Friday, March 18, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, March 18, 2011


Well, it's been awhile since we did a country newsbite theme song...

Hey! By the way... I've been remiss! Jared, Dana, LoRae and Davis are back in the U.S.A.!

(Well... California at least...)

A belated "Welcome Home" kids!
Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/03/028597.php

* TIP OF THE HAT TO "THE DOC" - http://abriefhistory.org/?page_id=2

If the United States were a company, what financial shape would it be in?

[W]ould it make sense to do to put the company on a sounder footing?

These are the intriguing questions that a group of investment analysts from Kleiner Perkins, headed by Mary Meeker, set out to answer. The resulting report [can be found at] http://images.businessweek.com/mz/11/10/1110_mz_49meekerusainc.pdf. It is titled "USA Inc."

As USA Inc. we have a continuing and enormous negative cashflow and negative net worth...effectively "in the hole" by negative $45 TRILLION!!!

What has caused this?

It isn't defense or the Global War On Terror.

It isn't taxes...in the aggregate they've grown with GDP.

It isn't Too Big To Fail Wall Street banks.

* BOTTOM LINE... (*DRUM ROLL*)...

It's entitlements.

In a nutshell....entitlements grew FOUR times more than GDP [from 1965 thru the present]....and future entitlements are UNFUNDED.

* WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT IF THEY TAUGHT THIS STUFF IN SCHOOL?

Our REAL debt includes the huge unfunded liabilities - promises to pay without the means to do so - from entitlements.

It's later than we think. Assuming that tax revenues recover to the long run average of about 20% of GDP entitlements and interest on the debt eat up ALL taxes within 15 years.

That's the best case scenario.

There is much more here, but this is as concise a summary of our predicament as I have seen, and it's sobering.

* GUNS AND AMMO, FOLKS... GUNS AND AMMO...

March 18, 2011 at 9:26 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/inside_classified_hill_briefing_administration_spells_out_war_plan_for_libya

Several administration officials held a classified briefing for all senators on Thursday afternoon in the bowels of the Capitol building, leaving lawmakers convinced President Barack Obama is ready to attack Libya but wondering if it isn't too late to help the rebels there.

* TIME WILL TELL.

Several senators emerged from the briefing convinced that the administration was intent on beginning military action against the forces of Col. Muammar al-Qaddafi within the next few days and that such action would include both a no-fly zone as well as a "no-drive zone" to prevent Qaddafi from crushing the rebel forces, especially those now concentrated in Benghazi.

"It looks like we have Arab countries ready to participate in a no-fly and no-drive endeavor," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) told reporters after the briefing.

Asked what he learned from the briefing, Graham said, "I learned that it's not too late, that the opposition forces are under siege but they are holding, and that with a timely intervention, a no-fly zone and no-drive zone, we can turn this thing around."

* WE'LL SEE...

As for when the attacks would start, Graham said "We're talking days, not weeks, and I'm hoping hours, not days," adding that he was told the U.N. Security Council resolution would be crafted to give the international community the authority to be "outcome determinant" and "do whatever's necessary."

* FOLKS... THERE ARE A LOT OF VARIABLES AT PLAY HERE.

* GADDAFI CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO RETAIN POWER... BUT AS I'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, I WOULD HAVE RATHER SEEN THE TURKS - AND EVEN THE RUSSIANS - TAKE THE LEAD ON MILITARY INTERVENTION.

March 18, 2011 at 9:42 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/17/lugar_no_fly_zone_requires_declaration_of_war

The top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee argued against implementing a no-fly zone over Libya on Thursday, and also said that Congress must pass a formal declaration of war if the Obama administration decides to take that step.

"Clearly, the United States should be engaged with allies on how to oppose the Qaddafi regime and support the aspirations of the Libyan people," said Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) at the start of the committee's Thursday morning hearing on the Middle East. "But given the costs of a no-fly zone, the risks that our involvement would escalate, the uncertain reception in the Arab street of any American intervention in an Arab country, the potential for civilian deaths, the unpredictability of the endgame in a civil war, the strains on our military, and other factors, I am doubtful that U.S. interests would be served by imposing a no-fly zone over Libya."

* I'M WITH LUGAR ON THE FORMAL DECLARATION OF WAR IF OBAMA COMMITS U.S. FORCES.

* FOLKS... WE'RE TALKING OFFENSIVE OPERATIONS AGAINST A COUNTRY THAT NEITHER ATTACKED US OR ATTACKED A TREATY ALLY. I'M NOT SAYING I'M NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO THE U.S. COMMITTING MILITARY FORCES TO TOPPLING GADDAFI, BUT THERE'S SIMPLY NO DOUBT THAT - CONSTITUTIONALLY - OBAMA REQUIRES CONGRESSIONAL CONSENT. (OF COURSE FEW IN WASHINGTON PAY THE LEAST BIT OF ATTENTION TO THE CONSTITUTION SO LUGAR AND I ARE PISSING IN THE WIND.)

Lugar pointed to the fact that 145,000 American troops are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the annual U.S. budget deficit is already around $1.5 trillion.

"The president has not spoken directly to the United States' interests in Libya," Lugar said. "Does the president plan to spell out what are our interests in Libya that would justify the used of armed forces?"

* THAT WOULD BE NICE, HUH... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

[Referencing] the budget crisis in the United States [,Lugar] implored [Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Bill] Burns to seek Arab financing for a no-fly zone, an idea Burns said was under discussion.

* DAMN RIGHT! WHY SHOULD AMERICA BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA TO LIBERATE LIBYA...?!?!

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) pressed Burns to say whether or not the administration believes congressional approval is necessary to intervene militarily in Libya.

"I can't give you a yes-no answer," Burns said.

* AGAIN, FOLKS, I'M ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS WHEN I INSIST THAT ALL EVIDENCE POINTS TO THE FACT THAT OBAMA COULDN'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS, MEANS, OR REQUIRES. (AND HE'S NOT ALONE IN THIS!) (AND IT'S NOT JUST DEMS!)

March 18, 2011 at 9:53 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://blogs.wsj.com/drivers-seat/2011/03/17/quake-related-shortage-idles-gm-plant/

General Motors Co. says it suspended production at its Shreveport, La., plant for the week of March 21 because of a parts shortage stemming from last week’s earthquake in Japan.

[T]he Shreveport production stoppage could be one of many to come across the industry in the U.S....as car companies inevitably run short of certain components made in Japan.

* AIN'T DEINDUSTRIALIZATION GRAND? AIN'T IT WONDERFUL TO DEPEND UPON FOREIGN SOURCES FOR VITAL MANUFACTURING COMPONENTS?!

March 18, 2011 at 11:03 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703818204576206821065812478.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

* BASICALLY... OBAMA IS A DANGEROUS INCOMPETENT. (*SHRUG*) THAT'S THE MESSAGE OF THIS EDITORIAL.

Perhaps in some future Bob Woodward tome we'll learn why President Obama flipped late Wednesday - in a matter of hours - from skeptic of intervention in Libya to proponent of military strikes against Moammar Gadhafi's surging forces.

* PERHAPS HILLARY THREATENED TO RESIGN...???

The White House offered no explanation.

* NATURALLY...

But for now, let's hope this epiphany hasn't come too late to prevent a rout of the Libyan rebels in their last redoubt of Benghazi.

Finally heeding the French and British, and trailing even the Arab League, the U.S. endorsed a Security Council resolution that passed last evening with 10 votes and five abstentions.

The measure endorsed "all necessary force excluding a foreign occupation force" to stop Gadhafi.

On Wednesday, Ms. Rice had said the U.S. now wants measures that "go beyond a no-fly zone," having for weeks resisted a no-fly zone or even arming the opposition as too much of a military commitment. The U.S. and U.N. are now committing to shooting not merely at Gadhafi's planes but also presumably his armor, ground troops and the mercenaries with machine guns in Toyota trucks.

* WHICH I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH! INDEED, I'VE SAID FROM THE START THAT A "NO FLY" ZONE MUST ALSO ENCOMPASS A "NO ARMOR/ARTILLERY" ZONE. (HELL... I'M QUITE FINE WITH KILLING LARGE NUMBERS OF GADHAFI'S GROUND TROOPS AS WELL IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES!)

The tragedy is that had the U.S. acted more quickly, it might have been able to use less force and work indirectly through the Libyan rebels. Even two weeks ago, a simple no-fly zone and recognition of and possibly arms for the rebel provisional council in Benghazi might have sufficed. The opposition had the military and political advantage. But Gadhafi rallied his superior firepower and mercenary force to reverse the momentum. His troops are at the edge of Benghazi.

* THUS... (*SIGH*)... THE LABELING OF OBAMA AS A DANGEROUS INCOMPETENT.

The long delay - and now more difficult fight - is what happens when [an Obama-led] U.S. abdicates leadership to the rest of the world.

[T]he Security Council resolution was introduced by the mighty power of Lebanon...

(*GRIN*)

...pushed above all by the French [and British], and embraced by the Arab League.

Perhaps it was the prospect of being shamed by the Arabs, and humiliated by Gadhafi, that finally made Mr. Obama move.

(*SHRUG*) WHO CAN TELL...?

Whatever the reason, we're glad to see it. The obligation now is to ensure that the Gadhafis not only fail in Benghazi but are pushed out of power in Tripoli.

(*NOD*)

March 18, 2011 at 11:33 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703818204576206604231182630.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion

* BY JOHN FUND

The Obama White House is sharing its internal polling with private Democratic audiences to explain its remarkable detachment from the federal budget debate on Capitol Hill.

White House aides say that the polling shows the public isn't focused on the battle over continuing resolutions to fund the government and is confused by the details.

That inattention will allow Democrats to delay responding to GOP demands for spending cuts until House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan reveals the GOP's spending priorities for next year's budget in early April.

"That's when we jump 'em," a Democratic strategist told me. "There will be Medicare cuts and other things we'll be able to talk a lot about."

* I HOPE TO HELL THAT NAN HAYWORTH IS READING THIS!

* I HOPE THE REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP IS ABLE TO ARTICULATE THE REASONING BEHIND THEIR ACTIONS... THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GET THE FACTS OUT.

March 18, 2011 at 11:49 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/CBO-Obama-understates-apf-1323525507.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=

A new assessment of President Barack Obama's budget released Friday says the White House underestimates future budget deficits by more than $2 trillion over the upcoming decade.

(*SNORT*)

The estimate from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says that if Obama's February budget submission is enacted into law it would produce deficits totaling $9.5 trillion over 10 years - an average of almost $1 trillion a year.

* A TRILLION HERE, A TRILLION THERE, PRETTY SOON WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL MONEY... (*SMIRK*)

Obama's budget saw deficits totaling $7.2 trillion over the same period.

* I AM SHOCKED...! SHOCKED...!!! NEXT THING THEY'RE GOING TO BE REPORTING THAT THERE'S GAMBLING GOING ON IN RICK'S CAFÉ!

* FOLKS... I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU TO READ THE ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES IF YOU'D LIKE MORE DETAILS. BOTTOM LINE, WE'RE SCREWED. OH... AND BTW...

[T]he [CBO] report is a sobering blow to House Republicans charged with developing a budget blueprint... Republican lawmakers had already acknowledged that they won't be able to generate a budget that comes to balance by the end of the decade. Friday's news makes that task even more difficult.

* THESE CLOWNS HAVE TWO YEARS - SIX YEARS TOP ASSUMING A REPUBLICAN BEATS OBAMA IN 2012 - TO GET THIS COUNTRY ON A FIRM ECONOMIC FOOTING. I DON'T WANNA HEAR "WON'T BE ABLE TO GENERATE A BUDGET THAT COMES TO BALANCE BY THE END OF THE DECADE."

* IF I WANTED UNBALANCED BUDGETS I'D VOTE DEMOCRAT!

March 18, 2011 at 4:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42237

The United States government is funding the National Council of La Raza with our tax dollars.

La Raza, which literally [translates to] “The Race,” is a radical organization that advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

I [Mike Piccione] pulled and analyzed the tax return Form 990, the form filed by 501(c) 3 organizations to the IRS, and here is what was reported:

Government Grants (contributions) to the National Council of La Raza

2008 Tax Returns, (October 1 2008 to September 30, 2009) -- $5,136,535; 2007 Tax Returns -- $3,458,351; 2006 Tax Returns -- $3,353,319.

Three Year Total -- $11,948,205

What do people get paid at La Raza?

According to the 2008 tax returns seventeen people listed as officers, directors, trustees, key employees and highest compensated employees of the National Council of La Raza have an income ranging from $119,675 to $378,446, the latter of which goes to Janet Murguia, president and CEO.

To put that income figure in perspective, a rank and file United States Senator makes $174,000. A United States Marine Sergeant with five years of service earns a base salary of $29,376, including the raise received for 2011.

Part II, Section 1b indicates lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body amounted to $550,787.

Section 1g indicates lobbying expenditures to “Grassroots nontaxable amount” of $250,000.

Here is the quick analysis: The US government pays La Raza to lobby the US government for money.

The United States of America is facing a multitude of critical issues. Two of those issues are wasteful government spending and illegal immigration.

Cutting funding for the National Council of La Raza would begin to help in both of those issues.

March 18, 2011 at 5:08 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-china-red-dawn-20110316,0,995726.story

Without Beijing even uttering a critical word, MGM is changing the villains in its 'Red Dawn' remake from Chinese to North Korean.

* HUH...?!?!

It's all about maintaining access to the Asian superpower's lucrative box office.

(*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

China has become such an important market for U.S. entertainment companies that one studio has taken the extraordinary step of digitally altering a film to excise bad guys from the Communist nation lest the leadership in Beijing be offended.

(*BLOOD SHOOTING OUT OF MY EYES AND EARS*)

When MGM decided a few years ago to remake "Red Dawn," a 1984 Cold War drama about a bunch of American farm kids repelling a Soviet invasion, the studio needed new villains, since the U.S.S.R. had collapsed in 1991. The producers substituted Chinese aggressors for the Soviets and filmed the movie in Michigan in 2009.

* WELL, YEAH...! WHO ELSE WOULD THE VILLAINS BE...?!?!

But potential distributors are nervous about becoming associated with the finished film, concerned that doing so would harm their ability to do business with the rising Asian superpower...

* YOU HAVE GOT TO BE FRIGG'N SHITTING ME...!!!

As a result, the filmmakers now are digitally erasing Chinese flags and military symbols from "Red Dawn," substituting dialogue and altering the film to depict much of the invading force as being from North Korea...

* NORTH KOREA...?!?! NORTH FRIGG'N KOREA...?!?!

(*SMASHING MY FOREHEAD ONTO THE DESK*)

Although it's common to reshape movies in the editing room, there's no known precedent for changing the nationality of an entire group of characters.

(*STILL BANGING MY HEAD ONTO THE DESK*)

"We were initially very reluctant to make any changes," said Tripp Vinson, one of the movie's producers. "But after careful consideration we constructed a way to make a scarier, smarter and more dangerous 'Red Dawn' that we believe improves the movie."

* BULLSHIT! YOU'RE A BUNCH OF COWARDLY SCUMBAGS. PERIOD.

"Red Dawn" is not the only piece of entertainment to swap out Chinese villains for North Koreans recently. The video game "Homefront," which was released this week and features a script by John Milius, writer of the original "Red Dawn," was also originally intended to feature a Chinese invasion. For business reasons, publisher THQ changed the occupying forces to North Korea.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

March 18, 2011 at 5:33 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/18/doj-white-male-bullying-victims-tough-luck/

The viral video sensation showing a bullying incident at an Australian school has brought the issue of bullying back into the spotlight.

Here in the United States, the Obama administration has made school bullying a federal issue.

The Department of Justice announced in December 2010 its intention to hold liable school districts that fail to protect students that are bullied.

Here is the catch: DOJ will only investigate bullying cases if the victim is considered protected under the 1964 Civil Rights legislation.

In essence, only discrimination of the victim’s race, color, religion, or sex will be considered by DOJ. The overweight straight white male who is verbally and/or physically harassed because of his size can consider himself invisible to the Justice Department.

Apparently, the Justice Department is going by George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm ending: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

* OBAMA'S WORLD... ORWELL'S WORLD... FACT IS INDEED SOMETIMES STRANGER THAN FICTION.

[Eric Holder's] Justice Department is politicizing its priorities yet again.

When the Justice Department is more interested in making ideological statements through seemingly sugar coated campaigns, no one should feel protected.

(*SLOWLY NODDING MY HEAD*)

March 18, 2011 at 9:27 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)