Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
March
(34)
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 31, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 30, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 29, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., March 27 & 28, 2010
- None Of Your Goddamn Business!
- A George Will Column Deserving Its Own "Dedicated ...
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 26, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 25, 2010
- Barker's Newbites: Wednesday, March 24, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 23, 2010
- Regarding No Newsbites Since Friday...
- Tip of the Hat to Oli Mackson
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 19, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 18, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 17, 2010
- Annie (and Andy!) Get Your Guns...???
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
- This "Newsbite" Deserves A Separate Posting
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 15, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., March 13 & 14, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 12, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 11, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 10, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 9, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 8, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., March 6 & 7, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 5, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 4, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 3, 2010
- The Anti-Bunning Twenty-One
- Partial Kudos to President Obama
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 2, 2010
- Egomaniacal... or simply yet another example of my...
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, March 1, 2010
-
▼
March
(34)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
31 comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100329/ap_on_re_eu/eu_russia_subway_blast
Two female suicide bombers blew themselves up Monday in twin attacks on Moscow subway stations jam-packed with rush-hour passengers, killing at least 37 people and wounding 65, officials said.
* I ADDRESS THIS IN TODAY'S NEWSBITES ONLY SO AS TO GIVE MY OPINION: I BELIEVE OUR INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES SHOULD FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE RUSSIANS WITH REGARD TO ANYTHING WE KNOW THAT WOULD PROVE HELPFUL TO THE RUSSIANS. TERRORIST ATTACTS AIMED AT CIVILIANS (THE VERY DEFINITION OF "TERRORIST" ATTACTS) MUST BE VIEWED AS BEYOND THE PALE BY ALL CIVILIZED PEOPLES.
So, what do you say, Guillermo? Do the cops in NYC and Wash DC have the constitutional right to stop you and look inside your briefcase/shoulder bag when you want to enter the subway today? Or would that be a violation of your 4th amendment rights?
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/29/police-boost-nyc-subway-security-after-moscow-bombing/
I'd say "yes" Rob.
With the subway scenario such searches seem "reasonable" within the context of the Fourth Amendment.
What WOULDN'T be reasonable within the same context would be random street stops absent probable cause.
Rob. Of course there has to be a "line" drawn with any issue of this sort - just think "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" re: First Amendment concerns.
Please share your thoughts regarding what I've just opined.
BILL
* You too, Moose, if you're lurking...
(*WINK*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575142173969288654.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLEThirdNews
ICE deported 136,126 criminal aliens last year, the vast majority held for crimes committed in the U.S. Of that number, more than two-thirds - about 104,000 former prisoners - were from Mexico.
Central Americans were the next-largest contingent, with more than 6,000 each from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
* SUGGESTION: WE TATTOO THE WORDS "NOT WELCOME IN U.S.A." UPON THEIR FOREHEADS PRIOR TO DEPORTATION. SEEMS TO ME THAT WOULD CUT DOWN UPON ILLEGAL RE-ENTRY INTO THE U.S.
Large state prison systems such as those of California and Texas generate the most ICE deportees. Those systems also hold the most violent prison gangs...
California, with the nation's largest prison system, presently has more than 13,000 Mexican nationals designated as ICE holds in its many facilities, out of 106,000 inmates on hold for ICE pickup in California's state prison system.
Texas last year had more than 8,500 inmates from Mexico, many serving time for violent crimes who also were designated as ICE holds, according to a report prepared for the state legislature.
* TOO BAD THE REPORTER DIDN'T PROVIDE A BEST GUESS OF THE COSTS INCURRED BY U.S. TAXPAYERS BASED UPON THE NEED TO DEAL WITH THESE ILLEGAL ALIEN CRIMINALS.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142143632354272.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
Provisions of the health-care law that expand benefits for home-bound elderly, certain early retirees and coal miners will likely cost more than expected, say analysts and even some of the measures' proponents.
The program for home-bound elderly, called Community Living Assistance Services and Supports, or Class, would help keep older people in their homes longer and reduce federal nursing-home expenses, the bill's congressional sponsors said.
The provision was supported by several labor unions, which would have a chance to expand their memberships by organizing an expanded corps of home health workers.
* WAIT FOR IT...
The Congressional Budget Office warned last year that the Class program's own benefits eventually would grow so large that it would drain the government's finances. "The Class program would inevitably add to future deficits…by more than it reduces deficits in the near term," the office said in a letter to lawmakers.
That has drawn attacks from Republicans critical of the overall legislation's cost. "It's a classic Ponzi scheme," said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the ranking Republican on the budget committee.
[Congress also set up a] second program, to subsidize health-care plans that cover lots of retirees under age 65... The United Automobile Workers has made the federal reinsurance subsidy a top priority in recent years. Detroit's unionized auto makers and parts makers have pushed thousands of UAW workers into early retirement as they retrenched in the past decade.federal money will be paid to plans to offset high-cost patients and reduce beneficiaries' premiums. The legislation limits payments to insurance plans to a total of $5 billion over the program's life.
* WAIT FOR IT...
"I think there probably will be" need for funds beyond the $5 billion, said Chuck Loveless, the legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which supported the provision. "Five billion is not going to last very long."
A spokesman for Rep. Sander Levin (D-MI), the House Ways and Means Committee chairman and a close ally of the auto industry, left open the possibility of additional funding. "If it turns out that more money is needed, Congress will closely monitor and act accordingly," said the spokesman, Matthew Beck.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151693915722022.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
Fed up with federal ownership of more than half the land in Utah, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert on Saturday authorized the use of eminent domain to take some of the U.S. government's most valuable parcels.
(*WILD APPLAUSE*) (*THE POP OF CHAMPAGNE BOTTLES BEING OPENED*)
Mr. Herbert signed a pair of bills into law that supporters hope will trigger a flood of similar legislation throughout the West, where lawmakers contend that federal ownership restricts economic development in an energy-rich part of the country.
(*TWO THUMBS UP*)
More than 60% of Utah is owned by the U.S. government, and policy makers here have long complained that federal ownership hinders their ability to generate tax revenue and adequately fund public schools.
Initially, the state would target three areas for the use of eminent domain, including the Kaiparowits plateau in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, which is home to large coal reserves.
Many people in Utah are still angry that then-President Bill Clinton's designated the area as a national monument in 1996, a move that stopped development on the land and greatly pleased environmentalists as he ran for re-election.
Utah lawmakers contend the federal government should have long ago sold the land it owns in the state. Because it hasn't, the federal government has violated a contract made with Utah when statehood was granted, they say.
Eminent domain would also be used on parcels of land where Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last year scrapped 77 oil and gas leases around national parks and wild areas.
(*TEARS OF JOY FLOWING DOWN MY CHEEKS*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151682457897668.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
The Obama administration has decided to award just two states - Delaware and Tennessee - with hundreds of millions in education grants, the culmination of a hard-fought competition that originally drew applications from 40 states, according to people familiar with the decision.
That the administration has picked only two states, and passed up states like Florida and Louisiana that were widely seen as favorites, will surprise many in the education world.
The grants, the first of two rounds under the administration's $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, are designed to reward states that are pushing ahead on tough teaching standards to overhaul lagging schools.
The fact that just two states won will placate critics, who warned that the administration appeared to be watering down its own standards for the awards. Skeptics have also raised concerns that the Race to the Top program, a cornerstone of the administration's education policy, would reward states making big promises instead of only those best prepared to impose real change.
(*POLITE APPLAUSE*)
* HEY... THAT'S THE THING ABOUT INTELLECTUAL CONSISTENCY AND INTEGRITY - IT "COMMANDS" ME TO POST THIS AS A NEWSBITE IN THE SAME WAY I'VE PROVIDED PAST NEWSBITES WHICH QUESTIONED OBAMA'S "RACE TO THE TOP" PROGRAM.
(*SMILING SHRUG*)
Delaware originally sought $107 million to help pay for a plan to turn around its worst schools. Tennessee sought $502 million. The administration appeared to put a very high value on applications that had won wide support from unions and school boards within their states. Florida's bid, for instance, received the support of just 8% of its unions. The administration made its selection from a list of 16 finalists...
Independent evaluators gave the two winners especially high marks for their accountability standards and for implementing systems to track student performance. Both have also pushed to expand the growth of charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently run.
The grants, the first of two rounds under the administration's $4.35 billion Race to the Top program, are designed to reward states that are pushing ahead on tough teaching standards to overhaul lagging schools.
* "...THE FIRST OF TWO ROUNDS..." HMM... STAY TUNED; WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH ROUND TWO!
(*WINK*)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575143661044721230.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion
[A] larger welfare state is not conducive to comprehensive immigration reform.
American liberals have advocated the creation of a European-style welfare state since at least the 1960s. Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Europe still spends twice as much as the U.S. on social programs - 20% of gross domestic product versus 10% - and assistance aimed at the poor and the unemployed is especially generous.
Also more generous, in the main, are European public pensions - wealth-redistribution mechanisms that effectively take from the affluent young and give to the old.
The U.S.-Europe welfare disparity to a large extent reflects different attitudes and preferences. Europeans tend to view the poor as hard-luck cases who aren't personally responsible for their situation, while Americans perceive welfare recipients as shiftless cheats. A 2005 World Values Survey found that 71% of Americans see poverty as a condition that can be overcome by dint of hard work, while only 40% of Europeans share that viewpoint.
As voters came to understand ObamaCare for what it is - another enormous, underfunded entitlement program that will expand the welfare state and increase dependency on government - it's no wonder that they turned against the bill. (A CNN poll on the day of the climactic House vote found that 59% of respondents opposed the legislation, versus 39% who favored it.)
Belief in social mobility has informed welfare and immigration policy from colonial times. In 1645 the Massachusetts Bay colony was already barring paupers. And in 1882, when Congress finally passed the country's first major piece of immigration legislation, it specifically prohibited entry to "any person unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge."
In countries such as France, Italy and the Netherlands, excessively generous public benefits have lured poor migrants who tend to be heavy users of welfare and less likely than natives to join the work force. Milton Friedman famously remarked, "you can't have free immigration and a welfare state." There is a tipping point, even if [one believes] the U.S. has yet to reach it.
* FULL DISCLOSURE. IF YOU READ THE FULL OP-ED YOU'LL NOTE THAT THE AUTHOR - JASON RILEY - COMES ACROSS AS MORE "PRO" THAN "ANTI" IMMIGRATION. HE MAKES HIS CASE WITHIN THE OP-ED; IN MY OPINION, HOWEVER, HE DOESN'T COME EVEN CLOSE TO PROVING HIS CASE. STILL... IF YOU WANT TO GET THE FULL "FLAVOR" OF RILEY'S PERSPECTIVE, READ THE FULL OP-ED.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303737704575147622272424344.html
The image of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wielding what resembled an oversized mallet while leading a mob of congressmen across Capitol Hill on the day of the health-care vote is the stuff of nightmares. It is also instructive. As a metaphor for how the Democrats view their power, the Pelosi hammer-pose could not be more perfect.
Just ask Honduras.
The display of raw colonialist hubris is so pronounced that locals now refer to U.S. ambassador Hugo Llorens as "the proconsul."
Washington's bullying is two-pronged. First is a maniacal determination to punish those involved in removing Mr. Zelaya. Second is an attempt to force Honduras to allow Mr. Zelaya, who now lives in the Dominican Republic, to return without facing any repercussions for the illegal actions that provoked his removal. Both goals are damaging the bilateral relationship, polarizing the nation and raising the risk of a resurgence of political violence.
Honduras had defied Uncle Sam and the U.S., led by [Ambassador] Llorens, decided that it had to be taught a lesson. It took out the brass knuckles and tried hard to unseat interim president Roberto Micheletti in the interest of restoring Mr. Zelaya to the office.
Honduras wouldn't budge. That's when Mr. [Dan] Restrepo [senior director for Western Hemisphere affairs at the National Security Council] traveled to the capital with a U.S. delegation. The agreement reached included U.S. recognition of the November election. For a time it seemed things might return to normal.
But the Americans had scores to settle. The U.S had already yanked dozens of visas from officials and the business community as punishment for noncompliance with its pro-Zelaya policy. Then, just days before President Porfirio Lobo's inauguration in January, Hondurans estimate it pulled at least 50 more from Micheletti supporters. The visas have not been returned, and locals say Mr. Llorens continues to foster a climate of intimidation with his visa-pulling power.
He hasn't stopped there. In early March he organized a meeting of Liberal Party Zelaya supporters and the party's former presidential candidate, Elvin Santos, at the U.S. Embassy. Some 48 hours later the party's zelayistas and its Santos faction voted to remove Mr. Micheletti as party head. Rigoberto Espinal Irías, a legal adviser to the independent public prosecutor's office, complained that the "meeting generated much bad feeling in Honduran civil society" because it was "perceived to have the purpose of intervening in Honduran national politics."
Now more trouble is brewing: Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes, according to press reports, has said that [President] Lobo made a promise, in front of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr. Funes, that Mr. Zelaya could return "without fear of political persecution." Mr. Lobo subsequently announced that Mr. Zelaya is free to enter the country. In exchange, it is expected that foreign aid flows to Honduras will resume. But the minister of security maintains that if Mr. Zelaya returns he will be arrested.
It's hard to imagine what the U.S. thinks it achieves with a policy that divides Hondurans while strengthening the hand of a chavista. Revenge and power come to mind. Whatever it is, it can't be good for U.S. national security interests.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703909804575123773804984924.html
[By Norman Podhoretz]
Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan.
It's hard to imagine now, but 31 years ago, when I first announced that I was supporting Reagan in his bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, I was routinely asked by friends on the right how I could possibly associate myself with this "airhead," this B movie star, who was not only stupid but incompetent. They readily acknowledged that his political views were on the whole close to ours, but the embarrassing primitivism with which he expressed them only served, they said, to undermine their credibility. In any case, his base was so narrow that he had no chance of rescuing us from the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter.
(*CHUCKLE*)
Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. Then again, the first time I met Reagan all he talked about was the money he had saved the taxpayers as governor of California by changing the size of the folders used for storing the state's files.
What [Gov. Palin] does know - and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan - is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn.
[A]s has been pointed out by Bill Kristol - one of the few conservative intellectuals who has been willing to say a good word about Mrs. Palin - her views are much closer to those of her conservative opponents than they are to the isolationists and protectionists on the "paleoconservative" right or to the unrealistic "realism" of the "moderate" Republicans who inhabit the establishment center.
* WOW... I GUESS I'M A PALEOCONSERVATIVE!
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that the same species of class bias that Mrs. Palin provokes in her enemies and her admirers is at work among the conservative intellectuals who are so embarrassed by her. When William F. Buckley Jr., then the editor of National Review, famously quipped that he would rather be ruled by the first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book than by the combined faculties of Harvard and MIT, most conservative intellectuals responded with a gleeful amen. But put to the test by the advent of Sarah Palin, along with the populist upsurge represented by the Tea Party movement, they have demonstrated that they never really meant it.
(*SAD NOD*)
* I ADVISE READING PODHORETZ'S ESSAY IN ITS ENTIRETY. I BELIEVE HE'S PRETTY MUCH DEAD ON.
So, the constitution is not a document comprised of objective principles, but rather a document comprised of circumstantially determined "suggestions" about how to do things?
Okay, having established that, we must now decide who gets to draw that line, and how much latitude whomever that person(s) is should have.
Can, for instance, the head of the state police decide that multiple DUI stops should be set up on his state's freeways during, say, the Labor Day Weekend, when there will predictably be multiple highway deaths involving drunk drivers?
In other words, does "the state" in whichever of its manifestations have the right to say to you "If you want to ride the public subways today, you must allow our agents to inspect your parcels," or does it not?
If it does, does it not also have the right to say, "If you want to drive your vehicle on the public highways, you must allow our agents to stop you for a DUI random spot check"?
The state does not force you to either drive or to use public transportation.
I just heard Glenn Beck tell me earlier today that the state does not force me to buy auto insurance because it does not force me to drive a car. Where's the difference?
ROB WRITES...
"So, the constitution is not a document comprised of objective principles, but rather a document comprised of circumstantially determined "suggestions" about how to do things?"
No.
(*SIGH*)
Again... I wish I could be certain of whether you're simply busting chops OR are you simply not up to the intellectual test of comprehending my points.
(*SHRUG*)
ROB CONTINUES...
"Can, for instance, the head of the state police decide that multiple DUI stops should be set up on his state's freeways during, say, the Labor Day Weekend, when there will predictably be multiple highway deaths involving drunk drivers?"
OK. Surprisingly... (*SMILE*)... not a bad question.
I'd say "no" is your answer.
While you seem to be "getting" the concept of a sliding scale, your scenario still doesn't rise to the level of "reasonable" government action according to the contextual meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Here... let me throw out a counter-example:
NYC has a whole host of "ethnic" parades throughout the year - right? Working from memory, let's assume for the sake of argument that the parade which gives the cops the most trouble - is accompanied by the most crime and violence - is the Puerto Rican parade.
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Day_Parade)
For the sake of this discussion assuming this to be the case, would it be "reasonable" for the cops to set up "Weapon/Drug Checkpoints" in order to search for the "needle in the haystack?"
(BTW, I'm curious to see how you'll answer this!) (*WINK*)
In any case... even if the answer is "yes" we're still talking apples to oranges in the sense that "the parade" - just as "the subway" - is a specific destination and securing the SPECIFIC destination is the purpose.
Such is not the case with your "average" stretch of public roadway where the location of the checkpoint is more or less random - random in the sense of seeking the "needle in the haystack" in a "fishing" expedition.
Follow me, Rob...???
It's like with a warrant. Now some warrants on issued on flimsier "cause" than others, but in my humble opinion allowing the police to set up random DUI checkpoints is the equivalent of giving police officers "blank" warrants that they can fill out AFTER the fact.
BILL
ROB WRITES...
"In other words, does "the state" in whichever of its manifestations have the right to say to you "If you want to ride the public subways today, you must allow our agents to inspect your parcels," or does it not?"
Yes. At least in my view. The thing is... if I'm wrong I'm wrong in the sense that they SHOULDN'T have that right. Get it...???
In other words, yeah, if you can make a convincing argument I'll agree to granting MORE liberty to the individuals, not less.
What I'm saying is that I might be wrong in believing subway entry bag searches don't violate the Fourth Amendment.
(*SMILE*)
ROB CONTINUED...
"...does ["the state"] not also have the right to say, "If you want to drive your vehicle on the public highways, you must allow our agents to stop you for a DUI random spot check"?
Again... I say "no."
My "default" is always the Constitution - original intent... at the time contextual understanding.
(And even here I'm not supporting "unconstitutional" actions; I'm simply pointing to the constitutional concept of "reasonable" vs. "unreasonable" as my guidepost.)
Note, Rob, I link the "sliding scale" (as much as one exists) not to "pragmatism" per se and not to "best interests" as understood by "the state," but rather to the broader common sense understanding of actual constitutional guarantees.
Here... let's try this:
Can you imagine the Founders acceding to a call for either vehicle (wagon) or pedestrian checkpoints were the idea to have been presented to them?
On the other hand, would the Founders have found it reasonable for visitors to the White House or visitors gallery of the capital to be forced to "check" their weapons at the door?
See what I'm saying about apples and oranges?
BILL
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Obama-slights-our-friends_-kowtows-to-our-enemies-89298057.html
Barack Obama's decision to postpone his trip to Indonesia and Australia - to a democracy with the world's largest Muslim population and to the only nation that has fought alongside us in all the wars of the last century - is of a piece with his foreign policy generally: Attack America's friends and kowtow to our enemies.
Examples run from Britain to Israel. Early in his administration, Obama returned a bust of Churchill that the British government had loaned the White House after 9/11. Then Obama gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of DVDs that don't work on British machines and that Brown, who has impaired vision, would have trouble watching anyway.
More recently Obama summoned Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House, permitted no photographs, laid down nonnegotiable demands and went off to dinner.
Some may attribute these slights to biases inherited from the men who supplied the titles of Obama's two books. Perhaps like Barack Obama Sr., he regards the British as evil colonialists. Or perhaps like his preacher for 20 years, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he regards Israel as an evil oppressor.
http://www.urbancure.org/article.asp?id=3208
A revealing moment during the presidential campaign occurred when, during one debate, ABC's Charles Gibson pushed then-Sen. Barack Obama about his stated intent to increase capital gains taxes. Gibson brandished data showing that when you cut this tax, government tax revenues increase, and when you raise it, revenue drops (punishing investment surely produces less).
"So, why raise it?" Gibson asked.
Obama responded that maybe it won't happen that way this time. And besides, he said, his motive was "fairness."
After voters in Massachusetts elected a Republican to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, killing the Democrats' filibuster-proof Senate majority, many pundits wrote that President Obama had to move to the political center. I wrote then that this wouldn't happen because, unlike President Bill Clinton...Obama is a left-wing ideologue. He didn't run for president to be somebody. He did it to do something. He did it to change America.
As polls showed waning public support for what Democrats were pushing on health care, many assumed they would back off. It was still conceivable that they could stand rules on their head and ram the thing through using the so-called reconciliation procedure. But why would they do it when polls suggested they would be punished in November elections?
But Obama understood that when you are selling dreams, numbers don't matter.
So, as in the housing and financial debacle we just went through, you commit taxpayer money to subsidize a product to make it look cheaper than it is, you get people to buy it, and when it all comes crashing down, it doesn't matter. By then you're long gone.
And, another bonus, as more Americans get herded onto the government plantation - 30 million more with this new bill - it's easy to keep them there. So the most likely political outcome going forward is higher taxes and income redistribution to pay for it all, entrenching socialism more.
As I have written before, if you want to know where it all leads, look at our inner cities that were long ago taken over by government compassion. This is our future, my fellow Americans.
http://townhall.com/columnists/DavidStokes/2010/03/29/watch_for_the_full_court_press?page=full&comments=true
Barack Obama has in the past bemoaned the fact that prior Supreme Courts, notably the one presided over by Earl Warren in the 1960s, failed to break “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”
It is, I suppose, increasingly un-cool these days in some quarters to name-drop using the Founding Fathers of our country, but I think good ole, George Washington nailed it when he said: “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make or alter their Constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at anytime exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People is sacredly obligatory upon all."
* PRESIDENT WASHINGTON WAS OF COURSE SPEAKING OF THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AS STIPULATED BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. THE AMENDMENT PROCESS IS THE ONLY LEGITIMATE TOOL TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION.
[T]oday, we are on the verge of a period of potential judicial activism unprecedented in the history of the Republic - all in the name of a “Living Constitution.” It will be up to those on the court to resist the zeitgeist inside the Beltway.
* IN THAT CASE WE'RE IN DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE. FOUR OF THE NINE JUSTICES SIMPLY DON'T RECOGNIZE ORIGINAL INTENT AND THE PLAIN TEXT CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION AS THE GUIDEPOST OF THEIR DUTY. ANOTHER JUSTICE - JUSTICE KENNEDY - SEES HIMSELF AS THE "SWING VOTE" AND VOTES IN AN EGOCENTRIC FASHION DETERMINED BY HIS POLICY JUDGMENT, NOT HIS ALLEGIANCE TO THE CONSTITUTION. AS FOR THE OTHER FOUR JUSTICES... ONLY JUSTICE THOMAS CAN BE COUNTED ON TO STICK TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH HELL OR HIGH WATER REGARDLESS OF JUDICIAL (MAN'S) PRECEDENT.
http://patriotpost.us/edition/2010/03/29/brief/
The day after the House approved the health care bill, a reporter asked White House spokesman Robert Gibbs about the lawsuits some states were threatening against the legislation on the grounds that the provision forcing all Americans to buy health insurance was unconstitutional.
'I think there's pretty longstanding precedent on the constitutionality of this,' Gibbs said, without offering any substantive explanation.
Later in the briefing, another reporter pressed Gibbs on the question. 'You say there's established law, established precedent,' said the reporter. 'On what? What is it? What is the established precedent?'
'On the regulation of interstate commerce,' said Gibbs.
The reporter then asked how the mandate in question was part of interstate commerce.
'Well, that's - I think, again - look, I'm not a lawyer, right,' said Gibbs.
'And neither am I,' said the reporter.
Gibbs, of course, has every right to profess ignorance of the Constitution. ... But he has no right to denigrate the ability of other Americans to understand the Constitution, and it is fatuous for him to suggest only lawyers can.
Surely, a teacher, a doctor, a mechanic, a network news anchor and perhaps even a member of Congress can understand the words of the 10th Amendment as well as any lawyer can. It says:
'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' If the Constitution has not delegated to the federal government the power to force Americans to buy health insurance, then Congress and the president do not have that power.'
Period.
You are the one who isn't getting it. Maybe Moose, who is a Catholic, can better explain the concept of objective principles than I have.
The point is: either the constitution is comprised of objective principles which always hold, in any situation; or else it isn't. If it isn't, then it's the legal equivalent of what is called "situational ethics" or "moral relativism."
If you don't want to be caught in a DUI checkpoint, then you must give up the right of the state to stop and search any person for any reason, unless that person has been accused of, or has been seen in the act of, committing a crime.
Just as an orthodox Catholic will never morally justify committing an evil act in order to achieve good ends, so the state must never violate your constitutional rights (OR ANYONE ELSE'S) in order to achieve good ends (e.g. cut down on traffic fatalities, or random street crime.)
You want to have it both ways; you can't.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/texas/media_meter/texas_media_coverage_favors_white_over_perry
The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage in Texas is far more favorable for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Bill White than for incumbent Republican Governor Rick Perry.
For the week ending Sunday, March 28, 2010, 79.5% of the media mentions for White were positive, and only 20.5% were negative.
For Perry, during the same time frame, the coverage was far more mixed: 45.6% of the media mentions were positive, and 54.4% were negative.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state shows Perry leading White by six percentage points, 49% to 43%, in the governor's race.
* MAKE OF THIS WHAT YOU WILL... (*SMILE*)
ROB WRITES...
...nonsense.
At least in my view.
Anyway, Rob, since AGAIN you simply babble on without doing me the courtesy of giving straight answers to straight questions (as I do), as far as I'm concerned our "debate" is over.
The saddest part... I'm STILL not sure if it's a straight IQ problem or is it more closely related to your self-image as a "philosopher" who sticks to theory and refuses to "get his hands dirty" with practical yes or no answers.
(*SHRUG*)
I guess bottom line... it doesn't matter.
Perhaps I'm "talking past you;" or perhaps you simply don't want to hear what you don't want to hear.
All I know is that unlike you (*GRIN*) I answer direct questions directly and explain why I answer as I do.
I STILL have no idea where you stand on the DUI checkpoints.
(*SMILE*)
BILL
P.S. - Yeah... it would be nice if Moose
http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=100329_3682,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml
[By Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)]
With passage of last week’s bill, the American people are now the unhappy recipients of Washington’s disastrous prescription for healthcare “reform.”
Congressional leaders relied on highly dubious budget predictions, faulty market assumptions, and outright fantasy to convince a slim majority that this major expansion of government somehow will reduce federal spending. This legislation is just the next step towards universal, single payer healthcare, which many see as a human right.
Of course, this “right” must be produced by the labor of other people, meaning theft and coercion by government is necessary to produce and distribute it.
T]his new model of healthcare will cause major problems down the road, as it has in every nation that ignores economic realities. The more government involves itself in medicine, the worse healthcare will get: quality of care will diminish as the system struggles to contain rising costs, while shortages and long waiting times for treatment will become more and more commonplace.
Consider what would happen if car insurance worked the way health insurance does. What if it was determined that gasoline was a right, and should be covered by your car insurance policy?
Perhaps every gas station would have to hire a small army of bureaucrats to file reimbursement claims to insurance companies for every tank of gas sold!
What would that kind of system do to the costs of running a gas station? How would that affect the prices of both gasoline and car insurance?
In a free market system, health insurance would serve as true insurance against serious injuries or illness, not as a convoluted system of third party payments for routine doctor visits and every minor illness.
While proponents of this reform continue to defy all logic and reason by claiming it will save money, I worry about cataclysmic economic events. Already investors are more reluctant to buy US Treasuries, fearing that the healthcare bill, along with other spending, will cause government debt to explode to default levels.
The Federal Reserve finds itself in an unprecedented and unenviable position. To keep up with government spending and corporate irresponsibility, it has increased the monetary base by nearly $1.5 trillion since September of 2008. Excess bank reserves remain at historically high levels, and the Fed's balance sheet has ballooned to over $2 trillion. If the Fed pulls this excess liquidity out of the system, it risks collapsing banks that rely on the newly created money. However, if the Fed fails to pull this excess liquidity out of the system we risk tipping into hyperinflation. This is where central banking inevitably has led us.
The idea that a handful of brilliant minds can somehow steer an economy is fatal to economic growth and stability. The Soviet Union's economy failed because of its central economic planning, and the U.S. economy will suffer the same fate if we continue down the path toward more centralized control.
We need to bring back sound money and free markets - yes, even in healthcare - if we hope to soften the economic blows coming our way.
http://article.nationalreview.com/429482/betrayed/arthur-herman
Air tankers are the planes that refuel our Air Force fighters and bombers in mid-air. They are essential to the Air Force’s global reach. The current fleet of KC-135 Stratotankers first entered service during the Eisenhower administration, and they desperately need replacing.
The contract to build 179 new air tankers is worth $35 billion in business. The technology isn’t sensitive or top-secret, so any company willing to meet the Pentagon’s specifications was allowed to present a design. Europe’s biggest aerospace consortium, EADS, had partnered with Northrup Grumman to offer a modified version of the Airbus, which would be built in the United States. The Pentagon initially signaled that it wanted the Airbus, but voided the choice last July and rewrote the rules, making Boeing’s slightly smaller plane the only possible winner.
It’s not just Northrup Grumman that’s furious. So is EADS, and so are European officials.
The flap is important for two reasons. The first is that Europe is one of America’s growing markets for defense systems and weaponry, from $1.2 billion back in 2002 to more than $6 billion and climbing in 2008. If they decide to cut their arms purchases from the United States, it’ll hurt a defense industry already suffering from budgetary changes and the recession.
Even more important, the U.S. military is finding itself in a weapons-procurement crisis. It’s not just the usual problems of cost overruns and a Pentagon weapons-purchasing bureaucracy that has grown more inefficient the larger it has become. It’s also been the shrinking number of contractors willing and able to build the arms America needs to stay on top militarily.
During the Cold War, the Pentagon had some 50 prime contractors to deal with. Today that number has shrunk to six. This is far too small a base to support genuinely competitive bidding and research for the planes, warships, and vehicles of the future - including the coming generation of unmanned and robotic systems.
Britain’s BAE Systems has already bought mid-size businesses in the United States, as has a leading Italian firm. Missile maker MBDA and France’s Safran want to do the same. Now all those plans may be on hold, thanks to the air-tanker flap.
Nor will the damage stop there, if Europeans feel they can’t get a fair shot at the U.S. defense market (the biggest in the world). Analysts are quietly warning that lack of cooperation on weapons purchases might lead to lack of cooperation in Afghanistan, where France, Germany, and other NATO forces play a big part in President Obama’s plans for stabilizing the country.
"I STILL have no idea where you stand on the DUI checkpoints."
What do you not understand about this?:
"What I think is irrelevant, but fwiw I think that DUI stops are unconstitutional. I also think that they are trivial as compared to profiling."
I wrote that at 10:29 a.m. Maybe if you didn't have 500 different "bites" going at once, you could follow the discussion?
Don't be an ass, Rob.
YOU are the one who "moved" the discussion and then responded to my legitimate question on the OTHER (previous) thread.
(*SMIRK*)
Anyway... in case you haven't gone back to that other thread, I noted there that I'd be quite happy to "extend" this debate to the issue of "profiling" if that's what you'd like.
Only... let's do it on your blog.
This particular thread really is meant to be today's newsbites, not a forum for discussion of a stand alone thread from yesterday.
(*WINK*)
BILL
We're not doing shit on my blog, unless we are discussing what I'm blogging about on my blog.
(*SHRUG*)
Your call, Rob.
And on that note...
(*CHUCKLE*)
BILL
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528809
With the passage of health care reform and the ongoing boom in federal hiring, it's becoming increasingly clear that America is now run by a new, privileged class of bureaucrats.
Take the just-passed health care bill that carefully excluded the White House, congressional leaders and their staffs from having to live under the reforms' restrictions.
"President Obama will not have to live under the Obama health care reforms, and neither will the congressional staff who helped to write the overhaul," said Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. "The message to the people at the grass roots is that it's good enough for you, but not for us."
The hypocrisy of these officials and the contempt they show for average Americans is bad enough. But Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public can also go to jail or be fined up to $250,000 for not buying insurance. And the government is spending $10 billion to hire 16,500 new IRS agents to make sure they don't escape the new system.
Today, as we witness a massive shift of resources from the private to the public sector, the only place adding jobs is government. Since the start of last year, the federal government has added 81,000 jobs. By contrast, private-sector payrolls have shed 4.71 million. Big government is the place to be these days. Federal workers are some of the country's best-paid, earning far in excess of their counterparts in the private sector.
The average federal worker that year took home on average $67,691 in salary, compared with $60,046 in the private sector - a difference of $7,645. Not that much, you say? Well, that was before benefits are factored. The average government worker gets a whopping $40,785 a year in health care, pension and other benefits compared to $9,882 for a private worker. The difference in total compensation widens to $38,548 a year - for the same job with the same duties. Anyone who has visited the slow-moving Post Office, talked to the surly and often hostile IRS agent or even gone to the local DMV to spend time in waiting-room hell can tell you that pay gap doesn't represent productivity, training or ability. What it does represent is the new Nomenklatura - the privileged apparatchiks who now run our government and with it, sadly, much of our lives.
This is very much a result of years of "progressive" thinking that has pushed the Democratic Party sharply leftward across the political spectrum. Since the Civil War, the so-called Progressive Movement's dream has been to exalt bureaucratic expertise and control over free-market efficiency. With the new administration, their dream has become our nightmare.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528748
[T]he administration has tried to sneak in yet another bailout for housing.
Yet again, Team Obama is rewarding reckless behavior, punishing the 90% of responsible homeowners who are making good on their mortgages, and setting up a greater moral hazard that will surely lead to an expansion of bailout nation.
I'm talking about an add-on to HAMP, the $75 billion Home Affordable Modification Program, which has been a dismal failure. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reports that nearly 60% of modified mortgages re-default within a year. And now comes a new brilliant idea that if you live in your main residence, have a mortgage balance of less than $729,750, owe monthly mortgage payments that are not affordable (meaning greater than 31% of income), and you demonstrate a financial hardship, the government will subsidize you by offering TARP money to banks and other lenders to reduce your outstanding mortgage balance.
* BY "...THE GOVERNMENT WILL SUBSIDIZE..." THEY MEAN THE TAXPAYERS - YOU AND I - WILL SUBSIDIZE... (*SMIRK*)
Team Obama would actually subsidize people making up to $186,000 a year who have a mortgage balance of over $700,000. This isn't even a middle-class entitlement. It's an upper-middle-class entitlement.
* FOLKS... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP! OH... BUT IT GETS WORSE - THINK OF IT THIS WAY:
For a measly $14,000 more in income, the White House will jack up your top personal tax rate and your capital-gains tax rate. But now, for just less than $200,000, you get a brand new spiffy forgiveness plan for your mortgage.
(*HEADACHE*)
Why should the 90% of folks who make good financial decisions on their homes have to pay for the 10% who did not? Or put it another way, just because a home loan is "underwater" - meaning its value is lower than today's current market price - why should a responsible person whine about it and walk away? Why not service this loan for the longer term and wait for prices to improve? That's called personal responsibility.
Bouncing from pillar to post, the White House has unsuccessfully tried mortgage modifications, foreclosure abatements, and tax credits. None of it has worked. But the price tag so far for these failed government interventions in the housing market is $75 billion and rising.
Applying TARP money to the housing problem - originally meant for banks - is an even greater outrage. TARP should be closed down, now that banks have repaid it, and turned back to taxpayers in the form of government debt reduction. But the Obama White House rejects market forces. It rejects free-market price adjustments. As a result, it is creating a crazy subversion of normal incentives.
The failed government subsidy for housing is a leading indicator. Imagine, putting more and more middle- and upper-end income earners on the government dole. As America's nanny state grows larger, its economy will grow weaker.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528764
Rep. Henry Waxman vowed to haul CEOs into hearings after they revealed just how much ObamaCare will cost their firms. It's an absurd war on bookkeeping, from a Congress desperate to avoid heat for this fiasco.
In the wake of President Obama's presidential signature on the gargantuan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last Thursday, big companies have crunched their numbers and come up with an ugly picture.
In legally mandated filings, AT&T reported that ObamaCare will cost it $1 billion. Deere & Co. reported $150 million in new costs. Caterpillar must cough up $100 million. 3M must pay another $90 million. AK Steel gets to fork over $31 million. Valero Energy will pay $30 million. There'll be more as other companies report anticipated costs to fulfill their requirements to inform shareholders. What it shows is a huge wave of costs rolling over the private sector to pay for this bill.
It's the real cost of ObamaCare, a bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had touted daily as "paid for" in her pitch for Congressional votes.
The coming costs are the result of a little-scrutinized ObamaCare provision ending a tax credit for prescription drugs. The credit had been there to encourage firms to carry those costs for retirees.
As a result of ObamaCare's changes, companies now can either pay for those costs - and lay off workers, hold off expansion or move abroad - or scrap their prescription drug programs altogether, dumping their retirees onto the federal government.
Either way, the costs are "paid for" - but they've also just skyrocketed, thanks to ObamaCare.
Instead of admitting the economic reality voters and companies have been warning Congress about, and maybe offering to read the bill next time, Waxman seeks to blame the very businesses the Democrats have just victimized.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=528762
Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget, predicted as director of the Congressional Budget Office in August 2008 that no one need worry about Social Security. We were told: "CBO projects that outlays will first exceed revenues in 2019 and that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2049." SSA's report last year put the first deficit year around 2017.
[As you've previously read here on Barker's Newsbites] Social Security's chief actuary reports that the social safety net will run a deficit for 2010, nine years earlier than predicted.
Oops.
(*SMIRK*)
Failure of the stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%, as the administration promised, has taken its toll on the entitlement. According to Goss, the administration expected a quicker, stronger recovery from the financial crisis. Officials foresaw an average unemployment rate of 8.2% in 2009 and 8.8% this year, though unemployment is hovering near 10%.
* OOPS!
The 2010 shortfall is expected to be $29 billion, but it's still early. It could get bigger as the economy collapses under the weight of increased debt and deficits spurred on by the new taxes and economic disincentives of newly passed ObamaCare. Then, looming ahead, is the angel of economic death known as cap-and-trade.
(*FEELING SICK TO MY STOMACH*)
Private, insurance company-run annuity plans are legally required to pay you what was promised, when it was promised, and to maintain assets sufficient to redeem those promises. Social Security is not, and any insurance company CEO that ran a Ponzi scheme like Social Security would soon be incarcerated for fraud.
There is no trust fund, and there is no trust in a government that may soon have to redeem those IOUs it's been putting in a "lock box" while treating Social Security revenues as a slush fund for other wasteful government spending. There are no accounts with our names on them and our money, real money, in them.
We're using one credit card to pay the other, running up deficits and making new fraudulent promises we can't keep. We are borrowing so much from foreign countries like China that it may soon impact our foreign policy, if it hasn't already.
Instead of celebrating the passage of the mother of all entitlement programs, Speaker Pelosi et al. should start dealing with the imminent collapse of those we already have.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9EOIBQO0&show_article=1
Under the health care overhaul, young adults who buy their own insurance will carry a heavier burden of the medical costs of older Americans - a shift expected to raise insurance premiums for young people when the plan takes full effect.
Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That's when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17% on average, or roughly [$504 per year], according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.
* FOLKS... WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS BEFORE. ANOTHER TERM FOR "TAX CREDIT" IS "LESS GOVERNMENT REVENUE." NOW SINCE WE'RE ALREADY A DEFICIT/DEBT ADDICTED COUNTRY, WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE THESE "TAX CREDITS" WILL TRANSLATE TO? THAT'S RIGHT... HIGHER DEFICITS... MORE DEBT... HIGHER INTEREST PAYMENTS... (*SIGH*)
The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.
* WELCOME TO THE AGE OF OBAMA, YOUNG'UNS! (*SMIRK*)
Post a Comment