 Video: "Hey! What if We Could Put the NEWS on a COMPUTER?"

I got this from  Hot Air, who got it from Breitbart. 

“Imagine, if you will, sitting down to your morning coffee, turning on your home computer to see the day’s newspaper. Well, it’s not as far-fetched as it may seem.”

I love the caption for one man interviewed for the story:  "Owns Home Computer."

It's too funny.  Stick with it to the end for the ironic last line.

Military Deaths Didn't Increase Much Under Bush (Updated)

By DemocracyRules

h/t Tracy -- Thanks for pointing out some serious errors in my previous numbers! False data are circulating on the Internet.  The ones I show here have been double-checked.

These data disprove the argument that George Bush Jr. has recklessly caused high US military deaths.

Demographically, the US military deaths in the Afghanistan and Iraqi conflicts are very small.  There was only a small increase in total US military deaths as a result of those wars.

Of course deaths have occurred in those war theaters, but at the same time the military has worked hard to reduce non-combat deaths.

Here are the annual fatalities, by any cause, of military members while actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2007:

1980     2,392     (Carter)
1981     2,380     (Reagan)
1982     2,319     (Reagan)   
1983     2,465     (Reagan)
1984     1,999     (Reagan)
1985     2,252     (Reagan)
1986     1,984     (Reagan)
1987     1,983     (Reagan)
1988     1,819     (Reagan)
1989     1,636     (George H W Bush)
1990     1,507     (George H W Bush)
1991     1,787     (George H W Bush)
1992     1,293     (George H W Bush)
1993     1,213     (Clinton)
1994     1,075     (Clinton)
1995     1,040     (Clinton)
1996        974     (Clinton)
1997        817     (Clinton)
1998        827     (Clinton)
1999        796     (Clinton)
2000        758     (Clinton)
2001        891     (George W Bush)
2002        999     (George W Bush)
2003     1,228     (George W Bush)
2004     1,874     (George W Bush)
2005     1,942     (George W Bush)
2006     1,858     (George W Bush)
2007     1,950     (George W Bush)

Pdf files here Download RL32492 and here  Death_Rates

US military deaths per year, for 4 Presidents:       
(Reagan)                    2,150
(George H W Bush)    1,556
(Clinton)                        938
(George W Bush)        1,535

At the peak of the Iraq war, I said the death rates were extremely small compared to almost every previous war.  The soldiers were so careful and professional, it was more like dental work than warfare.

I also said if the soldiers were not in Iraq, they would be somewhere else training for war.  Iraq and Afghanistan are far better training grounds than any war game exercise.

Accidents and deaths happen in the military, even in peacetime.  War is terrible, but freedom is never free.

Pro Patria