Posts Tagged ‘Coast Guard’

Drug traffickers benefit from Obama cuts to Coast Guard

by Jim Kouri on Sunday, March 23rd, 2014

This is article 276 of 301 in the topic US Military

The Obama Administration’s budget cuts for the U.S. Coast Guard may be a necessary evil for Americans but it’s proving to be a bonanza for Mexican drug cartels, Colombian cocaine traffickers and others involved in the contraband smuggling that’s becoming more frequent and more sophisticated, according to police and national security professionals in a Fox News story on Thursday.

“Obama’s budget cut request for the Coast Guard weighs the prospect of reducing the Maritime Safety & Security Teams from 12 units to seven as well as retiring nine aircraft and five Coast Guard cutters,” predicted an Examiner news story.

Adam Housley of Fox News wrote on Thursday that “drug smugglers are moving some of their operations away from the U.S.-Mexico land border and out into the ocean where it’s easier to avoid law enforcement.”

According to an Examiner report: “The U.S. Coast Guard suffered drastic [budget] cuts under President Bill Clinton in the 1990’s that became part of his so-called ‘Peace Dividend.’ It practically languished as part of the Transportation Department. Following the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the creation of the Homeland Security Department, the Coast Guard held a unique position. On one hand, it was folded into the new department with other agencies such as the U.S. Border Patrol, and on the other hand it would serve as part of the Department of Defense if needed.”

Now, under President Obama, according to Housley’s report:

“Federal spending cuts have forced the Coast Guard to reduce its operating costs by 25 percent. While helping the government reach deficit reduction targets, this is also threatening efforts to reach President [Barack] Obama’s goal of intercepting 40 percent of illicit drug shipments by 2015. Over the last several years, the cartels have moved further offshore as their boats have gotten more sophisticated. The area they operate in has tripled in size in just the last year — and is now roughly the size of Montana.”

In an Examiner news story, a dramatic interdiction was described in 2011:

“The U.S. Coast Guard interdicted an estimated 6,700 kilograms of cocaine being transported by a submerged drug smuggling vessel in the Caribbean Sea on Friday, according to a report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

“The vessel, a self-propelled semi-submersible vessel, or SPSS, was interdicted by the Coast Guard Cutter USCGC MOHAWK in international waters of the Caribbean some 110 miles off of the coast of Honduras.

“The vessel sank during the interdiction, but the MOHAWK crew captured the four crew members, who were subsequently transferred to Tampa, Fla., for criminal prosecution.”

Unfortunately, in order to comply with the Commander in Chief’s federal budget cuts, the Coast Guard was forced to reduce its costs by 25 percent in 2013. In addition, the U.S. Navy vessels deployed off the coast of Latin America to assist in drug interdiction were transferred or decommissioned by the Navy. They were never replaced due to budget cuts suffered by the U.S. Navy, according to former drug enforcement agent Timothy Salazar.

“Like it or not, this country is giving drug smugglers and organized crime gangs a free ride on the high seas. And like any organization motivated by profit-making, be assured they will invest in ships, go-fast boats, and even miniature submarines,” said Salazar.

But the Coast Guard’s commanding officer, Adm. R.J.

Click to continue reading “Drug traffickers benefit from Obama cuts to Coast Guard”
Go straight to Post

Doesn’t Anyone Remember Pearl Harbor?

by Alan Caruba on Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

This is article 92 of 147 in the topic History

This photo of at least six aircraft carriers was used to illustrate a February 10 Washington Times column by Rowen Scarborough, but what I would like to know is whether any of the admirals in the U.S. Navy have ever heard of Pearl Harbor? On December 7, 1941, the Japanese Empire attacked our fleet that was moored there and destroyed many of them.

On Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked by suicide bombers in a small boat while in Yemani waters, blowing a big hole in its side, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39 others.

At what point does the Navy learn something, anything from the past? If the photo above isn’t an invitation for an attack, I do not know what is. One hopes they are defended by the Coast Guard or other naval vessels, but this just looks like the biggest bunch of sitting ducks I have seen in a long time.

If I am thinking that, so is al Qaeda.

Go straight to Post

Obama gives young illegal aliens de facto amnesty, say critics

by Jim Kouri on Saturday, June 16th, 2012

This is article 261 of 466 in the topic Immigration

While practicing the fine art of “linguistic gymnastics,” the Obama administration on Friday blessed an estimated 800,000 young, illegal aliens with a bite of the amnesty apple, according to critics of President Barack Obama’s immigration enforcement record.

In an announcement sure to create controversy and anger many Americans, President Obama on Friday announced that effective immediately, certain young people who were brought to the United States as young children, do not present a risk to national security or public safety, and meet several key criteria will be considered for “relief from removal from the country or from entering into removal proceedings.”

Speaking from the White House Rose Garden, President Obama told reporters that illegal aliens  who demonstrate that they meet his administration’s criteria will be eligible to receive deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal, and will be eligible to apply for work authorization.

Obama was careful to add that the Department of Homeland Security will continue to focus its enforcement resources on the removal of individuals who pose a national security or public safety risk, including “immigrants convicted of crimes, violent criminals, felons, and repeat immigration law offenders.”

He claimed today’s action further enhances the DHS ability to focus on these priority removals. However, many lawmakers and observers have said President Obama is bypassing the U.S. Congress.

“Had any other president done this, the news media and the U.S. Congress would be shouting from the rafters about abuse of power by the executive branch of the government,” said Mike Baker, a political strategist.

Under this directive, individuals who demonstrate that they meet the following criteria will be eligible for an exercise of discretion, specifically deferred action, on a case-by-case basis if they: came to the United States under the age of sixteen; have continuously resided in the United States for a least five years preceding the date of this memorandum and are present in the United States on the date of this memorandum; are currently in school, have graduated from high school, have obtained a general education development certificate, or are honorably discharged veterans of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety; are not above the age of thirty.

Obama’s announcement today comes just one week before he’s scheduled to address a large Latino audience, a constituency he requires to win re-election.

During his Rose Garden announcement, Obama promised that only those individuals who can prove through verifiable documentation that they meet these criteria will be eligible for deferred action.

“Individuals will not be eligible if they are not currently in the United States and cannot prove that they have been physically present in the United States for a period of not less than 5 years immediately preceding today’s date. Deferred action requests are decided on a case-by-case basis,” said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano who is expected to enforce the policy change.

“DHS cannot provide any assurance that all such requests will be granted. The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights,” she said.

Click to continue reading “Obama gives young illegal aliens de facto amnesty, say critics”
Go straight to Post

Borders: Report gives DHS air and marine thumbs down

by Jim Kouri on Wednesday, May 30th, 2012

This is article 37 of 65 in the topic Border Issues

Department of Homeland Security officials supervise the largest law enforcement air force in the world, but they failed to perform their goals especially at U.S. borders, according to a new report obtained by the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the Law Enforcement Examiner.

Law enforcement, including border security forces, are increasing the number of drones available for surveillance and search operations, Photo credit: Police Times

On March 30, 2012, the Government Accountability Office issued a classified report on the effective use of both air and marine assets by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection directorate of the Homeland Security Department. This week the GAO released an unclassified version of what many believe is an important document. Information deemed sensitive has been redacted.

“Within DHS, CBP’s Office of Air and Marine deploys the largest law enforcement air force in the world. In support of homeland security missions, OAM provides aircraft, vessels, and crews at the request of the U.S. Border Patrol, which is responsible for enforcing border security,” the report states.

This specialized law enforcement capability allows OAM to make significant contributions to the homeland security efforts of DHS, as well as to those of Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies. To accomplish this mission, OAM utilizes over 1200 Federal Agents, operating from 80 air and marine locations, with more than 290 aircraft of 22 different types, and more than 250 maritime vessels.

The GAO was asked by Congress to determine the extent to which OAM met service requests; has taken steps to ensure its mix and placement of resources effectively met mission needs and addressed threats; and coordinated the use of its assets with the United States Coast Guard.

GAO analysts reviewed DHS policies, interviewed OAM, Border Patrol, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Coast Guard officials in headquarters and in 4 field locations selected on factors, such as threats and operating environments.

Results from these field visits cannot be generalized, according to analysts. GAO analyzed OAM support request data for fiscal year 2010, and surveyed OAM and USCG officials at 86 units to determine the extent of cooperation between the two agencies.

GAO’s analysis of the Office of Air and Marine (OAM) data found that OAM met 73 percent of the 38,662 air support requests and 88 percent of the 9,913 marine support requests received in fiscal year 2010.

The level of support differed by location, customers, and type of mission. For example, in its northern region OAM met air support requests 77 percent of the time and in its southeast region, it met these requests 60 percent of the time.

The main reasons for unmet air and marine support requests were maintenance and adverse weather, respectively. OAM has taken actions, such as developing an aircraft modernization plan and purchasing all-weather vessels, to address these issues.

OAM could benefit from taking additional steps to better ensure that its mix and placement of resources meets mission needs and addresses threats. GAO’s analysis of OAM’s fiscal year 2010 performance results indicate that OAM did not meet its national performance goal to fulfill greater than 95 percent of Border Patrol air support requests and did not provide higher rates of support in locations designated as high priority based on threats.

Click to continue reading “Borders: Report gives DHS air and marine thumbs down”
Go straight to Post

The Modern Face of War

by Alan Caruba on Friday, May 18th, 2012

This is article 23 of 91 in the topic Wars

Saturday, May 19th is Armed Forces Day.

I was eight years old when World War II ended. After that I lived through 46 years of the Cold War era until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. For a while, from February 5, 1960 until April 6, 1962, I proudly wore the uniform of the U.S. Army. It never occurred to me or everyone else of my generation that the nation did not need a powerful military capability.

As the ancient Romans put it, “Si via pacem, para bellum.” If you want peace, plan for war. Time has not altered that wisdom.

What has bothered me, though, is that World War Two is the last war in which Congress actually “declared war” as required by the Constitution. Article One, Section 8 exclusively grants the power “to declare war” to Congress. The Founding Fathers, well versed in history, were wary of allowing one man, the chief executive, to take a nation into war. They weren’t too keen on standing armies either.

Times have changed. Rachel Maddow, the host of her MSNBC show since 2008, has a doctorate in politics from Oxford and a bachelor’s in public policy from Stanford. She is very liberal. I am very conservative. She has written a hell of a good book about the state of the U.S. military and how we got to this point since the debacle of Vietnam. She is equally hard on all the presidents from Lyndon Johnson to the current occupant of the White House.

In 1961 the former Supreme Allied Commander and later President, Dwight Eisenhower, warned against the “military-industrial complex” saying “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He was prescient because the meshing of military needs, industry, and a vastly expanded national security mandate from the end of WWII and particularly since 9/11 has turned America into a super power with a military that presidents have been inclined to use whether Congress wanted to or not.

Make no mistake. I want and I support a strong Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. I want aircraft carriers, stealth bombers, tanks, and all the machinery to wage war if it becomes necessary.

The adage that wars are easy to get into and hard to get out of has never been more true than during my lifetime. The fact that real threats to peace existed is also true. The record, however, is a mixed one.

The invasion by North Korea, a Stalinist puppet, had to be thrown back and was. A 1953 truce exists to this day. Coming so soon after WWII, neither Truman nor Eisenhower wanted a war that would escalate into one with Communist China, but neither did they want Communism to spread in this fashion.

Maddow has little good to say of Lyndon Johnson’s decision to take the nation into what was a civil war between North and South Vietnam. There was no declaration of war; only a congressional resolution. LBJ “tried to find a war on the cheap,” said a key intelligence advisor, George W.

1 2 3
Go straight to Post

Obama’s budget cuts on U.S. security unconstitutional, say experts

by Jim Kouri on Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

This is article 159 of 301 in the topic US Military

President Barack Obama’s planned defense and national security budget cuts are expected to have an adverse impact on the U.S. Coast Guard’s ability to perform its constitutional duty as both a law enforcement agency and branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, according to a Heritage Foundation study by Mackenzie Eaglen and Jim Dolbow.

The U.S. Coast Guard is both a law enforcement agency and a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. Photo credit: DoD File Photo

The reduction in resources comes at a time when most security experts believe more is needed to protect the U.S. and its interests in the midst of threats and attacks by international terrorists.

However, because of the ignorance of political leaders regarding their constitutional duties — or because they find it expedient to ignore those duties — they fail to protect the integrity of the U.S. Armed Forces, according security experts.

As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s Budget Chart Book, even eliminating all defense spending would not solve the federal spending crisis. Since 1976, annual entitlement spending has exceeded defense spending, even with the cost of wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defensespending is only 5 percent. Defense spending is now 20.1 percent of federal outlays. Yet some, such as President Obama, want the brunt of spending cutbacks to come from the military. Obama’s revised (but not detailed) plan for fiscal year (FY) 2012 calls for $400 billion in defense cuts over the next 10 years, mostly by canceling or delaying over 50 major weapons programs.

President Bill Clinton upon taking office had a similar plan. Of the 305,000 employees removed from the federal payroll, 286,000 (or 90%) were military cuts. The statistics for America’s defense during the Clinton years reveal the deep-seated animosity of the administration toward those who served in the military. The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.

Obama’s budget cut request for the Coast Guard weighs the prospect of reducing the Maritime Safety & Security Teams from 12 units to seven as well as retiring nine aircraft and five Coast Guard cutters.

“Congress should hold oversight hearings and require a study to determine both Coast Guard law enforcement specialist requirements and an associate national training structure,” wrote Eaglen and Dolbow.

Such hearings and subsequent report(s) would pressure the White House and Obama’s so-called security team develop a real security and safety plan for maritime response with standards for local, state, and federal maritime law enforcement. Congress should also demand that the current commandant submit an unfunded priorities list to House and Senate committee members detailing the downside of using an axe rather than a scalpel in making budget cuts.

The Heritage report states that “Congress should reject the maritime team cuts and examine whether the MSSTs—to be fully effective—need to be expanded to 17 with additional helicopters and more specialized training.”

Established in the aftermath of 9/11, the MSSTs were created to detect and intercept criminal or catastrophic risks well beyond U.S. shores.

Click to continue reading “Obama’s budget cuts on U.S. security unconstitutional, say experts”
Go straight to Post

The Cuban Missile Crisis — ‘Solved’ This week 49 Years Ago

by Humberto Fontova on Sunday, October 30th, 2011

Forty nine years ago on Oct. 28th JFK “solved” the Cuban Missile Crisis. Given the influence of Camelot’s court scribes and their cronies in the MSM, perhaps a refresher on conservative reaction to this “solution” is in order:

“We locked Castro’s communism into Latin America and threw away the key to its removal,” growled Barry Goldwater.

“Kennedy pulled defeat out of the jaws of victory,” wrote Richard Nixon. “Then gave the Soviets squatters rights in our backyard.”

“We’ve been had!” yelled then Navy chief George Anderson upon hearing on October 28, 1962, how JFK “solved” the missile crisis. Adm. Anderson was the man in charge of the very “blockade” against Cuba.

“The biggest defeat in our nation’s history!” bellowed Air Force chief Curtis Lemay, while whacking his fist on his desk.

“We missed the big boat,” said Gen. Maxwell Taylor, after learning the details of the deal with Khrushchev.

“It’s a public relations fable that Khrushchev quailed before Kennedy,” wrote Alexander Haig. “The legend of the eyeball to eyeball confrontation invented by Kennedy’s men paid a handsome political dividend. But the Kennedy-Khrushchev deal was a deplorable error resulting in political havoc and human suffering through the America’s.”

Even Democrats despaired. “This nation lacks leadership,” said Dean Acheson, the Democratic elder statesman who Kennedy consulted on the matter. “The meetings were repetitive and without direction. Most members of Kennedy’s team had no military or diplomatic experience whatsoever. The sessions were a waste of time.”

But not for the Soviets. “We ended up getting exactly what we’d wanted all along,” snickered Nikita Khrushchev in his diaries, “security for Fidel Castro’s regime and American missiles removed from Turkey. Until today the U.S. has complied with her promise not to interfere with Castro and not to allow anyone else to interfere with Castro. After Kennedy’s death, his successor Lyndon Johnson assured us that he would keep the promise not to invade Cuba.”

Khrushchev seemed prepared to yank the missiles even before any “bullying” by Kennedy. “What!” he gasped that week, as recalled by his son Sergei. “Is he (Fidel Castro) proposing that we start a nuclear war? That we launch missiles from Cuba? But that is insane!…Remove them (our missiles) as soon as possible! Before it’s too late. Before something terrible happens!” instructed the Soviet premier.

Tthe Kennedy team’s brainstorming sessions were certainly no waste of time for the primary beneficiary. “Many concessions were made by the Americans about which not a word has been said,” snickered Fidel Castro. “Perhaps one day they’ll be made public.”

“We can’t say anything public about this agreement. It would be too much of a political embarrassment for us.” That’s Robert F. Kennedy to Soviet ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin when closing the deal that ended the so-called crisis.

(All above quotes are fully documented in “Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant.”)

Castro’s regime’s was granted new status. Let’s call it MAP, or Mutually-Assured-Protection. Cuban freedom-fighters working from South Florida were suddenly rounded up for “violating U.S. Neutrality laws.” Some of these bewildered men were jailed, others “quarantined,” prevented from leaving Dade County. The Coast Guard in Florida got 12 new boats and seven new planes to make sure Castro remained unmolested, that not a hair on his chiny chin-chin was harmed by the hot-headed exiles.

Click to continue reading “The Cuban Missile Crisis — ‘Solved’ This week 49 Years Ago”
Go straight to Post

President flip-flops on defense spending

by Jim Kouri on Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

This is article 237 of 526 in the topic Government Spending

Obama is backtracking on his proposed defense cuts, but many believe it's just a political ploy. Credit: News with Views/Paul Walter

After being denigrated by national security experts, former military brass and intelligence officials, President Barack Obama flip-flopped on his Defense spending-cuts claiming on Friday that a $1 trillion reduction over 10 years would be foolish.

For example, Obama’s FY-2012 budget request for the Coast Guard weighs the prospect of reducing the Maritime Safety & Security Teams from 12 units to seven as well as retiring nine aircraft and five Coast Guard cutters.

However, it now appears the White House is doing an about-face on that proposal since the Coast Guard is both a military branch and a law enforcement agency.

“On defense spending, a huge amount of their savings on the discretionary side came out of defense spending,” Obama said during a press conference.
Members of Obama’s Fiscal Commission had proposed cuts that would have come terminated or cutback several multi-billion dollar weapon systems, such as the F-35 fighter jet,  the V-22 aircraft, and a new Marine Corps amphibious landing craft.
“I think we need to cut defense, but as commander-in-chief, I’ve got to make sure that we’re cutting it in a way that recognizes we’re still in the middle of a war, we’re winding down another war,” Obama said during the press conference.
President Obama last Spring had requested $400 billion in national security cuts by 2023 to help with deficit-reduction efforts. During White House-congressional debt-ceiling talks, there was talk of even larger military budget cuts with the numbers reaching about $800 billion over 10 years.
But after word leaked out that the Obama administration would all but gut the U.S. defense and national security programs, critics blasted the White House for its myopic view of threats the U.S. faces.
Truth be told, because entitlement spending has tripled while defense spending declined as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), entitlement spending (Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security) is now 10 percent of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 5 percent.
As documented in The Heritage Foundation’s 2011 Budget Chart Book, even eliminating all defense spending would not solve the federal spending crisis. Since 1976, annual entitlement spending has exceeded defense spending, even with the cost of wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Don’t be surprised to hear President Obama attempt to sound  more like a hawk as we approach 2012. Having failed to oversee an economic comeback, he will attempt to sound presidential in foreign affairs. He’ll attempt to sound more patriotic with some audiences and his news media cheerleaders will help,” said political strategist Mike Baker.
“And you know what they say about patriotism and scoundrels.”

Go straight to Post

Airport security workers fear assaults by angry travelers

by Jim Kouri on Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

This is article 48 of 191 in the topic Government Regulations

Tempers may flare up during the Thanksgiving holiday travel rush. Photo: TSA

Transportation Security Officers — through their collective-bargaining association — stated Monday that while most passengers are understanding of the new Transportation Security Administration security procedures and recognize that TSOs are not the ones who created those procedures, there have been a few instances where passengers have become angry, belligerent and even physical with TSOs.

In Indianapolis, for example, a TSO was punched by a passenger who didn’t like the new screening process, according to a report from the TSO’s union, the American Federation of Government Employees.

“AFGE agrees that strong security measures need to be in place and evolve as threats come anew, but the general public needs to know what the security procedures are and what their rights are as citizens,” AFGE National President John Gage added.

“TSA must do a better job explaining these measures to the flying public. This absence of information has resulted in a backlash against the character and professionalism of TSOs based on a few widely reported but largely ill-founded claims repeated over and over again by the media,” said Gage.

AFGE further called on TSA officials to provide an educational pamphlet to each passenger on the new procedures and what the passenger rights are.

“Like all Americans, TSOs deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. These men and women are the first line of defense against those who seek to harm this country,” Gage said.

“It is unacceptable for any passenger to verbally or physically assault any security officers, and TSA must act now—before the Thanksgiving rush— to ensure that TSOs are not being left to fend for themselves,” he added.

“It’s a shame that the people who should receive the complaints of the American people are far from their reach. It’s the soldiers, cops and security officers who bear the brunt of the people’s anger over ill-conceived public policy,” said former police detective Sidney Franes, now owner of a private security firm.

AFGE is the only union to represent Transportation Security Officers since the creation of the TSA, and currently has more than 12,000 dues-paying members in 38 AFGE TSA Locals across the country.

AFGE is the largest federal employee union representing 600,000 workers in the federal government and the government of the District of Columbia, including tens of thousands of DHS employees in Border Patrol, Citizenship and Immigration Services, Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, FEMA, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Federal Protective Service, Office of Immigration Statistics and TSA.

Go straight to Post

Obama’s 855-Room Junket to India: What About the Deficit?

by John Lillpop on Monday, October 25th, 2010

This is article 300 of 1015 in the topic Obama

Having created another trillion-dollar deficit for the current fiscal year, President Obama is working on yet another deficit buster with his extravagant two-day visit to India in November.

As reported in part, Obama’s travel scheme is hardly what one would expect from a president dedicated to deficit reduction:

To ensure fool-proof security, the President’s team has booked the entire the Taj Mahal Hotel, including 570 rooms, all banquets and restaurants. Since his security contingent and staff will comprise a huge number, 125 rooms at Taj President have also been booked, apart from 80 to 90 rooms each in Grand Hyatt and The Oberoi hotels. The NCPA, where the President is expected to meet representatives from the business community, has also been entirely booked.

The officer said, “Obama’s contingent is huge. There are two jumbo jets coming along with Air Force One, which will be flanked by security jets. There will be 30 to 40 secret service agents, who will arrive before him. The President’s convoy has 45 cars, including the Lincoln Continental in which the President travels.”

Since Obama will stay in a hotel that is on sea front, elaborate coastal security arrangements have been made by the US Navy in consonance with the Indian Navy and the Coast Guard. “There will be US naval ships, along with Indian vessels, patrolling the sea till about 330-km from the shore. This is to negate the possibility of a missile being fired from a distance,” the officer said.

The President will be accompanied by his chefs, not because he would not like to savour Indian cuisine, but to ensure his food is not spiked.

While all agree that presidential safety is an overriding priority, is it really necessary to book 855 rooms, including 570 at the Taj Mahal Hotel?

Other burning questions that deserve intelligent answers:

  • Why Mumbai, other than as a symbolic gesture to terrorists? Can America afford such pricey, meaningless gestures?
  • Where is the cost-benefit analysis? Just what benefits will accrue to the American people as a result of this elitist misadventure?
  • What can Obama hope to accomplish at the Taj Mahal that he could not accomplish just as well in the Oval Office with a collect call to India? Remember, Mr. President, these are tough times—a truth that applies even to spend-happy Marxists!

If, and when, Republicans recapture the House and or Senate (next week?), the first priority for the new Congress should be to monitor and control travel by the first family.

That means control over trips (domestic and international) by the president and by his reckless spouse whose European vacations are a scandal in these times.

Time to put an end to foolish travel expenses by our out-of-touch, elitist president!

Go straight to Post

Featuring YD Feedwordpress Content Filter Plugin