Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, October 18, 2011


Now THIS makes me smile!
Link
Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1918:a-dangerous-precedent&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE HON. RON PAUL (R-TX)

According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

* UNLESS OF COURSE BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA - OR ANOTHER PRESIDENT - WANTS THEM DEAD. (AT LEAST THAT'S THE MODERN INTERPRETATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT.) GOD HELP US!

The Constitution is not some aspirational statement of values, allowing exceptions when convenient, but rather, it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our principal bulwark against tyranny.

* WHAT CONGRESSMAN PAUL MEANS IS... IT USED TO BE.

[The] assassination of two American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his administration.

(*NOD*)

If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned assassination can be voided when there is a “really bad American” is there any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States?

* NOPE. NONE AT ALL!

If, as we learned [some time ago], a secret government committee, not subject to congressional oversight or judicial review, can now target certain Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights?

* WE CAN'T. ALL TOO OFTEN NOWADAYS I'M ASHAMED OF MY COUNTRY AND THOSE WHO RUN IT. (AND, YES... I'M ASHAMED OF ALL TOO MANY OF MY FELLOW CITIZENS WHO ALLOW THIS DECLINE AND FALL OF A ONCE GREAT REPUBLIC TO CONTINUE UNABATED!)

Didn’t we just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of protecting the civilians from being targeted by their government?

Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat, as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses. They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still afforded trials.

* FOLKS... FOR GOD'S SAKE... WHEN THE RULE OF LAW IS WIPED AWAY BY EXECUTIVE ORDER - OR EVEN A COURT'S DECLARATION OR ACT OF CONGRESS - WE'VE LOST ALL THAT MADE US WHAT WE ONCE WERE.

These constitutional protections are in place because our Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth the sacrifice of the rule of law.

* AT LEAST THAT USED TO BE THE GENERAL CONSENSUS... BEFORE THE AGE OF BUSH AND OBAMA... (*SIGH*)

* To be continued...

October 18, 2011 at 1:31 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

Al-Awlaki has been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged violence against Americans.

We do not know that he actually committed any acts of violence.

* BUT, HEY... ASSUME HE HAD... OUR GOVERNMENT DIDN'T EVEN AFFORD HIM - AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN - A FAIR TRAIL IN ABSENTIA! THIS IS NOT MY AMERICA, PEOPLE... THESE ARE NOT THE ACTIONS OF A LIMITED GOVERNMENT CONSTRAINED BY THE RULE OF LAW.

Ironically, al-Awlaki was once invited to the Pentagon as part of an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11.

(*JUST CLOSING MY EYES*)

As the U.S. attacks against Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he became more fervent and radical in his opposition to US foreign policy.

Many cheer this killing because they believe that in a time of war, due process is not necessary - not even for citizens, and especially not for those overseas.

* THEY'RE WRONG! WE'RE TALKING ASSASSINATION, NOT "COLLATERAL DAMAGE." AGAIN... IN AMERICA WE HAVE SEPARATE "JUDGE, JURY, AND EXECUTIONER"... OR AT LEAST WE DID PRIOR TO THE AGE OF BUSH AND OBAMA. IF THE EVIDENCE WAS SO OVERWHELMING, WHY NOT TRY HIM IN ABSENTIA - HMM...???

[T]here has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have covered these two Americans because no one is claiming they had any connection to that attack. Al-Awlaki was on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more Americans citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria? They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.

* FOLKS... I MYSELF HAVE NO DOUBT THAT AL-AWLAKI WAS A TRAITOR... BUT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN HE WAS DUE A TRIAL! FIND HIM GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW AND THEN ORDER AND TAKE PART IN HIS EXECUTION OVERSEAS! WHAT OBAMA DID WAS WRONG AND THIS NATION IS GOING DOWN A DANGEROUS PATH.

Al-Awlaki's father tried desperately to get the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to challenge the “kill” order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner.

The most worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues will serve as precedents for future administrations. Even those who completely trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights, they are not easily won back.

Beware.

October 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/10/07/morning-bell-still-jobless-after-all-these-years/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

In September, the U.S. unemployment rate held steady at a dismal 9.1% with 14 million Americans still out of work. About 103,000 jobs were added, but 45,000 of those were simply Verizon strikers returning to work, and the number of long-term unemployed (27 weeks or more) increased by 208,000.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

For those keeping score, the unemployment rate has hovered around 9% for all of 2011, was over 9% for all of 2010 and most of 2009...

* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

President Barack Obama faced the media to once again [recently to] plug the "American Jobs Act" – his "plan" for more stimulus spending, paid for with even more taxes on America’s job creators.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

A key component of the President’s "plan" is taxes – and plenty more of them.

(*HEADACHE*)

The President’s proposal would impose $1.5 trillion in permanent tax hikes over 10 years that would fall mostly on families and businesses earning more than $250,000 a year... Meanwhile in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid has proposed a 5.6% [surcharge] on earnings above $1 million per year.

(*STILL JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The President says he’s “asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share,” which by implication means that those Americans aren’t paying enough. But the President’s sense of “fairness” doesn’t take into account the reality that the top 10% of income earners already pay 70% of federal income taxes.

According to the IRS, the top 1% of income earners - those earning more than $380,000 in 2008 - paid more than 38% of all federal income taxes while earning 20% of all income.

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... HOW IS THAT POSSIBLY FAIR?

The top 10% ($114,000 and above) earned 45% of income and paid 70% of all taxes.

* AGAIN... HOW IS THAT POSSIBLY FAIR...?!?!

At the same time, the bottom 50% of income earners - those earning less than $33,000 - earned 13% of all income [but] paid less than 3% of federal income taxes.

(*HEADACHE GETTING WORSE*)

Now [this] President wants to pile another tax burden...that will lead to fewer jobs for all Americans, including middle- and low-income workers.

Those who would pay these new taxes under Obama’s [wealth redistribution] plan include investors who provide capital for businesses to expand, thereby creating more jobs for American workers, as well as entrepreneurs who use capital to start new enterprises. And because many businesses pay their taxes through their owners’ individual income tax returns, the President’s new tax hike will directly target those employers.

(*GRITTING MY TEETH*)

If the President wants to create more jobs in America, confiscating money from job creators in order to fund more government spending isn’t the way to do it.

* UNLESS OF COURSE OBAMA'S REAL OBJECTIVE IS TO STOKE THE FIRES OF CLASS CONFLICT SO AS TO PROVOKE "CHANGE" - "CHANGE" FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM. (*SHRUG*) FAR FETCHED? REALLY...??? WHAT'S ANOTHER EXPLANATION - THAT HE'S SIMPLY DUMB? (*SNORT*) WAKE UP AND SMELL THE BURNING SMOKE OF THE AMERICAN DREAM UNDER ASSAULT, FOLKS!

October 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=75124207697efe9a19ed9a724&id=9d42c6e406&e=46483ed98d

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) fundamentally weakened the United States Senate [last week] in a desperate attempt to block a vote on the President's [latest] "stimulus" bill.

Using a simple majority vote, Reid used the "Nuclear Option" to change the rules of the Senate so senators cannot offer amendments.

In the future, senators will only be able to modify legislation if Harry Reid agrees to it.

Harry Reid changed the rules of the Senate because Republicans planned to force a vote on President Obama's...plan.

The plan is so unpopular that it was going to be defeated by Republicans and Democrats when it came up for a vote. This would have embarrassed the president, so Reid and the Democrats just changed the longstanding rules of the Senate to block it.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* SEE: http://www.redstate.com/russvought/2011/10/06/reid-goes-nuclear-to-block-the-presidents-stimulus-plan/ AND THEN ASK YOURSELF WHY BACK WHEN REPUBLICANS SIMPLY TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY EMPLOYING THE "NUCLEAR OPTION" IT WAS ALL OVER THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA... YET NOW THAT DEMOCRATS HAVE ACTUALLY CROSSED THAT LINE... HARDLY A PEEP FROM THE PRESS.

Folks, we're teetering on tyranny.

* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T ME SAYING THIS... THIS ISN'T EVEN SOME PUNDIT SAYING THIS... THIS IS SENATOR JIM DEMINT (R-SC) SAYING THIS!

This latest attempt to ignore the rules and force bad legislation on the American people is alarming, but it's not that surprising. Democrats have been ignoring the U.S. Constitution and blowing through its stop signs for years.

Republicans can protect their rights in the Senate but it requires 41 Republican votes to keep the Democrats from cutting off debate. Unfortunately, too many Republicans lack the courage to stand together for the principles of freedom.

* UNFORTUNATELY, THE REPUBLICANS HE'S TALKING ABOUT INCLUDE THE CURRENT SENATE MINORITY LEADER, MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY).

* FOLKS... I URGE YOU ALL TO DONATE GENEROUSLY TO JIM DEMINT'S SENATE CONSERVATIVES FUND. TO LEARN MORE, PLEASE VISIT http://senateconservatives.com/?c=544E8E658050445

October 18, 2011 at 4:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2011/10/18/wall-street-off-to-choppy-start/

A report that two of Europe's economic powerhouses agreed to boost the region's bailout fund in a bid to stem the sovereign debt crisis added momentum to Wall Street's rally on Tuesday.

* IN OTHER WORDS, FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THE MOVERS AND SHAKERS ON WALL STREET VIEW MORE BAILOUTS - KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD - AS A POSITIVE.

* WE ARE TRULY LIVING IN ORWELL'S 1984.

The euro, which had been down sharply in earlier trading, turned sharply to the upside on the news, climbing 0.5% to $1.38. The greenback fell 0.41% against a basket of world currencies.

* YEP. A FALLING DOLLAR IS "GOOD" NEWS IN THIS BRAVE NEW WORLD. (*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WE'RE WELL AND TRULY SCREWED.

October 18, 2011 at 5:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111017061216.aspx

Tuesday night’s Republican debate in Las Vegas will be moderated by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper.

The CNN promo urges viewers to “See if what happens in Vegas gets them closer to the White House.” But Cooper’s nightly Anderson Cooper 360 often looks like it’s trying to keep Republicans away from the White House.

CNN advertises Cooper’s regular segment, “Keeping Them Honest,” with the question: “Who's Anderson keeping honest tonight?” Apparently, CNN and Cooper find Republicans are much more dishonest. Since July, a review of “Keeping Them Honest” segments found 24 reports tagging the Republicans with dishonesty, compared with just three for Democrats - a ratio of eight to one.

Cooper's "Keeping them Honest" segments have targeted Republicans and conservatives at all levels of power, including the presidential candidates, congressional Republicans, and even state and local officials. Yet Cooper's nightly fact-checking has been far lighter on the President and administration that’s currently in power, providing little coverage of the ongoing Solyndra scandal or other administration foibles.Cooper reported once on Solyndra on September 14, and then never ran another "Keeping Them Honest" segment about it. In contrast, Cooper devoted no less than five of these reports to updating previous segments he had done hitting Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann.

In addition, while Cooper devoted more than a few reports hitting both parties in Congress, he also used five reports since July 1 to hit Republicans in the House and Senate. None of his segments in that time period targeted only the Democrats in Congress.

Not only has Cooper’s “dishonest” meter been pointed at Republicans by 24 to 3, but 17 of the 24 stories critical of Republicans focused exclusively on GOP presidential candidates.

Since July 1, [only] three "Keeping Them Honest" segments have targeted President Obama. [And interestly enough,] even though Cooper offered 13 “Keeping Them Honest” segments on the Democrats, four of them were devoted to Congressman Anthony Weiner's Twitter scandal over a few days, more than Obama received in over three months.

In that same time frame, Cooper has offered seven critiques of Bachmann. (In 2011, Bachmann was targeted 12 times - five more than the President.) (By comparison, there have been four on Rick Perry and three on Mitt Romney.) In just the past two weeks, Cooper has also run two critical segments on Herman Cain, whose poll numbers have risen dramatically in the last month. (Cooper even admitted that he was focusing on Cain because of his newfound popularity.)

* ANYWAY, FOLKS... JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON MR. COOPER. THE FULL ARTICLE GIVE MORE EXAMPLES AND DATA. (LINK PROVIDED.)

October 18, 2011 at 5:15 PM
William R. Barker said...

* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637513885592874.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Maybe it's a sign of the tumultuous times, but the federal government recently wrapped up its biggest spending year, and its second biggest annual budget deficit, and almost nobody noticed. Is it rude to mention this?

This is said to be a new age of fiscal austerity, yet the government had its "best" year ever, spending a cool $3.6 trillion. That beat the $3.52 trillion posted in 2009, when the feds famously began their attempt to spend America back to prosperity.

* CHANT IT WITH ME, FOLKS... BOEH-NER! BOEHNER! BOEHNER!

* FOLKS... HOW MANY TIMES DID I TELL YOU BOEHNER WAS LYING...???

What happened to all of those horrifying spending cuts?

* FOLKS... THEY WERE RUNNING A SCAM ON US!

CBO says that overall outlays rose 4.2% from 2010 (1.8% adjusted for timing shifts), when spending fell slightly from 2009.

* WELL... I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HECK THEY'RE BABBLING ABOUT WITH "TIMING SHIFTS," BUT BOTTOM LINE... THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENT MORE IN FY 2011 THAN IT DID IN FY 2010 - THAT MEANS SPENDING INCREASED... WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF A CUT.

(*SHRUG*)

Defense spending rose only 1.2% on a calendar-adjusted basis...

* "ONLY" ROSE 1.2%, HUH? WHY...??? WHY DID IT RISE AT ALL...?!?! I MEAN... I THOUGHT COMBAT IN IRAQ WAS OVER. (*SMIRK*) I THOUGHT OBAMA WAS GETTING US OUT OF AFGHANISTAN. (*SNICKER*) I THOUGH LIBYA WAS BARELY WORTH CARING ABOUT IN TERMS OF COST.

Government austerity is a myth.

* OR AS I PREFER TO PUT IT.... A LIE.

* To be continued...

October 18, 2011 at 6:01 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

[F]ederal receipts grew by 6.5% in fiscal 2011, including a 21.6% gain in individual income tax revenues.

* YET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SQUANDERED ALL THAT "ADDITIONAL" REVENUE... AND MORE.

The overall revenue gain would have been even larger without the cost of the temporary payroll tax cut, which contributed to a 5.3% decline in social insurance revenues but didn't reduce the jobless rate.

* EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN HOW VIOLENCE - HOW KILLING OUR "LEADERS" BEFORE THEY KILL US - ISN'T THE ANSWER.

The nearby table...

* SEE: http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AO420_1defic_D_20111017194802.jpg

...shows the budget trend over the last five years, and it underscores the dramatic negative turn since the Obama Presidency began.

* ACTUALLY THE GRAPH WOULD BE EVEN MORE INFORMATIVE/COMPARATIVE IF IT WOULD HAVE STARTED WITH 2001 SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THE BUSH/RINO YEARS CONTRASTED WITH THE BUSH/PELOSI/REID YEARS TO THE OBAMA/PELOSI/REID YEARS.

The budget deficit increased slightly in fiscal 2011 from a year earlier, to $1.298 trillion. That was down slightly as a share of GDP to 8.6%, but as CBO deadpans, this was still "greater than in any other year since 1945."

* AND UNLIKE 1945... THE SPENDING WAS LARGELY WASTED.

Mull over that one. The Obama years have racked up the three largest deficits, both in absolute amounts and as a share of GDP, since Hitler still terrorized Europe.

[T]o have deficits of nearly $1.3 trillion two years into a purported economic recovery simply hasn't happened in modern U.S. history. Yet President Obama [and his Democratic allies] fiercely resisted even the token spending cuts for fiscal 2011 pressed by House Republicans earlier this year.

(*SIGH*)

The table also shows how close the federal budget was to balance as recently as fiscal 2007, with a deficit as low as $161 billion, or 1.2% of GDP. Those are the numbers to point to the next time someone says that the Bush tax rates are the main cause of our current fiscal woes.

* AND THE FY 2007 BUDGET WAS WRITTEN AND PASSED BY... (*PAUSE*)... BY THE 2006 REPUBLICAN CONGRESS IN CONSULTATION WITH THEN-PRESIDENT BUSH.

Under those same tax rates in 2007, the government raised $2.57 trillion in revenue but it spent only $2.73 trillion.

* "ONLY," HUH? (*SCOWL*) STILL... WHEN YOU COMPARE AND CONTRAST THAT DEFICIT WITH THE DEFICITS THE DEMS HAVE GIVEN US... (*SIGH*)

Four years later, the government raised $265 billion less thanks to the tepid recovery, but it spent nearly $900 billion more thanks to the never-ending Washington stimulus.

* AGAIN... IF VIOLENCE ISN'T THE ANSWER - WHAT IS? CLEARLY BOEHNER ISN'T THE ANSWER. CLEARLY MITCH MCCONNELL ISN'T THE ANSWER.

Washington's spending appetite...is as voracious as ever, despite the claims of political sacrifice.

* AS LONG AS THE SAME PEOPLE ARE RUNNING THE SHOW...

(*SHRUG*)

October 18, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)