Thursday, November 3, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, November 3, 2011


While you probably won't read about it - or hear about it - via the mainstream media, the shutdown of Oakland California's port wasn't simply an overreaction to a bunch of wannabee "revolutionaries" acting out...

Folks... check it out!
Posted by at

11 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20111103/D9QP7IC80.html

A day of demonstrations in Oakland...ended with police in riot gear arresting dozens of protesters who had marched through downtown to break into a vacant building, shattering windows, spraying graffiti and setting fires along the way.

About 3,000 people converged on the Port of Oakland, the nation's fifth-busiest harbor, in a nearly five-hour protest Wednesday, swarming the area and blocking exits and streets with illegally parked vehicles and hastily-erected, chain-link fences.

* THIS IS OBAMA'S AMERICA.

Port officials said they were forced to cease maritime operations, citing concerns for workers' safety. ... Continued missed shifts represent economic hardship for maritime workers, truckers, and their families, as well as lost jobs and lost tax revenue for our region."

* AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED, APPARENTLY QUITE A FEW OF THESE WORKERS - UNION WORKERS - WERE ACTUALLY PART OF THE DEMONSTRATIONS WHICH SHUT DOWN THE PORT.

[A] group of demonstrators moved to break into the Travelers Aid building in order to, as some shouting protesters put it, "reclaim the building for the people."

Occupy protesters...converged on the empty building...blocked off city streets with Dumpsters and other large trash bins, starting bonfires that leapt 15-feet in the air.

City officials released a statement describing the spasm of unrest: "Oakland Police responded to a late night call that protesters had broken into and occupied a downtown building and set several simultaneous fires," the statement read. "The protesters began hurling rocks, explosives, bottles, and flaming objects at responding officers. Several private and municipal buildings sustained heavy vandalism."

November 3, 2011 at 10:48 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/02/BA5G1LQ06S.DTL

* IMAGINE THIS WAS YOU... OR YOUR WIFE... OR YOUR DAUGHTER... OR YOUR MOTHER...

...an angry mob surrounded the car...

* JUST IMAGINE... WRONG TIME... WRONG PLACE...

...activists pounding on his car.

* OH... PLEASE... READ THE FULL ARTICLE FOR YOURSELVES SO THAT YOU CAN SEE HOW THE REPORTER/EDITOR GIVES THE ANIMALS EVERY BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT... AS THE REPORTER/EDITOR PLANTS THE SEED OF CLASS ENVY BY NOTING THE VEHICLE WAS A MERCEDES - AS IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING.

* FOLKS... WE'RE LITERALLY - PHYSICALLY - LOSING CONTROL OF URBAN AMERICA.

* AND... AS NOTED IN THE INTRO TO TODAY'S NEWSBITES... IT'S NOT JUST A BUNCH OF WANNABEE "REVOLUTIONARIES," IT'S MONEY AND SUPPORT FROM UNIONS...

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

* BUY GUNS. LEARN HOW TO USE THEM. STOCK UP ON AMMO.

November 3, 2011 at 11:52 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.yahoo.com/freddie-mac-reports-q3-loss-asks-6b-aid-124449542.html

Government-controlled mortgage giant Freddie Mac has requested $6 billion in additional aid after posting a wider loss in the third quarter.

* JUST... SAY... NO...!!!

Freddie Mac said Thursday that it lost $6 billion in the July-September quarter. That compares with a loss of $4.1 billion in the same quarter of 2010.

* GOOGLE "BONUSES FREDDIE MAC"

This quarter's $6 billion request from taxpayers is the largest since April 2010.

* BUT... BUT... BUT... WE'RE TOLD THE ECONOMY IS IMPROVING...???

The [dempublicans and republicrats] rescued McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac and sibling company Fannie Mae in September 2008 after massive losses on risky mortgages threatened to topple them. Since then, a federal regulator has controlled their financial decisions.

* AND APPARENTLY THIS FEDERAL REGULATOR IS "REGULATING" CONTINUING LOSSES IN THE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER QUARTER. GREAT! WONDERFUL! ALL HAIL THE AGE OF OBAMA!

Taxpayers have spent about $169 billion to rescue Fannie and Freddie...

* WOULD IT BE WRONG TO FANTASIZE ABOUT A BULLET IN THE HEAD OF EACH AND EVERY STINKING ROTTON POLITICIANS WHO SUPPORTED THE BAILOUTS...??? (JUST ASKING...!!!)

The government estimates it could cost up to $51 billion more to support the companies through 2014.

* AGAIN, FOLKS... GOOGLE "BONUSES FANNIE FREDDIE"

Freddie and Washington-based Fannie own or guarantee about half of all U.S. mortgages, or nearly 31 million home loans worth more than $5 trillion. Along with other federal agencies, they backed nearly 90% of new mortgages over the past year.

* ACTUALLY... I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS 97%... BUT AT THIS POINT DOES IT REALLY MATTER? (*SMIRK*)

Charles E. Haldeman Jr., Freddie's chief executive...

* BTW... GOOGLE "CHARLES E. HALDEMAN JR" PLUS "BONUS"

* FOLKS... DON'T YOU GET IT...?!?! "WALL STREET" AND "WASHINGTON" ARE ONE IN THE SAME! PROFITS ARE PRIVATIZED... LOSSES ARE LAID UPON THE TAXPAYERS!

November 3, 2011 at 12:51 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/debt-increased-203-billion-oct-650-every-man-woman-and-child-america

* CNS PROVIDES THE LINK TO THE RAW TREASURY DATA. (*SHRUG*) FUNNY HOW YOU DON'T OFTEN READ THIS SORT OF STORY IN THE NYT OR OTHER MSM ORGANS. (*SMIRK*)

The federal government’s debt increased by $203,368,715,583.63 in the month of October, according to the U.S. Treasury.

That equals about $650 per person for each of the 312,542,760 people the Census Bureau now estimates live in the United States.

At the end of September, the total national debt stood at $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt. By the end of October, it had risen to $14,993,709,044,140.78.

The debt increased far more this October than it did last October. Between the last day of September 2010 and the last day of October, the debt rose from $13,561,623,030,891.79 to 13,668,825,497,341.36 - for an increase of $107,202,466,449.57

November 3, 2011 at 1:12 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/CLP-power-snow-storm-133143253.html?dr

* TODAY IS THURSDAY...

...but [in Connecticut, America's second wealthiest state, almost 431,000 still remained in the dark.

* NOT QUITE SURE IF THAT 431,000 REFERS TO INDIVIDUALS... OR HOUSEHOLDS. (MEANING WELL OVER A MILLION PEOPLE STILL WITHOUT POWER IN CONNECTICUT ALONE.)

* WELCOME TO THE AGE OF OBAMA, FOLKS!

November 3, 2011 at 1:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/senators-unveil-bipartisan-postal-service-rescue-plan/2011/11/02/gIQAAqOXgM_story.html?wpisrc=nl_fedinsider

A bipartisan Senate bill introduced Wednesday...

* WOW.... BIPARTISAN... THAT DOESN'T SOUND GOOD...

...would give the U.S. Postal Service about $7 billion to pay for employee buyouts and other debt...

* SEE... NOT GOOD!

* SO LET'S SEE... THE BRIGHT IDEA FROM A U.S. SENATE THAT IS (ALONG WITH THE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT) RESPONSIBLE FOR FEDERAL SPENDING POLICIES WHEREBY 43-CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR SPENT IS BORROWED WANTS TO "GIVE" AWAY YET ANOTHER $7 BILLION DOLLARS. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN!

...and allow a renegotiation of postal worker health-care benefits and require two years of studies before ending Saturday mail deliveries.

* OH, YEAH! TWO YEARS OF FURTHER STUDY! THAT'S THE TICKET!

* FOLKS... MORE AND MORE I SEE NO WAY OUT OTHER THAN VIOLENCE. MY THEORY IS THAT KILLING A FEW OF THE WORST, MOST IRRESPONSIBLE BASTARDS WILL SCARE THE REST OF THE SCUMBAGS INTO AT LEAST NOT MAKING THINGS WORSE.

The bill refunds about $7 billion that auditors agree the Postal Service has overpaid into federal worker retirement accounts. The money would be used in part to offer buyouts of up to $25,000 to as many as 100,000 eligible postal workers, with the rest of the funds put toward other debt. Refunding the money “is not a bailout,” Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) said. “It’s the result of a legal analysis that everybody agrees with, that this was in fact an overpayment by the Postal Service” into the Federal Employee Retirement System.

House Republicans disagree. They consider any attempt to refund the Postal Service with money from federal retirement or health-care accounts would be a taxpayer-funded bailout.

* Hmm... LIEBERMAN MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE THE BETTER ARGUMENT HERE. IN FAIRNESS, I DO RECALL READING ABOUT THE OVERPAYMENT (AND EVEN NEWSBITING THE INFO). LET ME JUST SAY THAT THIS DOES CHANGE THE TERMS OF DEBATE - AT LEAST A BIT.

The Senate bill also would scrap a 10-year payment schedule that requires the Postal Service to pay about $5.5 billion annually to prefund future worker retirements. The bill would spread out those payments over 40 years, significantly reducing the annual obligations that postal officials say cause much of the agency’s cash shortfalls.

* WHY WAS THE 10-YEAR PAYMENT SCHEDULE ORIGINALLY ENACTED IN THE FIRST PLACE? WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF GOING TO A 40-YEAR SPREAD?

The Postal Service also would be allowed to renegotiate a new health-care plan with its major worker unions to help cut costs.

* I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF THAT!

The House proposal, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa ­(R-Calif.), would establish a financial control board to overhaul postal finances - a move critics say could result in layoffs, not buyouts, of hundreds of thousands of postal workers. Issa’s bill was approved by his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last month, against the objections of Democrats who said it was too quickly considered and would unfairly target workers.

* MAN... I WISH THE WP HAD JUST ASKED LIEBERMAN AND ISSA TO WRITE "DUELING" OP-EDs. THIS REPORTING STINKS!

November 3, 2011 at 4:12 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/282182

* FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN THE "SCANDAL" REVOLVING AROUND HERMAN CAIN...

November 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that "over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier."

* AND THIS IS INDEED TRUE.

What's more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

* BET YA DIDN'T KNOW THAT... (*SHRUG*)... WELL... IT'S TRUE. AND THERE'S MORE!

[D]uring Clinton's eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

(*SMIRK*)

* OH... THERE'S MORE!

[T]he rich actually got poorer under President George W. Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

* IMAGINE THAT! (*SHRUG*) (*SNICKER*)

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush's eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose - slightly - in Obama's first two years. (Another Census measure of inequality shows it's climbed 5.7% since he took office.)

* INTERESTING, HUH? BUT, HEY... LOOK AT HOW WELL G.E. AND IT'S CEO - OBAMA'S JOBS CZAR - ARE DOING... LOOK AT THE BONUSES AT FANNIE AND FREDDIE... LOOK AT MICHELLE'S PAY INCREASES AS HER HUSBAND CLIMBED THE POLITICAL LADDER IN ILLINOIS... (*SHRUG*)

* MY POINT? CRONY CAPITALISM IS VERY LUCRATIVE FOR THE INSIDERS.

November 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/Article/590345/201111021859/White-House-Bonus-Hypocrisy.htm

When bailed-out private Wall Street banks handed out bonuses last year, the president threw a fit.

* AS DID I AND PEOPLE LIKE ME.

So why is he ignoring the huge executive bonuses at government-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

* BECAUSE HE'S A PHONY AND A HYPOCRITE. (I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW THIS...???) (OH... IT WAS A RHETORICAL QUESTION; SORRY!)

Shortly after taking office, President Obama reacted to Wall Street bonuses handed out in January 2009 with incredibly harsh language, calling them "shameful" and "the height of irresponsibility."

* AND ASIDE FROM THE ISSUE OF RESPECTING CONTRACTUAL TERMS, IN MORAL TERMS OBAMA WAS CORRECT.

In January 2010, Obama was once again in high dudgeon about Wall Street bonuses, blasting "reports of massive profits and obscene bonuses at some of the very firms who owe their continued existence to the American people."

* I REMEMBER!

[M]ortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac...[were] at the epicenter of the housing bubble... the government had to take them over, pumping in cash to cover their huge losses on the mortgages they owned and guaranteed. [B]est-case scenario for Fannie and Freddie is that their bailout will cost over $120 billion.

[T]hat didn't stop the two agencies from giving their top 10 executives $12.8 million in bonuses for meeting what have been charitably described as "modest goals."

And the White House response to this genuine outrage?

(*CUE JEOPARDY MUSIC*)

Crickets.

* OBAMA TRULY IS A PIECE OF GARBAGE.

When asked about it on Tuesday, press secretary Jay Carney washed the administration's hands of the matter. "These entities are independent and therefore they are independent decisions," he said. "The White House is not involved, and nor should it be."

* SCUMBAG... TOTAL SCUMBAG...

It's all been too much for Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., who has called on Obama to force Fannie and Freddie to cancel these bonuses. "The president should speak up for what's right and wrong," he told IBD. "And it's wrong to reward failure at Fannie and Freddie after taxpayers paid billions to bail them out."

Barrasso said Carney's claim that these agencies are independent and can't be touched "is not an accurate statement, in my view." Obama, of all people, should know better, he said.

When Obama was running for president, he sent an angry letter to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson saying that when Congress rescued Fannie and Freddie, "we explicitly included a provision that gave the new regulator the authority to block ... multimillion-dollar severance payments."

(*SMIRK*)

November 3, 2011 at 5:13 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.investors.com/Article/590347/201111021859/Maxed-Out.htm

* IF YOU CAN SPARE THE TIME... WORTH READING. (IT'S A QUICKIE - JUST ONE PAGE... LESS THAN A MINUTE!)

November 3, 2011 at 5:14 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/nov/3/more-half-health-care-deadlines-missed-obama-admin/

The Obama administration has failed to meet more than half of the new health care law's deadlines, from submitting plans for new, value-based Medicare purchasing programs to publishing criteria for determining the medically underserved.

(*SNORT*)

* YOU TRY MISSING A GOVERNMENT DEADLINE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS!

A report requested by Sen. Tom Coburn, Oklahoma Republican, indicates that the Department of Health and Human Services and other federal agencies missed 18 of 30 deadlines since the Affordable Care Act was passed in March 2010.

* UNFRIGG'NBELIEVABLE... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

In one instance, a National Healthcare Workforce Commission created by the law was appointed but has not been funded and has not submitted two reports that were due on April 1 and Oct. 1.

* LISTEN... IN ALL SERIOUSNESS... OBAMA IS INCOMPETENT... HIS PEOPLE ARE INCOMPETENT - AT BEST!

In another example, the comptroller general didn't submit to Congress a report on seniors' access to vaccines that was due on June 1.

* HARRY TRUMAN'S SLOGAN WAS "THE BUCK STOPS HERE" - BARAK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S IS "THE LAW IS FOR THEE... NOT FOR ME!"

November 3, 2011 at 5:45 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)