This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Congress sucks

Valor thief The Dick Blumenthal proposes $1/2b for Ukrainian wounded

The Dick Blumenthal, US Senator from Connecticut who claimed that he was a Vietnam veteran before the New York Times outed him in 2010, proposed that $500 million from the US Defense budget be portioned out for treating Ukrainian soldiers, according to Fox News;

A Senate Democrat who once misrepresented his own military service record is proposing $500 million be spent on a fund for wounded Ukrainian soldiers.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) proposed funding would be included in this year’s defense spending bill. The senator is also pushing for further sanctions against Russia for its aggression in eastern Ukraine, where fighting has continued since 2014.

You know, because we can afford a half-billion dollars from our defense budget after what Congress and the previous administration slashed from defense over the last several years. The same Congress and administration that raided retired veterans’ healthcare surplus for $770 million just a few years ago. If he wants a half billion bucks for Ukrainians, he can load up the State Department with the task, but it shouldn’t come from US defense dollars.

He should be so concerned about US wounded.

July 19, 2017
Maxine Waters; as clear as mud

The whole media seems to be wrapped up in the Comey firing still. So, MSNBC interviewed Maxine “Mouth” Waters and she even confused Peter Alexander with her moronic gobbledygook responses.

MSNBC’s Peter Alexander asked Waters if she supports President Trump’s decision to fire Comey, given that Waters had previously said she has no faith in Comey.

“No, I do not necessarily support the president’s decision,” Waters told Alexander, citing President Trump’s praise for how Comey handled the investigation into Clinton’s emails.

“But congresswoman, I understand in the past he was praising him, but if you said that FBI Director James Comey had no credibility, wouldn’t you support the fact that the president … made the decision to get rid of him?” Alexander asked Waters.

Waters told Alexander that is not the case, because FBI Director Comey was investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, which Waters believes will lead to Trump’s impeachment.

Alexander followed up by asking Waters if she thinks it would have been better to leave in place the FBI director, who Waters had previously said had no credibility, to conduct such an investigation.

Waters dodged the question, redirecting the conversation to how President Trump had said earlier he had confidence in Comey.

“But you said [Comey] had no credibility, so it would make sense that [Trump] get rid of him,” Alexander pressed Waters.

“No,” Waters responded, telling Alexander that President Trump’s firing of Comey amounted to interference in an ongoing investigation.

Alexander then asked Waters if she thinks an FBI director with credibility would have been in a better position to pursue this investigation into Trump’s campaign.

“I think if the president had fired him when he first came in, he would not have to be in a position now where he is trying to make up a story about why. It does not meet the smell test,” Waters told Alexander.

Alexander then asked Waters if she would have recommended that Hillary Clinton fire James Comey, had Clinton won the election.

“Well, let me tell you something. If [Clinton] had won the White House, I believe that given what [Comey] did to her, and what he tried to do, she should have fired him. Yes,” Waters responded forcefully.

“So [Clinton] should have fired [Comey], but [Trump] shouldn’t have fired [Comey]?” Alexander asked Waters. “This is why I’m confused.”

“You’re not confused,” Waters responded.

She’s absolutely brilliant – a credit to her party.

Thanks to Mick for the link.

May 11, 2017
Congress plans to charge vets for GI Bill

Military Times reports that there’s a plan in Congress to charge active duty service members for access to the Post 9-11 GI Bill;

The plan — draft legislation from House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Phil Roe, R-Tenn. — would deduct $2,400 from future service members’ paychecks to establish eligibility for revamped post-military education benefits. This was first reported Tuesday by Task & Purpose.

Currently, the post-9/11 GI Bill offers full tuition to a four-year state college (or the equivalent tuition payout for a private school) plus a monthly housing stipend to any service member who spends at least three years on active duty, and to reservists who are mobilized to active-duty for extended periods. Troops wounded while serving are also eligible.

Unlike the older Montgomery GI Bill benefit, the post-9/11 GI Bill does not require any fees or pay reductions for eligibility. The new proposal would change that, taking up to $100 a month from new enlistees’ paychecks for the right to access the benefit after they leave the ranks.

It’s funny (“odd funny” not “funny ha-ha”) how all of the people in Washington, DC can only think of ways to make service members and veterans pay for the things they earned, in order for the government to save money.

Supporters of the plan say having service members “buy in” to the benefit would strengthen it against periodic attempts by budget planners to trim veterans education benefits.

Or…they could just stop trying to trim service members’ benefits. There are scads of places that Congress can cut in the budget that don’t have anything to do with Defense. It’s just easier politically to cut the uniformed services rather than domestic spending. Veterans need to change that.

April 19, 2017
Y.G.B.S.M.

And I thought I had seen everything until now. I truly did. But I was wrong…so completely wrong….so unutterably wrong that if I said I had a pet trilobite named Bert, I could not be more wrong, because Bert would be a fossil. Bert would, therefore, be my pet rock.

When I went snooping around over on WattsUpWithThat, I came across an article in which it is reported that three senior House Democrats (shown in the photographs in the linked article) want a book trashed because it challenges the environmentalist view of global warming/climate whatever. This is the same mindset that wanted people who disagree with that view prosecuted under the RICO Act. Remember that? Yeah, me, too.

Here’s the article from WUWT. It is well worth your time to read it, because it has several good points. The comments kind of speak for themselves.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/04/intolerant-democrats-ask-teachers-to-destroy-books-written-by-climate-deniers/

Since there is a high probability that not one of these Congress critters has read the book itself, this appears to be a ‘jump on Johnny and pound him’ sort of thing. As someone interested in how tax money is being spent on twaddle in Foggy Bottom, I find it appropriate to ask bluntly if any of these three congressional twits have even read this book itself, and whether or not they can read past the 4^th grade level.

It’s nice to see our tax dollars being put to such wonderful use, isn’t it? Intolerance of opposing views speaks for itself. Troyfim Lysenko must be so proud!!

Trash that book, huh? Why not just hold a book burning? Make a real serious statement. Get the kids to pitch in, just like in the Old Days in the 1930s! And let’s not stop there! Let’s blow up libraries, too, because they might have even more dangerously mind-boggling stuff like this sitting on their shelves! The horror!

That’s one way to get some PR going on your current project, which appears to be thought control and brainwashing school children to me.

What happens when they grow up, defy Mom and Dad by joining the military because the uniforms are so cool, find a copy of this dreadful book, which opposes the current climate fad, in the library and realize that, after reading other stuff like it, they were lied to their whole lives until they had enough sense to get out on their own?

I think I’ll see if I can get a copy of this book. I’m always interested in the opposing view of a current fad in science.

April 6, 2017
Lee seeks to block war against ISIS

According to The Hill, Democrat Congresswoman Barbara Lee has introduced legislation to block the deployment of more troops to Syria to fight ISIS.

“The bill I am introducing today prohibits the Department of Defense from funding any attempt by the administration to expand our presence in Syria by putting U.S. combat boots on the ground,” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) said in a statement to The Hill.

“It is our constitutional duty as members of Congress to place a check on the executive branch in matters of war and peace,” she said.

Lee was the lone lawmaker to vote against the authorization for the use of military force in the days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, which has been used as the legal justification for the war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

Her bill has 16 original co-sponsors — all Democrats, except for Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.).

[…]

“We owe it to our brave service members to live up to our constitutional duty,” she said. “I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in preventing this president from sending our troops into yet another unchecked, ill-advised war without a full and robust debate from Congress.”

According to The Hill, her bill would forbid the Pentagon from sending troops to Syria for combat operations by cutting off funding for that endeavor as well as prohibiting them from hiring private contractors to do the job. I don’t remember her being so worried about the troops in the last eight years. I guess she’s afraid that this time there’s an administration in the seat that will let the troops win.

March 13, 2017
Congress won’t draft women

Bobo sends us a link to The Hill which reports that Congress has stripped out a provision of the Defense Bill which would have required women to register for the draft. Apparently, drafting women would be “unnecessary culture-warring”;

The provision had been included in the House version, but was stripped when it came to the House floor. Instead, the House-passed version required a review of the Selective Service System to see if it is still necessary.

Conservatives pushed House and Senate negotiators to drop the provision, arguing that requiring women to register was putting “culture wars” above national security.

Um, no, it’s called “equality”. If the draft was a good idea when only men were sent into combat, its a good idea when women can be sent, too. The Social Justice Warriors should be all over this.

November 30, 2016
Kevin Haggerty, the AWOL Marine State Senator

A few weeks ago we wrote about Kevin Haggerty, the fellow running for State Senator in Pennsylvania. As part of his plea to the people of his district, he leaned heavily on his service as a Marine. It seemed to work for him, because he won on election night.

The local media claimed that he had spent most of his time in the Marines as a deserter. As we didn’t have a FOIA at the time, we had to depend on the media’s work. Well, we got a FOIA on him now – it doesn’t change anything we wrote but. It does prove that most of his time in the Marines, Haggerty was a deserter;

He was AWOL from May 11th to June 10th 1997 he was dropped from the roles and declared a deserter on June 11th until he was returned to the Marine Corps on July 20th and sent to confinement as a result. In September he was discharged from active duty and a year later discharged from the Reserves. So he was on active duty for nine months and spent more than four of those months as a deserter or a prisoner. I don’t know how he got an honorable discharge, but he claims that he did.

Maybe the voters can deal with him in two years since they didn’t get the opportunity to deal justice this time.

November 28, 2016
McCaskill questions Bobeck’s relationship with contractor

Tom sends us a link to MSN which reports that Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is calling for an investigation into relationships between defense officials and contractors. We talked about General Michael Bobeck the other day when he was relieved from his command for having an extramarital playmate and for taking favors from a contractor.

McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she had serious questions about Bobeck’s relationship with Joseph Ferreira, an official with Peduzzi Associates, a lobbying and consulting firm that works for Sikorsky, the maker of the helicopters used by the National Guard air units that Bobeck worked for.

“We’ve seen far too often the effects of the revolving door between the military and contractors to believe that this is simply a coincidence,” McCaskill wrote in her letter to acting Pentagon Inspector General Glenn Fine.

I guess McCaskill is worried that flag officers will be cutting into her action.

September 28, 2016