Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(353)
-
▼
July
(29)
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 30, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 29, 2010
- U.S. v. Arizona -- No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 28, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 27, 2010
- Summer Reading 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 26, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 24 & 25, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 23, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 22, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 21, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 20, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 19, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 17 & 18, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 16, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 15, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 14, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 13, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, July 12, 2010
- Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., July 10 & 11
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 9, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 8, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, July 7, 2010
- Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, July 6, 2010
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat., Sun., & Mon., July 3/4/5
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, July 2, 2010
- Operation Wetback
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, July 1, 2010
-
▼
July
(29)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
10 comments:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/BAFL1EBKII.DTL&tsp=1
There was outrage, there was looting and there were skirmishes between police and protesters...
The trouble Thursday boiled down to a racially diverse mob...
* I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THE REPORTERS AND THEIR EDITOR ARE COUNTING THE COPS AS PART OF THE "MOB" BECAUSE HAVING GONE THROUGH THE NEWSPAPER'S OWN PHOTO/VIDEO GALLEY ATTACHED TO THE STORY... WELL... LET'S JUST SAY I DIDN'T SEE MUCH "DIVERSITY" AMONGST THE SCUM ON "FILM" LOOTING AND DESTROYING PROPERTY.
(*SHRUG*)
* HEY... I COULD HAVE MISSED SOMETHING. I JUST EMAILED THE REPORTERS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. WE'LL SEE IF ANY OF THEM GET BACK TO ME.
Sporadic conflicts were quelled quickly early in the evening, but by late night at least 50 people - and maybe as many as 100 - had been arrested as small groups smashed windows, looted businesses and set trash bins on fire.
* I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE I LIVE IN SUBURBIA. BUT IF A MOB - OR EVEN A FEW OUT OF CONTROL A$$HOLES - WERE THREATENING MY PROPERTY... I'D EXPECT THE COPS TO STOP THEM BEFORE THEY COULD DO ANY HARM RATHER THAN ARREST (A FEW) OF THEM AFTER THE DAMAGE WAS DONE.
* HEY... "PROTECT" AND SERVE... RIGHT...???
The violence was contained for much of the early evening within a one-block area near City Hall by an army of police officers in riot gear, but around 10 p.m. a knot of rioters broke loose and headed north on Broadway toward 22nd Street with police in pursuit.
They smashed windows of shops including the trendy Ozumo restaurant, and one building was spray painted with the words, "Say no to work. Say yes to looting."
* YOU SHOOT THEM. SERIOUSLY... YOU SHOOT THEM. YOU DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO DO TO STOP THEM FROM SMASHING WINDOWS, ETC.
* FOLKS... IF (WHEN?) THE SHIT HITS THE FAN YOU CAN'T COUNT ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT YOU OR YOUR PROPERTY.
Officials said the main instigators appeared to be organized "anarchist" agitators wearing black clothing and hoods. Many of the most aggressive demonstrators smashing the windows of banks and shops were white.
* SO THE REPORTERS SAY... BUT YOU'D THINK THERE'D BE PLENTY OF PICTURES AND VIDEO SHOWING THIS - WOULDN'T YOU...???
* IN ANY CASE, WHITE, BLACK, BROWN, YELLOW... IF YOU'RE ENGAGING IN VIOLENCE, IN LOOTING, IN PILLAGING, THE POLICE SHOULD STOP YOU - WITH DEADLY FORCE IF NEED BE - PRIOR TO YOUR BEING ABLE TO STEAL, DESTROY PROPERTY, AND PUT INNOCENT LIVES IN DANGER.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B_xBWsDpz0
* THIS GUY IS A HELL OF A LOT MORE RIGHT THEN HE'S WRONG.
* HEY... SURE IT WOULD MAKE GREAT FODDER FOR A SNL SKIT OR DAILY SHOW SPOOF... BUT AGAIN... BOTTOM LINE... THE GUY IS CLOSER TO THE TRUTH THEN SHOULD MAKE ANYONE COMFORTABLE.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575343262629361470.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they're leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal - and they won't return until mid-September.
he rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That's why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.
(*SIGH*) FOLKS... IS THIS YOUR AMERICA...??? DOES THIS SOUND LIKE YOUR AMERICA?
Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that "some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending." Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress's "favor factory," such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.
(*SIGH*)
It's been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn't faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.
Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks are alarmed at the potential damage, and they are demanding that everyone in Congress pledge not to take up substantive legislation in a post-election session. "Members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents, not override them like sore losers in a lame-duck session," Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, told me.
Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate "Blue Dogs" in the House would support on the campaign trail. "We have a lot of wiggle room in conference," a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.
* WE'RE IN TROUBLE, FOLKS; OUR COUNTRY IS IN DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE...
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)
http://www.anncoulter.com/
In the entire seven-year course of the Afghanistan war under Bush, from October 2001 to January 2009, 625 American soldiers were killed. In 18 short months, Obama has nearly doubled that number to 1,124 Americans killed.
* HARSH? RHETORICALLY UNFAIR? PERHAPS. HELL... I'D EVEN GO SO FAR AS TO NOTE THAT HAD MCCAIN WON NO DOUBT HE TOO WOULD HAVE ORDERED A "SURGE" AND CASUALTIES MIGHT WELL BE AS LARGE - OR EVEN LARGER - THEN THEY'VE BEEN UNDER OBAMA.
* BOTTOM LINE, THOUGH... DURING THE PAST 18 MONTHS OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION 499 AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL HAVE DIED IN AFGHANISTAN. AND FOR WHAT...?
* BTW... COULTER SKEWERS THE GOP "WAR PARTY" ELEMENT WITH AS MUCH - PERHAPS EVEN MORE - GUSTO THAN SHE DISPLAYS AGAINST OBAMA.
Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele was absolutely right. Afghanistan is Obama's war and, judging by other recent Democratic ventures in military affairs, isn't likely to turn out well.
It has been idiotically claimed that Steele's statement about Afghanistan being Obama's war is "inaccurate" - as if Steele is unaware Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. (No one can forget that - even liberals pretended to support that war for three whole weeks.)
Yes, Bush invaded Afghanistan soon after 9/11. Within the first few months we had toppled the Taliban, killed or captured hundreds of al-Qaida fighters and arranged for democratic elections, resulting in an American-friendly government.
Then Bush declared success and turned his attention to Iraq, leaving minimal troops behind in Afghanistan to prevent Osama bin Laden from regrouping, swat down al-Qaida fighters and gather intelligence.
* To be continued...
* CONTINUING... (Part 2 of 2)
Having some vague concept of America's national interest - unlike liberals - the Bush administration could see that a country of illiterate peasants living in caves ruled by "warlords" was not a primo target for "nation-building."
* LET'S NOT KID OURSELVES; BUSH SQUANDERED AMERICAN LIVES AND TREASURE IN AFGHANISTAN; THERE'S NO DENYING THAT.
* THING IS... AT LEAST BUSH ACTUALLY BELIEVED IN THE WAR... BELIEVED HE WAS DOING THE RIGHT THING. DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING BESIDES "POLITICS" IS BEHIND OBAMA'S "SURGE" STRATEGY...??? (SERIOUSLY...)
Obama hasn't ramped up the war in Afghanistan based on a careful calculation of America's strategic objectives. He did it because he was trapped by his own rhetorical game of bashing the Iraq war while pretending to be a hawk on Afghanistan.
Republicans used to think seriously about deploying the military. President Eisenhower sent aid to South Vietnam, but said he could not "conceive of a greater tragedy" for America than getting heavily involved there. ... (But now I hear it is the official policy of the Republican Party to be for all wars, irrespective of our national interest.)
Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney have demanded that [Michael] Steele resign as head of the RNC for saying Afghanistan is now Obama's war - and a badly thought-out one at that. (Didn't liberals warn us that neoconservatives want permanent war?)
I thought the irreducible requirements of Republicanism were being for life, small government and a strong national defense, but I guess permanent war is on the platter now, too.
Of course, if Kristol is writing the rules for being a Republican, we're all going to have to get on board for amnesty and a "National Greatness Project," too - other Kristol ideas for the Republican Party. Also, John McCain. Kristol was an early backer of McCain for president - and look how great that turned out!
Inasmuch as demanding resignations is another new Republican position, here's mine: Bill Kristol and Liz Cheney must resign immediately.
* BRAVO ANN COULTER! THAT SAID... TO REITERATE MY REACTION TO STEELE'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS AND THEN HIS ALMOST IMMEDIATE ABOUT FACE... WHILE THE GOP COULD DO WITHOUT THE "WAR PARTY," BY THE SAME TOKEN IT CAN WELL DO WITHOUT COWARDLY TWO-FACED HYPOCRITES LIKE MICHAEL STEELE.
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Feast_bay&id=7545102
The U.S. Department of Justice will conduct an independent review of the Johannes Mehserle case in order to determine whether or not the shooting merits federal prosecution, according the department.
* THE LAWYERS WILL PATIENTLY EXPLAIN WHY WHAT SEEMS TO BE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED DOUBLE-JEOPARDY ISN'T REALLY DOUBLE-JEOPARDY.
* THE LAWYERS WILL BE TECHNICALLY CORRECT... BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THE FOUNDERS WOULD SPIN IN THEIR GRAVES AND INSIST THAT THE CLEAR INTENT OF THE DOUBLE-JEOPARDY PROHIBITION IS BEING PLOWED UNDER.
http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/08/morning-bell-federal-government-overpaid-47-billion-a-year/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell
Heritage Foundation senior labor policy analyst James Sherk has just released a paper analyzing data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) for 2006 through 2009.
The data show that even after controlling for education and experience, federal employees get paid 22% more per hour on average than private-sector workers. (And that does not include the significant non-cash benefits government workers receive.)
Federal employees not only can enroll in a Thrift Savings Plan that works like a 401(k), but they also get a “defined contribution” plan, which lets a worker with 30 years of experience retire at 56 with full benefits. And don’t forget the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, paid leave, group life insurance and on-site child care. To be sure, many private employers offer similar benefits but not all of these at the same time.
All told, while the average private-sector employee gets $9,882 in annual benefits, federal government employees get $32,115 on average.
Adding cash and non-cash compensation together, federal employees earn approximately 30% to 40% more in total compensation than comparable private-sector workers.
And the gravy train doesn’t end there. How much would near-absolute job security be worth to you?
While their private sector counterparts have seen the unemployment rate rise from 4.2% to a high of 10.6%, the percentage of federal employees who lost jobs barely budged, going from 2.0% to 2.9%. And if “serving” in the public sector is such a “sacrifice” then why do federal employees voluntarily leave their jobs at roughly a third the rate that private sector employees do?
If the federal government paid market rates for their employees’ skill, education and experience, it would save taxpayers $47 billion in 2011 alone.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111704575355222465098664.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond
Since that February 2007 day when a young U.S. senator announced an inspiring presidential run, Barack Obama has been on the lam. He's been running from that Chicago machine that gave birth to his political career, but later became a liability to his reformist message.
Consider the trial of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, which is sucking in most of the president's Chicago intimates. The threat to the White House isn't that Mr. Obama will be accused of wrongdoing. The threat is that the trial offers evidence for a growing view that Mr. Obama isn't so much "new politics" as a typical Chicago pol.
[T]op union official Tom Balanoff, who last week took the stand in Chicago...testified under oath that the night prior to the election, he was called by Mr. Obama.
"Tom, I want to talk to you with regard to the Senate seat," said the future president.
According to Mr. Balanoff's testimony, Mr. Obama laid out two criteria for who he'd like to see get the post - good for Illinois, electable in 2010 - and then noted that Mrs. Jarrett certainly met those two criteria. Mr. Balanoff testified that he then assured Mr. Obama he'd "reach out to Gov. Blagojevich."
This is a Barack Obama the White House would prefer the public not see. The conversation suggests a president who (like any good Chicago politician) knows the feds have half the city wiretapped, and so resorts to the wink-and-nod tactics of sending an emissary.
It suggests a president whose first call on a big political issue was to a union boss. It suggests a president willing to elide the truth in an official report. (It may be technically accurate that the president didn't directly speak to Mr. Blagojevich - and didn't directly demand Mrs. Jarrett - but that wasn't really the point, was it?)
The Balanoff testimony was a hint of what may come. Illinois Democratic Senate nominee Alexi Giannoulias has been subpoenaed over his role in setting up a meeting between Mrs. Jarrett and Mr. Balanoff. The trial thrusts back into the spotlight convicted Chicago felon and Obama booster Tony Rezko. Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin was subpoenaed over his own call with Mr. Blagojevich about the seat. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett (a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley) has been subpoenaed. So has White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who has become entangled (though not charged) in a separate accusation that Mr. Blagojevich sought to trade favors with him when he was a Chicago congressman.
Viewed through the Chicago-Blago-Balanoff lens, after all, the White House's backroom job offers to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff (D-CO) suddenly make more sense. So too does the fact that Mr. Obama's political director was a top Service Employees International Union official, and that SEIU chief Andy Stern practically lived in the White House. The threats against business, the health-care buyoffs, the extralegal actions against BP, and the attempted political assassinations of promising Republicans also come into clearer focus. This isn't hope and change. It's how you do business in Chicago.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704293604575342974052176594.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop
How ideologically stacked is President Obama's offshore drilling commission?
So much that even many of his fellow Democrats can't support it.
Five Democrats on the Senate Energy Committee last week delivered an embarrassing rebuke to the White House, voting with Republicans to have Congress set up an "independent" commission to investigate the BP disaster, bypassing the President's appointees. ... [T]he amendment that passed the committee on an 15-8 vote charges the Democratic and Republican leaderships with naming a 10-person commission. It emphasizes that appointees should have "technical expertise in offshore oil exploration, health and safety, and environmental protection." Mr. Obama gets to name only the chairman.
* WELL OF COURSE YOU WANT PEOPLE WITH TECHNICAL EXPERTISE...
* WAIT FOR IT...
* WAIT FOR IT...
By contrast, the President's seven-member commission contains not a single expert on drilling or petroleum engineering...
* HUH...?!?!
* SERIOUSLY... TELL ME I'M READING THE ONION AND NOT THE WSJ... (*HEADACHE*)
"I would suggest to my Democratic friends that if the shoe were on the other foot, and President Bush was the President and he had submitted a list of names like this to us and everyone was related to the defense of oil companies, we would say this is not fair," said Louisiana [Democrat] Senator Mary Landrieu. "And I'm saying to my colleagues this is not fair."
She was joined by Democrats Tim Johnson (South Dakota), Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Mark Udall (Colorado).
* "NOT FAIR...???" FORGET NOT FAIR! THE PRESIDENT'S DECISION TO POLITICIZE THE COMMISSION WAS DOWNRIGHT IRRESPONSIBLE..!!!
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/07/09/whitewashing-black-racism/
Why haven’t national media outlets reported on the vile and violent rants of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) thugs whose 2008 voter intimidation tactics got a pass from the Obama administration?
This week, Justice Department whistleblower J. Christian Adams came forward with damning public testimony about how Obama officials believe “civil rights law should not be enforced in a race-neutral manner, and should never be enforced against blacks or other national minorities.”
* AS I'VE PREVIOUSLY NOTED, I WANT MORE NAMES NAMED AND DOCUMENTATION OFFERED. I'M NOT TAKING EVERYTHING ADAMS SAYS AT FACE VALUE.
In the wake of Adams’ expose on how the Obama DOJ abandoned default judgments against the NBPP bullies for the sake of politically correct racial politics, a shocking video clip of one of the lead defendants in the Philadelphia voter intimidation case resurfaced on the Internet. It shows bloodthirsty King Samir Shabazz during a 2009 National Geographic documentary interview spewing:
“You want freedom? You’re gonna have to kill some crackers! You’re gonna have to kill some of their babies!”
* ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE VIDEO THEN I SUPPOSE THAT JUST MAKES MALKIN'S CASE AGAINST THE MSM FOR HER. (*SHRUG*)
These NBPP death threats and white-bashing diatribes are nothing new to those who have tracked the black supremacy movement. In August 2009, nearly a year ago, I reported on a sign on display outside NBPP defendant (and elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee) Jerry Jackson’s home. It reads: “COLORED ONLY: No Whites Allowed.”
I interviewed poll watcher/witness Christopher Hill, whom Shabazz and Jackson called “cracker” several times while Shabazz brandished his baton.
“They physically attempted to block me,” Hill recounted. He also saw a group of elderly ladies walk away from the polling site without voting while the duo preened in front of the entrance.
* WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS THIS: DID THE DOJ EVER ATTEMPT TO FIND THESE WOMEN OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPT TO VERIFY THAT VOTER INTIMIDATION PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM VOTING THAT DAY?
In the fall of 2008, just days before he showed up to hector white poll workers, Shabazz told the Philadelphia Inquirer: “I’m about the total destruction of white people. I’m about the total liberation of black people. I hate white people. I hate my enemy… The only thing the cracker understands is violence… The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder. You got to take violence to violence.”
If a Tea Party activist threatened to kill the babies of his political opponents, it wouldn’t just be front-page news. It would be the subject of Democrat-led congressional investigations, a series of terrified New York Times columns about the perilous “climate of hate,” a Justice Department probe by Attorney General Eric Holder, a domestic terror alert from Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, and another Important Teachable Moment Speech/Summit from Healer-in-Chief Barack Obama.
* HARD TO ARGUE WITH MALKIN'S ASSUMPTION. DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THE MSM WOULD BE ALL OVER THE STORY IF THE SHOE WAS ON THE OTHER FOOT?
Post a Comment