Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, March 14, 2012


Congratulations Rick Santorum!

Condolences... my fellow Americans.

Of course... (*SMILE*)... don't believe a word you read until it's verified by me, folks.

(*WINK*)

What... "has Bill finally lost it," you ask?

Nope. I'm only pointing out that all isn't necessarily as it seems.

Take this Washington Times reporting from a mere five days ago:

Press reports have put Mr. Santorum in second place based on projections about how delegates will be allocated in some of the caucus states where voters have cast their ballots, but where the actual delegates won’t be decided until later, at county, district and state conventions.

Hmm... interesting! Had you heard this before? If not... you might want to wonder "why not?"

Indeed, five days ago this is what the Washington Times was reporting:

Rick Santorum may have won more primaries but the Republican National Committee’s current delegate count shows former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has more bound delegates than Mr. Santorum in the race for the party’s presidential nomination.

Now is this still the case today... after last night's contests? Frankly... I don't know. Here's what I do know though:

2,282,245 vs. 2,101,951.

Do you know what those numbers are, folks? They're the vote tallies so far for Santorum vs. Gingrich. Yep... Santorum has a slight lead. No denying that! But the word is "slight."

Again... let me ask you... do the numbers I've just laid out represent the slaughter that you've been hearing about on TV or on the radio or reading about in the newspapers or online?

And votes for Romney so far? Over three million; 3,472,365 to be precise.

And for Ron Paul? For the libertarian candidate, so far... 949,207.

Hmm... what does the math say...??? It says Romney 3,472,365 vs.

(*DRUM ROLL*)

Non-Romney... 5,333,403.

Again, folks... if any of this comes as a "surprise" to you, let alone a "shock," ask yourself why that could possibly be. Could it possibly be because the media - both mainstream and "conservative" - is in the tank for Romney and has been all along?

(That was meant as a rhetorical question, by the way...) (*SMILE*)

And could the past several months' focus on Santorum have been a deliberate tactic to boost the Santorum candidacy in the short term in order to weaken the Gingrich candidacy over the long term...???

(Again... rhetorical question.) (*CHUCKLE*)

Let me lay it out for you once again, folks:

The mainstream media wants Obama to win.

They believe Obama can beat Romney, therefore, they'll happily "hold their fire" on Romney the candidate for the GOP nomination. (On the other hand... if Romney gets the nomination... they'll go after him with both barrels. All of a sudden you'll hear things about Romney you've never heard before... things from that biography I read last month... things that will depress Republican voter turnout.

As to Santorum... the instinctual hatred for the "Christian Right" candidate runs deep and it does indeed seep out. On the other hand... even while believing that Obama is the odds on favorite to beat Romney (
with their help, of course), I doubt the confidence level is through the roof.

But... they surely believe that if Santorum is the GOP nominee that the election is Obama's for the taking.

(*SHRUG*)

And the "conservative" media...???

Folks... we've gone over this before.

(*SIGH*)

Giving the management at Fox News, NRO, and the Wall Street Journal the benefit of the doubt... analyzing their motivations in the best possible light... they truly believe that Romney stands the best chance of beating Obama and absent that, they believe his campaign would provide the best coattails to Republican Senate candidates in their effort to take control of the Senate.

(*SHRUG*)

Anyway... no need to reiterate Republican Establishment thinking... or, rather... lack thereof.

So where does this leave us? Where it always does... with me providing facts and analysis you can trust. You may not always agree with my conclusions... but you know I won't lie to you and I won't attempt to manipulate you.

I'll continue to do the work. You continue to decide how you react to it.

6 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/world/asia/panetta-meets-with-military-officials-in-kyrgyzstan.html?_r=1&ref=world

One of Kyrgyzstan’s top defense officials told Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta on Tuesday that a crucial United States air base here should have “no military mission” when its lease expires a little more than two years from now.

* IF SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON WAS DOING HER JOB... (*PAUSE*)... WOULDN'T WE BE RETAINING (AND GAINING, FOR THAT MATTER) ALLIES INSTEAD OF BEING ASKED TO VACATE U.S. MILITARY BASES ABROAD? HMM...???

The request creates a potential hurdle to American plans to withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014.

* UH... YEAH!

The base, officially called a transit center, is at the Manas airport close to the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek, and has been a vital hub for troops and materiel moving in and out of Afghanistan. It is the only such base that American forces have in Central Asia.

* "OH, WELL," HILLARY MUST SAY TO HERSELF, "YOU WIN SOME, YOU LOSE SOME." (*SMIRK*)

* FOLKS... AGAIN... THE JOB OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE IS TO MAKE SURE SHIT LIKE THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN!

William R. Barker said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/15/world/asia/panetta-visits-afghanistan-following-massacre.html?hp

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta landed at Camp Leatherneck, Afghanistan, Wednesday morning for an unannounced and tense visit...

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding Mr. Panetta’s trip, the Marines and other troops who were waiting in a tent for the defense secretary to speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

* THIS... IS... NOT... THE ONION. THIS IS THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTING THIS. THIS IS REAL!

Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. ... American officials said that the top commander in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke to them...

* IS THIS WHAT IT'S COME TO, MY FRIENDS? IS THIS WHAT ALMOST FOUR YEARS OF AN OBAMA PRESIDENCY HAS LED TO?

William R. Barker said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-14/u-s-fourth-quarter-current-account-gap-widens-to-124-1-billion.html

The current-account deficit in the U.S. widened more than forecast in the fourth quarter to $124.1 billion, the biggest in three years.

* "MORE THAN FORECAST." HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU READ THIS "DISCLAIMER" WHEN BAD NEWS IS EVENTUALLY COVERED BY THE PRESS WHICH REFLECTS BADLY UPON THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION?

(*SMIRK*) (*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)

The gap, the broadest measure of international trade because it includes income payments and government transfers, grew 15%... (*SIGH*)... The gap for all of 2011 widened to $473.4 billion, or 3.1 percent of gross domestic product, from $470.9 billion a year earlier.

* WRONG DIRECTION, FOLKS! WRONG FUCKING DIRECTION...!!!

* READ THE FULL STORY, FOLKS; IT AIN'T GOOD.

(*SCOWL*)

William R. Barker said...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/13/OKeefe%20Video%20Exposes%20Voter%20Fraud-Friendly%20Policies%20in%20Vermont

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas has released a new video exposing just how easy it is to commit voter fraud in Vermont.

The video, a sequel to O'Keefe's "Primary of the Living Dead" in New Hampshire, shows a Veritas agent entering various voting places around the state of Vermont, giving a different name each time.

Each time, he is given a ballot without showing an ID...

(*SIGH*)

In the video, the agent repeatedly requests (but does not take) a Republican primary ballot. (As he explained to Breitbart.com: "We wanted to remind viewers this is not a partisan issue. This is a situation wherein anyone - Republican or Democrat - can exploit the system.")

The new video follows in the wake of a highly-politicized media attack on Mr. O’Keefe after his exposure of voter fraud in New Hampshire. (Those videos resulted in calls from the left for O’Keefe’s arrest. However, the videos soon resulted in the New Hampshire State Senate passing a new bill requiring voter ID.)

(*THUMBS UP*)

O'Keefe's new video from Vermont could not be more timely, coming the day after [Eric Holder's] Department of Justice...

* "JUSTICE." YEAH... RIGHT. (*SMIRK*)

...civil rights division blocked a Texas photo ID requirement for voters...

(*SIGH*)

As the Project Veritas video shows, the current system in Vermont discriminates against actual legal voters, who must face the prospect of disenfranchisement by those who would vote in their stead illegally, or have their votes cancelled out by those voting illegally in place of deceased voters who have yet to be removed from the rolls.

(If it is not discriminatory for Vermont citizens to be required to show ID to get married or buy alcohol, it is certainly not discriminatory to make them show ID to vote.)

“It is a national disgrace that ballots can be given out in the names of dead people,” O’Keefe told Breitbart.com. “Threats of government intimidation will not stop us from protecting the integrity of the ballot box. If any state has a system which encourages ballots to be given out to the wrong person, dead or alive, we will come to your state, we will film your poll workers, and Project Veritas will put the videos on YouTube. States like Vermont and New Hampshire have to take dead people off voter registration forms and clean up their act, once and for all.”

(*SINCERE, HEARTFELT APPLAUSE*)

William R. Barker said...

http://links.heritage.org/hostedemail/email.htm?CID=11429731338&ch=8DDE486C812EE387EAAED86A5C7AF72D&h=45433de0e40c074545a12704ad32b281&ei=s8qda28NE

* WELL WORTH READING!

Majority Leader Harry Reid is attempting to blame the Republican minority for the Senate's failure to confirm 17 of President Obama's district court nominees.

"Republicans have refused to allow us to even vote - won't even allow us to vote - on these qualified judicial nominees," Reid declared. "Republicans have prevented the Senate from doing its constitutional duty and that's what it is."

* LYING PIECE OF SHIT... (*SIGH*)

Let's begin with the fact that Reid is majority leader, the one who sets the Senate's agenda and determines the floor schedule.

(*SMIRK*)

* SECOND... (READ ON...)

Conservatives aren't blocking any votes because they aren't filibustering.

* THIRD...

According to statistics compiled by the Senate Republican Policy Committee, Obama has secured approval for 129 district-court judges in three years. That's more than President George W. Bush's 120 confirmations over his final four years in office.

* FOURTH...

There's also the fact that Obama has sent fewer nominees than Bush to the Senate. In the first three years of his presidency, Bush nominated 215 district court judges; Obama made 173 nominations.

(*SNORT*)

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

That follows a pattern under Obama. Of the 83 judicial vacancies that currently exist, he's made 39 nominations, leaving 44 openings unaddressed.

(And 17 of those nominees haven't yet been approved by the Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.)

* OOPS! (*CHUCKLE*)

* OH... BUT THERE'S MORE! (*READ ON*)

What's more, it has been reported that the American Bar Association secretly declared a significant number of the president's nominees to be "not qualified."

* THAT'S ACCORDING TO THE NYT BY THE WAY: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/us/politics/screening-panel-rejects-many-obama-picks-for-federal-judgeships.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Morning%2BBell

William R. Barker said...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-understanding-new-price-oil

* READ IT.