Monday, September 16, 2013

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, September 16, 2013


Info on the Washington Naval Yard shooting is still spotty so I'll address what's going on as news reporting solidifies.

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/358550/congresss-exemption-obamacare-john-fund

In 1995, the newly elected Republican Congress passed a Congressional Accountability Act to fulfill a promise made the previous year in [Newt Gingrich's] Contract with America. For the first time, the Act applied to Congress the same civil-rights employment and labor laws that lawmakers had required everyday citizens to abide by. With some lapses, it’s worked well to defuse public outrage about “one law for thee, one law for me” congressional behavior.

* FAST FORWARD TO TODAY...

Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, has demanded a floor vote on his bill to end an exemption that members of Congress and their staffs are slated to get that will make them the only participants in the new ObamaCare exchanges to receive generous subsidies from their employer to pay for their health insurance.

* BUT HOW DID CONGRESS GET AN EXEMPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE WITH GINGRICH'S CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT IN PLACE? READ ON, MY FRIENDS...

In 2009, Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) decided that the principle deserved to be embedded in ObamaCare, and he was able to insert a provision requiring all members of Congress and their staffs to get insurance through the ObamaCare health exchanges.

“The more that Congress experiences the laws it passes, the better,” said Grassley.

Although his amendment was watered down before final passage to exclude committee staff, it still applies to members of Congress and their personal staffs. Most employment lawyers interpreted that to mean that the taxpayer-funded federal health-insurance subsidies dispensed to those on Congress’s payroll — which now range from $5,000 to $11,000 a year — would have to end.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Democratic and Republican staffers alike were furious, warning that Congress faced a “brain drain” if the provision stuck.

* IF THE CLOWNS RUNNING WASHINGTON ARE "THE BRAINS" OF THIS OPERATION WE CALL GOVERNMENT... (*PAUSE*)... THEN LET THE DRAIN BEGIN!

Under behind-the-scenes pressure from members of Congress in both parties, President Obama used the quiet of the August recess to personally order the Office of Personnel Management, which supervises federal employment issues, to interpret the law so as to retain the generous congressional benefits.

* AT BEST AN "END RUN AROUND" THE CONSTITUTION; IN MY VIEW "CLEAR VIOLATION."

OPM had previously balked at issuing such a ruling.

* FOLKS... ACTS OF CONGRESS WHICH ARE PASSED EITHER WITH A PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE OR OVER HIS VETO ARE CALL LAWS. LAWS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OBEYED - BY ALL... INCLUIDNG THE OPM AND EVEN INCLUDING PRESIDENT OBAMA. WHEN I KEEP INSISTING THAT WE ARE NOWADAYS A NATION RUN OUTSIDE OF THE RULE OF LAW... WELL... YOU SHOULD BELIEVE ME; IT'S TRUE!

Even without OPM, Congress could have voted to restore the subsidies or ordered a salary raise to compensate for the loss of benefits, but that would have been a messy, public process, which everyone wanted to avoid.

* IN TRUTH THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS CONGRESS MAKE THE DECISION... VIA THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS... IN ACCORD WITH THE CONSTITUTION. UNFORTUNATLEY... WHEN A CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND LEADERS OF BOTH PARTIES CONSPIRE TO SUBVERT THE CONSTITUTION... (*SHRUG*)... THEY USUALLY GET AWAY WITH IT.

Senator Vitter says the OPM ruling has removed “the sting of ObamaCare” from Congress. “Many Americans will see their health coverage dropped by employers, and they will be forced into the exchanges,” he told me last week. “If Congress is forced into them on the same terms, it will be more likely to fix ObamaCare's problems for others.” The bill he and his co-author, Senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, have drafted would make everyone working on Capitol Hill buy insurance through the exchanges — with no subsidies. White House officials and political appointees in the executive branch would also be required to obtain health insurance through the exchanges.

* WHICH... IS... AS... IT... SHOULD... BE...!!!

What Vitter’s opponents fear most is that this fight will penetrate the public’s consciousness.

A new poll taken for Independent Women’s Voice, a conservative group, found that 92% of voters think Congress shouldn’t be exempted from the insurance provisions of ObamaCare.

September 16, 2013 at 12:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/15/congress-hillary-s-benghazi-investigation-let-top-officials-escape-blame.html

* FOLKS... I DON'T CARE IF I'M BEATING A DEAD HORSE!

The State Department’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi was not independent and failed to hold senior State Department officials accountable for the failures that led to the death of four Americans, according to a new investigative report compiled by the House Oversight Committee.

The Administrative Review Board, chosen by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...

* FOLKS... YA CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP!

...unfairly placed the blame for the terrorist attack on four mid-level officials while ignoring the role of very senior officials in Clinton’s State Department for decisions about security in Benghazi, according to the new report led by Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA).

* AND FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THIS IS SIMPLY POLITICS AS USUAL... REPUBLICANS AGAINST DEMOCRATS... UNDERSTAND THAT THE GOP GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP - SPEAKER BOEHNER AND SENATE MINORITY LEADER MCCONNELL - HAVE BASICALLY BEEN DOING EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO SLOW AND HINDER A TRUE INVESTIGATION. WHY? MY CONJECTURE IS THAT EITHER THEY'RE SIMPLY AFRAID TO GO HEAD TO HEAD AGAINST HILLARY AND THE CLINTON MACHINE... OR... THEY HAVE SOME LAMEBRAIN HOPE THAT IF REPUBLICANS "KEEP THEIR POWDER DRY" NOW THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO USE IT AGAINST CLINTON IN 2016 IF SHE'S THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. EITHER WAY, BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL ARE WRONG... BOEHNER AND MCCONNELL ARE SCUMBAGS.

Also, the structure of the ARB and the culture in Clinton’s State Department raised questions about the independence and integrity of the review, according to Issa’s committee. “The ARB blamed systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies within two bureaus, but downplayed the importance of decisions made at senior levels of the Department. Witnesses questioned how much these decisions influenced the weaknesses that led to the inadequate security posture in Benghazi,” the report stated. “The ARB’s decision to cite certain officials as accountable for what happened in Benghazi appears to have been based on factors that had little or no connection to the security posture at U.S. diplomatic facilities in Libya.”

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The Daily Beast first reported in May that the four officials removed from their jobs and placed on administrative leave as a result of the State Department’s ARB report on Benghazi had never been told what they were accused of, never been given any opportunity to appeal their punishments, and never were officially fired. One of the officials, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Ray Maxwell, had little to no role in Libya security policy and was not even alleged to have been connected to the security failures leading up to the Benghazi attack.

* FOLKS... THIS IS NOT A MOVIE SCRIPT REVIEW! THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED...!!!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

The Daily Beast first reported last month that the Kerry State Department decided to allow those four officials to return to work in the State Department, although not in their previous jobs. Although former Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, the head of the ARB, said that responsibility should be placed at the assistant secretary level, top officials including Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Beth Jones were never disciplined.

(*THROWING MY ARMS WIDE*)

The new report by Issa’s committee questions why Under Secretary of State Patrick Kennedy, who admitted to having a role in overseeing the decision to reject requests for more security in Benghazi before the attack, was never blamed or disciplined by the ARB.

* BECAUSE HE'S PATRICK KENNEDY...!!!

Moreover, Kennedy played a key role in selecting the members of the ARB and the staff that helped the ARB do its works, Issa’s report revealed.

* GEEZUS...

“The haphazard decision to place the four officials cited by the ARB on paid administrative leave created the appearance that former Secretary Hillary Clinton’s decision to announce action against the individuals named in the ARB report was more of a public relations strategy than a measured response to a tragedy,” Issa’s report said. “Therefore, one year after the Benghazi attacks, no one at the State Department has been fired for their role leading up to the Benghazi attacks. It appears increasingly likely the Department’s primary objective was to create the public appearance of accountability.”

* YEP...

Several officials told Issa’s committee that Kennedy was deeply involved in security decisions and would have been directly involved in the decision not to approve requests for more security in Benghazi before the attacks. “The ultimate decision maker is Under Secretary Kennedy,” testified Eric Boswell, the Assistant Secretary of Diplomatic Security, who was punished by the ARB.

* FOLKS... WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHO GAVE THE ORDER TO "STAND DOWN" EVEN AS OUR PEOPLE WERE FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES! THERE HAS BEEN A COVER-UP - A VERY EFFECTIVE ONE!

“The way the Under Secretary for Management runs things, there is no decision that DS makes that doesn’t have his input and his imprimatur, his approval,” Maxwell testified. “There is no decision that DS doesn’t make that doesn’t have his disapproval.”

* HAS KENNEDY BEEN QUESTIONED UNDER OATH? (I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAS BEEN.)

The report also questions Clinton’s personal awareness and role in the mistakes that contributed to the attacks. “Did Secretary Clinton have views on the need to extend the Benghazi mission, both in the fall of 2011 and summer of 2012? Was she consulted on these questions and what, if any, influence did her opinion have on the Department’s decisions?” the report asks.

* FOLKS... THE BUCK SUPPOSEDLY STOPPED AT HER DESK!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

September 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Issa’s investigation also found that the ARB was rushed in its investigation, completing its work in only 10 weeks, undermining claims by Clinton and President Obama that the ARB conducted a full and complete investigation into the attacks.

* 10 WEEKS... 10 MONTHS... IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED! THAT'S THE POINT! THE FIX WAS IN! OBVIOUSLY THE FIX WAS IN...!!!

Also, the committee identified several conflicts of interest between the ARB and the people they were investigating. Jones admitted to the committee that she had close personal and professional relationships with both Pickering and the executive director of the ARB staff Uzra Zeya. Pickering also knew Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Liz Dibble, who had a role in Benghazi security decisions but was not punished after the ARB report.

* NO... OF COURSE NOT...

Dibble was subsequently named Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in London.

(*SNORT*)

Eric Nordstrom, the former Regional Security Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, testified to Issa’s committee that top people in Clinton’s State Department, including Kennedy, were allowed to escape any accountability for the failures that preceded the Benghazi attack. The ARB interviewed Kennedy, but not Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, or Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides.

* NOT CLINTON... NOT BURNS... NOT NIDES... (AND AGAIN I ASK: WAS KENNEDY INTERVIEWED? INTERVIEWED UNDER OATH...???)

“It’s an accountability of mid-level officer review board and the message to my colleagues is that if you are above a certain level, no matter what your decision is, no one is going to question it. And that is my concern with the ARB,” Nordstrom testified on May 8.

* AGAIN... NORDSTROM... FORMER REGIONAL SECURITY OFFICER AT THE U.S. EMBASSY IN TRIPOLI...

Issa’s staff interviewed over two dozen current and former State Department officials to compile its 100 page report on the ARB. The Daily Beast viewed an embargoed copy of Issa’s report. The full report will be released Monday.

The State Department defended its handling of the four mid-level officials punished following the ARB report in a Aug. 29 letter to Issa. The letter stated that since the ARB had not found any active breach of duty by the four officials, Kerry was not able to fire them and was therefore required to bring them back to work in the State Department.

* ABSURD!

* FOLKS... THERE'S MORE TO THE ARTICLE... THE DEMS ARE GIVEN SPACE TO GIVE THEIR STORY. I FIND THEIR STORY LAUGHABLE - PARTICULARLY WHEN PLACED SIDE TO SIDE AGAINST WHAT I'VE JUST GIVEN YOU HERE - BUT BE MY GUEST AND UTILIZE THE LINK IF YOU'RE CURIOUS ABOUT HOW THEY RESPOND. FRANKLY... I WON'T GIVE SUCH NONSENSE SPACE. YOUR CALL!

September 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/suspected-u-shooter-had-secret-clearance-employer-says-010927653.html

Aaron Alexis, the 34-year-old suspect in Monday's shooting rampage at the Washington Navy Yard, had "secret" clearance...

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

...and was assigned to start working there as a civilian contractor with a military-issued ID card, his firm's chief executive told Reuters.

The Navy said Alexis enlisted as a full-time Navy reservist in May 2007. He was discharged in 2011 after a series of misconduct issues, a Navy official said.

* AND YET... HE WAS ELIGIBLE TO GET "SECRET CLEARANCE." (ANYONE SEE ANY DISCONNECT HERE...???)

Alexis had previously worked for The Experts in Japan from September 2012 to January 2013, Thomas Hoshko, CEO of The Experts Inc said.

"We had just recently re-hired him. Another background investigation was re-run and cleared through the defense security service in July 2013," Hoshko said.

* ANOTHER... BACKGROUND... CHECK...

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

* NOTICE, FOLKS... THIS IS YAHOO CANADA! KEEP ACCESSING THE FOREIGN PRESS - THAT'S MY ADVICE.

September 16, 2013 at 11:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-waives-ban-on-arming-terrorists-to-allow-aid-to-syrian-opposition/article/2535885

President Obama waived a provision of federal law designed to prevent the supply of arms to terrorist groups...

* UNDER WHAT AUTHORITY...? UNLESS THE LEGISLATION ITSELF GRANTS HIM SUCH AUTHORITY... WELL... THEN HE HAS NONE.

* BY THE WAY... WHY? WHY WOULD OBAMA WAIVE SUCH A NO-BRAINER LAW...???

...to clear the way for the U.S. to provide military assistance to "vetted" opposition groups fighting Syrian dictator Bashar Assad.

* OH...

* VETTED. LIKE... er... AARON ALEXIS WAS VETTED... PRIOR TO BEING AWARDED "SECRET" CLEARANCE... PRIOR TO GOING ON HIS MURDER SPREE IN THE WASHINGTON NAVAL YARD...?

The president, citing his authority under the Arms Export Control Act, announced today that he would "waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction."

* DO YOU SUPPOSE EITHER THE REPORTER OR HIS/HER EDITOR BOTHERED TO READ THE ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT TO SEE IF IT GRANTS THE PRESIDENT SUCH POWER? (I DON'T!)

The law allows the president to waive those prohibitions if he "determines that the transaction is essential to the national security interests of the United States."

* OK! FAIR ENOUGH! OBAMA HAS THE POWER!

Under section 40(g) of the AECA, the Obama team must also provide Congress — at least 15 days before turning over the weapons — "the name of any country involved in the proposed transaction, the identity of any recipient of the items to be provided pursuant to the proposed transaction, and the anticipated use of those items," along with a list of the weaponry to be provided, when they will be delivered, and why the transfer is key to American security interests.

September 16, 2013 at 11:21 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)