Friday, April 1, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Friday, April 1, 2011


Just short of midnight...

Just now posting today's newsbites!

(*WINK*)
Posted by at

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42656

* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN

Now that Benghazi has been spared what we were assured would be a massacre by Moammar Gadhafi's army, why are the U.S. Air Force, Navy, CIA and Special Forces still attacking in Libya?

If our objective was to spare the defenseless people of Benghazi from slaughter, why, mission accomplished, did we not stop bombing?

Why are we plunging deeper in?

Did Gadhafi attack us?

Did he attack a NATO country, thereby triggering Article 5 of the treaty requiring us to go to war?

Have his forces carried out massacres of such magnitude in recaptured towns and cities as to morally mandate our humanitarian intervention?

With Benghazi secure, by what right did we attack the Libyan soldiers defending Ras Januf, Brega and Sirte? What crimes were they committing by defending their cities from rebel attack and their government from being overthrown by force and violence? Is this not what all soldiers take an oath to do?

None of this is written in defense of Gadhafi, a loathsome man and murderer of innocents, but to ask: Why is this small civil war in a North African desert country America's war?

Who is the aggressor in this war?

What was the casus belli requiring us to go to war? Did Libyan troops attack U.S. citizens or ships in the Mediterranean?

The truth: America is fighting another war of choice in Libya, and this one without any constitutional sanction. Congress not only did not declare this war, Congress was not even consulted.

Obama has said we will not put boots on the ground. But if we don't put U.S. advisers in, who will train, arm and lead the rebels?

[W]here is the Egyptian army, half a million strong and right next door?

* SO MANY QUESTION... (*SIGH*)... SO FEW ANSWERS.

April 1, 2011 at 11:26 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/04/01/2145813/spill-damage-trawl-accidentally.html

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says federal scientists catching fish to test for possible damage from last year's Gulf of Mexico oil spill accidentally drowned three dolphins.

* FOLKS... (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)... I COULDN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP IF I WANTED TO; I DON'T HAVE THE IMAGINATION!

April 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CALORIES_ON_MENUS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-04-01-17-55-43

Like it or not, many restaurant diners will soon know more about what they are eating under menu labeling requirements proposed Friday by the Food and Drug Administration.

The requirements will force chain restaurants with 20 or more locations, along with bakeries, grocery stores, convenience stores and coffee chains, to clearly post the amount of calories in each item on menus, both in restaurants and drive-through lanes. The new rules will also apply to vending machines where calorie information isn't already visible on the package.

* THIS IS INSANE. I'M GUESSING THE HOUSE WILL REFUSE TO PERMIT FUNDING OF ENFORCEMENT. (*SHRUG*) STILL... TO THINK THIS IS THE KIND OF CRAP THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PISSES OUR MONEY AWAY COMING UP WITH. (*SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Required as part of health overhaul legislation signed into law last year...

* AH-HA...!

But don't expect calorie shock when ordering at the movie theater, where a tub of popcorn can contain well north of a thousand calories. ... Movie theaters pushed to be left out after guidelines published last year included them.

(*SHAKING MY HEAD AT THE ABSURDITY OF IT ALL*)

Alcohol will also be exempted...

(*SNORT*) (*ROLLING MY EYES*)

April 1, 2011 at 11:27 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/04/01/exclusive-federal-agents-told-reduce-border-arrests-arizona-sheriff-says/

Cochise County [Arizona] Sheriff Larry Dever told FoxNews.com that a supervisor with the U.S. Border Patrol told him as recently as this month that the federal agency’s office on Arizona's southern border was under orders to keep apprehension numbers down during specific reporting time periods.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD IN DISGUST*)

[The] sheriff says U.S. Border Patrol officials have repeatedly told him they have been ordered to reduce - at times even stop - arrests of illegal immigrants caught trying to cross the U.S. border.

“The senior supervisor agent is telling me about how their mission is now to scare people back,” Dever said in an interview with FoxNews.com. “He said, ‘I had to go back to my guys and tell them not to catch anybody, that their job is to chase people away. … They were not to catch anyone, arrest anyone. Their job was to set up posture, to intimidate people, to get them to go back.”

Dever said he plans to relay the substance of these conversations when he testifies under oath next month before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

“I will raise my hand to tell the truth and swear to God, and nothing is more serious or important than that,” he said. “I’m going to tell them that, here’s what I hear and see every day: I had conversation with agent A, B, C, D and this is what they told me.”

* GOOD FOR YOU, SHERIFF...!!! GOD BLESS YOU...!!!

In recent days, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said the U.S.-Mexican border is more secure than ever, and Homeland Security officials have used recent statistics to support those claims.

Dever doesn’t agree. "I’ve been here for 60 years, and I’m telling you that’s not true,” he said.

The sheriff of Santa Cruz County [Arizona], which borders Dever’s Cochise County to the west, said, “This is news to me,” [Sheriff Tony Estrada said] when asked about reports that border agents were being told to turn illegal immigrants back to Mexico rather than arrest them.

(Both sheriffs are elected officials. Dever is a Republican, Estrada, a Democrat.)

Dever’s charges were vigorously denied by a commander with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

“The claim that Border Patrol supervisors have been instructed to underreport or manipulate our statistics is unequivocally false,” Jeffery Self, commander of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Joint Field Command in Arizona, said in a written statement.

* WELL... (*SNORT*) WHAT ELSE WOULD SELF SAY? (LET'S SEE IF HE'LL REPEAT HIMSELF UNDER OATH AT THE RISK OF PERJURY AS DEVER PROMISES TO!)

April 1, 2011 at 11:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42371364/ns/business-us_business/

Regulators have approved generous executive compensation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-backed mortgage finance giants, with little scrutiny or analysis, according to a report published Thursday by the inspector general of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

* HMM... I WONDER WHO THESE "REGULATORS" COULD POSSIBLY BE...? AFTER ALL... BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS BEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE UNITED STATES SINCE JANUARY 2009. HMM... AND WASN'T NANCY PELOSI RUNNING THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE ENTIRE PERIOD BETWEEN JANUARY 2007 UNTIL JANUARY OF THIS YEAR...? OH... AND ISN'T HARRY REID STILL MAJORITY LEADER OF THE U.S. SENATE...?

The companies, whose fates are to be decided by [a Republican] Congress this year, paid a combined $17 million to their chief executives in 2009 and 2010, the two full years when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were wards of the state, the report found.

* HMM... 2009 AND 2010...? WEREN'T THESE THE TWO YEARS WHERE DEMOCRATS WERE IN CHARGE OF THE PRESIDENCY AND BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS...???

The top six executives at the companies received $35.4 million over the two years.

* HEY... JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY... I WONDER HOW MANY OF THOSE FOLKS ATTENDED CHELSEA's WEDDING?!

Since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over in September 2008, the companies’ mounting mortgage losses have required a $153 billion infusion from taxpayers. Total losses may reach $363 billion through 2013, according to government estimates.

* HEY... (*SMARMY GRIN*)... REMEMBER GOOD OL' BARNEY FRANK TELLING US ALL WOULD BE WELL AT FANNIE AND FREDDIE?!

Charles E. Haldeman Jr....joined Freddie Mac as its chief executive in 2009. He made $7.8 million for 2009 and 2010.

Fannie Mae’s chief is Michael J. Williams, who has worked at the company since 1991. He received $9.3 million for the two years.

* NICE WORK IF YOU CAN GET IT!

The pay was approved by the housing finance agency, which is charged with conserving the assets of Fannie and Freddie on behalf of taxpayers.

* HEY... ISN'T THAT AGENCY RESPONSIBLE ULTIMATELY TO... er... THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES?

The report cited a “lack of standardized evaluation criteria, documentation of management procedures and internal controls” at the oversight agency...

* WE DEFINITELY NEED MORE COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS ENTERING GOVERNMENT... er... "SERVICE."

Agency officials say the salaries and deferred compensation awarded to executives at Fannie and Freddie are necessary if they are to attract and keep talent required to run those operations effectively.

* "AGENCY" OFFICIALS, HUH? (I THINK THEY MEAN "OBAMA" OFFICIALS.) (YES... YES INDEED THEY DO!)

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... HOW MUCH EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE THROWN AT YOU? (NOT "YOU" AS IN MY BELOVED READERS; "YOU" AS IN THE SHEEPLE.)

April 1, 2011 at 11:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704050204576219073867182108.html

Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million).

(This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.)

It gets worse.

More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined.

We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers. Nearly half of the $2.2 trillion cost of state and local governments is the $1 trillion-a-year tab for pay and benefits of state and local employees. Is it any wonder that so many states and cities cannot pay their bills?

The employment trends described here are explained in part by hugely beneficial productivity improvements in such traditional industries as farming, manufacturing, financial services and telecommunications. These produce far more output per worker than in the past. The typical farmer, for example, is today at least three times more productive than in 1950.

Where are the productivity gains in government?

(*SIGH*) WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT... (*ANOTHER SIGH*)

Consider a core function of state and local governments: schools. Over the period 1970-2005, school spending per pupil, adjusted for inflation, doubled, while standardized achievement test scores were flat. Over roughly that same time period, public-school employment doubled per student, according to a study by researchers at the University of Washington. That is what economists call negative productivity.

(If education had undergone the same productivity revolution that manufacturing has, we would have half as many educators, smaller school budgets, and higher graduation rates and test scores.)

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

Mass transit spends more and more every year and yet a much smaller share of Americans use trains and buses today than in past decades.

* ENOUGH... ENOUGH... ENOUGH... WE GET THE PICTURE!

(*SIGH*)

April 1, 2011 at 11:28 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/mar/31/barack-obama-losing-84-billion-big-success/

Barack Obama has some 'splaining to do about taxpayers' profitable "investment" in General Motors.

Though Democrats tout the auto bailout as a success, recent reports illustrate the taxpayer cost of the GM auto bailout was substantially larger than the Obama administration and a Congressional Oversight report has owned up to.

"American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM,” President Obama said, according to a piece in USA Today last November.

Steven Rattner, former head of the Treasury's auto task force agreed, telling CNN in November: “Recent progress at GM gives reason for optimism that it may be possible for taxpayers to get every penny back.”

[T]he White House’s Director of the National Economic Council remarked that the Treasury Department Department had a good chance in "recovering most, if not all, of its investment in" GM.

* WOW! DOESN'T ALL THAT JUST SOUND GREAT, FOLKS! GOD BLESS PRESIDENT OBAMA!

* BUT... BUT... BUT... WAIT...

[Turns out that] a March 16 Congressional Oversight report, tells a different story.

(*OPEN-MOUTHED EXPRESSION OF SHOCK AND DISBELIEF*)

It estimates taxpayers will be out of $25 billion.

Additionally, the report points out that “full repayment will not be possible unless the government is able to sell its remaining shares at a far higher price.”

* OH... AND LET'S NOT FORGET LITTLE DETAILS LIKE GM USING TARP FUNDS TO "PAY OFF"... er... TARP LOANS. LET'S NOT FORGET SWEETHEART BELOW-MARKET LOANS SUBSIDIZED BY TAXPAYERS WHO OF COURSE PAY MARKET RATES OF INTEREST. LET'S NOT FORGET MULTI-YEAR TAX FORGIVENESS GOODIES GIVEN OUT TO GM BY THE GOVERNMENT. (OUR GOVERNMENT!!!)

Both the White House and the Congressional Oversight report omit the fact that during its bankruptcy, GM got a $45 billion tax break, courtesy of the American people.

Over one year after the promises President Obama and his administration made about the auto bailout, a February piece on AutoBlog also confirms that GM will also get a $14 billion dollar domestic tax break...

(*SIGH*)

[T]he Obama administration and its allies presently continue to celebrate the success of the auto bailout, regardless of the facts.

"I don’t think there’s any doubt that this was a success," said acting assistant secretary at the Treasury Department Tim Massad, who oversees the TARP program at Treasury, to a House panel on Wednesday.

(*BLOOD SHOOTING OUT OF MY EYES*)

In Obama's world, success mean taxpayers only lost as much as $84 billion.

April 1, 2011 at 11:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/146900/Gallup-Finds-Unemployment-Rate-March.aspx

Contrary to the federal government's recent job reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures suggest that recent job increases have not been sufficient to significantly improve the jobs situation so far in 2011. Although both of Gallup's measures were marginally better in March, they remain higher now than they were in January.

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, was 10.% in March - down from 10.2% in mid-March and 10.3% at the end of February, but above the 9.8% at the end of January. (U.S. unemployment was 10.4% at the end of March a year ago.)

The percentage of part-time workers who want full-time work was 9.3% at the end of March - down from 9.7% in mid-March and 9.6% in both February measurements. (The current percentage remains higher than the 9.1% at the end of January but lower than the 10% of a year ago.)

Underemployment combines part-time workers wanting full-time work with those who are unemployed. Both groups' readings fell in March; consequently, underemployment also fell, to 19.3% from 19.9% in mid-March and at the end of February. (Underemployment was more than a full percentage point higher one year ago.)

ADP on Wednesday reported that U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 201,000 in March - the third consecutive month at this level of job growth. At the same time, Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed a sharp decline in March U.S. layoffs compared with last year.

Despite the March uptick, Gallup's view of the U.S. jobs situation remains substantially less optimistic than the government's recent unemployment report might suggest. Added to this, late March Gallup Daily tracking results show a continuing decline in economic optimism, a pullback in consumer spending, and a drop in Gallup's Job Creation Index. This suggests that recent behavior on Main Street does not reflect the government's rosier assessment. It also implies that the recent marginal improvement Gallup finds may be more temporary than one might hope.

April 1, 2011 at 11:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/foreign-banks-tapped-fed-s-lifeline-most-as-bernanke-kept-borrowers-secret.html

U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke’s two-year fight to shield crisis-squeezed banks from the stigma of revealing their public loans protected a lender to local governments in Belgium, a Japanese fishing-cooperative financier and a company part-owned by the Central Bank of Libya.

* THE... CENTRAL... BANK... OF... LIBYA...???

Dexia SA, based in Brussels and Paris, borrowed as much as $33.5 billion through its New York branch from the Fed’s “discount window” lending program, according to Fed documents released yesterday in response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

Dublin-based Depfa Bank Plc, taken over in 2007 by a German real-estate lender later seized by the German government, drew $24.5 billion.

* FOLKS... THESE FIGURES ARE IN BILLIONS... BILLIONS WITH A "B".

The biggest borrowers from the 97-year-old discount window as the program reached its crisis-era peak were foreign banks, accounting for at least 70% of the $110.7 billion borrowed during the week in October 2008 when use of the program surged to a record.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Wachovia Corp. was the only U.S. bank among the top five discount-window borrowers as the crisis peaked.

* THE... ONLY... U.S.... BANK...

(*HEADACHE*)

Bank of China, the country’s oldest bank, was the second- largest borrower from the Fed’s discount window during a nine- day period in August 2007 as subprime-mortgage defaults first roiled broader markets. The Chinese bank’s New York branch borrowed $198 million on Aug. 17 of that month.

* BANK... OF... CHINA...?!?!

Arab Banking Corp., then 29%-owned by the Libyan central bank, used its New York branch to get at least 73 loans from the Fed in the 18 months after Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. collapsed.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

April 1, 2011 at 11:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://detnews.com/article/20110401/AUTO01/104010447/1361/Presidential-limousine--security-vehicles-exempt-from-fed--green--vehicle-policy

"I'm directing our departments and our agencies to make sure 100% of the vehicles they buy are fuel-efficient or clean energy cars and trucks by 2015. Not 50%, not 75% - 100% of our vehicles," [President] Obama said today at an appearance in Landover, Maryland, at UPS facility, to urge private companies to green their vehicle fleets.

* SOON FOLLOWED BY...

(*DRUM ROLL*)

The U.S. Secret Service said today that "some" federal vehicles for law enforcement and security purposes will be exempt from President Barack Obama's directive that all federal vehicles purchased starting 2015 be advanced technology models. ... That would include the GM-built Cadillac presidential limousine and other vehicles in the motorcade.

(*SMIRK*)

As a candidate for president in 2008, then Sen. Barack Obama unveiled an energy strategy that called for boosting electric vehicles in the federal fleet.

* WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...

"Within one year of becoming President, the entire White House fleet will be converted to plug-ins as security permits; and half of all cars purchased by the federal government will be plug-in hybrids or all electric by 2012," the fact sheet said.

* GUESS WHAT, FOLKS... (WAIT FOR IT... WAIT FOR IT...)

The White House hasn't converted any vehicles yet.

(*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

The government plans to buy 100 plug-in electric vehicles this year; it's not clear what federal agencies will use them.

* 100, HUH? THAT MANY! FOR THE ENTIRE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT... ALL 50 STATES...? (*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

* OH... AND BTW... THE KEY WORD IN THAT LAST SENTENCE FROM THE NEWS REPORT IS "PLANS." (*SNICKER*)

April 1, 2011 at 11:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gas-prices-7th-consecutive-weekly-increase-middle-east/story?id=13240889

The weekly national average gas price showed the highest price ever during the month of March...

(*SHRUG*)

The national average gas price is $3.60 today, according to the Department of Energy, up 3 cents from a week ago and 80 cents from one year ago.

April 1, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)