Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, August 15, 2012


I've said it before... I'll say it again...

Let's hope Obama doesn't have the brains to ditch Biden for Hillary.

Posted by at

8 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/price-ground-beef-hits-record-high

The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics has been tracking the average price of a pound of 100% ground beef since 1984.

Prior to June 2012, the average cost of 100% ground beef in the United States had never topped $3.00.

(*DRUM ROLL*)

The average price of ground beef hit a record high in the United States in July, according to data released Wednesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July, it cost $3.085, up from $3.007 in June.

(*SARCASTIC CLAP-CLAP-CLAP*)

* ONE MORE TIME, FOLKS...

Prior to June, the average cost of 100% ground beef in the United States had never topped $3.00.

(*SARCASTIC STANDING OVATION*)

* O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A! O-BAM-A!

* FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

(*SNORT*)

* WHAT'S SICK IS THAT I CAN'T IMAGINE OBAMA GETTING LESS THAN 40% OF THE POPULAR VOTE COME NOVEMBER - AND IT'S STILL QUITE POSSIBLE THIS INCOMPETENT LEFTIST WILL WIN A SECOND TERM! (THAT'S HOW SCREWED UP AMERICA IS!)

In January 1984, the first month BLS tracked the price off 100% ground beef, the price was $1.29 per pound. Had that price merely tracked the rate of overall inflation, according to the BLS inflation calculator, it would have risen to $2.66 per pound by 2009, when President Obama took office.

However... between 1984 and 2009, the average price for a pound of 100% ground beef did not increase as much as overall inflation. Thus, in January 2009, when Obama was inaugurated it was only $2.357.

Since January 2009, the average price for a pound of 100% ground beef would have risen to only $2.52 per pound - if it had tracked the overall rate of inflation.

* BUT... INSTEAD... IT'S NOW $3.09 LB.!

* ANYWAY, FOLKS... BOTTOM LINE... IF MCCAIN WERE PRESIDENT INSTEAD OF A DEMOCRAT ALL WE'D BE HEARING ABOUT FROM THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS THE RISE IN THE MISERY INDEX. AS IT IS... BECAUSE THERE'S A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT... YOU'RE READING THIS VIA CNS NEWS INSTEAD OF VIA CBS, NBC, ABC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, AND THE REST OF THE LIBERAL MEDIA. IT'S DISGUSTING.

August 15, 2012 at 2:32 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/15/house-members-vip-loans-excluded-subpoena/

A Democratic committee chairman overrode his own subpoena three years ago in an investigation of former subprime mortgage lender Countrywide to exclude records showing that he, other House members and congressional aides got VIP discounted loans from the company, documents show.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The procedure to keep the names secret was devised by Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y. In 2003, the 15-term congressman had two loans processed by Countrywide’s VIP section, which was established to give discounts to favored borrowers.

* AND...??? (THIS BASTARD SHOULD - AT THE LEAST - BE CENSURED BY THE HOUSE. AT BEST HE SHOULD BE EXPELLED.)

The effort at secrecy was reversed when Towns‘ Republican successor as chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, California Rep. Darrell Issa, issued a second subpoena. It yielded Countrywide records identifying four current House members, a former member and five staff aides whose loans went through the VIP unit. Towns was on the list.

* GOD BLESS DARRELL ISSA!

Most of the names had dribbled out to the media by the time Issa issued the committee’s final report last month on Countrywide’s use of loan discounts to buy influence with government officials. But there was no official confirmation until Issa made his report public.

The Issa report named:

— Towns (D-NY), who has consistently denied that he received any special treatment from Countrywide.

— Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

* STRIP THE BASTARD OF HIS CHAIRMANSHIP.

— Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif. His spokesman said his Countrywide loan carried an interest rate of 5.75%, which was comparable to rates at that time. Gallegly never asked for preferential treatment, the spokesman said.

* LISTEN... THIS WHOLE THING STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN.

— Former Rep. Tom Campbell, a California Republican. He said he never received any preference from Countrywide and did not even recall getting a Countrywide loan.

* GOOD THAT HE'S A "FORMER" REPRESENTATIVE. (I WONDER WHAT THE BASTARD IS DOING NOW?)

The report also said Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, the current House GOP campaign chairman, had a loan processed by the VIP section. Sessions’ spokeswoman said he requested that he not be extended any special benefits or treatment from Countrywide, and Issa’s report confirmed the request was granted.

* THEN WHY WAS IT PROCESSED THROUGH THE VIP SECTION...? IN ANY CASE, LET'S ASSUME SESSIONS HAS BEEN "ABSOLVED" - THAT THE INVESTIGATION DID INDEED CONFIRM NO SPECIAL TREATMENT WAS GIVEN... (*SHRUG*)... WAS THIS ALSO THE CASE WITH CAMPBELL, GALLEGLY, MCKEON, AND TOWNS...?

Towns announced in April that he was retiring after 30 years of representing his Brooklyn district.

August 15, 2012 at 4:29 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20220815pie_in_the_sky_bakers_attempt_to_block_ebt_users_from_buying_sweets_is_deemed_/srvc=home%26position=0

A Walpole, Massachusetts baker — appalled that welfare abuse now seems almost as American as apple pie — is putting her whoopie pies where her mouth is in a dispute with the Braintree Farmers Market, refusing to take EBT cards for her baked treats.

(*THUMBS UP*)

“I don’t think American taxpayers should be footing the bill for people’s pie purchases,” said Andrea Taber, proprietor of the Ever So Humble Pie Co. in Walpole, who peddles her wares at the Braintree market on Fridays and now finds herself in the middle of the state’s raging fight over welfare benefits.

* GOD BLESS THIS WOMAN!

It all started in May, when Braintree Farmers Market chairwoman Donna Ingemanson wrote the market’s vendors to “encourage everyone who sells eligible products to participate” in a program in which the market will sell tokens to EBT cardholders to use at market stalls.

Taber told the Herald she has no problem with customers using their taxpayer-funded welfare benefits to buy fresh fruit and vegetables. But she draws a line when it comes to her own sweet, fatty goods. “To me it’s no different than nail salons and Lottery tickets,” Taber said. “It’s pastry, it’s dessert. My pies are great, but come on.”

* I... LOVE... THIS... FUCKING... WOMAN...!!!

* OF COURSE... (*SIGH*)... THE LEFT DOESN'T. (*READ ON*)

“I know it’s been a struggle for you to accept this program but we really need to work something out,” Ingemanson emailed [Taber]. “Other markets make it mandatory to sign on to these programs and my guess is that it will be for us soon. ... In fact, you’re the only one who is resistant to the idea.”

* WOW... THE BORG ARE REAL! (YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED!)

(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD WHILE CHUCKLING*)

Ingemanson told the Herald that in light of Taber’s "resistance," the farmers market management will consider during the winter whether to require all vendors to accept EBT payment next year.

* THING IS, FOLKS... IT'S REALLY NOT FUNNY.

“If that’s the case, I’ll take my leave,” Taber told the Herald. “I’m not going to sacrifice my principles and standards for the sake of a few more sales.”

* GOOD FOR TABER!

August 15, 2012 at 5:34 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20120815/NEWS0107/308150032

Pat Mahaney was walking home Saturday with a six-pack of beer, looking forward to a quiet evening watching sports, when something hit him in the back of the head.

“The next thing I knew I woke up on my neighbor’s front step and the life squad was there,” said the 45-year-old North College Hill resident.

* CINCINNATI...

Six teenagers, who according to a police report “were just bored and were looking for something to do,” ambushed Mahaney from behind as he turned off Simpson Avenue onto Dallas Avenue. He was immediately knocked unconscious.

* HMM... "TEENAGERS," HUH? ANYTHING IN COMMON BESIDES THEIR AGE...? HMM...?

The boys, ages 13 and 14, face felony charges of aggravated riot and felonious assault.

The sixth and final suspect was arrested Tuesday.

All but one have been released from Hamilton County’s juvenile detention center and are on house arrest at their parents’ residences, court officials said today.

Two of the suspects are 13-year-old twins. Their mother, Latasha Alford, 32, said that while not excusing her sons’ actions, they did feel peer pressure to go along with the other boys.

* WASN'T IT ERIC HOLDER WHO ONCE SAID AMERICANS WERE "COWARDS" BECAUSE WE REFUSE TO DISCUSS RACE...?

(*SHRUG*)

When police rounded most of the teens up, took them back to the police station and questioned them, they admitted Mahaney had done nothing to provoke being kicked and punched repeatedly in the face while he was helpless on the ground.

The boys told police they only stopped assaulting Mahaney when a neighbor began yelling at them and said he was calling police.

An officer who happened to be in the area responding to a call about dogs fighting was nearby and spotted a crowd of people gathered at the corner of Dallas and Simpson. Several witnesses told the officer Mahaney, who was covered in blood, “was jumped by six children,” the incident report states.

Mahaney was taken to Mercy Mt. Airy Hospital, where he was treated for four days before being released Tuesday. He suffered so many internal injuries that doctors had to insert a tube down his throat to remove all the blood from his stomach.

A tube remains in his right nostril as blood continues to seep out of his head, and his left eye is heavily blackened.

The attack couldn’t come at a worse time. He has no health insurance and has been unemployed for “years,” he said.

* BY THE WAY... MAHANEY IS WHITE. (THERE'S A PHOTO.)

* OH... GET THIS... THIS IS THE REPORTER OPINING WITHIN THE STORY:

It was probably a blessing he was knocked out during the worst of the brutal attack - one of the teens even grabbed a can of beer and hurled it at his head.

* WELL, FOLKS... HERE'S MY "OPINING": THESE SIX ANIMALS SHOULD BE PUT DOWN... EXECUTED... SO THAT THEY CAN NEVER HURT ANOTHER PERSON. THEY WON'T BE, THOUGH. AND I GUARANTEE THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THESE ANIMALS... AND I'M GUESSING MORE THAN ONE... PERHAPS ALL... WILL ONE DAY COMMIT OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES AND HURT - OR KILL - OTHER INNOCENT PEOPLE.

* FOLKS... THIS ISN'T "CRIME" PER SE. THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF CIVILIZATION.

August 15, 2012 at 6:30 PM
William R. Barker said...

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

** HAT TIP TO MIKE D!

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/aug/14/why-does-ron-paul-insist-declaration-war/

Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) insists that the U.S. government shouldn’t go to war without a declaration of war by Congress.

* AND HE'S RIGHT.

His son Rand has also taken this position, as have a few other libertarian-leaning Republican candidates.

* THOSE WHO ADHERE TO OUR CONSTITUTION.

The U.S. Constitution delegates the declaration of war power to the Congress, but they have not exercised this power since WWII.

Why is this important?

Most people misunderstand the declaration of war power as “permission” to start a war.

* ACTUALLY IT CAN BE PERMISSION TO START A WAR. (*SHRUG*) YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIKE THIS... BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

By that definition, George W. Bush argued that H.J. Res. 114 (October 16, 2002) fulfilled this constitutional requirement regarding the Iraq War.

* IN A SENSE IT DID; IN A SENSE IT DIDN'T. ULTIMATELY I'D COME DOWN ON THE SIDE THAT SAID "IT DIDN'T" BECAUSE IT WASN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH... DIDN'T GRANT LIMITED PERMISSION TO INVADE ONLY IRAQ... AND THUS, BY BEING A FORFEITURE OF BASIC ENUMERATED CONSTITUTIONAL POWER SAID ACTION WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SINCE CONGRESS CAN'T SIMPLE "GIVE AWAY" IT'S POWERS. ONLY A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CAN ADD OR SUBTRACT FROM EXISTING CONGRESSIONAL/PRESIDENTIAL/JUDICIAL BRANCH POWERS.

With that resolution, Congress authorized the president to use military force in the war on terror.

* THUS... WHERE, WHEN, AT AT ANY TIME OF HIS CHOOSING. (*BUZZ*) SORRY... DOESN'T PASS CONSTITUTIONAL MUSTER.

The declaration of war power is not the power to start a war. It is the power to declare that a state of war already exists. This can only be true if the nation in question has committed overt acts of war against the United States.

* NO. LIKE IT OR NOT, IF CONGRESS WERE TO DECIDE TOMORROW TO DECLARE WAR ON CANADA BECAUSE WE WANTED TO STEAL THEIR OIL... THEN WAR IT WOULD BE. (*SHRUG*)

Each time the U.S. Congress has declared war, the resolution has followed the same format.

1. Congress cites the overt acts of war committed by the nation in question against the United States.

2. It recognizes the existence of the war because of those overt acts.

3. It directs the president to utilize the military to end the war.

* DOESN'T MATTER. THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES "GOOD AND PROPER REASON" FOR DECLARING WAR. IT SIMPLY GIVES THE POWER TO CONGRESS.

* TO BE CONTINUED...

August 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)

* JEEZUS... ACCORDING TO THIS GUY'S "LOGIC"... (*PAUSE*)... FDR WAS LIMITED TO TWO TERMS BECAUSE NO PRESIDENT BEFORE HIM HAD SERVED MORE THAN TWO TERMS. (*SMIRK*) NO, FOLKS... IT TOOK A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO LIMIT A PRESIDENT TO TWO TERMS - NOT SIMPLY "TRADITION."

The process is somewhat analogous to a criminal trial. The president “makes his case” to Congress that certain actions by a foreign nation amount to acts of war. Congress then deliberates, renders its verdict and passes sentence. The president is directed to execute the sentence.

* ACTUALLY... (*PAUSE*)... STRICTLY SPEAKING... (*PAUSE*)... CONGRESS DOESN'T "REQUIRE" A "REQUEST" FROM THE PRESIDENT IN ORDER TO DECLARE WAR. (AM I THE ONLY FUCKING PERSON IN AMERICA TO ACTUALLY READ THE FRIGGIN' CONSTITUTION...?!?!)

Here is just one example.

* BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH...

* FORGET THE EXAMPLES! AGAIN... "TRADITION" IS NOT LAW! THE CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT SAYS AND WHETHER ONE LIKES IT OR NOT... AGREES WITH THE WORDING AND INTENT OR NOT... THE ONLY LEGITIMATE WAY AROUND THE CONSTITUTION IS VIA CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

* FOLKS... TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT.

(*SIGH*)

The framers of the Constitution intended that the president would never initiate planned military action until this process took place. Yes, the president could deploy the military if the British or Spanish were discovered marching through Maryland, a very real possibility at the time. Otherwise, however, acts of war had to be committed against the United States before the president directed a military response.

* NO.

(*SHRUG*)

* THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS.

(*SHRUG*)

Only then could a state of war exist. This is consistent with the libertarian principle of non-aggression.

* IT MAY BE CONSISTENT WITH LIBERTARIAN PRINCIPLES OF NON-AGGRESSION... BUT IT'S NOT CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

(*SHRUG*)

What were the acts of war committed by Iraq against the United States? For that matter, what acts of war did Yugoslavia commit against the United States? Viet Nam? Korea?

The United States hasn’t declared war upon another nation since WW-II because there has been no state of war to declare. No nation since then has committed overt acts of war against the U.S. Yet, U.S. troops have been almost continually engaged in military conflict during those 67 years.

* AND I OPPOSE MUCH OF THIS! I CERTAINLY OPPOSE GOING TO WAR ON THE "AUTHORITY" OF THE UNITED NATIONS - LET ALONE NATO! BUT THE FACT IS... OUR SCUMBAG CONGRESSES HAVE ALLOWED THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS TO FESTER AND GROW... THEY'VE FUNDED IT FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!

The next time a U.S. president seeks to take the United States to war, Americans should ask themselves the following questions:

Why can’t this president obtain a declaration of war from the Congress?

If no state of war exists - if there were no overt acts of war committed by the nation in question against the United States - then who is the aggressor in this conflict?

* WE ARE! (YES! I GET THE AUTHOR'S POINT! TOO BAD HE'LL NEVER SEE THIS NEWSBITE SO AS TO GET EDUCATED ON WHERE HE'S MISGUIDED.)

(*SMILE*)

August 15, 2012 at 6:55 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/labor-dept-attempts-stop-layoffs-giving-100-million-states-subsidize-payrolls

The Labor Department announced on Monday that it will be awarding almost $100 million in grant funding to states to prevent layoffs by allowing businesses to pay employees as part-time workers and the federal government will pick up the tab for the cost of a full-time paycheck.

* WTF...?!?!

The “work-sharing” program was passed as part of a Republican-led bill in the House, H.R. 3630, and Senate Amendment 1465 to extend the payroll tax deduction and unemployment benefits. In February 2012, President Barack Obama signed the bill into law, which included the $100 million in funding.

* FUCKING SCUMBAG BOEHNER REPUBLICANS... (AND WHAT'A'YA WANNA BET RYAN VOTED FOR IT?!)

"Establishing or expanding work-sharing programs nationwide will help business owners better weather hard economic times by temporarily reducing their labor costs while still keeping their existing skilled employees," Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said in the press release announcing the grants. "This program is a win-win for businesses and employees alike."

* AND FOR TAXPAYERS...???

(*SMIRK*) (*SNICKER*)

* FOLKS... THIS IS CORPORATE WELFARE FILTERED DOWN TO THE EMPLOYEE - BUT IT'S STILL WELFARE! THE TAXPAYER IS PAYING...!!!

August 15, 2012 at 10:57 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48678353

More than 21,000 retired federal workers receive lifetime government pensions of $100,000 or more per year, a USA TODAY/Gannett analysis finds.

Some 1.2% of federal retirees collect six-figure pensions. By comparison, 0.1% of military retirees collect as much.

(*PURSED LIPS*)

The New York State and Local Retirement System pays 0.2% of its retirees pensions of $100,000 or more. The New Jersey retirement system pays 0.4% of retirees that much.

* JEEZUS... YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ARE MORE FRIGGIN' RESPONSIBLE THAN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT...?! WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE...

Pensions are a growing federal budget burden, rising twice as fast as inflation over the last decade. Pension payments cost $70 billion last year, plus $13 billion for retiree health care. (Taxpayers face a $2 trillion unfunded liability — the amount needed to cover future benefits — for these programs, according to the government's audited financial statement.)

The average federal pension pays $32,824 annually. The average state and local government pension pays $24,373, Census data show.

(The average military pension is $22,492.)

ExxonMobil, which has one of the best remaining private pensions, pays an average of $18,250 per retiree, Labor Department filings show.

All federal retirees receive health benefits.

August 15, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)