This and That...

[Warph]

Air Force One Boondoggle

The government has quietly released revised estimates of the cost per hour for flying Air Force One with its crew, but the estimates still don't include all contingent aircraft and personnel. The new estimated cost is $228,280 per flight, which means that Obama has spent a staggering $456 million flying Air Force One – mostly to political fundraising and vacation junkets. And Obama has racked up more flight hours for his time in office than any previous president. In fact, his trip to New York Wednesday marked his 1,000th flight on Air Force One. Obama's lavish ways are incredibly hypocritical after his incessant condemnation of business executives for using corporate jets. Do as he says, not as he does.

(1000 flights! I wonder if Al "global climate disruption" Gore has heard about this? You gotta wonder just how much evil CO2 the president has pumped into our climate on all those flights.  Is someone buying him carbon credits?

According to Examiner.com, the president's trip to Copenhagen to put in a good word for Chicago as the city for the 2016 Winter Olympics... which was of course a matter of serious national interest requiring the presence of BHO and FLOTUS, who flew a separate aircraft..., put 8739 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere... www.examiner.com/article/calculating-the-carbon-footprint-of-president-obama-s-olympic-trip ... and that's just one trip!)

[Warph]

Political Cartoons

[Warph]

[Warph]

GASLIGHTING:

[Warph]

It Took 5 Years, but the President Will Finally Get a New Helicopter

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/17/it-took-5-years-but-the-president-will-finally-get.aspx

If there's one thing surprising about the Pentagon's decision to spend $1.24 billion on a new helicopter for the president, it's that it took them so long.

Obuma boarding the current Marine One.  Source: Wikimedia Commons

The Pentagon has been talking about the need to develop a next-generation version of "Marine One" for more than five years now. A few times it came close to making a decision -- then backed away. But by last July, the process appeared to be finally winding down, when potential helo-builders Boeing and then, Northrop Grumman as well, confirmed that they would not be bidding on the contract. This left United Technologies' (NYSE: UTX  ) Sikorsky unit, working in cooperation with Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT  ) , as the winners by default of the $1.24 billion Marine One presidential helicopter contract.

Mind you, this was 10 months ago, yet it took the Pentagon until last week to make up its mind to give the Marine One contract to the only company that wanted it.

The Marine One contract: What it is:

United Technologies' win, announced as the lead item in the Pentagon's daily announcements of contract awards on May 7, awards it the right to begin "engineering and manufacturing development" work on Marine One. Six specially outfitted S-92 helicopters will be built in this initial phase of the contract, with two to be delivered by 2018, and the rest subsequently. "Associated support equipment, integration of mature government-defined mission systems, a training system including a flight training device and a maintenance training device, logistics, engineering, and test and evaluation support" will also be provided.

All of this is provided for in the contract award, which covers work to be performed by United Tech through October 2020.

The Marine One contract: What it is worth:

Ultimately, United Technologies is expected to build a total of 21 Marine One helicopters for use by the President, Vice President, and senior executive personnel over the course of the next nine years. As such, United Technologies will retain a half-century-old franchise that Sikorsky has controlled since building the first presidential helicopter back in 1957.

How much will it be worth to United Tech? According to military aircraft data clearinghouse Deagel.com, the list cost on a standard S-92 helicopter is $17 million. Times the 15 helos to be built after the initial development contract wraps up, that works out to $255 million -- on top of the initial $1.24 billion United Technologies will get for designing a specialty S-92 fit for a president-hauling duties.

So at the very least, we're talking about a $1.5 billion contract for United Technologies. At 2.4% of annual revenues -- and spread out over nine years to boot -- that's not going to move the needle much for United Tech. Indeed, even if you assume that Marine One variants include additional bells and whistles not found on an ordinary S-92, and push the cost up a bit, this still isn't a huge deal for United Technologies, from a financial perspective.

Foolish takeaway

What it is is a huge PR coup for the company. With this win under its belt, United Technologies can continue to boast that it is "the company that builds helicopters for the President of the United States of America" -- pretty exclusive bragging rights. If you ask me, this win by the S-92 should probably "86" talk of United Technologies spinning off or selling Sikorsky (even if it's not the company's most profitable unit). Or at the very least, if United Tech does decide to sell, I'd say the value of the Sikorsky unit just went up by a quite a bit.

Long story short, United Technologies shareholders have had to wait longer than they probably ought to have for this news. But at least the wait was worth it.

[Ross]

Navy Debuts NeRD Device

Week of May 19, 2014


The Navy Installations Command's Navy General Library Program has announced the release of the new Navy e-Reader device (NeRD). The NeRD is an essential component of the U.S. Navy's Morale, Welfare and Recreation (MWR) program. With its array of preloaded titles-all accessible through a single, portable device- the NeRD delivers e-book content to encourage leisure, entertainment, and promote professional growth. The NeRD augments the NGLP's range of library services, which includes web-based digital library access to servicemembers and their families at no charge. The Navy is making 385 devices at first, with more to follow, with five being sent to each submarine in the Navy to be shared among the crew. For more information regarding the Navy Library program visit the Navy Libraries Digital website.

(Most likely loaded with propaganda and perhaps more dangerous than that. Personally I'd say thank you, but no thank you.)

http://www.military.com/military-report/navy-debuts-nerd-device?ESRC=miltrep.nl
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay

The rules for Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay have changed. Service members will now  receive imminent danger pay only for days they actually spend in hazardous areas. This change went in effect on February 1, 2012.

A member of a uniformed service may be entitled to Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger pay at the rate of $225 for any month in which he/she was entitled to basic pay and in which he/she was:
Subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
On duty in an area in which he was in imminent danger of being exposed to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines and in which, during the period he was on duty in that area, other members of the uniformed services were subject to hostile fire or explosion of hostile mines;
Killed, injured, or wounded by hostile fire, explosion of a hostile mine, or any other hostile action; or
On duty in a foreign area in which he was subject to the threat of physical harm or imminent danger on the basis of civil insurrection, civil war, terrorism, or wartime conditions.

http://www.military.com/benefits/military-pay/special-pay/hostile-fire-and-imminent-danger-pay.html
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Servicemembers Can Opt-In for New Retirement Plan

May 15, 2014

MILITARY UPDATE: LURING CURRENT FORCE TO 'REFORM' ITS OWN RETIREMENT
By Tom Philpott

Current military members and retirees are to be "grandfathered" from any retirement changes that the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission recommends to Congress next February.

Current force members shouldn't let that dampen their interest in the work of the commission or its final recommendations, because any retirement reforms proposed almost certainly will include an "opt-in" feature.
Many currently serving members will get the chance to choose to switch to a more modern, less generous retirement plan. Who would do that?

( You can bet this will become mandatory, just like ObamaCare. Anything to destroy our military.)

http://militaryadvantage.military.com/2014/05/current-servicemembers-can-opt-in-for-new-retirement-plan/

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

What Difference Does It Make?

May 19, 2014

Hillary Clinton, in deflecting to Congress over her role in the cover-up of the Benghazi arms-to-al-Qaida-terrorists gunrunning scandal, famously replied, "What difference does it make?" Let's see.

In December 2012, a scant three months after four Americans were killed while running guns to al-Qaida-linked terrorists in Libya, the Secretary of State reportedly fell and suffered a concussion. She was hospitalized for three days. A month later, the State Department pronounced her fit. Now, Bill Clinton claims it took Hillary Clinton "six months of very serious work" to recover from a "fainting spell" and subsequent concussion and blood clot.

Six months of very serious work implies intensive physical or occupational therapy, meaning she likely suffered a stroke or serious head injury. What difference does it make?

The elites are pushing Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush to be their respective party's nominees. Both are statists and part of the American monarchy with family ties to the Council on Foreign Relations, the oligarchy that runs the U.S. State Department and the World Bank (i.e., the elites who control the world). That means whichever is elected will mean more of U.S. expanding empire and growing U.S. fascism beyond what we've seen over the past three decades. Both of them will work to advance the neocon agenda and U.S. hegemony.

According to the June 2014 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world since World War II ended. The United States launched 201 of them. During the 20th century, coinciding with the rise of U.S. hegemony, there were 190 million deaths directly and indirectly related to war, more than in the previous four centuries.

War is just one of the ways governments steal from their people. Wars benefit the elite, while the people are slaughtered and impoverished.

If either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton is elected, what difference does it make?

(Yea, what difference does it make. It takes a community to raise a child. It takes a community to rebuild a family. It takes a community to build socialism.)
[/b]

http://libertyinvestor.com/what-difference-does-it-make/

[Ross]

(And Obama says he is mad as hell about this, I don't think so, he is simply lying again. Read on,
I'll high light it for you)

VA Scandal Compounds Democrats' Obamacare Problem

by Noah Rothman | 1:39 pm, May 19th, 2014

The sprawling Department of Veterans Affairs' unwieldy and problematic nature is no great secret in Washington. The need for sweeping reform of that bureaucracy has been apparent since President Ronald Reagan elevated the position of Veterans Affairs secretary to the Cabinet in his second term. Nor is the disturbing charge that VA administrators engaged in the concealment of the excessive waiting times vets faced a new allegation.

A report in the Washington Times on Monday revealed that President's George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and their staffs were aware of the debacle. Indeed, as CNN's investigative reporter Drew Griffin observed, "it's hard to believe everybody in Washington didn't know this was going on."

There is plenty of complicity to go around. Both Republicans and Democrats have praised the VA system as a model of efficient health care delivery. It is now clear that such praise should have been offered cautiously, if at all. For all the hand-wringing, lip service, and declarations that "nobody is more outraged about this," however, 2014 finally offers politicians a window to do something about the problems at the VA. Why? It's an election year, and the Affordable Care Act is on the ballot.

For weeks, liberal bloggers and reporters who specialize in explaining events to the great unwashed have been asserting that the ACA is actually more popular than your daily, lived experience would suggest. And some polls have provided evidence to support their conclusion. But a Politico battleground poll released on Monday shatters the notion that the ACA will not be a drag on Democrats this November.

That Politico poll revealed that a survey of voters in "competitive U.S. House and Senate races" shows that the 2014 electorate is going to be far more conservative than the 2012 electorate. The survey revealed that voters in 2014 battlegrounds self-identify more as Republican than Democratic, disapprove of legalizing gay marriage and marijuana, are generally more pro-life than the rest of the country, and disapprove of Obama by a whopping 59 to 40 percent.

The battleground electorate is also deeply concerned about Obamacare. In the Politico poll, as many voters say health care is an election year priority for them as is the issue of jobs, which is the issue of paramount concern for the electorate at large. 89 percent of those surveyed said the ACA is a determining factor in how they will vote.

60 percent said that, contrary to the president's assertions, the debate over the law is not over. Of the 37 percent who said that they have a generally "more negative" view of their interactions with the federal government (compared to just 18 percent who felt "more positive"), 28 percent cited "health care" as the example of a distasteful experience they had while interacting with government agencies.

Finally, among battleground voters, 35 percent said that the ACA should be modified while 48 percent expressed support for the full repeal of the law. Only 18 percent said that the ACA should be left as it is.

In short, the ACA is positively toxic for the president's party heading into November in the nation's most competitive regions.

Republicans are on firm ideological ground when they argue that the ACA is a step toward VA-style government-administered health care. They need only cite Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who has said in the past that the ACA is a "step in the right direction" toward a health care delivery system that did away with insurance, a la single payer. Obama, too, has implied that the ACA should be viewed as part of an incremental adoption of the single payer system of which he is "a proponent."

"No one is suggesting that such scandals are widespread in the general health-care system," National Review's John Fund wrote. "But they should serve as a warning sign of what could happen as the pressure to ration, inherent in all government-managed health care, is applied to the general population."

That is an argument GOP candidates will be unable to refrain from making.

Republicans will be accused of politicizing the outrageous claims about the VA's treatment of vets. Good. Not only should Republicans make the VA's problems a campaign issue, they should ignore the disingenuous scolds who will emerge from the woodwork to chide Republicans for daring to criticize the intolerable conditions America's vets face.

Political pressure is the only way major reforms are adopted in Washington and bureaucracies shrink. The VA's scandalous and endemic problems are worthy of politicization.

In a heated election year, and with the added pressure associated with the ACA, Democrats can be forced to go on record opposing much of the excessive bureaucracy, which medical professionals in the VA system are blaming for poor care. Finally addressing the VA's problems what is most important.

When Reagan finally convinced Congress to elevate the position the VA secretary to the Cabinet in 1988, it came as something of a consolation prize. Reagan had tried, unsuccessfully, to force a Democrat-dominated Congress to privatize much of the care that Vets were receiving. Several decades later, and with the career-killing specter of the ACA hanging over many Democrats' heads, Reagan may finally convince his political opponents to moderate their hostility toward his vision for the VA.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/va-scandal-compounds-democrats-obamacare-problem/

[Ross]

Fed Up Army Ranger's Stark Response to
#BringBackOurGirls
Shows the Vanity of
'Hashtag Activism'

Having enough of the frivolity of U.S. officials tweeting out foreign policy hopes and wishes, an Army Ranger clarifies the situation with one photo. (The image comes via the Ranger Up guys via Black Five.)

Uh yeah, what he said.

[Warph]

Lib Groups Demand Hillary Clinton Publicly Oppose Keystone Pipeline

(For what it's worth, Bubba is on record as saying we must "embrace" Keystone)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73445.html

Via The Hill:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/206707-green-groups-to-urge-hillary-clinton-to-take-a-side-on-keystone

A coalition of 30 green groups will send a letter to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Wednesday, pressing her to publicly oppose the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The Hill obtained an early copy of the letter and a press release, which asks Clinton if she will stand with them against the oil-sands pipeline.

The Center for Biological Diversity is one of the 30 conservation groups that signed on to the letter, which will officially be sent to Clinton on Wednesday.

"Secretary Clinton, will you stand with us against Keystone XL?" the groups ask.

"Given your longstanding advocacy for the environment and the importance of battling the climate crisis, your involvement would lend an important voice to the struggle against this dangerous pipeline and in favor of energy sources that don't threaten future generations of Americans," the letter states.

[...]

The CEO of CREDO Mobile adds that if Clinton does not stand against Keystone XL, then "environmental voters will know that she cannot be counted on in the fight against global warming."

[Warph]

Stone The Heretic! Gay Icon Barbara Streisand Reportedly Finds Gay Sex "Distasteful"

(Whoa... Say it isn't so, Babs? ... chuckle)

Via Mediaite:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/barbara-streisand-allegedly-finds-gay-sex-very-distasteful/

For the second time today, an interview with The New York Times has exposed what appears to be a decades-old instance of celebrity homophobia. First, in a TimesTalks discussion, John Cameron Mitchell revealed how David Letterman refused to shake his hand after a performance of Hedwig and Angry Inch more than 15 years ago. Now, playwright Larry Kramer is charging Barbara Streisand with saying she finds gay sex "distasteful."

Kramer has been trying to get his play The Normal Heart made into a movie since it first appeared Off-Broadway in 1985. The story of one activist's fight during the rise of the HIV/AIDS crisis will finally make its film debut this Sunday in an HBO production starring Mark Ruffalo, Julia Roberts and others.

Streisand initially bought the film rights for the play all the way back in 1986, but struggled to get the financing the actually produce it. Eventually, Ryan Murphy, the creator of Glee and American Horror Story, purchased the rights and produced the HBO version.

In a new interview with the Times' Patrick Healy, Kramer reveals that Streisand found some of the subject matter in the story uncomfortable, despite her role as an icon in the gay community.

"I said, 'I really think it's important that after eons of watching men and women make love in the movies, it's time to see two men do so,'" Kramer told Healy. "I bought her a book of very beautiful art pictures of two men making love, and she found it very distasteful."