Once the sequester gets through it will take only a matter of time before the skies will be in trouble. Federal Aviation Administrator Micheal P Huerta announced that because fewer controllers will be on staff there will be major flight delays and closure of hundreds of air traffic control towers in small airports.
Flights to major cities like New York, Chicago and San Francisco could experience delays as much as 90 minutes during peak rush hours making already late landings even worse because of fewer controllers on staff.
Also there will be elimination of midnight shifts in 60 air traffic control towers. And the sequester will close up to 230 air traffic control towers at airports.
Huerta concludes he agrees with Ray La Hood who said last week "that the sequester would wreck havoc on air travel across the country." If this happens aviation workers would have hiring freezes and job loses.
LaHood said on Sunday talk shows that there will be some $600 million in cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration. LaHood puts pressure on the GOP stating that the Obama administration has put forth a plan but the Republicans haven't. Republican's are disagreeing with this statement.
One thing clear LaHood stressed Sunday that safety will not be compromised. "We will never take a back seat to safety. Safety will not be compromised."
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
"The President Is Raging Against A Budget Crisis He Created" - John Boehner Wall Street Journal
Sequester is one week away and yet some people are not fully aware of what it is and the dangers involved with it. Until a few months ago we rarely heard of the word and now it looms a serious policy with devastating results. And the blaming is going on between the President and the Republicans with the President saying yesterday if sequester happens Republicans are to blame. But the President himself is the maker of the idea and the main one behind the sequester.
So with this impending upon us what does the Congress and the President do? They take a vacation. Who dreamed up the sequester? The President. What is it? Simply, a large plan of spending cuts that will come in giant waves which will start on March 1.
It will start with $85 billion in spending cuts that will go across the board and it has no mercy. These cuts will continue for ten years costing 1.1 trillion. We need these cuts but not the way it is being done. With the main thrust of the plan, nearly one half going to the Department of Defense. None going to entitlement spending.
And here is the crux of the problem, for some reason the President chose the military, which will cut half a trillion dollars in ten years from it's budget. At a time when we need to be strong in defense. At a time when we are involved with a serious battle with Al-Qaeda and other terrorists organizations. At a time when the world is in serious upheaval and needs America's involvement and leadership the most. Is it any wonder that Europe is asking where is America's leadership? In the Middle East they cry out and plead our help and strength. When thousands are dying in Syria and we stand by. When the President takes a lead from behind stance and leaves our allies wanting, and lacking our help. It is mind boggling to try to see your wisdom in these trying days and just where are you? You, Mr. President are cutting our military.
The President has downplayed this war from the beginning, not even calling it a war. Jay Carney for one of the first times a few weeks ago actually called it a war on Al Qaeda and Benghazi is only a A SMALL PICTURE of what has been going on in our war department and behind the scenes. Many are now beginning to question the pulling out of Iraq and now also Afghanistan.
Not to think of all the frivolous money spending and wasted projects that amount to nothing in Congress, why not go after these first? It makes you wonder, why would the President think of weakening our defenses first? Why target this?
We ask Mr. President, where is the leadership? And why cut spending in the defense department and endanger American lives? My thinking is defense should be at the bottom of the list not the top in government cutting. This is a dangerous and irresponsible move on the part you and of the Congress. America needs to remain strong in defense, a leader in the world, and should be your first concern and not on the cutting edge of a sequester.
We call on you and the Congress to put a stop to this by all means. America's future depends on the strength of our military in these crucial days we live in.
It was a bad idea put out by a seemingly weak President. Put a stop to this and show your strength.
A more than concerned American.
So with this impending upon us what does the Congress and the President do? They take a vacation. Who dreamed up the sequester? The President. What is it? Simply, a large plan of spending cuts that will come in giant waves which will start on March 1.
It will start with $85 billion in spending cuts that will go across the board and it has no mercy. These cuts will continue for ten years costing 1.1 trillion. We need these cuts but not the way it is being done. With the main thrust of the plan, nearly one half going to the Department of Defense. None going to entitlement spending.
And here is the crux of the problem, for some reason the President chose the military, which will cut half a trillion dollars in ten years from it's budget. At a time when we need to be strong in defense. At a time when we are involved with a serious battle with Al-Qaeda and other terrorists organizations. At a time when the world is in serious upheaval and needs America's involvement and leadership the most. Is it any wonder that Europe is asking where is America's leadership? In the Middle East they cry out and plead our help and strength. When thousands are dying in Syria and we stand by. When the President takes a lead from behind stance and leaves our allies wanting, and lacking our help. It is mind boggling to try to see your wisdom in these trying days and just where are you? You, Mr. President are cutting our military.
The President has downplayed this war from the beginning, not even calling it a war. Jay Carney for one of the first times a few weeks ago actually called it a war on Al Qaeda and Benghazi is only a A SMALL PICTURE of what has been going on in our war department and behind the scenes. Many are now beginning to question the pulling out of Iraq and now also Afghanistan.
Not to think of all the frivolous money spending and wasted projects that amount to nothing in Congress, why not go after these first? It makes you wonder, why would the President think of weakening our defenses first? Why target this?
We ask Mr. President, where is the leadership? And why cut spending in the defense department and endanger American lives? My thinking is defense should be at the bottom of the list not the top in government cutting. This is a dangerous and irresponsible move on the part you and of the Congress. America needs to remain strong in defense, a leader in the world, and should be your first concern and not on the cutting edge of a sequester.
We call on you and the Congress to put a stop to this by all means. America's future depends on the strength of our military in these crucial days we live in.
It was a bad idea put out by a seemingly weak President. Put a stop to this and show your strength.
A more than concerned American.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The State Of The Union Is Stronger??
Why couldn't the President just say they State Of The Union is strong, the State Of The Union is good? Because he has to look at 12 million still out of work, more people on welfare, more people still loosing houses, middle class shrinking, businesses stagnant, lackluster profits and a weak economy. You can't fool the people. If you talk to people they believe that it will get worse before getting better. A woman told me the other day America will never be the same. They are discouraged and tired of fighting for their daily bread and trying to keep a roof over their head.
The President started off with making some good statements "American people don't expect government to solve their problems." Then entertained the need for more social programs and government spending for over an hour. More of the same as Boehner stated this morning. A Fix it First Program, more shovel ready programs I suppose. These go over well because every congressman has a list of roads and bridges they love to get credit for. And no doubt many need. The problem, the government is broke, but no one has told the president yet .High quality schooling for every preschooler in America. Well, who doesn't want that? Again, with what are you going to pay for it with? Secondly he is knocking the debt down by 2.5 trillion, sounds good, with taxes on the rich included. That only leaves us with 14.5 trillion indebtedness to work on.
We need to forge reasonable compromise where we can. As an example "We must do more with climate change." And if congress will not act I will write executive orders. That sounds reasonable to him. And if you can't get minimum wage through, then try to tie minimum wage to cost of living and make it automatic wage increases without having to worry about it.
"Put Nation before Party," deeper meaning throw your old fashioned principles away, get updated and overstep the constitution and forget the laws you don't agree with. Or, if this doesn't work I could write more executive orders.
He continued to say sequester was a really bad idea. but forgot to tell you this was his idea. And he makes light of Social Security and Medicare, which will fail on their present course if nothing is done to correct the problem.
No, Mr. President, the country is not stronger, in fact it is becoming weaker. Even in the eyes of the world they are looking at us not as a leader as we once were. Your people are suffering, out of work, because of failed policies and over spending. You could have at least said the truth, The state of the Union is not as I wish it should be, but with good leadership we can make it better.
The President started off with making some good statements "American people don't expect government to solve their problems." Then entertained the need for more social programs and government spending for over an hour. More of the same as Boehner stated this morning. A Fix it First Program, more shovel ready programs I suppose. These go over well because every congressman has a list of roads and bridges they love to get credit for. And no doubt many need. The problem, the government is broke, but no one has told the president yet .High quality schooling for every preschooler in America. Well, who doesn't want that? Again, with what are you going to pay for it with? Secondly he is knocking the debt down by 2.5 trillion, sounds good, with taxes on the rich included. That only leaves us with 14.5 trillion indebtedness to work on.
We need to forge reasonable compromise where we can. As an example "We must do more with climate change." And if congress will not act I will write executive orders. That sounds reasonable to him. And if you can't get minimum wage through, then try to tie minimum wage to cost of living and make it automatic wage increases without having to worry about it.
"Put Nation before Party," deeper meaning throw your old fashioned principles away, get updated and overstep the constitution and forget the laws you don't agree with. Or, if this doesn't work I could write more executive orders.
He continued to say sequester was a really bad idea. but forgot to tell you this was his idea. And he makes light of Social Security and Medicare, which will fail on their present course if nothing is done to correct the problem.
No, Mr. President, the country is not stronger, in fact it is becoming weaker. Even in the eyes of the world they are looking at us not as a leader as we once were. Your people are suffering, out of work, because of failed policies and over spending. You could have at least said the truth, The state of the Union is not as I wish it should be, but with good leadership we can make it better.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Why have We Caught Only "One" High Value Target In Four Years?
What is going on with these drones that now they are contemplating a secret court to decide if drones can be used for the killing of terrorists? First they want to pass a law that is unconstitutional stating that they can kill terrorist without needing the law. They can kill who they want and that any high level person can do it. Now they want a secret court to be used to kill terrorist suspects and will it be terrorists only?
The idea was given by John Brennan during his questioning for the office of Director of the C.I.A. last Thursday. The court would be similar to the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act of 1978.
On Thursday Sen Ron Wyden D-Oregan said he could not even be given a list of countries where drones have been used.
Sen Saxly Chambliss {R Georga} also raised the continuing issue that the strikes keep us from getting information from the terrorists. Here is Chambliss on "Fox News Sunday" morning with Chris Wallace.
Wallace "Are you satisfied with Brennana's answers?"
Chambliss " Brennenan was not the architect of the drone program, but he has been the architect of the Obama Administration's drone program." "And , I came away from there with the feeling that I had going in there that there is a definite direction of NOT capturing these high profile targets and soliciting information from them through detention and interrogation."
Wallace ""because he said that it's ideal or certainly preferable to capture them so you can get intelligence?"
Chambliss "But yet when I asked him how many high value targets they had captured in the last four years of the Obama administration, he dodged and weaved."
Wallace "he said he would get back to you with a number?"
Chambliss "The fact is, I know what the number is. It's ONE. He alluded to do it a little later in his testimony. WE CAPTURED A GUY. We put him in a ship for 60 days and sailed him around the ocean, and interrogated him."
So there you have it, this man Brennan has served for four years as a architect for the drone program and he sat in meetings on a regular basis about the program and we have captured ONE Terrorist. In my opinion the President is a total failure in defense of our country. He has captured ONE terrorist with the drone program. Do you want Brennan in charge of the CIA??
Sen Angus King {I Maine} "Having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the tradition and laws of this country."
To me this has the appearance of cover up as we can't even find out in what countries are the drones being used and now a secret court, not a panel or group of senators, but a ruling court to make the decisions of whether drones can be used to kill terrorists. What are they hiding? Who have they killed and just what in the name of justice is going on? And what knowledge have we received from ONE caught terrorist?
Somethings rotten in Denmark, or should we say in Washington?
Information for "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace from Sen.Saxly Chambliss's home web page.
The idea was given by John Brennan during his questioning for the office of Director of the C.I.A. last Thursday. The court would be similar to the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act of 1978.
On Thursday Sen Ron Wyden D-Oregan said he could not even be given a list of countries where drones have been used.
Sen Saxly Chambliss {R Georga} also raised the continuing issue that the strikes keep us from getting information from the terrorists. Here is Chambliss on "Fox News Sunday" morning with Chris Wallace.
Wallace "Are you satisfied with Brennana's answers?"
Chambliss " Brennenan was not the architect of the drone program, but he has been the architect of the Obama Administration's drone program." "And , I came away from there with the feeling that I had going in there that there is a definite direction of NOT capturing these high profile targets and soliciting information from them through detention and interrogation."
Wallace ""because he said that it's ideal or certainly preferable to capture them so you can get intelligence?"
Chambliss "But yet when I asked him how many high value targets they had captured in the last four years of the Obama administration, he dodged and weaved."
Wallace "he said he would get back to you with a number?"
Chambliss "The fact is, I know what the number is. It's ONE. He alluded to do it a little later in his testimony. WE CAPTURED A GUY. We put him in a ship for 60 days and sailed him around the ocean, and interrogated him."
So there you have it, this man Brennan has served for four years as a architect for the drone program and he sat in meetings on a regular basis about the program and we have captured ONE Terrorist. In my opinion the President is a total failure in defense of our country. He has captured ONE terrorist with the drone program. Do you want Brennan in charge of the CIA??
Sen Angus King {I Maine} "Having the executive being the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one is very contrary to the tradition and laws of this country."
To me this has the appearance of cover up as we can't even find out in what countries are the drones being used and now a secret court, not a panel or group of senators, but a ruling court to make the decisions of whether drones can be used to kill terrorists. What are they hiding? Who have they killed and just what in the name of justice is going on? And what knowledge have we received from ONE caught terrorist?
Somethings rotten in Denmark, or should we say in Washington?
Information for "Fox News Sunday" interview with Chris Wallace from Sen.Saxly Chambliss's home web page.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
If You Weren't Afraid of Obama Before You Should Be Now
With the winning of the election Obama sees himself as unstoppable, and able to do most anything he wants. He is no longer concerned with how people view him because he does not need to run for office again. And he is pulling out all stops.
In a recent 16 page document that has been leaked to NBC Judge Napolitano releases some pretty scary news. He says, 'The law justifies ANY breaking of ANY LAWS by a "informed high level official" of the U.S.Government." He further states "The law can be used by "any high level official" giving the lawful power to make decisions to suspend constitutional protection and then kill them without due power of the law." In other words Obama is becoming a law unto himself.. He is over the law and not under the power of the Constitution. Last night on Bill O'Reilly, Bob Beckel said that the new law is unconstitutional. Quite a statement for a strong supporter of Obama.
This coupled with the new gun laws is making Obama the supreme ruler. The king, and potentate of the Obama kingdom. He will use the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act with use of background checks and Dr.s to find out if you have a gun. If you do not answer this question correctly you may be held accountable for breaking and lying to the law.
Other scary statements in the Obama's 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence Reduction under point #16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. Dr's are going to become cops. It is very important that a patient trusts their Dr. This is pulling trust out from under the patient. No longer will your Dr. be your friend, he or she will become your foe.
And we are just a few weeks into his next four years. It is imperative that we stay united. WE must stick together and fight. Our freedoms are being yanked from under us with the power of a pen. Stand together, don't let Obama divide us. This is our America, this is our country.
In a recent 16 page document that has been leaked to NBC Judge Napolitano releases some pretty scary news. He says, 'The law justifies ANY breaking of ANY LAWS by a "informed high level official" of the U.S.Government." He further states "The law can be used by "any high level official" giving the lawful power to make decisions to suspend constitutional protection and then kill them without due power of the law." In other words Obama is becoming a law unto himself.. He is over the law and not under the power of the Constitution. Last night on Bill O'Reilly, Bob Beckel said that the new law is unconstitutional. Quite a statement for a strong supporter of Obama.
This coupled with the new gun laws is making Obama the supreme ruler. The king, and potentate of the Obama kingdom. He will use the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act with use of background checks and Dr.s to find out if you have a gun. If you do not answer this question correctly you may be held accountable for breaking and lying to the law.
Other scary statements in the Obama's 23 Executive Actions on Gun Violence Reduction under point #16 Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. Dr's are going to become cops. It is very important that a patient trusts their Dr. This is pulling trust out from under the patient. No longer will your Dr. be your friend, he or she will become your foe.
And we are just a few weeks into his next four years. It is imperative that we stay united. WE must stick together and fight. Our freedoms are being yanked from under us with the power of a pen. Stand together, don't let Obama divide us. This is our America, this is our country.
Friday, February 1, 2013
The Haggle over Hagel
The haggle over Hagel is nearly over. Sen Rubio was one of the first to speak, he would not vote for him because of Hagel's previous comments in regards to sanctions on Iran and direct negotiations with North Korea. " I don't believe I will be able to support his nomination after his answers the last hour."
Fellow republicans followed suit, with Blunt raising the same concerns over Iran and our relationship with Israel.
Sen Donnelly tried to continue to ask about Iran, but Hagel cut him off with "he could not speak on questions about Iran." Donnelly queried about 2.5 Billion is aid to Pakistan, but Hagel merely resounded the same we have heard over and over that Pakistan is complicated.
The hardest hitting was Sen Ted Cruz saying that the nominee had made hundreds of speeches and yet only four were delivered to them. Also financial records were missing. He blasted Hagel on whether Israel had committed war crimes and Hagel chimed back, no they were defending themselves. Cruz also hit on a speech in 2006 where Hagel had said that "Israel had committed a sickening slaughter. "A 2009 interview on Al Jezeere Hagel had called Israel the worlds bully. Once again Cruz got Hagel to back down from his statements.
McCain came out pouncing at Hagel for a statement in 2001 where Hagel called Iraq a quagmire and disagreed with the surge in Irag and Afghanistan. McCain "The surge assisted with the objective." " Were we wrong or were we right?" Hagel "It was the most dangerous decision since Vietnam." "Going to Iraq most dangerous decision since Vietnam."
Sen Linsey Grahm pressed Hagel on a letter sent to the EU by the senate urging them to impose sanctions against Hezbolah. Hagel refused to sign.
Sen Inhofe mentioned in 2000 Senators wrote to reaffirm their support to Israel and Hagel refused to sign. Another letter written with harsh sanctions on Iran, Hagel refused to sign. For these reasons Inhofe refused to vote for Hagel.
He was hard pressed and at times, unnerved, sometimes not able to respond. Even admitting at one time " I don't know enough about the defense department." One of the poorest nominees for one of the highest positions in our country. And yet he in all likely hood he will receive the call to serve.
Fellow republicans followed suit, with Blunt raising the same concerns over Iran and our relationship with Israel.
Sen Donnelly tried to continue to ask about Iran, but Hagel cut him off with "he could not speak on questions about Iran." Donnelly queried about 2.5 Billion is aid to Pakistan, but Hagel merely resounded the same we have heard over and over that Pakistan is complicated.
The hardest hitting was Sen Ted Cruz saying that the nominee had made hundreds of speeches and yet only four were delivered to them. Also financial records were missing. He blasted Hagel on whether Israel had committed war crimes and Hagel chimed back, no they were defending themselves. Cruz also hit on a speech in 2006 where Hagel had said that "Israel had committed a sickening slaughter. "A 2009 interview on Al Jezeere Hagel had called Israel the worlds bully. Once again Cruz got Hagel to back down from his statements.
McCain came out pouncing at Hagel for a statement in 2001 where Hagel called Iraq a quagmire and disagreed with the surge in Irag and Afghanistan. McCain "The surge assisted with the objective." " Were we wrong or were we right?" Hagel "It was the most dangerous decision since Vietnam." "Going to Iraq most dangerous decision since Vietnam."
Sen Linsey Grahm pressed Hagel on a letter sent to the EU by the senate urging them to impose sanctions against Hezbolah. Hagel refused to sign.
Sen Inhofe mentioned in 2000 Senators wrote to reaffirm their support to Israel and Hagel refused to sign. Another letter written with harsh sanctions on Iran, Hagel refused to sign. For these reasons Inhofe refused to vote for Hagel.
He was hard pressed and at times, unnerved, sometimes not able to respond. Even admitting at one time " I don't know enough about the defense department." One of the poorest nominees for one of the highest positions in our country. And yet he in all likely hood he will receive the call to serve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)