Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, October 2, 2012


As always, the actual newsbites can be found in the comments section...

Posted by at

4 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2016:gold-is-good-money&catid=64:2012-texas-straight-talk&Itemid=69

* BY THE EVER-HONORABLE RON PAUL (R-TX)

Last year the Chairman of the Federal Reserve told me that gold is not money, a position which central banks, governments, and mainstream economists have claimed is the consensus for decades. But lately there have been some high-profile defections from that consensus.

As Forbes recently reported, the president of the Bundesbank (Germany's central bank) and two highly-respected analysts at Deutsche Bank have praised gold as good money.

Why is gold good money? Because it possesses all the monetary properties that the market demands: it is divisible, portable, recognizable and, most importantly, scarce - making it a stable store of value. It is all things the market needs good money to be and has been recognized as such throughout history.

Gold rose to nearly $1,800 an ounce after the Fed's most recent round of quantitative easing because the people know that gold is money when fiat money fails.

Central bankers recognize this too, even if they officially deny it. Some analysts have speculated that the International Monetary Fund's real clout is due to its large holdings of gold. And central banks around the world have increased their gold holdings over the last year, especially in emerging market economies trying to protect themselves from the collapse of Western fiat currencies.

Fiat money is not good money because it can be issued without limit and therefore cannot act as a stable store of value.

A fiat monetary system gives complete discretion to those who run the printing press, allowing governments to spend money without having to suffer the political consequences of raising taxes.

Fiat money benefits those who create it and receive it first, enriching government and its cronies.

[But worst of all,] the negative effects of fiat money are disguised so that people do not realize that money the Fed creates today is the reason for the busts, rising prices and unemployment, and diminished standard of living tomorrow.

This is why it is so important to allow people the freedom to choose stable money. Earlier this Congress I introduced the Free Competition in Currency Act (H.R. 1098) to permit people to use gold as money again. By eliminating taxes on gold and other precious metals and repealing legal tender laws, people are given the option between using good money or fiat money. If the government persists in debasing the dollar – as money monopolists have always done – then the people would be able to protect themselves by using alternatives such as gold that are both sound and stable.

As the fiat money pyramid crumbles, gold retains its luster. Rather than being the barbarous relic Keynesians have tried to lead us to believe it is, gold is, as the Bundesbank president put it, "a timeless classic."

The defamation of gold wrought by central banks and governments is because gold exposes the devaluation of fiat currencies and the flawed policies of government. Governments hate gold because the people cannot be fooled by it.

October 2, 2012 at 8:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/02/u-s-consulate-in-benghazi-bombed-twice-in-run-up-to-9-11-anniversary.html

* FILE THIS ONE UNDER: "WOW..."

Jihadists twice set off explosives at the consulate prior to the incident that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens, and announced threats on Facebook about escalating attacks on Western targets in the run-up to the 9/11 anniversary, according to whistleblowers reaching out to House Republicans.

In the five months leading up to this year’s 9/11 anniversary, there were two bombings on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and increasing threats to and attacks on the Libyan nationals hired to provide security at the U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi.

* WOW...

Details on these alleged incidents stem in part from the testimony of a handful of whistleblowers who approached the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the days and weeks following the attack on the Benghazi consulate. The incidents are disclosed in a letter to be sent Tuesday to Hillary Clinton from Rep. Darrell Issa, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the oversight committee’s subcommittee that deals with national security.

* AS SOON AS THE LETTER IS MADE PUBLIC I'LL NEWSBITE IT.

Obama administration officials have said there was no specific intelligence predicting the 9/11 anniversary assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

* AND YET...

A senior State Department official acknowledged that there were five serious attacks on Western targets since the spring in the lead-up to the attack on the 9/11 anniversary.

* AND YET...

The new information disclosed in the letter obtained by The Daily Beast strongly suggests the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and the late Ambassador Chris Stevens were known by U.S. security personnel to be targets for terrorists. Indeed, the terrorists made their threats openly on Facebook.

* AND YET...

The letter also discloses for the first time a bombing at the U.S. consulate that occurred on April 6, 2012. It says that on that day, two former security guards for the consulate in Benghazi threw homemade improvised explosives over the consulate fence.

* AND YET...

On May 1 at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, the deputy commander of the embassy’s local security force was “carjacked, beaten, and detained by a group of armed youth.” Eventually the man escaped his captors and phoned the embassy. “Libyan security forces fought a gun battle with the assailants in order to recover a number of stolen vehicles and release other detainees,” the letter says.

* WHY DIDN'T I KNOW OF THIS...??? RHETORICAL QUESTION. THE ANSWER: BECAUSE THE AMERICAN MEDIA DOES ALL IN ITS POWER TO PROTECT BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON FROM POLICY CRITICISM.

* HEY... FOLKS... REMEMBER... IT WAS ONLY YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE WHERE WE LEARNED THAT OUR LIBYAN EMBASSY - THE EMBASSY, NOT JUST THE CONSULATE - HAD NO U.S. MARINE GUARDS!

October 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/28/news/economy/spending-cuts-fiscal-cliff/index.html

The White House on Friday told government contractors worried about fiscal cliff spending cuts to hold off on warning employees about possible layoffs.

* THOUGH BY LAW THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS HAVE TO OFFICIALLY INFORM WORKERS AND OBAMA HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY - NONE WHATSOEVER - TO TELL THEM OTHERWISE!

The government said it would cover legal costs if contractors are forced to slash their payrolls because of the looming $109 billion in automatic cuts next year and are alleged to have violated the WARN Act.

* NO! "THE GOVERNMENT" DIDN'T! THE PRESIDENT DID. UNILATERALLY. WITH NO AUTHORITY.

* AND AS FOR THIS "ALLEGED" BUSINESS... IN ENGLISH... WHAT IS MEANT IS "IF THEY DO BREAK THE LAW" - WHICH IS OBAMA HAS JUST INSTRUCTED THEM TO DO!

The federal WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a mass layoff or plant closing. Some states require more notice.

* THE FEDERAL WARN ACT IS A LAW! IT HAS NO "PRESIDENTIAL WAIVER" ESCAPE CLAUSE BUILT INTO IT! AND STATE REQUIREMENTS ARE LAWS AS WELL! THE PRESIDENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ISSUE "WAIVERS" FOR VIOLATING STATE LAWS!

* MY GOD, PEOPLE... DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE READING...?!?!

"Any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome) would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable," the Office of Management and Budget said in its guidance.

* BY WHAT AUTHORITY...?!?! THESE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL... NEW... EXPENDITURES! CONGRESS HASN'T AUTHORIZED THIS!

Defense contractors in particular have warned for months that the upcoming sequester would cost jobs in their industry. And Lockheed Martin's CEO has said publicly he may be forced to issue notice this fall of possible layoffs in 2013.

If other contractors follow suit, there could be a rash of layoff notices spooking employees right before Election Day.

* WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WHY OBAMA IS DOING THIS... BUT FRANKLY HIS "REASONING" IS BESIDES THE POINT. THIS PRESIDENT ROUTINELY ACTS UNILATERALL IN CONTROVENTION OF THE LAW!

Both parties in Congress created the sequester - a series of thoughtless, automatic, across-the-board cuts - as a way to force their hand to agree on a more gradual bipartisan debt-reduction plan.

* I THOUGHT OF REMOVING THE WORD "THOUGHTLESS" SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BELONG IN A NEWS STORY, BUT HAVE DECIDED IT SHOULD STAY AS TO NOTE THE POINT. YES... MAYBE "THOUGHLESS" IS A FAIR DESCRIPTION... BUT, RECALL, FOLKS... AT THE TIME CONGRESS WAS PASSING THE DEBT-REDUCTION PLAN IT WAS HAILED AS A BIPARTISAN TRIUMPH BY THE MEDIA!

* IN ANY CASE, FOLKS... IT IS WHAT IT IS... THE LAW OF THE LAND...

* WHAT'S NEXT? WILL OBAMA SIMPLY DECLARE IT NULL AND VOID?

* FOLKS... WE'VE GOT A HUGE FUCKING PROBLEM HERE...

October 2, 2012 at 9:41 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2012/10/02/abcs-stephanopoulos-leads-post-debate-media-spin-democrats

* NOW YA KNOW I RARELY NEWSBITE FROM STRICTLY PARTISAN SITES LIKE NEWSBUSTERS... BUT THE VIDEO DOESN'T LIE...

Leading into tomorrow’s presidential debate, journalists are busy setting expectations for the candidates.

But more undecided voters will be swayed by the media’s post-debate spin about who won and who lost than by any pre-debate expectations.

* AGREED.

Reviewing the last several campaigns, MRC analysts have found a clear trend of network reporters fawning over the performance of liberal candidates, while harping on any perceived weaknesses or gaffes from conservatives.

One of the most reliable pro-Democratic pundits is none other than George Stephanpoulos...

MRC has documented how, in eight out of the last nine general election presidential debates (every one since he joined ABC News in 1997), Stephanopoulos has gone on his network’s airwaves to claim victory for the Democratic candidate, all in the guise of offering impartial analysis.

The classic case proving the influence of the news media’s post-debate spin was after the second presidential debate in 1976, when overnight polls showed most viewers thought Gerald Ford beat Jimmy Carter. But post-debate news coverage fixated on Ford’s statement that Poland was free from Soviet domination, and subsequent surveys showed the public shifting to the view that Carter had won.

* THE SAME THING HAPPENED WITH THE ANITA HILL/CLARENCE THOMAS HEARINGS. INITIAL PUBLIC REACTION WAS THAT HILL WAS FULL OF SHIT. BUT AFTER ABOUT 6 MONTHS OF POST-CONFIRMATION MEDIA REVISIONIST HISTORY THE POLLING REVERSED AND THAT WAS THAT.

The news media’s post-debate spin matters. If reporters want to show that a candidate has “won,” news coverage will re-play their best statements and portray them as surging in support. If the media line is that a candidate has “lost,” the replay loop will feature gaffes or misstatements, with the candidate portrayed as on the ropes.

For viewers/voters who haven’t made up their minds, the media spin may be a crucial factor.

With friendly umpires like Stephanopoulos calling the balls and strikes, the Obama campaign will have an easier time managing the post-debate spin.

If the media were really as centrist as they claim, Stephanopoulos’s bias would stick out like a sore thumb. But at ABC, CBS and NBC, his predictable spin on behalf of the Democrats is, sadly, business as usual.

* AND, COM'ON... NO SERIOUS PERSON DENIES THIS...

October 2, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)