Thursday, January 23, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, January 23, 2014


My...

 AMERICA...


Posted by at

9 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.businessinsider.com/debt-ceiling-deadline-february-limit-treasury-2014-1

The U.S. is likely to exhaust its borrowing authority on the earlier side of what Treasury Secretary Jack Lew had estimated...

(*SMIRK*)

Lew warned in the new letter that Congress will likely need to raise the debt ceiling by late February to avoid a potential default on the country's obligations.

* LEW IS A LIAR. THE MOMENT YOU HEAR THE WORD "DEFAULT" MENTIONED AS A THREAT YOU KNOW THE SPEAKER IS A LYING PIECE OF SHIT.

As part of the bill to reopen the government in mid-October, the debt limit was suspended through Feb. 7. The Treasury can use so-called "extraordinary measures" after that point to keep borrowing...

* EXACTLY! "KEEP BORROWING."

January 23, 2014 at 2:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/michigan-seeks-visas-lure-immigrants-174420066.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CfgXeFSsFMAmibQtDMD

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder announced a plan Thursday to ask the Obama administration to set aside thousands of work visas to entice talented immigrants to live and work in bankrupt Detroit.

* THIS IS REAL NEWS, FOLKS! NOT THE ONION! NOT SNL!

* I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT...

January 23, 2014 at 2:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/nj-unemployment-rate-drops-labor-173536848.html;_ylt=A2KJ3CXnXuFSt0YAONnQtDMD

New Jersey's unemployment rate has dropped significantly for the second month in a row...

* GREAT, RIGHT...?!

* ACTUALLY... NO... NOT GREAT... (READ ON!)

...but it's not because more jobs have been created. December's rate was 7.3%, down a half-point from November and the lowest unemployment rate for New Jersey in five years. But the state government was not celebrating the news. Data collected in a federal survey released by the state on Thursday shows than some 26,000 people left the labor force last month.

With fewer people seeking jobs, the unemployment rate fell even as the number of residents with jobs dropped by 36,000.

* THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WITH JOBS DROPPED BY 36,000.

January 23, 2014 at 2:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/obamas-ambassador-norway-fumbles-basic-questions-about-norway

The next U.S. ambassador to Norway, George Tsunis, bundled $500,000 for President Obama in 2012 [but] apparently knows nothing about Norway.

Questioned by Senator John McCain about the anti-immigration Progress Party, which has now joined the ruling coalition, Tsunis had no idea what McCain was talking about.

McCain asked for his thoughts; Tsunis replied, “You get some fringe elements that have a a microphone and spew their hatred. And I will tell you Norway has been very quick to denounce them.”

That is untrue. They are part of the ruling coalition, as McCain quickly pointed out.

Tsunis also referred to Norway’s “president,” although the country has no president, since it is a constitutional monarchy.

The Norwegian newspaper The Local commented, “Future U.S. envoy displays total ignorance of Norway.”

* MAKES YA PROUD, DOESN'T IT?

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* FOLKS... OBAMA HAS SO MUCH CONTEMPT FOR YOU, ME, AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY AND INDEED THE WORLD THAT HE DOESN'T EVEN BOTHER TO FAKE GIVING A SHIT.

* AND KERRY...? THAT SCUMBAG? HE SHOULD HAVE TO OBAMA THAT IF OBAMA NOMINATED TSUNIS HE (KERRY) WOULD RESIGN IN PROTEST.

* FOLKS... I DON'T KNOW IF MANY OF YOU REMEMBER... BUT THE SITUATION WAS EVEN WORSE UNDER HILLARY! THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS APPOINTED INCOMPETENT AFTER INCOMPETENT INTO THE HIGHEST RANKS OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BOTH FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!

January 23, 2014 at 2:16 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/us/politics/leaning-right-in-hollywood-under-a-lens.html?_r=0

In a famously left-leaning Hollywood, where Democratic fund-raisers fill the social calendar, Friends of Abe stands out as a conservative group that bucks the prevailing political winds.

A collection of perhaps 1,500 right-leaning players in the entertainment industry, Friends of Abe keeps a low profile and fiercely protects its membership list, to avoid what it presumes would result in a sort of 21st-century blacklist, albeit on the other side of the partisan spectrum.

Now the Internal Revenue Service is reviewing the group’s activities in connection with its application for tax-exempt status.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Last week, federal tax authorities presented the group with a 10-point request for detailed information about its meetings with politicians like Paul D. Ryan, Thaddeus McCotter and Herman Cain, among other matters, according to people briefed on the inquiry.

The [group] spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the organization’s confidentiality strictures, and to avoid complicating discussions with the I.R.S. Those people said that the application had been under review for roughly two years, and had at one point included a demand (which was not met) for enhanced access to the group’s security-protected website, which would have revealed member names.

(*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Tax experts said that an organization’s membership list is information that would not typically be required. The I.R.S. already had access to the site’s basic levels, a request it considers routine for applications for 501(c)(3) nonprofit status.

Friends of Abe — the name refers to Abraham Lincoln — has strongly discouraged the naming of its members. That policy even prohibits the use of cameras at group events, to avoid the unwilling identification of all but a few associates — the actors Gary Sinise, Jon Voight and Kelsey Grammer, or the writer-producer Lionel Chetwynd, for instance — who have spoken openly about their conservative political views.

The I.R.S. request comes in the face of a continuing congressional investigation into the agency’s reviews of political non-profits, most of them conservative-leaning, which provoked outrage on the right and forced the departure last year of several high-ranking I.R.S. officials. But unlike most of those groups, which had sought I.R.S. approval for a mix of election campaigning and nonpartisan issue advocacy, Friends of Abe is seeking a far more restrictive tax status, known as 501(c)(3), that would let donors claim a tax deduction, but strictly prohibits any form of partisan activity.

The group is not currently designated tax-exempt, but it behaves as a non-profit and has almost no formal structure, people briefed on the matter said. The I.R.S. review will determine whether Friends of Abe receives tax-exempt status that would provide legal footing similar to that of the People for the American Way Foundation, a progressive group fostered by the television producer Norman Lear and others.

Friends of Abe began about nine years ago as little more than an email chain linking conservative stars, filmmakers and other Hollywood figures who were generally reluctant to openly discuss their views. The name is a take on Friends of Bill, the circle of loyalists who have adhered to Bill Clinton over the years.

Mr. Sinise was a leading voice among those who in early 2005 gathered at Morton’s Steakhouse here for an informal dinner that members have since identified as the group’s closest approach to an actual founding moment.

As Friends of Abe grew, however, Mr. Sinise withdrew from active leadership, and Mr. Boreing, a film producer and director, took charge.

Membership has been defined mostly by access to a private website (there are no dues, but enhanced online access requires a small fee), and attendance at a growing number of events that have included meetings with political operatives like Karl Rove and Frank Luntz; politicians like Michele Bachmann and John Boehner; and media figures like Ann Coulter, Dennis Miller and Mark Levin.

The recent I.R.S. query did not mention the earlier request for access to the names of members, people briefed on the query said.

But a remaining question is whether at least some of the group’s politically oriented encounters will be interpreted as campaign activity, and weigh against its bid for tax exemption as a 501(c)(3) organization, devoted to educational or charitable work.

A spokesman for the I.R.S. on Wednesday said it was prohibited from commenting on specific taxpayer activity.

Tax officials and congressional overseers have been embroiled in a debate over the enforcement of rules that restrict campaign activity by tax-exempt groups since last year, when an I.R.S. official acknowledged that officers had improperly targeted Tea Party groups for extra scrutiny. But most of those groups were seeking recognition as so-called 501(c)(4) groups, whose ability to conduct a limited amount of campaign activity is governed by a vague patchwork of rules and standards. In November, in an effort to make the process both more transparent and more rigorous, the I.R.S. announced that it would begin formulating new rules.

January 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304302704579332732276330284.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Last week the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence issued its report on the Sept. 11, 2012, terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya. The report concluded that the attack, which resulted in the murder of four Americans, was "preventable."

* BUT IT WASN'T PREVENTED - WAS IT?

Some have been suggesting that the blame for this tragedy lies at least partly with Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was killed in the attack. This is untrue: The blame lies entirely with Washington.

The report states that retired Gen. Carter Ham, then-commander of the U.S. Africa Command (Africom) headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany, twice offered to "sustain" the special forces security team in Tripoli and that Chris twice "declined." Since Chris cannot speak, I want to explain the reasons and timing for his responses to Gen. Ham. As the deputy chief of mission, I was kept informed by Chris or was present throughout the process.

* AS THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF MISSION...

On Aug. 1, 2012, the day after I arrived in Tripoli, Chris invited me to a video conference with Africom to discuss changing the mission of the U.S. Special Forces from protecting the U.S. Embassy and its personnel to training Libyan forces. This change in mission would result in the transfer of authority over the unit in Tripoli from Chris to Gen. Ham. In other words, the special forces would report to the Defense Department, not State.

Chris wanted the decision postponed but could not say so directly. Chris had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi. On July 11, the Defense Department, apparently in response to Chris's request, offered to extend the special forces mission to protect the U.S. Embassy. However, on July 13, State Department Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy refused the Defense Department offer and thus Chris's July 9 request. His rationale was that Libyan guards would be hired to take over this responsibility. Because of Mr. Kennedy's refusal, Chris had to use diplomatic language at the video conference, such as expressing "reservations" about the transfer of authority.

* JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY... I WONDER WHAT GEN. HAM IS DOING NOWADAYS...

* ANYWAY... BOTTOM LINE... ONE MORE TIME... [Ambassador Stevens had requested on July 9 by cable that Washington provide a minimum of 13 American security professionals for Libya over and above the diplomatic security complement of eight assigned to Tripoli and Benghazi.

* HE DIDN'T GET THEM. CLINTON'S UNDERSECRETARY - PATRICK KENNEDY - QUASHED THE REQUEST.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 23, 2014 at 4:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 3)

Chris's concern was significant. Transferring authority would immediately strip the special forces team of its diplomatic immunity. Moreover, the U.S. had no status of forces agreement with Libya. He explained to Rear Adm. Charles J. Leidig that if a member of the special forces team used weapons to protect U.S. facilities, personnel or themselves, he would be subject to Libyan law. The law would be administered by judges appointed to the bench by Moammar Gadhafi or, worse, tribal judges.

* THIS WAS THE FUCKING SITUATION OBAMA HAD GOTTEN US INTO!

Chris described an incident in Pakistan in 2011 when an American security contractor killed Pakistani citizens in self-defense, precipitating a crisis in U.S.-Pakistani relations. He also pointed out that four International Criminal Court staff, who had traveled to Libya in June 2012 to interview Gadhafi's oldest son, Saif al-Islam al-Qadhafi, were illegally detained by tribal authorities under suspicion of spying. This was another risk U.S. military personnel might face. During that video conference, Chris stressed that the only way to mitigate the risk was to ensure that U.S. military personnel serving in Libya would have diplomatic immunity, which should be done prior to any change of authority.

* FUCKIN' HILLARY... FUCKIN' OBAMA... FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE... THIS WAS THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN ACTION! (OR RATHER INACTION!)

Chris understood the importance of the special forces team to the security of our embassy personnel. He believed that by explaining his concerns, the Defense Department would postpone the decision so he could have time to work with the Libyan government and get diplomatic immunity for the special forces.

According to the National Defense Authorization Act, the Defense Department needed Chris's concurrence to change the special forces mission. But soon after the Aug. 1 meeting, and as a complete surprise to us at the embassy, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta signed the order without Chris's concurrence.

* PANETTA. OBAMA'S SECRETARY OF DEFENSE. PANETTA. HILLARY CLINTON'S FELLOW "TOP U.S. OFFICIAL." (THESE FUCKING ASSHOLES DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER...? AFTER 9/11...? AFTER EVERYTHING WE LEARNED FROM THE 9/11 REPORT CONCERNING BUREAUCRATIC INEPTITUDE AND HOW TO AVOID IT...?!?!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

January 23, 2014 at 4:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 3 of 3)

The Senate Intelligence Committee's report accurately notes that on Aug. 6, after the transfer of authority, two special forces team members in a diplomatic vehicle were forced off the road in Tripoli and attacked. Only because of their courage, skills and training did they escape unharmed. But the incident highlighted the risks associated with having military personnel in Libya unprotected by diplomatic immunity or a status of forces agreement. As a result of this incident, Chris was forced to agree with Gen. Ham's withdrawal of most of the special forces team from Tripoli until the Libyan government formally approved their new training mission and granted them diplomatic immunity.

* WHERE THE FUCK WERE HILLARY AND PANETTA...?!?! FOR THAT MATTER, WHERE THE FUCK WAS OBAMA...?!?!

Because Mr. Kennedy had refused to extend the special forces security mission, State Department protocol required Chris to decline Gen. Ham's two offers to do so, which were made after Aug. 6. I have found the reporting of these so-called offers strange, since my recollection of events is that after the Aug. 6 incident, Gen. Ham wanted to withdraw the entire special forces team from Tripoli until they had Libyan government approval of their new mission and the diplomatic immunity necessary to perform their mission safely. However, Chris convinced Gen. Ham to leave six members of the team in Tripoli.

* AGAIN... I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS GEN. HAM...

When I arrived in Tripoli on July 31, we had over 30 security personnel from the State Department and the U.S. military assigned to protect the diplomatic mission to Libya. All were under the ambassador's authority. On Sept. 11, we had only nine diplomatic security agents under Chris's authority to protect our diplomatic personnel in Tripoli and Benghazi.

* THANKS TO CLINTON, PANETTA, AND ULTIMATELY OBAMA EITHER BEING UNWILLING OR JUST PLAIN TOO INCOMPETENT TO DO THEIR JOBS AND ENSURE THAT THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE GROUND (AMBASSADOR STEVENS) HAD THE SECURITY HE NEEDED!

I was interviewed by the Select Committee and its staff, who were professional and thorough. I explained this sequence of events. For some reason, my explanation did not make it into the Senate report.

* AMAZING...

To sum up: Chris Stevens was not responsible for the reduction in security personnel. His requests for additional security were denied or ignored. Officials at the State and Defense Departments in Washington made the decisions that resulted in reduced security.

January 23, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)