Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, May 3, 2011


How's this for a blast from the past...?!?!
Posted by at

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1855:on-constitutional-concerns&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE HONORABLE RON PAUL (R-TX)

Last week the media focused on President Obama's basic eligibility to be president while ignoring the unconstitutional manner in which he governs.

* PAUL ISN'T JUST RANTING; HE MAKES HIS CASE. READ ON...

For example, his recent use of a signing statement to affect a line-item veto on a bill he signed into law as president.

* NOW HERE'S THE DEAL, FOLKS; I DON'T BELIEVE SIGNING STATEMENTS ARE ILLEGAL PER SE. HOWEVER... HERE'S OBAMA'S PROBLEM: AS BOTH A U.S. SENATOR AND A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY OBAMA WAS STRONGLY OPPOSED TO PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS AND PROMISED NOT TO ISSUE THEM IF HE BECAME PRESIDENT. OBAMA - THE ATTORNEY... THE FORMER CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LECTURER... THAT GUY - PRIOR TO BEING SWORN IN AS PRESIDENT - AGREED WITH RON PAUL THAT PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS CROSSED THE CONSTITUTIONAL LINE.

(*SHRUG*)

* CONTINUING...

The recent continuing resolution to fund the government through September had an amendment that defunded four of his czar positions as a cost-cutting measure. These "czars" are administration appointees who exercise influence on policy matters, yet because they are classified as "advisors" and not cabinet officials, the President is able to avoid the Senate confirmation process.

President Obama agreed to defund the czar positions before passage as part of some very tough negotiations, and then afterwards "clarified" his position with a signing statement saying that he would ignore that portion of the law.

* FOLKS... THAT'S THE KIND OF MAN WE HAVE IN THE WHITE HOUSE. HE'S A HYPOCRITE AND A LIAR. (*SHRUG*)

Many battles have been fought in the past over whether or not the president should have line-item veto power. That debate is essentially settled. The president does not have that power, as that gives the executive too much legislative power. This administration just over-rode all of those debates with a single signing statement and assumed the power that no one would willingly give him.

* AND FOLKS... I'M IN FAVOR OF A PRESIDENTIAL LINE ITEM VETO! I SUPPORT THE CONCEPT! I ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL! THE PROBLEM IS... THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED OTHERWISE.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... OBAMA IS A TRAINED ATTORNEY... A MEMBER OF THE BAR... A FORMER LAW LECTURER... IF HE BELIEVES THAT AS PRESIDENT HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THE CONGRESS AND THE U.S. SUPREME COURT THAN AT THE VERY LEAST ISN'T IT INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO MAKE THE CASE BEFORE THE NATION? (I MEAN, FOLKS... THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOESN'T KNOW HE'S DOING ANY OF THIS...)

This comes on the heels of this so-called peace candidate, who hasn't ended a single war, taking us into yet another war without a declaration from Congress.

* WELL... TO BE FAIR... IT'S THOSE SCUMBAGS IN CONGRESS - BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS - WHO ARE ALLOWING OBAMA TO DRAG THIS NATION INTO YET ANOTHER UNDECLARED WAR. (AND THIS TIME... IT'S NOT EVEN TECHNICALLY A PROACTIVELY "AUTHORIZED" WAR!)

The military commanders don't seem to have batted an eyelash at obeying unconstitutional orders despite their oaths of office.

* I CAN'T BLAME THE MILITARY FOR THIS; CONGRESS IS AT FAULT. IF CONGRESS HAD SIMPLY PASSED A BINDING RESOLUTION FORBIDDING MILITARY ACTION AGAINST LIBYA THEN IT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT SCENARIO... BUT THEY DIDN'T!

May 3, 2011 at 8:18 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42871647

While Standard and Poor's recently downgraded its U.S. debt outlook to negative from stable, implying that a ratings cut could happen in two years, one independent ratings agency has given the U.S. sovereign rating a "C".

"[That's] two notches above junk..." Martin Weiss, President of Weiss Ratings, told CNBC Tuesday.

The grade reflects the U.S. massive debt burden, low international reserves and the volatility in the American economy, he said.

The U.S. government debt is fast approaching the $14.3 trillion ceiling, with the debt-to-GDP ratio close to 100%.

America's rating was ranked 33rd out of 47 nations, according to Weiss, which began tracking sovereign debt last year. France and Japan also got a "C" rating, while Only China and Thailand received an "A" rating.

Weiss Ratings based its score purely on statistics, and does not take into account qualitative factors such as political stability.

* STILL... (*SIGH*)

May 3, 2011 at 8:24 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703304576299560728821804.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

As President Barack Obama pushes to raise income taxes on high earners...data indicates these U.S. households already pay a large and growing share of taxes, even compared with high-tax European countries.

And a new congressional study concludes that the percentage of U.S. households owing no federal income tax climbed to 51% for 2009.

"Most taxpayers are skeptical that the answer to our fiscal problems is for them to sacrifice more, when more than half of all households are not paying any income taxes and an increasingly smaller group of Americans is shouldering the burdens for an increasing larger group of Americans," said Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.

* WHEN HATCH IS RIGHT... HE'S RIGHT!

For their part, Democrats note that the incomes of higher earners have been growing far more rapidly...

* ...WHICH ADDS TO THE MONEY GOING INTO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL TAX COLLECTION COFFERS! 35% OF $300,000 IS MORE THAN 35% OF $200,000 - DUH! (MAYBE WE COULD HAVE CHARLIE SHEEN EXPLAIN THIS SIMPLE CONCEPT...) (*CHUCKLE*)

As for those Americans who pay no federal income tax, most of them still pay Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes...

* AS DO THE PEOPLE WHO ALSO PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES...!!! THIS IS NOT AN "EXCUSE!" EVERYONE EARNING MONEY SHOULD PAY FEDERAL INCOME TAXES ON THAT MONEY AS LONG AS A FEDERAL INCOME TAX EXISTS...!!! IT'S CALLED "PAYING YOUR FAIR SHARE," "CARRYING YOUR OWN WEIGHT!"

Upper-income taxpayers have paid a growing share of the federal tax burden over the last 25 years.

* DUH! (EDUCATED PEOPLE KNOW THIS!)

A 2008 study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, for example, found that the highest-earning 10% of the U.S. population paid the largest share among 24 countries examined, even after adjusting for their relatively higher incomes.

Joint Committee on Taxation...concludes that about 30% of taxpayers received money from the government through tax credits.

(*SIGH*) FOLKS... DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND... TAX CREDITS ARE BASICALLY TAX LOOPHOLES. ALL THEY ARE IS SMOKE AND MIRRORS DELIBERATELY EMPLOYED TO "TRICK" AMERICANS INTO THINKING THEY'RE GETTING "SOMETHING FOR NOTHING."

* SORRY, FOLKS... BUT EVERY CENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TAXES, BORROWS, AND THEN SQUANDERS COMES OUT OF OUR POCKETS - AND THE POCKETS OF OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN - ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

Average rates for the very wealthy are often lower than that because of low tax rates on investment income.

* AND TIME AND AGAIN I'VE NOTED HOW WE FIX THIS: WE SIMPLY START WITH THE MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME NUMBER FROM THE PREVIOUS TAX YEAR. WE THEN ALLOW INVESTORS TO PAY A LOWER CAPITAL GAINS RATE - DOLLAR TO DOLLAR (THAT'S THE KEY) - ON INVESTMENT INCOME UP TO THAT MEDIAN INCOME FIGURE. THEN... AS INVESTMENT INCOME GROWS BEYOND THAT MEDIAN NUMBER THE TAX RATE GOES UP TILL IT "NORMS" (TAXED AT THE FULL MAXIMUM "INCOME" RATE FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL) AT SAY DOUBLE THE MEDIAN INCOME.

* SEE WHAT I'M DOING HERE, FOLKS... I'M ENCOURAGING REGULAR FOLKS - FOLKS WHO GET AT LEAST HALF OF THEIR OVERALL INCOME VIA EMPLOYMENT - TO INVEST... WHILE AT THE SAME TIME I'M SEEKING TO ENSURE THAT THOSE WHO "LIVE OFF" THEIR INVESTMENTS ARE NOT GETTING "A BREAK" COMPARED TO THOSE WHO LIVE OFF REGULAR WAGES OR SELF-EMPLOYMENT PROFITS.

May 3, 2011 at 9:46 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703396404576283381160558552.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

A study published last year found that D.C. voucher recipients had graduation rates of 91%. That's significantly higher than the public school average of 56%.

* UH... YEAH!

'Private school vouchers are not an effective way to improve student achievement," said the White House in a statement on March 29. "The Administration strongly opposes expanding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and opening it to new students."

(*SHAKING MY HEAD*)

But less than three weeks later, President Obama signed a budget deal with Republicans that includes a renewal and expansion of the popular D.C. program, which finances tuition vouchers for low-income kids to attend private schools.

(*STILL SHAKING MY HEAD - BUT WITH A SMIRK ON MY FACE*)

School reformers cheered the administration's about-face though fully aware that it was motivated by political expediency rather than any acknowledgment that vouchers work.

(*SAD NOD*)

When Mr. Obama first moved to phase out the D.C. voucher program in 2009, his Education Department was in possession of a federal study showing that voucher recipients, who number more than 3,300, made gains in reading scores and didn't decline in math. The administration claims that the reading gains were not large enough to be significant. Yet even smaller positive effects were championed by the administration as justification for expanding Head Start.

* AND AS EDUCATED PEOPLE KNOW... (*SIGH*)... THE "GAINS" OF HEAD START DON'T LAST INTO LATER ACADEMIC LIFE.

In any case, the program's merits don't rest on reading scores alone. In a study published last year, Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas found that voucher recipients had graduation rates of 91%. That's significantly higher than the D.C. public school average (56%) and the graduation rate for students who applied for a D.C. voucher but didn't win the lottery (70%).

* SEE, FOLKS... IT'S THAT 91% vs. 70% THAT REALLY TELLS THE TALE!

[S]tudents who attend D.C. public schools are overwhelmingly black and poor, and the achievement gap has a particularly devastating impact on their communities. High school dropouts are eight times more likely than someone with a diploma to wind up behind bars. Some 60% of black male high school dropouts in their 30s have prison records. And nearly one in four young black male dropouts is in jail or juvenile detention.

* JEEZUS... AND THE DEMS SOUGHT TO DENY KIDS A CHANCE TO BEAT THESE ODDS. DISGUSTING. ABSOLUTELY REPREHENSIBLE.

Mr. Obama says he wants to help all students - not just the lucky few who receive vouchers. But that's an argument for offering more vouchers to those in need, not for reducing school choice.

* YEP! (*NOD*)

Policies ought to be weighed against available alternatives, not some unattainable ideal.

* ONE WOULD THINK...!

The positive effects of the D.C. voucher program are not unique. A recent study of Milwaukee's older and larger voucher program found that 94% of students who stayed in the program throughout high school graduated, versus just 75% of students in Milwaukee's traditional public schools.

[C]ontrary to the claim that vouchers hurt public schools, the report found that students at Milwaukee public schools "are performing at somewhat higher levels as a result of competitive pressure from the school voucher program." (Thus can vouchers benefit even the children that don't receive them.)

(*THUMBS UP*)

May 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0ae1438e-7536-11e0-a4b7-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1LIrRoNS2

Canada’s Conservative party, led by Stephen Harper , turned its five-year-old minority government into a solid majority in a general election on Monday also marked by a rout of Quebec’s separatist movement and the once-dominant Liberals.

* WHY IS THIS A NEWSBITE? TWO REASONS: 1) WE SHOULD ALL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN CANADA; 2) ONCE AGAIN PRE-ELECTION "REPORTING" AND "ANALYSIS" FROM THE (WORLDWIDE) MAINSTREAM MEDIA TURNS OUT TO BE...

(*DRUM ROLL*)

...WRONG! DEAD WRONG!

* FOLKS... NEVER TRUST THE PRESS. NEVER! NEVER TRUST "SNAPSHOT JOURNALISM." THIS IS WHY I PROVIDE NEWSBITES - SO THAT WE ALL HAVE A CLEAR RECORD OF WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING DAY BY DAY, WEEK BY WEEK, MONTH BY MONTH, AND YEAR BY YEAR.

The Tories won 167 of the 308 seats in the House of Commons, up from 143...

In contrast, the separatist Bloc Québécois was almost wiped out, losing all but four of its 47 seats.

In one of the most stunning upsets in Canadian political history, most of the Bloc’s seats were picked up by the left-of-center New Democratic party, enabling it to displace the Liberals as the official opposition in parliament.

* BY "LEFT OF CENTER" THEY MEAN... er... "LEFT." (*RUEFUL CHUCKLE*)

May 3, 2011 at 11:30 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54162.html

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday publicly revised the administration’s account of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, telling reporters that the Al Qaeda leader wasn’t armed during the assault and didn’t use one of his wives as a shield.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

* AGAIN... FOLKS... I POST THIS NOT AS "BREAKING NEWS," BUT AS YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF WHAT I MEAN WHEN I BEG YOU NEVER TO TAKE THE NEWS YOU'RE GETTING FILTERED THROUGH THE MSM AT FACE VALUE. BESIDES HAVING AGENDAS... BESIDES BEING LARGELY INCOMPETENT... THE TIME PRESSURES THESE FOLKS ARE ON PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE FREQUENT SCREW-UPS.

* OH... AND LET'S NOT FORGET... THIS PRESIDENT AND HIS KEY CRONIES ARE OFTEN CAUGHT IN LIES.

* O.K., O.K., TO BE FAIR... ALLOW ME TO ADD... AS ARE REPUBLICANS.

May 3, 2011 at 4:16 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)