Thursday, March 21, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, March 21, 2013


To "He Whose Name Dare Not Be Mentioned"... God bless "da Fetch!"

Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324532004578360880639748180.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Are you a woman or a Hispanic who planted a backyard garden between 1981 and 2000?

Did you ever dream of asking for a loan for help growing more?

If so, you might be a victim of discrimination and entitled to a $50,000 payout from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But hurry—the deadline for submitting your claim is March 25!

The USDA announced in September that it would award a total of at least $1.3 billion to women and Hispanics who were not offered subsidized farm loans that they applied for, or said later they would have liked to apply for...

* YEP! "THAT THEY LATER SAID THEY WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE APPLIED FOR!" YOU'RE READING THAT RIGHT! I'VE COVERED THIS BEFORE!

...from 1981 to 2000.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, saying that his agency was following the "path to justice," invited "women and Hispanic farmers and ranchers who allege past discrimination" to come forward "to receive compensation."

* NOTE, FOLKS... "ALLEGE" DISCRIMINATION AND RECEIVE "COMPENSATION."

* YEP... YOU GOT IT! NO PROOF REQURIED! NO INDIVIDUAL TRIALS... NO FINDINGS OF FACT... NO JURY DECISIONS...

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Since most farm loans previously went to white males, Uncle Sam is atoning by giving awards of $50,000 apiece to claimants from other ethnic groups or the non-male gender. But the Arent Fox law firm in Washington, D.C., and other advocates for female farmers took exception to the USDA's requirement that claimants submit solid evidence that they actually farmed or sought subsidized loans during the late 20th century.

The current standard for women and Hispanics is more rigorous than the one used during the rounds of settlements — the last one ended in 2010 — to award billions of dollars to blacks who claimed to be victims of USDA discrimination between 1981 and 1996. In those cases, black claimants' simple assertion that they had attempted to farm or had applied unsuccessfully for a farm loan was sometimes sufficient to collect a large payout. In December, the Government Accountability Office noted that most of the black applicants' claims had been "evaluated based solely on the information submitted by the claimants and, as a result, the adjudicator of these claims has no way of independently verifying that information."

* REPEAT AFTER ME: VIOLENCE IS THE ONLY ANSWER!

Advocates for female farmers are also unhappy because the USDA is not providing free lawyers to help claimants collect a payout (as it did for black claimants). A report last October for Arent Fox by sociologist Eugene Ericksen also complained that the claims form was "excessively burdensome" because it requested women to specify the "exact year(s)" they applied for subsidized loans and to "describe your farming operation or your effort to farm" and "your prior farm experience(s), training or education."

Women's groups have been pressuring the administration to lower its standards for years. Twenty organizations, including the American Association of University Women, MomsRising and the National Women's Law Center co-signed a letter to President Obama in 2011 complaining that the higher evidence standard proposed in the current settlement offer "perpetuates the United States government's pattern of treating women and Hispanic farmers in a discriminatory fashion." Political pressure may sway the Obama administration to downgrade the evidence requirement for women and Hispanic claimants to the "attempted to farm — trust me!" standard used earlier.

[M]any of the claims that the USDA is recognizing now have little in common with the average American's understanding of discrimination. Some female farmers claim victimhood because, after they defaulted on one government loan, the USDA denied them another loan to try again.

(*SNORT*)

What do taxpayers owe to groups of people who did not receive subsidized loans that nobody deserved? Is the USDA supposed to operate like the National Endowment for the Arts and give everybody a tractor so they can express themselves? If the Obama administration wants to advance justice, it would abolish farm-loan programs and stop letting politicians pick winners and losers in rural America.

There is no shortage of commercial loans nowadays for competent, credit-worthy farmers. USDA loan programs exist solely to let Congress steer capital to politically favored applicants.

March 21, 2013 at 10:30 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/343496/massachusetts-principal-cancels-honors-assembly-too-devastating-non-honors-students-na

An Ipswitch, Massachusetts middle-school principal has canceled his school’s annual honors assembly because it was "too upsetting for some students."

Boston’s Fox affiliate reports the explanation of Principal David Fabrizio, the man at the center of the silliness: “Honors Night, which can be a great sense of pride for the recipients’ families, can also be devastating to a child who has worked extremely hard in a difficult class but who, despite growth, has not been able to maintain a high grade point average.”

Fabrizio also justified his decision by claiming it was unfair to reward good grades — which can be influenced by the home environment and supportive parents — because not all of students have access to equal amounts of academic and emotional support.

* NO JOKE, FOLKS... SEE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296757/Massachusetts-principal-attack-inviting-students-exclusive-Honors-Night.html

* FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH (SO TO SPEAK): http://www.wickedlocal.com/ipswich/news/x846072225/Honoring-Ipswich-Middle-School-honor-students#axzz2O8bKZ6Xz

* SOUNDS BETTER... BUT ONLY AT FIRST GLANCE. AFTER ALL, AS ANYONE WHO HAS EVER ATTENDED A HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION CEREMONY KNOWS, THE HONOR STUDENTS ARE HONORED IN FRONT OF THEIR PEERS - BOTH FROM THE STAGE AND VIA LISTING IN THE GRADUATION PAMPHLET - AT GRADUATION ITSELF. THEREFORE... YEAH... WHAT THIS PRINCIPLE IS DOING IS TAKING SOMETHING AWAY FROM THE HONORS STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES.

March 21, 2013 at 5:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.infowars.com/big-sis-refuses-to-answer-congress-on-ammo-purchases/

* FOLKS... DON'T POOH-POOH INFOWARS... THEY INCLUDE THE UNCUT VIDEO AND IT VERIFIES WHAT THEY'RE REPORTING.

Speaking at CPAC with Infowars reporter Luke Rudkowski, Congressman Timothy Huelscamp revealed this week that the Department of Homeland Security has refused to answer questions from “multiple” members of Congress regarding its recent purchase of huge amounts of weapons and ammunition.

“They have no answer for that question. They refuse to answer to answer that,” Huelscamp said.

“I’ve got a list of various questions of agencies about multiple things. Far from being the most transparent administration in the world, they are the most closed and opaque,” the Congressman added.

“They refuse to let us know what is going on, so I don’t really have an answer for that. Multiple members of Congress are asking those questions,” he added.

“It comes down to during the budget process, during the appropriations process, are we willing to hold DHS’s feet to the fire?”

* THE ANSWER IS NO; NOT WITH JOHN BOEHNER AND THE RINOs IN CHARGE OF THE HOUSE.

The DHS has purchased over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition over the past year – enough to wage a 20 year plus war. Earlier this month, Forbes Magazine called for a “national conversation” on the matter.

March 21, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)