Trump’s budget proposal: what cut and what eliminated?

Posted on by

The US government is beyond massive and exists, any more, to grow beyond any logical or reasonable measure. Both sides of the aisle wish to have this trend continue and so, to an extent, do many American voters.

To bandy a word utilized by Leftists but applicable here: that is unsustainable.

Donald Trump, now president, ran on the platform of reducing government and restoring power to our military — gutted like a bad fish as it was by Barack Hussein Obama.

President Trump already crafted an executive order stating that “for every one new regulation issued, at least two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a budgeting process.”

You can imagine the howls of outrage by control freaks, bilaterally, who witnessed an action by Trump to diminish their power, their cash and their dominant authority.

It’s what we elected President Trump to do. He means to accomplish that goal.

For example, what agencies does the Trump budget aim to eliminate wholesale — most you never knew existed?

  • The African Development Foundation;
  • The Appalachian Regional Commission;
  • The Chemical Safety Board;
  • The Corporation for National and Community Service;
  • The Corporation for Public Broadcasting;
  • The Delta Regional Authority;
  • The Denali Commission;
  • The Institute of Museum and Library Services;
  • The Inter-American Foundation;
  • The U.S. Trade and Development Agency;
  • The Legal Services Corporation;
  • The National Endowment for the Arts;
  • The National Endowment for the Humanities;
  • The Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation;
  • The Northern Border Regional Commission;
  • The Overseas Private Investment Corporation;
  • The United States Institute of Peace;
  • The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness;
  • The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

From DefenseOne.com:

Trump Budget Would Abolish 19 Agencies, Cut Thousands of Federal Jobs

by Charles S. Clark

With the aim of “making government work again,” the Trump White House on Thursday unveiled a $1.1 trillion budget blueprint for discretionary spending in fiscal 2017 and 2018 that would abolish 19 agencies and eliminate thousands of agency jobs.

The 54-page “America First” document, focused primarily on fiscal 2018, would boost the Defense Department and related programs at Energy by $54 billion, and Homeland Security by $2.8 billion. It would offset such increases by cutting the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development by $10.1 billion (28 percent) and the Environmental Protection Agency by $2.6 billion (31 percent). The latter cut would eliminate approximately 3,200 positions, according to the document.

The agency-by-agency plans include eliminating dozens of grant programs at the Education and Commerce departments—many of them related to climate change.

Little considered is the US debt. Please see the “live” debt clock here, if you wish to be personally gobsmacked in real time, as the national debt stands at $19.9 trillion dollars.

“The defense and public safety spending increases in this budget blueprint are offset and paid for by finding greater savings and efficiencies across the federal government,” Trump wrote in his introduction. “We are going to do more with less, and make the government lean and accountable to the people. This includes deep cuts to foreign aid,” he added. “Many other government agencies and departments will also experience cuts. These cuts are sensible and rational. Every agency and department will be driven to achieve greater efficiency and to eliminate wasteful spending in carrying out their honorable service to the American people.”

Anything wrong with “deep cuts to foreign aid”? Not in my book, though Leftists, Demorats and the like bleat that foreign aid “accounts for little of our debt.” So what? Why should people who want us dead benefit from American dollars?

Anything wrong with “doing more with less”? It’s what private businesses and much smaller governments nationally have had to contend with for years.

Anything wrong with “greater efficiency” and eliminating “wasteful spending”? After all, it’s your money, the American Taxpayer.

The Office of Management and Budget also implicitly criticized the Obama administration’s management approach for focusing too much on unproductive “compliance activities” that fail to give managers sufficient freedom.

Right. Because when, in recent memory, do you recall the federal government expanding your freedoms instead of stealing your freedoms and then selling some of them back to you at a profit for them and a loss for you?

The Trump team vowed to improve procurement and other support functions by using “available data to develop targeted solutions to problems federal managers face, and begin fixing them directly by sharing and adopting leading practices from the private and public sectors.”

Aha. Are you starting to glean a common thread here?

Who didn’t like President Trump’s budget proposal? The GOP EstabliHacks.

Again with the GOP EstabliHacks, it’s all about the loss of power, control and money. Tucker Carlson interviews Demorat Eric Swalwell. Does anyone ask: “can we afford it?”

Then there was this — anticipated by me and most all other conservatives, of course.

Patricia Harrison, president and CEO of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, said in a statement, “The elimination of federal funding to CPB would initially devastate and ultimately destroy public media’s role in early childhood education, public safety, connecting citizens to our history, and promoting civil discussions for Americans in rural and urban communities alike.”

Here’s what Leftists know about the CPB, the NEA and PBS but will never verbalize: absent federal dollars they won’t/can’t be supported by Leftists only.

Remember Air America, the Leftist network answer to right-wing radio? It stood up and found itself remarkably unsupported by its Leftist base and other radio listeners. Why? Because it actually had to compete in an open, capitalistic marketplace and found itself lacking in two serious areas: content, and messenger. It’s content — like most everything having to do with the Left — was hyperbolic, oppressive, negative. Its hosts were predominantly unlikable. A wonderful combination if you wish to be successful.

We already know that the words “compete” and “success” are inherently offensive to Leftists of all stripes, in any event.

So we defund the NEA, CPB and PBS. Let them finally stand or fall on the basis of their content, their attractiveness and appeal — just like every other private site, channel or show that must compete in an open market.

Again, are you starting to glean a common thread here?

In other words (massive intake of breath by political EstabliHacks, drones and deep staters everywhere), President Donald Trump intends to treat the United States government much like a business.

Bring out the fainting couches.

BZ

 

 Share

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, March 23rd, 2017

Posted on by

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening. My thanks are even more heartfelt due to the nature of the show I presented Thursday night which included examining, in-depth, the destructive, uncontrollable, unrepentant, irresponsible and authoritative nature of our federal government.

Thursday night we discussed:

  • Canada’s House of Commons passes anti-Islamophobia motion; will this religious motion apply equally to protestants and Jews?
  • Muslim Somali males in Minneapolis threaten to kidnap and rape women;
  • Tommy Robinson states the obvious to a Muslim advocate in London;
  • Rockville, MD superintendent in control of the school system where a 14-year-old girl was raped by an illegal alien believes parents are racist and xenophobic;
  • What is The Hammer?
  • House Intelligence Committee hearings with Comey, Gowdy, Nunes, FISA;
  • Rep Elise Stefanik reveals Director James Comey’s true nature;
  • Jason Chaffetz proves: the FBI doesn’t obey the law;
  • American privacy, LPR technology;
  • Government crisis of legitimacy; who watches the watchers?

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, March 23rd, 2017″ on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. Thanks also to Mary Brockman’s Biker Mafia in chat.

Want to listen to the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.

BZ

 

 Share

House Intelligence chair Devin Nunes: President Trump may be correct about surveillance

Posted on by

First, from Politico.com:

Nunes claims some Trump transition messages were intercepted

by Austin Wright

The move gave cover to the White House but was rebuked by top Democrats.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election.

The White House and Trump’s allies immediately seized on the statement as vindication of the president’s much-maligned claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phones — even though Nunes himself said that’s not what his new information shows.

Democrats, meanwhile, cried foul.

Why did the Demorats “cry foul”? Not necessarily because they vehemently disbelieve the information but because Demorat Adam Schiff, the top Dem on the House Intelligence Committee, became butt-hurt due to the order in which persons were notified. In other words, Schiff determined he wasn’t advised soon enough and others, such as President Trump, acquired the information before he did.

Nunes set off the firestorm with a news conference earlier in the day in which he described the surveillance of Trump aides through what’s called “incidental collection,” something he noted was routine and legal. Such collection can occur when a person inside the United State communicates with a foreign target of U.S. surveillance. In such cases, the identities of U.S. citizens are supposed to be shielded — but can be “unmasked” by intelligence officials under certain circumstances.

Nunes, himself a Trump transition member, said a “source” had shown him evidence that members of the Trump transition team had been unmasked — and that their identities had been revealed in U.S. intelligence reports. Nunes had previously raised questions about the unmasking of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, whose communications with Russia’s ambassador were intercepted by the U.S. government and whose identity was leaked to the news media.

Is there a price to be paid for this “unmasking” of American citizens? Oh quite so. From the WashingtonExaminer.com:

Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme

by Daniel Chaitin

The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump’s transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities “unmasked” after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials.

He said it isn’t Trump’s assertion, without proof, that his predecessor wiretapped Trump Tower that is of concern, but rather that intelligence officials named the Americans being discussed in intercepted communications.

The next logical question should be: who in the American government or intelligence community has the authority or ability to “unmask” a US citizen?

He noted that there are about 20 people in the intelligence community who, for intelligence reasons, can order this “minimization” be removed.

Who specifically may have ordered this? The House Intelligence Committee wants to know.

Nunes and Schiff asked the intelligence community leaders to disclose any “unmasked” identities that were disseminated throughout the intelligence community, law enforcement, or among senior Obama administration officials from June 2016 until January 2017 that relate to Trump or Hillary Clinton and their associates.

An informed source told CNN that if Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak was being surveilled, Flynn’s name should not necessarily have been included on the intelligence report. Rather, “American Citizen 1” or a similar anonymous term should have been used.

“However, as recent news stories, seem to illustrate, individuals talking to the media would appear to have wantonly disregarded these procedures,” Nunes and Schiff wrote. The congressmen also asked the names of individuals or agencies who “requested and/or authorized the unmasking and dissemination” of these identities.

The letter was addressed to Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency; FBI Director James Comey; and CIA Director Mike Pompeo. The acting Director of National Intelligence Michael Dempsey was also included.

FBI Director James Comey said on Monday in a House hearing that:

Several top officials would have access to the information or could request it. That includes top Obama appointees at the Justice Department, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and others. Adm. Mike Rogers, director of the National Security Agency, testified that 20 people in his agency have the authority to “unmask” a U.S. citizen whose identity normally would be disguised.

Speaking of the FBI, Chairman Devin Nunes says that agency is not cooperating with the House’s investigation. From Grabien.com:

NUNES: FBI IS NOT COOPERATING WITH OUR INVESTIGATION INTO TRUMP CAMP SURVEILLANCE

“We don’t actually know yet officially what happened to General Flynn,” Nunes said of how communications from Gen. Flynn’s calls were leaked to the press. “We just know that his name leaked out but we don’t know how it was picked up yet. That was one of the things that we asked for in the March 15th letter, was for the NSA, CIA, and FBI to get us all the unmasking that was done.”

“And I’ll tell you, NSA is being cooperative,” Nunes continued, “but so far the FBI has not told us whether or not they’re going to respond to our March 15th letter, which is now a couple of weeks old.”

Nunes also reported that as of now, he “cannot rule out” President Obama ordering the surveillance. 

Continuing from Politico.com:

During his press briefing, Nunes said he did not know yet whether the Trump transition officials who were “unmasked” were communicating from Trump Tower.

Nunes said he briefed House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on the information on Wednesday morning before heading to the White House to brief the president.

His committee is set to hold a public hearing next Tuesday with members of the Obama administration, including former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, who was fired by Trump in January after refusing to defend his first travel ban executive order in court.

They are almost certain to face questions on the matter.

FBI Director James Comey appeared before the panel on Monday and confirmed that the FBI launched a counterintelligence investigation in July into Russia’s election meddling, including possible coordination with the Trump campaign.

One primary question: will be ever actually find those responsible for unmasking American citizens?

First you have to ask: do certain government agencies and deep-staters even want to?

BZ

 

 Share

Jason Chaffetz reveals: FBI doesn’t follow the law

Posted on by

And, further, it doesn’t wish to be accountable.

First, the background information from FCW.com:

House seeks clarity on FBI facial recognition database

by Matt Leonard

The FBI has expanded its access to photo databases and facial recognition technology to support its investigations. Lawmakers, however, have voiced a deep mistrust in the bureau’s ability to protect those images of millions of American citizens and properly follow regulations relating to transparency.

Kimberly Del Greco, the deputy assistant director of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division, faced tough questioning from both sides of the aisle at a March 22 hearing of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Stop. This is the same privacy issue I have with the utilization of LPR (License Plate Recognition) technology by law enforcement agencies locally and nationally. LPR systems, mounted on the roofs of enforcement vehicles, rapidly collect and analyze visual information, the license plates of vehicles, in order to determine their status, either stolen or wanted due to criminal activity. In essence, there is yet no limitation on what can or must be done with this information. It can and is shared with abandon between agencies — not just law enforcement — and the technology has the ability to track vehicles and place them at certain locations at precise times. Though you, the driver, have committed no crime.

With more LPR systems installed on law enforcement vehicles, the issue of privacy becomes even more impacted. At present there is policy, not law, regarding LPR collection.

The FBI’s use of facial recognition technology was called into question last year after the Government Accountability Office issued a report saying the bureau had not updated its privacy impact assessment when the Next Generation Identification-Interstate Photo System “underwent significant changes.”

Now that you have an idea of the issue at hand, please watch the video in which Jason Chaffetz attempts to acquire some sort of cooperation or sense from Del Greco.

“So here’s the problem,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman. “You’re required by law to put out a privacy statement and you didn’t and now we’re supposed to trust you with hundreds of millions of people’s faces.”

The FBI’s NGI-IPS allows law enforcement agencies to search a database of over 30 million photos to support criminal investigations. The bureau can also access an internal unit called Facial Analysis, Comparison and Evaluation, which can tap other federal photo repositories and databases in 16 states that can include driver’s license photos. Through these databases, the FBI has access to more than 411 million photos of Americans, many of whom have never been convicted of a crime.

Fingerprints, DNA, photographs, license plates. All ways that law enforcement can identify, follow and track you. All of them impacting your privacy.

Jason Chaffetz also revealed a vitally-important aspect of technological programs that collect massive amounts of information: social media. Will it collect from that?

More importantly, who answers when the information becomes corrupted, is erroneous, provides incorrect analysis or becomes hacked, compromised or distributed itself?

The GAO report said the FBI was not testing the accuracy of its system on a regular basis and has not done testing to ensure that the system provides accurate results for “all allowable candidate list sizes.”

Multiple witnesses, including Jennifer Lynch, the senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Alvaro Bedoya, executive director at the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law, said that facial recognition technologies have provided false positives more regularly for women, younger individuals and people of color.

“That is due to the training data that is used in facial recognition systems,” Lynch said. “Most facial recognition systems are developed using pretty homogeneous images of people’s faces, so that means mostly whites and men.”

Perfect. A racist system that violates your privacy as well.

The point of displaying the video here on the blog is so that you formulate an idea of how difficult it is to acquire anything even remotely resembling the truth from government agencies and, in this case, the FBI, which is an arm of the Department of Justice. Remember what Jason Chaffetz said:

The FBI’s failure to update the privacy impact assessment, Chaffetz added, was yet another reason not to trust the agency with ordinary Americans’ personal information.

The federal government continually says that its citizens must trust it or there will be a gap of confidence. It implores America to have faith and belief. Yet it does nothing whatsoever to discourage citizens from thinking this way or disabuse us from questioning most everything it does.

What do you truly have as a country when the FBI proves it does not obey the law and, by dint of that, the Department of Justice? The FBI and the rest of the alphabet agencies continue to prove they cannot be trusted as they serially dissemble, dodge, evade, withhold, distract, lie and, moreover, politicize every aspect of their activities.

Then deny it all.

We are coming to a tipping point, ladies and gentlemen, not just here in America but throughout the rest of the world, with regard to big government. We have a trust crisis, a budget crisis and even a crisis of legitimacy.

Government fails to understand the criticality.

Who watches the watchers?

No one.

BZ

 

 Share

CNN is fake news: story about Hannity refuted by Juan Williams

Posted on by

CNN and the rest of the mainstream media — whom I term the American Media Maggots — just don’t get it. Nor will they ever.

First, the story from CNN:

Sources: Sean Hannity once pulled a gun on Juan Williams

by Dylan Byers

Sean Hannity is surrounded by jackasses.

The Wall Street Journal columnist who called Hannity the “dumbest anchor” on Fox News is a “jackass,” according to Hannity. The forensic psychologist who suggested a blood vessel had popped inside Hannity’s brain is a “jackass.” Even the conservative MSNBC host who sometimes criticizes President Donald Trump is a “jackass.”

If you criticize Hannity, or the Trump administration, there is a fair chance he will call you a “jackass” on Twitter. The chances of being called a “jackass” by Hannity are significantly higher late at night. Of the 21 people Hannity called a “jackass” in the last year, nearly half were told off between 9 p.m and 2 a.m.

Seems to me that Byers is calling Hannity a “drunk Twitterer.” Isn’t that what you make of it as well?

Hannity, Trump’s biggest backer on television, has said this is entertainment for him: “I am a counterpuncher,” he told one Twitter user who asked why he was so antagonistic. “I do not start fights but I finish them. This is pure entertainment for me. If people take cheap shots I hit back.”

Still, Hannity’s version of entertainment can go too far. Last year, after ending one of his many spirited on-air arguments with liberal contributor Juan Williams, Hannity pulled out a gun and pointed it directly at Williams, according to three sources with knowledge of the incident. He even turned on the laser sight, causing a red dot to bob around on Williams’ body. (Hannity was just showing off, the sources said, but the unforeseen off-camera antic clearly disturbed Williams and others on set.)

So is this true? And did the author, Dylan Byers, go directly to the first-hand source, Juan Williams himself? I would have. I’m certain you would have. I was a journalist at one time in my callow youth, working for McClatchy Broadcasting and also stringing as a photographer for the Sacramento Bee.

Williams issued a statement. Hannity issued a statement. But as a CNN journalist or, hell, any journalist in general, wouldn’t you want to get a statement yourself directly from the sources involved? Who knows what you’d get?

Because, after all, what an amazing “get” it would be to have Hannity refuse to make a comment and, simultaneously, after a bit of time had passed, Juan Williams decide to actually open up to you. An admission. Perhaps a confession.

But no. CNN is just pleased as punch that Mr Byers stopped being inquisitive. As George Bush was accused of, so possesses, apparently, Mr Byers. An incurious mind.

But wait; there’s more. From Breitbart.com, I found these copies of associated Tweets.

These are the Tweets written by Juan Williams.

Williams refutes the nature of the incident. Further, this is Juan Williams supporting and defending Sean Hannity.

If it were true that Hannity pulled a gun on Juan Williams as alleged, after all, how grand would it be to have Williams completely confirm the story of Dylan Byers, tell all that he was forced to support Hannity by the Fox administration if he wished to keep his job, and then leave Fox News for refusing to play along?

Trust me: it would make Juan Williams the new darling of Leftists, Demorats and the American Media Maggots nationally. The story would be covered for weeks, non-stop.

Williams would be able to name his network, name his show and name his salary.

But it didn’t go that way.

Why not?

BZ

 

 Share