Monday, June 28, 2010

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) Says "Debt Is A National Security Threat", Proposes Defense Cuts To Bolster National Security

And no, I'm not making this up.
Democrats have long been hobbled by a public image of being weak on terror and wobbly on national defense.
Image? IMAGE?

Try 'reality'. Or are silly little things like taking at least 48 hours to acknowledge the shooting of a US soldier in Arkansas by a Yemeni-trained terrorist, warning us not to jump to any hasty conclusions regarding Major Hasan's murder spree at Ft. Hood and a full page newspaper ad by the Dems biggest fundraisers calling the US Commander in Iraq a traitor being taken out of context and misinterpreted by yours truly? Any assertion that the current Democrat majority is inept and indifferent or outright hostile towards the military or national security is poppycock and fear-mongering by that cruel mistress known as 'reality' vast right-wing conspiracy.

But fear not! After passing the stimulus, Obama's pet healthcare project and cap and trade, Steny Hoyer has rallied the troops and is going the lead the fiscally conservative Calvary charge to responsible budgetary practices.....by cutting defense spending.

This echoes similar comments made by President Obama at the close of the G20 summit yesterday.

"When I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff," the president said at a press conference
I suspect some of those 'difficult choices' will revolve more around the Department of Defense and military contractors instead of inept Minerals Management Services bureaucrats and regulators who showed up for work drunk or high, were looking at online porn on the taxpayers dime and accepted gifts from the companies they were supposed to inspect and regulate. But don't worry! President Obama's blue-ribbon debt-reduction panel, which includes former SEIU head Andy Stern, will save the day and make recommendations for the most transparent and ethical Congress EVAH!

I'm sure the 'difficult choices' won't be limited to the Department of Defense, too, since Department of Homeland Security head Janet Napolitano thinks that securing the Southwestern border is just too much gosh-darned work.

“It’s a big border,” she said. “It’s 1,960 miles across that Southwest border. It’s some of the roughest, toughest geographical terrain in the world across that border. And so, the notion that you’re going to seal that border somehow is something that anybody who’s been involved in the actual doing of law enforcement--the front office work or the front line work of the law enforcement--would say, ‘You’re never going to totally seal that border.’” [Snip]
“The notion that you’re gonna’ somehow seal the border, and only at that point will you discuss immigration reform, that is not an answer to the problem,” she said
This from the dame who more or less saw Phoenix become the kidnap capital of the USA on her watch as governor.

Here's a thought, you jaw-droppingly incompetent dolt: How about we have enough personnel patrolling along the border along with strategically placed barriers so that drug and human traffickers sneaking into the USA unobstructed isn't a sure bet like it is now?

'Tough choices ahead' indeed....Nearly 10% of Americans are still unemployed (the 'unofficial numbers are still higher) yet Andy Stern, Steny Hoyer and Janet Napolitano still manage to draw a salary.

Go figure.

4 comments:

  1. "When I start presenting some very difficult choices to the country, I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I'm calling their bluff," the president said at a press conference

    I took that to mean a tax hike.

    ReplyDelete
  2. soxfan4life said...
    I took that to mean a tax hike.


    I took the 'difficult choices' to be a trial balloon and a veiled reference towards military spending. Hoyer's remarks seemed to confirm to me just that.

    They'll say it's to reduce 'wasteful spending' by the Pentagon, but if you're a goddamned lib, just about any military spending is 'wasteful'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tax hikes, and the reduction of our military forces to little more than color guards used for parades and photo ops.

    The military does not vote for Progressives, unlike the drones in the SEIU, which vote exclusively for Progressives.

    The tax hikes serve the double purpose of making the citizenry more dependent on the goodwill and kind favor of the political class and in trapping some conservatives to go along with their program out of a misguided notion that balancing the budget, or at least making it revenue neutral, is better than letting the Democrats fail.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Because we all know how cutting defense/intelligence funding in the 1990s prevented terrorism

    ReplyDelete