Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, June 18, 2014


Early mornin' ride...

...followed by a bagel...

...off to the gym in less than an hour...

...meanwhile...

...Reuters reports Sunni militants have 75% of the biggest oil refinery in Baiji under their control in an attack that came overnight. 

CNN reported militants have made big advances towards Baquba, which is less than 40 miles north of Baghdad.

Welcome to another day... brought to you by... the failed, wrong-headed, counter-productive polices of...

(*DRUM ROLL*)

...Barack Hussein Obama!

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/captured-benghazi-suspect-interviews-u-s-media-outlets-authorities-searched-article-1.1833316


Ahmed Abu Khattala, 42, has been arrested as the leader of the Benghazi consulate attack.

Handout Ahmed Abu Khattala, 42, has been arrested as the leader of the Benghazi consulate attack.

* BUT...

But Abu Khattala, whom the U.S. had charged for the crime last summer but didn’t apprehend until now, has conducted multiple media interviews with U.S. outlets in recent months and years, with reporters claiming he wasn’t hard to find.

* AND AS FOR KHATTALA...

The suspected ringleader of the deadly 2012 Benghazi attacks, who was captured by U.S. forces over the weekend, was actually interviewed by multiple media outlets last year — a stunning revelation that could raise questions over why it took the U.S. so long to arrest the man.

* "COULD RAISE QUESTIONS...?!?!"

Khattala, suspected leader of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks who was seized by American forces Sunday, was interviewed by CNN and The New York Times in recent months and years, even after the U.S. charged him with crimes related to the deadly assault.

* INDEED...

Last August, CNN’s Arwa Dawson interviewed Abu Khattala for two hours “in public at a coffee shop of a well-known hotel” in Benghazi, she explained during the segment.

The U.S. charged Abu Khattala and several others in a sealed complaint filed last year in U.S. District Court in Washington that formally accused him of providing, attempting and conspiring to provide material support to terrorists that resulted in death; discharging, brandishing, using, carrying and possessing a firearm during a crime of violence; and killing a person in the course of an attack on a federal facility and conspiring to do so.

Witnesses of the attack had repeatedly told authorities that they saw Abu Khattala leading other fighters at the compound the night of the attack.

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/articles/dick-cheney-and-liz-cheney-the-collapsing-obama-doctrine-1403046522

As the terrorists of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) threaten Baghdad, thousands of slaughtered Iraqis in their wake, it is worth recalling a few of President Obama's past statements about ISIS and al Qaeda:

1) "If a J.V. team puts on Lakers' uniforms that doesn't make them Kobe Bryant" (January 2014).

2) "[C]ore al Qaeda is on its heels, has been decimated" (August 2013).

3) "So, let there be no doubt: The tide of war is receding" (September 2011).

Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.

Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is "ending" the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. Watching the black-clad ISIS jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America's enemies are not "decimated." They are emboldened and on the march.

When Mr. Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al Qaeda in Iraq had been largely defeated, thanks primarily to the heroic efforts of U.S. armed forces during the surge. Mr. Obama had only to negotiate an agreement to leave behind some residual American forces, training and intelligence capabilities to help secure the peace. Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.

The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe.

According to a recent Rand study, between 2010 and 2013, there was a 58% increase in the number of Salafi-jihadist terror groups around the world. During that same period, the number of terrorists doubled.

President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch. Indeed, the speed of the terrorists' takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.

The president explained his view in his Sept. 23, 2009, speech before the United Nations General Assembly. "Any world order," he said, "that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive."

Tragically, he is quickly proving the opposite — through one dangerous policy after another — that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-17/gasoline-at-u-s-pumps-set-to-hit-six-year-seasonal-high.html

Gasoline in the U.S. climbed this week...

(*SIGH*)

...and is expected to reach the highest level for this time of year since 2008.

The jump in crude...may boost pump prices by 10 cents a gallon at a time when they normally drop, according to forecasts including one from the EIA. “[T]he spike could be even bigger than that,” Phil Flynn, a senior market analyst at Price Futures Group in Chicago, said by telephone.

William R. Barker said...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-obamacare-subsidies-20140617-story.html

The large subsidies for health insurance that helped fuel the "successful" drive to sign up some 8 million Americans for coverage under the Affordable Care Act may push the cost of the law considerably above current projections, a new federal report indicates.

* "MAY...?!?!"

(*SNORT*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Nearly 9 in 10 Americans who bought health coverage on the federal government’s healthcare marketplaces received government assistance to offset their premiums.

* AND TO REMIND YOU, GOVERNMENT COULDN'T SUSTAIN PRE-OBAMACARE SPENDING WITHOUT MASSIVE BORROWING... MASSIVE DEBT CREATION...

* AGAIN... OBAMA MAKES A PRE-EXISTING BAD SITUATION... WORSE.

That assistance helped lower premiums for consumers who bought health coverage on the federal marketplaces by 76% on average, according to the new report from the Department of Health and Human Services.

* SO WE'RE TALKING HUGE SUBSIDIES!

The report suggests that the federal government is on track to spend at least $11 billion on subsidies for consumers who bought health plans on marketplaces run by the federal government, even accounting for the fact that many consumers signed up for coverage in late March and will only receive subsidies for part of the year.

* WHAT'S THIS "SUGGESTS" NONSENSE? THE NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBERS!

That total does not count the additional cost of providing coverage to millions of additional consumers who bought coverage in states that ran their own marketplaces, including California, Connecticut, Maryland and New York.

(About a third of the 8 million people who signed up for coverage this year used a state-run marketplace. Federal officials said subsidy data for these consumers were not available.)

* HOW CONVENIENT...

If these state consumers received roughly comparable government assistance for their insurance premiums, the total cost of subsidies could top $16.5 billion this year.

That would be far higher than projections this spring from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that the 2014 subsidies would cost the federal government $10 billion.

* IS ANYONE READING THIS SURPRISED? ANYONE AT ALL...?

The Congressional Budget Office estimated in April that the annual cost of subsidies will rise to $23 billion next year and $95 billion in 2024, although the budget office continued to project that all the law’s costs will be offset by additional revenue it raises and by cuts in other federal healthcare spending.

* AGAIN... DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THE SECOND PART OF THE ABOVE ESTIMATE...? ANYONE AT ALL...???

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/articles/victoria-toensing-doesnt-hillary-clinton-know-the-law-1403047339

In her interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer last week, Hillary Clinton said "I was not making security decisions" about Benghazi, claiming "it would be a mistake" for "a secretary of state" to "go through all 270 posts" and "decide what should be done."

[A]t a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests "did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them."

Does the former secretary of state not know the law?

By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.

* ONE MORE TIME...

By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.

(*SHRUG*)

The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Over 220 people were killed, including 12 Americans. Thousands were injured. Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board was convened for each bombing. Their reports, in January 1999, called attention to "two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government."

Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.

Because the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been existing office structures, neither met the State Department's security standard for a minimum 100 foot setback zone. A "general exception" was made. The two review boards faulted the fact that "no one person or office is accountable for decisions on security policies, procedures and resources."

To ensure accountability in the future, the review boards recommended "[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad" and "should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises." And for new embassy buildings abroad, "all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound."

Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations.

* ONE MORE TIME...

Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Congress mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary "may not delegate" the waiver decision.

* HMM... SOUNDS PRETTY CLEAR TO ME...

* AND AGAIN... NOTE: [The players then...] Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Benghazi did not house all U.S. personnel in one building. There was the consulate and an annex, one of the two situations requiring a non-delegable security waiver by the secretary of state.

In October 2012 the Benghazi Accountability Review Board convened, co-chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering (Ms. Rice's supervisor in 1998) and Adm. Michael Mullen. It failed even to question Mrs. Clinton for its report about the attacks.

* YEP! (THE FIX WAS IN!)

It also obfuscated the issue of her personal responsibility for key security decisions by using a word other than "waiver," the passive voice, and no names.

* SCUMBAGS...

Recognizing that the Benghazi consulate (like the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies) was a previously nongovernmental building, the Benghazi review board reported that this "resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted [my emphasis] from office facility standards and accountability under" Secca. No Hillary fingerprints revealed there.

Mrs. Clinton either personally waived these security provisions as required by law or she violated the law by delegating the waiver to someone else. If it was the latter, she shirked the responsibility she now disclaims: to be personally knowledgeable about and responsible for the security in a consulate as vulnerable as Benghazi.

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/380670/increasingly-expensive-chicken-every-pot-kevin-d-williamson

The idea of economic tradeoffs is strangely difficult to grasp for policymakers and the public alike.

* TELL ME ABOUT IT! I LIVE IN A NATION OF IDIOTS!

Rising home prices are frequently treated as though they were an unmitigated good, which they are — if you already own a home.

* AND EVEN THEN IF PROPERTY TAXES ARE RISING RIGHT ALONGSIDE THEORETICAL SALE PRICES AND YOU HAVE NO WISH TO SELL...

(*SNORT*)

If you’re looking to buy a home, rising home prices are an expense. But homeowners — older, wealthier, more likely to vote — are politically more powerful than prospective buyers, who are generally younger, less wealthy, and less likely to vote. If you hew to the conventional wisdom that dominates policy thinking at the Fed and elsewhere, a little inflation in the economy, or even more than a little, is an excellent thing, a contributor to growth.

* YEP! THE ELITES - AND THOSE IN HOCK - LOVE INFLATION! (THE "GROWTH" IS OF COURSE SMOKE AND MIRRORS...)

The so-called core Consumer Price Index, which excludes from its calculations a number of factors more prone to showing the effects of inflation, rose last month more quickly than it has since 2011; the general Consumer Price Index is up twice what economists had expected; the Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Eggs Index — a.k.a. your grocery bill — is at a record high. It could be the case that this inflation is associated with economic-stimulation policies that encourage growth and thereby leaves most people better off, but that does not seem to be the case at the moment.

* IT'S NOT THE CASE! BASICALLY WE'RE TALKING STAGFLATION.

The economy did not register strong growth in the first quarter — in fact, it contracted by 1%. The growth that drives real prosperity is in retreat.

* YEP...

That being the case, it is no surprise that while workers’ wages are up on average about 49 cents per hour over the last year, that increase has been more than matched by inflation, with the result that workers’ real wages — that is, wages adjusted for inflation — are lower today than they were one year ago.

* BINGO...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Shrinking economy, declining real wages, big grocery bills — you do not have to be a raging populist to register the fact that whatever Washington is doing vis-à-vis the economy, it is not working for the average American household.

* DUH!

On the other hand, the S&P 500 is up about 18% in the past year; corporate profits, though trending lower in the last quarter, remain strong; it’s not a great time to be a recent college graduate, but recent graduates’ unemployment still is about half that of young workers as a whole, meaning that non-graduates are taking an absolute beating in the job market.

Public policy is only one factor in economic performance; public policies that change from president to president or from Congress to Congress are an even smaller factor. Destructive policies, such as the ones that contributed to the housing bubble and subsequent financial crisis, or the ones that encourage businesses to park their profits in overseas jurisdictions, tend to change relatively little from administration to administration. Perversely, voters do not generally support radical changes in those policies, even though their negative effects cost them dearly.

* AGAIN... MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID... OR AT BEST SIMPLY IGNORANT. (THEY'RE SIMPLY NOT TAUGHT THIS STUFF IN SCHOOL, AND MOST LACK THE INTELLECTUAL CURIOUSITY TO SEEK OUT THE INFORMATION FOR THEMSELVES.)

As the economist Tyler Cowen argues in "Average Is Over," economic realities ranging from globalization to increasingly effective automation — his “genius machines” — ensure that while the technologically sophisticated and highly skilled elites will continue to thrive, living better than they ever have, things look rather grim for everybody else.

* YEP. I'M FOREVER PREACHING THIS... YET PEOPLE DON'T WANNA HEAR IT...

[O]ur policymakers still treat the four-year degree as the benchmark of performance. High schools are evaluated in part by what share of their graduates go on to college — never mind if they complete college, and never mind (never even ask!) if they learned anything useful in high school!

(*PURSED LIPS*) (*SILENCE*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www3.blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/obama-not-asking-congress-permission-on-iraq/?dcz=

President Barack Obama is still considering what to do about Iraq, but he told the top congressional leaders Wednesday that he doesn’t think he needs Congress’ permission to act.

* AND APPARENTLY THE COWARDLY WEASELS AGREED!

“We had a good discussion,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., arriving back at the Capitol after the meeting.

* IT WOULD PLEASE ME GREATLY IF MCCONNELL WERE TO DROP DEAD.

“The president basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take and indicated he would keep us posted.”

* WHICH IS FINE FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE; THIS WAY YOUR FINGERPRINTS (SUPPOSEDLY) AREN'T ON A "PRESIDENTIAL" DECISION.

Obama met for about an hour in the Oval Office with McConnell, Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

* GEEZUS... IF ONLY A ERRANT CRUISE MISSILE...

(*BITING MY TONGUE*)

Pelosi told reporters that she agreed that the president has all of the authorities that he needs in the authorizations to use military force passed by Congress previously. “All of the authorities are there. That doesn’t mean I want all of them to be used, especially boots on the ground,” she said. “But I definitely think the president has all of the authority he needs by dint of legislation that was passed in 2001 and 2003.”

* FOLKS... THIS IS A DIFFERENT TIME; AT THE VERY LEAST IF SUCH LEGISLATION IS TO STILL BE "THE LAW OF THE LAND" IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY REAUTHORIZED TO APPLY TO THE CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES - OTHERWISE IT'S AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE... CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION ABSENT AMENDMENT.

[T]he official White House position is that the Iraq authorization should be repealed.

* THEN WOULDN'T NOW BE THE PERFECT TIME FOR OBAMA TO ADDRESS THE NATION AND DEMAND REPEAL...?!?!

(*SNORT*)

Pelosi said the president didn’t lay out what actions he intended to take but instead laid out his thinking on what was happening in Iraq. Reid also called the meeting “a good meeting.” “Everybody seemed satisfied,” Reid said. “The president is going to keep us as informed as informed as he can as the process moves forward.”

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Reid declined to comment further, saying that it was a “private” meeting.

* SHOULDN'T ISSUES OF WAR AND PEACE - AND THE PRESIDENT'S POSITIONS - BE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD...???

* FOLKS... IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE READING THIS WHO SEES WHAT I SEE..? WE... ARE... NO... LONGER... AMERICA!

The White House issued a readout of the meeting saying the president talked about possible increase security assistance to Iraq...

* IS HE SHITTING US...?!?! WE'VE BEEN THROWING BILLIONS AT THEM! IT HASN'T WORKED! THE MONEY HAS BEEN STOLEN AND SQUANDERED! AND NOW OBAMA IS CONTEMPLATING THROWING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD IN...?!?!

* FOLKS... I'M LIVING IN THE TWILIGHT ZONE.

Earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney deflected a question about congressional authorization, saying, “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it, if we come to it.” Carney repeatedly said, however, that the president wants to avoid Iraq becoming a safe haven for terrorists.

* OBVIOUSLY IT'S A LITTLE FUCKING LATE FOR THAT...!!!

Obama has ruled out sending ground forces into combat.

* SO...! TOMORROW HE MAY RULE THEM IN! IT'S NOT LIKE OBAMA HAS ANY RECORD OF CONSISTENCY OR HONESTY! GEEZUS...!

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2661062/EXCLUSIVE-Illegal-immigrant-children-released-HUNDREDS-relatives-US-illegally-claims-HHS-official.html

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services makes no effort to determine the immigration status of adult relatives when they show up to claim unaccompanied minor children who entered the U.S. illegally, a spokesman at the agency confirmed on Wednesday.

(*SILENCE*)

Tens of thousands of the under-18s – 'Unaccompanied Alien Children' (UACs) in government-speak – have poured across the U.S.-Mexico border in recent months, creating what President Barack Obama has termed an 'urgent humanitarian situation.'

* AN URGENT HUMANITARIAN SITUATION OBAMA HAS DELIBERATELY CREATED... LAID OUT THE GROUND WORK FOR!

HHS, which houses them until family members can be found, has begun releasing illegal immigrant children 'by the hundreds' into the custody of adults who are illegal immigrants themselves, an HHS official familiar with the situation on America's southern border told MailOnline late on Tuesday.

An official spokesman for HHS's Administration for Children and Families confirmed on Wednesday that the agency has no system in place to verify whether the adults are here legally.

Kenneth Wolfe told MailOnline on Wednesday that 'around 90% of the minors in the UAC program are released to verified sponsors (mostly family members) in the U.S.' Asked if 'verified' means that the adults' immigration status has been checked, he responded, 'No.'

He also answered 'no' when asked if there is 'an effort made to ascertain the immigration status of the adults who claim the kids.'

* FOLKS... THIS IF WHAT "DRIVING FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE" LOOKS LIKE.

Most of the children are turning themselves in to U.S. Border Patrol agents, who transport them to a facility where they are processed and given 'notices to appear' before an immigration judge between 10 and 90 days later. HHS takes over after that, drawing on a $1 billion budget to house, feed and otherwise care for the children until a suitable adult family member can be located to claim them.

* A ONE BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET...

The official said the glut of cases at military bases serving as 'holding facilities' threatens to 'overwhelm our ability to care for all these kids in the long-term.' 'It's just not sustainable, is what I'm telling you,' he said. 'So to bottom-line it, would you rather see these kids in glorified warehouses or reunited with a family member who doesn't belong here?'

* I WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR BORDER SECURE! I WOULD LIKE TO SAVE THAT ONE BILLION DOLLARS! I WOULD LIKE OBAMA TO STOP ENTICING FOREIGNERS TO BREAK OUR LAWS AND ENTER OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

According to official statistics from the Department of Homeland Security, deportations of illegal immigrants under the Obama administration have spiked to new highs. But those numbers are deceptive: Changes in terminology have left head-counters with no choice but to roll several categories together, now classifying cases where immigrants are stopped and turned back at the border as 'deportations.'

* PLEASE... FOLKS... UNDERSTAND THAT! UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'VE JUST READ!

Actual expulsions of people who have crossed the border unlawfully and then settled in America's interior are down more than 40% since Obama's first year in office.

* ARE DOWN...! MORE THAN 40%...!!! THIS IS DELIBERATE...!!!

The resulting contradiction allows Obama to publicly embrace a tough-on-immigration image while privately assuring his Latino constituency that he means to allow more Mexican and Central American aliens to stay with each passing year.

(A scenario where HHS gradually mainstreams thousands of the children flooding into the U.S. from south of the border by turning them over to undocumented adults would fit that pattern.)

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took issue with what appears to be an unprecedented immigration policy-in-the-making on Tuesday night during a town hall broadcast on CNN. 'They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are,' Clinton said of the children. She told question-and-answer moderator Christiane Amanpour that 'all of them that can be should be reunited with their families' in their home countries.

* IS SHE SINCERE? OR... IS SHE SIMPLY PROVIDING THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY COVER BY GIVING OUTRAGED DEMOCRATS ONE OF THEIR OWN TO POINT TO AS BEING FOR... er... SANITY?!

'We have to send a clear message,' Clinton said: 'Just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay.'

* GOOD FOR CLINTON!

[T]axpayers cover expenses [created by the non-deportation of illegal aliens in custody] related to classroom education, recreation and mental health and medical services at facilities on military bases including Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Ventura County Naval Base in southern California and Fort Sill Army Base in Oklahoma.