Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, June 5, 2012


Well, folks, let's take a shot at resuming newsbites!

Today's official newsbites theme song...

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1980:war-drums-for-syria&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE HON. RON PAUL (R-TX)

War drums are beating again in Washington.

This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce that the U.S. may attack Syria even without UN approval.

Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.

* TO REITERATE...

Of course, the idea that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the previous administration.

(*SIGH*)

We are on a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.

How many times recently have lies and exaggerations been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a U.S. attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by then the U.S. and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.

* YEP. NOTICE, FOLKS... YOU DON'T HEAR MUCH ABOUT THE "SUCCESS STORY" OF OBAMA'S LIBYA POLICY, DO YOU? (NO... NOT EVEN FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ITSELF!)

Likewise, we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the economy set back decades.

* PERHAPS HISTORY WILL PROVE BUSH RIGHT ABOUT IRAQ. SO FAR THOUGH... (*SHRUG*)

Earlier still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the U.S. intervention – and American troops are still there.

* NOT A LOT OF TOURISM GOING ON IN THE BALKANS, MY FRIENDS... (*SHRUG*)

The story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions.

First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire and knives.

No one has explained why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details.

No one wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.

(*SHRUG*)

We have seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should be considered."

And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we go to war, not the generals.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN SADNESS*)

June 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/01/ann-romney-asks-the-right-question/

* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

Is it still possible to turn this country around?

If one focuses on the deficit-debt crisis, and what a president can do, the temptation is to succumb to despair.

Consider. The U.S. government spends a peacetime record 24% to 25% of GNP. Most of that is expended on five accounts: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other Great Society programs, interest on the national debt, war and defense.

Now assume the best of all worlds for the GOP. Mitt wins, and the party captures the Senate and holds the House. Would that assure a rollback of the federal budget? And, if so, how?

As Romney is committed to expanding the armed forces by 100,000 personnel, to growing the Navy by 15 ships a year, from today’s nine, to raising defense spending to 4% of GDP from the present 3.8%, defense spending would not be going down but up.

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

What about interest expense? Given the Federal Reserve’s present policy of holding interest rates near zero, the only way interest on the debt can go is up.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Great Society would have to sustain almost all of the cuts if the budget is to move toward balance. But if the Republicans cut current benefits, they would antagonize 50 million seniors already on Social Security and Medicare. If they cut future benefits, they will anger the baby boomers who are reaching eligibility for these retirement programs at a rate of 300,000 a month, 10,000 a day, and will continue to retire at that pace until 2030.

(*SIGHING WHILE SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Would a President Romney and Republican Congress roll back benefits for scores of millions of seniors, raise the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare, reduce funds for Medicaid, Head Start, Pell grants, student loans, primary and secondary education, and shed federal employees by the tens of thousands?

Republicans argue that the corporate tax rate of 35%, highest among advanced nations, and the personal rate of 35% should be cut.

* FINE. AGREED. OUR WHOLE TAX SYSTEM SHOULD BE REFORMED ALONG LINES I'VE BLOGGED ABOUT FOR YEARS. BUT, FOLKS... IT AIN'T GONNA BE! "FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM" IS A ONE-LINE SHOUT-OUT TO THE TEA PARTY - IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL GOP POLICY PRESCRIPTION.

The other piece of tax reform is the elimination of deductions and credits so a lower rate on a broader tax base will yield the same or additional revenue. Looks good on paper. But today 50% of all U.S. wage-earners pay zero income tax. Will that half of a nation reward a party that ensures that many of them, too, contribute?

(*SICK TO MY STOMACH*)

Free-riders on the federal tax code are voters, too.

(*SAD NOD*)

Again, the crucial question: Does the Romney Republican Party have the courage of its convictions — to carry out a fiscal program consistent with its conservative philosophy?

For when, ever, has the modern GOP done that?

Richard Nixon funded the Great Society.

Gerald Ford bailed out the Big Apple.

George H.W. Bush increased spending and raised taxes.

George W. Bush gave us No Child Left Behind, free prescription drugs for seniors, two wars, tax cuts and the largest increase in domestic spending since LBJ.

Even Ronald Reagan ruefully conceded that he failed to do what he had set out to do in cutting federal spending.

(*SIGH*)

Now, we are assured that this generation of Republicans has come home to the church and confessed its sins, and is prepared to face martyrdom in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Well... perhaps.

* HERE'S THE STARK CHOICE THOUGH... (READ ON...)

Yet... if it is difficult to see how the GOP advances toward a balanced budget... it is impossible to see how President Obama does.

(*NOD*)

Would the party of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, triumphant, scale back programs that are the pride of their party — Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?

Would Pelosi, Reid and Obama cut the number of bureaucrats and beneficiaries of federal programs, thereby demobilizing the unionized armies on which they depend at election time?

When FDR came to power in 1933, after his running mate, “Cactus Jack” Garner, accused Herbert Hoover of taking us “down the road to socialism,” the Federal government was spending 4% of GDP.

Today, it spends 24%.

Under both parties, under every president since FDR, domestic spending has moved in one direction.

Is the trend inexorable? Is there any turning back? Is it too late?

June 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/230985-senate-dems-blast-leaks-about-iranian-cyberattacks

[Even the] Democratic chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday expressed worry that leaks to the press about a cyber-attack authorized by the Obama administration on Iran could lead to a counter-attack on the United States.

* Hmm... I WONDER IF SHE'S ALSO "CONCERNED" ABOUT THE ATTACKS THEMSELVES AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY THE LEAKS - LEAKS NO DOUBT MEANT TO SHOW OBAMA AS A "STRONG" LEADER ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTION.

* HAS CONGRESS SECRETLY AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO ENGAGE IRAN IN WAR - THAT AUTHORIZATION SPECIFICALLY GIVEN CONGRESS BY THE FRAMERS AND BY THE CONSTITUTION?

* OH... FORGIVE ME... I FORGOT. DEMOCRATS (AND ALL TOO MANY REPUBLICANS) CARE LITTLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION.

(*SMIRK*)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) joined other senior Senate Democrats in expressing serious concerns about the leak, which detailed a cyber-attack intended to hamper Iran's nuclear program. Some Republicans argue the information was leaked to help President Obama's reelection campaign.

(*SMIRK*) YEAH... "SOME" REPUBLICANS. YA GOTTA LOVE THE HILL!

Feinstein said the fact that the United States is launching cyber-attacks against other countries could “to some extent” provide justification for cyber-attacks against the United States.

* AGAIN... SIMPLE QUESTION: BY WHAT AUTHORITY DOES OBAMA ORDER CYBER-ATTACKS AGAINST SOVEREIGN NATIONS WE'RE NOT AT WAR WITH?

“This is like an avalanche. It is very detrimental and candidly, I found it very concerning,” Feinstein told reporters Tuesday. “There’s no question that this kind of thing hurts our country.”

* IF CONGRESS DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THESE CYBER-ATTACKS - WHICH FEINSTEIN BELIVES HURT OUR COUNTRY - SHOULDN'T FEINSTEIN AND HER COLLEAGUES BE CALLING FOR THE PRESIDENT'S IMPEACHMENT...???

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 5, 2012 at 7:23 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Several Democrats noted the Iranian leak is just the latest in a series of media reports about classified U.S. anti-terrorism activity. “A number of those leaks, and others in the last months about drone activities and other activities are frankly all against national security interests,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “I think they’re dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America.”

* BUT... BUT... BUT... THESE LEAKS ARE COMING OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE...!!!

* OH... GET THIS, FOLKS... (READ ON...)

Feinstein said she did not think the White House leaked the story for political purposes. “That’s hard for me to believe,” she said.

* SHE'S LYING. (*SHRUG*)

Kerry said that he “categorically” rejected the accusations that the leaks were coming from the White House for political purposes.

* HE'S LYING. (*SHRUG*)

* FOLKS... THESE SCUM ARE TALKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS AND PUTTING PARTISAN LOYALTY ABOVE ADHERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND EVEN ABOVE LOVE OF COUNTRY IF FEINSTEIN'S CROC0DILE TEARS ARE TO BE GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT!

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) said that he had serious concerns about the cyberattack story going public but said he didn’t know where the leaks came from. “I just can’t believe that there’s a decision in any kind of a formal way to leak this kind of a thing,” Levin said. “I just cannot believe that.”

* OH, PLEASE! THIS HAS HAPPENED AGAIN AND AGAIN! THIS IS NO "ACCIDENT."

A story The New York Times last week revealed U.S. involvement with Stuxnet, a computer virus that was used against Iranian nuclear facilities and caused centrifuges to explode. The story detailed joint U.S. and Israeli efforts to develop the virus as well as conversations Obama had with his advisers on whether to continue the program when the virus became public in 2010. The story cited unnamed current and former U.S., Israeli and European officials.

* AND IF ANY OF THESE UNNAMED CURRENT AND FORMER U.S. OFFICIALS LEAKED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE (OR AN OBAMA CABINET SECRETARY - PERHAPS SECSTATE CLINTON; PERHAPS SECDEF PANATTA) THEN THEY'VE BROKEN FEDERAL LAW AND SHOULD GO TO JAIL. IF ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEAKS WERE "AUTHORIZED" - THOSE WHO "AUTHORIZED" THEM SHOULD FACE THE CONSEQUENCES.

June 5, 2012 at 7:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/4/forest-service-hit-for-border-patrol-call/

A federal department ruled last week that the Forest Service violated a Spanish-speaking woman’s civil rights by calling the Border Patrol to help translate during a routine stop, saying it was “humiliating” to Hispanics and an illicit backdoor way to capture more illegal immigrants.

* INSANITY!

The ruling by the Agriculture Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights could change policies nationwide as law enforcement agencies grapple with how far they can go in trying to help the Border Patrol while not running afoul of racial profiling standards.

* THE RULING BY THE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT'S ASSISTANT SECRETARY SHOULD BE OVERRULED AND THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FIRED!

Assistant Secretary Joe Leonard Jr. said calling the Border Patrol automatically “escalates” encounters between Hispanics and law enforcement.

* FOLKS... SOME COMMON SENSE... (*SIGH*)... IMAGINE IF YOU WERE PULLED OVER WHILE DRIVING IN ANOTHER COUNTRY AND THE OFFICER DIDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH AND YOU DIDN'T SPEAK HIS OR HER LANGUAGE. HOW DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD WORK? JEEZUS... THIS IS INSANITY!

Leonard Jr. ruled that the Forest Service cannot routinely summon the Border Patrol for assistance and said the agency now must document suspected racial profiling nationwide.

* EVERY STOP IS ALREADY DOCUMENTED!

“Given the increased risk of being questioned about immigration status during an interaction with [Border Patrol], the policy of using BP for interpretation assistance is problematic in all situations because it places a burden on [limited English proficient] individuals that non-LEP individuals do not experience,” Mr. Leonard ruled.

* SO WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE, MR. LEONARD JR? PERHAPS SIMPLY ARREST EACH NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING "STOPEE?"

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 5, 2012 at 7:48 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The case stems from a 2011 incident in Olympic National Forest in Washington in which a Forest Service officer encountered a Hispanic couple who he said appeared to be illegally harvesting plants on the federal lands. The couple didn’t speak English and he didn’t speak fluent Spanish and, anticipating that situation, he called the Border Patrol for backup and translating.

* SOUNDS REASONABLE!

But when a Border Patrol agent arrived, the couple fled.

* AND NOW THE FOREST SERVICE OFFICER'S ACTION SEEMS EVEN MORE REASONABLE!

The woman was apprehended, but the man jumped into a river to try to escape and drowned.

* BOO-FUCKING-HOO!

The Border Patrol took the woman into custody but released her several days later, reportedly on humanitarian grounds.

* SCREW THAT! HAD SHE BEEN ENGAGED IN ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES? WAS SHE HERE IN MY COUNTRY ILLEGALLY? IF SO...

(*HEADACHE*)

Last week’s ruling relies in part on an executive order issued during the Clinton administration that says language is interchangeable with national origin, which is protected by federal law.

* HUH...?!?! I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO MEAN!

Groups that push for English-language policies in the U.S. called the new ruling illegal and said the government appeared to be granting special language rights to illegal immigrants.

“The ACLU and illegal alien rights groups are well aware that American courts have never upheld their argument that language and national origin are equal, so they battle out these disputes in private between the agencies in order to come to a settlement where both the courts and the taxpayers are absent from the table,” said Suzanne Bibby, director of government relations for ProEnglish. “This is their new strategy because they know they will lose in the courts.”

A spokeswoman for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, said the agency is reviewing the ruling but is committed to civil rights.

The union that represents Forest Service employees didn’t return a call seeking comment.

In the proceedings, the Forest Service fought on behalf of its officer. It pointed to an operational memo with the Border Patrol that said they are allowed to back up each other. Since Forest Service employees generally are not trained in Spanish, Border Patrol agents are particularly helpful in backing up encounters with Hispanics, the agency said.

Underpinning the ruling were some key legal arguments: First, that the complainant was entitled to visit the national forest; second, that a law enforcement stop affects the availability of the service provided by the national forest; and third, that the Forest Service must take steps to protect those with limited English, including making them not feel unduly threatened.

“A policy that causes individuals to actually flee from the service being provided does not provide meaningful access,” Mr. Leonard wrote.

* THIS IS INSANITY, FOLKS...!!!

June 5, 2012 at 7:49 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)