Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, June 4, 2013


Let's see... what's up?

 Nothing really...

 Skipped doing Newsbites yesterday. 

No particular reason...

 Today is a new day!

Posted by at

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/04/congressman_obama_is_letting_china_steal_us_military_secrets

A formerly obscure naval exercise involving China and the United States is coming under increased scrutiny ahead of President Barack Obama's meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Friday.

For the first time, the Obama administration invited China's People's Liberation Army to participate in the 2014 Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise, an annual maritime exercise that enlists a variety of nations typically allied with the United States. But in wake of concerted Chinese attempts to obtain U.S. military secrets, not everyone is thrilled about the two naval powers floating side-by-side.

* FOLKS... THIS IS INSANITY.

"The administration made a mistake by letting China play a role in the Rim of the Pacific exercises," Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, tells The Cable. "They will likely utilize these exercises to their advantage: stealing our military secrets and better understanding our military strategy."

* THIS ISN'T A "MISTAKE." IT'S DELIBERATE ADMINISTRATION POLICY. WHY? SEARCH ME! (AND NOTE, FOLKS... AS OF YET I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE JOINT CHIEFS RESIGNING... OR OF ANY OF OUR TOP ADMIRALS RESIGNING IN PROTEST...)

* MY POINT? I BELIEVE THE MILITARY HAS BEEN TOTALLY CORPORATIZED... AND POLITICIZED.

Michael Auslin, a resident scholar of Asian security studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, agrees.

"They will get a better understanding of our tactics and procedures as they see how we can coordinate with our allies and friends," he told The Cable. "I would much rather see them mystified about how well or closely we work with the Japanese or Australians. If they come into RIMPAC and see the improved communications between the fleets, that is valuable from a military perspective."

* FOLKS... THERE'S A PATTERN HERE... AND IT GOES BEYOND MERE INCOMPETENCE...

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter first acknowledged that China had accepted the offer in March, though the invite was originally extended by then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last year. At the time, Carter said, "We seek to strengthen and grow our military-to-military relationship with China, which matches and follows our growing political and economic relationship."

* CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS SHIT...?!?! CHINA IS NOT OUR FRIEND; THEY'RE CERTAINLY NOT OUR ALLY. CHINA IS AT BEST A COMPETITOR - INDEED AN ADVERSARY! AT WORST... CHINA IS OUR ENEMY. AND YET... (*SHRUG*)

June 4, 2013 at 12:17 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/social-security-faces-96t-unfunded-liabilities-83894-household

The Social Security program faces $9.6 trillion in unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years, which is up $1 trillion from last year’s projection of $8.6 trillion, according to the latest report from Social Security’s board of trustees.

* FOLKS. AS REGULAR READERS KNOW, I'M NOT MUCH FOR THESE "OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS... 20 YEARS... 75 YEARS" PROJECTIONS, BUT THIS IS INDEED "REAL" AND THE FACT THAT THE SOCIAL SECURITY TRUSTEES HAVE UPPED THE PROJECTION BY ONE THOUSAND BILLION DOLLARS... (AKA: $1 TRILLION)... JUST FROM LAST YEAR...

(*SIGH*)

The unfunded liability is the amount that has been promised in benefits to people now alive that will not be funded by the tax revenue the system is expected to take in to pay for those benefits. (The Social Security trustees calculate the unfunded liability for a period of 75 years into the future, from 2012 to 2087).

"Extending the horizon beyond 75 years increases the measured unfunded obligation,” according to the report. “Through the infinite horizon, the unfunded obligations, or shortfall, equals $23.1 trillion in present value, which represents 4% of future taxable payroll or 1.4% of future GDP.”

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

“Projected long-range costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable with currently scheduled financing and will require legislative action to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers,” the report reads.

* AND OUR POLITICIANS FIDDLE AS ROME BURNS...

June 4, 2013 at 12:27 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRS_INVESTIGATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-04-11-30-50

[The IRS has been cited] by a government watchdog for a $4.1 million training conference featuring luxury rooms and free drinks...

A total of 132 IRS officials received room upgrades at the 2010 conference in Anaheim, Calif., according to the report being released by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.

* WELL... HEY... SOMETIMES ROOM UPGRADES ARE AVAILABLE... AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE FREE... (*SHRUG*)

* 132 DOES SEEM LIKE A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER OF UPGRADES THOUGH... (*PURSED LIPS*)

One official stayed five nights in a room that regularly goes for $3,500 a night...

* OK...! I'VE NEVER GOTTEN THAT KIND OF UPGRADE!

...and another stayed four nights in a room that regularly goes for $1,499 a night.

* NOPE... I'VE NEVER GOTTEN THAT KIND OF "LESSER" UPGRADE EITHER!

The agency paid a flat daily fee of $135 per hotel room, it said, but the upgrades were part of a package deal that added to the overall cost of the conference.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* SO IN OTHER WORDS... THE BID WAS RIGGED TO SERVE THE INTERESTS OF TOP OFFICIALS/MANAGERS WHO WOULD BE THE ONES GETTING THE UPGRADES...

Without the upgrades, the IRS could have negotiated a lower room rate, as required by agency procedures.

* SO PEOPLE WILL GO TO JAIL... RIGHT?

(*SMIRK*) (*SNORT*)

* FRANKLY... I DOUBT ANYONE WILL EVEN BE FIRED...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

In all, the IRS held 225 employee conferences from 2010 through 2012, at a total cost of $49 million, the report said. The Anaheim conference was the most expensive, but others were costly, too.

* GEEZUS...

In 2010, for instance, the agency held a conference in Philadelphia that cost $2.9 million, one in San Diego that cost $1.2 million, and one in Atlanta that also cost $1.2 million.

* WE NEED TO KILL THESE BASTARDS... LITERALLY... KILL THEM... SET UP THE FIRING SQUADS... PUBLIC EXECUTIONS...

Acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel has called the conferences "an unfortunate vestige from a prior era."

* 2010...?!?! AN EARLIER ERA...?!?! 2011...??? 2012...???

Werfel took over the agency about two weeks ago, after President Barack Obama forced the previous acting commissioner to resign.

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... PEOPLE SHOULD BE UNDER ARREST... AWAITING TRIAL, CONVICTION, AND IMPRISONMENT...!!!

June 4, 2013 at 12:52 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/marc-thiessen-what-about-these-leaks-mr-holder/2013/06/03/7aeb5e66-cc51-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

* REASONABLE QUESTIONS, NO?

June 4, 2013 at 1:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350034/fact-based-immigration-discussion-thomas-sowell

A hundred years ago, immigration controversies were discussed in the context of innumerable facts about particular immigrant groups. Many of those facts were published in a huge, multi-volume 1911 study by a commission headed by Senator William P. Dillingham. That and other studies of the time presented hard data on such things as which groups’ children were doing well in school and which were not, which groups had high crime rates or high rates of alcoholism, and which groups were over-represented among people living on the dole.

Such data and such differences still exist today.

* THE DIFFERENCE IS... TODAY IT'S POLITICALLY INCORRECT TO CITE - LET ALONE ACKNOWLEDGE - SUCH DATA!

Immigrants from some countries are seldom on welfare, but immigrants from other countries often are.

* TRUE... BUT HERESAY NEVERTHELESS!

Immigrants from some countries are typically people with high levels of education and skills, while immigrants from other countries seldom have much schooling or skills.

(*SHRUG*)

Nevertheless, many of our current discussions of immigration issues focus on immigrants in general, as if they were abstract people in an abstract world.

[Yet...] the concrete differences among immigrants from different countries affect whether their coming here is good or bad for the American people.

* SHHHUUUSSSH...!!!

The very thought of formulating immigration laws from the standpoint of what is best for the American people seems to have been forgotten by many who focus on how to solve the problems of illegal immigrants “living in the shadows.”

* I'D GO FURTHER THAN THAT; I'D SAY THE IDEA OF FOCUSING UPON WHAT'S BEST FOR AMERICA IN TERMS OF STAYING WITHIN THE TRADITIONAL AMERICAN CREED IS ACTUALLY LOOKED UPON WITH DISAPPROVAL!

* FOLKS... WHAT DO YOU SUPPOSE OBAMA AND THE LEFT MEAN WITH LANGUAGE SUCH AS "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA"?

Too much of our current immigration controversy is conducted in terms of abstract ideals, such as “We are a nation of immigrants.” Of course we are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of people who wear shoes. Does it follow that we should admit anybody who wears shoes?

The immigrants of today are very different in many ways from those who arrived here a hundred years ago. Moreover, the society in which they arrive is different. [T]he welfare state is here and expanding in all directions by leaps and bounds. We do not have a choice between the welfare state and open borders. Anything we try to do regarding immigration laws has to be done in the context of a huge welfare state that is already a major, inescapable fact of life.

* IN OTHER WORDS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PRO-AMNESTY POLITICANS PROMISE... EVEN ASSUMING THEY BELIEVE THEIR OWN WORDS... THE COURTS WILL OVER-TURN ANY "SAFE-GUARDS" WHICH CREATE A TWO-TIER "LEGALIZED" POPULACE. ONCE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ARE NO LONGER LEGALLY "ILLEGAL" THE COURTS WILL INEVITABLY RULE THAT ALL "LEGAL RESIDENTS" OF AMERICA MUST BE ELIGIBLE FOR EQUAL "SAFETY NET PROTECTION."

* BUT BEYOND THE FINANCIAL COST... (READ ON...)

Among other facts of life utterly ignored by many advocates of de facto amnesty is that the free international movement of people is different from free international trade in goods. Buying cars or cameras from other countries is not the same as admitting people from those countries. Unlike inanimate objects, people have cultures, and not all cultures are compatible with the culture in this country, which has produced so many benefits for the American people for so long.

Not only the United States, but the Western world in general, has been discovering the hard way that admitting people with incompatible cultures is an irreversible decision with incalculable consequences. If we do not see that after recent terrorist attacks on the streets of Boston and London, when will we see it?

June 4, 2013 at 2:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/05/us/politics/sebelius-asked-companies-to-support-health-care-law.html?_r=0

Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services, disclosed on Tuesday that she had made telephone calls to three companies regulated by her department and urged them to help a non-profit group promote President Obama’s health care law.

* I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS WHAT'S CALLED A "NO-NO."

At a Congressional hearing, Ms. Sebelius said she had not explicitly asked the companies for money, but urged them to support the work of the nonprofit group, Enroll America. The group, led by former Obama administration officials, is working with the White House to publicize the 2010 health care law and help uninsured people sign up for coverage.

* LED BY... UMM... EXTREMELY WELL-COMPENSATED FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS I'M GUESSING...

Ms. Sebelius said she was following well-established precedents. For example, she said, the Clinton administration established “public-private partnerships'’ to encourage enrollment in the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and the administration of President George W. Bush worked with pharmaceutical companies and insurers to help Medicare beneficiaries sign up for prescription drug coverage.

* WELL... THE TIMES WOULD HAVE TO FLESH OUT WHAT THE CLINTONS DID, BUT AS FOR BUSH... APPLES TO ORANGES. ONE MORE TIME:

"[Sebilius]...urged [private, federally regulated companies] to support the work of the "non-profit" group, Enroll America. The group, led by former Obama administration officials..."

* PLACING EMPHASIS UPON...

"...led by former Obama administration officials..."

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... WHO DOES SEBELIUS THINK SHE IS - CHARLIE RANGEL...?!?!

(*SMIRK*)

Representative Robert E. Andrews, Democrat of New Jersey, told the secretary that her fund-raising efforts were “entirely proper and desirable.'’

* BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING "ROBERT E. ANDREWS... DEMOCRAT OF NEW JERSEY."

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY BE LEGAL...??? SEBELIUS WAS ACTING AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL "SUGGESTING" THAT PRIVATE ENTERPRISES UNDER HER DEPARTMENT'S REGULATORY JURISDICTION "CONTRIBUTE" TO A PARTISAN, IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN ORGANZATION SET UP AND RUN BY FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIALS!

Ms. Sebelius said that no federal law prevented her from trying to raise money from companies regulated by her department.

* I SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE IT!

As a legal basis for her efforts, Ms. Sebelius pointed to a section of the Public Health Service Act that says, “The secretary is authorized to support by grant or contract (and to encourage others to support) private nonprofit entities working in health information and health promotion, preventive health services, and education in the appropriate use of health care.’’

* FOLKS... DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THIS SECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH EARLIER ALL-ENCOMPASSING GENERAL FEDERAL LAW? I DON'T!

June 4, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)