Thursday, November 20, 2014

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, November 20, 2014


Well... I'm still sick to my stomach... still posting, though...


Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/18/for-once-courts-sided-with-people-rather-than-threatened-rodents/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRokva3BZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4CRMZgI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

For the first time, a federal court has struck down a regulation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 for exceeding the government’s constitutional power.

The landmark case centered on the Utah prairie dog, a rodent found only in southwestern Utah and protected as “threatened” under the ESA despite its population of more than 40,000.

Prairie dogs had completely overrun the area surrounding Cedar City, Utah, tearing up farmlands, eating crops, gouging burrows and tunnels in parks, gardens and building sites — and even buckling a local airport runway.

Last fall, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service sparked a rebellion with a special rule against “takes” of the prairie dogs. It demanded property owners not “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” the rodents, which curtailed pest-control measures in the region.

* WHO... ARE... THESE... MORONS...?!?!

Outraged citizens formed a group called People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners, or PETPO, to fight the Fish and Wildlife Service for the right to control the rodents.

Derek Morton, PETPO’s point man, told The Daily Signal, “We would find them in sacred spaces such as our cemeteries, burrowing underneath headstones and barking during funerals. We found them in built-out neighborhoods, which put our children at risk.” Utah prairie dog colonies suffer outbreaks of sylvatic plague, which can cause plague in humans. “These animals undermined the whole community’s psyche,” Morton said. “When we would recruit new businesses for new jobs, the cost of prairie dog removal was always a deal killer. We couldn’t build a home on our own land. We couldn’t protect ourselves at all. A rodent was running our lives.”

Nathan Brown, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services biologist who has worked on the prairie dog issue for more than a decade, told CBS reporters that PETPO had “real concerns” and “there isn’t a legal framework to remove [prairie dogs] from private property.”

That missing framework is a seldom-noted flaw in the Constitution. (Unlike state constitutions, the nation’s fundamental law contains no enumerated right to property.)

* YEP... UNFORTUNATELY TRUE.

From the beginning, state constitutions specifically guaranteed that right. Typical examples include the Massachusetts constitution, which provides citizens “the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness,” and Virginia’s, which asserts the “inherent right” to “the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

The Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution assert only the police power to take anything from anyone at any time so long as the government follows due process and pays for it.

* BUT OFTEN THEY WON'T PAY FOR IT - CERTAINLY THEY WON'T OFTEN PAY ANYWHERE NEAR FAIR MARKET VALUE.

Property owners can’t challenge the government’s taking and must pay attorney’s fees to pry “just” compensation from the U.S. Treasury for something that wasn’t for sale. That’s not a protection of property rights; it’s an assertion of government power.

* IT'S TYRANNY - THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

November 20, 2014 at 1:40 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Property owners always have had to fight our government for what’s theirs, and that’s what People for the Ethical Treatment of Property Owners had to do. PETPO retained the non-profit Pacific Legal Foundation to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for violating its members’ property rights.

Jonathan Wood, the Pacific Legal Foundation attorney who handled the case in federal court at no cost to the plaintiffs, told the Daily Signal, “A balanced approach to environmental protection considers both the animals and the people. No one was protecting the rights of the people who were being affected by the prairie dogs, and that’s why PLF came to their aid. Our big win was not just for them but for all Americans who believe in limited government.”

* FORGET "LIMITED GOVERNMENT" - HOW'BOUT SANE GOVERNMENT?!

PLF had found a constitutional approach that worked. Wood argued before Judge Dee Benson of the U.S. District Court for Utah that the Constitution’s commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) does not authorize Congress to regulate a purely one-state species that has no substantial effect on interstate commerce in the nation’s $15 trillion economy.

* NICE...!!!

The Fish and Wildlife Service justified its intrusion into this local matter by asserting that the “necessary and proper” clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) gives Congress unlimited power to enforce the commerce clause.

* DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON HOW THE COURTS HAVE DISTORTED THE MEANING OF THE COMMERCE CLAUSE...

On Nov. 5, Benson gave his milestone ruling against the government, putting an end to the decades-long court practice of deferring to agency decisions and perhaps beginning an era of respect for constitutional rights. He capped his meticulously reasoned decision with this summary and conclusion:

"Although the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to do many things, it does not authorize Congress to regulate takes of a purely intrastate species that has no substantial effect on interstate commerce. Congress similarly lacks authority through the Necessary and Proper Clause because the regulation of takes of Utah prairie dogs is not essential or necessary to the USA’s economic scheme."

* A DIRECT SHOT AT FLAWED PAST SUPREME COURT REASONING AND PRECEDENT!

(*WINK*)

* GOOD FOR YOU, JUDGE BENSON!

Benson’s decision returns prairie dog management authority back to the state under the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, which has a strong track record of conservation and cooperation with local officials and property owners. The Utah prairie dog remains fully protected, said DWR Director Greg Sheehan, and a certificate of registration is required to kill or remove the rodents.

Sheehan said the Division of Wildlife Resources’ strategy includes “safeguarding the health, safety, welfare and property of communities in areas where Utah prairie dogs live,” as well as “ensuring the viability and continued persistence of Utah prairie dogs into the future.” The state will “complement the conservation work that the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are doing on federal lands.”

A sidelight to the case is the animal rights group that Judge Benson accepted as intervenor. Friends of Animals, a Connecticut-based group with a $4.9 million budget, insists “humans do not have the right to displace or restrict animal populations” and opposes eating meat, milk, eggs, honey or any animal food.

Although of no legal significance, Friends of Animals received payments of more than $115,000 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2001 and 2003, according to USASpending.gov. Such long-term “buddy links” between green groups and federal agencies are widespread, something only recently recognized as federal grants went online.

* 2001 AND 2003? BUSH YEARS. RINO CONGRESS YEARS.

(*SIGH*)

This case is expected to go to the Supreme Court.

November 20, 2014 at 1:41 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/11/18/harvard_affirmative_action_asian_students_lawsuit_charges_discrimination.html?wpsrc=slatest_newsletter&sid=5388d162dd52b8417a00fcbf

Lawsuits filed by an activist organization on behalf of rejected applicants allege that Harvard and the University of North Carolina’s affirmative action policies discriminate against individuals with Asian ancestry by limiting the number of such applicants that may be admitted.

* THIS IS NEWS? EVERYONE KNOWS THAT ASIANS ARE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST WHEN IT COMES TO TOP COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS.

From Bloomberg:

Such applicants “understand that they are not competing” against “the entire applicant pool,” the group said in its filing against Harvard’s governing body, the Harvard Corp., in Boston federal court. “They are competing only against each other, and all other racial and ethnic groups are insulated from competing against high-achieving Asian Americans.”

* DISGUSTING... (AND TRUE...)

Both institutions have responded that their admissions policies are consistent with federal law.

* ALSO DISGUSTING... (AND LARGELY TRUE...)

The Supreme Court has held that race can be considered on an individual and "holistic" basis in admissions decisions in order to attain the educational and social benefits of diversity. But quotas — or point-system bonuses — are unacceptable."

* BUT THE COLLEGES/UNIVERSITIES STILL EMPLOY THEM...

* HEY... IT'S NOT LIKE TOP COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS, DEANS, TRUSTEES, AND TOP ADMINISTRATORS FEAR BEING TOSSED IN JAIL WHEN THEY'RE CAUGHT! IT'S AN ONGOING GAME OF THREE CARD MONTY.

(*SHRUG*)

* CASE IN POINT...

"[Candidate X] immigrated to America from Colombia with her family when she was 11, perhaps her experience could deepen the rich tapestry that is our campus discourse," is an OK admissions office thing to say."

* ON THE OTHER HAND...

"We need three more women from the Balkans, let's just grab the first three that are on the pile and then it's Miller Time" is not.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

However! In remanding the case of Fisher v. University of Texas to a lower court in 2013, SCOTUS held that schools have a responsibility to attempt race-neutral means of achieving diversity (giving a leg up to low-income applicants, say) before turning to race-conscious means, and it's not clear whether the Court would agree that Harvard and UNC have met that test. So this is an interesting issue. Too bad that it involves subjects like "race" and "affirmative action" and "Harvard" that most Americans consider "boring" and "old news" and "unlikely to trigger Thanksgiving arguments in which the consideration of a question that neither side has spent more than five minutes thinking about quickly devolves into screaming about deeply held but often self-contradictory values and grievances."

November 20, 2014 at 1:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/inside-the-ring-ransom-paid-for-bergdahl/

The Pentagon is under fire for making a ransom payment to an Afghan earlier this year as part of a failed bid to win the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, according to U.S. officials.

* OBAMA'S PENTAGON...

Sgt. Bergdahl was released in May after nearly five years in captivity as part of a controversial exchange for five terrorists held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

* HE'S STILL "SGT. BERGDAHL," NOT CONVICT BERGDAHL. IT'S INSANITY!

The ransom payment was first disclosed by Rep. Duncan Hunter in a Nov. 5 letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel.

Mr. Hunter stated in the letter that Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the payment covertly as part of a release deal.

* UNDER WHOSE AUTHORITY? WHO WAS AT THE TOP OF THE COMMAND CHAIN WHO APPROVED THIS?

But the money was stolen by the Afghan intermediary claiming to represent the Haqqani terrorist network.

(*SNORT*)

“Given the significance of this matter, as well as the fact that Pentagon officials have denied that a payment was even considered — and you also said you were unaware of any such attempt — I ask you to immediately inquire with JSOC to determine the specific order of events,” said Mr. Hunter, California Republican and member of the House Armed Services Committee.

* DID THE PENTAGON OFFICIAL LIE UNDER OATH? DID THEY VIOLATE THE LAW?

Mr. Hunter also asked Mr. Hagel whether ransom payments are being considered for other captives.

* I CAN ANSWER THAT... (YES!)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

November 20, 2014 at 1:43 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Disclosure of the ransom payment undermines a key financial element of President Obama’s strategy to counter the Islamic State — pressuring foreign governments, corporations and families of captives not to pay ransom. In a speech in September, David S. Cohen, Treasury undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said the Islamic State made $20 million this year in ransoming hostages.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that Mr. Obama “continues to believe, as previous presidents have concluded, that it’s not in the best interest of American citizens to pay ransoms to any organization, let alone a terrorist organization.” “And the reason for that is simple: We don’t want to put other American citizens at even greater risk when they’re around the world,” he said.

* AND YET... THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA AND HIS MINIONS HAVE DONE!

Secretary of State John F. Kerry also said in a speech Tuesday that ransom payments will not be paid. Both officials spoke following the latest beheading of an American, Peter Kassig, by Islamic State terrorists.

Officials said the Bergdahl ransom was an unspecified large amount of money and that the exchange was handled by the Army’s elite Delta Force anti-terrorism squad. The FBI also was involved in the ransom payment attempt and was waiting inside Afghanistan’s border with North Waziristan when the release failed, confirming that it had been a scam.

(*SNORT*)

The Pentagon’s spin on the payment is that the money was not technically a ransom. Instead, defense officials are claiming the cash was intelligence money paid to a source for information that would lead to the release of Sgt. Bergdahl.

Before the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bergdahl, which angered Congress because it violated promises of consultations prior to the freeing of Guantanamo inmates, special operations commandos had been preparing to conduct a rescue raid if Sgt. Bergdahl’s location was uncovered.

* "RESCUE RAID...?" BERGDAHL IS A DESERTER... A TRAITOR... HE SHOULD BE IN PRISON OR BETTER YET... DEAD!

* BY THE WAY, FOLKS... YOU'RE STILL PAYING FOR MAJ. HUSSAN'S FOOD, SHELTER, MEDICAL CARE... ETC.

Sgt. Bergdahl was captured in Afghanistan in June 2009 along with a group of Afghan soldiers who were intoxicated. According to a person familiar with the capture, he was sold to the Haqqani network and moved to Pakistan, complicating any covert rescue attempt.

* THAT'S THE OFFICIAL STORY... (WHY IT'S BEING REPORTED HERE... CONFUSES ME.)

A spokesman for Mr. Hunter said the Pentagon has not responded to the congressman’s letter but is said to be "working" on a response.

November 20, 2014 at 1:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/20/nsa-director-confirms-that-china-and-other-countries-can-hack-and-shut-down/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fnational+%28Internal+-+US+Latest+-+Text%29

* HAT TIP MICHELLE ZORNES!

China and "one or two" other countries are capable of mounting cyber-attacks to shut down the electric grid in parts of the United States. That's according to Admiral Michael Rogers, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of the U.S. Cyber Command.

The possibility of such cyber-attacks by U.S. adversaries has been widely known, but never confirmed publicly by the nation's top cyber official.

At a House hearing, Rogers says U.S. adversaries are performing electronic "reconnaissance," on a regular basis so that they can be in a position to attack the industrial control systems that run everything from chemical facilities to water treatment plants.

Outside experts say the U.S. Cyber Command also has that capability, which in theory should amount to mutual deterrence.

* BULL. BOTH RUSSIA AND (ESPECIALLY) CHINA ARE FAR MORE LIKELY TO "KEEP IT TOGETHER" AS SOCIETIES SHOULD THE UNTHINKABLE OCCUR. OUTSIDE OF THE CITIES (AND EVEN WITHIN THE CITIES) POWER OUTAGES AND SUCH ARE COMMON. MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF CHINESE AND NO DOUBT MILLIONS OF RUSSIANS ARE EFFECTIVELY "OFF THE GRID" RIGHT NOW!

* FOLKS... THE AVERAGE AMERICAN... FAR MORE DEPENDENT UPON POWERED HI-TECH THAN THE AVERAGE CHINESE OR RUSSIAN.

November 20, 2014 at 1:46 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/11/19/hegseth-6-months-va-scandal-broke-and-nothing-has-changed

It's been six months since President Obama vowed there would be major changes to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A new VA Secretary is on the job and has said he plans to fire up to 1,000 people in the agency and hire nearly 30,000 medical professionals.

But Pete Hegseth, CEO of Concerned Veterans for America, explained this morning that when it comes to long wait times for a doctor's appointment, nothing has changed.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Hegseth said based on the veterans he has talked to, there are only "rhetorical changes" happening.

* SOUNDS LIKE SOP FOR THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION... AND INDEED GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL.

(*SHRUG*)

"If you live in Jacksonville, Florida, you're waiting 77 days for a primary care appointment," he said, explaining that he means routine "I feel sick" visits, not a specialty surgery.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

"For the listening public, that's a mind-blowing number. If you live in Westmoreland, Pennsylvania, you're waiting six months for a specialty care appointment. These are numbers of what government-run, single payer, top-down health care gives you. You will accept the appointment when we give it to you, no other options."

* ONE MORE TIME...

...you're waiting six months for a specialty care appointment.

* AND...

You will accept the appointment when we give it to you, no other options.

* AMERICA 2014

Hegseth also disputed that the VA will actually be getting rid of those 1,000 employees, saying VA Secretary Bob McDonald admitted that he probably can only fire about 35.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Most of the others will be "disciplined," Hegseth noted - meaning they could just be shuffled to a different, well-paid job.

(*SIGH*)

He pointed out that there's been no real accountability, with only two people fired.

* WHAT'S THAT...???

* "...only two people fired."

The head of the Phoenix VA, where the whole scandal started earlier this year, is still on paid administrative leave.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

"No justice, no accountability for someone who was hiding wait times and veterans died while they waited on that list," said Hegseth.

The lack of progress was called out in a USA Today report a few days ago, which stated that more than 600,000 veterans continue to wait a month or more for appointments.

* AGAIN...

* "...more than 600,000 veterans continue to wait a month or more for appointments."

Hegseth lamented the last figure, which means that combat veterans dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder could be without care for two months, putting them at risk of suicide.

* FAR BETTER THEY COMMIT HOMOCIDE... AND I CAN SUGGEST A FEW TARGETS!

"This is a bureaucracy. We're nameless. We are numbers. It's not about a shortage of doctors. There's plenty of doctors. The VA doesn't track how many doctors they have in many place, a new story just came out. This is not about doctors. This is about efficiency and incentive, which is why government-run health care does not work," he said.

November 20, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)