Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, June 18, 2013


Let's get to it, folks...

Posted by at

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.france24.com/en/20130618-usa-officials-meet-taliban-days-office-qatar-karzai-afghanistan-obama

Senior U.S. officials said on Tuesday that they will enter peace talks with the Taliban at a new office in Doha "within the coming days"...

* SO MUCH FOR WINNING THE WAR...

June 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

* READ THE NEWS FEED...

http://icasualties.org/OEF/Nationality.aspx

* CHECK "GREEN ON BLUE."

June 18, 2013 at 1:24 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351212/rubios-folly-cont-editors

It is painful to watch Marco Rubio’s maneuverings on immigration. He is refusing to say whether he will vote “yes” on his own Gang of Eight bill after spending months drafting, defending, and helping shepherd it to the floor.

He has supposedly discovered that the enforcement provisions are inadequate, although he has done countless interviews touting that the bill contains the “toughest immigration-enforcement measures in the history of United States” - which is what his website still says. At the same time, Rubio declares the bill 95%–96% perfect.

(*SNORT*)

He should vote against the bill.

* YES... VOTE AGAINST HIS OWN BILL...

It is an amnesty-first, enforcement-maybe program drawn up mainly to reflect the priorities of 11 million citizens of other countries rather than the concerns of more than 300 million citizens of the United States.

Most of the so-called security triggers in the bill are paper tigers. The requirement that those applying for amnesty have clean criminal records in fact allows for two misdemeanor convictions and, like most of the triggers, can be waived by the Department of Homeland Security. Senator John Cornyn of Texas has sought to have those with drunk-driving convictions excluded, but he is meeting resistance — Senator John McCain called the Cornyn amendment, which modestly strengthens other security provisions as well, a “poison pill.” (The bill as written excludes only those with three or more drunk-driving convictions — “habitual” drunk drivers.)

* MCCAIN IS A TOTAL DOUCHE BAG!

Likewise, the fines for illegal immigrants contemplated by the Gang of Eight can, under the current bill, be waived by DHS, and the collection of unpaid taxes applies only to levies already assessed by our dear friends at the IRS.

The main security provisions of the legislation require only that DHS draw up a plan for security. (That is classic Washington: a plan to have a plan.)

The much-vaunted requirement that DHS achieve 90% effectiveness for border security requires only self-certification by the DHS; in the unlikely event that DHS does not give itself a passing score, the only result under the law would be the creation of a commission to study the problem.

(*SNORT*)

Completing a border fence is left to the discretion of the DHS, which does not support doing so. Likewise, the requirement that the federal government institute a system of controls on those who overstay their visas — which already is a legal requirement and has been since 1996 — is left largely to the discretion of DHS.

* FOLKS... WE SHOULD BE DISMANTLING DHS.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

June 18, 2013 at 2:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The Gang of Eight bill does not serve the economic interests of the United States.

The fact is that our public schools [already] do an excellent job of producing an abundant supply of unskilled workers with little or no proficiency in English...

(*SMIRK*) (*SOUR-FACED NOD*)

...and the national labor force is not achingly in need of a few million more.

* EXACTLY RIGHT!

Neither changing green-card rules to accommodate domestic labor-market needs nor physically securing the border requires an amnesty for those illegal immigrants who are already present. Nor does implementing E-Verify and complying with existing law on entry-exit visas. In fact, there is not a single item on the productive-immigration-reform agenda that requires an amnesty for illegals — and, remarkably, nobody in this debate has made much of a serious attempt to explain how or why that amnesty is in the interests of the citizens of the United States.

By more than doubling the number of so-called guest workers admitted each year, the bill would help create a permanent underclass of foreign workers.

(*NOD*)

The 2007 Bush-Kennedy proposal was rejected in part because it would have added 125,000 new guest workers. The Gang of Eight bill would add 1.6 million in the first year, and about 600,000 a year after that: That’s the population of Philadelphia in Year One and the population of Boston each year after.

* INSANITY...!!!

While life as a member of an American underclass surely would be an attractive alternative for members of the under-classes of many other countries, the creation of a large population of second-class workers is undesirable from the point of view of the American national interest, which should be our guiding force in this matter.

Beyond its treatment of illegal immigrants, the very large expansion in legal immigration that the bill would establish is problematic as well. While there are some persuasive economic arguments in favor of expanding legal immigration, the United States is a nation with an economy, not an economy with a nation. Our failure to fully assimilate new immigrants over the past several decades is not a reflection of our inability but our unwillingness to do so. That some are arguing for this bill as a necessary political sop to Hispanic voters is indicative of the toxic ethnic politics that we should be working to eliminate — and that radically higher levels of immigration would almost certainly entrench.

* EXACTLY...!!!

June 18, 2013 at 2:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/18/morning-bell-3-things-you-should-know-about-the-supreme-court-and-voter-id/?roi=echo3-15993294366-13253429-1ed53e32037ed221ff8990a9c5417378&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down one of its first major decisions of this term, striking down Arizona’s measure requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.

Media reports are already off base in interpreting this decision, says Heritage legal expert Hans von Spakovsky. Here are three things to know about the decision.

1. This is not a voter ID decision.

This decision has to do with voter registration, not the act of voting.

In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a referendum that had two major components: voter ID for in-person voting and a requirement that anyone registering to vote provide proof of citizenship. The voter ID provision was not before the Supreme Court and is alive and well in Arizona.

2. Federal law already mandates that a person must be a U.S. citizen to vote.

The Court’s ruling does not mean that requiring proof of citizenship is bad or wrong. In fact, people are supposed to vote only if they are citizens. The Court ruled the way it did because there is already a federal law requiring people to affirm that they are U.S. citizens when they register to vote. Most people register using the federal mail-in form under the “Motor Voter” law. The majority of the justices said that federal requirement “preempts” Arizona’s requirement, which simply means the federal law comes first. Arizona residents can register to vote using the federal form or a state form. Arizona can continue to require proof of citizenship for anyone who registers using the state form.

3. States do determine the qualifications of their voters.

If Arizona has information about a voter that shows he or she is not eligible to vote, then the state still decides who is a legitimate voter. The Court specifically noted that under our Constitution, states have the exclusive right to determine the qualifications of voters in federal elections, and Arizona can deny registration to anyone who submits a federal form if it has other information in its possession that establishes the ineligibility of the applicant.

Making sure that only U.S. citizens are voting is vital to the integrity of American elections. ... [V]oting reforms are needed.

June 18, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)