Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, October 31, 2012


Welcome to the post-Apocalypse version of Usually Right!

(Yeah... pretty much the same as the pre-Apocalypse version...)

We never lost power - though I was royally pissed off on Monday night when the friggin' "special hurricane reporting" preempted all my damn network TV shows!

WORSE... on Monday and Tuesday... WABC radio preempted Rush Limbaugh in order to broadcast round-the-clock blather about the storm.

Schools were closed here on Monday... for no friggin' reason.

Hey... I've got an idea! The next time they cancel classes in ADVANCE of a storm... bring the teachers and administrators in anyway and have 'em fill sandbags!

Hey... along the same lines... for post-storm school closings why not call in the teachers and administrators and assign 'em as helpers to electric company crews and general post-storm clean-up crews of municipal workers!

(I'm assuming teachers and school administrators are "trainable" for such tasks - and God knows the power-restoration and clean-up crews could make use of the additional "grunt" labor!)

By the way... kudos to the U.S. Postal Service! Mail was delivered both Monday AND Tuesday up here!

Well, folks... that's it. Our personal post-hurricane clean-up consisted of doing the dishes after hosting our friends Joey and Claire last night. And now... today... I'm back to my usual routine and tonight we'll be heading to Rob's and Maria's for their annual Halloween get-together.

Meanwhile... enjoy today's newsbites!

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/31/gingrich-rumor-says-networks-have-white-house-emails-telling-counterterrorism-group-to-stand-down-on-benghazi-rescue/


On Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that major news networks might have secret emails proving that the White House canceled plans to assist the besieged U.S. Embassy in Benghazi.

* YEP! I JUST HAPPENED TO BE WATCHING THIS LAST NIGHT AND WITNESSED GINGRICH MAKING THE CLAIM!

“There is a rumor - I want to be clear, it’s a rumor - that at least two networks have emails from the National Security Adviser’s office telling a counter-terrorism group to stand down,” Gingrich said.

“But they were a group in real-time trying to mobilize marines and C-130s and the fighter aircraft, and they were told explicitly by the White House stand down and do nothing. This is not a terrorist action. If that is true, and I’ve been told this by a fairly reliable U.S. senator, if that is true and comes out, I think it raises enormous questions about the president’s role, and Tom Donilon, the National Security Adviser’s role, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has taken it on his own shoulders, that he said don’t go. And that is, I think, very dubious, given that the president said he had instructions they are supposed to do everything they could to secure American personnel.”

* I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHO THIS SENATOR IS.

Gingrich said that the bombshell emails could be revealed within the next two days.

* WE SHALL SEE!

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/30/Reporters-Overheard-trashing-Romney

* FILE UNDER: "IT IS WHAT IT IS."

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/10/30/Facebook-Censors-Navy-SEALS-To-Protect-Obama-on-Benghazi-Gate

* FILE UNDER: "IF IT SOUNDS LIKE PARTISAN POLITICAL CENSORSHIP PRACTICED BY A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PARTISAN MEDIA ENTITY..."

(*SHRUG*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_mysterious_media_benghazi_bugout_BcSb3qr5XhCps5Lr5fZeyK?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Oped%20Columnists

Where is the Benghazi media feeding frenzy?

[J]ournalists tend to act on their instincts. And, collectively, the mainstream media’s instincts run liberal.

In 2000, a Democratic operative orchestrated an “October surprise” attack on George W. Bush, revealing that 24 years earlier, he’d been arrested for drunken driving. The media went into a feeding frenzy.

“Is all the 24-hour coverage of Bush’s 24-year-old DUI arrest the product of a liberal media almost drunk on the idea of sinking him, or is it a legitimate, indeed unavoidable news story?” asked Howard Kurtz on his CNN show “Reliable Sources.” The consensus among the guests: It wasn’t a legitimate news story. But the media kept going with it.

One could go on and on.

In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush’s service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn’t thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries.

Oh, there have been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama’s pastor, John Kerry’s embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually tasks itself with debunking and dispelling such “hysteria.”

Last week, Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Libya say they pleaded for support during the attack on the Benghazi consulate that led to the deaths of four Americans. They were allegedly told twice to “stand down.” Worse, there are suggestions that significant military resources were available to counterattack, but requests for help were denied.

If true, the White House’s concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims.

Yet, last Friday, the president boasted, “The minute I found out what was happening” in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel.

That’s either untrue, or he’s being disobeyed on grave matters.

* AND, YET... MAINLY MSM SILENCE. DOES ANYONE... ANYONE AT ALL... HONESTLY BELIEVE THAT IF WE HAD A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT AND THE SAME EXACT CIRCUMSTANCES THE MSM REPORTING WOULD BE AS... er... LOW-KEY?

Yet Fox News is alone in treating the story like it’s a big deal.

* PRETTY MUCH... (*SHRUG*)

During the less significant Valerie Plame scandal, reporters camped out on the front lawns of Karl Rove and other Bush White House staff. Did Obama confiscate those journalists’ sleeping bags?

(*RUEFUL SMILE*)

Of the five news shows last Sunday, only “Fox News Sunday” treated this as a major story.

On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it.

“Meet the Press” host David Gregory shushed a guest who tried to bring up the subject, saying, “Let’s get to Libya a little bit later.”

(He never did, but he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign.)

William R. Barker said...

* THREE-PARTER... (Part 1 of 3)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-benghazi-questions-the-administration-must-answer/2012/10/30/02d02538-22e2-11e2-8448-81b1ce7d6978_story.html

* FOLKS... THIS IS DAVID FRIGGIN' IGNATIUS OF THE WASHINGTON FRIGGIN' POST...

(*SHRUG*)

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi has become a political football in the presidential campaign, with all the grandstanding and
misinformation that entails. But Fox News has raised some questions about the attack that deserve a clearer answer from the Obama
administration.

(*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Fox’s Jennifer Griffin reported Friday...

* F*R*I*D*A*Y...

...that CIA officers in Benghazi had been told to “stand down” when they wanted to deploy from their base at the annex to repel the attack on the consulate, about a mile away. Fox also reported that the CIA officers requested military support when the annex came under fire later that night but that their request had been denied.

* AND TODAY IS... er... W*E*D*N*E*S*D*A*Y...

The Fox “stand down” story prompted a strong rebuttal from the CIA: “We can say with confidence that the agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need;
claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.”

* THE KEY WORDS BEING "...IN THE CIA..."

* NOTE: NOT "NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT." NOTE: NOT "NO ONE AT THE PENTAGON." NOTE: NOT "NO ONE IN THE WHITE HOUSE."

So what did happen in Benghazi on the night of Sept. 11, when Woods, Ambassador Christopher Stevens and two others Americans were killed?

* NICE OF YOU TO ASK, DAVE! (ON... er... WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 31st.)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

The best way to establish the facts would be a detailed, unclassified timeline of events...

* WHY UNCLASSIFIED...? THIS IS A PAST EVENT! THERE'S NO SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE TO PROTECT! HELL... THEY DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO PROTECT THE CONSULATE AFTER THE FACT! RECALL... DAYS AND WEEKS AFTER THE SUCCESSFUL ATTACK ON THE CONSULATE REPORTERS FOUND DOCUMENTS INCLUDING AMBASSADOR STEVENS' DIARY! THE ONLY REASON TO "CLASSIFY" ANY OF THE TIMELINE WOULD BE TO PROVIDE POLITICAL COVER FOR THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TIME-LINE!

...officials say they are preparing one, and that it may be released later this week. That’s a must, even in the volatile final week of the campaign. In the meantime, here’s a summary of some of the basic issues that need to be clarified.

* NOTICE HOW IGNATIUS LETS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN "CLASSIFIED" AND "UNCLASSIFIED" JUST LAY THERE WITHOUT EVEN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS THE VERY "PLAYERS" SUSPECTED OF BEING THE LIARS AND INCOMPETENTS WHO ARE THE ONES WITH THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT'S "CLASSIFIED" vs. WHAT'S "UNCLASSIFIED!"

First, on the question of whether Woods and others were made to wait when they asked permission to move out immediately to try to rescue those at the consulate. The answer seems to be yes, but not for very long.

* "BUT NOT FOR VERY LONG...?!?!" IS THIS GUY FRIGGIN' KIDDING...?!?! SECONDS COUNTED... CERTAINLY MINUTES COUNTED... AND ACCORDING TO THE PEOPLE ON THE GROUND THEY WERE TWICE DENIED PERMISSION TO TRY TO SAVE THE AMBASSADOR AND THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS AND AFTER BEING DENIED PERMISSION THE SECOND TIME THEY WENT ANYWAY!

There was a brief, initial delay — two people said it was about 20 minutes — before Woods was allowed to leave.

* "ALLOWED" TO LEAVE...? THIS ISN'T WHAT THE INITIAL REPORTING SHOWED!

* IN ANY CASE, WHO - EXACTLY - "ALLOWED" WOODS TO LEAVE? HMM...???

One official said Woods and at least one other CIA colleague were “in the car revving the engine,” waiting for permission to go. Woods died about six hours later, after he returned to the annex.

* WHO IS THIS "ONE OFFICIAL...?" HMM...??? (AND SINCE WOODS IS DEAD... WELL... EVEN IF THEY GIVE US A NAME, WOODS ISN'T AROUND TO ACCEPT OR DENY THE TRUTH OF WHATEVER THE LATEST STORY IS!)

The main reason for the delay, several sources said, was that CIA officials were making urgent contact with a Libyan militia, known as the February 17 Brigade, which was the closest thing to an organized security force in Benghazi. The United States depends on local security to protect U.S. diplomatic facilities everywhere, and officials wanted to coordinate any response to the consulate attack. After this delay, Woods and his colleague proceeded to the consulate.

* FOLKS... LET'S TAKE A STEP BACKWARDS. ARMED CIA AGENTS WERE A MILE AWAY. THEY HAD REQUESTED PERMISSION TO RUSH TO THE RESCUE. PERMISSION WAS DENIED. LET'S NOT MUDDY THE WATERS WITH THIS "FEBRURARY 17 BRIGADE" NONSENSE. AND IN ANY CASE, U.S. MILITARY FORCES WERE ONLY AN HOUR OR TWO AWAY - SO WHATEVER THE AMOUNT OF "DELAY" ACTUALLY WAS... IT MATTERED!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Here’s my question: Was it wise to depend on a Libyan militia that clearly wasn’t up to the job?

* NOPE!

Could it have made a difference for those under attack at the consulate if Woods had moved out as soon as he was, in one official’s words, “saddled and ready”?

* MAYBE! WE'LL NEVER KNOW!

Second, why didn’t the United States send armed drones or other air assistance to Benghazi immediately? This one is harder to answer.

* THERE IS NO ANSWER! OF COURSE ARMED DRONES SHOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE!

The CIA did dispatch a quick-reaction force that night from Tripoli, with about eight people, but it had trouble at first reaching the compound.

* WHEN WAS IT DISPATCHED! AND IN ANY CASE, THIS DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE DENIAL OF LOCAL CIA AGENTS' REQUESTS TO IMMEDIATELY RENDER ASSISTANCE!

One of its members, Glen Doherty, died along with Woods when a mortar hit the roof of the annex about 4 a.m.

* FOLKS... THE FIGHTING HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR HOURS AND HOURS BY THIS POINT! IGNATIUS IS DELIBERATELY LEAVING THIS OUT!

What more could have been done? A Joint Special Operations Command team was moved that night to Sigonella air base in Sicily, for quick deployment to Benghazi or any of the other U.S. facilities in danger that night across North Africa.

* MOVING THEM TO SIGONELLA...??? THAT... DIDN'T... HELP...!!!

Armed drones could also have been sent.

* YEP!

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta summarized last Thursday the administration’s decision to opt for caution: “You don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on.”

* YEAH...? I GUESS THE FIREMEN AND POLICE OFFICERS AND OTHER EMERGENCY WORKERS WHO RUSHED INTO THE BURNING WORLD TRADE CENTER BUILDINGS WERE FOOLS THEN! JEEZUS... HOW ELSE DO YOU KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE UNLESS YOU GET IN THERE! THIS IS RIDICULOUS! THEY WERE WATCHING THE FIREFIGHT AT THE CONSULATE LIVE FROM THE WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM! OUR PEOPLE NEEDED HELP AND HELP WAS DENIED UNTIL IT WAS TOO LATE!

Looking back, it may indeed have been wise not to bomb targets in Libya that night.

* OH, PLEASE! NO ONE WAS TALKING CARPET BOMBING BENGHAZI! THESE ARMED DRONES ARE USED ALL THE TIME FOR ATTACKING TERRORISTS AND "COLLATERAL DAMAGE" IS THE NORM, NOT THE EXCEPTION! AND THIS - UNLIKE AN ASSASSINATION ATTACK - WOULD HAVE BEEN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT OUR OWN PEOPLE WHO WERE UNDER FIRE!

Given the uproar in the Arab world, this might have been the equivalent of pouring gasoline on a burning fire.

* SO YOU DON'T PROTECT YOUR PEOPLE UNDER FIRE? YOU LET THEM BE KILLED? REALLY...??? FOLKS... THIS IS RIDICULOUS!

Woods’s...life might have been saved by a more aggressive response.

The Obama administration needs to level with the country about why it made its decisions.

* FOLKS... THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS BEEN LYING FROM DAY ONE! WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANY "LEVELING" THEY OFFER TO DO NOW - EVEN IF THEY DO OFFER TO "LEVEL" - WHICH APPARENTLY THEY'RE UNWILLING TO DO... EVEN TO IGNATIUS' SATISFACTION!

William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203335504578086702676417058.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

* FOLKS... THIS IS WRITTEN BY A SELF-PROFESSED OBAMACARE SUPPORTER WHO WORKED FOR THE GEITHNER TREASURY!

The most important provisions of ObamaCare are scheduled to take effect in 2014. I have been researching ObamaCare and assisting with its implementation, and have come to this realization: Without further reforms, the law will create unnecessary costs for working-class Americans.

Consider a low-income American supporting a family of four deciding whether to take a part-time job that pays $36,000 a year or a full-time job that pays $42,000 a year. According to my research, accepting the higher-paying job could result in the family losing over $10,000 a year in health-care subsidies.

Moreover, by switching low-income employees to part-time positions, rather than offering them health insurance, an employer will be able to save over $3,000 a year by avoiding ObamaCare's employer-mandate penalties.

Without further reforms, many employers and employees will jointly benefit if employers make low-income employees part-timers rather than offering them health insurance. The losers will be taxpayers, who will need to fund the subsidies that these employees will be eligible for.

[A] worker supporting a family of four deciding between a job paying $54,000 a year without health insurance and a job paying $72,000 a year with insurance would lose only about $7,000 in annual subsidies by accepting the higher-paying job.

* "ONLY" $7,000...?!?!

[A] single employee deciding between those two jobs wouldn't lose any subsidies by accepting the higher-paying job. Nevertheless, many employers will face incentives not to offer health insurance to lower-income employees so those employees can qualify for federal health-care subsidies under ObamaCare.

For employees whose only job option comes with health insurance, ObamaCare's new subsidies may also create penalties for marriage and incentives for divorce. Under rules proposed by the Treasury Department, if an employer offers health insurance for which the cost of self-only coverage is affordable to an individual employee, that employee's entire family will be disqualified from receiving the new federal subsidies.

* FOLKS... REMEMBER WHEN NANCY PELOSI FAMOUSLY SAID "WE'LL FIND OUT WHAT'S IN THE BILL AFTER WE'VE PASSED IT"...???

(*SNORT*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Consider a couple with children in which one of the parents earns most of the family's income. If the couple marries, the family would lose thousands of dollars of subsidies that could otherwise be used to pay for health insurance for the children and the lower-income spouse. If the couple is already married, divorce may be their only option for obtaining affordable insurance for their children and the lower-income parent.

* FOLKS... INSANITY.

We cannot predict with confidence how these perverse incentives will affect the behavior of individuals or employers. In Massachusetts, which in 2006 enacted reforms similar to ObamaCare, most employers have continued to offer subsidized health insurance, although there is some (mostly anecdotal) evidence of employees moving to part-time positions.

* WHAT THE AUTHOR DOESN'T NOTE IS THAT IN MASSACHUSETTS HEALTH CARE COSTS - AND GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES - HAVE CONTINUED TO SKYROCKET!

Yet ObamaCare's subsidies and penalties are sufficiently different that it is unclear how much we can learn from Massachusetts.

ObamaCare's subsidies, along with the new individual and employer mandates, are designed to fix the problems in the individual market.

(*LAUGHING*)

Assuming that key provisions of ObamaCare do take effect in 2014, insurance on the individual market should no longer cost dramatically more than in the employer-sponsored market. And Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to buy health insurance on the same terms as other Americans.

* WHICH OF COURSE MAKES THIS "INSURANCE"... er... NOT INSURANCE. (BASICALLY IT BECOMES SIMPLY ANOTHER GOVERNMENT MANDATED INCOME TRANSFER - ADMINISTERED BY THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.)

Addressing the perverse incentives will also mean tackling a defect in health-care policy left intact by ObamaCare: By far the largest federal subsidies currently available for health insurance are the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored coverage. ObamaCare didn't end these subsidies, and their cost will be much greater than ObamaCare's new subsidies.

Conservative and liberal economists have long criticized the tax exclusions for employer-sponsored coverage on the grounds that they drive up health spending and provide far more tax benefit for higher-income than for lower-income taxpayers. Sen. John McCain proposed replacing these subsidies with better-designed tax credits when he ran for president in 2008. Yet ObamaCare failed to reform these older subsidies for employer-sponsored insurance.

ObamaCare's perverse incentives result mainly from creating a mismatch between the subsidies for individual health insurance and those for employer-sponsored insurance. Beginning in 2014, lower-income Americans will be eligible for far greater subsidies if they aren't offered employer-sponsored coverage, qualifying them for the new subsidies available for individual insurance. In contrast, higher-income taxpayers will be eligible for far greater subsidies if they get employer-sponsored coverage.

(*SNORT*)

To resolve these perverse incentives, we should adopt a variation of Sen. McCain's proposals and replace the tax exclusions for employer coverage with tax credits. To the extent possible, we should provide the same subsidies for employer-based insurance as for individual insurance.

* WHILE LESSENING SUBSIDIES...!