Report: Pentagon Spent $100,000 to Debate ‘Did Jesus Die For Klingons Too?’

November 16, 2012 at 12:57 pm (Budgets, Government Waste, Jesus, Klingons, Pentagon, Spending, Tom Coburn)

And herein lies why you don’t pull 42-year-old men out of their mother’s basement and hand them a job in the research department at the Pentagon.

Via Politicker:

The federal government spends money to fix the country’s infrastructure, help senior citizens get affordable access to health care and beef up national security, but did you know that it also pays for stuff like workshops on Star Trek musings?

The Washington Times reports that Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn has brought to light some of the Pentagon’s non-security focused spending, which–as a small-government Republican–he naturally wants cut. Buried among the list of things the Pentagon supposedly spent money on, including a new form of rolled-up beef jerky, is this little gem:

$100,000 for a 2011 workshop on interstellar space travel that included a session entitled “Did Jesus die for Klingons too?” The session probed how Christian theology would apply in the event of the discovery of aliens.

We’re unsure how a workshop focusing on the hypothetical mixture of Star Trek and Christian doctrine cost $100,000, unless they actually hosted it in space, but perhaps that new rolled-up beef jerky is expensive to cater.

Check out the report at the Washington Times, it actually gets worse.  To give you an idea, the aforementioned beef jerky ran a tab of $1.5 million, with the funding coming from money that was designated for a weapons program.

How do you solve a problem like government waste and excess?  Perhaps the better question would be, what would Jesus do?

Advertisements

Permalink Leave a Comment

Report: Did the Obama Administration Withhold Information on an Iranian Attack on a US Drone?

November 8, 2012 at 5:06 pm (CNN, Drone, Fighter Jet, Iran, Kuwait, Obama Administration, Pentagon, Persian Gulf, Predator, Su-25)

Brace yourself, this is but one of many, many things we will be finding out about now that the election is behind us.

CNN reports:

Two Iranian Su-25 fighter jets fired on an unarmed U.S. Air Force Predator drone in the Persian Gulf last week, CNN has learned.

The incident raises fresh concerns within the Obama administration about Iranian military aggression in crucial Gulf oil shipping lanes.

The drone was in international airspace east of Kuwait, U.S. officials said, adding it was engaged in routine maritime surveillance.

Although the drone was not hit, the Pentagon is concerned.

This incident occurred on November 1st.  The American media heard nothing about it until today.  The CNN report confirms that the Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which is tantamount to intentionally keeping it from public consumption.

The Obama administration did not disclose the incident, which occurred just days before the presidential election on November 1, but three senior officials confirmed the details to CNN.

Now that the election is over however, the incident is fair game to report on.  As will be the Benghazi scandal.  This administration has – and will continue to – put political aspirations well ahead of national security.

One journalist asked an American defense official if the reason it wasn’t reported was due to the Iranian fighter jet’s inability to actually hit the drone.  The response was, ““it doesn’t matter, they fired on us.”

In other words, there was no good discernible reason to not report the incident.  And yet, we’re just finding out about it now.

Permalink Leave a Comment

Obama Administration Blaming Deaths of U.S. Troops On … U.S. Troops

October 1, 2012 at 9:00 am (Afghanistan, Friendly Fire, George W. Bush, Islam, Martin Dempsey, Military, Pentagon, President Obama, Sensitivity Training, U.S. Troops)

In case you were wondering, according to the Pentagon, American troops would be killed far less frequently if only they would better understand the religious sensitivities of Afghan forces.

If you’re an ardent supporter of American media, then you probably missed the news that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan rose to 2,000 this past weekend.

This of course, would have been the lead story on every news outlet in America had it occurred between the years 2000 and 2008.

But this is now Obama’s war, and there should be no reporting of significant milestones because … well … because he has put an end to these unjust wars.  And also, he’s the first black President.  Or something.

Regardless, here is the grim news as reported by the Huffington Post:

A firefight broke out between U.S. forces and their Afghan army allies in eastern Afghanistan Sunday, killing two Americans and three Afghan soldiers and pushing the number of U.S. troops killed in the long-running war 2,000.
The fighting started Saturday when what is believed to have been a mortar fired by insurgents struck a checkpoint set up by U.S. forces in Wardak province, said Shahidullah Shahid, a provincial government spokesman. He said the Americans thought they were under attack from a nearby Afghan army checkpoint and fired on it, prompting the Afghan soldiers to return fire.
The Afghan Defense Ministry said the gunbattle was the result of a “misunderstanding” between international forces and Afghan soldiers manning a checkpoint in the Sayd Abad district.

There is a debate as to whether or not this story holds true.  Were our soldiers killed as a result of a misunderstanding, or was it an attack from within?  Regardless of the motive, the 2,000th American soldier has died in Afghanistan.

Now, we know our readers are pretty good with math unlike liberals in the media, so we have a little mathematical riddle for you – If 630 U.S. troops were killed in 8 years during the war in Afghanistan under Bush, and 2,000 total troops have died during the entire length of that war, how many casualties have occurred under President Obama?

Here’s an even more astounding thing to ponder – the Obama administration is now blaming the ‘friendly fire’ attacks that have killed U.S. soldiers this year on troops that are not sensitive enough to the religion of Islam.

In other words, they had it coming.

The New York Post reports (h/t Gateway Pundit):

Afghan security forces, our supposed allies, are slaughtering American troops. Thirty-three soldiers have been killed by “green on blue” attacks this year alone. The situation is so bad that the training of Afghan forces has been temporarily suspended.

How has the Pentagon responded?

By blaming our troops.

Top officials believe culturally offensive behavior is the motivation behind the killings, so it’s stepped up Islamic sensitivity training for our troops.

If you don’t want to be shot in the back by your Afghan training partners, the Pentagon advises, don’t offend their religious sensibilities. Don’t kick your feet up on a table, for instance, and never ask to see a picture of their wives and kids. “There’s a percentage [of attacks] which are cultural affronts,” Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in a recent interview. Dempsey echoes the concerns of Gen. Sher Mohammad Karimi, the Afghan National Army’s chief of staff, who earlier this month argued both sides need to do more to “teach” foreign troops Islamic traditions and values to reduce the chance of violent reactions to cultural slights. “It is our duty to teach this to them. Our indifference about these issues causes the incident,” he said.

Of course, this fits in quite well with the President’s view that when it comes to soldiers and diplomats being killed abroad, everyone is to blame for their deaths except for the people who actually pull the trigger.

When do you suppose the Obama administration will start training Afghan troops to respect American traditions and values, and start blaming violence in the Middle East on those who have no values?

Permalink Leave a Comment

Surprise! Obama Administration Breaks the Law … Again

September 7, 2012 at 5:33 pm (Defense Cuts, Defense Spending, Fiscal Cliff, Jake Tapper, John Thune, Lawlessness, Military Cuts, Military Spending, Mitt Romney, Pentagon, President Obama, Sequestration)

Glenn Thrush, writer for the Politico, recently produced an e-book on the Obama campaign, that caused quite a stir.  While many have focused on the many conflicts the campaign has suffered this year – an issue with which they did not contend with as much in 2008 – there is another damning aspect of the book that was vastly under-reported.

Essentially, the President was willing to place his re-election bid above the needs of our economy and our national defense. 

Excerpts from the book claim that Obama rebuffed pleas from Nancy Pelosi of all people, to reconsider the sequestered defense cuts because doing so would make reelection more difficult.

Here are a couple of quotes from Thrush’s work that stand out:

“In mid-2012, the House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, requested a sit-down to ask Obama to reconsider the billions of defense cuts that would kick in automatically as part of the 2011 budget deal. The cuts included in ‘the sequester,’ she argued, would hurt Democratic House members with major defense contractors in their districts. They were asking for an alternative state of cuts, or any kind of plan that would keep local employers – and, by implication, local contributors – happy.” 

And…

“Obama told the former speaker what he had been saying for months – that he wasn’t budging on the defense cuts. Doing so would surrender his only leverage in forcing House Republicans to accept the expiration of tax cuts for the wealthy – the only weapon he had against their efforts ‘to delegitimize me,’ as he put it. Moreover, he bluntly called on Hill Democrats to reorient their priorities – from them to him. ‘Look, guys,’ he told Pelosi, Harry Reid, and several other congressional leaders, according to a person briefed in detail on the interaction. ‘I plan on winning this race. If I don’t win, then anything we say now doesn’t matter. I plan on winning this race. So let’s figure out how to win this race.’”

These are stunning claims that demonstrate a President willing to sacrifice the good of his own country, the good of the military men and women that he leads, for the good of his own political aspirations.

And now, Jake Tapper of ABC has another stunning followup to the story.  

White House officials today acknowledged that they had not met the deadline to outline how the president would make the defense cuts required by law to be made because of the failure of the bipartisan, poorly-named Super-committee to agree on $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years.

Because of the failure of the Super-committee, a self-imposed sword of Damocles will fall, requiring $1.2 trillion in spending cuts that neither Democrats nor Republicans desire, specifically $109 billion from Pentagon and domestic spending in just the next year.

In the fine Washington tradition of never giving anything a name that makes sense to anyone outside the 202 area code, these cuts are called the “sequester.”

Cuts to military and defense spending to the tune of $1.2 trillion, AND the administration broke the law?  Are you outraged yet?

Tapper outlines just how devastating this series of events is:

These cuts are set to take effect on January 1, coinciding with the expiration of $4 trillion in lower tax rates enacted into law by President Bush and extended by President Obama. Combined with the expiration of a payroll tax cut, the whole shebang – assuming no compromise is reached to delay the massive tax increases and spending cuts – is referred to as the “Fiscal Cliff.”

Weren’t Democrats trying to convince us last night that this President drives the car forward, while Republicans go in reverse?  That might actually be a truthful statement – the Obama administration is trying to drive the economy off a cliff, and Mitt Romney is trying to backpedal away from it.

In a statement, Sen. John Thune, R-SD, author of the bill said that “Americans of all stripes are required to play by the rules and follow the laws of the land. Unfortunately, by disregarding the sequestration reporting deadline, the Obama Administration seems to think it is above the law. The American people deserve to know the president’s plan for implementing these cuts, some of which our military leaders have said will compromise our nation’s ability to protect itself. Every day that the administration delays being transparent with the American people on the sequester moves us one day closer to going over the fiscal cliff.”

Mitt Romney added the following statement:

“A year ago, Barack Obama set in motion the sequestration process that is leading to imminent disastrous cuts in our military might. The President is required by law to tell the American people how he would implement these cuts. But he has chosen to ignore the deadline for doing so. The American people have had enough of evasion and enough of finger pointing. They just want answers. Secretary of Defense Panetta has said these cuts will be devastating to our national security and our economy. It’s time the President stops stonewalling, stops dismantling our military, and starts providing answers.”

Permalink Leave a Comment