DELEITURAS

For all the accreditations given to Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest contribution he made to the political arena was a simple appeal to the logical minds of voters- Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? During the 1980 presidential campaign, Reagan’s strategy was simple. Let people look at the facts, the result of Carter’s policies, and see if they were really benefiting them.

Many people have compared Obama to Carter, and draw parallels between this election and the 1980 election. So, what could be more apt than to look at the Obama economy and ask, are you better off than you were 4 years ago?

The simple answer, based on Obama’s own economic numbers, is no.

Obama once promised that by the middle of this decade annual spending would match annual revenue and the government would not be adding to the federal deficit.

Yet, under his own budget, the Obama Plan for America, his best and smallest month of spending would add 608 billion dollars to the debt. That projection stays the same even if Obama serves a second term. That’s 33% worse than Bush’s worst month, where he added 458 billion dollars to the deficit.

And after 2015, Obama’s stated end of increases to the federal debt, the debt continues to grow. It continues to increase until 2021 when projections stop, to an estimated deficit of over 700 billion. Again, these numbers are according to Obama’s budget.

These numbers don’t even include the Congressional Budget Office’s projections for Obamacare. Obama claimed the cost of his healthcare plan would be 900 billion dollars over ten years. But the CBO estimates that the first full decade of implementation for Obamacare will cost 2.6 trillion dollars, nearly 3 times as much as Obama stated.

So, according to Obama’s own projected deficit numbers, the American people are not better off than they were 4 years ago, and based on the CBO’s projected cost of Obamacare and Obama’s own projected spending levels, it’s unlikely they’ll be better off in another 4 years.

 

The government came out with May jobs numbers that sounded amazing – but for whom?

Generation Opportunity, a national, non-partisan youth advocacy organization, is announcing its Millennial Jobs Report for May 2015. The data is non-seasonally adjusted (NSA) and is specific to 18-29 year olds:

The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds, which adjusts for labor force participation by including those who have given up looking for work, is 13.6 percent (NSA). The (U-3) unemployment rate for 18-29 year olds is 9.1 percent (NSA).
The declining labor force participation rate has created an additional 1.791 million young adults that are not counted as “unemployed” by the U.S. Department of Labor because they are not in the labor force, meaning that those young people have given up looking for work due to the lack of jobs.
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old African-Americans is 19.2 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 16.5 percent (NSA).
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old Hispanics is 13.9 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 10.3 percent (NSA).
The effective (U-6) unemployment rate for 18-29 year old women is 11.6 percent (NSA); the (U-3) unemployment rate is 8.6 percent (NSA).
Generation Opportunity Director of Policy Engagement Luke Kenworthy issued the following statement:

“Young people do have some reason to be optimistic about their futures as they continue to see economic conditions improve for our generation this year. May’s jobs report shows a 13.6 percent youth unemployment rate, down 0.6 percent from where we started at the beginning of 2015.

“While we’re encouraged, we also know there are still far too many obstacles in place preventing our generation from exercising our entrepreneurial muscles and creating jobs for ourselves. Excessive government regulations are preventing us from doing the simplest of things – driving for Uber, renting out our homes, or opening a food truck.

“Millennials are key drivers of the American economy – we should be able to pursue our dreams, explore new ideas, and distrupt the status quo. Our generation will flourish when Washington releases its grip on trying to control our futures.”

Jussie Smollett’s case about an alleged attack in January could be headed to a grand jury.

Law enforcement official sources reported the case could be headed to a grand jury sometime this week, according to TMZ Sunday. Law enforcement is allegedly making sure Smollett is not in contact with the two Nigerian brothers who were first arrested Wednesday, but then released Friday.

The Daily Caller News Foundation contacted the Chicago Police Department (CPD) Monday to confirm if Smollett’s case was headed to a grand jury.

“We do not have that information at this point,” Jennifer Bryk of CPD said to TheDCNF over email.

Rafer Weigel of Fox 32 tweeted Monday that CPD said Smollett’s case could go to a grand jury if the “Empire” actor does not “voluntarily come in for questioning.”

“CPD says “it’s certainly possible” #JussieSmollett case could go to Grand Jury but “that’s way too premature,” Weigel tweeted. “May be a last resort if #Smollett doesn’t voluntarily come in for questioning. CPD says #Smollett’s lawyers have given no indication he will despite several requests.”

Smollett reported he was attacked, doused with an unknown chemical substance, had a rope tied around his neck and two men who yelled “This is MAGA (Make America Great Again) country” at him on Jan. 29.

There have been reports, however, that the attack was staged by Smollett and the two brothers were allegedly paid to help, according to CNN.

Smollett’s attorneys Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson released a statement Sunday saying such claims were “nothing further from the truth.”

“We can confirm that the information received from the individuals questioned by police earlier in the Empire case has in fact shifted the trajectory of the investigation,” CPD spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said in a statement Sunday to TheDCNF. “We’ve reached out to the Empire cast member’s attorney to request a follow-up interview.”

Pugh, Henderson and Smollett’s crisis manager Anne Kavanagh did not immediately respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.

On January 30th, the leftist Associated Press published yet another irredeemably biased, utterly ridiculous litany of blatant lies by its “National Security Writer” Robert Burns, a strident leftist biased against the military and against nuclear weapons in particular. As is typical of a leftist media “journalist”, Burns has written yet another garbage screed which is so biased and filled with so many lies as to brainwash the public into supporting leftist policies and presenting Republicans in a negative light.

In this case, Burns wants to mislead the public into supporting deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent (and its eventual elimination) and portray nuclear weapons as dangerous relics of the past and Republicans as dinosaurs supporting an orthodox and outdated policy.

To that end, he makes a litany of false claims and quotes three leftist “national security thinkers” while not quoting a single dissenting (i.e. conservative) expert.

But his claims, and those of the stridently leftist “thinkers” he quotes, are all blatant lies. Here’s why.

Burns starts by gleeing over the fact that Chuck Hagel, Obama’s nominee for SECDEF, backs deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear arsenal and:

“That puts him outside the orthodoxy embraced by many of his fellow Republicans but inside a widening circle of national security thinkers — including President Barack Obama — who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset, less relevant to 21st century security threats like terrorism. (…)

The customary stance of defense secretaries in the nuclear age has been that the weapons are a necessary evil, a required ingredient in American defense strategy that can be discarded only at the nation’s peril.

Hagel, 66, takes a subtly different view — one shared by Obama but opposed by those in Congress who believe disarmament is weakness and that an outsized American nuclear arsenal must be maintained indefinitely as a counterweight to the nuclear ambitions of anti-Western countries like North Korea and Iran.

In a letter to Obama two months after his former Senate colleague entered the White House in 2009, Hagel wrote that Global Zero was developing a step-by-step plan for achieving “the total elimination of all nuclear weapons,” but with a “clear, realistic and pragmatic appreciation” for the difficulty of realizing that goal. (…)

“Getting to global zero will take years,” Hagel wrote in the March 2009 letter to Obama on behalf of Global Zero. “So it is important that we set our course toward a world without nuclear weapons now to ensure that our children do not live under the nuclear shadow of the last century.”

Hagel stands out in this regard in part because history — first the demise of the Soviet Union, then the rise of terrorism as a global threat — has changed how many people think about the deterrent value of nuclear weapons. For decades after the birth of the atomic age in the 1940s the chief concern was controlling the growth, and later managing the shrinkage, of nuclear arsenals without upsetting the balance of power.

Today the thinking by many national security experts has shifted as the threat of all-out nuclear war has faded and terrorist organizations with potentially global reach, like al-Qaida, are trying to get their hands on a nuclear device.

“Hagel’s views reflect the growing bipartisan consensus in the U.S. security establishment that whatever benefits nuclear weapons may have had during the Cold War are now outweighed by the threat they present,” said Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Hagel was co-author of a Global Zero report last May that proposed, as an interim step, reducing the U.S. arsenal to 900 weapons within a decade, with half deployed and the other half in reserve. That compares with a current U.S. stockpile of 5,000, of which 1,700 are deployed and capable of striking targets around the globe.

The report said these cuts could be taken unilaterally if not negotiated with the Russians or carried out through reciprocal U.S. and Russian presidential directives.”

What’s wrong with Burns’ claims?

To start with, EVERYTHING.

Firstly, contrary to the image that Burns and the three leftists (Steven Pifer of Brookings, Joseph Cirincione of Ploughshares, and Bruce Blair of Global Zero) attempt to project, nuclear weapons are anything but relics of a bygone era, and the need for nuclear weapons today is as greater as, if not greater than, during the Cold War.

Russia currently has 1,500 deployed and 1,300 nondeployed strategic nuclear warheads (a total of 2,800) and untold thousands (probably around 4,000) deployed and nondeployed tactical nuclear warheads – all of which are deliverable anytime.

To deliver the strategic ones, Russia has 434 ICBMs (mostly multi-warhead missiles) which can collectively deliver 1,684 warheads, 13-14 ballistic missile subs which can deliver over 2,000 warheads on their 220 SLBMs; and over 250 strategic Tu-95, Tu-160, and Tu-22M bombers.

To deliver its tactical nukes, Russia has a very wide range of systems including aircraft (e.g. the Su-25, Su-25, the Su-27/30/33/34/35 Flanker family), artillery pieces, surface warships, submarines  armed with nuclear-tipped torpedoes, and short-range ballistic missiles.

It is now working on modernizing all three legs of its nuclear triad, including two new ICBMs, a new long-range bomber, and a new SSBN class.

China has at least 1,800 and up to 3,000 nuclear weapons (not the mere 240-400 often claimed by US disarmament supporters) and many systems with which to deliver them: over 60 DF-5, DF-31, and DF-41 ICBMs; six ballistic missile subs; over 120 DF-3, DF-4, and DF-21 MRBMs; 440 bombers and strike aircraft; and around 2,000 SRBMs and Land Attack Cruise Missiles.

(In another sign of Burns’ bias, his screed does not mention Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals, and barely mentions in passing that Russia and China have nukes in general. This is a deliberate tactic by Burns to mislead people into thinking that the US doesn’t need to deter Russia nor China.)

On top of that, the US has to deter North Korea (which has ca. 12 nuclear warheads and intends to test one soon) and Iran, which is racing towards nuclear weapons. Moreover, while Russia and China are threats to many and protectors to nobody, the US has to provide an effective nuclear umbrella not just for itself, but also to over 30 allies.

If the US makes further cuts in its arsenal, it will become too small to deter enemies and reassure friends, and consequently, these allies will have no choice but to develop their own nuclear weapons, thus making the proliferation problem much worse. But these allies cannot bet their security, and indeed, their very existence on ridiculous “nuclear weapons are relics of a bygone era” and “nuclear disarmament will make us safer” kumbayah beliefs – or on America breaking free of such ridiculous notions and of Democrat-led government by 2017.

The fact is that nuclear weapons are not relics of a bygone era, nor are they “liabilities”. They are indispensable assets in protecting America against the gravest security threats it is facing: Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran. Terrorism is a threat, but not even close to being as severe as that of Russia’s and China’s large nuclear arsenals and military buildups, North Korea’s smaller but deadly one, and Iran’s nuclear ambitions and quest for regional hegemony.

No amount of shouting the tired “we’re in the 21st century!” and “they’re liabilities and relics of the Cold War!” slogan will change these facts.

Moreover, if nuclear weapons are “liabilities”, a huge threat to those who hold them, and relics of yesteryear, why are more and more countries interested in acquiring them, and why are Russia, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel all growing their nuclear arsenals?

Answer: because they recognize the inherent value of nuclear weapons, which are NOT relics of the Cold War nor “liabilities”.

The cost of maintaining the entire US nuclear arsenal and its related infrastructure is estimated by the Stimson Center to be about $35.2 bn per year – just 6% of the entire military budget, and a bargain price to keep America safe.

And contrary to what Burns and Cirincione claim, there is zero risk of American nuclear weapons (let alone their delivery systems) being stolen by terrorists. These weapons are well-guarded and secure, and Al Qaeda is not even trying to steal them. So doing away with America’s nuclear weapons will do NOTHING to stop Al-Qaeda from obtaining nuclear weapons elsewhere.

The real risk is that AQ may steal Pakistani nuclear warheads – but scrapping America’s own arsenal will do nothing to prevent that. It will not cause Pakistan’s arsenal to magically go away or encourage Pakistan to dismantle its weapons.

America’s nuclear weapons pose no threat to anyone – except, of course, those who wish to attack the US or its allies.

So the benefits of America’s nuclear arsenal greatly outweigh the costs – not the other way around.

So, by pushing for America’s nuclear disarmament, Burns, Obama, Hagel, Cirincione, and Blair are advocating a ridiculous policy which will gravely weaken the US and its military, jeopardize US national security, invite a nuclear first strike by Russia or even China, leave America’s allies fending for themselves (and thus encourage further nuclear proliferation), and embolden America’s enemies around the world, while completely failing to prevent (or even slow down) nuclear proliferation or nuclear weapons falling into terrorists’ hands.

In other words, nuclear disarmament would make America (and the whole world) dramatically less secure and less peaceful.

And yes, disarmament IS weakness – by its definition, it means laying down all arms, i.e. the state of being disarmed (unarmed). Yet, without weapons (including nuclear ones), the US will have nothing to defend itself with. That would be a state of terrible weakness – and weakness ALWAYS invites aggression.

“But Hagel wants to eliminate all nuclear weapons globally, not just in the US”, you might say. But there will never again be a “world without nuclear weapons” – not even in the next 100 years – Obama’s, Hagel’s, and others leftist’ fantasies notwithstanding. China, North Korea, Pakistan, and India will never give up their nuclear weapons (China refuses to even talk to the US about them). This genie cannot be put back into the bottle.

A world without nuclear weapons is not only utterly unrealistic, it’s also undesirable. For all human history prior to 1945, we did actually have such a world. The result? There was nothing to restrain the world’s great powers – so all human history before 1945 is one of huge, bloody wars between the great powers of the time, including the two bloodiest, most barbaric wars the world has ever seen: the two World Wars, with a combined body count of 100 million people – mostly innocent civilians.

Since 1945, we have not had another world war or any conflict between the world’s great powers – and that is at least in large part, if not wholly, due to nuclear deterrence.

Burns claims that there is “a widening circle of national security thinkers”, whom he also wrongly calls “experts”, who believe that “who believe nuclear weapons are becoming more a liability than an asset”. Yet, he cites no serious “national security thinkers” or “experts” sharing that view – only three stridently liberal anti-nuclear hacks: Joseph Cirincione, Steven Pifer, and Bruce Blair, plus America’s most leftist president ever, Barack Obama.

But they’re strident liberal ideologues, not “thinkers” or “experts”. Cirincione is the president of the Ploughshares Fund, which supports deep unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent and routinely lies about the subject while staunchly opposing any military action against Iran. Blair is Hagel’s fellow Global Zero member. Pifer is with the George-Soros-funded Brookings Institution, a liberal think-tank.

Meanwhile, I can cite many genuine nuclear deterrence experts who believe further cuts to America’s arsenal, especially unilateral or deep ones, are wrong and foolish: e.g. Heritage Foundation experts Rebeccah Heinrichs, Baker Spring, and Michaela Bendikova; USAF nuclear deterrence affairs chief MGEN William Chambers; former SECDEFs Harold Brown and James Schlesinger; and the nation’s foremost nuclear deterrence expert, Dr. Keith B. Payne.

Indeed, when Global Zero issued its “report” calling for deep, unilateral cuts to America’s nuclear deterrent, STRATCOM commander Gen. Bob Kehler and then USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz rejected it and Dr. Payne testified before the Senate against that report’s proposals, showing how dangerous and suicidal they are.

Moreover, consensus does not determine the truth. Discovering facts does. And the FACTS are that the need for American nuclear weapons today is as great as (if not greater than) it was during the Cold War.

For that reason alone, Hagel’s and Global Zero’s proposals of deep unilateral cuts are absolutely unacceptable and disqualifying.

Please call both of yours Senators, Dear Readers, and please tell them you will never vote for them again if they vote to confirm Chuck Hagel.

There is a group called Americans for a Strong Defense which, as the name suggests, advocates a strong national defense, opposes Hagel’s nomination, and is working to warn Senators to vote against Hagel – or to unseat them if they disregard that warning. Another group opposing Hagel is the American Future Fund.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar blamed President Donald Trump on Sunday after reports surfaced that members of the Minnesota Democratic Party are considering removing her from congressional office for her repeated anti-Semitic statements.

“I’m sorry Mr. [Donald Trump],” Omar tweeted in response to the reports. “I am for real, you can’t #MuslimBan us from Congress!”

I am sorry Mr. @realDonaldTrump ?

I am for real, you can’t #MuslimBan us from Congress! pic.twitter.com/EX1KNeUPiA

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) March 17, 2019

Minnesota Democrats are reportedly dismayed that Omar has made a string of bigoted comments about Jews which have received massive condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Consequently, members of the state party are looking for someone to contest her nomination in 2020 and run a different candidate in her place.

Rather than blaming the Minnesota Democrats, Omar focused the backlash on Trump’s 2017 executive order which has been referred to as a Muslim ban. In actuality, the executive order suspended U.S. entry of those whose counties do not meet adjudication standards under federal immigration law for 90 days and included exceptions on a case-by-case basis.

Omar, along with fellow Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, became America’s first Muslim congresswoman when sworn into office in January. Both congresswomen’s time in office has been embroiled in allegations of anti-Semitism.

Omar has defended anti-Israeli statements, such as ones invoking Allah to expose Israel’s “evil doings,” and she is on record stating that Israel is not a democracy. She also gave an interview to a host that referred to Israel as the “Jewish ISIS” and mocked how Americans speak about al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.

Both and Tlaib waited until after they won their congressional elections to reveal their support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to punish Israel by economically depriving the country for its alleged mistreatment of Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The Anti-Defamation League describes the movement as “the most prominent effort to undermine Israel’s existence.”

BDS has been metastasizing through college campuses, initially promulgated by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the movement’s most visible arm. SJP has been linked to the Islamic terror group Hamas, according to The Washington Free Beacon. Moreover, the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, the American umbrella group of the BDS movement, has reportedly given money to terrorist organizations like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Omar announced in February that she is scheduled to raise money with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) only a week after she used an anti-Semitic trope to claim Israel has paid for GOP support.

The pseudoconservative, anti-American “American Spectator” magazine has published yet another ridiculous screed by leftist-libertarian, isolationist pundit Doug Bandow (whose screeds AmSpec publishes regularly while refusing to publish my works, thus giving a voice to only ONE side of the debate). In his latest screed, as in previous ones, Bandow makes a litany of blatant lies, which can be summed up in the following themes:

1) “The GOP tossed money at the Pentagon, creating new unfunded liabilities out of two unnecessary wars…”

FALSE. Firstly, the GOP did not “toss money at the Pentagon”. From FY2001 to FY2012, base defense spending rose by only 36%, and total military spending by 65% – over more than a decade. As for “two unnecessary wars”, that is also a blatant lie. While it might be argued that the Iraqi war was unnecessary, no such claim can be credibly made about the Afghan war, which was ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. In case Bandow or anyone else has forgotten, that war was started by the Afghanistan-based terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 (which was an act of war, not a crime), and was necessary to rout these terrorists, bring them (including Osama bin Laden) to justice. After 9/11, the only alternative to invading Afghanistan and routing Al Qaeda and the Taleban was doing nothing, thus showing that an attack on America could go unpunished. And that’s exactly what Bandow advocates. Shame on him.

2) “The GOP ran against the idea of a budget sequester because it insisted on protecting bloated military outlays.”

FALSE. The military budget is not bloated at all. It amounts to only 4.22% of America’s GDP and just 17% of America’s total federal budget, even though defense is the #1 Constitutional duty of the federal government. It is needed to finish the war in Afghanistan and to protect America from foreign threats, including Putinist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, and Iran. It is not bloated at all. Virtually everything in the base defense budget and in the DOE’s national-security budget pays for the troops, units, weapons, installations, and programs that the military needs to protect America. Any claims that the military is “bloated” is a blatant lie. And the GOP has NEVER protected military spending. (It should have, but it has never done so.) (See below.)

3) “The GOP’s foreign policy can be summed up in two words: permanent war.”

Another blatant lie. The GOP has never supported permanent war. It  (except a few neoconservatives like John McCain) does not advocate intervening in Syria or resending American troops to Iraq, and supports withdrawal from Afghanistan. Heck, McCain supports withdrawing them from Afghanistan BEFORE the stated 2014 deadline if nothing can be accomplished there (which it can’t). By contrast, the Obama Admin is now mulling keeping a large number of American troops in Afghanistan well past 2014, perhaps forever. Who is the party of permanent war here?

4) “Nevertheless, Republicans remain locked in the past, determined to paint their Democratic opponents as weak irrespective of the facts — such as Obama intensifying the Afghanistan war.”

The FACTS are that the Democrats, including Obama, WERE and ARE very weak on foreign policy. They support, and to a large degree, have already orchestrated, massive defense cuts. They support America’s unilateral nuclear disarmament, and Obama has already taken big steps toward that, by a) signing a unilateral nuclear arms cuts treaty with Russia that allows Moscow to ENLARGE its arsenal, b) cancelling the development of any new American nukes; c) cutting America’s nondeployed arsenal unilaterally; and d) sabotaging the modernization of the few nuclear weapons and delivery systems America maintains. Obama has also been cravenly appeasing Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, Tehran, and Latin America’s communists such as Raul Castro and Hugo Chavez, with disastrous results. Miring America deeper in a quagmire like Afghanistan is a sign of stupidity, not toughness.

5) “Thus, excepting the redoubtable Rep. Ron Paul, during the primary debates the Republican contenders, most of whom had never been anywhere near a military installation let alone worn a uniform, did the foreign policy equivalent of the Maori Haka…”

LIE. Rick Perry has served in the USAF as a C-130 pilot, flying these aircraft around the world, and Newt Gingrich, as the son of an Army soldier, grew up on military bases in the US and abroad. And no, Republicans did not do “the foreign policy equivalent of the Maori Haka” during the debates.

6) “Mitt Romney spent five years, from his announcement until the final debate, simply shouting “we’re number one.”

LIE. Mitt Romney articulated far more than that during his campaign. He outlined a clear foreign policy with regard to Russia, China, Iran, and Latin America, and a clear defense policy: investing a modest 4% of GDP in defense, building up the Navy (specifically, submarines, frigates, amphibious ships, destroyers, and naval strike aircraft), keeping an 11-carrier fleet, speeding up Next Generation Bomber development, and reversing the cuts to the ground force. Agree or disagree with these policies, he did articulate specific policy choices.

7) “Although the Republican nominee did his best to avoid stating a clear position, at times he seemed to believe that the U.S. should have stayed in Iraq forever, over the objection of the Iraqi government, and be prepared to stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary for undefined “victory,” which likely would be forever…”

LIE. Mitt Romney never said that. He actually agreed with Obama’s deadline for withdrawal (2014). Now the Obama Admin is mulling  keeping American troops in Afghanistan well past 2014, maybe forever.

8) “That also means tying military outlays to security challenges, not an arbitrary share of GDP.”

But the US military budget is ALREADY tied to security challenges and threats, not to any arbitrary share of GDP like Mitt Romney wanted. It is, moreover, tied to a specific (if highly imperfect) strategy the DOD devised a year ago to (more or less perfectly) protect American interests around the world while conforming to the budgetary limitations of the Budget Control Act. It is needed to finish the war in Afghanistan and to protect America from foreign threats, including Putinist Russia, Communist China, North Korea, and Iran. It is not bloated at all. Virtually everything in the base defense budget and in the DOE’s national-security budget pays for the troops, units, weapons, installations, and programs that the military needs to protect America.

9) “Why should Americans spend as much as the rest of the world combined on “defense” when that means subsidizing rich allies, engaging in foolish nation-building, and launching military actions that create more enemies than they kill?”

The US does NOT spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. The US spends only 41%, and that’s only if one accepts SIPRI’s woefully understated figures for China’s and Russia’s military budgets. If one rejects them and understands that China and Russia spend much more on their militaries than SIPRI claims, America’s share of the world total falls far below 40%. China’s real FY2012 military budget was between $160 bn and $250 bn according to the DOD, not the mere $143 bn that SIPRI claims. And that’s without accounting for PPP differences.

The US is NOT subsidizing rich allies (see below). As for engaging in foolish nation-building and launching wars, spending as much on the military as today does NOT automatically lead to such policies and does NOT have to lead to them. Spending a lot on the military does not mean that you have to conduct nationbuilding projects or get involved in wars of no relevance to American interests. Bandow is merely trying to scaremonger people into thinking that current defense spending levels mean that America will inevitably be drawn into new wars. This is utter garbage, as is the entire rest of his ridiculous screed. Spending a lot on defense does NOT have to mean that you’ll be drawn into irrelevant, unnecessary wars or nation-building projects; whether you get drawn into them depends SOLELY on whether you decide, freewillingly, to do so. Under Ronald Reagan, the US spent more on defense than it currently does, yet, Reagan (as Bandow himself recognized) generally refused to draw America into unnecessary wars, the failed excursion into Lebanon being the sole exception.

10) “There can be no sacred cows if the budget crisis is going to be resolved.”

But the US military budget has NEVER been a sacred cow, including during the last 4 years. During the last 4 years, Republicans agreed to numerous defense cuts, including the massive program killings of 2009 and 2010 (saving $330 bn), the ratification of the New START unilateral disarmament treaty in 2010, the Gates Efficiencies Initiative of January 2011 ($178 bn), and the massive defense cuts mandated by the Budget Control Act ($487 bn in the first tranche alone). Any claim that the defense budget is, or has ever been, a “sacred cow” is a blatant lie.

In fact, the DOD is so far the ONLY government agency to have contributed ANYTHING to deficit reduction.

Moreover, defense cuts are NOT necessary to balance the federal budget, as proven by the budget plans of Chairman Ryan, the Republican Study Committee, Sen. Toomey, and Sen. Lee.

OTOH, even deep defense budget cuts will utterly fail to even make a dent in the defense budget; even eliminating the military budget ($645 bn in FY2012) entirely would fail to even halve the budget deficit.

11) “On international issues Republicans need to rediscover the value of peace. For most of the campaign Mitt Romney channeled George W. Bush and John McCain. Yet conservatives once believed in peace. They opposed wasting lives and money on dubious international crusades; they understood that war threatened economic prosperity and social stability. If war became necessary they wanted to win and end it, not turn it into a permanent condition.”

But to have peace, it is necessary to have a strong defense – THE strongest military in the world. Yet, America’s edge is steadily sipping, and the defense cuts Bandow proposes would cause America to lose it even faster than will otherwise be the case. This will bring about war, death, and destruction, not peace. Of course, the US shouldn’t waste men or money on dubious “international crusades” or nationbuilding efforts, and wars need to be won and ended swiftly. But keeping the peace requires having THE strongest military in the world – and with Bandow’s defense cuts, that would be completely impossible. And BTW, George W. Bush was the one who signed the 2008 agreement with Iraq providing for the withdrawal of US troops from that country by 2011.

“Indeed, Ronald Reagan was horrified by the prospect of nuclear war and refused to be sucked into nation-building in Lebanon.”

But Ronald Reagan understood (probably better than anyone but yours truly) that keeping the peace requires America to have the strongest military in the world, and he built such a military after 12 years of disastrous defense cuts, disregarding peaceniks, pseudoreformists like POGO hacks and isolationists like Bandow and his CATO Institute buddies. Under Reagan, the Air Force got its first strategic bomber since 1962 and its first ICBM since the Minuteman-III, while the Navy built a new fleet of SSBNs and SLBMs and several new nuclear warhead types were designed and produced; development of the B-2 stealthy bomber was continued and 132 were planned to be bought, while the US military also deployed Pershing and GLCM missiles to Europe. THAT was what kept the peace and prevented nuclear war during the Reagan years. And sadly, Reagan DID initially get sucked into nationbuilding in Lebanon – a disastrous blunder that cost America 241 troops. To his credit, he reversed that mistake quickly. Moreover, Ronald Reagan DID intervene militarily when American interests required it. He was no isolationist, unlike Bandow. Listen to Ronald Reagan himself.

12) “The GOP also should insist on international welfare reform. For more than six decades Washington has subsidized the defense of Asian and European allies. All are now prosperous and populous. Indeed, the Europeans collectively have a larger GDP and population than America. It’s time for Republicans to admit that the party is over. The U.S. should spend less while its friends spend more — and they will do so only if the U.S. spends less. ”

Those are also blatant lies, as well as destructive policy proposals. Firstly, contrary to Bandow’s utterly false claims, the US would need to spend on defense as much as it does now (which isn’t really much, BTW – just 3.47% of GDP for the base defense budget) even if it were not defending any allies. That’s because all of the troops, equipment, and defense programs that the DOD has or plans to hire/buy would be needed to defend America itself even if the US were not defending any allies. All of the US military’s current nukes, ships, planes, ground vehicles, and troops would be needed to defend America itself even if it weren’t defending any allies.

Secondly, defending America’s allies is in America’s own national interest. If crucial allies like Japan, South Korea, or Persian Gulf allies are attacked (or succumb to) China, North Korea, or Iran, that would pose a huge threat to America’s own national security. (Threats to US security don’t stop at America’s borders, contrary to what isolationists claim).

Thirdly, many of America’s allies are poor (e.g. Central European allies like Poland, as well as some Asian allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam), and none of America’s European allies nor Japan could be called “prosperous” at this time – they’re all suffering from even worse economic problems than the US, due to the global economic crisis. They have even lower economic growth rates, lower GDP per capita, higher unemployment, and in many cases, higher debt-to-GDP ratios than the US. They’re not prosperous today. If they are, the US is booming economically.

They will not spend more on defense even if the US spent less and withdrew its defense commitment – because they can’t afford to, as they have even worse economic problems than the US.

And there’s a big difference between relatively wealthy Western European countries like Britain and France and poor Central/Eastern European countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, and Romania (as well as poor Asian allies like Thailand, the Philippines, and Vietnam). The former could, in theory, assume more of the defense burden, the latter cannot, because they are POOR. Yet, these poor Central European states are actually America’s staunchest and most loyal allies, and at the same time, they face a direct threat from an aggressive, KGB-run Russia. Dumping them and leaving them to fend for themselves would not only bad for America’s national interests, it would be immoral. It would be a heinous betrayal.

Cutting America’s own defense spending will not change this. It would only make matters worse by giving defense cutters across the Atlantic another excuse to cut their own countries’ defense budgets: “America is cutting its defense budget, so we can afford to do the same!”

13) “This doesn’t mean “isolationism,” the all-purpose swear word against a traditional, constitutional foreign policy.”

It IS isolationism, no matter how hard Bandow tries to deny that. Isolationism is about dumping America’s allies, withdrawing all US defense commitments to all allies, and retrenching behind oceans in the vain hope that the crocodile won’t come to eat us. It’s the same old tired policy as the one the US tried before the attack on Pearl Harbor, with disastrous results. It’s the same old policy that led to WW2, with 60 million dead people and the destruction of two continents, and to the Korean War, which led to the destruction of the entire Korean Peninsula and the deaths of millions of people (including over 50,000 American troops).

The foreign policy that Bandow advocates is not “traditional” or “constitutional”, either. Isolationism, while practiced during the 1920s and the 1930s, is NOT a traditional American policy – the US has a long history of going to war abroad and intervening abroad going back to the days of Thomas Jefferson (at the shores of Tripoli). Then came the War of 1812 (started because the then War Hawks wanted to conquer Canada, NOT because of impressment as is usually claimed), threats of war to Britain over Oregon, the Mexican-American war (started because Southern planters wanted to conquer more land), the supply of weapons to France in 1870-1871, and the Spanish-American War.

The policy that Bandow advocates is not “constitutional”, either. Defense cuts are a dereliction of the federal government’s Constitutional DUTY to provide for the common defense, as well as the dereliction of the treaty duty to defend America’s allies. Treaties validly ratified by the Senate are the supreme law of the land, second only to the US Constitution.

Providing generously for America’s defense is not merely constitutional, it’s a Constitutional DUTY of the federal government.

14) “For instance, if Republicans want to promise a more prosperous future, they should promote free trade internationally.”

Also utter garbage. Free trade is yet another liberal policy which has brought nothing but damage to the US. It has caused the US to lose tens of millions of jobs (shipped overseas) and to run chronic, huge trade deficits with countries with which it used to have trade surpluses… until it signed free trade agreements with them or granted them Most Favored Nation status.

Pat Buchanan has chronicled this national suicide through free trade well.

Before 1993, when NAFTA was ratified, the US had a trade surplus with Mexico. Now it has a record trade deficit with it, as lots of jobs have been shipped south of the border together with entire factories. Before the US ratified the Korea-US FTA, America had a trade surplus with Seoul. Now it has a trade deficit with it.

Since Congress granted China MFN status in the 1990s, America’s trade deficit with that country has now exploded to the largest trade deficit between any two countries in history. America’s trade deficit with Japan is the largest ever between the two.

Every country that ever became prosperous and a world power got that way because it protected and nurtured its industry: France under Colbert, Britain under the Acts of Navigation and into the first half of the 19th century, Germany under the Kaisers, the US in the second half of the 19th century, postwar Japan, and China today.

Protectionism is the policy of ascendant economic powers; “free trade” is the policy of descendant, declining ones.

15) Bandow claims that his policy would mean “peace” and that Republicans need to make a new commitment to “peace”. This is utter garbage. His policy of deep defense cuts and isolationism (dumping all of America’s allies and ignoring the threats posed by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran) would gut America’s defense, pull the rug from under America’s allies, and in so doing, invite aggression against bo the US and its allies. By doing so, it would only lead to war, death, and destruction.

16) Bandow also wants Republicans to support even greater legal immigration, even though it’s a financial drag on taxpayers as much, if not moreso, than illegal immigration. The problem is not just illegal immigration – the problem is immigration, period. The vast majority of legal immigrants are lazy lay-abouts from the Third World who live on welfare (paid for by American taxpayers) and vote Democratic. (That’s why Ted Kennedy and other Democrats passed the current law in 1965: to import new Democrat voters.) The US needs to drastically REDUCE the annual rate of legal immigration (which is currently a million people per year).

Just as Americans ought to realize the perils of a welfare state by looking at Greece, they can easily realize the perils of unlimited immigration by looking at California.

As Ann Coulter rightly points out, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, has transformed California into a Third World country where whites are a minority and where no Republican can get elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this state produced great Republican Senators and Governors such as Richard Nixon, S. I. Hayakawa, Pete Wilson, and Ronald Reagan.

If Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two smart Republican women, one pro-life, the other pro-choice, can’t get elected statewide in California anymore, then it’s all over for the GOP in California.

Yet, Bandow is advocating that the GOP and America now commit national suicide by adopting an even more liberal immigration policy. If he gets his way, the entire country will have the electorate of California. And there will be no turning back.

Hispanic immigrants – indeed, immigrants in general – support a LARGER federal government with BIGGER “services”, according to Pew polls. This is not surprising, because the vast majority of legal and illegal immigrants come from socialist countries and have a socialist mindset. As conservative writer Selwyn Duke points out, their beliefs don’t change when they set foot on American terra firma. Thus, as Duke points out, the problem is not just “illegal immigration”; the problem is immigration, period.

In short, Bandow is lying (as always), and the policies he advocates are downright suicidal for the GOP and for the country. He advocates Republican and national suicide at home and abroad. Abroad, by gutting America’s defense, dumping all of America’s allies, handing these allies on a platter to aggressors, leaving the world for China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran to conquer and subjugate, and turning a blind eye to any aggression by these countries. At home, he wants the GOP and the US to continue committing national suicide by continuing and even expanding the suicidal policies of “free trade” and unlimited immigration.

Republicans must completely reject ALL of his snake oil. He’s not one of us. He’s not a Republican nor a conservative. He’s not even someone who wishes conservatives or Republicans well. He even explicitly says in the blurb and the ending of his article that the GOP deserved to lose this year to Barack Obama. He’s our enemy and needs to be treated as such.

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/27/a-new-republican-agenda-for-th

The wreckage of the World War II aircraft carrier USS Hornet was discovered in late January 2019 by the expedition crew of Paul G. Allen’s Research Vessel (R/V) Petrel. Hornet was found 5,400 meters (nearly 17,500 feet) below the surface, resting on the floor of the South Pacific Ocean around the Solomon Islands.

A five-inch gun from historic USS Hornet wreckage, which was discovered in January 2019 by the late Paul G. Allen’s expedition crew aboard the Research Vessel Petrel. Photo courtesy of Paul G. Allen’s Vulcan Inc.

Hornet was best known for its part in the fateful Doolittle Raid that was launched in April of 1942, which was the first air-borne attack of Japanese homeland targets including Tokyo. Led by U.S. Army Lt. Col. James Doolittle, all the 16 B-25 planes that were launched from Hornet were unable to land at their designated airstrip in China, but the raid provided a boost to American morale and put Japan on alert about our covert air capabilities.

In June, Hornet was one of three American carriers that surprised and sunk four Japanese carriers at Midway, turning the tide of war in the Pacific.

The ship was sunk during the exceptionally vicious Battle of Santa Cruz Island that started on October 25, 1943. Hornetproved an especially determined ship over the next 24 hours. Enduring a relentless, coordinated attack by Japanese dive-bombers and torpedo planes, her crew was ultimately forced to abandon ship due to damage and resulting fires. She then defied American efforts to scuttle her with 16 torpedoes and 369 rounds of 5″ shells. When Japanese forces approached shortly thereafter and fired four torpedoes from two Japanese destroyers late in the evening on October 26, Hornet finally succumbed and slipped beneath the surface. She lost 111 sailors from her crew of nearly 2,200.

“With the loss of Hornet and serious damage to Enterprise, the Battle of Santa Cruz was a Japanese victory, but at an extremely high cost,” said Rear Admiral (Ret.) Samuel Cox, director of Naval History and Heritage Command. “About half the Japanese aircraft engaged were shot down by greatly improved U.S. Navy anti-aircraft defenses. As a result, the Japanese carriers did not engage again in battle for almost another two years.”

The discovery of Hornet was made during R/V Petrel’s first mission of 2019 after relocating from the Philippine Sea to the Solomon Islands to spend winter months in this arena. Operating out of Guadalcanal, the area is rich in history and prominence in terms of naval engagements.

“We had Hornet on our list of WWII warships that we wanted to locate because of its place in history as an aircraft carrier that saw many pivotal moments in naval battles,” said Robert Kraft, director of subsea operations for Vulcan. “Paul Allen was particularly interested in historically significant and capital ships, so this mission and discovery honor his legacy.”

The 10-person expedition team on the 250-foot R/V Petrel was able to locate Hornet’s position by piecing together data from national and naval archives that included official deck logs and action reports from other ships engaged in the battle. Positions and sightings from nine other U.S. warships in the area were plotted on a chart to generate the starting point for the search grid. In the case of Hornet, she was discovered on the first dive mission of Petrel’s autonomous underwater vehicle and confirmed by video footage from the remotely operated vehicle, both pieces of equipment rated to dive down to 6,000 meters.

Why would anyone consider a package loading job with UPS or Fedex?

As the economy drives more Americans into part-time work and the “gig-economy” UPS and Fedex look appealing as they fill a time slot that most other part-time jobs don’t.

I took a job as a UPS pre-loader to see if a UPS career made sense and I’ve decided to share my insights. As fair warning, these evaluations are only of the job at the sorting facility at which I was hired, your mileage may vary ?

See the rest of the ‘Gig Economy’ series:

• Part One: So you want to work as a UPS pre-loader
• Part Two: So you want to work in retail
• Part Three: So you want to work in food service (coming soon)

What does a job at UPS look like?

Anyone thinking of taking on a package loading job (called pre-loading) at UPS needs to know a few things:

UPS is one of America’s largest package delivery companies and employs 345,000 people in the United States.

The career path at UPS is divided into two major branches: management and non-management.

Both career paths start with unloading and pre-loading jobs unless you have experience in management or high-volume delivery truck driving.

Most people start as pre-loaders and that’s the job I took as an addition to my retail and other part-time jobs to pay the bills.

What does a UPS pre-loader do?

Pre-loaders arrive at the sorting facility anywhere between 11:00pm and 3:30am and work until about 8:30am. Pre-load typically starts at 2:45 to 3:30, but high-volume periods like the Christmas shopping season will push the start time much earlier.

Each pre-loader is expected to load three trucks. Occasionally, high-package volume or missing team members may require a loader to tackle 4-6 trucks.

Packages arrive at the pre-loaders area on a conveyor belt. The pre-loader is expected to identify (by label code), prioritize and load in the proper spot on the truck all packages for the proper truck. The packages typically arrive at a rate of one every 5-10 seconds for each of the trucks in a three truck group. That means that you must recognize, label and load a package in about 8 seconds to keep up.

What challenges does a pre-loader deal with?

This is an incredibly physically-demanding job. If you can’t manage 45 minutes on an eliptical or you think 50 pounds is heavy, this is not the job for you. You will be fast-walking with 5-50 pounds in your hands for 4-7 hours 5 days each week. You will sweat (and in the winter, learn to layer your clothing.)

The distance from conveyor to truck is only about 3 feet, but the trucks are as much as 20 feet long and the packages often weigh over 30 pounds with some over 50. Large and heavy packages create problems for the loader which they must solve in just seconds to keep up with the oncoming volume of other packages.

Packages are expected to be loaded in numerical order according to a 1″ x 2″ 3-letter + 4-digit label on the package. The truck is divided into areas by delivery numbers. The trucks have two shelf areas and an under-shelf floor area. The shelves are designated by delivery numbers.

The left shelves are 3,000-3,999 and 7,000-7,999 on the top with the 3k range closest to the driver’s cab. The bottom shelves are 4,000 – 4,999 and 8,000 – 8,999  with the 4,000’s nearest the cab.

The right shelves are 1,000-1,999 and 5,000 – 5,999 on top and 2,000-2,999 and 6,000-6,999 on the bottom with the 1k and 2k shelves nearest the driver.

Packages load quickly at the beginning of the sort. But as the trucks fill up, the pre-loader has to spend time re-arranging to make space so that packages can be loaded in the proper numerical order or in the proper spot on the truck. Time is everything and as the morning goes on, each package represents more time spent on the truck and less time catching packages at the belt.

A few times each morning, bulk shipments will arrive. These are large numbers of packages that show up one-after-another and are impossible to load fast enough to keep up with the conveyor speed. UPS rules allow the “securing” or stopping of the conveyor to unload these packages, but management frowns on any stoppage of the belt other than an emergency and you may get written-up for stopping due to a bulk or heavy package.

Loaders are expected to load the car “neatly.” Though with the speed of the incoming packages and the number of trucks a loader is responsible for, sometimes… they end up looking a little less than neat.

Breaks are considered irregular and you’ll only get one if you beg for it. If you work from 2am to 8:30am you should expect to be going full-tilt for all 6.5 hours. This gets much more difficult when the start time moves earlier and earlier.

What is the career path of a pre-loader?

You can expect to be loading packages on to trucks for at least a year. At that point, you will be given a choice to join the union. This is the effective branching of management/driver in the career pathing at UPS.

If you go union, you have chosen to either stay as a loader/unloader in the sort facility or transfer to full-time package truck driver once a spot opens up. That can lead to a feeder truck driving position if one of those spots ever becomes available.

If you choose to stay non-union, you can be promoted to supervisor (still part-time) and eventually management position if a position opens up.

Both branches are based on seniority. You have to do the time to get the dime .. so to speak.

How much does a UPS pre-loader make?

As of fall 2015, pre-loaders make between $10 and $12 an hour starting depending on area of the country.

As a new-hire, there is no vacation, no sick-time and no health benefits.

After all this, why even bother being a UPS pre-loader?

Pre-loading is either a temporary job or path to something better depending on your situation.

If you’re a college student looking for some extra cash with hours that don’t mess with your class schedule and social life, this might fit.

If you’re looking for a career and have no skills other than being physically fit, this job could get you there. Package truck drivers can make as much as $60k/year, but you have to put your time in as a pre-loader or unloader to get there. Feeder truck drivers can make $100k+, but you have to do your time on a delivery route. Be on-time, don’t make mistakes and work hard – the opportunities will come. You just need to have an idea about where you want to end up.

• Activists are at it again and blaming global warming for historic flooding in the Midwest.
• However, the science behind their claim is weak and not in line with the latest National Climate Assessment.
• Hundreds of homes are inundated with water and at least three have been killed in floods.

Some environmentalists and scientists are blaming global warming for historic flooding across the Midwest, adding to the long list of disasters eager activists link to climate change.

But is the scientific connection between historic Midwest floods and global warming very strong? No, it’s not.

A “bomb cyclone” led to sudden, devastating floods across the Midwest and Great Plains that left at least three people dead, according to reports. Officials say it’s the worst flooding in 50 years.

While most in the media largely stayed away, and rightly so, from connecting Midwest flooding to climate change, environmentalists were quick to make the connection, claiming the science was on their side.

Bill McKibben, a prominent environmentalist who made headlines protesting the Keystone XL oil pipeline,proclaimed “[s]cientists confirm climate change” was at work in the historic Midwest flooding.

The article McKibben linked to, however, only mentions a “changing climate” once, but does discuss the myriad of other, likely more important factors, that contributed to the massive flooding, like rainfall piling up over frozen ground.

The liberal blog ThinkProgress claimed Midwest floods were a “terrifying preview of climate impacts to come,” though the article relied heavily on comment from environmental activists.

“This level of flooding is becoming the new normal,” John Hickey, Sierra Club’s Missouri chapter director, told ThinkProgress.

Other environmental activists attacked major media outlets, like The New York Times and The Washington Post, for not linking Midwest flooding to global warming.

Environmental policy experts were quick to point out the lack of science behind such claims.

The 2018 National Climate Assessment (NCA) found that “formal attribution approaches have not established a significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change.”

Likewise, the NCA noted that “a variety of other compounding factors, including local land use, land-cover changes, and water management also play important roles.”

Land-cover was an extremely important factor in the Midwest floods. Heavy rain fell onto snow-covered, frozen ground. Rain and snowmelt ran off into already ice-covered rivers, which rose and sent massive chunks of ice downstream, breaking infrastructure and damming up the river.

More than 70 cities across Nebraska declared emergencies amid historic floods. Thousands of people across four states were forced to evacuate because river flooding breached nearly 200 miles of levees, CBS News reported.

The Mississippi and Missouri rivers also saw widespread flooding. Residents in western Illinois saw the worst floods in 50 years, according to The Chicago Tribune. Many homes in Holt County, Missouri were sitting in up to 7 feet of water from river flooding, The Associated Press reported.

Oddly enough, the Nebraska-based Omaha World-Herald got comments from two scientists who gave rather broad statements on the connection between global warming and extreme rainfall.

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen said “the strongest storms are getting stronger with global warming” because warmer air has more moisture. Penn State University climate scientist Michael Mann, creator of the controversial “hockey stick graph,” told the World-Herald that some studies show factors behind “bomb cyclones” are increasing due to climate change.

“There is evidence now in modeling studies that climate change is increasing these factors, supporting the development of more intense bomb cyclones and Nor’easters, packing tropical storm-scale winds and dumping huge amounts of precipitation (often in the form of huge snowfalls),” Mann said.

However, atmospheric scientist Ryan Maue shot back, saying that Hansen and Mann were giving generalized explanations of modeled climate impacts instead of gathering actual data on the flood event.

Listening to the President, his administration, some in Congress and several news reports, many would say the economy is recovering slowly but gaining traction. Seeing the economic data released today may reveal a somewhat more real reality.

The unemployment figures released this morning seem promising, but only in a vacuum. Claims dropped 24,000 to a seasonally-adjusted 297,000 for May. What the report doesn’t tell us is why fewer people filed claims. Was it because all of these folks have found gainful employment? Or are fewer people re-entering the labor market after having given up on finding a job some time ago?

Home builders are feeling less confident in a housing recovery. The latest survey of builders dropped to 45 for May and the April number has been adjusted lower.  Anything below 50 is considered “negative sentiment.”

The Philadelphia Federal Reserve Bank’s business activity index dropped from 16.6 in April to 15.4 in May. New orders also saw a decline from  14.8 to 10.5 indicating that the pace of growth is slowing.

If economists’ data isn’t enough, two of the nation’s largest retailers are reporting disappointing earnings.

Wal-Mart reported the smallest sales growth in 5 years today. The report blames the harsh winter for keeping customers out of their stores, but then goes on to forecast a second quarter that will come in below analysts’ expectations.

Kohl’s reported their first quarter results today and missed – on both sales and earnings. The retailer showed a $13 million drop from the same time last year in sales and missed analysts’ expectations by $15 million.