Sunday, February 14, 2016

Obama Budget Cuts Counter-Terrorism Funding Almost In Half

by JASmius

Question of the morning: Why is the first to notice and raise a stink about this latest Obama aiding and abetting of the Global Jihad the incoming Senate Democrat leader?:

Senator Charles Schumer is slamming a White House proposal that would reduce funding for counterterrorism programs across the country by nearly $300 million.

The New York Democrat is pushing Barack Obama to reconsider the cuts.

Schumer notes that the cuts to the Urban Area Security Initiative were included in the proposed 2017 budget released last week by the White House. The initiative helps fund programs in cities across the U.S. to prevent [jihad]ist attacks, or respond to and recover from them. The proposed budget would cut the funding from $600 million to $330 million.

"These proposed cuts are ill-advised and ill-timed and they must be reversed. End of story," Schumer said in a statement to the Associated Press. "In light of recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and the vow by our [jihad]ist enemies to launch more attacks on our shores, it makes no sense to propose cuts to vital terror-prevention programs like UASI."

Well, first, he is zeroing in on a single terrorism-related program and calling it "counter-terrorism funding", which is a broad exaggeration.  The UASI is a, singular, counter-terrorism program, so while O's cuts to it are certainly ill-advised and outrageous, it's not as bad as Chucky is making it sound.  Second, he's being functionally hypocritical here by speaking more parochially as one of the senators from the State that hosts the most emblematic jihadist target, as 9/11 spectacularly illustrated.  Because of the latter, Schumer is compelled politically to be more practical about the issue than ideological (i.e. Islamophilic and dhimmist), like the rest of his party.  Plus, as Senate Minority Whip and Harry (G)Reid's likely successor, he's doubtless privy to intelligence reports indicating the true breadth and scope and imminency of the spectrum of gestating jihadist threats.

Still, it sounds like majority Republicans have a not-insignificant bipartisan ally in dispensing with this particular pro-jihadist bit of Obamunist "fiscal responsibility".  Or will until after O has taken Chucky to the woodshed, anyway.

No comments: