Friday, January 4, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, January 4, 2013


Today's opening newsbite concerns an article appearing in today's New York Times.

 (Check it out; along with all the newsbites throughout the day!)

 As always... newsbites are found WITHIN the COMMENTS SECTION of each "Barker's Newsbites" Post.

 TGIF...!!!

Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/04/us/politics/obama-signs-defense-bill-with-conditions.html?partner=MYWAY&ei=5065&_r=1&

President Obama set aside his veto threat and late Wednesday signed a defense bill that imposes restrictions on transferring detainees out of military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But he attached a signing statement claiming that he has the constitutional power to override the limits in the law. The move awakened a dormant issue from Mr. Obama’s first term: his broken promise to close the Guantánamo prison.

* UH... er... IT ALSO "AWAKENED" A... er... ANOTHER "DORMANT ISSUE" FROM MR. OBAMA'S FIRST TERM: HIS OTHER BROKEN PROMISE CONCERNING SIGNING STATEMENTS - WHICH AS A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY HE VIEWED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THEREFORE PROMISED HE WOULDN'T ENGAGE IN WRITING THEM!

* PERHAPS THE AUGUST WRITERS/EDITORS AT THE NYT WILL "GET TO THAT" AS WE READ ON. WE'LL SEE!

Lawmakers intervened by imposing statutory restrictions on transfers of prisoners to other countries or into the United States, either for continued detention or for prosecution.

Now, as Mr. Obama prepares to begin his second term, Congress has tried to further restrict his ability to wind down the detention of terrorists worldwide, adding new limits in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, which lawmakers approved in late December.

* DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS AS WELL AS REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS...? HMM...??? (I SEEM TO REMEMBER SOMETHING ABOUT... er... THE DEMOCRATS HAVING CONTROLLED CONGRESS SINCE JANUARY 2007.)

(*SMIRK*)

The bill extended and strengthened limits on transfers out of Guantánamo to troubled nations like Yemen, the home country of the bulk of the remaining low-level detainees who have been cleared for repatriation. It also, for the first time, limited the Pentagon’s ability to transfer the roughly 50 non-Afghan citizens being held at the Parwan prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan at a time when the future of American detention operations there is murky.

Despite his objections, Mr. Obama signed the bill, saying its other provisions on military programs were too important to jeopardize. Early Thursday, shortly after midnight, the White House released the signing statement in which the president challenged several of its provisions.

* UMM... er... SIGNING STATEMENTS HAVE NO FORCE IN LAW TO "CHALLENGE" PROVISION OF LAW. (REMEMBER... BACK IN THE 90's THE GINGRICH REPUBLICANS TRIED TO GIVE THE PRESIDENT - CLINTON AT THE TIME - LINE-ITEM VETO POWER AND THE SUPREME COURT RULED THE LEGISLATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL...?)

For example, in addressing the new limits on the transfers from Parwan, Mr. Obama wrote that the provision “could interfere with my ability as commander in chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities.”

* CHALLENGE THE LAW IN COURT, THEN!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 4, 2013 at 9:15 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Mr. Obama added that if he decided that the statute was operating “in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my administration will implement it to avoid the constitutional conflict” — legalistic language that means interpreting the statute as containing an unwritten exception a president may invoke at his discretion.

* IN OTHER WORDS... OBAMA BELIEVES HE'S ABOVE THE LAW.

Saying that he continued to believe that closing the Guantánamo prison was in the country’s fiscal and national security interests, Mr. Obama made a similar challenge to three sections that limit his ability to transfer detainees from Guantánamo, either into the United States for prosecution before a civilian court or for continued detention at another prison, or to the custody of another nation. It was not clear, however, whether Mr. Obama intended to follow through, or whether he was just saber-rattling as a matter of principle.

* THAT "PRINCIPLE" BEING...??? (THAT HE BELIEVES HE'S ABOVE THE LAW...???) (YEAH... SOUNDS LIKE IT!)

He made a similar challenge a year ago to the Guantánamo transfer restrictions in the 2012 version of the National Defense Authorization Act, but against the backdrop of the presidential election campaign he did not invoke the authority he claimed.

* SO MUCH FOR... er... "PRINCIPLE."

Several officials said that it was not certain, even from inside the government, what Mr. Obama’s intentions were. While the signing statement fell short of a veto...

* YES, WRITERS AND EDITORS OF THE NYT... A FAILURE TO VETO IS... er... A FAILURE TO VETO. (*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch, which advocates closing Guantánamo, criticized Mr. Obama for not vetoing the legislation despite his threat to do so. “The administration blames Congress for making it harder to close Guantánamo, yet for a second year President Obama has signed damaging Congressional restrictions into law,” she said. “The burden is on Obama to show he is serious about closing the prison.”

The American Bar Association has called upon presidents to stop using signing statements, calling the practice “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers.” A year ago, the group sent a letter to Mr. Obama restating its objection to the practice and urging him to instead veto bills if he thinks sections are unconstitutional.

As a presidential candidate, Mr. Obama sharply criticized Mr. Bush’s use of the device as an overreach. Once in office, however, he said that he would use it only to invoke mainstream and widely accepted theories of the constitutional power of the president.

* AH...! THERE IT IS...! PARAGRAPH NUMBER 17! (*CLAP...CLAP...CLAP*)

* NOTICE, FOLKS, HOW THE TIMES ATTEMPTS A BIT OF MUDDYING THE WATERS WITH THEIR "ONCE IN OFFICE, HOWEVER" BIT.

(*SNORT*)

* YEAH... "ONCE IN OFFICE." THAT'S KINDA THE POINT... RIGHT? CANDIDATE OBAMA HAD ONE POSITION; PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS ANOTHER.

In his latest signing statement, Mr. Obama also objected to five provisions in which Congress required consultations and set out criteria over matters involving diplomatic negotiations about such matters as a security agreement with Afghanistan, saying that he would interpret the provisions so as not to inhibit “my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.”

* HAS THIS MAN EVER READ THE CONSTITUTION...??? (IT DOESN'T APPEAR SO!) I'D SUGGEST STARTING WITH ARTICLE 2, SECTION TWO, SENTENCE ONE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

January 4, 2013 at 9:16 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/04/3167317/lincolnton-furniture-company-praised.html

Lincolnton Furniture Company closed abruptly Thursday just one year after it was hailed by President Barack Obama as an example of the recovering U.S. economy.

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

Furniture-making operations stopped indefinitely and only a few people will remain employed moving forward, company financial officer Ben Causey said.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

“I don’t know where it’s going to go exactly; we’re still evaluating our situation,” Causey said. “We just didn’t have any choice at this point.”

The company was not receiving the orders it needed to sustain its operations, Causey said.

“We needed more orders is really what it boiled down to,” he said. “We thought they would materialize.”

* FOLKS... THIS IS WHY YOU BUY AMERICAN!

Owner Bruce Cochrane, a fifth generation furniture-manufacturer, formed the company in 2011 with a $5 million investment and the hope he could make a profit off people who wanted to buy furniture made in America.

* THAT'S WHERE MY FURNITURE IS MADE! (I'M TALKING THE BIG STUFF... BEDS, BUREAUS, COUCHES, CHAIRS, TABLES...)

It was a move that caught the attention of North Carolina officials and those in the White House. Last year, Cochrane sat with the first lady during Obama’s 2012 State of the Union Address. He also joined the president and other business leaders in a discussion about how to create more jobs at home.

(*STILL JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Last week, the Gaston Gazette recognized Bruce Cochrane as one of its “persons of the year” in 2012 for starting the furniture-manufacturing in his hometown.

* GREAT RESEARCH ON THAT STORY, HUH!

(*DISGUSTED SNORT*)

January 4, 2013 at 9:21 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323374504578219733538204830.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

House Speaker John Boehner is getting all sorts of grief these days, but there's one decision for which taxpayers should thank him: putting the brakes on a $60 billion relief bill for the victims of Hurricane Sandy that has become cover for Congress to revive earmarks and the pork machine.

* YEP... (BUT LET'S SEE HOW LONG BOEHNER HOLDS FIRM...)

Instead of being pressured to vote on the whole unsavory bill, Members will now be asked as early as Friday to vote on $9 billion in additional federal flood insurance funds.

* WHICH THEY'LL OVERWHELMINGLY (PERHAPS EVEN UNANIMOUSLY) DO. NEVERMIND THE QUESTION OF "WHY AM I SUBSIDIZING BELOW MARKET RATE - MEANING REALITY RATE - INSURANCE FOR PEOPLE WHO CHOOSE TO LOCATE THEIR HOMES AND BUSINESSES IN AREAS PRONE TO FLOODING?"

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

On January 15 or so they'll get to decide if the rest of the package is worth the price.

* IT'S NOT.

This legislative maneuvering took courage on the Speaker's part.

* PATHETICALLY... TRUE.

There was the predictable outrage from New York and New Jersey Democrats. But the sniping from inside the GOP has been unhinged.

New York Representative Peter King's first reaction was to call the delay "a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans" and to urge donors to stop contributing to his own party.

* NO GREAT LOSS IF KING WERE TO KNEEL OVER DEAD...

But the prize for unmoored political bluster goes to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who declared that "there's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims—the House majority and their Speaker, John Boehner."

* FOLKS... I'VE BEEN A CONSISTENT CRITIQUE OF CHRISTIE SINCE HE HIT THE NATIONAL STAGE.

(*SHRUG*)

* CHRISTIE CAN TALK A GOOD GAME... CHRISTIE CAN ALSO PLAY A GOOD GAME... BUT JUST AS EASILY HE CAN BETRAY EVERYTHING YOU THOUGHT HE STOOD FOR.

(*ANOTHER SHRUG*)

Really? We've appreciated Mr. Christie's outspoken style, and he has to advocate for his battered state. But he's also supposed to care about the public fisc. His advocacy would have been more accurate, and more effective for New Jersey in the long run, if he had also pointed out that Democrats from the rest of the country have jeopardized the aid by cynically using the bill for their own parochial interests. Mr. Christie is running for re-election in a Democratic state, but that doesn't mean he has to compete to be the next Charlie Crist.

(*SMIRK*)

Look at some of what was in the $60 billion bill: $150 million for Alaskan fisheries; $2 million for roof repair at the Smithsonian in Washington; and about $17 billion for liberal activists under the guise of "community development" funds and so-called social service grants.

Beyond the recriminations is the larger problem that every disaster has become a Washington political opportunity. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is fully funded but does an incompetent job. Federal flood insurance encourages overbuilding in storm zones, so taxpayers pay first to subsidize the insurance and then to save the homeowners who overbuilt.

* AS... I... WAS... SAYING... UP... ABOVE...!!!

And politicians use the public sympathy after any disaster as an excuse to throw even more money not merely at victims but for pent-up priorities they should be funding out of regular state and local tax dollars.

* FOLKS... VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY VIABLE ANSWER I CAN IMAGINE.

(*SHRUG*)

January 4, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)