Monday, August 19, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, August 19, 2013


Finally... today's newsbites!

Posted by at

17 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/dowd-money-money-money-money-money.html?ref=maureendowd&_r=0

* YEP... THE INFAMOUS MAUREEN DOWD COLUMN...

Clinton nostalgia is being replaced by Clinton neuralgia.

* CONFESSION: YEAH... I HAD TO LOOK UP "NEURALGIA."

(*WINK*)

Why is it that America’s roil family always seems better in abstract than in concrete?

The closer it gets to running the world once more, the more you are reminded of all the things that bugged you the last time around.

The Clintons’ neediness, their sense of what they are owed in material terms for their public service, their assumption that they’re entitled to everyone’s money.

Are we about to put the “For Rent” sign back on the Lincoln Bedroom?

If Americans are worried about money in politics, there is no larger concern than the Clintons, who are cosseted in a world where rich people endlessly scratch the backs of rich people.

They have a Wile E. Coyote problem; something is always blowing up. Just when the Clintons are supposed to be floating above it all, on a dignified cloud of do-gooding leading into 2016, pop-pop-pop, little explosions go off everywhere, reminding us of the troubling connections and values they drag around.

There’s the continuing grotesque spectacle of Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin.

[T]here’s the sketchy involvement of the Clintons’ most prolific fund-raiser, Terry McAuliffe, and Hillary’s brother Tony Rodham in a venture, GreenTech Automotive; it’s under federal investigation and causing fireworks in Virginia, where McAuliffe is running for governor.

Many Israelis were disgusted to learn that Bill Clinton was originally scheduled to scarf up $500,000 to speak at the Israeli president Shimon Peres’s 90th birthday festivities in June. I guess being good friends with Peres and brokering the accord that won Peres the Nobel Peace Prize were not reasons enough for Bill to celebrate. The Israeli branch of the Jewish National Fund had agreed to donate half a mil to the Clinton foundation. (Isn’t the J.N.F. “supposed to plant trees with donor cash?” Haaretz chided before the fund pulled back. “I guess money does grow on trees.”)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

I never thought I’d have to read the words Ira Magaziner again. But the man who helped Hillary torpedo her own health care plan is back. In a Times article last week headlined “Unease at Clinton Foundation Over Finances and Ambitions,” Nicholas Confessore and Amy Chozick offered a compelling chronicle about an internal review of the rechristened Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation that illuminated the fungible finances and tensions between Clinton loyalists and the foundation architects Magaziner and Doug Band, former bag [man] for President Clinton.

(You never hear about problems with Jimmy Carter’s foundation; he just quietly goes around the world eradicating Guinea worm disease. Clintonworld is a galaxy where personal enrichment and political advancement blend seamlessly, and where a cast of jarringly familiar characters pad their pockets every which way to Sunday.)

We are supposed to believe that every dollar given to a Clinton is a dollar that improves the world. But is it? “Efforts to insulate the foundation from potential conflicts have highlighted just how difficult it can be to disentangle the Clintons’ charity work from Mr. Clinton’s moneymaking ventures and Mrs. Clinton’s political future,” Confessore and Chozick wrote.

The most egregious nest of conflicts was a firm founded by Doug Band called Teneo, a scammy blend of corporate consulting, public relations and merchant banking. Band, a surrogate son to Bill, put Huma, a surrogate daughter to Hillary, on the payroll. Even Big Daddy Bill was a paid adviser.

(*NOD*)

As The Times reported, Teneo worked on retainer, charging monthly fees up to $250,000 and recruiting clients from among Clinton Foundation donors, while encouraging others to become foundation donors. The Clintons distanced themselves from Teneo when they got scorched with bad publicity after the collapse of its client MF Global, the international brokerage firm led by the former New Jersey governor Jon Corzine.

* FOLKS... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!

Chelsea is now shaping the foundation’s future, and her political future. So there may not be as much oxygen for her troublesome surrogate siblings.

As George Packer wrote in The New Yorker, Bill Clinton earned $17 million last year giving speeches, including one to a Lagos company for $700,000.

Hillary gets $200,000 a speech.

Until Harry Truman wrote his memoirs, the ex-president struggled on an Army pension of $112.56 a month. “I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable,” he said, “that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency.”

So quaint, Packer wrote, observing, “The top of American life has become a very cozy and lucrative place, where the social capital of who you are and who you know brings unimaginable returns.”

The Clintons want to do big worthy things, but they also want to squeeze money from rich people wherever they live on planet Earth, insatiably gobbling up cash for politics and charity and themselves from the same incestuous swirl.

August 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324139404579013144182779468.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Hillary Clinton began her 2016 march to the White House last week, and it wasn't a promising debut. The former first lady and Senator used her first big policy speech since leaving the State Department to portray American election laws as fundamentally racist. The speech was longer on anecdotes than statistics, so allow us to fill in some of the holes.

"In 2013, so far, more than 80 bills restricting voting rights have been introduced in 31 states," Mrs. Clinton told her political base of lawyers at the American Bar Association. She portrayed these laws as part of an effort reaching back years to "disproportionately impact African-Americans, Latino and young voters." And she threw the Supreme Court in as part of this racist conspiracy, assailing its recent decision finding the "pre-clearance" section of the Voting Rights Act to be unconstitutional.

She claimed the High Court had "struck at the heart" of the law, though all it did was eliminate a section that had forced such states as Mississippi to meet higher legal burdens for election laws than other states with a worse current record of minority voter participation. "Now not every obstacle is related to race," Mrs. Clinton added, "but anyone who says that racial discrimination is no longer a problem in American elections must not be paying attention."

No one thinks racial discrimination has vanished from American life or the human condition. But as for minority voting, Mrs. Clinton is the one who hasn't been paying attention. In particular, she must have missed the May 2013 Census Bureau study on "The Diversifying Electorate — Voting Rates by Race and Hispanic Origin in 2012 (and Other Recent Elections)."

* FOLKS... THIS IS THE KIND OF DRY "BACKGROUND" INFO THAT ALLOWS THOSE IN POSSESSION OF IT NOT TO BE SCAMMED BY LIARS WHO IGNORE THE ACTUAL DATA!

* TO BE CONCLUDED...

August 19, 2013 at 2:45 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

*** OOPS! MAKE THAT PART 2 OF 3! SORRY!

The study, based on data from the November 2012 Current Population Survey, shows that minority voter turnout nationwide has been rising — dramatically so.

Take blacks, who as recently as 1996 had a low voter turnout rate of 53%. [B]lack turnout has jumped in each of the last four presidential elections. In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters — 66.2% to 64.1%.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

In 2012, black turnout as a share of all eligible voters exceeded the turnout of non-Hispanic white voters — 66.2% to 64.1%.

(*SHRUG*)

In both 2008 and 2012, black voters even exceeded their share of the eligible black voting age population. In 2012, blacks made up 12.5% of the eligible electorate but 13.4% of those voting.

* I ADMIT... I'M NOT FOLLOWING THAT LAST BIT OF INFO... BUT IN ANY CASE IT SEEMS TO INDICATED THAT BLACK AMERICANS AREN'T BEING KEPT FROM VOTING!

Having Barack Obama at the top of the ticket no doubt helped this black voter mobilization, but the trend shows that the surge preceded his candidacy. Remember when liberals portrayed Bill Clinton as "America's first black President?" The black turnout surge accelerated after Mr. Clinton's last election. Such a large increase in black voter turnout over 16 years would seem to refute the claim by Mrs. Clinton that racial obstacles to voting are increasing.

* ONE WOULD THINK!

Mrs. Clinton ignores all of this and focuses instead on anecdotes, while raising alarm about the voter ID laws that have passed in the last decade. She specifically raises fears about North and South Carolina. Yet the same Census Bureau study shows that...

(*DRUM ROLL*)

...black turnout exceeded non-Hispanic white turnout by statistically significant rates in both Carolinas, and was higher in most states east of the Mississippi River outside of New England.

* PERHAPS HOLDER BETTER INVESTIGATE THOSE DAMNED RACIST NEW ENGLAND STATES... THOSE DAMNED BLUE STATES...

(*SMIRK*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

North Carolina, Clinton says, has this year "pushed through a bill that reads like the greatest hits of voter suppression."

(*RAISING BOTH EYEBROWS*)

But that supposed horror show merely reduces early voting by a week, and bars same-day registration and extending voting hours by political whim. All of these are designed to preserve ballot integrity, which is as vital as voter access to public confidence in honest elections. (Voters without an ID can get one free at the Department of Motor Vehicles and they can also cast a provisional ballot pending confirmation that they are legally registered.)

By the way, Georgia, Indiana and Tennessee have some of the strictest voter ID laws of the more than 30 states that have such laws, yet the Census report says black turnout exceeded that of non-Hispanic whites in 2012 in all three. (Where is the evidence that voter ID laws keep minorities from voting?)

The disconnect between these facts and Mrs. Clinton's assertions suggests that she is the one playing racial politics. The current narrow Democratic majority is largely a coalition based on gender and racial identity. It requires big turnout among single women and non-whites. As the Obama era winds down, the fear among Democrats is that these voters won't have the same enthusiasm.

Mrs. Clinton can play the "first woman President" card, but she also needs large minority turnout. If she can't motivate that turnout based on rising economic optimism or opportunity, which is hard given the Obama economic record, she and Democrats will play to racial fears to drive it. She wants a racially polarized electorate.

* APPARENTLY SO...

(*SIGH*)

This is a tragedy for the country, and Republicans like Mitt Romney share the blame for doing so little to attract minority votes. But this strategy and Mrs. Clinton's speech don't bode well for a less polarized politics as Democrats try to extend their electoral dominance.

Mrs. Clinton billed her speech last week as the first of a series addressing what she called "eroding public trust" in government. (Government could use the help, though note the irony that Mrs. Clinton's party has been running the government even as its reputation sinks.) In any case, stoking racial fears based on imaginary government racism won't make Americans feel better about politics or government.

August 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0818/In-Egyptian-village-Christian-shops-marked-ahead-of-church-attack-video

Before the violence that shook the small of village Al Nazla, Egypt, last week, there were warning signs.

On June 30, when millions of Egyptians took to the streets to protest against now ousted President Mohamed Morsi, residents of Al Nazla marked Christian homes and shops with red graffiti, vowing to protect Mr. Morsi's electoral legitimacy with “blood.”

Relations between Christians and Muslims in the village, which had worsened since Morsi's election in 2012, grew even more tense as Islamists spread rumors that it was Christians who were behind the protests against Morsi and his ouster by the military on July 3.

Finally, on the morning of Aug. 14, the tension erupted. In Cairo, the police attacked two protest camps full of Morsi supporters, using live ammunition and killing hundreds. When the news reached Al Nazla, a local mosque broadcast through its loudspeakers that Christians were attacking the protesters, say residents. Hundreds of villagers marched on the Saint Virgin Mary Church. They broke down the gate and flooded the compound, shouting “Allahu akbar” and “Islam is the solution,” according to Christian neighbors.

“First they stole the valuable things, and then they torched the place,” says Sami Awad, a church member who lives across the narrow dirt alley from the church. “Whatever they couldn't carry, they burned.”

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The Coptic Orthodox church had just opened in April after 13 years of construction in a country where the government strictly curtails building permits for churches. Now, its elaborate dome stands above a ruined, charred interior. The walls are blackened and rubble litters the floor. A picture of Jesus is half burned, the charred edges curling where they were licked by flames.

“The religion of God is Islam,” reads graffiti sprayed in yellow on a wall of the church. Three burned out cars, one of them upside down, rest in the courtyard. Next to the gate, sprayed in black, is another phrase: “Victory or martyrdom.”

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 3:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

The Saint Virgin Mary church in Al Nazla is one of 47 churches and monasteries that have been burned, robbed, or attacked since Aug. 14 in a wave of violence against Christians since the brutal police crackdown on the former president's supporters, according to Ishak Ibrahim of the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights.

* FOLKS... NOTHING THE EGYPTIAN MILITARY NOR POLICE HAVE DONE JUSTIFIES THESE BARBARIC ATTACKS UPON CHRISTIANS. INDEEDK, IF ANYTHING, THESE ATTACKS SERVE AS A SORT OF CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE THAT ONLY STRONG LAW & ORDER MEASURES CAN AND WILL PRESERVE ORDER AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF INNOCENTS IN EGYPT.

Ibrahim adds that dozens of Christian schools, other religious buildings, homes, and shops have also been attacked and burned, and seven Christians killed. Police have done little to stop the attacks.

(*SIGH*)

* CATCH-22. SPECIAL POLICE PROTECTION WOULD NO DOUBT PLACE A FURTHER BULL'S EYE UPON THESE "TARGETS." (SERVE TO BUTTRESS THE MORSI-SUPPORTER'S CHARGES THAT THE CHRISTIANS ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE MILITARY AND POLICE AND ARE THUS "FAIR" TARGETS.

(*SHRUG*)

The attacks are a realization of the long-held fears of many Christians and have prompted deep worry about widening religious violence in Egypt.

Al Nazla – about 60 miles southwest of Cairo near the oasis of Fayoum – is a small village that looks like many other rural Egyptian towns. Narrow and pitted dirt roads winding between brick buildings are clogged by three-wheeled tok-toks, animals, and villagers on foot. The red graffiti marking Christian homes and shops is still visible. “Yes to legitimacy, no to Sisi” reads the message scrawled on one shop, referring to Army chief Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who ousted Morsi.

The Saint Virgin Mary church's dome is visible from outside the village, but difficult to see once inside the tangle of alleyways. Inside the church compound, Mr. Awad and other church members described the shock of seeing their neighbors and acquaintances among the angry mob sacking the church.

Relations between Christians and Muslims in the village used to be good, says Awad, who makes his living selling poultry. “We were neighbors and friends, we did business together and talked together. However, when they had to choose between religion and us, they chose religion.” He declined to identify those who attacked the church.

* THE CHRISTIANS SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED THEIR CHURCH. (OH... WAIT... NOT EVERY NATION ON EARTH HAS A SECOND AMENDMENT...)

(*PURSED LIPS*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Ezzat Labib, who manages the church's administration, says things started changing after Morsi was elected last year. “Relationships started becoming more cautious,” he says. “By June 30, it started getting much more tense, because of the accusations that June 30 was controlled and ignited by Copts, even though on the 30th, all people were protesting, Muslims and Christians.”

* FOLKS... DON'T BUY THIS NONSENSE THAT ALL EGYPTIANS - OR NEAR ALL - ARE MORSI "FANS" WHO OPPOSED THE MILITARY COUP. AND AS FOR THE COUP... WELL... APPARENTLY EVEN OBAMA FELT IT WAS JUSTIFIED... HE DIDN'T OPPOSE IT... HE REFUSED TO EVEN CALL IT A COUP.

(*SMIRK*)

Islamist figures and websites had accused anti-Morsi protests of being mostly Christian as far back as December. When the mass protests that appeared on June 30 presented an emphatic rejection of Morsi's year-long presidency, some accused Christians of organizing the protests and making up the bulk of the demonstrators. Such statements only increased when Pope Tawadros II, the patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, stood next to Sisi, with other religious and political leaders, when the Army general announced Morsi's ouster.

* FOLKS... THERE AREN'T ENOUGH CHRISTIANS IN EGYPT TO PRESENT "EMPHATIC REJECTION" OF ANYTHING! AGAIN... A LARGE MINORITY - PERHAPS EVEN A SMALL MAJORITY - OF THE EGYPTIAN PEOPLE SEEMINGLY FEAR MORSI AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AS MUCH AS THEY FEAR HARSH MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. (THUS... "EMPHATIC REJECTION.")

The Egyptian government has implicitly accused the Muslim Brotherhood of organizing the violence, which the Brotherhood strongly denies. A spokesman for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party said in a statement last week that the party “stands firmly against any attack – even verbal – against churches.”

* ANYONE BELIEVE THEM? ANYONE AT ALL?

Brotherhood members and a spokesman have accused the security apparatus of carrying out the church attacks in an attempt to smear Islamists.

* REALLY...???

(*SMIRK*)

The Brotherhood said Facebook pages inciting religious violence under the party's name were fake. One page that appears to be the authentic Facebook page for the FJP in Helwan, south of Cairo, listed accusations against the church, before concluding: “After all this people ask why they burn churches.” The page noted that “burning houses of worship is a crime,” but added: “For every action, there is a reaction.”

Back in Al Nazla, church members said they held a service today despite the state of the sanctuary, and will continue to do so until they can rebuild the church. “We have to pray no matter what happens,” says Mr. Labib. “Even if they burn it to the ground, we will pray here.”

August 19, 2013 at 3:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-states-unemployment-idUSBRE97I0RO20130819

Jobless rates dropped in only eight states in July from the previous month and rose in 28, the Labor Department said on Monday, as employment gains sputtered.

* AGAIN... FOLKS... TO A POINT IGNORE THE "RATES" IN ISOLATION. WHAT YOU WANNA PAY ATTENTION TO IS THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE.

* SPEAKING OF... JULY'S LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE WENT DOWN... DOWN FROM 63.5% TO 63.4%. (NOW IF YOU THINK ONE-TENTH OF A PERCENTAGE POINT DOESN'T MATTER, CONSIDER, WE'RE A NATION OF OVER 300 MILLION PEOPLE.

* INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, U6 UNEMPLOYMENT ACTUALLY WENT DOWN IN JULY - TO 14% FROM THE PREVIOUS MONTH'S 14.3%.

(*SHRUG*)

* SEE... FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... I'M ALWAYS GONNA DO MY BEST TO GIVE YOU THE FULLEST AND MOST ACCURATE OVERALL PICTURE AND ANALYSIS! NO PARTISANSHIP! JUST THE STATS AND WHAT THEY MEAN!

* AGAIN, THOUGH... HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THE STATS. AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE FROM THIS REUTERS ARTICLE:

Nationally, the jobless rate fell to 7.4% in July, the lowest level since December 2008, largely due to people giving up on the job hunt and dropping out of the work force.

* AGAIN... WHY DID THE JOBLESS RATE FALL...

...largely due to people giving up on the job hunt and dropping out of the work force.

(*SHRUG*)

* SEE, FOLKS... THAT'S WHERE THE LABOR PARTICIPATION RATE COMES IN. IS IT GOOD THAT LESS AMERICANS ARE WORKING WHILE THE AMERICAN WELFARE STATE KEEPS GROWING...???

* FOLKS... I'LL GIVE YOU THE NUMBER... THE "DOTS"... YOU CAN CONNECT THEM FOR YOURSELVES.

August 19, 2013 at 4:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2013/08/19/fort-hood-prosecutors-want-to-argue-motive/

The judge overseeing the Fort Hood shooting trial blocked prosecutors on Monday from using several witnesses and most evidence they had sought to explain the alleged motive behind the 2009 attack.

* WHY...?!?!

Prosecutors had asked the military judge to approve evidence and several witnesses to explain the mindset of Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people and wounding more than 30 others at the Texas military base in November 2009. But the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, blocked nearly all of it.

Osborn told prosecutors that they couldn’t reference Hasan Akbar, a Muslim soldier sentenced to death for attacking fellow soldiers in Kuwait during the 2003 Iraq invasion.

* BTW... AKBAR IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE... ALIVE AND WELL... STILL GOING TRHOUGH THE APPEALS PROCESS...

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Prosecutors wanted to suggest a copycat motive was behind the shooting rampage at Fort Hood.

* IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS...?

The judge said Akbar wasn’t on trial and introducing such material would “only open the door to a mini trial.” She said it would result in a “confusion of issues, unfair prejudice, waste of time and undo delay.”

* AGAIN... I'D SURE LIKE TO KNOW IF THE PROSECUTION HAS ANY EVIDENCE POINTING TO THIS.

Prosecutors also were barred from introducing three emails. They hadn’t disclosed details about which emails, but the FBI has said Hasan sent numerous emails starting in December 2008 to Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born Islamic cleric killed by a drone strike in Yemen in 2011.

Osborn also didn’t released details about the emails Monday, but she said they would have to be redacted to a point that would make them irrelevant.

* FRIGGIN' RIDICULOUS!

The judge also told prosecutors that they couldn’t cite Hasan’s interest years ago in conscientious objector status and his past academic presentations. Osborn said such evidence was too old and irrelevant.

* I'D HAVE TO KNOW WHAT'S IN THE ACADEMIC PRESENTATIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE MY OWN JUDGEMENT, HOWEVER... I ASSUME THAT IF I WERE EVER TO COMMIT SOME SORT OF "POLITICAL CRIME" THAT EACH AND EVERY WORD I'VE EVER POSTED ON THIS BLOG WOULD BECOME FAIR GAME.

(*SHRUG*)

However, the judge will allow evidence about Internet searches on Hasan’s computer around the time of the attack and websites that Hasan had listed as “favorites.” She said that information was more timely.

When prosecutors asked the judge Friday to approve the evidence and witnesses, they indicated that they had between 15 and 25 witnesses left. It wasn’t immediately clear Monday whether all of those witnesses would still be able to testify. That means Hasan could get his chance to defend himself as early as Tuesday. He signaled before trial that he had just two witnesses.

Hasan — who is acting as his own attorney — has put up little defense so far and has remained largely silent during the trial that began two weeks ago. He faces numerous charges of murder and attempted premeditated murder.

* FOLKS... HASAN IS PROUD OF WHAT HE DID; HE TRIED TO PLED GUILTY BUT THE MILITARY WOULDN'T LET HIM!

If convicted, he could face the death penalty.

* COULD...?!?! HOW'BOUT "SHOULD..." HOW'BOUT "HAD BETTER?!"

While prosecutors clearly have an advantage in how much evidence is on their side, the 13-officer jury must be unanimous in convicting Hasan of premeditated murder and for approving a death sentence.

August 19, 2013 at 5:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/18/trail-of-stuxnet-cyberwar-leak-to-author-leads-to-/

The Obama administration provided a New York Times reporter exclusive access to a range of high-level national security officials for a book that divulged highly classified information on a U.S. cyberwar on Iran’s nuclear program, internal State Department emails show.

* IF OBAMA WAS THE LEAKER - OR AUTHORIZED THE LEAK - THIS ISN'T A VIOLATION OF LAW.

The information in the 2012 book by chief Washington correspondent David E. Sanger has been the subject of a year-long Justice Department criminal investigation: The FBI is hunting for those who leaked details to Mr. Sanger about a U.S.-Israeli covert cyberoperation to infect Iran’s nuclear facilities with a debilitating computer worm known as Stuxnet.

* HOWEVER... IF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS INDEED "GUILTY" AND REFUSED TO FESS UP AND ALLOWED THIS INVESTIGATION TO GO ON WASTING TIME AND RESOURCES...

(*SIGH*)

A New York Times story adapted from the book, “Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power,” quotes participants in secret White House meetings discussing plans to unleash Stuxnet on Iran.

The scores of State Department emails from the fall of 2011 to the spring of 2012 do not reveal which officials told Mr. Sanger...

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Freedom Watch acquired the State Department emails via a Freedom of Information Act request filed days after the book was published. Larry Klayman, its director, said State at first had told him it did not have any documents. He then filed suit in federal court.

In December, U.S. District Court Judge Robert L. Wilkins ordered State to turn over emails relating to its cooperation with Mr. Sanger.

“When you read the totality of those documents, it’s a super-close relationship they are furthering with Sanger,” Mr. Klayman said. “They were literally force-feeding him.”

Klayman said State has yet to provide transcripts of the Sanger interviews.

“I think the thrust of this is this requires a significant investigation,” Mr. Klayman said, adding that he has provided the emails to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

* AGAIN... IF THE PRESIDENT IS DOING THE LEAKING (OR IF THE LEAKING IS BEING DONE UNDER PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY) THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT CONGRESS CAN DO.

* FOLKS... I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.

August 19, 2013 at 5:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/happen-mexican-asylum-claims-rising/story?id=20000329

The number of people seeking asylum at the Southwest border has doubled since 2011, according to statistics released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

There have been 14,610 asylum claims along the border with Mexico during the first three-quarters of the 2013 fiscal year.

(In 2011, there were 6,824.)

These numbers represent only “defensive” asylum claims - those that are made at the ports of entry into the U.S.; they don’t include asylum claims made by people who are already living in the country without authorization.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

While asylum requests have certainly increased, it’s important to keep these figures in perspective.

* 6,824 THEN... 14,610 NOW... OVER DOUBLE. PLUS... THESE NUMBERS DON'T INCLUDE ASYLUM CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE ILLEGALLY.

A Fox news station reported just over a week ago that hundreds of migrants were using asylum claims as a “loophole” to cross the U.S. border and remain in the country.

* IS ABC SAYING THIS REPORT WAS WRONG?

In the report, an anonymous source said that a border crossing near San Diego was being “overwhelmed” by asylum seekers, and that nearly 200 people entered asylum claims on a single day several weeks ago.

* IS ABC SAYING THAT THE CLAIM IS FACTUALLY INACCURATE?

Part of the reason DHS released the data on border asylum requests was to counter the Fox report, according to the AP.

* 6,824 THEN... 14,610 NOW... OVER DOUBLE. PLUS... THESE NUMBERS DON'T INCLUDE ASYLUM CLAIMS MADE BY PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE ILLEGALLY. WHERE IS FOX GETTING THE STORY WRONG...???

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 6:07 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

First of all, few people are granted asylum, as we wrote last week.

* "FEW" PEOPLE? DEFINE "FEW." GIVE US NUMBERS.

* SECOND... OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO AREN'T "APPROVED"... ARE THEY ACTUALLY DEPORTED OR DO THEY SIMPLY JOIN THE OTHER ILLEGAL ALIENS AS... er... ILLEGAL ALIENS?

Asylees made up just 5% of the total number of people receiving green cards in 2011.

* AND NOW...??? (AREN'T WE FOCUSED ON THE SUDDEN JUMP BETWEEN 2011 AND NOW...???) (RHETORICAL QUESTION.)

Mexicans in particular are rarely granted asylum.

* SO...?!?! WHAT'S THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE FOX REPORTING OR EVEN THIS ABC REPORTING...??? ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS... FROM THE TOP:

The number of people seeking asylum at the Southwest border has doubled since 2011, according to statistics released by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). There have been 14,610 asylum claims along the border with Mexico during the first three-quarters of the 2013 fiscal year. (In 2011, there were 6,824.) These numbers represent only “defensive” asylum claims - those that are made at the ports of entry into the U.S.; they don’t include asylum claims made by people who are already living in the country without authorization.

* FOLKS... THIS IS FASCINATING! THEY'RE ACTUALLY GIVING YOU THE INFO AND THEN TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU IT'S MEANINGLESS!

The Migration Policy Institute (MPI) has broken out some telling stats:

Federal officials told the AP that there has been an increase in asylum requests, but that it’s been “modest.”

* A "MODEST" D*O*U*B*L*I*N*G!

(*LAUGHING*)

The AP reports:

“Between Aug. 1 and Aug. 15, the agency said, an average of 30 people per day have arrived at San Diego ports asking for asylum, compared with roughly 170,000 travelers who cross the border there legally each day.”

* SO...??? AGAIN... 30 PEOPLE A DAY... 7 DAYS A WEEK... 4 WEEKS A MONTH... 12 MONTHS A YEAR... 365 DAYS A YEAR...

(*CHUCKLE*)

* AGAIN... FOLKS... FIRST THEY GIVE YOU THE INFO... THEN THEY TRY TO GET YOU TO POOH-POOH IT! SIMPLY AMAZING!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

There’s a trend worth noting here, though.

Even if the numbers are small relative to the larger immigration system, there appear to be more Mexicans and Central Americans hoping to get legal status in the U.S. based on the threat of cartel-induced violence in their hometowns.

* BASED... ON... THE... CLAIM...!!! THE CLAIM!

If the numbers keep increasing, there could be more pressure on federal immigration officials to grant asylum to those migrants.

* ONE WOULD THINK! (ESPECIALLY WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION!)

The drug war in Mexico is a legitimate threat, with an estimated 60,000 people killed in related violence from 2006 to 2012.

* MEXICO FOR MEXICANS! LET MEXICANS SOLVE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS!

And the U.S. has a role in the violence as a drug consumer...

* UH... PEOPLE LIKE ME WANT THE BORDER SECURE! IT'S THE LIBS WHO WANT THE OPEN BORDERS!

...and as a weapons supplier.

* ERIC HOLDER...??? FAST AND FURIOUS...???

* HEY... HERE'S AN IDEA! PERHAPS INSTEAD OF SEEKING TO EXPORT THEIR "SURPLUS" POPULATION AND MAKE MONEY OFF THE DRUG TRADE, MEXICAN POLITICANS, POLICE COMMANDERS, AND MIILTARY COMMANDERS COULD COOPERATE WITH US IN SEALING THE BORDER!

We’ve been faced with this sort of immigration dilemma in the past. Just look at El Salvador in the 1980s. Hundreds of thousands of people were trying to leave that country in the wake of a violent civil war. But few people were being accepted for asylum or refugee status in the U.S., despite America’s role in the Salvadoran conflict.

* "...DESPITE OUR ROLE..."

(*SNORT*)

That led Congress to create something called Temporary Protected Status (TPS), which allows the federal government to offer special temporary visas to people who are fleeing imminent dangers in their home countries, like internecine warfare or natural disasters. TPS became a way to give Salvadorans (and immigrants from a handful of other nations) a legal route to the U.S. when faced with an asylum system that would turn them away. The program hasn’t been perfect. Roughly 208,000 Salvadorans are living in the U.S. under this status, with no clear path to permanent legal status. Many of them have been here for decades, living, working and paying taxes.

* OUR GOVERNMENT IN ACTION!

It’s hard to imagine Congress extending a program like this to Mexicans.

* NOT IF THE DEMOCRATS REGAIN CONTROLL OF BOTH HOUSES IN 2015 WITH OBAMA STILL IN OFFICE!

Because the country is so much larger, and closer to the U.S., the number of applicants would likely be much higher.

* BUT THE DEMS WANT TO EXPAND THE WELFARE STATE... EVEN IF THEY HAVE TO "IMPORT" PEOPLE IN ORDER TO DO SO!

But if drug-war violence continues and asylum applications keep rising, more people will be clamoring for a response from Washington.

* HOW'BOUT WE BUILD GIANT MIDDLE FINGERS AND PLACE THEM FACING SOUTH ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER?

August 19, 2013 at 6:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/16/forever-21-memo_n_3769605.html

A leaked memo from Forever 21 shows the fast-fashion apparel retailer plans to cut the hours of some full-time employees and reclassify them as part-time, starting Sunday.

"Company-wide, Forever 21 recently audited its staffing levels, staffing needs and payroll in conduction with reviewing its overall spending budget," Carla Macias, associate director of human resources at the company, wrote in the memo to affected employees. "As a result, we are reducing a number of full-time non-management positions."

Although it's unclear exactly how many of the 30,000 or so Forever 21 employees will move to part-time, the company said in a statement on Facebook that the cuts affect "less than 1% of all U.S. store employees." The affected positions include stock associates, sales associates, store maintenance associates, accessory specialists and cashiers, the memo states.

* LESS THAN 1%...???

(*RAISING AN EYEBROW*)

* HMM... OK... WE'LL SEE... (ASSUMING THERE'S FOLLOW-UP BY THE MEDIA THAT IS!)

Employees who received the memo will have their hours reduced to a maximum of 29.5 a week - just under the 30-hour full-time designation assigned by the Affordable Care Act, which requires companies who employ 50 or more workers to provide health insurance coverage for their full-time employees or face a penalty.

Newly part-time workers who were enrolled in medical, dental, vision and voluntary plans will also see their coverage cut off on Aug. 31, and they won't be able to receive paid time off.

* Er... ARE WE STILL TALKING "LESS THAN 1%" OF U.S. STORE EMPLOYEES...?

Angry consumers have inundated Forever 21's Facebook page with comments threatening boycotts and accusing the company of punishing its own employees in retaliation for the Affordable Care Act.

"Just lost my daughter's time and my dollars," one commenter wrote. "Your politics should not victimize your workers."

* ACTUALLY, I'M SURE THEY'RE DOING THIS AGAINST "THEIR POLITICS." THEY'RE DOING THIS TO SAVE MONEY. THEY'RE DOING THIS BECAUSE OBAMACARE GIVES THEM ONLY THE CHOICE OF DOING THIS OR PAYING THROUGH THE NOSE.

(*SHRUG*)

The retailer denied speculation from customers and the media that the decision had anything to do with the costs of ObamaCare.

* THEY'RE LYING.

(*SMILE*) (*SHRUG*)

* FOLKS... COM'ON... SHEER COINCIDENCE...?!?!

"Forever 21, like all retailers, staffs its stores based on projected store sales, completely independent of the Affordable Care Act," the company said on Facebook.

The privately-held company appears to be doing quite well, however. CEO Do Won Chang told CNN last September that the company was on track to make $4 billion in 2012. In a note to clients in March, Bank of America analysts lauded Forever 21 as "the most transformative retail concept."

August 19, 2013 at 6:27 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/18/unpublished-crs-memo-obama-administration-has-missed-half-of-obamacares-legally-imposed-implementation-deadlines/?partner=yahootix

In recent months, President Obama and his subordinates have waived or delayed a number of ObamaCare's notable features, such as the law’s employer mandate, and its procedures for protecting taxpayers from fraud and identity theft.

Earlier this month, in that context, I obtained a heretofore unpublished memorandum from the Congressional Research Service. The CRS, Congress’ non-partisan in-house think tank, compiled 82 deadlines that the Affordable Care Act mandates upon the first three years of its own implementation. Remarkably, it turns out that the White House has missed half of the deadlines legally required by the ACA. And some of those deadlines remain unmet to this day.

* GEEZUS CHRIST...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The new CRS memo, dated June 5, 2013, is an addendum to a series of previous reports in which the agency examined missed deadlines during the law’s first two years.

The CRS excluded from its analysis deadlines that don’t reflect on the administration’s competence; for example, as states expand Medicaid, the federal spending associated with those expansions occurs more or less automatically. Deadlines that the law imposes on non-federal government actors, like state governments and private companies, were also excluded.

As of May 31, 2013, when the CRS analysis was completed, the White House had yet to meet 9 of 12 deadlines from the first year after the Affordable Care Act was enacted.

It failed to meet 22 of 53 deadlines in the second year...

[A]nother 8 became moot after Congress did not appropriate funds to complete the assigned tasks.

In year three, the administration missed 10 out of 17 deadlines. That’s a total of 41 out of 82 deadlines missed.

* THEREFORE... BOTTOM LINE... GRAND TOTAL...

If you exclude the 9 deadlines that became moot because Congress never appropriated the funds to meet them, the Obama administration missed 41 out of 73 deadlines, or 56%.

In analyzing the CRS report, I erred on the side of generosity.

If the administration missed a particular statutory deadline by a week or less, I counted it in their favor as a “met” deadline. In any case where there was ambiguity in the CRS report, I assumed that the administration had met the deadline. So these 50%-56% missed deadline figures should be seen as slightly conservative.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 19, 2013 at 7:27 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Most of these deadlines aren’t for mission-critical features of the law, and the document reads like a kind of caricature of bureaucratic busywork. For example, Section 10407(d) mandates that by March 23, 2012, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is required to “submit to Congress a report on the appropriate level of diabetes medical education.” (To date, the report has not been located.) Also on that date, the Secretary is required to “implement a 5-year national public education campaign on oral health care prevention and education.” (She missed that one too.)

* STILL... THE POINT IS... IF LAWS ARE PASSED SHOULDN'T THEY BE ADHERED TO? SHOULDN'T HEADS ROLL IF THEY'RE NOT ADHERED TO? AGAIN... THESE ARE LAWS... STATUTES... NOT SUGGESTIONS... NOT "GOALS."

But there are some more economically significant deadlines that the administration has missed. A requirement for the Secretary to “develop requirements for health plans to report on their efforts to improve health outcomes,” also due on March 23, 2012, has not been met to date.

* TODAY IS AUGUST 19, 2013.

A number of rules that would safeguard the privacy of medical records have either yet to be developed, or have been meaningfully tardy in their arrival. And, of course, if you follow the ObamaCare news, you are aware of the high-profile delays that are not included in the CRS report, such as the "delay" in ObamaCare's caps on out-of-pocket insurance costs.

* OBAMA SIMPLY REWROTE THE LAW... AND CONGRESS LET HIM DO SO. FOLKS... AGAIN... BROKEN RECORD OR NOT... AMERICA IS NO LONGER A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC UNDER THE RULE OF LAW. IT'S... JUST... NOT!

We should make one thing clear. The law isn’t going to “collapse unto itself.”

* NOT YET...

For every missed deadline or White House waiver, there are nine aspects of ObamaCare that are being implemented as we speak.

(*HEADACHE*)

ObamaCare may fail at reducing insurance premiums...

* HAS FAILED. WILL CONTINUE TO FAIL.

...or at wisely using taxpayer funds.

* DITTO!

But the law is scheduled to spend $1.9 trillion over the next ten years. At that, it is unlikely to fail.

(*SIGH*)

A significant amount of that money may not go to the people for whom it’s intended.

* DO TELL!

It may not have the benefits on health outcomes that the law’s most zealous supporters insist it will.

* IT WON'T.

But barring substantial Congressional action, that $1.9 trillion will still get spent, along with trillions more thereafter. Only new laws, not wishful thinking, will change that.

August 19, 2013 at 7:28 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)