Friday, March 27, 2015

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 27, 2015


Before posting one newsbite... I'm already disgusted...

(*SIGH*)


Posted by at

14 comments:

William R. Barker said...

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

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/031915-744239-justice-department-racism-claim-in-ferguson-off-mark.htm#ixzz3UwahG6XE

Most seem to accept the Obama administration's claim that the Ferguson police department is a hotbed of racism.

* BULL. PERHAPS MORONS... BUT BEYOND THAT THE SIMPLY TRUTH IS THAT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN ISN'T EVEN AWARE OF THE "JUSTICE" DEPARTMENT STUDY IN QUESTION.

As President Obama asserted last Thursday, "There was a whole structure (in Ferguson), according to the Justice Department report, that indicated both racism and just a disregard for what law enforcement's supposed to do. ... It is not unique, but it's also not the norm."

Even some conservatives condemned the Ferguson police department.

* ONLY THE MORONS...

"It is disgusting," said Karl Rove...

* CASE IN POINT!

Within days, Ferguson's police chief as well as the city manager resigned. And a recall campaign was launched against the mayor.

* FOLKS... IF THERE WAS ANY "THERE" THERE... WOULDN'T THE FEDS HAVE ARRESTED THE POLICE CHIEF AND CITY MANAGER?

(*SHRUG*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 27, 2015 at 11:55 AM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey, men are 42% more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. We could argue that men are being discriminated against. Yet it seems generally accepted that men simply break the rules more often. The difference has nothing to do with treating people differently or discrimination.

* MEN SIMPLY TEND TO DRIVE MORE AGGRESSIVELY. CERTAINLY THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE!

* CONTINUING...

Take the first claim in the report: "Ferguson's law-enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African-Americans. Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85% of vehicle stops, 90% of citations, and 93% of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67% of Ferguson's population."

But even these numbers are very misleading. The people who drive in Ferguson aren't all from Ferguson. Indeed, the seven cities that border Ferguson have an average black population of 80.3%.

(*SMIRK*)

Some members of the local media, such as McGraw Milhaven, program director at KTRS-AM, claim that Ferguson isn't going after blacks for traffic violations but those who live in other cities. They want non-Ferguson citizens to pay its taxes, and it just so happens that over 80% of those people are black. (All the Obama administration's report had to do in its empirical work was account for where drivers live, but it doesn't do that.)

* SURPRISE, SURPRISE...

Using just Ferguson's population is misleading for another reason. Nationwide, blacks were 31% more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop. If Ferguson's blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they'd account for 87.5% of traffic stops, more than the 85% they do.

(*SNORT*)

Critics may assert that "31% more likely" figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide. But wasn't the whole point to say, as Obama claimed, that Ferguson is worse, not better, than the rest of the country?

(*SHRUG*)

The administration also charged that blacks were treated worse after being pulled over for a traffic violation: "African-Americans account for 72% of citations based on radar or laser, but 80% of citations based on other or unspecified methods. Thus, as evaluated by radar, African-Americans violate the law at lower rates than as evaluated by FPD officers."

But again... these results could easily be explained if Ferguson used radar detectors on those roads that are primarily used by its citizens and other methods where primarily non-Ferguson residents are affected. This failure even to try accounting for simple explanations that have nothing to do with racism is seen throughout the report.

For example, blacks are more likely to be searched when they are stopped for traffic violations even after driver age, gender, the officer making the stop, and the reason for the stop (e.g., speeding) are taken into account. But officers are given a lot more information than that about the driver when they pull them over, such as outstanding arrest warrants and past criminal and driving record. Is it that hard to believe you're more likely to search someone who has an arrest warrant out for them? Why not account for that other information that police have?

* "WHY NOT" INDEED...

The Obama report is also quite secretive on its evidence — not showing empirical tests or releasing data.

* FOLKS... THESE PEOPLE SIMPLY CAN'T BE TRUSTED.

Obama couldn't simply express anger over the shooting of two Ferguson police officers without first qualifying it with "whoever fired those shots shouldn't detract from the issue (of racism in Ferguson)." For an administration so quick to claim racism, cherry-picked data that doesn't try to address even simple alternative explanations is not very convincing.

March 27, 2015 at 11:55 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/senate-democrats-vote-to-pay-cash-benefits-to-illegal-immigrants.php?utm_campaign=naytev&utm_content=550b5cdce4b0afec580b597e

The Treasury Department Inspector General for Tax Administration has repeatedly warned that illegal immigrants are collecting billion of dollars in refundable tax credits to which they are not legally entitled.

This outrageous situation can be corrected rather easily, by requiring tax filers to supply a valid Social Security number in order to claim the Additional Child Tax Credit.

On March 19 in the Senate Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions [R] proposed an amendment that would do exactly that, thereby saving American taxpayers billions of dollars that are flowing improperly to illegal aliens.

Incredibly, the ten Democrats on the committee voted in lockstep to keep the illegal money flowing. It is hard to believe...

* AND...???

It is hard to imagine a motive other than sheer perversity for the Democrats’ votes. If there was any doubt in your mind, this places beyond dispute the fact that Democrats are on the side of illegal immigrants, and are hostile to the interests of American citizens.

* BUT REPUBLICANS CONTROL THE SENATE... AND THE HOUSE...

* THE MATTER SHOULD BE FORCED. PERIOD. IF MCCONNELL AND THE RINOs DON'T PRESS THE MATTER AND FORCE AN ACTUAL VOTE AND FACE A POSSIBLE VETO THEN THEY'RE AS GUILTY AS THE DEMOCRATS.

March 27, 2015 at 12:00 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/19/obama-schooled-on-constitution-by-his-former-law-professor/

President Obama has defended his knowledge and commitment to the Constitution by reminding Americans he used to teach constitutional law courses.

When it comes to Obama’s Clean Power Plan, one of his former law professors disagrees.

Laurence Tribe...

* NOTED LIBERAL LAURENCE TRIBE...

...joins the long list of individuals, organizations, and local and state governments opposing the Clean Power Plan.

Under the Clean Power Plan, the EPA is attempting to finalize regulations that would require states to meet individual targets to cut CO2 emissions, essentially eliminating the use of coal as an affordable, reliable energy source that provides nearly 40% of America’s electricity. Tribe, a Harvard law professor and “liberal legal icon,” had not been shy about his reasons in the past and testified on them before the House Energy and Power Subcommittee on Tuesday.

* ARTICLE DATED MARCH 19.

There’s a long (and quite dirty) laundry list of reasons Obama’s Clean Power Plan is a bad deal for Americans, which The Heritage Foundation and many others have detailed. To name a few, the plan will have almost zero impact on global temperatures, even though the plan is billed as a global warming initiative. It guts energy diversity by eliminating coal and replacing it with natural gas, which is as foolish as staking your nest egg on one kind of investment. It threatens electric reliability and forces Americans to pay more for less power.

* ONE MORE TIME...?

It threatens electric reliability and forces Americans to pay more for less power.

And it creates the need for massive federal and state bureaucracies to manage the plan—providing ample opportunity for businesses to lobby for special protection and governments ample opportunity to make some money. No matter how states ultimately construct the plan, Americans will pay.

* BUT WORSE...

As Tribe aptly puts it, the Clean Power Plan burns the Constitution.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING...

Tribe’s entire testimony is well worth the read for anyone regardless of what they believe about global warming. His arguments having nothing to do with the “pros and cons” of the EPA’s response to global warming but with the rule of law and the “novel course of action” EPA has chosen to force through the Clean Power Plan. Here are a few notable excerpts from Tribe’s testimony Tuesday:

“At its core, the issue the Clean Power Plan presents is whether EPA is bound by the rule of law and must operate within the framework established by the United States Constitution.”

“EPA’s plan will force States to adopt policies that will raise energy costs and prove deeply unpopular, while cloaking those policies in the Emperor’s garb of state ‘choice’ — even though in fact the polices are compelled by EPA. Such sleight-of-hand offends democratic principles by avoiding political transparency and accountability.”

“Accordingly, EPA’s gambit would mean citizens surrendering their right to be represented by an accountable and responsive government that accords with the postulates of federalism.”

“The Affordable Care Act may not compel health insurance consumers to eat or buy broccoli, but EPA seeks to interpret the Clean Air Act to allow it to regulate every watt used in growing broccoli and moving it to the market — as well as every watt used for any other activity within a State.”

“Faced with [the Clean Air Act’s] explicit statutory bar to its Clean Power Plan, EPA advances a variety of arguments in an attempt to circumvent the clear statutory text. Its arguments violate the rules of grammar, ignore the history and structure of the Clean Air Act, and would turn Congress’ handiwork upside down.”

If it has not already, Tribe’s testimony should remind Congress that it is a co-equal branch with the executive and not powerless against the EPA’s overreach.

* BOEHNER...? MCCONNELL...? GOOD LUCK...

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

Tribe concluded that regardless of where an individual stands on global warming, the Clean Power Plan is not the way forward. In other words, the ends do not justify the means if the means take the very foundation of American government and democracy as a casualty.

That’s something any freedom-loving member of Congress should be able to get behind.

* BUT THAT'S THE CENTRAL PROBLEM; TODAY'S "AMERICANS" AREN'T ALL THAT HIGH ON FREEDOM.

(*SIGH*) (*SHRUG*)

March 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/19/federal-judge-admonished-doj-over-apparent-deception-i-was-made-to-look-like-an-idiot/

The U.S. Government...

* OBAMA'S EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

...lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done.

That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

(*SILENCE*)

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3—15 days after the injunction was filed.”

* AND YET NO ONE GOES TO JAIL...

(*SIGH*)

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

(The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.)

DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to "confusion," but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

* HARDECK SHOULD BE SITTING IN A JAIL CELL AT THIS VERY MOMENT!

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Judge Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

* ORDER... HER... THROWN... INTO... JAIL...!!!

* ORDER... HER... BOSSES... THROWN... INTO... JAIL...!!!

During the hearing Judge Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

After hearing the arguments from both sides Hanen said he would issue a ruling in the near future.

* APPARENTLY NO RULING HAS YET BEEN MADE... (I JUST CHECKED!)

March 27, 2015 at 12:37 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416096/immigration-battle-heads-big-easy-hans-von-spakovsky

The next stage has been set for the executive-amnesty fight.

Call it the Battle of New Orleans. On April 17, the litigation war over the president’s amnesty plan for 5 million illegal aliens will shift from Brownsville, Texas, to the Big Easy.

In February, the administration suffered a major setback when U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction against the plan. Now the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments over the Obama Justice Department’s request for a stay (pending appeal) of the injunction.

The 26 states who brought the suit against the administration have already filed their first brief in the Fifth Circuit. It summarizes the case quite well: Defendants wish to implement a massive new program that dispenses with immigration law and grants work permits and lawful-presence status – which will confer Social Security cards and a bevy of other state and federal benefits – to 40% of the unauthorized aliens in the United States . . . Unilaterally issuing a plethora of benefits to millions of unauthorized aliens would mark one of the largest changes of immigration policy in this Nation’s history.

Defendants...

* THE OBAMAITES...

...now move to implement this benefits program immediately without meaningful judicial review – not even the resolution of this appeal.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Such a drastic step would require an extraordinary showing of emergency and legal merit, and Defendants have failed to show anything close. In particular, they have identified no looming injury that could justify an ‘emergency’ stay. The preliminary injunction simply confines the Executive to what it previously admitted were the limits of its power, temporarily preventing the implementation of an unprecedented and practically irreversible benefits program in order to allow the Judicial Branch to review its validity.

As the states point out, “Congress has not given the Executive carte blanche to grant lawful presence to unauthorized aliens.”

The administration has tried to rely on “prosecutorial discretion” as its defense, but there was clearly no “discretion” involved in the mass approvals given to illegal aliens — the so-called “DREAMers” — under the 2012 DACA program. As the brief notes, the administration “mechanically approved applications that met DACA’s criteria; between 95%-99.5% of all applications were granted, and the Executive has not been able to identify a single application that was denied for a discretionary reason” (emphasis added).

The brief also cites President Obama’s frank acknowledgement that he “just took an action to change the law.” This damaging admission directly refutes the Justice Department’s claim that the administration is simply acting within the discretion the executive is given under existing immigration law.

* IN A SANE WORLD OBAMA WOULD BE IMPEACHED AND THROWN OUT OF OFFICE VIA BIPARTISAN NEAR-UNANIMOUS ACTION!

The states contend that the president cannot even “come close” to meeting the legal standard of showing that maintaining the injunction will irreparably damage the government.

* AND THEY'RE RIGHT!

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 27, 2015 at 3:04 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The administration claims the president’s plan must be implemented now “to more efficiently ensure national security.” As the states point out, however, the government used that same argument during the Korean War to justify President Truman’s seizure of steel mills to forestall a strike. Yet in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), the national-security argument failed to persuade the U.S. Supreme Court. As the states note, that claim is “vastly less compelling now.”

(*NOD*)

As former Nuremburg prosecutor and Associate Justice Robert H. Jackson said in Youngstown, the unlimited executive power that the framers of the Constitution were trying to avoid was “the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the Declaration of Independence.” That made Justice Jackson “doubt that they were creating their new Executive in his image.”

President Obama at one point said, “I am not a king” when it came to immigration policy, yet that is the bottom line of the position Justice Department lawyers are taking in court: that the president has an unfettered ability to implement whatever immigration rules he sees fit.

The states forcefully argue that a stay would prevent meaningful judicial review and irreparably injure them, since legalizing millions of aliens would be a virtually irreversible action once taken. And they once again turn the administration’s own words against it, citing the director of the U.S. Customs and Immigration Service, Leon Rodriguez, a defendant in the case, who admitted that the program could not readily be undone and was designed to cement illegal aliens in place in American society.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Finally, the states also dismiss the administration’s claim that the injunction should apply only to Texas or the states involved in the lawsuit, and not the rest of the country: “Patchwork relief is powerless to prevent the harms threatened by officials acting with nationwide jurisdiction.” In fact, the Justice Department’s argument is “nonsensical,” according to the states, since illegal aliens who are granted deferred action and work permits by the administration won’t be limited in where they can live and work — they will be able to move to any state and apply for work authorizations, licenses, and a myriad of government benefits. Immigration law requires a nationwide policy and, as the states put it, “an unlawful immigration directive requires a nationwide remedy.”

While the appellate court prepares to hear oral arguments on April 17, we may still hear more from Judge Hanen in Brownsville. He has not yet said whether he will be taking any further action against Justice Department lawyers who misled him during the pendency of the states’ request for an injunction. The lawyers had assured Hanen that the Department of Homeland Security was not yet implementing the president’s plan. In fact, DHS had issued more than 100,000 deferrals during that time. Last week, in a specially called hearing, Hanen gave the DOJ lawyers a thorough, very tough grilling over their misrepresentations. He asked them whether taxpayers would end up paying any sanctions he imposed on the lawyers and chided himself for having relied “like an idiot” on what DOJ told him. So there may be additional fireworks in the Brownsville courthouse yet.

* LET'S HOPE SO... (OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS!)

March 27, 2015 at 3:05 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/20/conservative-lawmaker-seeks-answers-from-the-va-on-misleading-statements/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRois6vJZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HS8pgI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

Last week, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee held a hearing in order to try and answer lingering questions about mismanagement at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

During the hearing, Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., questioned General Counsel Leigh Bradley about multiple misstatements made by leading VA officials.

Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert McDonald said in a “Meet the Press” interview in February that 60 people at the department had been fired for manipulating the time it took for veterans to receive care.

The committee has since determined that only four individuals were fired.

* STAND DCDONALD AGAINST A WALL AND SHOOT HIM.

(*SHRUG*)

“There is no way for us to restore trust unless we are more careful about specific facts, numbers and information that we provide,” acknowledged Bradley during the hearing.

Huelskamp said the department’s hesitation to the remaining question casts doubt on their trustworthiness.

In an interview with The Daily Signal, Huelskamp said the hearing had been called due to “ongoing concern” about officials from the department and the Obama administration who have “not been forthcoming with information.”

“Why haven’t you answered these questions?” Huelskamp said.

Huelskamp said it was “standard operating procedure” for the VA to send lower level employees who aren’t prepared to answer the questions of the committee members.

The committee and the American people were misled or even lied to, Huelskamp said, about the number of people who had been fired for manipulating the wait times for veterans to receive health care.

He said the department must cooperate with congressional oversight.

Huelskamp called McDonald’s comments the “most misleading” statement he’d heard in the course of the investigation, and that veterans, Americans, and Congress deserve answers.

“Veterans have lost their lives because of this,” Huelskamp said.

Huelskamp has requested a written statement from the VA regarding five specific misstatements.

“It shouldn’t be hard to explain — was it a mistake, or was it a lie?” Huelskamp said.

Huelskamp argues that the same “bureaucratic problems” that plague the VA may soon extend to the rest of the health care system.

“Veterans are so important,” Huelskamp said. “It gets to the heart of our entire system of health care. Veterans deserve choices about their health care. Patients deserve choices.”

March 27, 2015 at 3:10 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/march/22/after-a-twelve-year-mistake-in-iraq-we-must-just-march-home/

* BY THE ALWAYS HONORABLE RON PAUL

Twelve years ago last week, the U.S. launched its invasion of Iraq, an act the late General William Odom predicted would turn out to be “the greatest strategic disaster in US history.”

Before the attack I was accused of exaggerating the potential costs of the war when I warned that it could end up costing as much as $100 billion.

One trillion dollars later, with not one but two “mission accomplished” moments, we are still not done intervening in Iraq.

* TRUE...

President Obama last year ordered the U.S. military back into Iraq for the third time.

It seems the Iraq “surge” and the Sunni “Awakening,” for which General David Petraeus had been given much credit, were not as successful as was claimed at the time.

From the sectarian violence unleashed by the U.S. invasion of Iraq emerged al-Qaeda and then its more radical spin-off, ISIS. So Obama sent the U.S. military back.

We recently gained even more evidence that the initial war was sold on lies and fabrications. The CIA finally declassified much of its 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was the chief document used by the Bush Administration to justify the US attack. According to the Estimate, the U.S. Intelligence Community concluded that, "...we are unable to determine whether [biological weapons] agent research has resumed... [and] ...the information we have on Iraqi nuclear personnel does not appear consistent with a coherent effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program..."

But even as the U.S. Intelligence Community had reached this conclusion, President Bush told the American people that Iraq, "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons" and "the evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

* ESTIMATES WERE ALL OVER THE PLACE. THE CLINTONS BELIEVED THE SAME INTELLIGENCE THAT BUSH AND CHENEY DID.

Likewise, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s “bulletproof” evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaeda was contradicted by the National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that there was no operational tie between Hussein’s government and al-Qaeda.

* AGAIN, THE LIBERATE IRAQ ACT WAS SIGNED BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON. REGIME CHANGE WAS OFFICIAL U.S. POLICY LONG BEFORE BUSH/CHENEY TOOK OVER FROM CLINTON/GORE.

(*SHRUG*)

* TO BE CONTINUED...

March 27, 2015 at 3:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Even National Security Advisor Condolezza Rice’s famous statement that the aluminum tubes that Iraq was purchasing "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs," and "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," was based on evidence she must have known at the time was false. According to the NIE, the Energy Department had already concluded that the tubes were "consistent with applications to rocket motors" and "this is the more likely end use."

* I DON'T HAVE AN INFORMED OPINION ON THIS SPECIFIC.

It is hard to believe that in a society supposedly governed by the rule of law, U.S. leaders can escape any penalty for using blatantly false information – that they had to know at the time was false – to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country that posed no threat to the United States.

* AGAIN... I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

The fact that they got away with it simply makes it all the easier for Washington’s interventionists to try the same tricks again. They already did with Libya and Syria. It is likely they are also doing the same with claims of a Russian “invasion” of Ukraine.

* THIS HOWEVER DOES SEEM TO BE THE CASE.

Last week President Obama correctly blamed the current chaos in Iraq on the Bush Administration’s decision to invade. He said, “… ISIL is a direct outgrowth of al Qaeda in Iraq that grew out of our invasion. Which is an example of unintended consequences. Which is why we should generally aim before we shoot.”

* EVEN THOUGH OBAMA SAID IT... THE FACT IS... INVADING IRAQ WAS A MISTAKE. WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THIS.

However, if the U.S. intervention in Iraq created the “unintended consequences” of ISIS and al-Qaeda, how is it that more U.S. intervention can solve the problem?

* DAMN FINE QUESTION!

A war based on lies cannot be fixed by launching another war. We must just march home. And stay home.

March 27, 2015 at 3:49 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/26/house-passes-medicare-doc-fix-bill-how-did-your-representative-vote/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoisqTKZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HRcNrI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

The [RINO-controlled] House [Speakered by RINO John Boehner] Thursday passed the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015—the so-called “doc fix” bill.

The legislation was approved in a 392-37 vote.

* BIPARTISANSHIP...

The bill, a bipartisan deal by House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ... would amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to repeal Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate...

* WELL THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T SOUND VERY GOOD!

A report by the Congressional Budget Office found that the plan will increase the deficit by $141 billion over the next decade.

* AH... SO NOT GOOD AT ALL...

[A mere] 33 Republicans and 4 Democrats voted against the bill.

The bill will be taken up for consideration by the Senate.

* ALSO CONTROLLED BY RINOs.

In a statement, the White House expressed support for the legislation.

* OF COURSE OBAMA SUPPORTS IT! HE'S GONE AFTER 2016! WHAT'S HE CARE ABOUT A 10-YEAR DEFICIT ADD-ON OF $141 BILLION?!

Dr. Robert Wah, the president of the American Medical Association, also praised the “doc fix” plan...

* OF... COURSE... HE... DID...

Matt Kibbe, the president of FreedomWorks, called the legislation fiscally irresponsible in a statement:

“The Sustainable Growth Rate has been a problem since its inception, a misguided though noble attempt to slow down the growth of Medicare spending. A permanent repeal of the SGR does make sense compared to the annual exercise of delaying it, as Congress has done for over a decade.

However, keeping physician payments from being reduced has a real (and massive) cost — nearly $200 billion over 10 years — which Congress must account for. Instead this bill as written would increase the deficit by $141 billion over ten years. The minor structural tweaks to Medicare that would supposedly compensate for this spending do not kick in for several years, could easily be put off by future Congresses, and in any case fail stop an increase in deficits even after the ten-year budget window.”

March 27, 2015 at 4:03 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/25/how-a-300-million-bet-on-an-australian-satellite-company-went-wrong-for-the-export-import-bank/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoisq7MZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HRMRiI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

As lawmakers grapple with whether to re-authorize the Export-Import Bank, an Australian satellite company with a “significantly uncertain” future that received more than $300 million in loans from the bank is in jeopardy of defaulting on its loans.

NewSat, an Australian satellite communications company, has benefited from more than $304 million in loans from the Export-Import Bank. The loans, disbursed in 2012, 2013 and 2014, according to the bank’s records, were awarded for the company to purchase products from defense giant Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is building NewSat’s Jabiru-1, which is billed as Australia’s first non-government, non-foreign owned satellite.

According to the Export-Import Bank’s records, the bank’s board of directors unanimously approved financing for NewSat in both 2012 and 2013.

Just one month after Ex-Im approved financing for NewSat’s satellite program in 2012, bank Chairman Fred Hochberg visited the company’s teleport in Perth, Australia.

“It is fantastic to receive the support of the U.S. Ex-Im Bank,” NewSat Chief Executive Officer Adrian Ballintine said at the time. “They are backing our Jabiru-1 satellite with a direct loan, with a favorable low-fixed interest rate and long tenure. The deal is an Australian first for Ex-Im Bank and a major milestone towards the launch of Australia’s first commercial satellite.”

The project was also heralded by Hochberg at a February 2014 event with the Washington Space Business Roundtable, which was attended by former NewSat Chief Operating Officer Michael Hewins.

NewSat’s Jabiru-1 satellite was supposed to be completed by 2014, but the company announced it was delaying its launch date until mid-2016.

Now, the company is in “technical default” with Lockheed Martin after it failed to make payments totaling $21 million.

The defense contractor also issued a notice to terminate its contract with NewSat.

Multiple requests The Daily Signal made to Ex-Im regarding the status of NewSat’s loans went unanswered.

The Export-Import Bank’s authorization expires June 30, and lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been debating whether it’s charter should be extended or not.

Conservatives, led by House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling of Texas, believe the bank is an engine of corporate welfare and cronyism. Additionally, opponents believe a handful of politically connected companies such as Lockheed Martin benefit the most from Ex-Im financing.

Supporters, including President Obama...

(*SHRUG*)

...argue the bank creates jobs in the U.S. and helps small businesses compete in the global market.

Though Ex-Im’s charter doesn’t expire until June 30, a bipartisan group...

* SEE... THERE'S THAT WORD AGAIN - "BIPARTISAN."

(*SMIRK*)

...of senators introduced a bill reauthorizing the bank until 2019 last week.

* EACH OF WHOM SHOULD BE TARRED, FEATHERED, AND RUN THROUGH THE STREETS OF THEIR HOME TOWNS WITH THE MOB BAYING FOR THEIR HEADS BEHIND THEM!

March 27, 2015 at 4:40 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/23/wisconsin-is-finally-free-to-implement-voter-id-law/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dailydigest&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoisq3OZKXonjHpfsX56%2BorWa6zlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4HRMFrI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D

Great news for those interested in election integrity and common sense reforms like voter ID: The Supreme Court today removed the final legal obstacle to implementing Wisconsin’s voter ID law.

(*RISING TO APPLAUD*)

The Court refused to hear the American Civil Liberties Union’s appeal of a Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision that threw out the injunction issued against the state’s ID law by federal district court Judge Lynn Adelman.

Adelman, a Clinton appointee and former Democratic state senator, had thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court, claiming that he did not have to follow the Court’s prior 2008 opinion in Crawford v. Marion County upholding Indiana’s almost identical voter ID law. Adelman made the astonishing claim that Crawford was “not binding precedent.”

* ADELMAN SHOULD BE IMPEACHED AND REMOVED FROM THE BENCH.

In a withering decision written by Judge Frank Easterbrook on Oct. 6, 2014, the Seventh Circuit rejected Adelman’s reasoning and threw out his injunction. Easterbrook painstakingly dissected all of the errors in Adelman’s analysis, including his refusal to follow precedent.

As Easterbrook said, “Crawford requires us to reject a constitutional challenge to Wisconsin’s statute.”

The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily stayed the Seventh Circuit’s ruling just prior to the November election, leaving Adelman’s injunction in place, but only until the Court made a decision on whether to grant a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by the ACLU. It was clear that the Court did not want the status quo in Wisconsin changed just before the election since it might be disruptive for voters and election officials unfamiliar with the new ID requirements.

With the Court’s rejection today of the ACLU’s petition, Judge Easterbrook’s decision stands, and the injunction has gone where it should be — into the trash bin of history and bad legal decisions.

Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected a similar challenge to the voter ID law filed in state court last year in Milwaukee Branch of NAACP v. Walker, Wisconsin now joins numerous other states like Georgia, Indiana and South Carolina that have implemented a photo ID requirement for voting and most importantly, have beaten opponents of such a requirement in the courts.

March 27, 2015 at 4:44 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)