Monday, April 16, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Monday, April 16, 2012


Welcome to Monday, my friends!

In honor of the return of my beloved (new & improved) desktop PC, I am pleased to resurrect newsbite theme songs of the day!

And for your listening pleasure today...

Posted by at

7 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303815404577333631864470566.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Nothing shows off the worst of Congress like a highway bill.

[T]his year's scramble for cash is worse than ever because the 18.4 cent a gallon gasoline tax will raise $70 billion less than the $263 billion Congress wants to spend over the next five years.

The Senate has passed a two-year $109 billion bill sponsored by Barbara Boxer of California that bails out the highway trust fund with general revenues...

* YOU KNOW - THOSE SAME "GENERAL REVENUES" WHICH ARE ALREADY $1.3 TRILLION SHORT WITH REGARD TO PAYING FOR "GENERAL SPENDING." (THUS DEFICIT SPENDING...)

House Republicans oppose the Senate version amid a $1.3 trillion deficit and have their own bill to give states more flexibility — though still not enough — on how to spend transportation dollars. (Congress had to pass a temporary 90-day extension of highway funding through June 30 because the two sides can't agree.)

* ACTUALLY, THAT'S MORE BULL FROM THE WSJ TRYING TO PROVIDE COVER FOR BOEHNER. NO. CONGRESS DIDN'T "HAVE" TO PASS ANYTHING. REPUBLICANS AGREED TO PASS THIS LATEST 90-DAY EXTENSION BECAUSE THEY'RE UNWILLING TO MAKE A CASE FOR SPENDING ONLY WITHIN THE GOVERNMENT'S MEANS AND FIGHTING FOR THIS COMMON-SENSE LIMITATION.

* ANYWAY... READ THE FULL ARTICLE. MY GUESS? ANY "COMPROMISE" WILL INCLUDE CONTINUING TO SPEND MORE THAN IS TAKEN IN. IN OTHER WORDS... MORE DEFICIT SPENDING... ADDED DEBT.

April 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.tradeaidmonitor.com/2012/04/kenya-sees-spike-in-obama-administration-funded-projects.html

Kenyan businesses lately are increasingly becoming recipients of U.S. government largesse, as the Obama Administration, among pursuing other endeavors, aims to expand "livestock-related economic opportunities" in that nation. Although this and other recently released pre-solicitation notices for unrelated programs serve as advance alerts to potential vendors—and therefore do not offer cost estimates and other details— a review of U.S. government contracting actions nonetheless indicates a spike of activity in Kenya in a variety of sectors.

The White House is committing to a five-year effort to "improve the inclusiveness and competitiveness" of the livestock industry specifically in Marsabit and Garissa counties, Kenya, according to a pre-solicitation notice released April 12 that U.S. Trade & Aid Monitor located via routine database research.

The Feed the Future-related initiative, known as the Resilience and Economic Growth in the Arid Lands-Accelerated Growth, or REGAL-AG, program, will be carried out by contractors hired by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), according to the document.

The agency did not disclose the project’s estimated cost: "No additional information regarding this planned RFP [Request for Proposals] is available at this time."

* UNFRIGG'NBELIEVABLE, HUH? TRILLION-PLUS DOLLAR DEFICITS YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT AND NOW WE'RE INCREASING "AID" TO KENYA - USING MONEY BORROWED FROM CHINA!

April 16, 2012 at 11:36 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romney-is-walking-into-obamas-secrecy-attack/2012/04/16/gIQAgPgeLT_story.html

* TWO WORDS: FRIGG'N ROMNEY.

(*SIGH*)

April 16, 2012 at 1:53 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-04-15/mortgage-principal-Fannie-Freddie/54301686/1

To err is human, to forgive is divine.

That seems to be President Obama's thinking when it comes to mortgages. He wants lenders to forgive significant amounts of principal owed by homeowners who are in over their heads.

(*GNASHING MY TEETH*)

His most recent expansion of his 2009 Home Affordable Modification Program relies heavily on principal reductions, not just tactics such as lowering interest rates or extending repayment schedules.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

He also wants to expand the program to the 60% of home loans owned or guaranteed by the government-controlled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which could put these troubled institutions back in the business of inflating housing bubbles.

* INSANITY.

Edward DeMarco, acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie. DeMarco, a technocrat first appointed by then-President George W. Bush, points out that it would reward bad behavior.

* YA THINK...?!?!

This is more than a simple value judgment. DeMarco...foresees a strong chance that some people who are current on their payments would stop paying to qualify for the government's generosity.

* DUH!

That would undermine the very reason behind the plan.

* NOT REALLY... (*SHRUG*)... FROM OBAMA'S PERSPECTIVE THE "REASON" BEHIND THE PLAN IS TO MAKE PEOPLE DEPENDENT UPON GOVERNMENT AND LIKEWISE... GRATEFUL TO HIM AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR THEIR "AID."

It also amounts to an exceptionally sweet deal for banks.

* YEP! OLIGARCHS OF THE WORLD UNITE!

(*SMIRK*)

[In any case,] the $75 billion in TARP money used to assist borrowers really is a bailout that taxpayers will never recoup.

The final problem with the administration's plan deals with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The pressure that DeMarco is under to sign off on their participation in debt forgiveness is eerily similar to the pressure that Fannie's and Freddie's critics found themselves under in the years leading up to the financial crisis.

For decades, the two companies exposed taxpayers to vast risk in the name of promoting home ownership. Whenever critics raised questions, they were neutralized by Fannie's and Freddie's legions of lobbyists and friends on Capitol Hill.

Now, just a few short years after Fannie's and Freddie's collapse cost taxpayers $187 billion, something similar is happening.

* WELCOME TO THE AGE OF OBAMA, MY FRIENDS!

April 16, 2012 at 2:38 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1964:professor-obama-gets-an-f&catid=62:texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE VERY HONORABLE CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TX)

Last week President Obama made some rather shocking comments at a press conference regarding the Supreme Court's deliberation on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. His comments belie a grasp of constitutional concepts so lacking that perhaps the University of Chicago Law School should offer a refund to any students "taught" constitutional law by then-Professor Obama!

* HEAR! HEAR!

He said, "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." It almost sounds as if he believes the test of constitutionally is whether a majority approves of the bill, as opposed to whether the legislation lies within one of the express powers of the federal government.

In fact, the very design of the Constitution, with power split amongst two branches of the legislature which write the laws, an executive who administers the laws, and an independent judiciary which resolves disputes regarding meaning of the laws, was designed to thwart popular will and preserve liberty.

* THEY USED TO TEACH THIS STUFF IN FRIGG'N MIDDLE SCHOOL!

President Obama continued in his comments, "For years, what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, there's a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step."

(*SNORT*)

President Obama seems to misunderstand that the criticism of an activist judiciary is not that it is overturning unconstitutional federal laws, but instead that it is usurping the authority to intervene in areas, such as abortion, where the Constitution reserves authority to the states. In fact, upholding clearly unconstitutional laws such as ObamaCare because the justices bowed to the "will of the people" or believed the individual mandate was good social policy could be considered an example of judicial activism.

* "COULD BE...?" HOW'BOUT WOULD BE! INDEED, IT WOULD BE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF EACH SUSTAINING JUSTICE'S OATH OF OFFICE AND A BETRAYAL OF THE CONSTITUTION.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

April 16, 2012 at 5:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

The Founders never intended the judiciary to have the last word on whether or not a law is constitutional. The judiciary is equal to the Congress and the President, not superior. Representatives, senators, presidents, and judges all have an independent duty to determine a law's constitutionality. The Founders would be horrified by the attitude of many lawmakers that they can pass whatever laws they want and federal judges will then determine whether or not the law is constitutional.

* YES INDEED! NOT A DOUBT IN MY MIND!

Additionally, state governments have the authority to protect their citizens from federal laws that threaten liberty. If the Supreme Court rules that ObamaCare is constitutional, I hope state legislators will exercise their powers to pass legislation allowing their citizens to opt-out of the national health care plan.

* CAN'T BE DONE. (*SHRUG*) IT WOULD BE LIKE ALLOWING THE STATES TO ALLOW THEIR CITIZENS TO OPT-OUT OF REGISTERING FOR SELECTIVE SERVICE OR A NATIONAL DRAFT SHOULD ONE EVER BE REIMPOSED. I WISH I DIDN'T HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS... BUT I DO.

Unfortunately, even many of my colleagues who correctly argue ObamaCare's unconstitutionality support the President when he asserts the power to send troops into battle without a declaration of war, or have citizens indefinitely detained and even assassinated on little more than his own authority.

* YEP. MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS... THE JUDICIARY... AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH... HAVE LITTLE RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION. SAD BUT TRUE.

Other of my colleagues not only cheer the unconstitutional monstrosity of ObamaCare, but support the President's actions to defy the Senate's appointment powers, and legislate by executive order.

(*SAD NOD*)

* ONE CAVEAT: THE SENATE CAN'T BASICALLY SHUT DOWN AND THEN CLAIM NOT TO BE IN RECESS.

Even worse, some members will only challenge a President's unconstitutional actions if the President is from a different political party.

* HUMAN NATURE = "MOST PEOPLE SUCK."

The defeat of ObamaCare in the courts would provide a stark reminder that the limits of government are set by the Constitution, not the will of the President, Congress, or even the Supreme Court. However, the victory would be short lived as long as the legislative branch refuses to do its duty to abide by the Constitutional limits and exercises its powers to ensure the other two branches do likewise.

(*PURSED LIPS*) (*HEARTFELT NOD*)

April 16, 2012 at 5:59 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/cheers-photos-show-embattled-gsa-official-enjoying-wine-and-soak-in-spa-tub-at-m-hotel-during-pre-conference-meeting/

The government official on the frontlines of the scandal involving a wasteful government conference, U.S. General Services Administration regional commissioner Jeffrey Neely, will invoke his 5th amendment right against self-incrimination, his lawyer Preston Burton tells ABC News.

He won’t comment on the $822,751 conference, many of the expenditures for which the GSA Inspector General called “excessive” and “wasteful.”

He won’t comment on the bizarre awards ceremony or the commemorative coins or the mind-reader/motivational speaker.

Mr. Neely bares a bit more in a photo collection on his wife’s Google+ page [though].

There, visitors can see photos of Neely staying in a luxurious suite at the M Resort Spa & Casino in November 2009, during one of the eight scouting and off-site pre-conference meetings to prepare for the October 2010 conference.

The eight pre-conference trips alone cost the government $130,000, according to the GSA Inspector General’s investigation of the 2010 conference.

* IF SOMEONE TOOK THIS BASTARD NEELY OUT... (*GNASHING MY TEETH*)... I FOR ONE WOULD CONSIDER IT AN ACT OF EXTREME PATRIOTISM!

* THE WIFE IS A PIECE OF SHIT TOO!

GSA spokesman Adam Elkington refrained from commenting on the photographs...

(*SMIRK*)

The pictures suggest Neely and his wife rather enjoyed their stay at the luxurious M hotel, where the conference was ultimately held.

* YEAH... I'D SAY SO.

The Inspector General’s report states that “GSA spending on conference planning was excessive, wasteful, and in some cases impermissible.

* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS, THIS NEELY GUY SHOULD BE SUED FOR EVERYTHING HE'S WORTH - TAKE THE BASTARD'S UNDERWARE! SAME WITH ALL THE OTHER SCUMBAGS! AN EXAMPLE MUST BE SET!

To select a venue and plan the conference, GSA employees conducted two ‘scouting trips,’ five off-site planning meetings, and a “dry run.” Six of these planning events took place at the M Resort (the conference venue) itself. Travel expenses for conference planning totaled $100,405.37, and catering costs totaled over $30,000. GSA spent money on refreshment breaks during the planning meetings, which it had no authority to do, and the cost of catered meals at those meetings exceeded per diem limits.”

* AND THEN JAIL 'EM!

April 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)