Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, April 30, 2014
A cold, wet, miserable day here in New York's mid-Hudson Valley.
Congrats to family and friends in South Carolina and Florida; even if you've got rain too, at least it's warm!
Speaking of South Carolina... three weeks from Saturday! (Well... technically 22 days; we'll be spending the traveling night (hopefully with friends!) in Richmond!
You know me, folks... if it ain't about my last vacation... it's about my upcoming vacation!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140430/us-economy-gdp-09b1567225.html
The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year...
* ALL HAIL THE OBAMA RECOVERY!
* FOLKS... IT'S BEEN FIVE YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS...!!!
* FOLKS... YOU WANNA SEE HOW TRANSPARENT THE LIBERAL MEDIA IS? HERE... READ THE FULL OPENING PARAGRAPH:
The U.S. economy slowed drastically in the first three months of the year as a harsh winter exacted a toll on business activity. The slowdown, while worse than expected, is likely to be temporary as growth rebounds with warmer weather.
* SO IT'S THE WINTER. (*SNORT*) AS IF WE DON'T HAVE WINTER EVERY YEAR. AS IF WE HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED HARSH WINTERS BEFORE. (AND BTW... WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING...??? OH, YEAH... IT'S NOW CLIMATE "CHANGE" SO THAT WHETHER WARM OR COLD THE LEFT CAN STILL SAY "THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WARNING ABOUT!"
* OH... AND HOW'BOUT "WORSE THAN EXPECTED." YA EVER NOTICE HOW MANY TIMES ECONOMIC NEWS NOWADAYS IS PREFACED BY "WORSE THAN EXPECTED?" (JUST SAYIN'...)
* AS TO "LIKELY TO BE TEMPORARY..." (*ROLLING MY EYES*) FOLKS... TECHNICALLY WE'RE NOT IN A RECESSION. BUT IF IT FEELS LIKE ONE... (*SHRUG*)
Growth slowed to a barely discernible 0.1 percent annual rate in the January-March quarter, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.
* WHILE PRICES HAVE SHOT UP! FOOD PRICES... FUEL PRICES... (GOOD THING NONE OF US HAVE CARS... OR NEED TO HEAT OUR HOMES... OR HAVE TO EAT...)
* OH...! HERE WE GO! PARAGRAPH SEVEN:
In its report Wednesday, the government said consumer spending grew at a 3% annual rate last quarter. But that gain was dominated by a 4.4% rise in spending on services, reflecting higher utility bills. Spending on goods barely rose. Also dampening growth were a drop in business investment, a rise in the trade deficit and a fall in housing construction.
* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS: O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... DON'T LET THESE BASTARDS MANIPULATE YOU. USE YOUR BRAINS. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. CONNECT THE DOTS.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz30OgWyyeE
* HERE'S THE HEADLINE (FROM THE FINANCIAL TIMES NO LESS!)
China poised to pass US as world’s leading economic power this year
* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
The U.S. is on the brink of losing its status as the world’s largest economy, and is likely to slip behind China this year, sooner than widely anticipated, according to the world’s leading statistical agencies.
* FOLKS... FIVE YEARS AND FIVE MONTHS... THAT'S HOW LONG THIS BOZO AND HIS CRONIES HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE.
The U.S. has been the global leader since overtaking the UK in 1872.
* AGAIN... CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!
Most economists previously thought China would pull ahead in 2019.
* AGAIN... JUST A THOUGHT: WHAT'S IT TELL YOU THAT "MOST ECONOMISTS" WERE... er... WRONG...??? (AND THESE ARE THE "MAINSTREAM" ECONOMISTS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION COUNTS UPON! THESE ARE THE GUYS AND GALS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA GO TO FOR EXPERT OPINION! THESE ARE THE FOLKS WHO KEEP ON RISING THROUGH THE RANKS... KEEP ON GOING BETWEEN THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SECTORS... KEEPING ON ADVANCING IN WEALTH, STATUS, AND POSITION... REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG. (WHAT A FUCKIN' SYSTEM, HUH?)
* AGAIN... FOLKS... USE YOUR FRIGGIN' BRAINS! GARBAGE IN EQUALS GARBAGE OUT!
http://washingtonexaminer.com/lindsey-graham-tackles-controversial-issues-on-campaign-trail/article/2547814
“You serve people free barbecue, and they will come,” Graham said, grinning, at a recent event in Simpsonville, S.C., where aides had just added another table to squeeze in the last few of a 130-person crowd.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
* SORRY, FOLKS... ALLOW ME TO START AT THE BEGINNING:
When Sen. Lindsey Graham received a major endorsement last week from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the setting was, from a campaign-optics perspective, nearly perfect.
Graham, joined by representatives from the national and regional arms of the organization, stood in a vast warehouse of a local manufacturer, where he was flanked by supporters holding signs. But as Graham began to speak, a driving rain pounded the warehouse roof, drowning out all other noise. The Republican senator had no microphone, and so he did his best to yell out his remarks.
Had Graham been facing a competitive challenge to his re-election this year, the inclement weather might have ruined an important campaign event. But Graham isn't, and the soggy audio didn't matter.
* OK. THIS COULD WELL BE A PLANTED PIECE. (BY THAT I MEAN A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DISHEARTEN GRAHAM OPPONENTS AND DEPRESS ANTI-GRAHAM ACTIVISM.)
Instead, Graham, counter to the early prognostications of many, has quelled any potential threats from Tea Party insurgents and, two months ahead of the Republican primary, is cruising to a third term in the Senate - still gleefully tackling those controversial topics that might have made him vulnerable in the first place.
* WE WILL SEE. LINDSEY GRAHAM IS A RINO PIECE OF SHIT AND AMERICA WOULD BE BETTER OFF IT HE'D SWITCH PARTIES.
Graham's longtime campaign manager, Scott Farmer, recalled a motto beloved by former South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond to describe Graham's approach: “Senator Thurmond had a saying: ‘You always run like you're behind and take nothing for granted.' Sen. Graham has always taken that advice to heart and run very aggressive campaigns.” Now, while his Republican opponents scramble to scrape together campaign donations and support, Graham has been hosting relaxed barbecues for supporters across the state, free of charge.
* GEEZUS... THIS IS REPORTED AS IF IT'S A GOOD THING AND NOT A REASON TO BE ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTED.
* ANYWAY... HAVING READ THE ARTICLE THROUGH... YEP... IT'S CLEARLY A PUFF PIECE MEANT TO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE GRAHAM CAMPAIGN.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_TERRORISM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-30-13-10-39
A surge in the number of aggressive al-Qaida affiliates and like-minded groups the Middle East and North Africa poses a serious threat to U.S. interests and allies, the State Department said Wednesday in reporting a more than 40% increase in terrorist attacks worldwide between 2012 and 2013.
* WHERE TO START... WHERE TO START...
* OH, YEAH... OBAMA "GOT" BIN LADIN.
(*SNORT*)
* SO... A 40% INCREASE IN TERRORIST ATTACKS BETWEEN 2012-2013... AFTER OBAMA "GOT" BIN LADIN.
(*SMIRK*)
The report identified a 43% increase in the number of terrorist attacks in 2013 from 2012, according to statistics provided by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.
* OH... FORGIVE ME... A 43% INCREASE...
* HEY, FOLKS... REMEMBER BOSTON... REMEMBER FT. HOOD (TWICE NOW)? JUST CURIOUS... HOW MANY "GAS EXPLOSIONS" AND SUCH WOULD YOU GUESS... er... WEREN'T... er... ACTUALLY... er... GAS EXPLOSIONS?
* FOLKS... THINK BACK TO BOSTON... THINK BACK TO BOTH FT. HOOD ATTACKS... THINK OF THE INCOMPETENCE RELATED TO BOTH... IMAGE IF THEY'D HAPPENED UNDER BUSH'S WATCH POST-911. BUT SINCE IT'S OBAMA... SWEPT UNDER THE RUG... LIKE THEY NEVER EVEN HAPPENED...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579530230397152314?mg=reno64-wsj
* IN OBAMA'S AMERIKA...
[N]ew households are forming at less than 40% of the normal rate.
Young adults are living with their parents at much higher rates than before the Great Recession. Many cannot afford monthly rental costs, let alone come up with the down payments they need to qualify for mortgages. This reflects the continuing travails of young adults in a slack labor market.
Among recent college graduates ages 20 to 29, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, unemployment stands at 10.9%, more than three points higher than in 2007. A study from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York finds that of the recent college graduates who have managed to find work, more than 40% are in jobs that do not require a college degree; more than 20% are working only part-time; and more than 20% are in low-wage jobs.
They are not alone.
A recent report from the National Employment Law Project found that low-wage sectors such as food services and retail trade accounted for only 22% of jobs lost during the Great Recession but fully 44% of jobs gained since the bottom. Mid-wage jobs accounted for 37% of losses but only 26% of gains; higher-wage jobs, 41% of losses but only 30% of gains. The wage structure of the entire economy has shifted downward since the Great Recession, and young adults trying to start careers and families have been the principal, but hardly the only, victims.
These developments are jarring.
For the past generation we've been telling ourselves and our children that demand for higher-order skills is surging and that a college education is the key to the future. But recent research by three Canadian economists calls this proposition into question. Paul Beaudry and David Green of the University of British Columbia and Benjamin Sand of York University document a declining demand for high-skilled workers since 2000. In response, they say, "high-skilled workers have moved down the occupational ladder and have begun to perform jobs traditionally performed by lower-skilled workers, . . . pushing low-skilled workers even further down the occupational ladder and, to some degree, out of the labor force altogether."
Well-educated baristas and unemployed high-school graduates are flip-sides of the same phenomenon.
[T]hese economists' work turns conventional wisdom on its head. It would imply that our wage and employment woes are structural as well as cyclical — that in tandem with the global market for labor, the IT revolution has permanently transformed the U.S. labor market by suppressing the growth of purchasing power on which the economy depends.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303939404579531814034036286?mg=reno64-wsj
The next time someone says the John Roberts Supreme Court consistently blocks Obama Administration policy, be sure to recall the ObamaCare case. But right behind that you can mention Tuesday's 6-2 ruling that anoints the Environmental Protection Agency's habit of rewriting the Clean Air Act and even offers a convenient legal rationale that the EPA hadn't offered.
Chief Justice Roberts — this is becoming a habit — and Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal Justices to overturn a D.C. Circuit appellate panel and revive the EPA's 2011 cross-state pollution rule.
(*SILENCE*)
In EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, Texas and more than a dozen states and some private companies had challenged the rule for violating state prerogatives under the statute.
No one disputes the EPA's authority to regulate air pollution across state lines, but for the first time the EPA imposed its standards without giving states a chance to offer their own plans. Also for the first time, the agency imposed a uniform compliance standard regardless of an individual state's contribution to cross-state pollution. This is aimed at Texas and other states that have large coal-fired electric plants and forces higher reductions in emissions than states might otherwise have to implement. It is part of the Administration's agenda of imposing via regulation what it can't get through Congress, even a Democratic Senate.
Remarkably, the majority doesn't even mention the EPA's own legal justification for its Clean Air rewrite, which hangs on the meaning of the word "significantly." (We won't torture you with the details.) Instead, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg detects what she calls a "gap" in the statute on how states should share responsibility for their share of pollution, and then proceeds to fill it with her own cost-benefit legal rationale. This cost-benefit defense of the EPA is ironically amusing because the EPA typically dismisses cost-benefit analysis unless a statute explicitly calls for it.
As Justice Antonin Scalia notes in his dissent, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, the statute is relatively clear about the allocation of costs and "contains a gap only for those who blind themselves to the obvious in order to pursue a preferred policy." Even if the EPA's emissions standards are more cost-effective overall, that may not be true for every upwind state, and the EPA cannot simply ignore the federalist obligations of the Clean Air Act to impose them.
The decision is a reminder of how deferential the courts usually are to executive regulation, far more than they should be in this era when the Obama Administration is broadcasting —even boasting about — its policy of govern-by-regulation. The D.C. Circuit rarely overturns a federal rule, and the Supreme Court tends to accept an appeal only when the government loses.
The decision is also a reminder that in this era of the ever-growing administrative state, control of the executive is more important than ever. Congress can only do so much to check federal government encroachment on private industry and state sovereign powers.
As Justice Scalia wrote, "Too many important decisions of the Federal Government are made nowadays by unelected agency officials exercising broad lawmaking authority, rather than by the people's representatives in Congress." The danger after Tuesday's ruling is that the Obama EPA will feel even less bound by legal restraints, if that's possible.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303825604579515592658999068?mg=reno64-wsj
'What would happen," Samuel Huntington once wondered, "if the American model no longer embodied strength and success, no longer seemed to be the winning model?"
The question, when the great Harvard political scientist asked it in 1991, seemed far-fetched. The Cold War was won, the Soviet Union was about to vanish. History was at "an end."
All over the world, people seemed to want the same things in the same way: democracy, capitalism, free trade, free speech, freedom of conscience, freedom for women.
"The day of the dictator is over," George H.W. Bush had said in his 1989 inaugural address. "We know what works: Freedom works. We know what's right: Freedom is right."
Not quite.
A quarter-century later, the dictators are back in places where we thought they had been banished. And they're back by popular demand. Egyptian strongman Abdel Fatah al-Sisi will not have to stuff any ballots to get himself elected president next month; he's going to win in a walk. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán presides over the most illiberal government in modern Europe, but he had no trouble winning a third term in elections two weeks ago.
In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan has spent recent months brutalizing protesters in Istanbul, shutting down judicial inquiries into corruption allegations against his government, and seeking to block Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, the ultimate emblems of digital freedom. But his AKP party still won resounding victories in key municipal elections last month!
And then there is Russia. In a Journal op-ed Monday, foreign-policy analyst Ilan Berman pointed out that Russia had $51 billion in capital flight in the first quarter of 2014, largely thanks to Vladimir Putin's Crimean caper. That's a lot of money for a country with a GDP roughly equal to that of Italy. The World Bank predicts the Russian economy could shrink by 2% this year. Relations with the West haven't been worse since the days of Yuri Andropov. But never mind about that. Mr. Putin has a public approval rating of 80%, according to the independent Levada Center. That's up from 65% in early February!
Maybe it's something in the water. Or the culture. Or the religion. Or the educational system. Or the level of economic development. Or the underhanded ways in which authoritarian leaders manipulate media and suppress dissent. The West rarely runs out of explanations for why institutions of freedom — presumably fit for all people for all time — seem to fit only some people, sometimes.
But maybe there's something else at work. Maybe the West mistook the collapse of communism — just one variant of dictatorship — as a vindication of liberal democracy. Maybe the West forgot that it needed to justify its legitimacy not only in the language of higher democratic morality. It needed to show that the morality yields benefits: higher growth, lower unemployment, better living.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Has the West been performing well lately?
If the average Turk looks to Greece as the nearest example of a Western democracy, does he see much to admire?
Did Egyptians have a happy experience of the democratically elected Muslim Brotherhood?
Should a government in Budapest take economic advice from the finance ministry of France?
Did ethnic Russians prosper under a succession of Kiev kleptocrats?
"Sustained inability to provide welfare, prosperity, equity, justice, domestic order, or external security could over time undermine the legitimacy of even democratic governments," Huntington warned. "As the memories of authoritarian failures fade, irritation with democratic failures is likely to increase."
The passage quoted here comes from "The Third Wave," the book Huntington wrote just before his famous essay on the clash of civilizations. The "wave" was a reference to the 30 or so authoritarian states that, between 1974 and 1990, adopted democratic institutions. The two previous waves referred to the rise of mass-suffrage democracy in the 1830s and the post-Wilsonian wave of the 1920s. In each previous case, revolution succumbed to reaction; Weimar gave way to Hitler.
Huntington knew that the third wave, too, would crest, crash and recede. It's happening now. The real question is how hard it will crash, on whom, for how long.
A West that prefers debt-subsidized welfarism over economic growth will not offer much in the way of an attractive model for countries in a hurry to modernize.
A West that consistently sacrifices efficiency on the altars of regulation, litigation and political consensus will lose the dynamism that makes the risks inherent in free societies seem worthwhile.
A West that shrinks from maintaining global order because doing so is difficult or discomfiting will invite challenges from nimble adversaries willing to take geopolitical gambles.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/29/benghazi-emails-point-at-white-house/8471737/
Republicans say e-mails released Tuesday on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, include "the smoking gun" that shows a White House official urged that the assault on the U.S. consulate be blamed on a protest that never happened.
* Er... THE REASON "REPUBLICANS SAY THIS" IS BECAUSE... er... THE EMAILS PROVE IT.
(*HEADACHE*)
The e-mails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act request...
* WHY NOT USA TODAY THROUGH A FOIA...? WHY NOT THE NYT? WHY NOT THE WASHINGTON POST? (JUST CURIOUS...)
...include one in which White House official Ben Rhodes lists "goals" for then-U.N. ambassador Susan Rice to meet in explaining the attack and protests occurring across the Middle East that week to the American public.
Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans died in the assault, which the White House subsequently acknowledged was an al-Qaeda-linked terror attack.
* "SUBSEQUENTLY." GOTTA LUV IT!
The e-mail, sent to various officials including White House spokesman Jay Carney, said one goal was "to underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy."
* BUT THE PROTESTS WEREN'T ROOTED IN AN INTERNET VIDEO... AND THEY KNEW THIS AT THE TIME!
Another goal was "to reinforce the president and administration's strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges."
* WHEN THE GOING GET TOUGH THE TOUGH GO VACATIONING...? WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH THE TOUGH SIMPLY LIE...?
Rhodes is assistant to the president and deputy national security adviser for strategic communication and speechwriting.
* NOT PRISONER #496751 PRESENTLY RESIDING IN... er... FEDERAL "HOUSING."
During appearances on five Sunday news programs, Rice did blame the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on a protest against an anti-Islam video produced by an American. So did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and President Obama would not say whether it was a terrorist attack until several days later.
* AND THAT'S BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO DESCRIBE WHAT OBAMA DID, WHICH WAS TO TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF HIS MOUTH WHILE TRYING DESPERATELY TO COVER HIS ASS AND EVADE RESPONSIBILITY! (WHICH HE SUCCESSFULLY DID! HE WAS RE-ELECTED!)
The CIA station chief in Libya reported from the beginning that the attack was an al-Qaeda-linked operation and that there was no protest.
* AND YET...
During appearances on five Sunday news programs, Rice did blame the attack on Sept. 11, 2012, on a protest against an anti-Islam video produced by an American. So did Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, and President Obama would not say whether it was a terrorist attack until several days later.
* SORRY TO KEEP ON POUNDING THE FACTS... BUT THE FACTS ARE THE FACTS...
(*SHRUG*)
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
Though there was some dispute over the manner of the attack, former CIA deputy director Mike Morell testified earlier this month that he had no idea where the story about a video protest came from when he saw Rice make the claim on television.
* IT CAME FROM OBAMA. FROM OBAMA... FROM HILLARY CLINTON... FROM LEON PENATTA...
* FOLKS... WHITE HOUSE "OFFICIAL" BEN RHODES WASN'T ACTING ON HIS OWN IN A VACUM... RECALL:
The CIA station chief in Libya reported from the beginning that the attack was an al-Qaeda-linked operation and that there was no protest.
(*SHRUG*)
* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... GO BACK TO THE DAY OF THE ATTACK AND THE FOLLOWING WEEKS RIGHT HERE WITHIN THE USUALLY RIGHT ARCHIVES! I KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND I'M NOT A WHITE HOUSE OFFICIAL! THE FOREIGN PRESS KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON AND WAS REPORTING IT!
Republicans say the protest story emanated from a White House bent on protecting the president from charges that he was wrong to claim during his campaign in 2012 that al-Qaeda was on its heels.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called the e-mails "a smoking gun" that points to White House efforts "to shape the story" of what happened in Benghazi.
* HEY... EVEN A BROKE CLOCK IS RIGHT TWICE A DAY!
Rather than have Rice provide "the best information that was available" in her TV appearances, the administration's goal was "to put a political stance on a disaster six weeks before an election," Graham said.
* THEY... DELIBERATELY... LIED...!!!
* BUT, FOLKS... BEYOND THE LIES... BEYOND THE POLITICS... THEY LEFT FOUR AMERICANS TO DIE... THEY REFUSED TO EVEN ATTEMPT A RESCUE...
The e-mails also show that then-deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough, on Rhodes' behalf, assigned Clinton aide Jake Sullivan to work with Morell to finalize the initial talking points on Benghazi. At that time, the talking points did not include the story about the video protests.
(*SMIRK*)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/29/obama-administration-accused-of-slow-walking-congress-on-benghazi.html
Almost since Congress began investigating the Benghazi attacks of September 11, 2012 in Libya, the White House has stressed its unprecedented cooperation with lawmakers seeking to get to the bottom of the attack that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Those claims were challenged Tuesday after the conservative watchdog group, Judicial Watch published an email from deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes to senior administration officials on what they should say about the Benghazi attacks.
[This] important email on Benghazi that showed the White House's role in the election season spin about the attack was only made available to a key Congressional committee two weeks ago.
* OH, YEAH... UNPRECEDENTED COOPERATION... UH-HUH...
By the time Rhodes wrote that email at 8:09 pm on September 14, 2012, the deputy U.S. chief of mission in Libya, the CIA station chief and the Tunisian President called those protests a terrorist attack - at least in Benghazi. The Rhodes email offers the clearest evidence to date that the [false] talking points read by Susan Rice two days later on Sunday talk shows were indeed directed by the White House.
The Daily Beast has learned that these latest emails were only provided to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform two weeks ago, despite requests from the committee for such material that date back to August 2013. The committee received them on April 17, [2014], the same day they were received by Judicial Watch.
“Even as Congressional Democrats were calling for an end to the Benghazi investigation with false claims that everything had been turned over and examined, the State Department was hiding this e-mail and other documents covered by the Committee’s August 2013 subpoena,” the committee’s deputy staff director, Frederick Hill told The Daily Beast.
Hill added, “It is disturbing that this highly important e-mail showing a White House role in pushing a false narrative was only turned over after it was discovered by the Department’s FOIA office in response to a specific request. While he had promised cooperation, by hiding subpoenaed documents from Congress, Secretary Kerry is failing to meet his legal obligations.”
* SECRETARY KERRY...
* AND HOW ABOUT FORMER SECRETARY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON? AND PRESENT PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA...?!?! (AND THE REST OF OBAMA'S "CREW" - RETIRED AND STILL SERVING?)
http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/supreme-court-pennsylvania-cops-no-longer-need-a-warrant-to/article_6a407fc6-d077-11e3-8025-0017a43b2370.html
Pennsylvania police officers no longer need a warrant to search a citizen’s vehicle, according to a recent state Supreme Court opinion.
* WOW...
* FOLKS... WE'VE OFFICIALLY CROSSED OVER INTO THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Previously, citizens could refuse an officer’s request to search a vehicle. In most cases, the officer would then need a warrant — signed by a judge — to conduct the search.
That’s no longer the case, according to the opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Seamus McCaffery.
The ruling, passed on a 4-2 vote, was made in regard to an appeal from a 2010 vehicle stop in Philadelphia.
* SO THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS NO LONGER APPLIES IN PENNSYLVANIA...???
“This is a significant change in long-standing Pennsylvania criminal law, and it is a good one,” Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman said Wednesday afternoon.
* SEE, FOLKS... PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFERENT BETWEEN "TOUGH ON CRIME" AND "UNFIT FOR OFFICE."
Under prior law, an officer who smells marijuana inside a car, for example, could only search the car with the driver’s consent — or if illegal substances were in plain view. (Federal officers, like FBI or ATF agents, can search, regardless.)
* OH... I GUESS THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION REGARDING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION; CLEARLY IT IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.
Now, based on the opinion, it only takes reasonable probable cause for an officer to go ahead with a search without a warrant. “The prerequisite for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle is probable cause to search,” McCaffery writes in the opinion. “We adopt the federal automobile exception... which allows police officers to search a motor vehicle when there is probable cause to do so...”
(Previously, a warrantless search was only allowed if “exigent circumstances” existed, the opinion states.)
“This case gives the police simpler guidelines to follow and (it) finally and clearly renders our law consistent with established federal law,” Stedman said.
* IS IT JUST ME, FOLKS, OR FROM WHAT YOU'VE READ DOES IT NOT SEEM THAT "ESTABLISHED FEDERAL LAW" OPERATES IN OPPOSITION TO OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS?
Christopher Lyden, another local defense lawyer, believes if an officer wants to search a vehicle without consent, they should have to get approval from a judge — as they do in searches of homes.
“Judicial oversight of vehicle searches, just like residential searches,” he said, “helps maintain a free society.”
* NOT IF THE JUDICIARY IS PART OF THE EFFORT TO DISMANTLE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS!
Post a Comment