Friday, January 24, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, January 24, 2014


People who ignore my emails... annoy me.


Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/24/exclusive-republican-party-calls-for-investigation-into-nsa-snooping/

In the latest indication of a growing libertarian wing of the GOP, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution Friday calling for an investigation into the “gross infringement” of Americans’ rights by National Security Agency programs that were revealed by Edward Snowden.

* NICE SOUNDBITE... BUT HASN'T JOHN BOEHNER BEEN SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE SINCE JANUARY 2011?

* AND WHERE'S THAT ASS MCCONNELL...???

The resolution also calls on on Republican members of Congress to enact amendments to the Section 215 law that currently allows the spy agency to collect records of almost every domestic telephone call. The amendment should make clear that “blanket surveillance of the Internet activity, phone records and correspondence — electronic, physical, and otherwise — of any person residing in the U.S. is prohibited by law and that violations can be reviewed in adversarial proceedings before a public court,” the resolution reads.

* SOUNDS GOOD TO ME - WITH THE CAVEAT THAT INSTEAD OF "PERSONS RESIDING IN THE U.S." WE CHANGE IT TO U.S. CITIZENS RESIDING IN THE U.S.

* BTW... SECTION 215 IS NO DOUBT BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL - REGARDLESS OF WHAT AN OFTEN-LAWLESS U.S.SUPREME COURT HAS RULED IN THE PAST. (THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS QUITE CLEAR ON THESE MATTERS...)

Among other points, the resolution declares “the mass collection and retention of personal data is in itself contrary to the right of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution,” a claim embraced by civil libertarians of both parties.

* TOO BAD THE CONSTITUTION NOWADAYS MEANS ONLY WHAT OBAMA (AND BUSH BEFORE HIM) SAYS IT MEANS AND NOT WHAT OUR FOUNDERS ACTUALLY PUT DOWN IN WRITING.

The revelation of the NSA programs has caused deepened a rift within the Republican Party between national security hawks and libertarians, but at the meeting, no RNC member rose to speak against the resolution.

* "HAWKS?" CHICKENHAWKS IS MORE LIKE IT! "THOSE WHO GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY IN THE HOPE OF EXCHANGING IT FOR TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER." (I'M PARAPHRASING...)

January 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20140124/NEWS/301240097/Former-Alexander-aide-Ryan-Loskarn-commits-suicide-

Ryan Loskarn, the former chief of staff to U.S. Sen. Lamar Alexander who was charged with possessing and distributing child pornography last month, was found dead in his home in Maryland of an apparent suicide, law enforcement officials said Friday.

* ASSUMING HE WAS GUILTY... GOOD MOVE!

Loskarn, 35, was arrested last month by federal agents on charges that he possessed and intended to distribute child pornography. The arrest came as agents executed a raid on his Washington residence. Alexander fired him the same day.

* FIRED... (AS OPPOSED TO PLACING HIM ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE.) SO OBVIOUSLY ALEXANDER THOUGHT LOSKARN WAS GUILTY.

“For everyone involved, this is a sad and tragic story from beginning to end,” Alexander said in a statement Friday morning.

* I DON'T KNOW... SOUNDS LIKE A FAIRLY HAPPY ENDING TO ME! DIRTBAG DEAD! BETTER THAN DIRTBAG ALIVE - AT TAXPAYER EXPENSE.

Federal prosecutors had delayed an indictment of Loskarn, hinting at a possible plea agreement. Court records show that Loskarn’s lawyers and prosecutors agreed on Dec. 18 to extend the time for filing an indictment in the case to Feb. 10.

Loskarn had been released to the custody of his parents in Sykesville, Md., where he was ordered not to use the Internet and to wear an ankle bracelet.

In an unusual ruling issued in the case late last year, U.S. Magistrate John M. Facciola defended his decision to release Loskarn to his parents, citing measures taken to ensure that he would not have access to the Internet.

“I have prohibited the defendant’s use of the Internet,” he wrote in the two-page ruling. “I concluded, therefore, that the risk of his resuming the downloading of child pornography is not great.”

* SOUNDS LIKE POLITICAL DEALS WERE BEING MADE... UNETHICAL POLITICAL DEALS - THE KIND YOU'D FIND AVAILABLE IN A CORRUPT THIRD-WORLD HELLHOLE. (OH... BUT THIS IS OBAMA'S AMERIKA...)

January 24, 2014 at 2:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gov-mcdonnell-rejected-plea-offer-to-face-one-felony-spare-wife-any-charges-avoid-trial/2014/01/23/96b53a62-83bd-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html?tid=pm_politics_pop

Maureen McDonnell relayed to federal prosecutors last summer that she felt responsible for the relationship with a wealthy businessman who had drawn legal scrutiny to Virginia’s first family, and her attorney asked whether the case could be resolved without charges for her husband.

But prosecutors showed no interest, according to people familiar with the conversation. Instead, months later, authorities proposed that then-Gov. Robert F. McDonnell plead guilty to one felony fraud charge that had nothing to do with corruption in office...

(*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)

* HUH...?!?! ONE FELONY FRAUD CHARGE... THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CORRUPTION IN OFFICE...???

* WTF...?!?!

...and his wife would avoid charges altogether.

* AGAIN... WTF...?!?!

The governor rejected the offer, the people with knowledge of the conversations said.

* I FEAR I'M GONNA NEED A DRINK FOR THIS ONE... (*HEADING TO THE BAR*)

(*RETURNING*)

On Tuesday, Robert and Maureen McDonnell were jointly charged in a 14-count indictment...

* HOW'D ONE COUNT GO TO FOURTEEN...???

....alleging that they engaged in conspiracy and fraud, trading on his office to provide assistance to the businessman in exchange for more than $165,000 in luxury gifts and loans.

* BUT IF THIS IS THE CASE... WHY THE INITIAL OFFER ON JUST ONE COUNT? AND WHY THE INITIAL OFFER TO LET THE WIFE SKATE...???

(*WONDERING WHERE THE REAL CORRUPTION RESIDES*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 24, 2014 at 2:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

* OOPS... GONNA NEED THREE POSTS... (Post 2 of 3)

The failed behind-the-scenes plea discussions underscore the former governor’s strong assertion that prosecutors have stretched the law to ensnare a high-level official through the actions of his wife. He has emphatically insisted that he did nothing illegal in his interactions with businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. and made no agreements to assist his company, Star Scientific Inc.

It also provides a vivid illustration of the extent to which both of the McDonnells believe that it was the former first lady’s poor judgment in establishing a friendship with Williams that has landed the couple in legal peril.

Attorneys for the couple, who have said their clients are innocent, declined to comment. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office also declined to comment.

A plea deal would have allowed the McDonnells to avoid the release of embarrassing details in an indictment as well as a bruising public trial that will probably put the internal dynamics of their marriage on full display.

Robert McDonnell has said publicly that he was not aware of all of the gifts his family accepted from Williams in 2011 and 2012.

People familiar with the investigation say that in private meetings, the couple’s attorneys have told prosecutors that Maureen McDonnell at times actively worked to hide Williams’s generosity from her husband.

In court, that idea will be tested against the reality of the couple’s relationship as jurors are asked to assess whether they believe the former governor could have been in the dark about Williams’s largesse and his wife’s activities to help Star Scientific.

Williams’s gifts included a Rolex watch inscribed “71st Governor of Virginia” that prosecutors say Maureen McDonnell requested in 2011 to later give her husband for Christmas.

* SOUNDS LIKE MRS. MCDONNELL IS THE ONE AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE LOOKING AT... AND YET THEY WERE WILLING TO GIVE HER A PASS IN RETURN FOR THE REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR'S SCALP. INTERESTING...

The indictment includes more examples of actions she allegedly took on behalf of Star Scientific than did her husband.

While the governor set up meetings for Williams with top state officials and attended an event at the Executive Mansion to mark the launch of Star Scientific’s supplement Anatabloc, prosecutors say Maureen McDonnell told Williams in May 2011 that she could help the company if he provided the couple financial assistance.

* AGAIN... MAUREEN MCDONNELL... NOT BOB MCDONNELL...

He then lent her $50,000. Later, he lent $70,000 to a small real estate company owned by the governor and his sister.

* DID THE GOVERNOR KNOW ABOUT THIS? DID HE TRY AND HIDE THE FACT OF THE LOAN? DID HE BREAK ANY LAWS...???

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

Maureen McDonnell attended a number of Star events with investors, including events in Florida and Michigan. She sat in on an August 2011 meeting with a top state health official and Williams, where he suggested using state employees as a control group for research studies of Anatabloc.

But Maureen McDonnell did not hold public office and could not, on her own, illegally take action to assist Williams as part of a quid pro quo for items of value. Authorities allege that her actions became criminal as part of a conspiracy with her husband to use his office for the couple’s personal gain. To win a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the former governor agreed to provide his official help to Williams in exchange for his largesse.

* YEP. AND IF HE'S GUILTY... HANG HIM. (BUT I'VE GOTTA SAY... THIS STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.)

Legal experts said the former first lady could attempt to shoulder blame as a way of trying to convince a jury that neither McDonnell took illegal actions. “It’s almost like ships passing in the night. Where he says, ‘I didn’t know what she was doing.’ And she says, ‘I had no idea what he was doing.’ And the jury is left to decide what’s reasonable,” said Jonathan Biran, a former federal prosecutor. “It’s an interesting wrinkle.”

Peter Zeidenberg, a white-collar defense lawyer and former prosecutor on the White House leak of a CIA operative’s identity, said it will be interesting to watch whether the couple remain on the same page with their defense. “It may not be in their best interests to stay unified,” he said. “It may be in the governor’s best interests to put distance between himself and his wife. He can say, ‘I can’t keep track of everything she buys.’ ”

* ALL I WANT IS THE TRUTH...

Since Tuesday, when the indictment was handed up, the former governor’s comments have focused almost exclusively on his own innocence. “I come before you this evening as someone who has been falsely and wrongfully accused and whose public service has been wrongfully attacked,” he said in a televised statement Tuesday evening.

Maureen McDonnell stood stone-faced at his side but did not speak. (He did not mention the charges against her.)

“Bob McDonnell is an innocent man,” begins the defense’s formal reply to the charges. The only reference to his wife is a footnote, in which the governor’s attorneys say that the first lady is not a public official so she cannot engage in official acts.

The plea deal offered by prosecutors in late December would have omitted accusations that Robert McDonnell misused his position as governor.

* GEEZUS FRIGGIN' CHRIST... IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE PROSECUTOR SHOULD BE FACING A GRAND JURY!

Instead, he would have pleaded guilty to failing to disclose Williams’s loans on a list of liabilities included on an application to refinance the couple’s hefty mortgages.

But in this week’s motion, his attorneys argued that he was innocent of the fraud charge as well. They wrote that the omissions were inadvertent and would not have made a difference in whether his application was approved.

* IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT...

January 24, 2014 at 3:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304367204579268783824991054?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

With fewer glitches to deter them, millions of Americans are now logging on to the ObamaCare health-insurance-exchange websites.

* BUT NOT MILLIONS ENOUGH TO MAKE THE MATH WORK...

(*SMIRK*)

When they get there, many are discovering some unpleasant surprises:

The deductibles are higher than what most people are used to, the networks of doctors and hospitals are skimpier (in some cases much skimpier), and lifesaving drugs are often not on the insurers' formularies.

* THUS... INSURANCE THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY OFFER HEALTHCARE... (BUT ENJOY PAYING THOSE PREMIUMS!)

Even after the government's income-based subsidies are taken into account, the premiums are often higher than what people previously paid.

* DUH!

Why is this happening? Because the new law gives insurance buyers and sellers perverse incentives to behave in ways that create these problems. Things will only get more out of whack as more and more unhealthy people enter a system designed to be paid for by premiums from healthy people.

Under the Affordable Care Act, the benefits insurers must offer are strictly regulated. The law piles on benefits for which everyone must have coverage, whether they could ever use the benefits or not. At the same time, insurers set their own premiums and choose their own networks of doctors and hospitals.

* INSURERS DON'T SET THEIR OWN PREMIUMS; PREMIUMS ARE TIGHTLY REGULATED; PREMIUMS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT!

To keep premiums as low as possible, the insurers are offering very narrow networks, often leaving out the best doctors and the best hospitals.

In September, the Los Angeles Times reported that Blue Shield will have only about half the doctors in its exchange plan as it has in its traditional plan. One of the exchange plans in Colorado includes only a single Denver hospital, the one that usually treats Medicaid patients.

Narrow networks can be good or bad. Wal-Mart has selected a half-dozen centers of excellence around the country for its employees, places carefully chosen for their high quality and low costs.

* AND IF ONE ISN'T WITHIN A REASONABLE DISTANCE OF ON OF THESE S*I*X CENTERS SPREAD ACROSS THE 50 STATES...???

The exchange health plans, by contrast, appear to care only about cost. They are offering low fees — sometimes even lower than the rock-bottom fees Medicaid pays health-care providers — and accepting only those providers who will take them.

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

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers are required to charge the same premium rate to anyone who wants to sign up, regardless of health status; and they are required to accept anyone who applies. This means that to make ends meet they must overcharge the healthy and undercharge the sick. It also means insurers have strong incentives to attract the healthy (on whom they make a profit) and avoid the sick (on whom they incur losses) by, in effect, making their plans less appealing to the sick. Here's how they seem to be doing it:

In structuring the plans they offer on the ObamaCare exchanges, the insurers apparently assumed that the healthy will choose the plan they buy based on its price, while ignoring other features of the plan. It makes sense: If I am healthy why wouldn't I shop for the lowest price? If I later develop cancer, I can move to a plan that has the best cancer care.

* FIRST... WHY SHOULD THIS BE ALLOWED? SECOND... IN THE REAL WORLD WHAT'S GONNA BE THE WINDOW FOR THOSE TRYING TO GAME THE SYSTEM - WILL IN TAKE LESS TIME TO RE-ENROLL THAN FOR A CANCER TO GO FROM STAGE THREE TO STAGE FOUR...?

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

By law, these plans will be prohibited from charging me more than the premium paid by a healthy enrollee.

* SOUNDS LIKE A SCAM TONY SOPRANO WOULD HAVE PUT TOGETHER!

Insurers also assume that people who already are ill or otherwise expect to use a lot of health care pay much closer attention to the cost of deductibles and which doctors and hospitals are in the insurer's network. To have any hope of balancing their books, insurers must then attract the maximum number of customers who are likely to stay healthy and thus not use so much of the care they paid for, while unhealthy people in effect use more than they paid for. This is why most plans are apparently designed to attract people willing to overlook high deductibles and less access to health care in return for lower premiums.

Yet no matter how narrow the provider network, health plans are going to cost more if they enroll more people with above-average health-care costs. And that is what is about to happen.

* FOLKS... WE'RE DESTROYING AMERICA...

For some years, the federal government and some states have operated and subsidized risk pools. These allowed the chronically ill and other high-cost people who were "uninsurable" to purchase insurance for the same premium healthy people pay. Under ObamaCare, however, the pools are due to shut down and send their enrollees to the exchanges, where the above-average cost of their care will be implicitly borne by higher premiums charged to everyone enrolled in the plans.

* OFTEN SUBSIDIZED BY THE TAXPAYER... THEREFORE EVERYONE LOSES!

To make matters worse, cities and towns with unfunded health-care commitments are getting ready to dump their retirees on the state exchanges.

* TO BE SUBSIDIZED BY FEDERAL TAXPAYERS... (MEANING YOU AND ME!)

Since retirees are above-average age, they have above-average expected costs. The city of Detroit, for example, is planning to dump the costs of about 10,000 retirees on the Michigan exchange.

* AGAIN... STATE EXCHANGES... BUT FEDERAL SUBSIDIES!

Then there are the job-lock employees — people who are working only to get health insurance because they are uninsurable in the individual market. Under ObamaCare, their incentive will be to quit their jobs and head to the exchanges.

* NO JOBS; MORE SUBSIDIES!

In sum: A lot of high-cost patients are about to enroll through the exchanges. This will force up premiums further for all other buyers.

* AGAIN... EVERYONE LOSES... EXCEPT THOSE GAMING THE SYSTEM... AND EVEN THEY LOSE WHEN THEIR INSURANCE DOESN'T PROVIDE THE ACTUAL TREATMENTS AND MEDICATIONS THEY REQUIRE!

January 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)