Obama to GOP Congress: Don’t Jeopardize Our National Security

Posted by $ jbrenner 11 years ago to Politics
132 comments | Share | Flag

Obama made a budgetary threat regarding DHS. If the Congress doesn't fund this, then DHS will continue working at their jobs without pay.

Wait a second - isn't that slavery?
I guess BHO is not down for the struggle.
SOURCE URL: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/02/02/obama-to-gop-congress-dont-jeopardize-our-national-security/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by Technocracy 11 years ago
    Given the quality of work produced, perhaps a salary of zero is not slavery but rather true value for value
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago
      Having a friend in DHS (a Border Agent), I'll just add this: most of those guys are real patriots. They don't get paid well for the danger they take on. They do about as many drug busts as the FBI, as many illegals traffic. The biggest problem is that they didn't sign up for Obama to tell them how NOT to do their job.

      I support Congress in telling the President to halt his actions in telling DHS what NOT to do - their jobs! Of course the best way to do this would be to impeach and convict him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by sumitch 11 years ago
        You're right, he should be impeached.....a long time ago. But how do we get congress to do it? I never thought I'd live to see over half the country, if not neutral but against the nation. If and when it happens everyone is going to suffer. I take little pleasure in knowing that the voters that put Obama in the oval office will see what they have done. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't blame Bush for what they've done.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 11 years ago
        If DHS is mostly about drugs and illegal immigration, then they should NOT be doing "their jobs." Fire them and send them all home. Or at least call Obama's bluff so they can have a nice long vacation.

        Real national security would be security against un-called-for government.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago
          Real national security means securing the borders, and that is what the Border Patrol (like my friend) would do if they weren't told not to by this President. Nations must have borders to delimit where their laws and citizens reside.

          If you want to argue that the Department of Homeland Security should be focusing on keeping us safe from foreign threats, I agree. Couldn't really tell from the rest of your post where you were going.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ jdg 11 years ago
            I'm saying that neither drugs nor immigration by the poor should be illegal.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by LetsShrug 11 years ago
              How do you determine "poor"? From ANY where? At who's expense? Is there a background check? Can a "poor" criminal come in? A poor person with a contagious disease? A poor person and 90 of their family members? At any rate... that's what's already happening... by the droves. I don't see it as a good thing...and I really SEE it where I am.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by sumitch 11 years ago
                This is another example of Obama working to "fundamentally change our nation". What he has been doing is working. If our congress doesn't act we may be seeing the end of our nation. I'm 72 and until this administration felt that I have lived in the best this country has ever had. I fear I'm now seeing the worst. I never dreamed that this could happen and heart broken to see this.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago

    From the article:
    "Obama also insisted that the budget sequester must go, calling it “mindless across-the-board cuts.” "

    Revisionism at it's finest! The sequester was crafted by the WH, and forced upon Congress to get the Budget Control Act of 2011 passed. The only DNA on this can be traced to the Obama administration.

    Now, he demands the end of “mindless across-the-board cuts.”

    My concern is only on 'the mindless across-the-board spending increases'....

    What a cosmic joke is this administration!


    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IndianaGary 11 years ago
      Nothing new. I'm reminded of the "mindless spending increases" of Bush (W), Clinton, Bush (HW), Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, etc. Until we rest the ECONOMY out of the hands of government there will be nothing but "mindless spending increases".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by gtebbe 11 years ago
        Mindless spending increases, indeed! Some people forget that once a spendiing increase is approved, it becomes a permanent part of the budget. And any future increases Obama the Lesser adds to the budget will be on top of His $4 trillion.

        The only thing that drives Communists is greed. "I need more, give me more, give more more! $4 trillion was enough, but that was last year! To fully achieve what I deem is necessary for you folks, this year I need $5 trillion more."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
    "Obama also insisted that the budget sequester must go, calling it “mindless across-the-board cuts.”

    “I’m not going to accept a budget that locks in sequestration,” he said."

    I really disagree with this. Mindless across-the-board cuts are a good thing. Everyone says we need to cut but not the really important programs. Everyone thinks different things are important, so nothing happens. In a country where people agree we need to cut gov't spending but can't agree what to cut, we need *mindless across-the-board cuts*.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 11 years ago
      New Zealand had this problem in the early 80's and they got the job done. Although they have since taken steps back, they did right the ship, and repair the hull. Getting the rats off the ship is even harder. Perhaps someone should study that history.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
    This sounds like desperation thinking: "On the Social Security trust fund, one of the fundamental problems we are facing is the number of workers that we have relative to the number of retirees we have has been shrinking,” said Shaun Donovan, the director of the Office of Management and Budget. “So comprehensive immigration reform is actually one of the most critical things we can do to shore up the longterm solvency of Social Security and as a result to improve our deficit challenges in the long term.”

    The pyramid will only work as long as there are new people buying into it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 11 years ago
      Margaret Thatcher said that the problem with socialism is that "Sooner or later you run out of other people's money." Via comprehensive immigration reform, the looters plan on comprehensively ensuring that they never run out of other people (to drain their money like the financial vampires that they are).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago
        True, but eventually the money does run out and the bills come due. Of all the lessons that humanity is shockingly and willfully ignorant of it is that one: the reckoning does eventually come.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 11 years ago
          But for politicians, it is long after they are out of office, and usually long after their deaths.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago
            Which is very unfortunate.

            What I'd love to see is an Amendment that states very clearly that Congress shall make no law requiring an expenditure of funds which extend beyond their own terms of service.

            What it in effect would do is force Congress to continually re-ratify legislation already on the books to prevent it from automatically expiring - and taking their spending authority with it. All Congress would have to do to defund Social Security is refuse to re-ratify it even once every two years. There wouldn't be these huge perpetual entitlement programs because as soon as the other party took over, they'd choose not to renew the program.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago

      The Baby Boomers are pushing 70 years old, and with the health care field quickly becoming Federal workers per se, the strain on SS could be easing up sooner rather than later. Death panels will play their part by denying procedures...all under the umbrella of necessary cost cutting.

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
        You're saying there will be a sudden spike in the death rate because people can't afford medicine. I don't see that happening at all. There are always people who can't afford things. There's no spike in the death rate.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago
          I see the quality of care for Medicare holders to go down, and procedures to be rationed out.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 11 years ago
            I agree with your argument, but I think people will mostly rise to the occasion and scrape together their own monies if needed to save their lives.

            This argument, BTW, was one made Democrats critical of Republican plans to cut Medicare. Republicans made the exact same argument a few years ago. This is when I realized the whole D/R ideological divide is mostly a sham.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rocky_Road 11 years ago

              Many, for sure, will. Not all will have that option, or will get discouraged dealing with the angst. People that age have a lower threshold for mental anguish...I am testimonial to that!

              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by term2 11 years ago
            medical care will just get more expensive. for that reason people might die off cause they cant afford it
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by sumitch 11 years ago
              Somewhere in there is a sick joke. I get most of my meds from the veterans association. Without them they'd have to keep me in a cell and that would cost them more for the cots and the hots, so I saving them some of my money.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by term2 11 years ago
                I have prostate cancer and go to a specialist who has opted OUT of obamacare. A visit costs me $700 but he has kept me alive for7 years now without resorting to the fancy chemo treatments. Thats what I mean about medical care getting more expensive. Its becoming private again, as the government provided and mandated services quality decreases. It doesnt make me feel great to have to find my own doctors and pay private prices, BUT I dont want to die either if I can help it
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Flootus5 11 years ago
          It is not entirely a matter of being able to afford the care. It will also be the availability issue. As we know from the dismal records of healthcare in socialistic Canada and the UK, the waiting list will be just too long and that will take its toll.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Technocracy 11 years ago
            Plus lets not forget some other factors.

            A lot of hospital/clinic beds will disappear as faith based facilities are given the choice of break their own principles or close. Many will close reducing that resource.

            My WAG is that once things settle out more, the total resources for medical care will be reduced somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 from driving out the faith based providers.

            Which is has a double impact in my area, the best facilities for care in my state tend to be the faith based ones.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by sfdi1947 11 years ago
    Nah! They're a Federal Union arrangement, they can't strike, but to quote Saddam, It will be the mother of all slow-downs, the backed up border traffic at Laredo, TX will reach the Panama Canal.
    And B.OB, Ph.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper) [His Initials changed to protect perfectly innocent body odor] can't be serious with that complaint, he hasn't left any national or border security to jeopardize.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by frodo_b 11 years ago
    Ah, yes. That tired old canard of "National Security". If you substitute "disturbing the status quo" whenever "national security" is used then the stories and agendas make more sense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys2 11 years ago
    this piss-ant living in the white has gall that is so big they will have to beat it to death. he has done more to hurt the national security of the USA than all other people living or dead ever. i am of the opinion that he simply dose not know what he is doing nor does he care. the question i have is who is he working for? i see the question should he be impeached no, he should resign. he does not know that he is not liked by a majority of the population and eventually that will include the majority of the black population. even MO doesn't like him.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 11 years ago
      Oh, I think he knows and does care. He wants to "fundamentally transform America", remember? I don't think enough people really understood that this statement was so blatant and audacious that most people would just write it off. How little they truly understood.

      Obama doesn't like the freedom America was built on. He doesn't want people to be free to choose for themselves how they want to live, with whom they should do business, etc. He wants power and will stop at nothing short.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years ago
        As Mark Levin is fond of saying, "Do you want to fundamentally change things that you love and admire?" Do you want to "fundamentally change" your spouse? Your city? Freedom? Capitalism? To fundamentally change something is to alter its very essence. To change Capitalism into Socialism, Freedom into Tyranny, a nation built on liberty for all into one of class structure and privilege for the few.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo