Usually Right

Just One Question...

2012-02-01T17:55:00.002-05:00

Didn't (future president) candidate Obama win South Carolina during the 2008 democratic primaries...???

And didn't... er... (future NOT the president) candidate Clinton trounce Obama in the Florida democratic primary of 2008?

Funny how things work out sometimes...

(*WINK*)

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, February 1, 2012

2012-02-01T11:15:00.002-05:00

As always... the actual "newsbites" are posted in the comments section.

(BTW... check out comment #1 for my take on last night's Florida primary results.)

Here's Thomas Sowell...

2012-01-31T16:10:00.005-05:00

The Republican Establishment is pulling out all the stops to try to keep Newt Gingrich from becoming the party’s nominee for president of the United States - and some are not letting the facts get in their way.

Of course, he's talking about that son of a bitch Romney.

Among the claims going out through the mass media in Florida, on the eve of that state’s primary election, is that Newt Gingrich “resigned in disgrace” as speaker of the House of Representatives as a result of unethical conduct involving the diversion of tax-exempt money.

Mitt Romney is calling on Gingrich to release “all of the records” from the congressional investigation.

But the Wall Street Journal of January 28, 2012, reported that these records - 1,280 pages of them - are already publicly available online.

Although Speaker Gingrich decided not to take on the task of fighting the charge from his political enemies in 1997, the Internal Revenue Service conducted its own investigation which, two years later, exonerated Gingrich from the charges. His resignation was not due to those charges and occurred much later.

Do the Romney camp and the Republican Establishment not know this, a dozen years later?

Or are they far less concerned with whether the charges will stand up than they are about smearing Gingrich on the eve of the Florida primaries?

Again, folks... Romney is a man lacking in basic integrity.

There are also charges made about what Congressman Gingrich said about Ronald Reagan on March 21, 1986. But this too is a matter of public record, since his remarks are available in the Congressional Record of that date, so it is remarkable that there should be any controversy about it at this late date.

On that date, Gingrich praised Reagan’s grasp of the foreign-policy issues of the day but later questioned whether the way the actual policies of the Reagan administration were being carried out was likely to succeed. Gingrich was not alone in making this point, which such conservative stalwarts as George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and others made at the time.

Since a column of my own back in the 1980s suggested that the administration’s policies seemed to be to “speak loudly and carry a little stick,” I can well understand the misgivings of others. But that is wholly different from saying that all who expressed misgivings were enemies of Ronald Reagan.

One can of course lift things out of context. But if you want to read the whole context, simply go online and get the Congressional Record for March 21, 1986.

Among the other places where the smears are exposed are the Wall Street Journal of January 29, Jeffrey Lord’s article on the American Spectator’s blog of January 27, and an article by Heather Higgins on Ricochet.com of January 29.

Unfortunately, there are likely to be far more people who will see the smears than will have time to get the facts. But, if nothing else, there needs to be some understanding of the reckless accusations that have become part of the all-out attempt to destroy Newt Gingrich, as so many other political figures have been destroyed, by non-stop smears in the media.

Gingrich is by no means above criticism. He has been criticized in this column before over the years, including during the current primary season, and he will probably be criticized here again.

Here Sowell echos my oft-noted point! I criticize Gingrich - and indeed all candidates - when and where I disagree with them. But I don't stoop to lying in order to make my point!

But the poisonous practice of irresponsible smears is an issue that is bigger than Gingrich, Romney, or any other candidate of either party.

Here's I believe Sowell is too... diplomatic. Romney and his supporters are behind the smears. Period. Nothing wrong with slimming your opponent with the truth... but slimming him (or her) with lies... that's a different thing altogether.

There have long been reports of people who decline to be nominated for federal judicial appointments because that means going before the Senate Judiciary Committee to have lies about their past spread nationwide, and the good reputation built up over a lifetime destroyed by politicians who could not care less about the truth.

The same practices may well have something to do with the public’s dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates in this year’s primaries - and in previous years’ primaries. Character assassination is just another form of voter fraud.

I tend to agree. Without the truth... how can voters be expected to caste rational votes?

There is no law against it, so it is up to the voters, not only in Florida but in other states, to punish it at the ballot box - the only place where punishment is likely to stop the practice.

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, January 31, 2012

2012-01-31T11:17:00.000-05:00

The actual "newsbites" can be found within the comments page of this post.

I'm Always Willing To Give Drudge the Benefit of the Doubt, But...

2012-01-30T18:13:00.003-05:00

Just throwing this out there...

Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) on Sunday attacked Mitt Romney for "unseemliness and overkill" in his aggressive campaign against Newt Gingrich, the candidate Thompson has endorsed.

Romney's "modus operandi, basically, is to play Mr. Nice Guy until somebody gets close to him," Thompson said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "And then he unleashes his attack machine. And that's what happened in Iowa and it's what's happening in Florida."

Thompson said that a story in Sunday's New York Times depicts "Romney's staff ... patting themselves on the back, talking about how mean and down they are. How they've got Matt Drudge in their back pocket. And how Romney is in on all of it."

For months, Drudge has been running a steady stream of pro-Romney and anti-Gingrich stories on his website, Drudge Report.

I have no idea where Matt Drudge stands on the whole Romney vs. Gingrich thing.

I know Drudge and Ann Coulter are good friends and Coulter is firmly in the Romney camp having been disappointed by Chris Christie's refusal to run for president himself...

(And of course Christie supports Romney...)

...but on the other hand I can't see Drudge playing the role of "yes, dear" to Coulter - no matter how close they are.

Anyway... while it's true Drudge has been running pretty much every pro-Romney, anti-Gingrich piece out there... well... he's also been posting the pro-Gingrich, anti-Romney stuff.

Anyway... just found this piece interesting. Make of it what you will and in the meantime... keep reading Drudge... and keep reading Usually Right!

Say It Ain't So, Pat... (Buchanan)

2012-01-30T15:10:00.002-05:00

I love Pat Buchanan.

Just as I'm "Usually Right," so too is ol' Pat.

Pat doesn't support Newt, though.

I wonder why...?

Could it be because his sister, Bay Buchanan, is a prominent Romney supporter?

(Hey... btw... you know what I just found out? Bay Buchanan converted from Roman Catholicism to Mormonism in 1976...)

Buchanan has a husband, an ex-husband, and three "kids." Not sure if any are involved with the Romney campaign.

Now of course it's quite possible that none of this has had any influence on Pat and that his disdain for Gingrich is totally... er... "organic."

(*SMILE*) (*CHUCKLE*)

As I wrote up top, Pat Buchanan is one of my "go to" sources for news and analysis - a guy I trust because, hey... he's "usually right."

I take comfort in the fact that while he dings Gingrich he apparently can't bring himself to say much in actual support of Romney.

(*CHUCKLE*) (*SHRUG*)

One thing I know - and can appreciate: Pat and Bay Buchanan are not just brother and sister... they're "comrades" of long standing - political allies by ideology, but more than that... by blood.

I'll tell you one last thing: I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Pat and Bay Buchanan talk privately - one on one with no audience and no threat that the conversation will go any further - about Romney vs. Gingrich.

(*SMILE*)

The Iron Lady

2012-01-30T10:55:00.002-05:00

Mary and I saw "The Iron Lady" yesterday afternoon at the Lafayette in Suffern.

Wow...

We're talking a powerful film.

We're talking a powerful film that if you're a Republican or conservative or even a "moderate" or "independent" who is open to voting Republican... chances are - whether you realize it consciously or not - the effect upon you of watching this movie will be to make you far more likely to vote for Newt Gingrich and far more likely to viscerally recoil from Mitt Romney.

(If you've already seen the movie you no doubt understand where I'm coming from.)

Although of course there was no purposeful attempt to link Thatcher to Gingrich or the Thatcher era to America 2012, consciously - or unconsciously - a link has been forged.

Love her or hate her, Margaret Thatcher was the larger than life figure who along with Reagan and Pope John Paul II symbolized all that was right with "The Right."

(Of course the Left took - and to this day takes - the exact opposite view. But that's neither here nor there for purposes of this post.)

In the end Thatcher - the hero, even with all her faults - was stabbed in the back by "lesser" men... men who in taking power soon botched the job so badly that they lost power!

Again... while I'm not claiming that Newt Gingrich is in the same league as a Margaret Thatcher, or a Reagan, or a John Paul II, one can't help but come away from a screening of "The Iron Lady" without (at least subconsciously) placing Newt in the role of Thatcher and Romney in the role of one of the "extras" who betrayed Thatcherism (Reaganism) in a selfish and ultimately self-destructive pursuit of personal power... personal gain.

The Gingrich campaign - and every supporter of Newt Gingrich and opponent of Mitt Romney - should be shouting from the rooftops for likely Republican primary voters (and indeed all likely voters in advance of the general election should Newt win the nomination) to go to the movies... go to the movies and see "The Iron Lady."

The Fox-Romney News Network

2012-01-29T12:37:00.002-05:00

Folks... to reiterate what I've been pointing out all along... Fox News is clearly in the Romney camp.

Did any of you happen to catch all three Sunday morning news/interview programs this morning? If so, you witnessed Fox and NBC making the case for Romney while ABC News actually fulfilled the proclaimed "This Week" mission of providing fair and balanced coverage of the ongoing Republican primaries and particularly the Romney vs. Gingrich story.

Over at Fox News you had Chris Wallace interviewing Newt as if he were a representative of the Romney campaign - complete with wasting most of the interview on the whole "ghetto" nonsense which video and transcripts support Gingrich on!

Oh... and then after the interview it was of course time for "the panel," where Brit Hume continued his months-long habit of portraying Romney as the inevitable GOP... with the "tone" clearly being that Romney should be the nominee.

(*SMIRK*)

(Oh... and need I continue by highlighting Juan Williams' same-ol', same-ol' talking points?)

Hey... folks... were you aware that last night Herman Cain formally endorsed Newt Gingrich?

Well... while FNS did in fact show a clip while "mentioning" the nod, it wasn't a topic of major discussion... indeed, it was basically ignored... quickly swept under the rug.

As to yesterday's Sarah Palin Facebook posting slamming Romney and his GOP Establishment allies...

(*SMIRK*)

Unless I just missed it... NOT A FRIGG'N WORD ABOUT THE PALIN POSTING!

Folks... imagine... imagine if last night Herman Cain had endorsed Mitt Romney rather than Newt Gingrich.

Folks... imagine... imagine if yesterday Sarah Palin had posted a screed slashing and burning the GINGRICH campaign instead of the Romney campaign...

(*PAUSE*)

Folks... com'on... had either - let alone both - of these "alternate realities" happened... well... it would be Cain/Palin coverage 24/7 with nothing else mattering.

(*SHRUG*)

Folks... again... the common denominator here is that "the fix is in" - or at last the fix is intended to be in.

Over at NBC it was "conservative" panelist George Will lambasting Gingrich... with "conservative" guest panelist Laura Ingraham spouting out "wisdom" such as... (and I'm paraphrasing here)... "Gingrich shouldn't "whine" about Romney lying... even "if" Romney is lying."

(*SNORT*)

Folks... what alternate reality are we living in when Fox is right there with NBC is bashing Newt Gingrich while ABC News is the voice of reason and fairness?!

Folks... how screwed up is it that instead of being able to rely upon Fox News for "fair and balanced" coverage of the Republican primaries we have to rely upon CNN and the Washington frigg'n Post for "outing" one Romney lie after another?

Folks... the Republican Establishment that gave us Bob Dole and John McCain and Tom DeLay and Trent Lott... that's the Republican Establishment which wants to give us Mitt Romney.

Folks... who are you gonna believe? Me, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Art Laffer, Herman Cain, Michael Reagan, et al...

(*PAUSE*)

...or the Republican Establishment which has time and time again betrayed true conservative ideal and idealists?

Sarah Palin on Newt, Romney, and the GOP Establishment

2012-01-28T15:47:00.002-05:00

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican Establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today, has adopted the tactics of the Left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed.

I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary.

Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The Left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media.

Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future.

But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.)

To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan.

Romney was actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. .

You can’t change history.

We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race.

There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history.

It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP Establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on.

In fact, the Establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the Left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment Rights.

The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters.

We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP Establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama.

Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward.

The questions need answers now.

That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion.

Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate.

The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters.

This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with.

It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country.

We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our Republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week.

We will not save our country by becoming like the Left.

And I question whether the GOP Establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary.

So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

"All The Devils Are Here" (Pg. 346)

2012-01-28T11:36:00.004-05:00

In mid-February [2008] President Bush signed a law that included a provision to raise the size of the jumbo mortgages Fannie and Freddie could buy, from $417,000 to $729,750 in high cost areas - a stunning, unnecessary increase that was supported by both Democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi and Republican John Boehner, the minority leader.

[Hank] Paulson fought the increase because he didn't see why the GSEs were needed to suppot the high-end housing market, and he told a group of Senate Republicans that he would hold firm. But it was a losing battle, raising the limits was popular with members of Congress on both sides of the isle.

In a meeting with Pelosi and Boehner, Pelosi told Paulson they were going to raise the limits. She said it in a way that suggested he would be unable to stop her. Then she laughingly showed him a note that Boehner had slipped her. "Let's role Hank," it said.

Folks... these are the sort of scum we're dealing with.

And today?

Boehner is Speaker of the House and Nancy Pelosi is minority leader.

Seriously... explain to me once again how violence isn't the only answer.

Newt Got His Ass Kicked Last Night

2012-01-27T10:14:00.002-05:00

What have there been... something like 20 televised debates between the Republican candidates for president since the race began?

Without a doubt Newt Gingrich won the majority of those debates.

I'd even go farther to say that Mitt Romney won none of the previous debates... at best he came in as "co-winner" or "not loser" in previous debates.

Ahh... but last night... Romney kicked Gingrich's ass.

(*SHRUG*)

Hey... folks... I just call 'em like I see 'em.

Ahh... (yeah... another "ahh")... but just to throw another factual observation out there... it can well be argued that Rick Santorum kicked Romney's ass just as effectively as Romney kicked Gingrich's ass.

(*SHRUG*)

Final comment on my "ranking" of the "scores"... Ron Paul kicked ass against each and every one of his fellow candidates though I freely admit it doesn't matter.

And ain't that the shame of it...? Ron Paul who is more right on more issues and certainly more honest and forthright on most issues than any other candidate has no chance to capture the GOP presidential nomination - nor even if he could would he likely be able to beat Barak Hussein Obama come November.

Romney was confident and forceful last night; Newt was flat and on the defensive. Indeed, I could see that Newt was gonna have a tough night as the candidates took the stage; it was all right there on Newt's face.

(*SHRUG*)

Here's the thing, though...

ROMNEY IS A LIAR.

(*SHRUG*)

Hell... he got caught red handed by Wolfe Blitzer who outed him for "mistakenly" claiming that he wasn't behind a negative attack ad that slandered Gingrich.

(*ANOTHER SHRUG*)

But, hey... that's the point... that's been the point of post after post I've written: Mitt Romney lies. He lies... he obfuscates... he uses surrogates to do his dirty work - including claiming that his finances are in a blind trust even while... er... having them in a blind trust isn't and wasn't necessary except for the very short period he actually served as Governor of Massachusetts...

(*SIGH*)

My contributor Rob recently posted that "Romney is a lock."

I don't believe that... but of course Romney may win. (I've never said any different!)

(*SHRUG*)

By the same token, it's quite likely that the Republicans will end up with a brokered convention... with real convention wheeling, dealing, and horse-trading.

Remember, folks... note all states primaries are "winner take all." If Santorum stays in, he'll have influence over who the nominee is. So will Ron Paul. (A key question is... can Romney co-opt Santorum?)

Last Sunday Bob Shieffer asked Newt Gingrich - who was his guest - if he'd debate Romney one-on-one this coming Sunday if he (Shieffer) could get Romney to agree.

I haven't heard whether Romney has agreed or not; my guess is that he refused, but... after last night... he might well reconsider. (And obviously Gingrich would jump at the chance!)

We'll see...

We'll see if Romney has the guts... if Romney has the respect for the voters necessary to "just say yes" and allow Americans to witness a true one-hour on-on-one debate between the two national frontrunners.

Sadly, if (when?) Romney once again declines to go mano-a-mano against Gingrich the mainstream media will provide cover for Romney and not make his refusal an issue - even though obviously the interests of the media would be served by such a debate!

Well, that's it for this post. As always, I'd welcome comments and/or question... but I won't hold my breath.

By Melissa O'Sullivan

2012-01-26T16:39:00.001-05:00

Last fall, people in Washington told me, “Get over it, Melissa. Newt’s not going to be the nominee.”

Later, in New York City over Thanksgiving, I was told, “Get over it, Melissa. It’s going to be Romney.

Well, here we are in the thick of the race, and I’m still not over it.

* THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE IS MELISSA O'SULLIVAN, WIFE OF JOHN O'SULLIVAN.

Many years ago, I spent a frustrating morning trying to ice skate when it hit me: I wasn’t trying to ice skate; I was trying not to fall. I submit that the Republican establishment is repeating my mistake. They are trying not to fall by endorsing - or at least accepting - the supposed safe bet. It is reminiscent of an encounter I had with some editorial types during another presidential-primary season.

I was in New York with my husband, John, a former editor and current editor-at-large of National Review. He had arranged to meet some friends from the Wall Street Journal for lunch. At the eleventh hour, John had a conflict, and I went in his place. As the meal developed into an election-strategy discussion, one distinguished woman writer declared firmly that obviously the most qualified person to carry the Republican banner into the election was John McCain. She said it was a pity that the Republican rhubarbs in the sticks would not be bright enough to choose him.

* PEGGY NOONAN...??? (JUST WONDERING...)

“Wow!” I thought, “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform? Our nominee?” I remember being truly stunned that she thought so highly of McCain.

Well, she and the Republican establishment got their wish, and we rhubarbs in the sticks got the shaft.

I have been told that Romney is the inevitable nominee, that he is the only one who can beat Obama, and that polls back up both of these propositions. My frustration with such talk is that it is about where the needle points at present. It ignores the issue of who can move the needle.

(*THUNDEROUS STANDING OVATION*)

For conservatives who have served on Republican committees at the county and state levels, have gone door to door for local candidates, and can remember when here in the South we couldn’t even field a candidate for most races, Newt is "The Man."

Back in the early Nineties he had, dare I say, a “grandiose” idea that we could be a majority party when most Republicans in the House were quite content with the leadership of the nice Mr. Robert Michel, minority leader. For that, I personally am forever indebted to Newt.

* AS SHOULD BE THE ENTIRE CO0UNTRY!

Right now, we are in a perilous state of affairs. We have a president who has put the kibosh on the Keystone pipeline at a time when Russia has just announced a new pipeline to provide energy to Western Europe, thereby increasing its influence in the region. China is building up its military while ours is shrinking. Our European partners’ defense spending is in even worse shape, with the U.K. and France having actually discussed a “time-share” arrangement for an aircraft carrier. To say nothing of the problems we face regarding Iran and Venezuela.

Now, Newt is a great debater. He has not failed to deliver in any debate I have seen. More important to me, however, is that as president he’ll hit the ground running on Day One.

* YES...!!! YES! YES! YES! THIS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING...!!!

He is firmly grounded in the kind of knowledge someone acquires by spending the better part of 30 years studying and advocating various public policies. More than that, though, he possesses the contextual knowledge - the historian’s perspective - that enables someone to stand back and draw on past events to understand current crises. [T]hat gives him a larger philosophical understanding of our past, present, and future role in world affairs. He’s not wandering in the dark; he knows where he wants this country to go and - just as important - where he doesn’t.

* YEP... AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT EXCEPT FOR RON PAUL, NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE THE COUNTRY MORE IN THE DIRECTION I DO THAN DOES NEWT GINGRICH!

To those critics who say he’s reckless, I reply that a bold president will sometimes seem reckless to those trapped in the status quo. Can you imagine a President Romney ignoring the advice of his State Department and National Security Council and delivering an incendiary line like “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”?

* GREAT FRIGG'N POINT! ABSOLUTELY 100% VALID!

And those ethics charges? What exactly were the offenses? A Rostenkowski-type scandal? Some sort of improper personal enrichment? Income from a Dominican Republic resort pad he “forgot” to report on his income-tax form?

Nope.

The charges originated over the course he was teaching on American history; he supposedly violated some arcane IRS provision regarding the way the income is to be reported. Looked at from another angle, it was a kind of “ethics” charge that one party uses to tie up a dangerous opponent in a legal tangle. As Byron York wrote, at the end of the day, after the Dems had led a frontal assault against Newt, initiated by a candidate Newt had bested for a congressional seat and ginned up by the Dems as payback for their loss of the House majority, the conclusion of the three-year IRS investigation was:

Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws.

There was no tax fraud scheme.

(*SHRUG*) (*SIGH*)

What about the money he received as a consultant from Fannie or Freddie? Sure, I wish that Newt hadn’t bedded down in that particular flophouse. However, it was standard behavior for Washington, and not remotely illegal.

* YEP. UNFORTUNATELY... TRUE. WHEN YOU'RE THE FORMER SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE YOU'RE OFFERED MONEY TO "PONDER" AND "LECTURE." THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT GINGRICH DID.

* THINK ABOUT THIS, FOLKS: IF I WAS OFFERED A CONTRACT TO ADVICE THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ON WHAT IT WAS DOING WRONG IN TERMS OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICY DO YOU THINK I'D TURN IT DOWN...??? HELL NO! I'D TAKE THE MONEY AND I'D TELL OBAMA ADMINISTRATION FIGURES EXACTLY WHAT I TELL ALL MY READERS DAY IN AND DAY OUT RIGHT HERE ON MY BLOG! WELL... THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT NEWT DID! HE GOT PAID BY FANNIE (FREDDIE?) FOR TELLING THEM EXACTLY WHAT HE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE TOLD THEM VIA AN ARTICLES HE MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE WRITTEN IN THE COURSE OF HIS "PONDERING" AND "LECTURING."

Married three times? That’s not a recommendation either, but half of America has been through a divorce and the other half has experienced sticky patches in their marriages. ... Besides, we’re not electing the president of the Baptist Sunday School Board.

Electability?

The gender gap?

Two very liberal women friends of mine who voted for Obama have come up to me recently and said they like and would vote for Newt. Why? Because he’s “so damn smart!"

Bad poll numbers?

Being a change agent does not engender popularity (think cutting welfare rolls in half, cutting the capital-gains tax from 28% to 15%, balancing the budget for four years straight, etc.), but again, the current favorable/unfavorable poll numbers are a snapshot of one moment, not an indicator of where things will wind up - as Team Romney has been painfully reminded.

(*CHUCKLING SNORT*)

Speaking of electability...

[W]ith big bank bailouts still fresh in voters’ minds, do you really think it’s going to be easy to sell Mr. Bain Capital to working-class voters, a demographic that has been written off by this White House, which means they are up for grabs?

If you do, then explain to me why Republicans failed to effectively market their opposition to the Dodd-Frank financial-reform package to these same voters.

The late, great Tony Blankley told to me at the time that Republicans felt they would not be able to stop the bill, even though it was named after two who should have done the perp walk in the whole mortgage meltdown mania. If we couldn’t go to the country and mount a successful opposition campaign explaining the difference between the big investment houses and community banks - the latter of which have been hit hard by the increased regulatory burden of the act - how can we hope to defend poor Cayman Islands Romney against the demagoguery to come from Team Obama?

* GOOD FRIGG'N QUESTION... (*SHRUG*)

Finally, the fact that Newt was ousted from his leadership role by his own party reminds me of someone else who had her own party turn on her - Margaret Thatcher. (Enough said.)

(*ANOTHER STANDING OVATION*)

Actually, that isn’t enough said. The charge against him now is that he’s “reckless.” Yep. In 1990, as minority whip, Newt was reckless enough to stand up to his own president, George H. W. Read-My-Lips Bush, over the tax increase.

* DAMN STRAIGHT! I REMEMBER IT LIKE IT WAS YESTERDAY! GOD BLESS NEWT GINGRICH...!!!

In 1995, as Speaker, he was reckless enough to go for a government shutdown over spending, only to have his fellow Republican Bob Dole, the Senate majority leader, cut the legs out from under him with his “Enough is enough” edict (as I recall, just as public opinion was starting to turn in our favor on this issue, Dole pulled the plug, thereby ensuring that we got zero out of the exercise).

* AGAIN, FOLKS... ALL TRUE! THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! I WAS THERE...!!!

* OH... AND BTW... RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU RECALL "PRESIDENT DOLE."

(*SMIRK*)

* "PRESIDENT MCCAIN," ANYONE?

* HOW'BOUT PAPPY BUSH'S SECOND TERM; ANYONE REMEMBER THAT...?

(*SPITTING ON THE GROUND IN CONTEMPT*)

Newt was reckless enough to be above the fray and do what he had to do, going against the hard-line reactionaries to get welfare reform and a balanced-budget compromise from President Clinton.

And when members of his own party ousted Newt from the leadership, with whom did they replace him? Dennis Hastert. (NOW, enough said!)

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP-)

We are living in extraordinary times. The American people are truly afraid of what kind of future we are bequeathing to the next generation. This is not the time for a green-eyeshade managerial type who doesn’t seem capable of selling himself, let alone his vision of the path forward.

We are electing someone to go into that cesspool we call our nation’s capital, make some really tough decisions, and then sell those decisions to a cynical public while fighting a rear-guard action against a hostile press.

Like Governor Chris Christie, Newt has endeared himself to the American people in dealing with his detractors in a head-on, unapologetic way. And the fact that Newt, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps coming back after every setback is a truly positive sign. He’s got the true grit that is one mark of a real leader.

As we have a late primary here in Alabama, we are out of the action until the middle of March. It is very frustrating to see early states pick nominees before we even get to weigh in. On behalf of the many Republicans in later states, I ask that early states (ahem, Florida) please send us someone we can enthusiastically rally behind.

Send us one of Reagan’s lieutenants.

Send us Newt!

* AMEN!

If He'd Deny Congress the Truth...

2012-01-26T12:37:00.004-05:00

Like I say, folks... piling on.

(*SMIRK*)

Elliott Abrams writes in National Review Online today, "As a new member of Congress in the Reagan years - and I was an assistant secretary of state - Mr. Gingrich voted with the president regularly, but equally often spewed insulting rhetoric at Reagan, his top aides, and his policies to defeat Communism. Gingrich was voluble and certain in predicting that Reagan’s policies would fail, and in all of this he was dead wrong."

Hmm... Elliott Abrams... wasn't he convicted in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress? (Oh, well... never mind...)

But, hey... my "problem" with Mr. Abrams isn't his history of ly... er... "withholding information from Congress," nor is it his loyalty to his last boss... George W. Bush. Nope. Abrams is clearly on a "team" and that "team" is the GOP Establishment. I get it!

No... what bothers me about this (latest) hit piece on Gingrich is simply this:

Where's the record of Abrams' "letting us in" on this "shocking" info in the '80's... in the '90's... in the '00's?

Where are the quotes; what exactly did Gingrich say "against" Reagan?

What "insulting rhetoric" is Abrams referring to and why are we only hearing of it now...???

(*SMIRK*)

Folks... there's a clear pattern here.

(*SHRUG*)

Again... I ask you: What does it say about Newt Gingrich that he's so hated and feared not by just the Democrats... not by just the mainstream media... but by the GOP Establishment - the same GOP Establishment which has betrayed conservatism time and time again?

If Ronald Reagan were on record making these accusations against Newt Gingrich... well... then I'd be anti-Gingrich too.

But Ronald Reagan clearly WASN'T anti-Gingrich!

Folks... again... and again, and again, and again... what's the record here? The record is of a man - Newt Gingrich - who "criticized" Ronald Reagan for not going as far RIGHT as the young firebrand Gingrich wanted to go!

Folks... Gingrich is being criticized - from the supposed "Right" - for having been more ambitiously conservative than... RONALD REAGAN!

(*SNORT*)

That's the complain from the GOP Establishment. That's what they'd have us believe.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

Folks... again... again, and again, and again... look at what Newt accomplished in little more than a decade starting as a back-bench member of the (then) Republican (minority) House: He organized conservatives into movement which achieved power in the 1994 Republican Revolution! He came up with and got much of the conservative Contract With America passed! He fought - and lost - a battle with President Bill Clinton where Gingrich's position was he wanted to shrink government and government spending... and yet having lost the battle he still ended up with his ideals "winning the war" (if only temporarily) via the balanced budgets of the late '90's and early '00's!

Folks... is what I'm pointing to - the facts I'm outlining - getting through?

I pray to God it is.

There are BAD people going after Newt Gingrich. People who obviously prefer to be "Big Fish" even in a polluted pond.

Look at who the people who oppose Gingrich are and look at the tactics they're using.

Ron Paul criticizes Gingrich.

Ron Paul doesn't LIE about Gingrich.

Romney...? Romney's surrogates?

(*PURSED LIPS*)

Don't be fooled, folks. Don't let the pile on stampede you. Gingrich should be the GOP presidential nominee. As GOP presidential nominee Gingrich would win. As President... I have no doubt whatsoever that Newt Gingrich would put Country and Constitution first and foremost in every policy coming out of a Gingrich Administration.

The Piling On Continues...

2012-01-26T11:25:00.002-05:00

Since I got my first home computer my homepage has been set to the Drudge Report.

That's not gonna change... but I have to say that I'm somewhat confused about Matt Drudge's continuing focus on "sharing" anti-Newt "news," opinion, and analysis.

Hey... it could just be that like me, Matt calls 'em as he sees 'em and so he's just providing the links and letting folks make of them what they will.

If so... kudos, Matt Drudge!

What's interesting, though, is that as with the other day's Weekly Standard "attack" on Newt which in reality only served to demonstrate how faithful to true conservatism New Gingrich actually is... so too do today's Drudge links serve the same purpose.

Case in point:

Check out the following from a Mark Shields column which Drudge highlights this morning...

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich first became speaker of the House, Bob Dole was already on the threshold of becoming the longest-serving Senate Republican leader in U.S. history. Relations between the two GOP leaders, which were never chummy, were not helped by Gingrich's openly disparaging Bob Dole as "the tax collector for the welfare state."

Well, well... criticizing Bob Dole... THAT supposedly supports the case that Newt isn't a true conservative...?!?! Really...?!?!

Referring (correctly!) to Bob Dole as the (then) "tax collector for the welfare state" somehow "outed" Gingrich as being what exactly... AN OPPONENT OF THE WELFARE STATE...?

Yeah!

Exactly!

It DOES "out" Gingrich as an opponent of the Welfare State and beyond this it provides further context to my oft-noted analysis that most of the hatred and fear of Gingrich coming out of the GOP Establishment is based upon their KNOWING that if elevated to the Presidency, Newt Gingrich will do everything within his power to shrink the Welfare State... and thus shrink the power of the GOP Spendacrats in the House, Senate, and throughout various state governments!

Folks... read the full Shields piece. It's fascinating. What Shield - a proud, committed, lifelong liberal democrat - does is provide a few quotes showing Newt Gingrich "criticizing" Reagan.

What Shields evidently hopes is that readers skip the broader context of these "criticisms" having been made FROM THE RIGHT OF REAGAN!

YES...!!! FROM THE RIGHT...!!!

(Read the full piece and you'll see what I mean.)

It is simply amazing to me that from both the Spendaholic Left and Spendaholic "Right" we're getting the same sort of desperate attempts to tar Gingrich as being somehow to the Left of Romney when, actual, what the record clearly shows is that in some ways Newt Gingrich was actually to the Right of Ronald Wilson Reagan!

Mitt Romney is a Liar... It's Really Just That Simple

2012-01-25T18:17:00.002-05:00

What really happened in the Gingrich ethics case?

Folks... I know the answer. I'm guessing many of you do as well. That said... perhaps not all of you do. That's why I strongly urge you to link to an article by Byron York which recently ran in The Washington Times.

The bottom line answer?

It [the Gingrich ethics case] ended with a special counsel hired by the House Ethics Committee holding Gingrich to an astonishingly strict standard of behavior, after which Gingrich in essence pled guilty to two minor offenses.

Ahh... but were these two "minor offenses" actually "offenses" in terms of the underlying accusations? No!

(*READ ON*)

Afterwards, the case was referred to the Internal Revenue Service, which conducted an exhaustive investigation into the matter. And then, after it was all over and Gingrich was out of office, the IRS concluded that Gingrich did nothing wrong.

After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

Allow me to reiterate that...

After all the struggle, Gingrich was exonerated.

(By the frigg'n IRS! After he was out of power!)

The bottom line: Gingrich acted properly and violated no laws.

Folks... again... I've always known this. Romney knows this. Romney has to have known this. Romney's staffers and consultants must know this. And yet...???

And yet Romney continues to claim that Newt Gingrich resigned in disgrace.

Folks... the timeline doesn't even fit for that accusation - let alone the facts!

And yet...

(*SHRUG*)

If Romney beats Gingrich and gains the GOP nomination I'll vote for him against Obama. But frankly, I'll be good and drunk prior to heading to the polling booth.

Romney is a dishonest and deceitful man. If he's the GOP nominee the only reason I'll be voting for him is as a vote against Obama.

So Far to the (SUPPOSED!) Right That They're Left!

2012-01-25T17:06:00.003-05:00

Folks... the supposed "conservatives" who oppose Newt Gingrich are so far gone that they can't tell the difference between what's praiseworthy and what's "gotchya" ammo!

Case in point, this snippet from the neocons at the Weekly Standard used in a laughable attempt to diminish Gingrich's true conservative credentials:

There's one mention of Newt Gingrich in The Reagan Dairies.

It's in Chapter 3, which covers 1983. Page 123 in the book:

"Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It's a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense programs. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same."

Wow... how "liberal" of Gingrich... wanting to actually FREEZE federal spending!

(*SNORT*)

Now here I was thinking that when all is said and done one of the few vulnerabilities of the Reagan record is that spending went up more than President Reagan would have hoped.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*) (*SMIRK*)

(Yeah... funny how the folks at the Weekly Standard didn't bother to post Reagan quotes to that effect; you know they're in there!)

So let me get this straight... the criticism of Newt is that he wanted an even leaner FY-1984 federal budget than did The Gipper...???

THAT'S THE CRITICISM...?!?!

(*LAUGHING MY FRIGG'N ASS OFF*)

Remember, folks... by 1984 President Reagan had already undertaken the military build-up which ultimately fed the arms race which in the end led to the seizing up of the Soviet economy and the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War.

Even so... let's assume President Reagan was right and the military budget had to grow from 1983 to 1984. Fine. Reduce spending elsewhere so as to allow this! Prioritize!

Folks... think about it... if there any legitimate criticism to be leveled at Newt Gingrich based upon the above excerpted Reagan diary entry it's this:

GINGRICH WAS TRYING TO "OUT-REAGAN REAGAN" IN TERMS OF FISCAL PRUDENCE...!!!

(*LAUGHING TILL THE TEARS FLOW*)

Folks... these so-called "conservatives" at outlets such as the Weekly Standard and National Review are nothing more than GOP Establishment pilot fish.

Wow... what a "bad" man Gingrich was... he wanted to FREEZE FEDERAL SPENDING as far back as 1984!

Sounds to me that Gingrich was a hero, not a villain.

And, folks... seriously... ten years later when Gingrich successfully led the "Republican Revolution"... what did he try to do?

YES... he tried to restrain federal spending...!!!

Remember the government shutdown...? That was Gingrich fighting Clinton, the Democratic Party, segments of his own Republican Party, the media, academia, and most of the Fortune 50 crony capitalists who feed at the federal trawl in order to reign in runaway federal spending.

He lost then. Yes... he lost. Momentarily. But while he lost that particular battle against a far superior force, even in losing he set set events in motion for the eventual budget discipline we saw for a few years in the late '90's through the opening couple years of the 21st century.

Folks, if anything what the Weekly Standard has done via their attempted smear is to demonstrate once again that the history is clear... the record is clear... Newt Gingrich has been fighting to hold back federal spending and the growth of government since the very beginning the the Age of Reagan.

Read This and Consider What It Means

2012-01-25T12:54:00.002-05:00

A recent interview of Nancy Pelosi by CNN's John King:

John King, CNN -- "You make your case there passionately for President Obama. But also understand that this is a tough reelection climate for any president, Democrat or Republican in this economy. Because of your history with Speaker Gingrich, what goes through your mind when you think of the possibility, which is more real today than it was a week or a month ago, that he would be the Republican nominee and that you could come back here next January or next February with a President Gingrich?"

Rep. Nancy Pelosi -- "Let me just say this. That will never happen."

King -- "Why?"

Pelosi -- "He's not going to be President of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen."

King -- "Why are you so sure?"

Pelosi -- "There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen."

Folks... com'on... if this doesn't tell you how terrified the Democrats are of Gingrich than nothing will!

Think about it...!!!

If Pelosi had something so devastating on Gingrich, then, wouldn't she WANT him to be the nominee and then "spring it on Gingrich" a week or so before the November election...?!?!

Folks... understand... there's a REASON the Dems are desperate to face Romney and not Gingrich come November.

Folks... that reason is clearly - obviously - that they KNOW Gingrich as GOP candidate would decimate the Left via engaging in and winning a war of ideas... not just a contest held every four years.

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, January 25, 2012

2012-01-25T12:40:00.003-05:00

Well, folks, I didn't bother to watch President Obama's State of the Union (campaign) speech last night; the simple truth is... I've heard it all before.

Allow me, however, to post as a "featured newsbite" parts of an essay I read yesterday...

What is so special about April 29, 2009?

It’s the last time Congress passed a budget.

One thousand days later, we are operating without any plan.

* O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

Oh, the irony that it is today - I can’t wait to hear about it during the State of the Union tonight.

Just like last year's State of the Union.

(*SMIRK*)

The budget Obama tried to pass shortly thereafter, modeled on the ideas espoused during his speech, failed 97-0. It was so outrageous, not one Senator of either party would put his name to it.

* THIS BEARS REPEATING:

The budget Obama tried to pass shortly thereafter, modeled on the ideas espoused during his speech, failed 97-0. It was so outrageous, not one Senator of either party would put his name to it.

* ONE MORE TIME..

The budget Obama tried to pass shortly thereafter, modeled on the ideas espoused during his speech, failed 97-0. It was so outrageous, not one Senator of either party would put his name to it.

The last time the Senate passed a budget was on April 29, 2009. Since that date, the federal government has spent $9.4 trillion, adding $4.1 trillion in debt.

As of January 20, the outstanding public debt stands at $15,240,174,635,409. Interest payments on the debt are now more than $200 billion per year.

President Obama proposed a FY2012 budget last year, and the Senate voted it down 97–0. (And that budget was no prize—according to the Congressional Budget Office, that proposal never had an annual deficit of less than $748 billion, would double the national debt in 10 years and would see annual interest payments approach $1 trillion per year.)

The [Democrat controlled] Senate rejected House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s (R–WI) budget by 57–40 in May 2011, with no Democrats voting for it.

In FY2011, Washington spent $3.6 trillion. Compare that to the last time the budget was balanced in 2001, when Washington spent $1.8 trillion ($2.1 trillion when you adjust for inflation).

Entitlement spending will more than double by 2050. That includes spending on Medicare, Medicaid and the ObamaCare subsidy program, and Social Security. Total spending on federal health care programs will triple.

By 2050, the national debt is set to hit 344 percent of Gross Domestic Product.

Taxes paid per household have risen dramatically, hitting $18,400 in 2010 (compared with $11,295 in 1965). If the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire and more middle-class Americans are required to pay the alternative minimum tax (AMT), taxes will reach unprecedented levels.

Federal spending per household is skyrocketing. Since 1965, spending per household has grown by nearly 162%, from $11,431 in 1965 to $29,401 in 2010. From 2010 to 2021, it is projected to rise to $35,773, a 22 percent increase.

So there you have it. We stopped having a budget with a Democrat in the White House, a Democrat-controlled Senate, and with a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.

1000 days ago.

So how come they aren’t talking about it?

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, January 24, 2012

2012-01-24T11:10:00.004-05:00

Howdy, folks!

Welcome to another exciting day of "Bill with no working home computer!"

O.K. In my defense... I'm still using the same DSL modem I originally was issued upon "upgrading" to DSL back in... oh... late '90's maybe?

No... no router. No... no wi-fi. I am Bill - proud technophobe - and unless absolutely necessary I tend not to "upgrade" until literally forced to.

THEREFORE... as noted yesterday... getting Phil's loaner laptop to actually work is just slightly more complicated than simply plugging in the power cord... and thus... I'm flummoxed.

Folks... I connected what I think is an ethernet cable from the modem to the laptop... and... couldn't connect to anything.

I know... I know... but all is not for naught! I did clean out all the papers and assorted manuals and old floppy disks and such which had been in, under, and piled around the desk upon which my system rests and now when one of my competent friends comes over to "fix" things up for me they'll be able to work!

(Hey... it's progress! Progress in Bill's World...)

Hey... folks... at least I demonstrate a sense of humor and can publicly acknowledge my neurosis where "wires" and such come in. I am a technophobe! I freely admit it!

Anyway... on to newsbiting!

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, January 23, 2012

2012-01-23T13:20:00.004-05:00

Welcome to today's Newsbites!

Still blogging from the library, but... saw Phil last night and he gave me a laptop to use temporarily (which I haven't hooked up yet due to my technophobia) till he can get around to setting up my file swap into my "new" 8200."

(Phil even gave me a mouse accessory for the laptop in the hopes that this would spur my courage to actually use it!)

Anyway... cross your fingers that when I get home I can work up the courage to plug the laptop into the power supply and DSL connection!

*** UPDATE ***

Oh, well... so much for the laptop.

Too many wires...

My wires which connect my phone jack to my DSL/Phone Line interface to my modem doesn't fit into the laptop phone wire jack.

(*SHRUG*)

No doubt I'm doing something wrong... but frankly... I just don't care enough to want to aggravate myself further trying to make heads or tails of all the wires under/behind my desk.

Remote Newsbiting - Friday, January 20, 2012

2012-01-20T13:33:00.002-05:00

Ya know... point of fact... I'm actually getting used to blogging from the library!

Anyway, folks, did you watch the Republican Presidential Debate last night? Bottom line, I'd give Newt the "decision," but it certainly wasn't a knockout.

Romney had some good moments... but he also had some terrible moments - for example trying to finesse the tax return issue.

Romney convinced a Republican crowd that "investment returns" are as worthy of respect as are direct return on labor... meaning paychecks... but does that mean that he'll be able to convince independents, "moderates," and even populist conservatives (never mind "Reagan Democrats") that the rich who live off their "investments" (including trust funds set up in their names which they benefit from simply by being born into wealth) should be paying a lesser percentage tax than a middle class individual or couple who earn two salaries, both in the mid-high five figures... or perhaps the skilled professional who earns in the low-mid six figures, but who physically busts his or her ass doing so?

I don't know, folks... you who are regular readers know my views on tax policy. It seems to me that just as we have graduated "progressive" rates on income tax, so too should capital gains be taxed according to the amount of the gain.

(Any questions... feel free to post 'em as comments or else email me.)

How'd Santorum do? He was hot-cold-hot-cold-hot-cold...

(*SHRUG*)

Frankly since Santorum has no chance of being the nominee it's a waste of my time to go in-depth with a debate performance critique - so I won't.

Ron Paul? Once again, folks... if Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum spent more time latching on to Dr. Paul's ideas and gave him more credit where credit is due...

(*SHRUG*)

Oh! Almost forgot! The big loser last night...? CNN. Leading off with the ex-wife slam... well... something tells me their purpose wasn't to set the stage for Newt Gingrich receiving yet more standing ovations while they themselves were roundly booed.

Anyway... on to the newsbites!

Tony Blankley From Beyond the Grave

2012-01-19T12:36:00.006-05:00

The following obituary ran on January 8, 2011

Excerpting from:

Tony Blankley died this weekend after a long battle with cancer. His passing is a sad loss for America, the nation’s capital and The Washington Times, all of which he served with great honor and decency. He was editorial page editor of this newspaper for five years. His example, wisdom and political perspective will continue as guiding lights for the work we do here.

After years in the spotlight, Mr. Blankley achieved that status sought by so many but found by so few: He was instantly recognizable to the man on the street. He wore fame well and never stopped being a self-effacing gentleman. He was committed to responding to all of his correspondence and spent hours of each workday hammering away at the keyboard in discussions with cranky strangers who emailed criticism of his work. It was his view that it is the people who count in a democracy, and if their vote mattered on Election Day, their opinions should be respected every other day at a newspaper.

Mr. Blankley was part of every campaign Ronald Reagan ever ran, and he came to Washington as part of the Gipper’s California team after his election as president in 1980. His career skyrocketed when he served as spokesman for House Speaker Newt Gingrich and became a familiar TV face for the new Republican majority after the historic GOP takeover of Congress in 1994. Born in London, he retained an émigré’s nostalgia for the land left behind and admired things British, especially literature and history. His father was Winston Churchill’s accountant, and Mr. Blankley’s office was adorned with a wartime poster of the prime minister telling his people, “Deserve victory” – timeless advice Tony believed America needed to heed.

Mr. Blankley’s last column - published prior to his death - bears reposting:

America has been bewildered, shocked and disoriented since Sept. 11, 2001.

The economic collapse and the unprecedentedly statist policies of the past three years have just compounded the anxiety.

The rise of China, the fall of Europe and the chaos in the Middle East has been startling in their swiftness - and the lack of American leadership as these dramatic events unfold is sending a shudder throughout the world.

We don’t know what to make of events. We have not been convinced that either President George W. Bush or incumbent President Obama have had a clue about how to make things right.

The GOP primary voters reflect this helter-skelter search for leadership. I predict that when the general electorate is engaged in the election campaign [this] year, the independents and some Democrats will reflect the same desperate confusion and search for the right kind of leadership for these treacherous times.

But what kind of candidate is most likely to be able to make sense of the terrible events and forces that weigh down our country, be capable of vividly describing our plight and what needs to be done and convince the public that he has the intelligence, courage, experience and sheer will to force events favorably to America’s historic interests and needs?

As I have chosen to phrase that question, the question answers itself. It is the GOP candidate currently at the top of the polls, my former boss, Newt Gingrich.

But most Washington politicians don’t see it that way.

They see a conventional close election - not a bold, historic lunge by the voters to save the country.

They suggest Mitt Romney may be best positioned to stitch together a safe campaign that noses out President Obama by a point or two, or comes up short by a point or two. He might be that candidate. Thus, Mr. Romney received the endorsement of the GOP political types - congressmen and former congressmen. Now they are doubling down on their early bet and are out telling reporters that Newt was never much of a leader and never got much done.

Curious. I remember most of them enthusiastically following his leadership year after year as Republican whip from 1989 to 1994.

It was the most successful congressional opposition movement since Benjamin Disraeli formed the modern Conservative Party in Britain in the mid-19th century.

And after the GOP took back the House for the first time in 40 years (and the Senate, too, by the way), Newt’s four years as speaker proved to be the most productive, legislative congressional years since at least 1965 to 67, and they were led by Lyndon B. Johnson from the White House.

Working against - and with - Democratic President Bill Clinton, we passed into law most of the Contract With America, welfare reform, telecommunications reform (which ushered in the modern cell-phone and Internet age) and the first balanced budget since before the Vietnam War, and we cut taxes and lowered unemployment to less than 5%.

Just who the heck do all these professional political wizards think managed all that? It wasn’t us clever staffers or many of the now grumbling GOP K Street crowd.

We helped but Newt led.

I admit Newt’s methods were not orthodox. He modified the seniority committee chairman system and picked the best members for the key posts. More than a few feathers got ruffled. One of his key insights was to recognize that the two-dozen Northeastern moderates and liberals in the GOP caucus held the balance of power - we didn’t have 218 safe conservative votes in the House. Newt needed to prevent them from playing off the GOP against the Democrats (which is what such a faction in any congressional party normally tries to do), but rather feel fundamental loyalty and value in sticking with the GOP working majority. To do that, they had to get some of the provisions that they wanted in bills often enough that they would stick with conservatives on other issues. This required a lot of maneuvering by Newt. Conservative members got frustrated that he did that. They called that erratic behavior on Newt’s part. No, it was necessary and calculated maneuvering. He was actually shrewdly managing a precarious majority. If he hadn’t kept the Northeastern liberals in the fold, very little would have been accomplished in those spectacular four years of legislating and leading.

But when it came to fundamental conservative principles and the political strategies necessary to protect them, Newt saw the threats to them and never wavered. I was amused to see Gov. John Sununu, President George H. W. Bush’s chief of staff and a current Romney supporter, criticize Newt last week. I remember back in 1990, just after Newt had become GOP whip, when Mr. Bush, urged on by Mr. Sununu, was about to break his campaign pledge and raise taxes, which eventually cost him his re-election bid against Mr. Clinton. It was Newt who opposed it. In fact, Marlin Fitzwater, the loyal and shrewd White House press secretary, and no fan of Newt’s at the time, later wrote in his memoirs, “As it turned out, one of the few people on the Republican team who understood this trap [the Democrats demanded Bush raise taxes as the political price to reduce the deficit] was Newt Gingrich. … Newt had … recommended a different course of action: Abandon the budget negotiations [with Democrats], keep the tax pledge, insist that Congress cut spending, and make a political fight out of it. It’s clear now that we should have followed his advice.”

Years later, when Newt was speaker, he followed his own advice. He refused to raise taxes, he made a political fight of spending cuts with Bill Clinton (paying a big price in personal smears run against him), but we won the historic balanced budgets. In dangerous times, the safer choice for president is not the candidate who has always played it safe, nor is it the candidate who has not already faced and defeated adversity.

Amen, my friends... amen.

Well, Howdy, Folks!

2012-01-19T11:09:00.002-05:00

My computer is physically at Phil's; it's only a matter of time (hopefully by Sunday or Monday at the latest) till Phil finds time to transfer my data to my "new" hard-drive and install said hard-drive into my "new" computer.

GOD BLESS PHIL...!

GOD BLESS PHIL...!!

GOD BLESS PHIL...!!!

In the meantime, let's see if I can do a bit of "newsbiting" while I'm here at my friendly neighborhood library!

Still Waiting On My "New" Computer...

2012-01-17T16:05:00.005-05:00

Well, folks, Newt clearly won last night's Republican presidential candidates' debate from Charleston, S.C.

As to Romney...

Gerald Seib of the WSJ asked ol' Mitt the following question:

Governor Romney, let’s look a little deeper at the business record that you’re talking about. In a nutshell, what your opponents here are saying is that Bain Capital and other private equity firms, buy companies, load them up with debt, take the profits and then head for the exits.

Let’s look at another example and allow you to respond through that. America Pad and Paper is a company that Bain Capital bought with $5 million, took on more debt to expand, couldn’t pay back the loans, went bankrupt and several hundred people lost their jobs.

Bain Capital though, took $100 million in profits and fees.

Does that show a flaw in the Bain Capital model?

Or is that just the rough and tumble of America capitalism?

Folks... if you want Mitt's answer then read the transcript. I'll just cut to the chase by noting that his answer sure as hell didn't satisfy me.

Not all "capitalism" is equal, folks. There's the "capitalism" of Jeff Immelt. We call this crony capitalism.

Solydra was also crony capitalism.

Remember Hillary Rodham Clinton's amazing "beginner's luck" with regard to Cattle Futures - turning a $1,000 "investment" into a nearly $100,000 profit in ten months back in 1978-1979?

Jon Corzine... another great... er... "capitalist?"

Folks... you get my drift. I'm not suggesting that Bain Capital is synonymous with Worldcom or Enron or that Mitt Romney has anything in common with Bernie Madoff... I'm just saying that Mitt Romney isn't Horatio Alger nor does his "business experience" have much in common with the likes of a Henry Ford or a Steve Jobs.

Bottom line... I'm just not all that impressed with Mitt Romney "businessman." (I mean... if my daddy had left me $37 million I might have done pretty well myself - as would most of you, I'm guessing!)

The other spotlight I'll shine on Mitt Romney's performance last night was when he choose to stand shoulder to shoulder with... er... President Barak Hussein Obama... in terms of showing utter contempt for the Constitution of the United States, our Bill of Rights, and subsequent Amendments to our Constitution.

Here's the question posed by Kelly Evans of the WSJ:

Governor Romney, when President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law, he enacted a provision allowing him to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody, many, including Congressman Paul, have called it unconstitutional. At the same time the bill did provide money to continue funding U.S. troops.

Governor Romney, as president, would you have signed the National Defense Act as written?

Here's how Romney answered the question, folks:

Yes, I would have.

* Folks... (*SHRUG*)

And I do believe that it is appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country, who are members of al Qaeda.

* American citizens. SUSPECTED members of al Qaeda.

* One... more... time...

* American CITIZENS.

* SUSPECTED members of al Qaeda.

* "Yes I would have...[claimed for myself as president the right to indefinitely detain American citizens in U.S. military custody...]

Look, you have every right in this country to protest and to express your views on a wide range of issues but you don’t have a right to join a group that is killed Americans, and has declared war against America. That’s treason. In this country we have a right to take those people and put them in jail.

* Funny... first of all the Constitution itself sets up the rules regarding what's Treason and what's not and how to deal with it; but second of all, this same Constitution - the one Romney would have a swear an oath to defend and preserve if elected - is pretty clear about TRIAL FIRST... CONVICTION SECOND... PUNISHMENT THIRD!

* Folks... I simply can't stress enough how far off the reservation Mitt Romney is here!

And I recognize, I recognize that in a setting where they are enemy combatants and on our own soil, that could possibly be abused. There are a lot of things I think this president does wrong, lots of them, but I don’t think he is going to abuse this power and I that if I were president I would not abuse this power. And I can also tell you that in my view you have to choose people who you believe have sufficient character not to abuse the power of the presidency and to make sure that we do not violate our constitutional principles.

* In a nutshell, Romney's position seems to be: "I will burn the Constitution if necessary in order to defend it!"

* Folks... saying "oh... well... I don't think Obama will abuse these unconstitutional powers and I don't plan to either" isn't exactly what I'm looking for in a candidate for President of the United States.

But let me tell you, people who join al Qaeda are not entitled to rights of due process under our normal legal code. They are entitled instead to be treated as enemy combatants.

* Folks... American CITIZENS who are SUSPECTED of criminal activities - or treason - must be arrested, tried, and convicted if they're to be punished. The Constitution is pretty frigg'n clear on this...!!!

* Folks... we have a real problem on our hands.

Still Waiting on Phil...

2012-01-14T14:33:00.002-05:00

Here's the thing, though: I haven't actually paid for any computer hardware (or software) since I purchased my original system back in... oh... sometime during the '90's.

In other words... yeah... I can wait till Phil gets around to fixing me up with a new system - hopefully he'll get around to it before this coming week is out.

In the meantime... keep tuning in, my friends! Sooner or later I'll be back up.

Oh... and remember what I've said all along: Beware the media spin... the so-called inevitability of Romney.

Understand who and what the GOP Establishment is and understand that the "establishment" conservative media is but an extension of the GOP Establishment.

My friends... ask yourselves... do you believe Mitt Romney connects to this song any more than Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid do?

Newt Gingrich ain't perfect - not by a long shot. But you folks know me... you know what I believe... you know what I stand for...

(*PAUSE*)

Ron Paul ain't gonna be the nominee. He ain't gonna be the next President of the United States. Neither is Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann. Neither is Rick Perry.

Folks... come November it's gonna be either Obama vs. Romney or Obama vs. Gingrich.

I'll vote Republican no matter who the nominee is. Another four years of Barak Hussein Obama and Eric Holder and this nation is finished.

But I'm telling you, people... everything I know (and I know a lot!) tells me that Newt Gingrich - with all of his faults and failings - is America's only hope... our America's only hope.

Don't buy the spin you're getting. Don't buckle to the "conventional wisdom."

Your "gut" tells you who Romney is - I know it does.

Yes, Romney would be a great improvement over Obama, but... time grows short and it is my considered opinion - based upon everything I know and "feel" - that our nation stands at the crossroads and therefore short of electing as our nation's next president the man who gave us the Contract With America and led the successful Conservative Revolution of '94 we'll have no real chance of taking America back.

Well... Locked Out via My Home PC

2012-01-12T14:23:00.003-05:00

Well, kids, looks like it's a "time out" for ol' Bill and his antiquated equipment till either Uncle Phil or Uncle John can find time to "do a house-call" and fix what needs fixin'.

In the meantime I suppose I'll be hangin' in libraries - or inviting myself over to Joey Baby's - in order to "keep in touch" as best I can.

I do have a spare 80 GB hard-drive sitting at home ready to be swapped in to my existing "box," but unfortunately I fear it may be the "casing" itself - the computer itself - which is causing me angst.

(Meaning... well... let's not go there quite yet...)

Wish me luck!

BILL

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, January 11, 2012

2012-01-11T08:17:00.002-05:00

OK, folks... for the moment we're back up and running!

(If I suddenly stop updating it'll be due to "technical difficulties.")

Anyway... no more diet updates. The diet is still on - going great - but I figure you guys get the idea. Over the weekend I bought a big container of real Greek (from goat's milk) yogurt, I have plenty of fruits and veggies and salad and light salad dressing in the house. I also picked up "Skinny Cow" (150 calorie!) "flying saucers" for dessert... yadda, yadda, yadda.

Made my triumphant return to the gym yesterday - burned off 500 calories! (The Pink Eye has been almost totally eradicated...)

Life is good - and as soon as my buddy Phil gets his ass over here to do whatever it is he'll do to alleviate my recent computer problems... life will be damned near perfect!

Now... on to politics!

COMPUTER PROBLEMS

2012-01-10T20:23:00.002-05:00

Hey, Gang!

Unfortunately, having a bit of computer difficulties.

Stay tuned and hopefully I'll be back online before too long!

BILL

Barker's Newsbites: Janurary, 9, 2012

2012-01-09T13:39:00.005-05:00

Hey, folks!

You've all noticed, no doubt, that there haven't been all that many newsbites lately.

Sorry!

But between work, exercise, dieting, and the run-down of the Christmas season...

(*SHRUG*)

Anyway... I'm recovering from Pink Eye today... so... today may be no better than past days.

(Sorry, again!)

I also have some errands to run and tonight... a wake to attend tonight...

(*SIGH*)

On the bright side, though, there's been less "homework" for you people, lately!

(*GRIN*)

OK... now... to today's diet:

Had an early morning run, but when I got home I had three kiwi's at 9:15 a.m.

1:30 p.m. - Four "rings" of a pineapple.

(I know... I know... I need something beside fruit; give me time - this second day of not-exercising due to the Pink Eye is throwing off my rhythm. Perhaps I'm overcompensating... but so be it.)

To be continued...

3:30 p.m. - Two ounces of cheese nibbled with three Wasa whole wheat crackers.

5:30 p.m. - One-quarter cup trail mix.

6: 00 p.m. - Rejected as a Facebook "friend" by my sister-in-law Eileen in a very nice email letting me know that my inclusion wouldn't be a very good fit with her Catholic friends. Nice, huh?! Oh... but I shouldn't worry about not seeing the kids' pictures because she no longer posts them. You know... "security" and all that. (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

To be continued...

8:30 p.m. - Roast beef, swiss, and cheddar sandwich on sourdough bread, lettuce, peppercini, sun-dried tomatoes, turkey bacon, and mayo. (Oh... and two pickles!) Not exactly what one thinks of as a diet meal, but... (*SHRUG*)... a relatively low cal day otherwise!

9:30 p.m. - Finished off the panettoni cake with a half glass of 1% milk.

Night-night!

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Jan. 7 & 8, 2012

2012-01-07T14:42:00.009-05:00

I Am Frigg'n Amazing...

OK. Slept in. Got up a bit before 10:00 a.m.

10:15 a.m. - Raspberry lite (no fat) yogurt with about a two-thirds of a cup of cereal mixed in... 200 calories.

Outstanding workout at the gym! Cycled 13 miles; burned 500 calories!

12:45 p.m. - Five strips of turkey bacon on two slices of toasted whole grain oat bread (going real light on the mayo... real light!) with maybe an ounce of cheese and plenty of lettuce; oh... plus a dill pickle.

3:00 p.m. - Gonna have a grapefruit before heading out for the afternoon!

To be continued...

Call the rest of the day my "cheat" day:

Carl, Antoinette, and the girls came over. One beer. One piece of bread with butter. A little antipasti. Two glasses of red wine. Two slices of pizza (eggplant rollatini pizza with sausage and extra cheese to be precise), a snifter of (fine, fine, fine Spanish) brandy, and a slice of panettoni cakes.

Goodnight...

Woke up with Pink Eye. Luckily I have a personal physician on call 24/7/365.

(*SMILE*)

He called in the script to my nearest Rite-Aide. Ten minutes later they call me up to tell me that neither they nor the other Rite-Aide in town have common anti-biotic neosporin eye-drops in stock, but, their Chester stores does so Mary will hump up there to pick up my prescription.

(Nah... America's not falling apart.. no... why should I be able to get a common medicine easily within an hour of Manhattan...)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

10:30 a.m. - Half a cup of Special K mixed into a light yogurt (less than 200 calories total).

1:30 p.m. - A cup of 2% cottage cheese.

4:30 - A third of a cup of turkey chili with a half ounce of cheddar cheese and a teaspoon of light sour cream.

7:30 p.m. - One slice of leftover pizza. (Of course I jazzed it up with extra cheese, pepperoni, and peppercini... but bottom line... one slice!)

8:15 p.m. - One all fruit ice pop (110 calories).

9:15 p.m. - One small slice of panettoni cake and a glass of 1% milk.

10:45 p.m. - One small grapefruit.

Obviously no gym today, what with the Pink Eye and all. In any case, it's probably best that I emulate God and take one day out of the week for rest.

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, January 6, 2012

2012-01-06T08:27:00.005-05:00

I wonder if they even teach this in schools today... and if they do... who they identify as the good guys.

And now... breakfast!

9:15 a.m. - Two-egg omelet with quarter cup of mushrooms, two slices of ham, and maybe an ounce of cheese. (Used my new italian spice grinder for the first time!)

To be continued...

Long day. Had an airport run. Then met a friend for lunch in Nyack:

2:00 p.m. - Small Caesar Salad and 5 Jumbo Cajun Broiled Shrimp with some blue cheese dipping sauce along with carrot and celery slices. (I drank water while my buddy had a beer; how's that for serious will-power?!)

4:15 p.m. - One banana.

Gym! Another 12 miles... another 400 calories burned! (Got my time down to 55 minutes!)

6:45 p.m. - Toasted chick peas.

To be continued...

7:45 p.m. - Whole wheat spaghetti with steamed broccoli and peperoni in an Italian herb cream sauce with fresh ground Italian spices. (Very, very yummy by the way!)

8:45 p.m. - 47 calorie ice pop.

9:00 p.m. - Three fruit & nut nugget candies... 140 calories total.

And that's a wrap, folks!

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, January 5, 2012

2012-01-05T07:55:00.007-05:00

God bless Sarah McKinley!

9:00 a.m. - Two hard-boiled eggs sliced up upon one slice of whole grain oat bread (toasted, with a smear of mustard) with a couple shakes of sea salt.

Oh... btw... on my second cup of coffee...

To be continued...

11:30 a.m. - A light fat free blueberry yogurt prior to heading to the gym!

To be continued...

Great workout at the gym: 12 miles total on the upright and low bikes - over 400 calories burned in 55 minutes.

2:30 p.m. - Chicken salad on one slice of whole grain oat toast with a pickle.

4:30 p.m. - One grapefruit.

To be continued...

6:00 p.m. - Two carrots with a bit (60 calories, tops) of dip.

8:00 p.m. - Sandwich (two slices whole grain oat bread, three slices ham, three slices turkey, lettuce, sweet pickle slices, a bit of mayo, mustard, and maybe 2 ounces of cheese) plus a dill pickle.

9:15 p.m. - One grapefruit.

9:45 p.m. - Half cup (maybe less) of roasted chick peas with spices and grated parmesan/romano cheese.

10:30 p.m. - One of those tiny chocolate booze bottles.

Goodnight!

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, January 4, 2012

2012-01-04T09:02:00.008-05:00

You guys know that Iowa doesn't really mean much - right?

I'm not downplaying Romney's win... nor am I downplaying Santorum's by a hair's breath second place finish as opposed to Ron Paul coming in third and Gingrich fourth.

Nope. There are lessons to be learned from these results, but bear in mind that a caucus isn't a primary and Iowa isn't a microcosm of the nation.

What we've learned is that Ron Paul is strong... but not as strong as he'd have to be in order to have a legitimate shot at the nomination. (Folks... seriously... Ron Paul needed to finish first - or at least second - in order to be seen as a serious candidate and even then we'd only be talking short-term perception.)

We've also learned that Bachmann - and probably Perry - are out of it. (Bachmann received only 6,073 votes to Santorum's 30,007, while Gov. Perry received only 12,604 votes to former Gov. Romney's 30,015.)

So... what of Newt?

Fair question.

Although Santorum beat Newt by 13,756 votes, this indicates that in Iowa Santorum was the primary "anti-Romney" candidate and Gingrich was the secondary "anti-Romney" candidate.

(Ron Paul is the Ron Paul candidate!)

And what does all this mean...?

It means Romney has only seen the beginning of his problems!

Folks... the man got a mere 24.6% of the caucus vote - not even a full one-quarter!

Folks... Romney beat the perceived red meat "conservative" alternative by only eight votes!

Folks... together Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, and Bachmann won 53.1% of the vote with Ron Paul accounting for another 21.4% all by himself!

What will Bachmann do if she leaves the race? Will she hold off on endorsing one of the other candidates or will she endorse Rich Santorum? (Or might she possibly endorse Gingrich?) If she endorses Romney it won't help him but it would hurt her... but stranger things have happened in politics.

How'bout Perry?

I could see Perry throwing his support to Gingrich should he decide to throw in the towel. I could also see Perry throwing his support to Santorum. (But on the other hand, if Perry sees things as I see them - meaning Santorum has no real shot - why would he waste the political capital?)

What of Rick Santorum himself? That's a key question! Although on the Christian Conservative side of the GOP, Santorum is also a member of "the Club" - a member of the Republican Establishment - via his past as a congressman and later senator from Pennsylvania.

Could Santorum end up backing Romney over Gingrich by hanging the decision of Romney's supposedly superior "personal character?" Yep. I could see it. (Of course it would be a purely political decision with the "ethical and moral" considerations being mere a smokescreen, but, again, Santorum is in many ways "one of them" - Republican Establishment - more than he's "one of us.") On the other hand, could I see Santorum ending up throwing his support to Gingrich? Yep! And folks... such support would be invaluable to Gingrich.

It'll be interesting to see what "games" the "also rans" will play - or attempt to play.

We'll see.

One thing I know: if Santorum and/or Bachmann and/or Perry and/or Cain end up on Romney's side in a Romney-Gingrich battle for the soul of the GOP... I'll be disgusted.

Stay tuned!

And now... today's menu:

8:30 a.m. - One cup of 2% cottage cream.

To be continued...

11:30 a.m. - A salad with lettuce, mushrooms, 3.5 oz. lemon-chicken breast, three slices swiss cheese, 1.5 tablespoons asiago cheese spread, 2 tablespoons mayo.

* OK... obviously I "get" that the cheese isn't diet food. Frankly, those three slices were the end of the swiss cheese and as for the asiago cheese spread... I just wanted to get rid of it so it wouldn't keep teasing me. Next... the mayo. My sister-in-law has recommended I substitute Greek yogurt for mayo. I'm gonna try that as well as pick up some lite balsamic salad dressing.

** As to the pepperoni in yesterday's chicken salad... (*GRIN*)... yeah... let me just finish off the little tiny bag of pepperoni we have left and then no more.

2:00 p.m. - A pear.

To be continued...

Another good workout at the gym; this time 6 miles on the upright bike (200 calories) followed by another 6.5 miles on the the low "back support bike" (200 calories).

5:00 p.m. - Cup of hot tea.

6:00 p.m. - A grapefruit.

To be continued...

7:00 p.m. - A square of corn bread with a spoonful of apple preserve on it instead of butter.

8:00 p.m. - One and a half "lean and trim" chicken sausages with maybe 5 oz. of turkey chili, a tablespoon of lite sour cream and maybe an ounce of grated cheddar cheese. Six onion rings - baked, not fried (160 calories).

To be continued...

8:45 p.m. - Two fruit & nut nuggets (90 calories).

9:15 p.m. - Two dill pickles.

...and we're done!

Paul Hoffmeister, Chief Economist at Bretton Woods Research, LLC.

2012-01-03T20:28:00.003-05:00

As carried in today's Forbes...

Mitt Romney...is not a pro-growth Republican.

Instead, his economic platform reflects a man who is devoutly Keynesian, and who, as president, would not be able to reinvigorate the U.S. economy.

A pro-growth Republican is a “supply-sider” who believes that stable money, low taxes, and limited regulation produce prosperity. And as Art Laffer has said, if regulatory policy is important by a factor of 1, then tax policy is important by a factor of 10, and monetary policy by 100.

* BTW... LAFFER ENDORSED GINGRICH THE OTHER DAY.

The purpose of these bedrock principles is to encourage capital formation, and thereby raise the national standard of living. The virtuous, supply-side process starts like this: 1) low taxes increase the amount of capital available to invest in businesses; and, 2) stable money, low tax rates, and limited regulation increase the after-tax returns on investment.

Stable money [also] eliminates the risk that inflation will depreciate the real value of future cash flows...

(*NOD*)

On taxes, Mitt Romney is seeking to eliminate the death tax, cut the corporate tax rate to 25%, extend current income tax rates, and eliminate the tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest for those earning less than $200,000 per year. With our economy struggling because of a dearth of capital investment, the plan is surprisingly timid for a Republican.

Eliminating the death tax is certainly positive because it would unleash more capital into the economy.

* I BELIEVE THAT "REALIZED" INHERITANCE OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT (SAY FIVE TIMES THE INDIVIDUAL YEARLY AMERICAN INCOME) SHOULD BE TAXED.

A 25% corporate tax rate would only cause the U.S. rate to be equivalent to the average rate for OECD countries. As a result, U.S. corporations would not gain a meaningful competitive advantage.

* AGREED! (I MEAN, IT'S BETTER THAN NOTHING, BUT IT'S NOT NEARLY GOOD ENOUGH.)

And only extending current income tax rates and limiting the tax exemption on capital gains, dividends, and interest are unacceptable.

* EXACTLY! SAY WHAT YOUR TAX PLAN IS AND STICK TO IT!

Romney’s defense of not completely eliminating the tax on capital gains, dividends, and interest is shocking.

* I TEND TO DISAGREE - BUT THEN AGAIN MY TAX VIEWS ARE INTELLECTUALLY CONSISTENT. ROMNEY'S...? I'M GUESSING NOT SO MUCH.

In an interview with Fox’s Chris Wallace on December 18, Romney said: “I’m saying don’t raise taxes on anyone. I want to make sure that with the precious dollars we have, if we can provide the tax relief, that those dollars go to middle-income Americans. The people that have been hurt in the Obama economy are - are not the wealthy. The wealthy are doing just fine. The people that have been hurt are people in the middle class. And so I focus the - those precious dollars that we have - I focus that on the middle class.”

In other words, let’s only cut taxes for the middle class because they have been hurt the most by the recession.

* I WANT TO RAISE TAXES ON THOSE AMERICANS - ROUGHLY HALF OF ALL AMERICANS - WHO CURRENTLY PAY NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. I DON'T CARE IF WE SET A MINIMUM RATE AT 1%... BUT EVERYONE'S GOTTA HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME... NO ZERO-PERCENT FREELOADERS! (UNFORTUNATELY, ROMNEY DOESN'T HAVE THE GUTS TO SAY THIS.)

Based on the supply-side economic model, Mitt Romney and his tax platform will hurt the very people that he is trying to help. His plan will scarcely benefit middle and lower income Americans, effectively delivering four more years of the current economic stagnation. The wages and livelihoods of middle and lower income Americans will only begin to improve when investable capital becomes abundant, and what Mitt Romney is proposing will not make investable capital abundant. If Mitt Romney understood the supply-side model and specifically how capital formation increased real wages, he would never make such a defense.

Romney’s defense is rooted in the belief that those who have suffered the most economically deserve to have more money in their pockets. This is the Keynesian prescription of putting money into people’s pockets to spur consumer demand. More money in people’s pockets does nothing for capital formation, which is why Keynesian stimulus plans do not work.

Furthermore, Romney’s reference to a seemingly finite amount of government dollars that can be used for tax cuts ignores the fact that pro-growth monetary, fiscal and regulatory reforms accelerate and foster the conditions for sustained economic growth, which in turn shrinks government deficits because new, expanded production increases government tax revenues.

The most disturbing thing about Mitt Romney is that he supports a weak dollar.

He does not believe in a stable currency.

In December 2008, as the Federal Reserve was telegraphing to markets that it would pursue quantitative easing, he endorsed the expansion of the money supply and devaluation of the dollar.

Then in recent months, he has promised that on his first day as president he would sign an executive order identifying China as a “currency manipulator” and demand that the yuan be strengthened against the dollar. If they fail to comply, he will place punitive tariffs on Chinese exports into the United States.

This is code for: “I believe in a weak dollar to boost exports.” But currency devaluation does not necessarily correlate with a lower trade deficit. It instead raises the risk of domestic inflation and threatens to spark trade wars, where countries attempt to outdo each other with ever higher tariffs, ultimately raising living costs for citizens in those countries.

* WE SHOULD HAVE TARIFFS IN PLACE AGAINST CHINESE IMPORTS IN ANY CASE. (ROMNEY IS JUST CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THE ACTUAL PROBLEM IS; IT'S NOT CURRENCY MUNIPULATION, IT'S THE VERY NATURE OF THE CHINESE SYSTEM VS. OURS!

Even worse, a fluctuating currency increases the risk of depreciating cash flows for businesses in the future. As a result, unstable money reduces the willingness to take risks. Capital formation declines. Wage growth, productivity, and national living standards suffer.

With the Federal Reserve aggressively devaluing the dollar in a misguided attempt to accelerate economic growth, the U.S. economy does not need a currency manipulator in the White House. It needs a president who will seek a stable dollar that provides a sound unit of measurement for commerce.

Since September, there have been three Republican candidates for the nomination who have exceeded 25% of the party’s vote based on RealClearPolitics’ average poll data. Rick Perry reached 31.8% on September 13; Herman Cain 26% between October 20 and November 3; and Newt Gingrich 35% on December 13. Not surprisingly, each of these candidates have (or had) vastly superior tax and monetary platforms to Romney.

* ONE... MORE... TIME...

Not surprisingly, each of these candidates have (or had) vastly superior tax and monetary platforms to Romney.

Perry espouses a 20% flat tax and famously criticized Fed policy in August as being “treasonous.”

(*THUMBS UP*)

Cain’s 9-9-9 plan is now campaign legend, and he consistently held that the dollar must be a dependable unit of measure.

And Gingrich advocates a 15% flat income tax and 12.5% corporate tax. He also seeks to return the country to a Reaganesque era where the dollar is strong and stable.

(*STANDING OVATION*)

Each of these candidates has promised to eliminate the capital gains tax.

Mitt Romney is not a supply-sider.

He will not benefit American labor.

In fact, Romney represents the greatest risk that the Republican Party will fail to beat President Obama in November 2012.

* AGREE!

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, January 3, 2012

2012-01-03T08:49:00.009-05:00

Christmas is not just for December!

And now... off to the kitchen for breakfast: 2 hard-boiled eggs.

Next up...

11:00 a.m. - Two dill pickle "wraps"; each pickle wrapped with one slice of turkey, one slice of ham, and one slice of swiss cheese. (No bread; no mayo.)

Next up...

Went to the gym; did six miles on the stationary bike (in a half hour) and then a few minute pause to give my aching ass a rest, followed immediately by another five miles on the "low bike" (twenty-five minutes).

Took a shower... visited a few local libraries... picked up a few books...

3:30 p.m. - One grilled "thin and trim" chicken sausage on on slice of toasted whole grain oat bread with mustard and maybe an ounce of cheddar cheese. (And a zero-calorie flavored seltzer.)

Next up...

7:30 p.m. - Homemade chicken salad on a bed of lettuce and a bowl of Healthy Choice Chicken Noodle Soup. (Yep... mayo in the chicken salad... and some fried up pepperoni... but also bulked up with as much chopped broccoli as chicken - probably more broccoli in fact! Yeah... a few ounces of cheese added as well... but we're talking less than an ounce per serving. Oh... and finally... I "cut" the mayo with lite sour cream!)

And finally...

9:00 p.m. - Two pieces of fruit & nut candy (90 calories total) and a glass of chocolate milk.

10:00 p.m. - A small grapefruit.

Today's New Hampshire Union Leader Lead Editorial

2012-01-02T10:26:00.002-05:00

Here is a key difference between Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney in sizing up who would make the better leader for the nation.

When Gingrich has changed his position on an issue, it has been out of a genuine change in his thinking.

As he has said, he can be persuaded by the facts.

Romney, on the other hand, practices the age-old art of political expediency. When he ran for Massachusetts governor, he was pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gun-control, pro-mandated health insurance. Now that he is chasing the presidential nomination of a more conservative party, he is against all those things.

When Gingrich has changed his position, he has said so and explained why. When Romney has changed his positions, he has denied doing so.

Romney managed to switch all the aforementioned positions within the same decade. Gingrich, by contrast, has a track record that goes back more than three decades and is thus great fodder for political foes to try to pick apart. It would be suspicious, in fact, if he hadn’t changed some of his views in all that time.

Which reminds us of what Benjamin Franklin is purported to have said when urging others to sign the newly-proposed Constitution. Franklin said he thought it contained some errors but he may come around at some point to finding that he was wrong.

“For having lived long,” he said, “I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise.”

Wise man, that Franklin fellow.

Likewise, Gingrich’s breadth of experience is one of the reasons we find him the best man to take the reins at a very troubled time in our nation’s history.

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, January 2, 2012

2012-01-02T08:55:00.010-05:00

Well, folks... weekday one of what will hopefully be the last full year of the Age of Obama.

This time next year - God willing - we'll all be looking forward to a new administration and hopefully a return to capitalism and constitutionalism.

But, hey... we have all year to talk politics! Today... let's start by announcing the beginning of the new "Bill Lifestyle!"

I'm at my desk... typing away... drinking my first cup of coffee - one more to follow. Cream, no sugar. (This is the usual routine.)

9:00 a.m. - A 6 oz. light probiotic zero fat 90 calorie Yogurt.

More to follow...

11:00 a.m. - One hard-boiled egg.

More to follow...

1:30 p.m. - Two raw carrots.

3:15 p.m. - One grapefruit.

More to follow...

Went to the gym - Gold's - and signed up for the one-week free trial; worked out on the exercise bike for 40 minutes... 8 miles.

5:45 p.m. - One wheat thin cracker with a smear of cheese spread. (Yeah... one cracker!)

More to follow...

6:30 p.m. - Half a steak; raw veggies with lite vinaigrette dressing; maybe half a cup of stuffing; fresh fruit for dessert.

(Oh... and btw... yeah, I've been hydrating - water.)

More to follow...

9:55 p.m. - Last meal/taste of the night: half a cup of 2% cottage cheese for "filling me up" and one of those little, tiny, bite-sized dark chocolate "bottles" of booze (80 calories).

That's it! Night-night!

Mark Steyne Ushers in 2012

2012-01-01T16:55:00.003-05:00

Ring out the new, ring in the old.

No, hang on, that should be the other way around, shouldn’t it?

Not as far as 2011 was concerned!

The year began with a tea-powered Republican caucus taking control of the House of Representatives and pledging to rein in spendaholic government.

It ended with President Obama making a pro forma request for a mere $1.2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. This will raise government debt to $16.4 trillion - a new world record! (If only until he demands the next debt-ceiling increase in three months’ time.)

At the end of 2011, America, like much of the rest of the Western world, has dug deeper into a cocoon of denial. Tens of millions of Americans remain unaware that this nation is broke - broker than any nation has ever been. A few days before Christmas, we sailed across the psychological Rubicon and joined the club of nations whose government debt now exceeds their total GDP. It barely raised a murmur - and those who took the trouble to address the issue noted complacently that our 100% debt-to-GDP ratio is a mere two-thirds of Greece’s.

(That’s true, but at a certain point per capita comparisons are less relevant than the sheer hard dollar sums: Greece owes a few rinky-dink billions; America owes more money than anyone has ever owed anybody ever.)

Public debt has increased by 67% over the last three years, and too many Americans refuse even to see it as a problem. For most of us, “$16.4 trillion” has no real meaning, any more than “$17.9 trillion” or “$28.3 trillion” or “$147.8 bazillion.”

It doesn’t even have much meaning for the guys spending the dough: Look into the eyes of Barack Obama or Harry Reid or Barney Frank, and you realize that, even as they’re borrowing all this money, they have no serious intention of paying any of it back. That’s to say, there is no politically plausible scenario under which the $16.4 trillion is reduced to $13.7 trillion, and then $7.9 trillion, and eventually $173.48.

At the deepest levels within our governing structures, we are committed to living beyond our means on a scale no civilization has ever done.

Our most enlightened citizens think it’s rather vulgar and boorish to obsess about debt. The urbane, educated, Western progressive would rather “save the planet,” a cause which offers the grandiose narcissism that, say, reforming Medicare lacks. So, for example, a pipeline delivering Canadian energy from Alberta to Texas is blocked by the president on no grounds whatsoever except that the very thought of it is an aesthetic affront to the moneyed Sierra Club types who infest his fundraisers. The offending energy, of course, does not simply get mothballed in the Canadian attic: The Dominion’s prime minister has already pointed out that they’ll sell it to the Chinese, whose Politburo lacks our exquisitely refined revulsion at economic dynamism, and indeed seems increasingly amused by it.

(Pace the ecopalyptics, the planet will be just fine: Would it kill you to try saving your country, or state, or municipality?)

Last January, the BBC’s Brian Milligan inaugurated the new year by driving an electric Mini from London to Edinburgh taking advantage of the many government-subsidized charge posts en route. It took him four days, which works out to an average speed of six miles per hour - or longer than it would have taken on a stagecoach in the mid–19th century. This was hailed as a great triumph by the environmentalists.

In September, the tenth anniversary of a murderous strike at the heart of America’s most glittering city was commemorated at a... building site.

The Empire State Building was finished in 18 months during The Great Depression, but in the 21st century the global superpower cannot put up two replacement skyscrapers within a decade.

The 9/11 memorial museum was supposed to open on the eleventh anniversary, this coming September. On Thursday, Mayor Bloomberg announced that there is “no chance of it being open on time.” No big deal. What’s one more endlessly delayed, inefficient, over-bureaucratized construction project in a sclerotic republic?

Barely had the 9/11 observances ended than America’s gilded if somewhat long-in-the-tooth youth took to the streets of Lower Manhattan to launch “Occupy Wall Street.” The young certainly should be mad about something: After all, it’s their future that got looted to bribe the present. As things stand, they’ll end their days in an impoverished, violent, disease-ridden swamp of dysfunction that would be all but unrecognizable to Americans of the mid–20th century - and, if that’s not reason to take to the streets, what is?

Alas, our somnolent youth are also laboring under the misapprehension that advanced Western societies still have somebody to stick it to.

The total combined wealth of the Forbes 400 richest Americans is $1.5 trillion. So, if you confiscated the lot, it would barely cover one Obama debt-ceiling increase. Nevertheless, America’s student princes’ main demand was that someone else should pick up the six-figure tab for their leisurely half-decade varsity of Social Justice studies.

(Lest sticking it to the Man by demanding the Man write them a large check sound insufficiently idealistic, they also wanted a trillion dollars for “ecological restoration.” Hey, why not? What difference is another lousy trill gonna make?)

Underneath the patchouli and pneumatic drumming, the starry-eyed young share the same cobwebbed parochial assumptions of permanence as their grandparents: We’re gayer, greener, and groovier, but other than that it’s still 1950 and we’ve got more money than anybody else on the planet, so why get hung up about a few trillion here and a few trillion there?

In a mere half century, the richest nation on earth became the brokest nation in history, but the attitudes and assumptions of half the population and 90% of the ruling class remain unchanged.

Auld acquaintance can be forgot, for a while. But eventually even the most complacent and myopic societies get reacquainted with reality. For anyone who cares about the future of America and the broader West, the most important task in 2012 is to puncture the cocoon of denial. Instead, the governing class obsesses on trivia: just to pluck at random from recent Californian legislative proposals, a ban on non-fitted sheets in motels, mandatory gay history for first graders, car seats for children up to the age of eight.

Tens of millions of Americans have yet to understand that the can can no longer be kicked down the road, because we’re all out of road. The pavement ends, and there’s just a long drop into the abyss. And, even in a state-compliant car seat, you’ll land with a bump.

At this stage in a critical election cycle, we ought to be arguing about how many government departments to close, how many government programs to end, how many millions of government regulations to do away with. Instead, one party remains committed to encrusting even more barnacles to America’s rusting hulk, while the other is far too wary of harshing the electorate’s mellow.

The sooner we recognize the 20th-century entitlement state is over, the sooner we can ring in something new.

The longer we delay ringing out the old, the worse it will be.

Happy New Year?

New Year's Day 2012 Newsbites

2012-01-01T11:35:00.003-05:00

A happy and healthy New Year to all!

(Joey B. - thanks again for the Macallan Cask Strength!)

Vicki... may you live to be 100 and may the last voice you hear be mine!

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, December 30, 2011

2011-12-30T12:10:00.005-05:00

I'm sure it's no surprise to any of you checking in that this week has been fairly sparse with regard to newsbites.

That's to be expected. It is the Christmas season after all!

Enjoy being with your loved ones, my friends; there'll be time enough for politics come the New Year 2012 - hopefully the last full year of the Age of Obama.

As always, though, folks, I warn you... beware the media!

Over the past few weeks no doubt you've all been exposed to the anti-Newt drums of the Republican Establishment, their noise echoed by a media who know instinctively that Newt Gingrich can beat Barak Hussein Obama and beat Liberalism as well.

Did you know that Newt still leads the national polls?

I bet many of you don't!

Why? Because I know most people operate off of "what they've heard" or a headline they've read; most folks don't check the actual polling data! (Which by the way shows Gingrich up + 1.8 over Romney according to the latest averaging of national polling data compiled by Real Clear Politics.)

You folks know that "caucus states" offer less than meet the eye - as do "open primary states" - when it comes to giving a clear picture of where the registered Republican likely voter is... right?

There are just so many sleazy tactics being employed by the GOP Establishment and the media when it comes to how they're attempting to manipulate the outcome of this presidential nomination process before the first ballot is even cast as to defy even my ability to lay it out in simple terms.

(*SNORT*)

Suffice it to say, folks... the "insiders" are doing their best to "play" us "outsiders."

Remember folks... the GOP Establishment hated Reagan...

Remember folks... the GOP Establishment loves... the GOP Establishment...

(*CHUCKLE*)

You know my views. I'm backing Gingrich. I'm backing the man who gave us the Republican Revolution of '94.

Do I respect Ron Paul supporters? Damn right! While I don't believe Paul can win... if I did think he could win I'd be backing him myself!

To reiterate:

Gingrich can win and effect real change as president... Ron Paul can't win; Rick Santorum can't win; Michele Bachmann can't win.

Could Perry beat Obama? Yes. But he could also lose. Frankly, I just can't bring myself to trust that Rick Perry could beat Barak Hussein Obama one-on-one.

Can Romney win the presidency? Yes. I believe he could. I believe he probably would... but the odds are better for Gingrich vs. Obama than they are regarding Romney vs. Obama.

(Gingrich would destroy Obama in debates; Obama would fight Romney to a draw... perhaps even lose.)

Huntsman? He's a non-entity as far as this discussion is concerned. He's (literally!) more likely to be on the presidential ballot as Obama's running mate in 2012 than he is to be on the Republican ticket!

Cain? There is no longer a Herman Cain in the race. Period.

My point? It's Gingrich vs. Romney with perhaps Perry as a dark horse.

Don't let the media nor the Republican Establishment "force" you to feel that you "must" vote for Romney. (Remember, folks... the MSM wants Obama re-elected; they're backing Romney because they're well aware of what I'm well aware of - namely, that Romney would be the weaker GOP candidate vs. the Obama Machine.

(Just imagine if Romney does dump Biden in favor of putting Hillary on the ballot as his number two! This would further weaken Romney's chances while on the other hand it would energize a Gingrich-led ticket!)

Finally, folks, let me point out one last truth...

There's a reason Romney won't debate Gingrich one-on-one. That reason... Romney knows that in a direct contest - without the filter and support of the media - Gingrich would lay out the differences between himself and Romney in such a way as to put paid to Romney's portrayal of the inevitable nominee.

Remember the story of the Emperor with no clothing, my friends? That's Romney.

Don't let the media and the Republican Establishment blind you to the truth.

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 29, 2011

2011-12-29T10:19:00.002-05:00

Colleen and Kenny came over last night for our annual Christmas season get-together!

Heed the Words of J.R. Dunn, Consulting Editor of American Thinker

2011-12-28T16:37:00.002-05:00

Crony capitalism is the most serious current danger to the American community, a threat not simply to government or the economy, but to our very way of life.

Cronyism is one of the major forces behind the establishment of the corrupt pseudo-aristocracy that has been taking shape in this country over the past two decades, a synthetic privileged class made up in large part of politicians, hustlers, and hangers-on who have become expert in exploiting the rest of us.

The legacy media, for some obscure reason, tends to bury discussions about this group. While the reportage on discrete incidents is there - see the parade of stories on Solyndra, Goldman Sachs, and MF Global for examples - we find little effort to pull it all together.

Academics, with the single exception of Angelo Codevilla, who sounded the alarm two years ago in The Ruling Class, appear oblivious, as if they had no idea what's going on, which may well be the case.

The customary watchdogs having remained asleep, we need to rely on independents. Chief among these in Peter Schweizer, whose latest book "Throw Them All Out" gives us the clearest picture we've yet had of the activities of the new crony class.

Schweizer examines the new cronyism through the lens of the old - specifically, the political philosophy of George Washington Plunkett, 19th century Tammany stalwart who seen his opportunities and took 'em. Plunkett's modus operandi was based on "honest graft" - rather than fish for bribes or payoffs, Plunkett would discover what contractor was putting up the new schoolhouse and then mosey over to drop a few hints about his cousin's brick company. It worked every time, and was completely legal. Plunkett was never brought to book on it. The basic axiom of cronyism reads: why break the law when there are plenty of loopholes to use?

(Though Schweizer makes an honest attempt to remain bipartisan, the book is dominated by members of a certain political party the name of which I will not mention but which is run by politicians named Kerry, Durbin, and Pelosi among others.)

John Kerry specializes in using advance information on upcoming bills to make investments, which Schweizer correctly characterizes as a form of insider trading.

During the ObamaCare debate of 2009 Kerry invested $200,000 in the healthcare company ResMed, the value of which shot up over 70%, a tidy little windfall even to a man married into one of the richest families in the United States. At the same time, ObamaCare cut Medicare reimbursements, so Kerry dumped all his shares in United Health, a medical insurance company deeply dependent on Medicare.

Kerry, it seems, didn't have to pass the bill to know what was in it.

(John Boehner also played this little game, though not a shiftily as Kerry, actually waiting until the debate was over to purchase, in December 2009, stock in several large health-related companies.)

Dick Durbin attended the now-famous September 2008 meetings in which Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke warned members of Congress of imminent and universal financial collapse. He immediately unloaded large chunks of his stock holdings. A natural reaction; he was a little panicky at the time. You'd do it too.

"We despise professional athletes who bet on their own games." Schweizer tells us. "Why don't we feel the same way about politicians who bet on the outcome of legislation?"

Another tool of corruption is the IPO (which, according to Schweizer, means "Invest in Politicians Often"). Companies about to go public invite certain strategically-placed politicians to make the first purchases in the offering, before the stockbrokers or anyone else. You can't really call it a payoff.

Nancy Pelosi is a particularly avid IPO fan. She and her husband made an incredibly large purchase of the Visa IPO amounting to 10% of their stock portfolio, raking off nearly a 50% profit on the original purchase in only two days. (Nancy Pelosi also had a station built on a light rail line in San Francisco near one of her office buildings. Real estate manipulation is yet another tool of the privileged class.)

Schweizer also offers a complete rundown - the first one I've seen - of the actual extent of Barack Obama's "stimulus" program, which he characterizes as the biggest political payoff since the heyday of Boss Tweed. (Reading this will make your blood boil. It should be a major topic of discussion in next year's campaign.)

The level of corruption revealed here is breathtaking, even to me, and I take a back seat to no one in political realism. This is worse than Plunkett's day. In his time, there were limits on behavior put in place by accepted custom and traditional morality. Both of those factors have been relentlessly undermined in the past century. What is left is only a kind of kindergarten positivism - if it's not explicitly forbidden, then it's allowed.

We have not merely returned to the epoch of Tammany and Boss Tweed, we have surpassed it. Congress, both houses, along with the bureaucracies, and the little layers of government all the way down to Yourtown, are populated by relentless loophole miners.

(Is there anybody left with clean hands? Well yes; Schweizer identifies James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, who, though he owned large amounts of health care-related stocks, made not one sale before or after the health-care debate. It's a sad thing to have to praise a man for doing what anybody ought to have done, but that's our situation.)

How do we overcome this? Peter Schweizer's suggestions include an immediate ban on insider trading, defined as any form of trading involving bills that are or may come before Congress. A prohibition on any business deals involving conflict of interest. A ban on land deals involving political contributors. Full and honest transparency in any financial dealings involving a politician. (Schweizer reveals that those so-called "blind trusts" are actually no such thing.)

All this is well and good, and some of it is actually in the works. But as long as we have laws, we will have loopholes, and as long as there are loopholes, they will be mined. What we truly require is a return to ethics on the mass scale. How this is to be done I have no more idea than anyone else.

But the first step is knowledge - read this book and pass it on.

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 28, 2011

2011-12-28T10:55:00.002-05:00

Lies...

Distortions at best.

People. Understand. You can trust me because... well... I'm too prideful to lie.

Seriously... think about it! I hate being proven wrong! I take great pride in being usually right! I'd never knowingly give you false information because I wouldn't want to be connected to false information.

Obviously the politicians will lie.

Obviously the media will lie.

But, me... nope... I'll shoot straight with you and let the chips fall as they may.

The gloves are off, folks. The media - including Fox, including "conservative" publications - can't be trusted.

Certainly no politician can be trusted.

All I can tell you is that I'm here... and you can trust me.

From now till election day next November, please... please follow this blog and don't buy anything you hear coming out of the media until and unless it's verified to your satisfaction.

I can't carry everything. I can't be all things to all people. But I can and will do all I can to provide you with news you can use in order to cast a truly educated ballot come your state primary and come the general election.

If you have questions... ask me! I'm here!

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 27. 2011

2011-12-27T11:29:00.000-05:00

My favorite Christmas song...

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, December 26, 2011

2011-12-26T09:38:00.002-05:00

'Twas the day after Christmas, and all through Bill's House
All three Barkers were stirring, on my wife I did bounce

(Hey... it rhymes, dammit!)

The goodies were piled, on the floor as each year
We delay putting 'way all the booze and the beer

(*THUMB UP*)

And so on and so forth, I'm no poet, I sigh
Pre Happy New Year to all, from my liver... and I!

Christmas Eve 2011

2011-12-24T08:56:00.002-05:00

Merry...!

Merry...!!

Merry...!!!

Christmas...!!!!!!!!!!

A Special Newsbite for Mary S., Carl V., and John H.

2011-12-23T10:34:00.002-05:00

'Gingrich would arrest judges," scream the headlines. You'd think he'd proposed some crazy, unconstitutional crackdown on federal judges. Instead, Newt Gingrich's position paper, "Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution," has a set of controversial but thoughtful proposals for reining in judicial activism.

(*THUMBS UP*)

These include calling judges before Congress to explain their decisions, impeaching judges or eliminating courts that consistently get the Constitution wrong, and limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions that distort the Constitution.

(*THUMBS UP*)

All are constitutional if carefully implemented and constrained to the appropriate circumstances. For example, Congress routinely asks executive branch officials outside the White House to testify about their decisions. It occasionally subpoenas them to compel attendance, and arrest would be a last resort.

* AN OBVIOUS POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING ALL ALONG!

(Subpoenaing Justices of the Supreme Court, the only court created by the Constitution, is a possible exception.)

* A POINT WHICH I TOO - BILL THE NON-LAW SCHOOL GRAD - HAVE MADE.

(*WINK*)

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to "ordain and establish" lower courts. That includes the power to eliminate courts and judgeships, as Congress has occasionally done.

* ANOTHER POINT I'VE BEEN MAKING MYSELF...

(*PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK*)

Nonetheless, Mr. Gingrich concedes that "Other constitutional options, including impeachment, are better suited in most circumstances to check and balance the judiciary." Stubborn disregard for the Constitution falls short of the "good behavior" required of judges and may justify impeachment.

* AND AGAIN! (*STILL PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK*)

Another controversial proposal: limiting the applicability of Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Gingrich proposes what Abraham Lincoln outlined in his First Inaugural Address, that "in certain circumstances, the holdings of Supreme Court decisions should be limited to the litigants in a case, and not be held to apply as a general controlling standard." Accordingly, Lincoln refused to treat the high court's Dred Scott decision - now recognized as outrageous judicial activism - as binding on the executive branch. If Lincoln's position seems extreme today, it only reinforces Mr. Gingrich's point that the balance of power has shifted too much toward the judiciary.

(*NOD*)

* I'LL GO EVEN FURTHER. THE FACT THAT NO DOUBT FEW (IF ANY... AND I'M INCLUDING THE LAWYERS AMONG YOU!) OF YOU WERE AWARE OF THIS LEGAL PRECEDENT SHOULD ONCE AGAIN REINFORCE HOW THE ELITES FIGHT. THEY FIGHT DIRTY. THEY FIGHT BY DENYING MOST AMERICANS THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO ACT AS RESPONSIBLE, INDEPENDENT CITIZENS.

Mr. Gingrich understands that "judicial supremacy only survives due to the passivity of the executive and legislative branches."

* AND THE IGNORANCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! (THIS IGNORANCE BEING DELIBERATELY FOISTED UPON US!)

"The power of the American judiciary has increased exponentially at the expense of elected representatives" such that "the Supreme Court has become a permanent constitutional convention," [notes Gingrich.] He acknowledges the importance of an independent judiciary but points out that "judicial independence does not mean . . . judges can never be held accountable for their judgments . . . however extreme and unfounded."

* HEAR! HEAR!

Mr. Gingrich argues that the other two branches have the power and the obligation to push back. "The President and each member of Congress takes an oath to defend the Constitution," he notes; "if they believe that the judicial branch is acting contrary to the Constitution, then they have an obligation . . . to check and balance the judicial branch."

* AND SPEAKER GINGRICH IS CORRECT!

Mr. Gingrich doesn't pretend to have all the answers. Instead he offers several possible ways to push back while acknowledging that the best remedy for judicial activism is a president and Senate that will nominate and confirm constitutionalist judges.

* AND THERE YOU HAVE IT, FOLKS.

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, December 23, 2011

2011-12-23T07:35:00.003-05:00

I weep...

So You Say You Want a Revolution? Well... You Know...

2011-12-22T15:38:00.006-05:00

From the non-partisan budget watchdog organization Taxpayers For Common Sense:

The year began with hoary promises that Congress would be different - spending bills would be passed one at a time with ample time for review and debate.

But instead...

In the waning days of 2011, taxpayers watched the same old story unfold. Nine spending bills worth nearly $1 trillion jammed together, lawmakers voting on legislation that even the Valedictorian of an Evelyn Wood speed reading school couldn’t have gotten through: Promises made, promises busted.

Thank you Speaker Boehner! Thank you Representative Nan Hayworth (R-NY-19)!

At 12:38 AM Wednesday, December 14th, the fiscal year 2012 spending bill was released by the House Appropriations Chairman Harold Rogers. Of course that was just the legalese, legislative language. The 1,092 page long joint explanatory statement which provides more details about where the money is going didn’t come out until Friday morning - the day of the vote.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Passing the bills separately and with plenty of time for review isn’t just an academic exercise. It affords taxpayers an opportunity to review and comment on legislation. It also serves as a disincentive to those lawmakers who would like to pull a fast one on taxpayers.

As it is nobody knew everything that was in the bill.

We’re going to be finding baubles and trinkets well after Christmas trees are out on the curbs and menorahs are put away.

Already some gems are surfacing: Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Chair Diane Feinstein took the opportunity to slip in a sop for the Westlands water district in California. The provisions would change the rules to allow Westlands and other water districts to buy up more federally subsidized irrigation water than they are currently allowed.

In the same Energy and Water section, the House and Senate airdropped in a provision that was not in the earlier House and Senate versions: [It] would stop the White House from updating the nearly 30-year old rules that govern Corps of Engineers project analysis - something Congress told them to start doing in 2007!

In the Defense portion, there were several instances where millions of dollars were added back in because of “unjustified reductions.” (We don’t know whether they were justified or not, because there is no amplifying information about the differences.)

We have also found several semi-generic accounts that could end up as magnets for lettermarks (where lawmakers write federal officials about where to spend the cash) or phonemarks (where they pick up the phone and tell those same officials where to spend it).

The only good thing about this year’s appropriations process was that it actually yielded bills. The first quarter of the fiscal year may be just about over, but at least agencies know what their budgets are for the rest of the year. Last year, every federal agency except the Defense Department had to operate under a year-long continuing resolution that extended funding levels from 2010. That’s no way to run a government.

With a Presidential election looming, precious little is likely to get through Congress. Lawmakers often boast about how the Constitution gave Congress the power of the purse. We need less talk and more action. Budgets are about more than numbers, they’re about priorities and the public needs to know where their elected officials are putting their priorities.

[P]assing a last minute, unread spending bill that’s the size of the Webster’s Dictionary isn’t just about breaking a promise. It’s about denying the public an opportunity to participate in our Democracy.

I foresee violence. This simply can't continue. Violence may not be the answer, but... everything we've tried so far has failed.

You tell me, folks... tell me I'm wrong.

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 22, 2011

2011-12-22T13:50:00.001-05:00

Laughing is better than crying...

Nan Hayworth's (R-NY-19) Lastest Talking Point

2011-12-22T12:36:00.005-05:00

Folks... it make me cringe when I receive garbage like this from my congresswoman:

In the midst of a terrible economy, our hardworking families should not face increased taxes next year. My colleagues and I are determined to continue our work in Washington until we come to an agreement that lifts burdens for taxpayers while protecting the Social Security Trust Fund; continues help to our unemployed while assuring sound long-term reforms; and ensures seniors’ access to their doctors under Medicare.

In other words...

Hayworth is determined to continue denying Social Security the revenues required to meet the obligations foisted upon it by past congresses, past presidents, and now this congress and this president.

Folks... it's a matter of math - not ideology. I explained all this yesterday in a stand-alone post and nothing has changed in the past 24 hours.

Toward this goal, I was recently chosen by my colleagues to serve as one of eight negotiators on a Conference Committee to be made up of House and Senate members working to resolve our differences.

A whole eight of you, huh? Wow... that's some institutional sacrifice on the part of the House and Senate Republican Caucuses! Very, very impressive! This means that only a mere 281 Republican members of the House and Senate are enjoying their Christmas "break" while pretty much everyone I know (who is lucky enough to have a job) is... er... at work or will be going to work later in the day.

(*CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

Outstanding, Nan! Way to lift our moral!

We call upon the Senate to join us in working toward a solution that offers long-term relief to struggling families and job creators.

Actually, Nan, what you're calling for is a continuation of a situation where instead of staunching the flow of red ink reflected in the current Social Security deficit numbers... you seek bipartisan agreement to double down on this insanity!

As part of this process, I'd appreciate hearing your own personal stories about how extending these programs for only two months, rather than for a full year, affects you and your family.

Hmm... ok... here's my personal story:

I'm an American. My government is out of control. New debt is being piled on old debt at an unconscionable rate - with Republicans such as yourself abetting the process. This debt is being foisted not just upon me (against my will)... not just upon my wife (against her will)... but it's also being foisted upon my daughter (against her will) and no doubt it'll be foisted upon the backs of generations yet to be born.

Here's my personal story, Nan:

I supported you throughout the 2007-2008 Republican primary and then voted for you in the general election of 2008. So far you've been a major disappointment to me. You're a Boehner Republican and that makes you part of the problem... not part of the solution.

How does only $167 in tax savings, for two months' extension of payroll tax relief, help less than the $1,000 for a full year?

Nan... the question is: How does adding another $167 - let alone another $1,000 - to our nation's existing deficit spending and existing debt serve to strengthen America or help Americans in the long term?

Oh... I know... your reply would be "Under our plan we raise revenue elsewhere so that this tax 'holiday' extension becomes revenue neutral."

OK. First of all... you're counting your chickens before they're hatched. You're making assumptions - not guaranteeing revenue neutrality.

But second of all... and here's the killer... even if one were to believe you... "revenue neutral" isn't what's called for in a situation where you and your colleagues are spending the nation into bankruptcy with trillion dollar plus deficits and ever expanding government!

Nan... we want actual cuts in federal spending, not phoney "cuts" in spending increases!

(Seriously... do you think we're stupid? Or is it that you don't "get" the math yourself? Or... is it that you've decided your career goals trump what's best for the country? Hey... Nan... if you feel the ever-expanding welfare state is what's best for the country then somehow you've joined the wrong party!)

If you're relying on Medicare, how do you plan your health care when you do not know whether your doctor will be able to see you after two months?

You're a doctor, Nan; how much pro bono care have you given since you've joined the august ranks of the House of Representatives?

Perhaps instead of flying off to Israel on a lobbyist's dime so as to "fact find" and "show your solidarity with the Israeli People" you might better spend your personal time providing free medical care to the poor of your own congressional district. Just a thought.

(Hey... you're the one who claims to be so worried about those in need of medical care here; and you're the one who's a doctor!)

The time to do our work for the American people is now.

Nan... remind me... how much have federal expenditures gone up since you've taken office?

The time to guarantee certainty for hardworking taxpayers and job creators is now.

And by "certainty" you mean the certainty of continuing to deficit spend.

(Nan. Reading your talking points literally sickens me.)

The House stands ready to find common ground and solve the problem.

No... in fact all Republican members of the House and Senate except for you eight "Caucus Committee" members are already on vacation while most of your constituents will be working through Friday and a fair number working part of the day on Saturday and even Christmas Day itself.

I'm continuing to do my best for the constituents I serve, and to do so in positive and constructive way.

What terrifies me is that one part of me actually believes that you believe that!

Nan. I've watched you in action for the past year. You're simply not up to the job. If you're sincere about doing what's best for your constituents and the "national good" as a whole, search for someone - a real conservatives - willing and able to pick up the reins from you and run in your place next year as our Republican candidate for New York's 19th Congressional District.

Al Frigg'n Franken Defends the Constitutional Protections Which John McCain and the Neo-Cons Spit Upon

2011-12-21T16:30:00.003-05:00

No, no... it's not just that a--hole, McCain.

Nope. Not just Lindsey "I Walk Around With My Head Up My Ass" Graham either.

As noted in my previous post on the Vast Right-Left-Center Conspiracy, expediency and immediate perceived self-interest usually trump patriotism and even simple ethics when it comes to the instincts and behavior of our politicians and our media.

In the following instance it appears that Bill Barker, Rand Paul, and... er... Al Franken are all on the side of the Angels... or at least the Constitution.

Allow offer Al Franken a "thanks" by republishing an op-ed which he wrote for the December 17th edition of "RSN" - Reader Supported News:

Yesterday, the Senate passed a bill that includes provisions on detention that I found simply unacceptable. These provisions are inconsistent with the liberties and freedoms that are at the core of the system our Founders established. And while I did in fact vote for an earlier version of the legislation, I did so with the hope that the final version would be significantly improved. That didn't happen, and so I could not support the final bill.

The bill that passed on Thursday included several problematic provisions, the worst of which could allow the military to detain Americans indefinitely, without charge or trial, even if they're captured in the U.S.

At their core, these provisions will radically alter how we investigate, arrest, and detain individuals suspected of terrorism. What's more, they could undermine the safety of our troops stationed abroad, and they introduce new and unnecessary uncertainty into our counter-terrorism efforts.

But before I get into the details of why I opposed these detainee provisions, I think it is important to recognize that September 11th irrevocably and unalterably changed our lives. I was in Minnesota that terrible day. A number of Minnesotans died - in the towers, in the air, and at the Pentagon. In New York in the months following the attacks, I attended the funerals of brave firefighters and law enforcement officers who sacrificed their lives to help rescue Americans from the towers. I can't shake those images from my mind, and I am guessing like many of you, I won't ever be able to erase the horrors of September 11th from my head.

But it is exactly in these difficult moments, in these periods of war, when our country is under attack, that we must be doubly vigilant about protecting what makes us Americans.

The Founders who crafted our Constitution and Bill of Rights were careful to draft a Constitution of limited powers - one that would protect Americans' liberty at all times - both in war, and in peace.

As we reflect on what this bill will do, I think it is important to pause and remember some of the mistakes this country has made when we have been fearful of enemy attack.

Most notably, we made a grave, indefensible mistake during World War II, when President Roosevelt ordered the incarceration of more than 110,000 people of Japanese origin, as well as approximately 11,000 German-Americans and 3,000 Italian-Americans.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon signed into law the Non-Detention Act to make sure the U.S. government would never again subject any Americans to the unnecessary and unjustifiable imprisonment that so many Japanese-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans had to endure. It wasn't until 1988, 46 years after the internment, when President Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, that the government formally acknowledged and apologized for the grave injustice that was done to citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry.

These were dark, dark periods in American history. And it is easy today to think that is all behind us.

But I fear the detention provisions in the bill forget the lessons we learned from the mistakes we made when we interned thousands of innocent Japanese, Germans, and Italians.

With this defense authorization act, Congress will, for the first time in 60 years, authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, according to its advocates. This would be the first time that Congress has deviated from President Nixon's Non-Detention Act. And what we are talking about here is that Americans could be subjected to life imprisonment without ever being charged, tried, or convicted of a crime, without ever having an opportunity to prove their innocence to a judge or a jury of their peers. And without the government ever having to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think that denigrates the very foundations of this country. It denigrates the Bill of Rights. It denigrates what our Founders intended when they created a civilian, non-military justice system for trying and punishing people for crimes committed on U.S. soil. Our Founders were fearful of the military-and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule. This bill undermines that core principle, which is why I could not support it.

Yesterday was the anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, and this wasn't the way to mark its birthday.

Franken is right, my friends.

Again, my friends... we are losing our country.

I weep for what we've allowed to happen in our names.

The Vast Right-Left-Center Conspiracy on the Payroll Tax "Holiday" Extension

2011-12-21T10:41:00.003-05:00

I'm home. As such I'm able to listen to and occasionally catch glimpses of how Fox News is covering the "crisis" in Washington revolving around the proposal to extend last year's Payroll Tax "Holiday" into this year.

Folks... those of you who have also been watching... listening... reading... let me ask you a question:

Have you heard from the people opposed to an extension....?

Have you seen the media seek out and interview any of the House members and Senators who last year voted against the original Payroll Tax "Holiday" - even if only to ask why they've changed their minds now... assuming they've changed their minds?

Folks... this is a "conspiracy" to manipulate you - and it's being done in broad daylight!

Folks... Social Security is supposed to be separate from the general revenues and expenditures.

In reality this is only an accounting fiction, however... it's this accounting fiction upon which is based the whole concept of people paying into their Social Security and thus being owed an eventual payback.

Now of course this whole concept is itself a fraud... legally you own nothing... legally the government can take Social Security benefits away from anyone... anytime... at their sole discretion in accord with proper legislation being drafted, approved, and then either signed into law with the president's signature or put into law over his veto.

(Regular readers of Usually Right know all this... regular readers of Usually Right are familiar with Flemming v. Nestor as well as Helvering v. Davis.)

In any case, folks... back to the present day debate over this Payroll Tax "Holiday" business...

Social Security went upside down last year - 2010. By this I mean that the program took in less money from "contributions" than it sent out in checks to beneficiaries.

Last year's Payroll Tax "Holiday" doubled down on the 2010 Social Security program operating deficit via widening this year's Social Security program operating deficit.

Folks... in other words... once again the politicians robbed Social Security - only instead of robbing a surplus, spending this surplus elsewhere, and putting an I.O.U. in the "trust fund," these scummy bastards doubled down on the deficit! These bastards stole from Social Security, put an I.O.U. in the "trust fund," and gave you your own money which YOU and your children and grandchildren will have to make good on in the future! (Plus accrued interest...!!!)

Are you hearing the politicians admit this?

No.

This is to be expected, however; why would the politicians admit to scamming you...?!?!

But what of the media...???

Notice, folks... the media are pretty much fully on board with the scheme... with the scam.

How is the media portraying this? They're almost universally portraying the "crisis" in Washington as a "crisis" concerning not whether or not the original Payroll Tax "Holiday" should have been passed in the first place - let alone dealing with the question of whether the scam should be renewed - but, rather, they're portraying further delay as bad for the American People and bad for the economy and then going on to debate who the political "winners" and "losers" will be when all is said and done!

Folks... we're the losers!

Folks... the future economy is the loser!

What these bastards in Washington are doing is attempting to bribe us - to pander to us - paying us off with our own money that we're borrowing from ourselves (and our children and grandchildren) at interest!

But this isn't how the media is playing it. In fact, they're not even going through the motions of giving this "opposing view" equal time.

Folks... I know you're busy... but I hope you've been reading "Newsbites."

You're being robbed and abused and your country... our country... is being sold down the river.

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 21, 2011

2011-12-21T09:31:00.002-05:00

Amazing... pushing 80 when she sang this live... no lip-synching!

(Here's the original to compare and contrast to!)

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 20, 2011

2011-12-20T08:00:00.003-05:00

If only this applied to government...

(Remember, kids... the real Santa doesn't borrow 43-cents of ever dollar spent on ordinary operating expenses from the Chinese!)

For newcomers: The actual "newsbites" are in the comments section of each newsbite post!

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, December 19, 2011

2011-12-19T08:28:00.003-05:00

God bless Aunt Ruth!

Ninety-two years young and ready to go out on the town at a moment's notice!

Yesterday was our annual "Little Italy With Aunt Ruth" day and boy, oh, boy... another fine trip to THE City!

Now, folks... we're all getting older... I'm almost ashamed to report... we were all sober upon leaving for The City!

(Hell... I'd only had two bloody mary's at brunch!)

Anyway, we picked up Aunt Ruth at around 2:00 p.m., and off we went! No traffic... we were in Midtown by 3:00 p.m. and within a half hour after that we were safely street parked on 47th Street between 6th and 5th Avenues! (Not bad, huh!?)

From there, off to see THE Tree...

(BTW: The Windows at Sachs sucked this year! Bastards! No traditional Christmas theme! Can you frigg'n believe it...?!?! Unacceptable...!!!)

After wandering Rockefeller Center, snapping plenty of pictures of The Tree, gazing upon the ice skaters down "in the pit" below, our yearly pilgrimage continued and brought us to St. Pat's, where I restrained myself (just barely) from making a break for "The Big Chair" and conducting a Mass.

(*SHRUG*)

(Hey... pushing 50... I'm still me!)

Back to the car... head Downtown... next stop... Little Italy!

(Got street parking on Baxter!)

After our usual stroll up and down Mulberry we settled on Benito's (The Original) for dinner.

Outstanding! As always!

A little vino... (jeezus... we are getting old... we only down a single bottle!)... some stuffed artichoke... veal dishes for me and Aunt Ruth - eggplant parmigiana for Mary The Poop... veggies... mushroom risotto... (oh... my stomach... just remembering...)... it was off for our next stop - dessert!

Where else but Cafe Roma!?

Hey... there are flashier dessert joints... but this place has been making cannolis since 1891. Let's just say they've got it down.

No problem getting out of The City. We had Aunt Ruth home by 9:30 p.m. and we were home ourselves by 10:00 p.m.

I've gotta admit, as I've gotten older and (even) less patient I've tended to avoid The City.

Frankly... it's a hassle. The toll, the traffic, the parking...

(*HEADACHE*)

Still... once I'm there... once I'm parked...

Folks... there's only one THE City.

Especially at Christmas...!!!

Merry Christmas... AMERICA IS DYING...!

2011-12-17T11:01:00.004-05:00

First the article...

Van Dyke Public Schools in Warren [Detroit, Michigan] were closed Friday because of bus vandalism.

A recording from the Superintendent’s office said: “Today is Friday, December 16 and due to a transportation problem, the district will be closed today.”

WWJ’s Mike Campbell was live at the scene, where the district’s 20 buses are kept in a bus yard at 9 Mile and Hoover.

Van Dyke Superintendent Joseph Pius said thieves broke into the bus yard by cutting a hole in the fence. He said the crooks stole three batteries each from 15 buses, leaving only five in operation.

Pius said the district does not have security cameras at the facility and so far, no suspects.

Police say an investigation is ongoing.

Nice, huh?

How many of these type stories have you seen or heard of during the past couple years?

Plenty of copper thieves out there; now it's batteries.

Am I claiming that America had no crime prior to the Age of Obama?

Certainly not!

Frankly, all things being equal I ordinarily wouldn't even bother making this story a "newsbite," let alone highlight it as a stand-alone post.

Ah... but last night Mary and I were out Christmas shopping "upstate" in Middletown, NY, and as we were leaving one half-empty, half-abandoned shopping center we both commented that America was falling apart... literally collapsing.

Reading the "bus vandalism" story just reminded me of last night's conversation.

Folks... I grew up in Westwood, NJ... New City, NY... and Pearl River, NY.

I grew up in the affluent suburbs.

Even now, living up in Harriman, NY, my area is considered an affluent NYC bedroom community and in most ways it is.

Well... it is unless you look too closely at the actual retail infrastructure... the multitude of Mexican restaurants and Mexican "quick marts"... the empty retail spaces... the abandoned or "re-purposed" shells of what used to be thriving auto dealerships...

At the risk of being tagged "racist" or "anti-Hispanic" let me also point out the poor Mexicans - men, women, children - seen walking the main roads at all hours of the day and night.

I point this out for one reason: Nowadays many American communities are starting to look more like Norman Rockwell's nightmares than Norman Rockwell's America.

I'm not "blaming" illegal immigrants - or even legal immigrants! I've traveled Mexico... I've traveled the Caribbean... except for (at times!) the weather, I understand it's far preferable to be poor in America than poor in Mexico, the Caribbean, Africa, or indeed most of the world.

My buddy the bigshot midtown Manhattan M&A attorney who commutes by train from his... er... "estate" in Katonah, NY... he doesn't see what I see. Katonah is the kind of "Rockwell's America" town where people go to on a nice weekend day to shop. The only reason a store would close in Katonah is to renovate for the current owner or to prepare for a new owner to enter the picture.

Folks... look around you! Much of America is literally falling apart! It's happening right in front of our eyes!

I know... I know... it's Christmas... who wants to think of such things?

Well, folks, the reason why I focus on such things isn't because I'm focused on America 2011.

Nope...

The reason I focus on such things is because just like a certain fictional character we all know, I'm convinced that unless things change... America 2020... 2030... 2040... 2050... isn't going to be the country any of us would hope for it to be.

God bless America... and Merry Christmas.

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., December 17 & 18, 2011

2011-12-17T10:22:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a newsbites theme song along the lines of "Die, RINO Republicans, Die," but this should do...

(Enter the Comments Section of this post... check out the first comment... and you'll understand my lack of Christmas cheer.)

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, December 16, 2011

2011-12-16T09:36:00.002-05:00

Folks... I apologize in advance.

I've been searching YouTube for the past hour searching for the perfect rendition of "Angels We Have Heard on High" - and apparently there is none.

The closest I could come up with is this guy...

(*SHRUG*)

Hey... he's not me... but I guess he's ok.

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 15, 2011

2011-12-15T13:36:00.003-05:00

Screw those ding-dong bastards over at NRO!

(Here's the truth, kids!)

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 14, 2011

2011-12-14T10:35:00.002-05:00

The Messiah...
Not hardly!

Is This Really the Woman You Hate?

2011-12-13T15:28:00.000-05:00

By Sarah Palin...

Thanks to the solid new research and recent revelations in Peter Schweizer's book Throw Them All Out and the subsequent coverage on 60 Minutes, we have concrete proof to explain how members of Congress accumulate wealth at a rate astonishingly faster than the rest of Americans and have stock portfolios that outperform even the best hedge-fund managers'.

(Full disclosure: Schweizer is employed by my political action committee as a foreign policy adviser.)

From sweetheart land deals to initial public offering (IPO) stock gifts to insider trading with non-public government information, the methods of unethical wealth accumulation for our permanent political class are endless. The reaction from the Beltway establishment to the revelations concerning insider trading among members of Congress was predictable. First they denied it, then they dismissed the problem as much ado about nothing. Some said there was no need for new laws or action because the Securities and Exchange Commission could prosecute members of Congress under existing laws against insider trading.

But under current law, there is no way the SEC will ever go after a powerful congressman or senator. The SEC never has, even though insider trading prohibitions have existed since the 1930s. Here's why: Congress sets the SEC's budget, and senators approve the head of the SEC. Congress uses its power of the purse strings to threaten federal agencies that get in their way.

For example, in 2006 the FBI got a search warrant from a federal judge to comb former congressman William Jefferson's office. The FBI already had evidence that Jefferson was taking bribes. Congress was furious that the FBI would dare search a fellow member's office. Members claimed the search was unconstitutional. They even threatened to cut the Justice Department's budget in retaliation. All this despite the fact that 86% of Americans supported the FBI raid.

Does anyone really think the SEC under current law will have the courage to investigate the insider trading in Congress? Remember that this corruption (and failure to deal with it) encompasses both sides of the aisle. We fool ourselves thinking we can trust an agency dependent on Congress for its budget to investigate Congress.

I hate the idea of more laws, but because our politicians have shown a failure of ethical leadership, we must reassert the rule of law through strong new legislation that holds Congress accountable and prevents retaliation against whistle-blowers and regulatory agencies investigating corruption. Legislation has been put forward, but there are serious concerns that these bills contain major loopholes in stopping congressional insider trading and the gifting of IPO stocks from companies seeking to influence policy. In fact, Robert Khuzami, the SEC's director of enforcement, testified that the bills as written only make stock transactions related to pending or prospective legislation illegal, not any other insider information trading; and they only cover stock transactions, not options trades, exchange traded funds or mutual funds.

The bills by Sens. Scott Brown (R-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are particularly weak. Members of Congress should disclose all trading activities immediately, not after 90 days as their bills propose. More immediate disclosure deadlines (similar to the strict deadlines corporate executives adhere to when trading certain amounts of stock) are imperative for real transparency.

Members of Congress must be required to put their assets into blind and "deaf" trusts. Deaf because we must make it illegal both to trade on non-public government information and to pass on such information. It does no good to set up a blind trust run by a friend, family member, or acquaintance and then casually pass on information to that person. Technically, members of Congress can claim they weren't actually making the trade or ordering another person to make the trade; they were simply "having a conversation" concerning information any competent trader would know what to do with.

The House bill by Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) is a step in the right direction because it calls for every member of Congress to either establish a blind trust or abide by a three-day disclosure deadline for all trades.

(Personally, I'd like to see even stricter deadlines like the ones for corporate executives.)

We should insist on tougher provisions to close all insider trading loopholes and IPO stock gifts, and to protect whistle-blowers and regulators against congressional retaliation.

Also, remember that insider trading isn't the only corruption problem in Congress. Crony capitalism has run rampant for too long and is bankrupting our country. We need conflict of interest provisions on earmarks and other legislation to stop sweetheart land and construction deals.

Our permanent political class relies on an apathetic and uninformed public to get away with this stuff. But if there is one issue that unites Americans across the political spectrum, it's absolute disgust with the corruption of our elected leaders. Congress and the White House need to earn the American people's trust again. We The People are not going to give up until we get the sudden and relentless reform we deserve or, as the book says, "we throw them all out" in 2012.

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 13, 2011

2011-12-13T08:28:00.000-05:00

Well, kids... it can't be all Christmas music!

Featured Newsbite (Edward Luce writing in Sunday's FT)

2011-12-12T11:56:00.002-05:00

America used to be exceptional.

Postwar, it maintained lower unemployment than the Europeans and a higher rate of jobs turnover, enabling it to get away with more meager benefits; “a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay” was within the grasp of most. That gave America a booming middle class that until recently was the [single] most important engine of global demand.

No longer.

Today, somewhat remarkably, U.S. joblessness is higher than in much of Europe.

* FOLKS... REPEAT AFTER ME:

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%.

* AGAIN...

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%.

* ONE MORE TIME...

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%.

* NOW... KEEP READING...

And the US consumer is mired in high personal debt.

Nothing Mr Obama has been able to accomplish since 2009...appears to have resolved that underlying structural challenge.

* HIS POLICIES HAVE MADE THINGS WORSE!

Indeed, the signs are that the problem is intensifying.

* AS I WAS SAYING...!!! (BUT, HEY... IT'S NOT JUST ME, FOLKS!)

In the words of David Autor, a leading labor economist at Harvard University, the labor force is suffering from a growing “missing middle.” In short, the middle-skilled jobs that once formed the ballast of the world’s wealthiest middle class are disappearing.

(*SIGH*) (*NOD*)

Most people know that median U.S. income has declined sharply since the late 1990s. Fewer are aware that real incomes also fell sharply in the same period for those with [college] degrees.

Only those with postgraduate qualifications, particularly PhDs, saw net gains (for some spectacular).

* BECAUSE WE'VE DELIBERATELY REPLACED ACTUAL ACTUAL EXPERIENCE-BASED KNOWLEDGE AND DEMONSTRATED REAL-WORLD COMPETENCE WITH CREDENTIALISM.

The jobs crisis has many worrying manifestations, of which three are worth highlighting. Perhaps the most troublesome is the waning dynamism of the market.

People used to describe the U.S. labor market as Schumpeterian, after the Austrian neoclassical economist who depicted the cycle of “creative destruction.” Jobs might be lost rapidly in a downturn but were swiftly reallocated to more productive sectors when economic growth resumed.

That is not now the case.

According to McKinsey, the consultancy, it took six months for the U.S. economy to recover its pre-recession jobs level after the 1982 downturn.

Following the 1991 recession, that had risen to 15 months.

After 2001, it took 39 months - meaning that the economy required almost the full business cycle to regain the jobs total bequeathed by the previous one.

Following the Great Recession of 2008, McKinsey forecast that the economy would take 60 months to reach the pre-downturn jobs level.

* AND, FOLKS, THAT JUST AIN'T HAPPENING! OBAMA HAS LITERALLY BROKEN THE ECONOMY!

In December 2007, the US economy employed 146 million people. Four years later, it languishes at 140 million [employed].

* DO THE FRIGG'N MATH! THAT'S SIX MILLION JOBS LOST! AND... TO POUR SALT ON THE WOUND...

At the current rate of job creation it will take another two and a half years to regain 2007 levels [and even] that understates the problem, since in that time the population will have risen by more than 10 million!

(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

America is employing a decreasing proportion of its people. At the start of the recession, the employment-to-population rate was 62.7%. The rate is now 58.5%.

(*SIGH*)

Last month, unemployment [technically] fell from 9% to 8.6%.

(*SMIRK*)

On the surface, this looked like a welcome leap in job creation. In reality, more than half of the fall was accounted for by a decrease in the numbers “actively seeking” work.

* FOLKS...! UNDERSTAND... (READ ON!)

The 315,000 who dropped out of the labor market far exceeded the 120,000 new jobs!

* FOLKS... ASK YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, AND COLLEAGUES; HOW MANY ARE AWARE OF THESE FACTS, OF THIS REALITY? NOT MANY, I'LL WAGER! YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN THIS TO THOSE YOU LOVE!

* FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE: FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS (OR FAMILY, OR COLLEAGUES) VOTE DEMOCRAT WITHOUT A FIGHT!

According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11%.

* AH... BUT IT GETS WORSE! (READ ON!)

Some have moved from claiming unemployment benefits to disability benefits, and have thus permanently dropped out of the labor force.

Others have fallen back on the charity of relatives.

Others still have ended up in prison.

(In 1982 there were just over 500,000 in jail; today there are 2.5 million - more than the combined population of Atlanta, Boston, Seattle and Kansas City, according to the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Center, a Washington-based think-tank.)

[A] growing share of whatever jobs the economy is still managing to create is in the least productive areas. Of the five occupations forecast by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be the fastest growing between now and 2018, none requires a degree. These are registered nurses, “home health aides,” customer service representatives, food preparation workers and “personal home care aides.” [S]uch jobs cannot replace the pay and conditions once typical of [the manufacturing] sector. “The food preparation industry cannot sustain a middle class,” says Dan DiMicco, chief executive of Nucor, one of America’s two remaining big steel companies, whose company motto is “a nation that builds and makes things.”

* GOD FRIGG'N HELP THIS POOR COUNTRY OF OURS. FOLKS... WE'VE GOTTA TURN THINGS AROUND! FOLKS... WE'VE GOTTA SAVE AMERICA FOR OUR KIDS AND GRANDKIDS...!!!

According to a study this year by Michael Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist from Stanford University, and Sandile Hlatshwayo, all net job creation since 1990 has been in the “non-tradable sector.”

* MEANING THERE'S NO EXPORT INCOME.

Between 1990 and 2008, the US added 27.3 million jobs, of which almost every one was in services.

Almost half [of these jobs] were in healthcare or the public sector - both areas in which productivity growth is virtually zero.

(Conversely, manufacturing’s impressive productivity growth has tracked its shrinking headcount.)

If there is an explanation as to why middle-class incomes have stagnated in the past generation, this is it: whatever jobs the U.S. is able to create are in the least efficient sectors - the types that neither computers nor China have yet found a way of eliminating.

* AND NOW... (READ ON...)

That trend is starting to lap at the feet of more highly educated American workers. And, as the shift continues, higher-paying jobs are also increasingly at risk, argue Prof Spence and Ms. Hlatshwayo.

* FOLKS... IF THE CONTINUING DECLINE OF AMERICA HASN'T DIRECTLY EFFECTED YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE... IT WILL.

* FOLKS... PLEASE... DON'T AVERT YOUR EYES FROM WHAT'S HAPPENING!

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, December 12, 2011

2011-12-12T10:06:00.001-05:00

Ya just can't have too much Andy Williams during the Christmas season!

Sat., Dec. 10, 2011 Iowa GOP Candidates' Forum

2011-12-11T11:11:00.005-05:00

Ron Paul was great. No doubt about it.

And notice folks... the other candidates have learned not to go after him...

That said, I don't have the courage - the faith in the American People - necessary to back Ron Paul over Newt Gingrich.

I fear that even if by some miracle Paul were able to get the GOP nomination, the mainstream media (with the cooperation and support of strange bedfellows from the neo-con Right on the one hand and the anti-libertarian Left on the other hand) would ensure that Ron Paul was defeated just as soundly as another great American was, a man whose views were ahead of his time was - Barry Goldwater - by the vile Lydon Baines Johnson.

Folks... it's not about what I wish were true... it's about what I fear is true.

Bachmann? Santorum? Perry?

No.

While I thank them and respect them for being the three responsible Republicans up on that stage last night who came out against an extension of the payroll tax cut, none of them is going to win the nomination and I fear that of the three, only Perry would have a real chance of beating Obama in a general election.

In a nutshell, while both Bachmann and Santorum are right on many, many issues, they're also wrong on many, many issues.

(Yes, yes... I know... this applies to ALL candidates! Just bear with me... hear me out...)

Bachmann comes across as a bit unhinged, over-eager, hyper, and frankly... none too bright.

(Example: At one point she starts off by noting she's 55 years old and then goes off on a tangent about how she's been fighting for the people for 50 years... YOU DO THE MATH!)

As for Santorum... he comes across as a bit of a weasel...

(Example: Look at the way he went after Newt on the Palestinian issue.)

And Perry...? He's damaged goods.

Though I could see Perry as Newt's VP choice!

In any case... continuing... I see three people as coming out of last night's debates as clear losers:

1) Geoge Stephanopoulos

2) Diane Sawyer

3) Mitt Romney

Stephanopoulos played the same old gotchya games, trying to incite personal fireworks amongst the candidates as opposed to trying to sort through their actual policy differences.

Folks... I can't stress strongly enough how deceitful, destructive, and downright dumb the liberal media are going to be over the next 11 months. They know that substantial numbers of ordinary Americans are on to their game, but they also know that if they can just get Obama over the finish line one more time...

In other words, folks... don't believe a thing you hear, see, or read via the media absent doing your own contextual fact checking.

As for Romney...

He can across as defensive, panicked, slimy... and certainly not up to the task of out-debating - let alone out-thinking - Newt Gingrich.

Folks... it's true: This year it's ABO - "Anyone But Obama."

But as far as the GOP primaries go... I believe it should be - must be - ABR... "Anyone But Romney!"

(Notice I'm not even including Huntsman in the equation; he's basically a non-entity.)

Romney is a slime. The fact that he's "won" the endorsements of people like Senator Lisa Murkowski and my own Congresswoman, Westchester County's own Nan Hayworth, should tell you all you need to know about who Romney truly is.

Newt's not perfect - not by a long-shot. But the only Republican presidential nomination candidate I like more than Gingrich is Ron Paul... and unfortunately... I don't believe Ron Paul could win a general election.

Rick Perry could beat Obama... but he could get beaten by Obama just as easily.

Michele Bachmann? I can't see her winning against Obama. She's just not polished enough. The Establishment (including the Republican Establishment) would do to her what they did to Sarah Palin.

Think about it...

Santorum...? He might be able to beat Obama. If elected, though, of all the candidates - including Obama - I fear Rick Santorum would be the potential president and commander-in-chief most likely to get us involved in yet another shooting war... a major war.

If you missed last night's debate - which I'm guessing most of you did... I certainly did... I was out Christmas shopping - watch it here.

Have questions about Newt? Start here.

I'm not asking anyone to take everything - or for that matter, anything - Newt says at face value. Nor am I asking you to take what's on Newt Gingrich's website as gospel. All I'm saying is that his website is a good starting point.

Folks... one thing I know and that you can take as gospel... our country can't take another four years of the Obama administration.

May God Bless America...

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Dec. 10 & 11, 2011

2011-12-10T09:31:00.001-05:00

Give these kids a hand!

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, December 9, 2011

2011-12-09T08:11:00.002-05:00

While I deeply respect and admire Mr. Keith, allow me to suggest a small, teensie-weensie change...

Hand Blown Pint Glass...

Just a few tweeks of the lyrics here and there...

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 8, 2011

2011-12-08T08:50:00.002-05:00

They're on, baby!

Four 225/45-18 Bridgestone Blizzaks... $164 per tire... $45 for shipping... no tax... no tire disposal fee... arrived in two days!

Mounted, balanced, and swapped onto Sammie for $49 by my good friends at Walmart!

Seriously, folks... if you live where it snows and you don't swap your "all-season" tires for snows for the winter... you're a moron!

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 7, 2011

2011-12-07T08:24:00.000-05:00

Remember...

Beware the Mainstream CONSERVATIVE Media!

2011-12-06T12:39:00.002-05:00

Folks... the GOP Establishment is clearly on the Romney bandwagon.

As you know... I'm not.

Neither for that matter are most registered Republicans, let alone most conservatives.

Two of my "go to" daily newsbite sources are of course the Wall Street Journal and National Review Online. Understand, folks, both these publications are more or less "Establishment" GOP outlets.

I could go on and on, but bottom line... the Fix is In.

Or... so they think!

Folks... each and every one of you who is a registered Republican or who resides in a state with open primaries will make your own choice come your Republican primary day.

Some of you will vote for Ron Paul. Others will vote for Gingrich. Some of you will vote for Cain - even now that he's effectively ended his active campaign. Then of course there are the other Republicans candidates.

Whomever you vote for - even if it's Romney - I respect your choice.

The point I want to make here is simply this: To reiterate... the Fix is In!

Only... it's not!!!

What I mean is that you can tell the Republican Establishment to stuff it!

You can tell the Romneybots at Fox News, at the Wall Street Journal, at National Review Online and elsewhere that your vote is your vote and that the Republican Party is your Republican Party - not the "Establishment's" Party!

Personally, if I could snap my fingers and "appoint" Ron Paul President I would.

I can't.

Short of me being able to "appoint" Ron Paul President it is my sad but honest analysis that Ron Paul will never be President of the United States.

I'm supporting Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination.

Is Newt perfect? Hardly.

Do I have my problems with Newt? Yep.

Do I fully trust Newt Gingrich? No. But then again is there any other candidate (besides Ron Paul) with whom I agree more often and trust more....? No!

Do I distrust Mitt Romney more than any other candidate? Damn straight...!!!

Will I vote for a Republican presidential ticket with Mitt Romney at its head?

(*SIGH*)

Yes. Yes I will. If need be... yes I will.

Do I truly believe that Newt Gingrich has the best chance of beating Obama - better than Romney's chances? Yes! I honestly do!

Newt Gingrich will verbally tear President Obama apart limb by limb during debates which I have no doubt will been watched - live - by the largest American (and foreign) audience in history!

Newt Gingrich will explain conservatism to non-Leftists in such a way as to attract as much - and frankly I believe more - support from so-called "independents" as would go to a candidate Romney and certainly more support from them than Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Santorum would receive.

Folks... you're certainly free to disagree with my analysis. But here's what I'm asking: Don't disagree based upon what you hear from "our" conservative media. Make sure that your final judgment is indeed your final judgment.

Thank You Senator Rand Paul

2011-12-06T12:22:00.004-05:00

By the Very, Very Honorable Senator Rand Paul, (R-KY)

I, like most Americans, want to ensure that we punish and prevent terrorism.

However, we must do so in a way that protects the rights of American citizens.

In his recent column, Andrew C. McCarthy simply has his facts wrong when he claims that last week’s Senate debate on the 2012 defense-authorization bill was not about American citizens.

It was.

In fact, the protection of American citizens is largely what my energies last week were directed toward.

The amendments I championed - both Sen. Mark Udall’s (D-CO) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) - were specifically offered in order to protect American citizens from the indefinite detention allowed in the underlying bill.

All of these amendments failed, but I was able to defeat an amendment that would have allowed American citizens to be held indefinitely even after they had been tried and found not guilty.

At no time did I argue that aliens should be given the same rights as American citizens. That was not the basis of the debate of any amendment last week. Yet Mr. McCarthy uses this strawman throughout his article.

When the facts are presented clearly to Americans - that their own rights and liberties are threatened under this sort of unchecked, unconstitutional executive authority - I believe they will side with keeping their liberty.

Supporters of indefinite detention believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld supports their view. But while the Court in Hamdi held that U.S. citizens captured in combat in Afghanistan may be detained, it also held that they must, at a minimum, be granted many of the traditional aspects of constitutional due process - including a “meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for the detention before a neutral decisionmaker,” notice of the asserted charges, an opportunity to rebut the assertions, and, most important, the right to counsel.

Also, the Court’s holding pertained only to U.S. citizens captured in combat in Afghanistan. Hamdi does not address non-combatants captured in the United States.

The argument in Congress this week was about whether we should expand the possibility of indefinite detention to include U.S. citizens accused of association with terrorism. This could conceivably apply to non-combatants. This could also conceivably include U.S. citizens falsely accused of association with terrorism. If you allow the government the unlimited power to detain citizens without a jury trial, you are exposing yourself to the whim of those in power. That is a dangerous game.

The FBI publishes characteristics of people you should report as possible terrorists. The list includes the possession of “Meals Ready to Eat,” weatherproofed ammunition, and high-capacity magazines; missing fingers; brightly colored stains on clothing; paying for products in cash; and changes in hair color. I fear that such suspicions might one day be used to imprison a U.S. citizen indefinitely without trial.

Just this year, the Vice President referred to the Tea Party as a bunch of terrorists. So, I think we should be cautious in granting the power to detain without trial.

Nevertheless, Mr. McCarthy avers that presidents are “highly unlikely to abuse this particular power.”

I am more of the Madison persuasion than Mr. McCarthy; I am worried that since governments are not constituted of angels, we must take care to restrain government with specific rules of conduct.

I am very conscious of the fact that the battlefield is not a place to read Miranda rights. In my recent opposition to detaining U.S. citizens, I specifically emphasized that my statement referred to citizens apprehended in the U.S., and not on the battlefield.

In the 1942 case Ex parte Quirin, the Court cited, and did not criticize, the government’s assertion that the one detained German alleged to be a naturalized U.S. citizen may have given up his citizenship by taking up arms against the United States. I tend to agree that taking up arms indicates a renunciation of citizenship. I have informed Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that I support legislation that would clarify when a citizen’s actions may cause him or her to lose citizenship, and I will work to give this debate more clarity.

It is important to remember that civil liberties need defenders. The Bush administration in Hamdi argued for indefinite detention of a U.S. citizen without even the minimum requirements of due process. Bush lost. The Court held that the executive branch does not have unlimited power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens, and that citizens must be afforded basic due-process protections.

This debate is an important one, but it must begin with facts, not inaccurate accusations.

Contrary to McCarthy’s assertions, I do not argue for giving alien enemies constitutional protections. I do, however, argue for preserving U.S. citizens’ constitutional rights.

Some conservatives may choose to trust the government to always do the right thing, but I fear the day when leaders come to power who would abuse that power. Therefore, I will continue to fight for limitations on it.

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, December 6, 2011

2011-12-06T11:26:00.001-05:00

Remember the days before computer generated special effects...?

Man... those car chases were exciting!

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, December 5, 2011

2011-12-05T08:57:00.001-05:00

One of my favorite Christmas songs...

...reaches right into your heart.

Damn You All...

2011-12-04T10:51:00.003-05:00

...for destroying America.

Yes... to paraphrase Lenin... we've let the communists, the fascists, the foreigners, sell us the rope we're using to hang ourselves.

They're even "kind" enough to let us buy the rope on credit!

Oh... my audience here...? The best of the best! You folks understand what I'm saying and hopefully you even act upon the ideas we hold in common.

No... this rant goes out to the ignorant... to the stupid... to the self-destructive masses who will never read my blog and who in any case read very, very little.

How much "Made in China" crap are you gonna buy this December?

How much "Made Anywhere But Here" garbage are you gonna purchase as Christmas gifts?

Hundreds of dollars worth? Surely! Thousands of dollar worth? No doubt many of you will.

Right now there are literally tens of millions of Americans out in the malls and the stores and online buying crap they can't afford for friends and loved ones who don't need it.

God only knows what percentage of my my fellow Americans (the "Idiot Class" I call them) carry monthly balances over on their credit cards and end up paying not just for the unnecessary purchases they make, but added to this outflow are hefty interest charges!

Yes... if you carry balances on your credit cards...
YOU'RE A MORON...!!!

Hey, this sort of stupidity... this level of irresponsibility... would be bad enough in and of itself, but to make it worse, we're sending the money overseas!

We're building factories abroad - not here!

We're "stimulating" hiring overseas - not here!

Oh... sure... some jobs are created here, but by and large not the sort of jobs one can support an American middle class lifestyle on!

You idiots... you fools... with every "Made Anywhere But Here" purchase you're hammering another nail into our children's and grandchildren's American Dream.

Don't you see that...???
Are you truly so ignorant and uncaring...???

I know that most of you reading this rant agree with me... understand what I'm saying... but what does our united choir mean in reality? I'll tell you what it means - it means nothing!

As I sit typing... as you sit reading... millions of Americans are out their chipping away at the foundation of our nation's economy.

Did you read my "featured newsbite" of Friday commenting upon the "decline" in unemployment? Understand, folks... even if YOU folks "get it"... chances are few of your friends, family members, colleagues, or those upon whom you depend "get it."

Nope. The average American will read the headline "Unemployment Declines to 8.6%" and not even bother to read the article. Worse... if he or she were to read the article... chances are that the little "caveats" I pointed out in my blog posting would go right over the reader's head.

Merry frigg'n Christmas, folks... Ho, ho, frigg'n ho...

Now I know that there's no way to totally avoid foreign products, but I'm begging you... take this rant to heart. At least TRY not spend hundreds of dollars on foreign "slave labor" produced trinkets this... er... "Holiday Season."

Featured - Highlighted - Newsbite of the Day for 12/2/11

2011-12-02T09:45:00.001-05:00

Unemployment in the U.S. unexpectedly dropped in November to a two-year low...

(*SNORT*) (KEEP READING!)

...while employers added fewer workers than projected...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD AT THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL*)

...and earnings eased...

* UH-HUH...

...indicating the labor market is making limited progress.

* FOLKS... HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE ON THE "DECLINE" OF UNEMPLOYMENT:

The labor participation rate declined to 64% from 64.2%.

* GOT THAT, FOLKS...?!?! FEWER AMERICANS ARE WORKING... SO AS LABOR "PARTICIPATION" DECLINES SO DOES THE OFFICIAL UNEMPLOYMENT STAT.

(*SNICKER*)

The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.

* YEAH... MORE AMERICANS LEFT THE RANKS OF THE EMPLOYED THAN GAINED EMPLOYMENT! DOES THAT SOUND POSITIVE TO YOU...?!?!

Private hiring, which excludes government agencies, rose 140,000 after a revised gain of 117,000. It was projected to rise by 150,000, the survey showed.

(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE DESK*)

* FOLKS... EVEN WITH ADDING THE "REVISED GAIN"... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)... THEIR PROJECTIONS CAME UP 10,000 SHORT! AND YET... UNEMPLOYMENT IS SUPPOSEDLY "DOWN."

Average hourly earnings fell 0.1% to $23.18, today’s report showed.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

The so-called underemployment rate - which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking - decreased to 15.6% from 16.2%.

* FOLKS... SERIOUSLY... RE-READ FROM THE TOP OF THE NEWSBITE IF NECESSARY; A TRUE DECREASE IN THE UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE JUST DOESN'T COMPUTE! EVERYTHING YOU'VE READ SO FAR TELLS YOU THAT LESS PEOPLE ARE WORKING! THE ONLY WAY THE UNDEREMPLOYMENT RATE COULD BE DOWN IS IF THE UNDEREMPLOYED HAVE SIMPLY GIVEN UP!

The report also showed an increase in long-term unemployed Americans. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or more increased as a percentage of all jobless, to 43% from 42.4%.

(*BANGING MY HEAD EVEN HARDER AGAINST THE DESK*)

* FOLKS... YOU'RE READING WHAT I'M READING... RIGHT...??? (*SNORT*) DOES THIS SOUND LIKE "UNEMPLOYMENT IS DOWN" TO YOU...???

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, December 2, 2011

2011-12-02T08:57:00.002-05:00

Does anyone watch "Last Man Standing"?

It's a cute show!

Pie rack, anyone...???

Catchy, huh...?!?!

Ask and Ye Shall Receive!

2011-12-01T14:00:00.003-05:00

Just received an email from my buddy Mike D.

Mike asks me to post the following link here at Usually Right.

No problemo, ol' buddy, ol' pal! My pleasure...!!!

Gotta be honest, though... neither the song itself nor the singing resonated with me... but the message surely does.

(Frankly, folks... I urge you to view the video twice; the first time just watch the video with the sound off and then watch again with the sound on. Feel free to tell me - and Mike - what you think!)

The video is of a 7-year-old girl named Rhema Marvanne who "loves her father and her dog, Mojo," singing a song called "Note to God."

The message? Broadly, I suppose the song is about praying for peace, but specifically the video revolves around our troops and their children.

It's pretty moving. Sadness... and joy. It'll make you think. It'll make you reflect upon the sacrifices a relatively small group of our fellow Americans are making daily on behalf of the nation's will as expressed by our politicians who send our troops into harm's way.

Anyway... God Bless Our Troops and Their Families.

Stephen Preston, Jeh Johnson, Barak Obama, and the Complete and Utter Trashing of the Constitution of the United States

2011-12-01T11:33:00.002-05:00

Top national security lawyers in the Obama administration say U.S. citizens are legitimate military targets when they take up arms with al-Qaida.

The lawyers were asked at a national security conference Thursday about the CIA killing of Anwar al-Alwaki, a U.S. citizen and leading al-Qaida figure. He died in a Sept. 30 U.S. drone strike in the mountains of Yemen.

The government lawyers - CIA counsel Stephen Preston and Pentagon counsel Jeh Johnson - did not directly address the al-Alwaki case. But they said U.S. citizens don't have immunity when they're at war with the United States.

Johnson said only the executive branch, not the courts, are equipped to make decisions about who qualifies as an enemy.

Now, folks... instead of directly demolishing the argument of Preston and Johnson, allow me to simply attach to this post a few excerpts from the Constitution of the United States and our Bill of Rights:

From Article 1, Section 8; The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Congress shall have power to...provide for the common defense...provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States...define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations...declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water...suppress insurrections and repel invasions...

From Article 1, Section 9; The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

From Article 3, Section 2; The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

From Article 3, Section 2; The Constitution of the United States of America:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

From Article 4, Section 2; The Constitution of the United States of America:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

The 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights attached to The Constitution of the United States:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The 6th Amendment of the Bill of Rights attached to The Constitution of the United States:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Now, folks, while I cheerfully admit that my knowledge of Western political philosophy - particularly the theoretical underpinnings of our specific Anglo-Saxon English Common Law influenced political system - coupled with my broad historical knowledge and thus contextual understanding of the Constitution gives me a leg up over the average American...

(Add to this my inherent intellectual honesty, consistency, and ethical integrity and I also cheerfully claim greater credibility than the average law school graduate and member of the bar!)

...but that said - indeed, when all is said and done - I submit to you that by simply reading the actual words our Founders gave us as the Law of the Land, most of you will immediately pick up on why I say that Preston, Johnson, Obama, and all who believe as these three do care nothing for our Constitution... care nothing for our Bill of Rights... and care nothing for morality or ethics.

Did you read Tuesday's newsbites, folks? Again... I'm begging you... if you haven't, then please, by all means, read the last two newsbites I posted within the comments section of Tuesday's newsbites.

We're losing our country, folks.

Federal power unchecked by the Constitution... unrestrained by the Rule of Law... is a danger to everything we love about America.

Please... I'm begging you... pay attention!

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, December 1, 2011

2011-12-01T08:38:00.001-05:00

Ho! Ho! Ho!

Merrrrrry December...!

Merrrrrry December...!!!

Justin Bieber MUST STOP SINGING...!!!

2011-11-30T20:21:00.003-05:00

Oh... My... Frigg'n... God...!!!

He's TERRIBLE...!!!

(Unbelievably frigg'n terrible...)

It actually hurt my ears and upset my stomach to hear him "sing" on tonight's Tree Lighting in Rockefeller Center TV special.

(The "yeah...yeah... yeahs" were the worst!)

Is this really what it's come to, my friends?

Donny Osmond... Michael Jackson... David Cassidy... these were all kids with talent and no doubt all of you could name others.

Justin Bieber...?!?!

He sucks!

America is truly on the verge...

(*SIGH*)

Postscript...

Oh... My... Frigg'n... God... AGAIN...!!!

I did NOT need to see that music video with Mariah Carey playing a pedophile slut and Justin Bieber playing... God only knows what!

Seriously, folks... what is wrong with our society...?!?!

This was supposed to be a family holiday special... a tarted up 31-year-old Mariah Carey wiggling her ass at and blowing kisses to 17-year-old lip-synching Justin Bieber isn't my idea of good ol'-fashioned yule-time cheer.

God help this frigg'n country. I swear to God... as often as not I'm simply ashamed to be an American.

This country is definitely on the wrong track.

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, November 30, 2011

2011-11-30T10:42:00.006-05:00

Drudge Headlines of the Moment:

Q3 Productivity Revised Down To 2.3%...

Oil Jumps Above $101 a Barrel...

(Now wait for it... wait for it...)

Dow Soars 400 Points!

Is it me, folks...??? It's like being told by your doctor that except for the cancer that's on track to kill you before the year is out... well... you're in fine health!

Hmm... I wonder... might the following have "something" to do with the disconnect?

FED TO THE RESCUE...

Folks... we are so frigg'n screwed!

Hey... folks... did you read yesterday's newsbites - particularly the newsbites concerning how our illustrious Senators have finally crossed the Rubicon and officially voted to repeal the Constitution as it applies to our basic civil rights?

No...?!?! You're a day behind...??? Well get cracking! As you'll see if you bother to check out the newsbites in question... sadly I'm not really exaggerating.

I really don't know what to tell you, folks.

America has jumped the shark.

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 29, 2011

2011-11-29T08:29:00.000-05:00

Chapter 11, huh?

Sadly symbolic if you ask me.

(*SIGH*)

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, November 28, 2011

2011-11-28T14:06:00.001-05:00

Post Thanksgiving recovery...

Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Thanksgiving 2011...!!!

2011-11-24T10:11:00.006-05:00

Happy Thanksgiving, my friends!
God Bless!

Today's video selection is being "sponsored" by Carl David VanDemark, Esq.

(Allow me to explain...)

As my best friend Carl reads this, he's finding out that the "honor" of choosing today's "theme" video is gonna cost him... cost him $25 (or perhaps more... his choice).

Actually... Carl is going to match my donation (perhaps even exceed my donation) to two organizations which deserve our support and which are going to get it on this fine Thanksgiving Day!

These two organizations are:

Hope For The Warriors
1335 Western Blvd.
Suite E.; PMB 48
Jacksonville, NC 28546

(Send 'em $20 or more, buddy!)

and

Charity Navigator
139 Harristown Rd.
Suite 201
Glen Rock, NJ 07452

(They get $5 pal!)

Why these two charities? Simple! At first I was going to donate to the more well-known Wounded Warriors Project, but upon further research - relying upon Charity Navigator - it became clear to me that Hope For Warriors is the better choice.

(Feel free to backstop my research... you'll see what I mean.)

Anyway, gang... that's the deal. Today we don't simply say "Happy Thanksgiving," we instead turn those words into a concrete demonstration of who we are as Americans.

I'm asking the rest of you reading this to join me and Carl.

Yeah... I know... no doubt all of you - all of my friends - are already quite generous with your charitable giving, particularly at "the holidays."

Well... give more! It's that simple! If you read and enjoy my newsbites and other blogging, show your appreciation by "humoring" me! Donate! I know you can spare it folks... I have very few unsuccessful friends!

(*GRIN*)

I wish each and every one of you a joyous Thanksgiving and may each and every one of us always keep in mind that whatever troubles we face... there are people out there who have faced far worse.

God Bless America...!

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, November 23, 2011

2011-11-23T10:10:00.002-05:00

I love Thanksgiving.

I love all holidays!

Holidays are a time to celebrate the here and now, but they're also a time to remember the past days of our lives... to remember and give thanks for all the blessings in our lives.

My Grandma Barker lived to a ripe old age - she was in her 90's when she passed. She grew up in an era of horse-powered transportation... literally... horse-powered.

Grandma Barker would tell me about her uncle... who served in the union army during the Civil War.

Here's a song she used to sing to me as a toddler. It took me some time to find it... but here it is.

I hope you all take a moment to think back on your oldest childhood memories. I hope you all revere the past as I do. As long as we keep our memories near, our departed loved ones will never truly be gone.

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 22, 2011

2011-11-22T08:00:00.001-05:00

O.K., just think about it... 1967 was... 44 years ago!

Nan Hayworth (R-NY-19) Can Drive Me Nuts...

2011-11-21T10:39:00.006-05:00

Since she's been in my member of Congress, federal spending has gone up 5%.

And now I read this...

The congressional committee tasked with reducing the federal deficit is poised to admit defeat as soon as Monday, and its unfinished business will set up a year-end battle over emergency jobless benefits and an expiring payroll tax holiday.

Democrats...consider particularly urgent the need to extend jobless benefits and the one-year payroll tax cut.

[T]he payroll tax cut, enacted last December...would [if extended] add more than $100 billion to budget deficits and [further] reduce Social Security’s dedicated financing stream.

Rep. Nan Hayworth of New York said she is “extremely sympathetic to extending” the payroll tax holiday...

Unfrigg'nbelieveable, huh...?!?!

Oh... and then there's this...

New York Rep. Nan Hayworth (R) threw her support behind Mitt Romney on Friday [November 4].

Yeah... Romney...

Obviously I'm appalled. (Not surprised, though...)

Hey... folks... is Nan a real improvement over John Hall? Damn right! But don't ever mistake Dr. Nan Alison Sutton Hayworth for a Tea Party stalwart. She's not. She's certain more "Right" than "Left," but beyond that she's your basic Republican establishment pol.

When push comes to shove, Nan Hayworth will back the likes of a John Boehner - or a Mitt Romney - and that's just the way it is.

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, November 21, 2011

2011-11-21T10:30:00.001-05:00

Truer words were never... er... sung.

Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., Nov. 19 & 20, 2011

2011-11-19T11:00:00.003-05:00

I'm gonna miss Regis...

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, November 18, 2011

2011-11-18T08:10:00.000-05:00

How can you not love Taylor Swift...?

Will Congresswoman Nan Hayworth (R-NY-19) Go Along?

2011-11-17T13:08:00.002-05:00

From an editorial in today's Wall Street Journal:

It took a $142 billion taxpayer bailout to convince the Obama Administration to pledge in February to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, rein in the Federal Housing Administration and encourage the revival of a private mortgage market.

Congress is moving in exactly the opposite direction less than a year later - with the quiet approval of the White House.

Late Monday a bipartisan Congressional committee announced an agreement to increase FHA's maximum mortgage limits to $729,750 from $625,500 through Dec. 31, 2013.

(The bill is linked to a continuing resolution to fund Congress past Saturday, increasing the likelihood that this backroom deal will become law.)

The House is scheduled to vote on the bill today without debating these changes, in what ought to be an embarrassment to Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

The National Association of Realtors is lauding this idea as great for housing "stability," by which it means that the taxpayer subsidies for its industry will keep coming, even for fancy homes.

The median sales price of existing single-family homes nationwide in the third quarter was $169,500, according to the Realtors's own data. Politicians from higher-cost regions argue that higher loan limits are needed, but even Los Angeles has seen median prices fall to $324,800 from $402,100 in 2008 - well below $729,750.

This FHA payoff to the housing lobby comes as the agency has had to publicly reveal the extent of its financial travails. In its annual report to Congress Tuesday, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and an independent auditor reported the FHA has a 0.24% capital reserve, well below its statutory 2% minimum for the third year running.

(Take $1.1 trillion of outstanding loan guarantees divided by $2.6 billion in capital reserves and you get a 422-to-1 leverage ratio, up from 33-to-1 in 2009. By this standard, Lehman Brothers was risk-averse.)

So how much would a bailout cost, even before the proposed loan-limit increase? University of Pennsylvania real-estate finance professor Joseph Gyourko noted in a paper last week that FHA "systematically" underestimates future default risk, not least because it lends to borrowers with very little equity in their homes and uses rosy economic assumptions. Mr. Gyourko estimates that FHA is "materially underreserved by at least $50 billion, with the true figure likely higher."

These numbers are no surprise, given FHA's inherently risky business model.

FHA provides 100% explicitly taxpayer-backed mortgage loans to first-time moderate- to low-income borrowers.

FHA down payments can be as low as 3.5%, at a time when most private lenders are prudently insisting on 20% after the housing bust.

In fiscal 2011, 85% of FHA loans had a down payment of less than 5%.

Like Fannie and Freddie, the housing collapse hit FHA hard. The difference is that the FHA has since become the political class's main substitute for the private subprime lending it once encouraged. As subprime lending vanished after the crash, FHA became the major lender for marginal borrowers. The share of new mortgages it insures has risen to 24% in July, the latest data available, from 6% in 2007.

In September, FHA said it had 635,096 seriously delinquent loans, or 8.7% of its portfolio, up from 8.4% the prior year, and 8.3% in 2009.

(When we first questioned the FHA's rapid loan expansion in 2009, then FHA Commissioner David Stevens lectured that there was nothing to worry about.)

(Acting FHA Commissioner Carol Galante still claims the fund is "actuarially sound," which makes us wonder what an unsound fund would look like.)

FHA is also expanding beyond its traditional role as a low- to moderate-income lender. The average FHA borrower's credit score exceeded 700 - for the first time ever - according to Tuesday's annual report.

(These are borrowers traditionally served by private mortgage insurers. This may improve the FHA's default rate in the future, but it will come at the price of crowding out private competitors.)

[All of which] brings us back to Congress's increase in FHA's lending limits.

The Obama Administration promised in February to return FHA "to its pre-crisis role as a targeted provider of mortgage credit access for low- and moderate-income Americans and first-time homebuyers."

Republicans agreed - only to renege now.

(GOP leaders figure that increasing Fannie and Freddie loan limits might upset the tea party, so their compromise gift to the housing lobby is to raise FHA's subsidy and hope this slips under media radar.)

As ever, the excuse is that this will lift housing prices, which will help the larger economy. But we have learned the hard way that artificially inflating home prices does not lead to durable growth. Government policies already steer too much capital into housing, at the expense of other industries that would do more to increase prosperity. The FHA deal is bad for taxpayers and the economy - and especially [bad] for claims that Republicans favor taxpayers over special interests.

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, November 17, 2011

2011-11-17T08:43:00.004-05:00

Nah...Nah-Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...

Nah...Nah-Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...Nah...

Ya feel me?

Protesting? Fine! Rioting...??? A criminal rabble? Shot 'em down like rabid dogs.

Nah...Nah-Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...

Nah...Nah-Nah-Nah...Nah-Nah...Nah...

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, November 16, 2011

2011-11-16T09:46:00.001-05:00

It's in the bible... kinda!

Why I Don't Trust Congresswoman Nan Hayworth (R-NY)

2011-11-15T19:27:00.004-05:00

Senator Jim DeMint explains why we can't trust my congresswoman, Dr. Nan Hayworth (R-NY-10), nor can we trust Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican House or Senate Leadership, nor of course... obviously nor of course... Obama, Pelosi, Reid, or any of the Democrats:

A LETTER FROM SENATOR JIM DEMINT (R-SC) ON BEHALF OF THE
SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND:

Despite bipartisan promises to cut spending after the 2010 elections, Washington politicians are still voting to make the government even bigger and more expensive than ever.

Don't believe me? Just two weeks ago, Democrats and Republicans in the Senate passed three new spending bills to increase 2012 funding above 2011 funding levels.

Even though the federal government is nearly $15 trillion in debt, it's spending at record-high levels. Federal spending has gone up 5% in the first nine months of this year alone.

All the talk of cutting spending after the 2010 elections has been just that - talk.

In the spring fight to avert a government shutdown, Republicans promised $100 billion in real cuts but then compromised for $38.5 billion in future savings. In reality, the Congressional Budget Office found the deal still resulted in an increase of more than $170 billion in federal spending from 2010 to 2011.

The "largest spending cut in history" ended up being a spending increase.

Americans were then told the “real” spending cuts would come during the summer fight over the decision to raise the nation's debt ceiling.

Conservatives pushed the Cut, Cap, and Balance plan to balance the budget within ten years in exchange for increasing the legal borrowing limit. Instead of doing that, however, Democratic and Republican leadership made a “compromise” deal to allow President Obama to increase our national debt to nearly $17 trillion, conditioned only on the creation of a “super-committee” that would produce debt-reduction recommendations by the end of the year.

[This “super-committee”] isn't really trying to cut spending. It seeks only to spend the country into bankruptcy a little slower.

Rather than letting the country rack up $23.4 trillion of debt by 2021, the super-committee hopes to keep it to $21.3 trillion. It's the difference between speeding off a cliff at 91 miles per hour versus 100 miles per hour.

One would think that, in the sub-AAA-rated America that's moving down a path dangerously similar to the one Greece is on, members of this super-committee would be eagerly rooting out waste throughout our behemoth government. Not so. Reports indicate that the committee, which works in secret, has spent months debating how high they should raise taxes to lower the deficit.

While everyone is waiting for the super-committee to unveil its grand plan, Congress continues to spend with abandon. Even modest proposals to make small cuts are rejected with overwhelming, bipartisan force.

Oklahoma Republican senator Tom Coburn offered an amendment two weeks ago to reduce funding for the Rural Development Agency (RDA) by $1 billion.

A 2007 Washington Post investigation of the agency stated, "More than three decades after the program was created, USDA officials still don't know whether it works." The [bipartisan] Congressional Research Service has found there are "more than 88 programs administered by 16 different federal agencies to target rural economic development." In recent years the RDA has used taxpayer money to make profligate loans to casinos, beach resorts, and water parks.

Still, 85 Senators, consisting of every Democrat and many Republicans, opposed the cut to this wasteful spending. Only 13 senators, all Republicans, supported Coburn's amendment.

If the Senate can't bring itself to trim $1 billion from a duplicative program, how can it ever be expected to cut the trillions needed to balance the budget?

This isn't some isolated example of the Senate's misguided ways. Even though easy credit fueled the housing bubble and subsequent bust, eight Republicans recently joined 52 Democrats to pass an amendment sponsored by New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez to raise the maximum size of federally subsidized loans to $729,750, pushing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back mortgages far above average home prices. It's as if 60 U.S. senators learned nothing from the market crash and have no idea Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in constant need of bailouts from the Treasury Department.

Folks... we're in deep, deep trouble.

Like it or not, America is a two-party state and both parties are overwhelmingly corrupt. This venial majority is not... I repeat... not... going to be thrown out of office come next November and replaced by principled, financially responsible constitutionists.

I and other citizens like me got Nan Hayworth elected to the House in November of 2010. To say that she's been a disappointment would an understatement. She is loyal to John Boehner and that's that. She was "captured" by Boehner and the House GOP leadership months before she was sworn into office. Guess what folks...? She's gonna be re-elected next year. I doubt she'll even be challenged for re-nomination!

There are literally a handful of Senate Republicans who can be trusted.

There are maybe... maybe... forty... fifty... sixty (tops!) House Republicans who can be trusted.

Few of our elected federal representatives are literally morons. By and large you can't rise to the level of being chosen by one of the parties and then elected to the House or Senate if you're a literal moron. This said, I doubt many members of the House or Senate have the basic factual knowledge concerning what ails this country that I do - or that any daily "Newsbites" reader does. (And even the ones who do... how often are they 100% honest with their constituents, with the American People? You know the answer...)

We've got a dysfunctional system, folks. We have the inmates running the asylum and by their actions they're literally setting this nation and our People up for a fall such to make the Great Depression look like a mild downturn.

How do we save America?

Our "Republic" is no more. (If you don't understand what I mean by this there's no point in your reading further.)

The Rule of Law is routinely skirted and often trampled by those responsible for writing, enforcing, and interpreting it.

Via crony capitalism (and crony socialism!) our politicians are all too often bought and paid for, yet, due to the powers delegated to the parties via gerrymander and legal regulations (campaign laws) written by these same politicians, it's quite difficult to dislodge incumbents and even when incumbents are dislodged... the "better" choice is often only a better choice in comparison.

Again, folks... Boehner? Sure... better than Pelosi... but not the man the country needs! Nan Hayworth? Head and shoulders above her proudly left-wing predecessor, John Hall, but with the proof being a federal government which has grown by 5% during her brief tenure so far in office... obviously she's not the woman I thought I was voting for.

How do we save our country, my friends? How do we save America for our children... our grandchildren... and for generations yet to come?

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, November 15, 2011

2011-11-15T10:49:00.002-05:00

God bless Johnny Cash... and God bless America!