Conservative Happenings

Friday, July 10, 2015

The Staggering Cost Of A Largely Failed Fight Against ISIS

President Barack Obama has presided over billions spent battling the Islamic State, despite, by his own admission, lacking a clear and complete strategy to defeat the terror group.

War against Islamic State has cost a total of $2.91 billion, averaging $9.2 million per day, according to the Pentagon. More than 50 percent of the cost is directly tied to airstrikes, The Hill reports.

Republican Sen. John McCain has criticized the campaign against Islamic State as too weak, noting that 75 percent of airstrike missions return without firing a weapon. Speaking on CBS’s “Face The Nation” in late May, McCain said, “We need more troops on the ground. We need forward air controllers. But just referring to airstrikes, do you know that 75 percent of those combat missions return to base without having fired a weapon? It’s because we don’t have somebody on the ground who can identify … a moving target. … We found in Vietnam that if you don’t have the right strategy, airpower is minimal in its effect.”

In Syria, a $500 million program to train and equip rebels against Islamic State is stagnant. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter admitted the program has only produced 60 Syrian trainees, attributing it to a strict vetting process. Originally, U.S. officials hoped to ready 5,400 rebels per year, The Associated Press report

Via: Daily Caller
Continue Reading....

Feds Delay Obamacare Menu Labeling Rule By a Year

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Obamacare. Bookmark the permalink.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is delaying an Obamacare regulation requiring restaurants to display calorie information until December 2016 after businesses complained they did not have sufficient time to comply with the complex rules.

The FDA’s rule, which is the latest Obamacare regulation to be delayed, went into detail on whether pumpkin spice muffins should be labeled, but remained vague as to what the definition of a menu is, was set to take effect on Dec. 1.

“The Food and Drug Administration … is extending the compliance date for the final rule requiring disclosure of certain nutrition information for standard menu items in certain restaurants and retail food establishments,” the agency said in a notice to be published in the Federal Register on Friday.

“We are taking this action in response to requests for an extension and for further clarification of the rule’s requirements,” the FDA said.

The 319-page regulation, mandated by Obamacare, is estimated to cost industry $1.7 billion to comply. The rule requires restaurant chains with 20 or more stores to list calorie information for nearly every food item, and a “succinct statement” that “2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice, but calorie needs vary,” on each menu board.

Vending machines must also display calorie information, though that part of the regulation was already set to take effect in December 2016.

Violations of the regulation can carry civil and criminal penalties, of up to a $1,000 fine, one year in prison, or both.

Domino’s, a leading critic of the rule claimed that it is “impossible to comply” with its requirements, said the delay is not enough to fix the regulation.

“FDA’s delay confirms both the serious deficiencies in the final rules and the urgent need for enactment of the bipartisan Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act (H.R. 2017),” said Lynn Liddle, executive vice president of Domino’s and chair of the American Pizza Community, in a statement. “Unfortunately, FDA proceeded with an approach to final rules that impose significant compliance costs without achieving any meaningful improvements in consumer education.”

“After years of uncertainty, FDA still has not addressed basic questions regarding implementation,” she said.

The proposed legislation, sponsored by House Republican Conference Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R., Wash.), would give businesses greater flexibility in how to display calorie information. The bill would allow companies where the majority of their orders are carryout and delivery, such as pizza chains, to display the information online.

The Common Sense Nutrition Disclosure Act also clarifies that an advertisement, coupon, flyer, window display, or post on social media is not a menu, which the regulation implied. The rule defined a menu as anything “used by a customer to make an order selection at the time the customer is viewing the writing.”

“The FDA’s self-admission that these regulations are unclear, unpractical, and unworkable is welcome, but a one-year delay doesn’t change the underlying problem on the books—a one-size-fits-all, 400-page regulation that is nearly impossible to follow,” Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers told the Washington Free Beacon. “Providing consumers accurate, clear, consistent nutritional information is everyone’s priority, but it doesn’t have to come at the expense of commonsense.”

The FDA said they received “numerous requests asking us to further interpret portions of the final rule” since it was finalized last year. Businesses asked for more time due to the need to change all of their menus, and train staff.

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration appreciates and takes very seriously the extensive input it has received from stakeholders throughout the process of establishing requirements for menu labeling in restaurants and other retail food establishments,” FDA Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine Michael R. Taylor said. “The FDA is committed to working collaboratively with those establishments covered by the menu labeling final rule, including chain restaurants, covered grocery stores, and others to facilitate timely and efficient implementation of the new requirements.”

The FDA is still planning to issue a “draft guidance document” to businesses further clarifying the rules and will “provide educational and technical assistance for the covered businesses and for our state, local, and tribal regulatory partners to support reasonable and consistent compliance nationwide.”

Via: WFB

[VIDEO] The Bernie Sanders bubble: Get set for a flameout, analysts say

A former chief strategist for Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential hopes plummeted from rock star status to also-ran,  predicts a similar fate for the Democratic darling of the  moment, Vermont U.S. Sen.  Bernie Sanders.

“There’s a big difference  between 10,000 at a rally and turning out 3,500 caucus  attenders on a cold winter night in Iowa. I suspect Bernie Sanders will learn the difference in February,” said Steve McMahon, Dean’s one-time top strategist. “His crowds are enthusiastic and large and fun to watch, but the question is whether they will be effective in the long run.”

Large crowds don’t necessarily translate into delegate support, McMahon said.

“Bernie Sanders needs to move the crowds into action and organize grass-roots support in the early states and so far, I haven’t seen any evidence that that’s occurring,” he said. “He doesn’t seem to be running a grass-roots campaign. It’s a campaign based on big crowds.”

The Summer of Sanders has seen the self-described socialist surge from nearly 50 points  behind the Democratic front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to within 15 points,  according to Real Clear Politics’ average of polls.

Sanders’ aides had to scramble to find a new venue to accommodate more than 7,500 screaming supporters Monday as a planned town hall morphed into a roaring rally in Portland, Maine.

Sanders also recently played to 10,000 fans in Madison, Wis.

“He is drawing massive crowds in all sorts of places,” said Sean Trende, senior elections analyst at Real Clear Politics. “In an Internet age, there’s a segment that increasingly values authenticity. You saw that with Ron Paul. I think Sanders taps into that.”

Sanders has earned the backing of U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s anti-Wall Street wing of the Democratic party — mostly young, white progressives — but faces a challenge courting black voters, who have supported Clinton in the past, Trende said.

The 73-year-old Sanders does well in neighboring New Hampshire as a folk hero firebrand, but he likely will run out of steam, said Peter Hoe Burling, a former New Hampshire delegate for  the Democratic National Committee.

“People talk about Howard Dean’s yowl, but the fact of the matter is, that campaign had peaked at a certain point,” Burling said. “It went as far as it was going to go and there’s the chance Bernie’s campaign is  going to peak as well. In my mind, his campaign will peak at some point prior to the New Hampshire primary.”

Sanders can’t win in big states with deep reserves of delegates such as New York and California, said Matt Bennett, a veteran Democratic campaign strategist and Clinton supporter.

“He may do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but he runs into a brick wall after that,” Bennett said.

“He’s not going to have the money or organization to challenge Secretary Clinton in multiple states at the same time on Super Tuesday,” Bennett said.

Sanders also could face high hurdles in the south, said Chip Felkel, a South Carolina-based Republican strategist not aligned with a presidential campaign.

“He’s been very impressive with what he’s been able to do crowd-wise and enthusiasm-wise,” he said. “I think that would carry over some in South Carolina, but he might be just plain too liberal for some of the Democrats around here.

“We’re just generally, even by national standards, more conservative in this state,” Felkel said.

“If he comes to South Carolina and has an impressive crowd, we’ll have to rethink that equation, but right now, I just don’t see it,” he said.

Via: Boston Herald

Obama’s Chairman of the Joint Chief nominee: Russia is an ‘existential threat’ to the United States

In the 2012 presidential debate between the congenitally smarmy and clownish Barack Obama and the hapless and fearful of offending Mitt Romney, Barack Obama leveled this charge against Romney:

OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years

But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s.

Obama was wrong then. But if he had been right, then the testimony of his own nominee to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Joe Dunford would have provided damning appraisal on the fecklessness of Obama’s foreign policy:

During his confirmation hearing Thursday morning, President Barack Obama’s pick to be the next chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Joe Dunford, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Vladimir Putin’s Russia ranked No.1.

Moscow’s behavior is “nothing short of alarming,” the general said, adding that “Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security” and “could pose an existential threat to the United States.”

If Chief Justice John Roberts is reading this, we’re using a dictionary where this is found:

An existential threat is a threat to something’s survival.

One of the critical geo-political errors made by George H. W. Bush was treating Russia, the successor state to the USSR, as some sort of pet Yorkie that could be made to perform tricks rather than a nuclear-armed kleptocracy ruled by, as George Patton would have said, ‘recently civilized Mongolian bandits.’ George Bush was getting the formula right when he left office. He had looked into Putin’s soul and beheld a seething, effervescing puddle of hate and corruption.

China may be our most dangerous adversary. Iran is the one most likely to do something really ugly. But Russia is the only nation in the world that has set out to pick a fight with the United States for no other reason than Putin needs a permanent enemy to fight in order to remain in power. This was obvious in 2009. It is staggeringly obvious today.

So Obama owes the nation answers to several question.

Via: Red State

Democrats Scurry From Sanctuary Ship Hillary and the sanctuary sisters of San Francisco.

Democrats now will say anything to distance themselves from sanctuary city policies, even though they have supported these policies for years. In an exclusive CNN interview Tuesday, Hillary Rodham Clinton was asked about San Francisco’s refusal to hand over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement seven-time convicted felon and five-time deportee Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez. He stands accused in the fatal shooting of Kathryn Steinle as she took an evening stroll on Pier 14 last week. (After telling a local TV station he shot Steinle by accident, Lopez-Sanchez has pleaded not guilty to murder.) Clinton answered, “The city made a mistake not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. So I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”

In a 2007 Democratic presidential debate, the late Tim Russert asked Clinton if she would allow sanctuary cities to disobey federal law. “Well, I don’t think there is any choice,” she answered. Immigrants may not talk to police if “they think you’re also going to be enforcing the immigration laws.” She did not add a caveat that she wanted local law enforcement to work with immigration officials if the federal government had strong feelings that an individual should be deported.

In 2008, Clinton voted against an amendment to yank some federal funds from sanctuary cities. California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer voted likewise — but it didn’t stop them from criticizing San Francisco for releasing a repeat offender.

“The 2008 budget amendment was a choice between sending a political message or funding California law enforcement, and I chose to fund the police,” Feinstein explained in an email. “I continue to believe we can deport criminals who are undocumented and still support law enforcement.”

Perhaps Feinstein and Clinton are living back in 1985, when Feinstein was mayor and signed San Francisco’s sanctuary city law. It was supposed to help immigrants seeking asylum from war-torn El Salvador and Guatemala. Four years later, the law was expanded to cover all immigrants. Then, in 2013, the Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance, signed by Mayor Ed Lee, that prohibits city law enforcement from releasing undocumented immigrants to ICE based on a detainer request alone. (There’s an exception for recent violent felons, but Lopez-Sanchez did not qualify.)

Sanctuary City supporters cannot say they were not warned. Recently, ICE Director Sarah Saldana told a House committee that reduced cooperation from state and local governments “may increase the risk that dangerous criminals are returned to the streets, putting the public and our officers at greater risk.”

Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., asked Saldana if it would help if Congress made it mandatory for local governments to cooperate with ICE — the sort of bill already rejected by Clinton, Feinstein, and Boxer. “Thank you. Amen. Yes,” Saldana answered.

Then came blowback from the anti-enforcement community. Saldana released a statement that said such a law would be counterproductive and “lead to more resistance.” You have to figure her reversal was on orders from the White House. Asked about Steinle’s killing at a press conference this week, White House spokesman Josh Earnest blamed Republicans in Congress for blocking “common-sense immigration reform.”

Where is the common sense in shielding repeat felons and border jumpers from the consequences of their crimes? There is no need to look outside the city: San Francisco screwed up. Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, the Board of Supervisors, and the mayor were so busy crowing about their pro-immigrant credentials, and refusing to differentiate between legal and undocumented, that they forgot voters elect them to keep their city safe.

Via: American Spectator

Democratic Congresswomen Seek to Allow Taxpayer-Funded Abortions

Democrat members of Congress have introduced legislation that would end the Hyde Amendment and permit taxpayer funding for abortions.

The Hyde Amendment, attached to the appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services, prevents the use of federal taxpayer funding for elective abortions—or health insurance plans that cover abortions. Exceptions are made for victims of rape or incest, or cases where there is risk of maternal mortality.

Supporters of the Hyde Amendment say it protects the right to conscience for taxpayers, protecting them from funding something that may violate their religious beliefs. Opponents say that the bill restricts access to abortion for women who obtain their health insurance through the government.

The bill to get rid of the Hyde Amendment was introduced by Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and Diana DeGette, D-Colo., on Wednesday.

“Each and every day, the rights of women are under attack in America,” Lee said in a statement:

“Today, we push back because every person has a right to health care. The EACH Woman Act is a bold and groundbreaking step forward. This legislation would ensure that every woman can access ALL of her health care options, regardless of how much money she earns or where she lives. Regardless of how someone personally feels about abortion, none of us, especially elected officials, should be interfering with a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions just because she is poor.”

Sarah Torre, a policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation, told The Daily Signal that she believes the Hyde Amendment is a common sense protection for both women and taxpayers.

“The common sense and—until very recently—uncontroversial Hyde language has been attached to every federal appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services since 1976,” Torre said. “Unlike most policies in Washington, this long-standing policy preventing taxpayer funding for abortionis widely supported by the American people and has won approval on both sides of the aisle for nearly 40 years. This policy rightly ensures that taxpayers aren’t forced to fund abortions, which harm women and take the lives of unborn children.”

Via: The Daily Signal

California's Generosity To Illegals Is Crippling The State

California is once again leading the way in financial irresponsibility by subsidizing health care for illegal alien children, further burdening the state’s taxpayers.

The LA Times reports that the subsidized healthcare is a part of a $115.4 billion budget and would be available to 170,000 children at the age of 18 or younger. The cost is expected to be $132 million when fully implemented. The program will begin in May.

The Los Angeles Daily News features proponents of subsidized healthcare to illegal children saying that the state can afford to help low-income illegal children because California has billions of dollars in surplus.

Even if this were true, why does the burden have to be on us taxpayers? They are the ones who came here illegally. Yes, the children are here through no fault of their own but the sad reality is that children are often victims of bad circumstance through no fault of their own. For instance, if their parents are arrested for tax embezzlement, that’s not the children’s fault but we don’t reward the unlawful behavior of tax embezzlement as a result.

But the dirty little secret is that California is not as financially sound as the left would have you believe. In fact, the financial system is in dire straits, and a sizable portion is due to illegal immigration.

First, a little background: California would not be in this position if not for rogue, judicial activist judges. The people of California voted for Proposition 187 in 1994 by a vote of 59% to 41%, which prohibited illegal aliens from access to welfare programs, including public education and health care. This was back when Californians had common sense.

So naturally, as the left is wont to do when voter initiatives and legislation don’t go their way, they sued, hoping that a handful of judges in black robes would overrule the will of the people. And that’s what happened.

Via: Townhall

Golf Channel Employees May Call Mulligan on Their Union

Workers will hold decertification vote on July 15

A group of cameramen and other technical staffers at the Golf Channel will have the opportunity to break ties with big labor next week after a federal labor arbiter dismissed union objections.

John Gallagher, an employee at the Golf Channel, filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board in June after collecting signatures from more than 30 percent of his colleagues. The board, which oversees all union elections, approved his petition, and scheduled a mail-in ballot election that will conclude on Wednesday.

The union became the sole bargaining representative for the technical staff at the Golf Channel in 2013. Gallagher and his supporters had to overcome several legal objections filed by the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), an AFL-CIO affiliate.

Union officials argued that they received notice outside the timeline mandated by newly minted election rules approved by the board in April. Claude T. Harrell, Jr., the director of the board’s Atlanta office, approved the petition on Monday following a two-day hearing.

He dismissed union objections, ruling that Gallagher “acted in good faith” and provided adequate notice to union officials.

“While conceding it subsequently received all the required documents from the Region and had no evidence that it was prejudiced, it argues a rule is a rule and therefore the petition must be dismissed. I disagree,” Harrell said.

The ruling raises the possibility that board employees and misunderstandings about the new regulations were to blame.

“Part of the failure to provide the documents could be attributable to the incomplete and confusing instructions the Petitioner received from the Board agent following initial receipt of the petition as to what documents were required and thereafter as to what was required regarding the Statement of Procedure form. Given the newness of the rules, the confusing instructions and his inexperience in filing petitions, it is quite understandable as to the Petitioner’s failures. Accordingly, I find he made a good faith effort to comply with the rules,” he ruled.

The workers received legal assistance from the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. Mark Mix, the foundation’s president, praised Harrell for allowing Gallagher to move forward.

“John Gallagher and his fellow employees successfully fought off attempts by IATSE officials to stop them from even having a vote to throw out the unwanted union,” Mix said in a statement. “This case shows the bureaucratic hurdles that union bosses regularly use to hold on to their monopoly power and stifle the will of independent workers.”

IATSE represents technical staff across the country. Because camera operators and other technical staff are spread out around the country, the National Labor Relations Board is arranging a mail-in ballot campaign.

“We hope the employees wishing to exercise their rights through this election will go forward without further delay tactics by union officials; however, history suggests an appeal of the Regional Director’s decision or use of other delaying tactics in an attempt to prevent employees from even having a chance to vote would not be surprising,” Mix said.

IATSE did not return requests for comment about the board’s decision.

Voting will come to an end on July 15.

Via: WFB

EPA Clueless On 90,000 Tons Of Toxic Waste Imported To US Annually

A bio-hazard waste container is seen in an undated handout photo provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta. REUTERS/CDC/Handout via Reuters

An estimated 90,000 tons of hazardous waste enters the U.S. each year from foreign countries, but the Environmental Protection Agency often can’t say what or where the dangerous stuff is.

Wherever it goes, hazardous waste presents a huge public health risk to Americans, according to a new EPA Office of Inspector General Report.

“Based on our assessment of data in EPA information systems, the EPA has an incomplete picture of hazardous waste entering the country,” the IG report said. “This can give rise to undetected and unenforced violations of federal hazardous waste laws, which could result in unknown human and environmental exposure to toxic substances.”

The U.S. accepts other nations’ toxic waste — anything from used batteries to discarded cleaning fluids — because the U.S. is more equipped to handle such materials than other countries, and because the U.S. can sometimes turn them into valuable resources.

In other words, one country’s trash can become another’s treasure, but that doesn’t mean the federal government is doing a great job handling toxic waste, the IG said.

EPA employees are supposed to track every shipment that enters the U.S. under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but federal investigators found that EPA fails to generate half of the consent forms required to accompany each shipment.

Some toxic waste shipments analyzed never reached their intended destination, but the EPA couldn’t confirm whether those shipments were lost, let alone locate them, the IG said. The EPA officials also weren’t sure about the exact volume of hazardous waste entering the U.S. In some cases, they incorrectly identified where the waste shipment originated.

Most of the imported hazardous waste, about 69,000 tons a year, comes from Canada, followed by Mexico at 9,000 tons, Belgium at 3,000 tons, and Japan, Malaysia and the Philippines at 2,000 tons, according to EPA.

Blame may not rest completely with the EPA though, the IG said, because, while the agency is supposed to track imported hazardous waste, officials lack needed enforcement authority to block questionable shipments from reaching U.S. soil.

Via: Daily Caller