Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, December 21, 2011


Amazing... pushing 80 when she sang this live... no lip-synching!

(Here's the original to compare and contrast to!)
Posted by at

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-ecb-3yr-loans-idUSTRE7BK0MC20111221

Following a string of failed attempts by euro zone leaders to thwart market attacks on the bloc's weaker members...

* BY "THWART MARKET ATTACKS" REUTERS MEANS "THWART ACKNOWLEDGING REALITY."

(*SIGH*) (*SPITTING ON THE GROUND*)

...hopes of crisis relief before the year-end had been pinned on a massive uptake of the ECB's ultra-long and ultra-cheap loans.

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... THE "MASSIVE UPTAKE OF THE ECB's ULTRA-LONG AND ULTRA-CHEAP LOANS" ISN'T A CURE... IT'S A DOUBLING DOWN ON THE DISEASE!

The near half a trillion euro take-up of ECB funds exceeded almost all forecasts. A total of 523 banks borrowed with demand way above the 310 billion euros expected by traders polled by Reuters, making it the most the bank has ever pumped into the financial system.

* FOLKS... (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)... ECB STANDS FOR "EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK." (IN LAYMAN'S TERMS THE EQUIVILANT OF OUR FED.) HERE'S THE QUESTION: WHERE DID THE ECB GET THE FUNDS TO LOAN TO THESE 523 BANK... Hmm...???

(*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)

The funding should bolster banks' finances, ease the threat of a credit crunch and maybe tempt them to buy Italian and Spanish bonds, thereby easing the currency area's sovereign debt crisis.

(*SNORT*)

* AGAIN... EXACTLY WHERE DID THIS "FUNDING" COME FROM... Hmm...??? WHERE DID THE ECB GET THE "FUNDING" FROM?

(*ANOTHER SNORT*)

* OH... AND IF THE ITALIANS AND SPANISH CAN'T PAY THEIR EXISTING DEBT... HOW DOES LOANING THEM (VIA BOND PURCHASES) EVEN MORE MONEY THAT THEY'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO REPAY "SOLVE" THE PROBLEM... Hmm...???

* FOLKS... (*SIGH*)... INSANITY PILED UPON INSANITY... (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

December 21, 2011 at 9:56 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/constitutional-expert-%E2%80%9Cpresident-obama-%E2%80%A6-says-he-can-kill-you-his-own-discretion-without

Obama says that he can assassinate American citizens living on U.S. soil.

This may sound over-the-top.

But nationally-recognized constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley (the second most cited law professor in the country, one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases, who has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues and is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues, who ranked 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by a well-known judge) said yesterday on C-Span (starting at 15:50):

* QUOTING...

It's even worse than coming into your house.

President Obama has just stated a policy that he can have any American citizen killed without any charge, without any review, except his own. If he's satisfied that you are a terrorist, he says that he can kill you anywhere in the world including in the United States.

Two of his aides just were just at a panel two weeks ago and they reaffirmed they believe that American citizens can be killed on the order of the President anywhere including the United States.

You've now got a president who says that he can kill you on his own discretion. (He can [also] jail you indefinitely on his own discretion.)

* THE VIDEO IS RIGHT THERE ON THE PAGE (LINK PROVIDED ABOVE.) YOU SHOULD WATCH THE VIDEO - OR JUST LISTEN TO IT AS YOU COMMUTE. (*SHRUG*)

* GOD HELP THIS ONCE GREAT NATION.

* FOLKS... I FOUND THIS STORY VIA ZERO HEDGE - NOT DRUDGE... NOT THE NYT... NOT THE WSJ...

(*SHRUG*)

* FOLKS... WE'VE ALREADY LOST OUR COUNTRY.

December 21, 2011 at 10:15 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/20/bidens-taliban-buddies/

Vice President Joe Biden said the Taliban are not our enemy. If so, it makes one wonder what all the killing is about.

(*SNORT*) (*CHUCKLE*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

“Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy,” Mr. Biden stated in an interview last week. “That’s critical.”

* FUNNY THING...

[T]he 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force defines the enemy as “those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations.”

* SURE SOUNDS LIKE THE TALIBAN TO ME!

The Taliban were given an opportunity to hand over the perpetrators of the Sept. 11 attacks but refused. That’s the simple fact of why America overthrew the regime, and that’s the root of the current spat with Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

(*NOD*)

Biden said if “the Taliban is able to collapse the existing government, which is cooperating with us in keeping the bad guys from being able to do damage to us, then that becomes a problem for us.”

However, collapsing the existing government and re-creating the barbaric “Islamic emirate” are the only goals the Taliban have in this war.

(*!!!*)

The Taliban are committed, ideologically motivated insurgents seeking to eliminate the current Afghan government and seize absolute power. Any approach to negotiating with them that doesn’t recognize that fact is doomed to fail.

Biden may claim the Taliban aren’t our enemy, but America most definitely is the Taliban’s enemy. Ten years of bloodshed have seen to that.

It’s a strange U.S. conceit to believe Washington can loose bombs, missiles and other forms of violent death on a foe with the belief that they won’t take it seriously.

Memories are long in Afghanistan, and people tend to respond personally when their family members and friends are killed. The tradition of the blood feud is well-developed in Pashtun culture, and the requirement to seek revenge (or justice) can last for generations.

In Obama administration terms, the United States is engaged in a war that is not to be called a war, against an enemy that is not an enemy per se, in pursuit of something it refuses to call victory.

(*MY LUNCH LITERALLY TURNING TO ACID IN MY STOMACH*)

December 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://americaswarwithin.org/articles/2011/12/21/local-police-stockpile-high-tech-combat-ready-gear

If terrorists ever target Fargo, ND, the local police will be ready.

In recent years, they have bought bomb-detection robots, digital communications equipment and Kevlar helmets, like those used by soldiers in foreign wars.

For local siege situations requiring real firepower, police there can use a new $256,643 armored truck, complete with a rotating turret. (Until that day, however, the menacing truck is mostly used for training runs and appearances at the annual Fargo picnic, where it’s been displayed near a children’s bounce house.)

Fargo, like thousands of other communities in every state, has been on a gear-buying spree with the aid of more than $34 billion in federal government grants since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

The [deficit financed] federal grant spending, awarded with little oversight from Washington, has fueled a rapid, broad transformation of police operations in Fargo and in departments across the country. More than ever before, police rely on quasi-military tactics and equipment, the Center for Investigative Reporting has found.

The homeland security market for state and local agencies is projected to reach $19.2 billion by 2014, up from $15.8 billion in fiscal 2009, according to the Homeland Security Research Corp.

* HOWEVER...

No one can say exactly what has been purchased in total across the country or how it’s being used, because the federal government doesn’t keep close track.

(*SNORT*)

Although local officials say they have become more cautious about spending in recent years, police departments around the country are continually expanding the equipment and tactics of their jobs, despite, in many cases, the lack of an apparent need. Many police, including beat cops, now routinely carry assault rifles. Combined with body armor and other apparel, many officers look more and more like combat troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(*SIGH*)

Homeland security and law enforcement officials say the expenditures and modern training have helped save civilian and police lives. But the gear also can be used for heavy-handed - even excessive - tactics.

In one case, dozens of officers in combat-style gear raided a "rave" in Utah as a police helicopter buzzed overhead. An online video shows the battle-ready team wearing masks and brandishing rifles as they holler for the music to be shut off and pin partygoers to the ground.

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

Arizona "tactical officers" this year sprayed the home of ex-Marine Jose Guerena with gunfire as the man stood in a hallway with a rifle that he did not shoot [PDF]. He was hit 22 times and died. Police had targeted the man’s older brother in a narcotics-trafficking probe, but nothing illegal was found in the younger Guerena’s home, and no related arrests had been made months after the raid. (Guerena pointed his assault rifle at SWAT officers, however, the safety was on and he could not fire.)

No one knows for sure the number of SWAT teams nationwide. But at a time when the crime rate has been dropping, the number of police associated with SWAT duties has gone up. The National Tactical Officers Association, which provides training and develops SWAT standards, has about 1,650 team memberships, up from 1,026 in 2000, according to Executive Director John Gnagey.

* FOLKS... REMEMBER THAT MEMO FROM HOMELAND SECURITY A WHILE BACK?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/?page=all

* FOLKS... DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THE MILITARIZATION OF OUR POLICE IS JUST ABOUT "TERRORISM?"

December 21, 2011 at 1:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTUeCwsq4LE

* THIS CHEERED ME UP A BIT!

December 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/16192

* CHEERINESS SHORT-LIVED!

Each Chevy Volt sold thus far may have as much as $250,000 in state and federal dollars in incentives behind it - a total of $3 billion altogether, according to an analysis by James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

(GM has estimated they’ve sold 6,000 Volts so far. That would mean each of the 6,000 Volts sold would be subsidized between $50,000 and $250,000, depending on how many government subsidy milestones are realized.)

Hohman looked at total state and federal assistance offered for the development and production of the Chevy Volt, General Motors’ plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. His analysis included 18 government deals that included loans, rebates, grants and tax credits. (The amount of government assistance does not include the fact that General Motors is currently 26 percent owned by the federal government.)

* YA JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP, FOLKS!

The Volt subsidies flow through multiple companies involved in production. The analysis includes adding up the amount of government subsidies via tax credits and direct funding for not only General Motors, but other companies supplying parts for the vehicle.

(For example, the Department of Energy awarded a $105.9 million grant to the GM Brownstown plant that assembles the batteries. The company was also awarded approximately $106 million for its Hamtramck assembly plant in state credits to retain jobs. The company that supplies the Volt’s batteries, Compact Power, was awarded up to $100 million in refundable battery credits [in] combination [with] tax breaks and cash subsidies.)

It’s unlikely that all the companies involved in Volt production will ever receive all the $3 billion in incentives, Hohman said, because many of them are linked to meeting various employment and other milestones. But the analysis looks at the total value that has been offered to the Volt in different aspects of production - from the assembly line to the dealerships to the battery manufacturers. (Some tax credits and subsidies are offered for periods up to 20 years, though most have a much shorter time frame.)

* ...FOR PERIODS UP TO 20 YEARS... (*SIGH*)

If battery manufacturers awarded incentives to produce batteries the Volt may use are included in the analysis, the potential government subsidy per Volt increases to $256,824. (For example, A123 Systems has received extensive state and federal support, and bid to be a supplier to the Volt, but the deal instead went to Compact Power. The $256,824 figure includes adding up the subsidies to both companies.)

* ENOUGH. (I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!)

December 21, 2011 at 1:56 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)