Wednesday, September 15, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, September 15, 2010


Sorry for no newsbites yesterday, folks; I was simply too busy.

Anyway... my candidate - Dr. Nan Hayworth - won the GOP primary here in NY's 19th Congressional District last night.

(*WILD APPLAUSE*)

Also here in New York, Carl Paladino soundly defeated Rick Lazio. While this tectonic shift in NYS politics has been largely overshadowed by the news from Delaware...

(*MORE WILD APPLAUSE*)

...where Christine O'Donnell vanquished RINO extraordinaire Mike Castle to win the GOP line for this year's Delaware U.S. Senate seat race.

* BTW... as previously noted time and again... Karl Rove is a putz.

Anyway, folks... on to the newsbites!

5 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/nyregion/15rangel.html

Representative Charles B. Rangel...Democratic incumbent facing numerous ethics charges, [re-]captured his party’s nomination on Tuesday...

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... WHAT DOES THIS TELL YOU ABOUT THE PEOPLE OF RANGEL'S DISTRICT?

The victory makes it virtually certain that Mr. Rangel, a legendary figure in city and state politics, will win the November general election in his overwhelmingly Democratic Congressional district in Upper Manhattan.

* IN WHICH CASE IT'LL BE UP TO THE HOUSE ITSELF TO EXPEL HIM SHOULD CHARGES AGAINST HIM BE PROVEN.

The last time the House held a public trial of a member was in 2002, after Representative James A. Traficant, Democrat of Ohio, had been convicted criminally on corruption charges. Mr. Traficant was expelled from Congress and served a prison term.

The charges Mr. Rangel faces include his failure to report rental income from a villa in the Dominican Republic, his acceptance of four rent-regulated apartments in Harlem and his use of his office to preserve a loophole for an oil company executive who pledged a large donation for a new public policy center in New York to be named for him.

* RANGEL IS AS DIRTY AS THEY COME.

Mr. Rangel has admitted that he failed to pay taxes on the rental income from his Dominican Republic villa and that he failed to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on financial disclosure forms. ... But he has insisted that he did nothing wrong by accepting the rent-regulated apartments from a Manhattan developer, at rents that were thousands of dollars below market rates...

(*SNORT*)

Mr. Rangel has also denied that he did anything improper when he used his position as Ways and Means chairman to preserve the loophole for the oil executive who pledged a $1 million donation to help build the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/are_poll_workers_being_used_to_inflate_wPjTGS93ODzN8BXLg568iI

Workers at polling places for today's primary and November's general election are being required to file tax withholding forms for the first time ever in a move that could be aimed at inflating the nation's employment numbers.

The New York City Board of Elections, which uses 30,000 to 36,000 temporary workers for both the primary and general election, said it is being ordered by the Internal Revenue Service to make "employees" out of the very temporary workers who tend the polling sites.

* WE'RE TALKING PEOPLE WHO WORK TWO DAYS A YEAR ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS, ONE DAY FOR TRAINING, ONE DAY ON THE ELECTION ITSELF. (I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE SAME PEOPLE WORKING STATE, LOCAL, AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTIONS, BUT WHAT COULD WE BE TALKING MAX - MAYBE FOUR DAYS OUT OF THE ENTIRE YEAR...???)

[I]f the election boards in all 50 states suddenly report an influx of additional government workers, the effect on the monthly employment numbers could be very, very significant. [T]he monthly employment report - in which the number of jobs created or lost by the US economy is revealed - is closely watched by the public and the financial community. And it's often cited publicly by President Obama. The next employment report before the election will come on Oct. 8.

(*SMIRK*)

Because this report is more complex than others it is being released on the second Friday of October, not the first Friday. And because of this it will be one week closer to the election. There won't be another employment report until days after the Nov. 2 election. So any temporary poll workers included in the October count wouldn't be removed until voters have already decided on who will represent them.

I couldn't find figures on how many poll workers there are throughout the country. But if New York alone hires 30,000 to 36,000 workers, the nationwide figures could easily rival the contribution that Census 2010 had on employment figures in earlier months this year.

* AND WE KNOW HOW OBAMA PLAYED GAMES WITH THE CENSUS WORKER EMPLOYMENT FIGURES!

The US Labor Department conducts a survey of people working for companies and various federal, state and local governments during the week that includes the 12th day of the month. [Yesterday], as you know, [was] the 14th. So it's very possible that the Election Boards could report all these new "employees."

So is this all a coincidence...?

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791804575439732358241708.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_news

Nearly half of all Americans live in a household in which someone receives government benefits, more than at any time in history.

(*SIGH*)

At the same time, the fraction of American households not paying federal income taxes has also grown - to an estimated 45% in 2010, from 39% five years ago, according to the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization.

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

13% of all U.S. households pay neither federal income nor payroll taxes.

(*BANGING MY FISTS ON THE DESK*)

"We have a very large share of the American population that is getting checks from the government," says Keith Hennessey, an economic adviser to President George W. Bush and now a fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution, "and an increasingly smaller portion of the population that's paying for it."

* AND ALL THIS WHILE... (*DRUM ROLL*)... WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

[On Monday] the Treasury reported that the government ran a $1.26 trillion deficit for the first 11 months of the fiscal year,

[E]ven as Americans express concern over the deficit in opinion polls, [however,] many oppose benefit cuts, particularly with the economy on an uneven footing.

* WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD SUCH POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SCHIZOPHRENIA.

A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll conducted late last month found 61% of voters were "enthusiastic" or "comfortable" with congressional candidates who support cutting federal spending in general. But 56% expressed the same enthusiasm for candidates who voted to extend unemployment benefits.

(*FEELING THE APPROACH OF A MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

Some 41.3 million people were on food stamps as of June 2010...

* WHILE YOU AND I BUY OUR OWN DAMN FOOD...!

With...federal jobless benefits now available for up to 99 weeks, 9.7 million unemployed workers were receiving checks in late August 2010...

* REPEAT AFTER ME: C*A*U*S*E AND E*F*F*E*C*T.

19 million [Americans] by 2019, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will get federal aid to buy health insurance when legislation passed this year is implemented.

An aging population is adding to the ranks of Americans receiving government benefits, and will continue to do so as more of the large baby-boom generation, those born between 1946 and 1964, become eligible. Today, an estimated 47.4 million people are enrolled in Medicare, up 38% from 1990. By 2030, the number is projected to be 80.4 million.

* THE PONZI SCHEME IS SIMPLY UNSUSTAINABLE...

William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100915/ap_on_bi_ge/us_mortgage_giants_4

The nation's largest banks have an obligation to pay some of the cost for bailing out mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they sold them bad mortgages, a government regulator said Wednesday.

* OH, PLEASE! IF THERE'S EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT FRAUD THEN START ARRESTING PEOPLE. IF NOT... DON'T TRY TO DUCK RESPONSIBILITY FOR A PROBLEM OF THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN MAKING.

Edward DeMarco, the acting director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said the banks this summer have refused to take back $11 billion in bad loans sold to the two government-controlled companies...

* NO ONE PLACED A GUN TO THE GOVERNMENT'S HEAD. TO THE CONTRARY, IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT WHICH INSISTED UPON THE BAILOUTS! (REMEMBER THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY FORCING CERTAIN BANKS TO ACCEPT BAILOUT MONEY UNDER THE "LOGIC" OF IF THEY DIDN'T THIS WOULD "OUT" THE TRULY UNSTABLE BANKS?!)

DeMarco said the banks have a legal obligation to buy back the loans...

* LET'S SEE THE CONTRACTS...

He said the government may take new steps to force those buybacks if "discussions do not yield reasonable outcomes soon."

* AND THERE ARE STILL THOSE AMONGST YOU WHO DOUBT THAT OUR VERY RULE OF LAW IS UNDER DIRECT ASSAULT...???

In an interview with reporters after the hearing, DeMarco declined to give further details on what the government might do next.

* HMM... AN "OFFER THEY CAN'T REFUSE" PERHAPS?

The two mortgage giants nearly collapsed two years ago when the housing market went bust. The government stepped in to rescue them and it has cost taxpayers about $148 billion so far.

* BUSH + PAULSON + OBAMA + BERNANKE + MOST OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY + RINOs = DISASTER.

Investors who buy loans from banks have the right to force lenders to repurchase them if they later discover fraudulent statements on loan applications.

* AS I NOTE ABOVE... IF THE GOVERNMENT HAS A CASE LET THEM PRESS IT. LET'S AIR THIS OUT IN A COURT OF LAW, NOT VIA THUG-LIKE FED DEMANDS.

Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages and package them into securities with a guarantee against default.

* YES! WE KNOW! USING OUR MONEY! WASTING OUR MONEY! (ALL WHILE GOVERNMENT INSIDERS - THE VAST MAJORITY DEMOCRATS CONNECTED TO THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION - MADE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS "RUNNING" THE PROGRAMS!)

The Obama administration is working on a plan to restructure the mortgage market and make sure home loans are affordable.

(*MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

"There is no urgency," to reform the two companies, said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. "The pattern of abuse they had engaged in has been changed...Fannie and Freddie are behaving differently and are causing far less problems."

* OH...! WELL...! IF BARNEY FRANK SAYS THINGS ARE FINE...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/246498/will-someone-please-check-my-id-rory-cooper

Maryland is one of 23 states that maintain the most minimal standards for voter identification, only requiring that you show ID (photo not required) when you register, and never again after that. This allows anyone who knows your full name and polling location to vote in your place with no recourse.

Liberals led by the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, and the NAACP contend that voter-ID requirements are designed to suppress minority and Democratic votes, but that has been proven wrong time and time again.

In 2008, Georgia and Indiana, two states where identification is required to vote without a provisional ballot, saw historically high turnout among African-Americans and Democrats. In Indiana, where voter-ID laws are strictest, Democratic turnout increased by over 8% in 2008 over 2004; this was the largest increase in the nation. Georgia’s voter-ID requirements got stricter between 2004 and 2008, but African-American turnout increased. And when compared to other states with similar populations but less strict voter laws, the argument that the turnout would have been even higher without the enforcement is laid to rest.

A Rasmussen poll in August 2010 found that a full 82% of Americans believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote, representing a majority in every single demographic group. This is not a fringe opinion, but a national consensus.

Retired liberal Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens, a former anti-corruption lawyer from Chicago, agrees that lax voter-ID requirements lead to voter fraud. In the 6–3 majority opinion upholding Indiana’s new law, he writes: “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

In ruling after ruling, strict voter-ID laws have been found to be constitutional and not in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Yet that doesn’t stop liberal activist groups from spending countless court hours and taxpayer resources working towards an end goal that invites voter fraud. Most recently, the Obama administration has made clear that it will not prosecute illegal immigrants who violate our voting laws by taking part in a process that is explicitly for U.S. citizens only. When Putnam County, Tenn., recently reported to the Obama administration that a person had voted illegally before becoming a citizen, the response was simply to ask if he had been taken off the voter rolls. This of course ignored that it is a felony under federal law to register and vote in elections as a non-citizen.

Illegal-immigration advocates address these instances as innocent mistakes, but the federal voter-registration form explicitly asks at the top, “Are you a citizen of the United States of America?” It then asks you to swear and reaffirm that statement when you sign your name. How many free passes do certain criminals get in the Holder Justice Department?

The point here is not that people should be denied their right to vote. Quite the opposite: Legal and registered citizens should not be denied their right to have their votes fully count by illegal ballots cast mere feet away.

The yearning to cast a vote in an American election is admirable but nevertheless punishable if done illegally. Those who wish to defraud and corrupt the process should not be given an easy path.

It’s time for all 50 states to have commonsense voter-ID laws that require photo identification every time you vote. It is the only way to protect the integrity and security of this sacred obligation for millions of legally registered Americans.