All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 20, 2019

Pentagon finds $12 billion for the wall

The Washington Examiner reported, "The Defense Department has identified $12.8 billion in possible funding that it could use to fulfill President Trump's call for a border wall."

Wow.



Rhode Island Democrat Senator Jack Reed is all upset that President Donald John Trump now has the money to fund construction of most of the wall.

Reed's sudden concern about the military is adorable.

The swamp critters in DC are under the misguided assumption that if they prevent President Trump from fulfilling this campaign promise the deplorable supporters of the president will magically turn on him and vote for the communist they nominate for president.

The Pentagon released a list of projects whose funds could be used to build the wall.

Politico reported, "The Pentagon list outlines nearly $12.9 billion in projects across the military services that were unawarded as of Dec. 31. The bulk of money is concentrated in the last two fiscal years — nearly $6.8 billion for projects in the current 2019 fiscal year and nearly $4.3 billion for fiscal 2018.

"After several testy exchanges during a Senate Armed Services hearing last week, Shanahan committed to the panel's top Democrat, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, that he would soon provide that list.

"Lawmakers in both parties are dyspeptic over potentially raiding the defense budget for a border wall — a move they fear will hurt military readiness just as it’s being rebuilt."

That is an interesting admission that military readiness fell under Barack Hussein Obama to the point where it has to be rebuilt.

A wall is a cheap way to protect the nation from the invasion from the south, and if Canada gets into the act, we will build a brother for it in the north.

14 comments:

  1. If the military wants my support for more money, they can start lining up along our southern border.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wouldn't wait. Protection to the north is needed, too. The Canucks do pretty well but lately some of our enemies are trying to sneak in from the north, too. Let's not wait for another emergency.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Military bases are not military assets. Rather bases hold military assets. It was not Burpelson AFB that was a military asset, but rather the base's bomb wing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the clear responsibilities of the federal government is to protect the United States as a nation.

    Part of that is to enforce immigration. Congress has clear authority, per the Constitution to do so, but has entrusted the Executive with some of that power.

    Part of the responsibilities of the Executive, as being the Commander in Chief, is the same and an indeclared, but inherent right.

    So, while hordes of people flood our nation, Congress and/or the President can act to stop it.

    Even thr UN treaty we refused to be apart of on this notes that nations have the sovereign right to refuse admittance. The devi was in the details and in effects that could easily override our sovereignty as a nation.

    No one has the right to automatically emigrate to the US. This was law in our inception till now, no matter how our elected and unelected officials believed and acted or refused to act on.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Military bases are good sources of local revenue, jobs and votes. How many of them are at actual risk cannot be known now but if I were Trump I would make sure none of his electoral states are at risk by doing this if he even does. Yes the CNC has the duty to protect the country but to do so he has to stay CNC.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Take a look - military bases in your state could be negatively impacted.

    Not "This will endanger our national security", but "Your constituents may not like you next November".

    Typical Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Isn't our military budget larger than the combined budgets of the rest of the world, and maybe the entire universe? And, isn't this Southern border threat the most immediate threat to the future our country, more than any so-called threat elsewhere in the world? Relatively speaking, 12.8 billion is a veritable drop in the bucket. Only the anti-American, usual suspects would complain about it.

    -Gary B

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For what it's worth ...

      Military spending is discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is about half or less than half of our entire spending. So, in terms of our, US Budget, it is smaller than Congressional mandated spending, aka social programs.

      Also, it is irrelevant what other countries spend on military compared to ours unless youvwant to note that our European allies have been living off our $$ for over half a century.

      Delete
    2. The actual foreign invaders of our country are walking in and getting paid for their trouble by American taxpayers. Except for comparison, you're right, what other countries spend is irrelevant. They're not invading us. So, it would be more than appropriate if a tiny sliver of the DOD budget was used to defend ourselves from the multiple threats walking over the border from Mexico on a daily basis and doing real physical and financial harm to American citizens. The money thing is a red herring.

      - Gary B

      Delete
  8. Get the Army Corps of Engineeers and the
    SEBees on it.
    Then contract the rest. On time and under budget..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now the democrats care about the military not using all of their money. Under Sotero, they would have liked to cut their budget in half. They tried to destroy the military anyhow. MAGA.

    ReplyDelete