Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, March 22, 2011


Oh, he might have went on living, but he made one fatal slip...

When he tried to match the ranger with the big iron on his hip... big iron on his hip...
Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8397587/Libya-US-fighter-jet-crash-lands-in-field-near-Benghazi.html

A U.S. warplane has crash landed in a Libyan field in the area around Benghazi...

The two crew members on the F-15E fighter jet ejected to safety. One has already been recovered by U.S. forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other. (It is understood that at least one of the crew members was initially rescued by rebel Libyan soldiers after ejecting from the aircraft.)

It is thought the F-15E fighter jet came to ground after suffering a mechanical failure. (The U.S. military confirmed that one of its jets had crash landed but said that it had not been shot down.)

March 22, 2011 at 8:07 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/566719/201103211908/Obama-Drill-Brazil-Drill.aspx

While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil.

(*HEADACHE*)

We will help Brazil develop its offshore oil so we can one day import it.

(*BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL*)

[W]ith a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico - and a de facto moratorium covering the rest - Obama tells the Brazilians: "We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers."

* THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT STRIKES AGAIN!

Obama wants to develop Brazilian offshore oil to help the Brazilian economy create jobs for Brazilian workers while Americans are left unemployed in the face of skyrocketing energy prices by an administration that despises fossil fuels as a threat to the environment and wants to increase our dependency on foreign oil.

* YEP. I'D SAY THAT PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT.

* MEANWHILE...

[The Obama] administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude.

His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

(*UPSET STOMACH*)

March 22, 2011 at 8:24 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42433

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." So said constitutional scholar and Senator Barack Obama in December 2007 - the same man who, this weekend, ordered U.S. air and missile strikes on Libya without any authorization from Congress.

(*SIGH*)

The U.S. Navy fired almost all the cruise missiles that hit Libya as the U.S. Air Force attacked with B-2 bombers, F-15s and F-16s.

"To be clear, this is a U.S.-led operation," said Vice Adm. William Gortney.

In his Friday ultimatum, [our president] said, "We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal - specifically, the protection of civilians in Libya."

* BUT... BUT... BUT... (*SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... I THOUGHT "GADHAFI MUST GO"... I THOUGHT "GADHAFI MUST BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE?"

Obama is no longer saying Gadhafi must go...

* WELL... IT DEPENDS UPON WHICH DAY... WHICH HOUR... WHICH MINUTE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT ALSO DEPENDS UPON WHICH AUDIENCE HE'S SPEAKING TO.

(*HEADACHE*)

* BUT ON THE OTHER HAND... (*STILL SCRATCHING MY HEAD*)... IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE FORCE TO GO BEYOND A WELL-DEFINED GOAL - SPECIFICALLY THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANS IN LIBYA...

Why, then, did we strike Tripoli and Moammar Gadhafi's compound?

* GOOD QUESTION!

So many U.S. missiles and bombs have struck Libya that the Arab League is bailing out. League chief Amr Moussa has called an emergency meeting of the 22 Arab states to discuss attacks that have "led to the deaths and injuries of many Libyan civilians." We asked for a no-fly zone, said Moussa, not the "bombardment of civilians."

(*HEADACHE WORSENING*)

As U.S. prestige and power are committed, if Gadhafi survives, he will have defeated Obama...hence, we must now finish him and his regime to avert a U.S. humiliation...

March 22, 2011 at 8:39 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42209447

"If we continue down on the path on which the fiscal authorities put us, we will become insolvent, the question is when," Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher said in a question and answer session after delivering a speech at the University of Frankfurt.

March 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/151191-white-house-suggests-regime-change-is-goal-of-libya-mission?page=1

The White House suggested Tuesday the mission in Libya is one of regime change, despite emphatic statements from President Obama and military brass that the goal is not to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power.

* THE "WHITE HOUSE" SAID...

* O.K....

* ...DESPITE EMPHATIC STATEMENTS FROM PRESIDENT OBAMA AND THE MILITARY BRASS...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* IS IT ME, FOLKS...? SERIOUSLY... IS IT ME...?!?!

According to a White House readout of a Monday night call between Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the two leaders "underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will."

The term "installing" suggests the goal of regime change.

* WHY, YES... WHY YES IT DOES...

(*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD*) (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

* FOLKS... I'LL BE HONEST; I HAVE NO FRIGG'N CLUE WHAT IT IS OBAMA FAVORS OR WHAT HE'S ACTUALLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

March 22, 2011 at 5:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Oil-tops-105-per-apf-3201140499.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

Oil prices pushed above $105 per barrel Tuesday...

Benchmark West Texas Intermediate for May delivery rose $1.88 to settle at $104.97 per barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. At one point it was as high as $105.18. In London, Brent crude gained 73 cents to settle at $115.64 per barrel.

* ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS: OIL SHOULD FLUCTUATE BETWEEN $45-$65 BBL. THERE'S SIMPLY NO SUPPLY/DEMAND/PRODUCTION COST RATIONAL FOR THESE PRICES.

March 22, 2011 at 6:09 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51668.html

President Barack Obama should be impeached for approving air strikes against Libya, Rep. Dennis Kucinich said in an interview Monday.

“President Obama moved forward without Congress approving,” the liberal Ohio Democrat told Raw Story. “He didn’t have congressional authorization, he has gone against the Constitution, and that’s got to be said.”

Kucinich went a bit further in his Monday remarks than he did over the weekend when, as POLITICO reported, he questioned why the U.S. strikes weren’t impeachable offenses while on a Democratic Caucus conference call.

Obama’s decision “would appear on its face to be an impeachable offense,” though [Kucinich] conceded in the interview that he’s unsure whether Congress would move ahead on a trial.

Kucinich wanted to impeach former President George W. Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney for their roles in leading the United States into war in Iraq and for their oversight of the conduct of the war, but was blocked by Democratic leadership.

* AND THEY HAD CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL...!

“Now, it doesn’t necessarily follow that simply because a president has committed an impeachable offense, that the process should start to impeach and remove him,” he said. “That’s a whole separate question. But we have to clearly understand what this Constitution is about.”

* I DO. APPARENTLY KUCINICH DOES AS WELL. I ONLY WISH OTHER MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DID. I ONLY WISH OUR FORMER LAW PROFESSOR, NOW PRESIDENT, DID.

March 22, 2011 at 6:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703858404576214622084940078.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

What's $2.3 trillion among friends?

(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*)

That's the canyon between the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of a $9.5 trillion federal budget deficit over the next decade under White House proposals, and the White House's own estimate of $7.2 trillion.

* OOPS!

The discrepancy emerged in a CBO analysis released Friday, not that it got much media attention.

* ACTUALLY... I POSTED THE INFO HERE AT MY BLOG.

[Turns out] ObamaCare will [also] be far more expensive than advertised.

(*SMIRK*)

CBO says the entitlement's health insurance subsidies will cost $1.13 trillion between 2012 and 2021, not $1.04 trillion, the prior estimate.

This 8.6% jump is the result of "revised" assumptions, the so-called "technical factors" in CBO's budget model. (The bill's total cost now stands at $1.445 trillion, according to another recent CBO estimate.)

Remember that all of these are fictitious numbers that reflect Congressional gaming of CBO conventions to make it seem as if ObamaCare "saves" money[?]

[N]ow, even under these conventions, CBO is conceding that it significantly underestimated the bill's cost.

(*SMIRK*)

If the propeller heads decide to add a few more trillion dollars in new spending, they might get somewhat closer to the bill's true cost.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Whatever politicians say, the American public instinctively understands that subsidizing health care for millions of people will be staggeringly expensive and only grow over time. [A]t least now CBO is starting to disclose how fiscally reckless government health care really is.

(*NOD*)

March 22, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)