Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Websites and blogs I recommend
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(348)
-
▼
May
(12)
- Barker's Pre-Vacation Newsbites: Friday, May 23, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, May 19, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, May 15, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, May 14, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Monday, May 12, 2014
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., May 10 & 11, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Wednesday, May 7, 2014
- Enough With the Gays Already!
- Weekend Newsbites: Sat. & Sun., May 3 & 4, 2014
- Barker's Newsbites: Friday, May 2, 2014
- ObamaCare and the Middle Class
- Barker's Newsbites: Thursday, May 1, 2014
-
▼
May
(12)
About Me
- William R. Barker
- Pearl River, NY High School Class of '81; Northeastern University, Boston, MA Class of '87.
7 comments:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629288/Bill-Clinton-reveals-took-Hillary-six-months-work-accident.html
* THE HEADLINE:
Bill Clinton reveals it took Hillary 'six months of very serious work to get over' her concussion after accident - so why did State Department claim that she 'fully recovered' a month later?
* INDEED, WHY DID SHE NOT HERSELF RESIGN FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY... BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY DO THE JOB?
* FOLKS... UNDERSTAND... POWER IS EVERYTHING TO THESE PEOPLE. THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY MEANS NOTHING.
Former President Bill Clinton divulged on Wednesday that it took former secretary of state Hillary Clinton 'six months of very serious work' last year to recover from a fainting spell in December 2012 that resulted in a concussion and blood clot.
Her long recovery is 'something she never low-balled,' Bill said.
But Bill's timeline contradicts the State Department's claims just after the conclusion of Hillary's treatment in January 2013 that 'she seems to be fully recovered.'
* WAS CONGRESS LIED TO AS WELL? WAS PRESIDENT OBAMA LIED TO?
Hillary Clinton took ill at some point the week of December 9, 2012, just as she was supposed to testify before a Congressional committee about the terrorist attack that took four American lives in Benghazi, Libya three months before.
* DID SHE? WAS SHE ILL PRIOR TO THIS? IS SHE ILL NOW? FOLKS... EVEN IF YOU'RE A HRC FAN YOU MUST KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T TRUST HER - OR BILL - TO TELL THE TRUTH.
After falling in her home, Clinton incurred a concussion. The State Department did not say what day the accident occurred, but it described her concussion on December 13 as 'not severe.' It was not until December 15 that State explained Clinton's accident was related to a stomach virus that caused her to become dehydrated and faint. At that time, a State Department spokesman claimed that Clinton would be working from home the following week and would be 'staying in regular contact with Department and other officials.'
* AGAIN... FOLKS... BILL JUST SPILLED THE BEANS! SIX FRIGGIN' MONTHS! THAT'S SEVERE!
Clinton continued to stay at home for the following two weeks, and on December 30, a State Department spokesman announced that he had found a blood clot 'in the course of a follow-up exam' and that she was being 'treated with anti-coagulants and is at New York-Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours.'
The following day, Clinton's doctor's released a statement describing the location of the clot as in 'the vein that is situated in the space between the brain and the skull behind the right ear.' 'It did not result in a stroke, or neurological damage,' the statement said.
* FOLKS... AGAIN... WE HAVE NO PROOF OF THIS "GOOD NEWS." NONE. WHAT WE DO HAVE IS THE CLINTON RECORD.
On January 2, doctors sent Clinton home from the hospital, and on January 7, Clinton returned to work. It was on Clinton's first day back in the office that State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said that 'judging by the woman we saw this morning and the workload that she’s got she seems to be fully recovered.'
* WHILE BILL NOW ADMITS "6 MONTHS." VICTORIA NULAND LIED.
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/dc-schools-29349-pupil-83-not-proficient-reading
The public schools in Washington, DC...
* THE ONES THE OBAMA GIRLS DON'T ATTEND...
...spent $29,349 per pupil in the 2010-2011 school year, according to the latest data from National Center for Education Statistics, but in 2013 fully 83% of the eighth graders in these schools were "not proficient" in reading and 81% were "not proficient" in math.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
These are the government schools in our nation's capital city — where for decades politicians of both parties have obstreperously pushed for more federal involvement in education and more federal spending on education.
(*SIGH*)
Government has manifestly failed the families who must send their children to these schools, and the children who must attend them.
In 2013, students nationwide took NAEP reading and math tests. When the NCES listed the scores of public-school eighth graders in the 50 states and the District of Columbia, D.C. came in last in both subjects.
D.C. eighth graders scored an average of 248 out of 500 in reading, and Mississippi finished next to last with an average of 253.
Only 17% of D.C. 8th graders rated "proficient" or better in reading. In Mississippi, it was 20%.
* BUT MISSISSIPPI IS A POOR STATE - ONE OF THE POOREST IF NOT "THE" POOREST. WASHINGTON D.C. IS SMACK IN THE CENTER OF A HOST OF THE WEATHIEST MOST ECONOMICALLY PROSPEROUS COUNTIES IN AMERICA! (DUE TO GOVERNMENT LARGESS...)
In math, D.C. public-school eighth graders scored an average of 265 out of 500, and only 19 percent were rated "proficient" or better. Alabama placed next to last with an average math score of 269, with 20 percent rated "proficient" or better.
* ALABAMA... (I REST MY CASE!)
Some might argue it is unfair to compare, Washington, D.C., a single city, with an entire state. However, D.C. also does not compete well against other big cities. The Department of Education's Trial Urban District Assessments program compares the test results in 21 large-city school districts, including Washington, D.C. In these assessments, the scores of students from charter schools were removed and the average reading score for D.C. public school eighth-graders dropped to 245. That was below the national large-city average of 258, and tied D.C. with Fresno for seventeenth place among the 21 big cities in the TUDA.
In math, minus the charter school students, D.C. public-school eighth graders earned an average score of 260. That was below the national large-city average of 276, and put D.C. in a tie for sixteenth place, this time with Fresno and Baltimore.
* BUT LET'S GO BACK TO "RETURN ON INVESTMENT"...
The NCES database indicates that in the 2010-2011 school year, Washington, D.C. public schools spent a total of $29,349 per pupil, ranking No. 1 in spending per pupil among the 21 large cities in the TUDA.
* THEY'RE #1...!!!
* OH... AND SOME D.C. SCHOOLS TRIVIA...
[They piss away] $2,124 on "interest on school debt" [per pupil... per school year].
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2014/05/15/scopa-police-no-longer-need-warrants-to-search-cars-in-pa/
Pennsylvania traditionally provided broader privacy protection than the U.S. Constitution. For decades, police in the Commonwealth had to get obtain warrant from a judge before they could do a car search unless time was of the essence or the evidence could be lost or destroyed. But now, a recent ruling from Pennsylvania’s highest court - Commonwealth v. Gary - could have a big impact on your privacy rights during a car stop; the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s 4 to 2 decision in changes the rule.
“There’ll be lesser protection of privacy in Pennsylvania,” says Dave Rudovsky, a professor at Penn Law school and a civil rights attorney.
* BUT... BUT... BUT... WHAT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION...? (RHETORICAL WISEASS QUESTION...)
Rudovsky says Article I, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution had been interpreted to provide broader protection that the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Police had to contact a judge during a stop, either via phone or radio, for permission to conduct a car search. Rudovsky says the new ruling means police, not a judge can decide whether to search. “Now if police officers have probable cause– a "good faith belief" that a crime has been committed, they can search your car without having to first obtain a warrant,” he says.
“The district attorneys offices will say this is about drugs and guns and that is true, but it does not end there,” says James Funt, an attorney with Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt & Flores. “Whatever is in the car can be searched,” he says, “it’s a slippery slope.”
Funt says the ruling severely erodes Pennsylvania’s privacy protections by essentially concluding that citizens have less privacy in their cars than in their homes. He says people carry cell phones and other electronic devices in their cars and the court’s ruling means these items could be vulnerable as well. “Where does it stop? It doesn’t,” says Funt, “It will not end with guns and drugs.”
* SO... FOLKS... HOW DO YOU LIKE THIS NEW "AMERIKA?"
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-15/meat-prices-surge-most-11-years
Hardly surprising given the surge in beef and pork that we have been noting, but according to the latest inflation data from the BLS, meat prices spike by almost 3% in April - the most since November 2003...
(This is also the 2nd biggest price spike in 34 years!)
As we noted previously, this soaring food price inflation is not about to stop anytime soon...
The Fed 'meme' that low-flation is as dangerous as high-flation (thus providing them an excuse to keep priming the pump) is about to run into a problem as the hedonic manipulation of government-provided inflation data runs into the ugly reality of things that we need actually soaring in price...
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303908804579564082072318084?mg=reno64-wsj
Florida's Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to "scientific authority."
(*SNORT*) (*GRIN*)
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it," he said in an interview with Jonathan Karl.
* THANK YOU, MARCO! BRAVO!
Non-scientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio's words "undermine his other assertion," namely "that he is prepared to be president."
(*SMIRK*)
Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had "disqualified himself" from the presidency.
(*GUFFAW*)
This columnist is probably as unqualified as Marcus or Lapidos to evaluate the scientific merits of global warmism. But because we distrust climate scientists, we're with Rubio in being inclined to think it's a bill of goods. The trouble for global-warmist journalists like Marcus and Lapidos is that an appeal to the authority of a distrusted source undermines rather than strengthens one's argument.
Here, from National Review's Patrick Brennan, is the latest reason to distrust the authority of "consensus" climate scientists: On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group that questions the reliability of climate change and the costs of policies taken to address it. While Bengtsson maintains he'd always been a skeptic as any scientist ought to be, the foundation and climate-change skeptics proudly announced it as a defection from the scientific consensus. Less than a week later, he says he's been forced to resign from the group. The abuse he's received from the climate-science community has made it impossible to carry on his academic work and made him fear for his own safety. A once-peaceful community, he says in his resignation letter, now reminds him of McCarthyism. "I had not expect[ed] such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life," he wrote in his resignation. "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship."
Bengtsson tells the London Daily Mail: "Some people like my views, other people don't, that is the way when it comes to science." That's precisely the point. Science is a methodical process of open inquiry. Those who enforce orthodoxies and engage in name-calling aren't doing science, even if they're scientists.
* TWO-PARTER... (Part 1 of 2
http://www.humanevents.com/2014/05/13/abolish-the-corporate-income-tax-2/
* BY PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
News that Pfizer, the world’s largest pharmaceutical company, plans to buy Britain’s AstraZeneca for $106 billion, renounce its U.S. citizenship, and declare itself a British company, has jolted Congress.
Britain’s corporate income tax is 20%, and Pfizer stands to save over $1 billion a year by moving there.
Pfizer is being denounced as disloyal to the land of its birth, and politicians are devising ways to stop Pfizer from departing.
Yet Pfizer is not alone.
Hedge fund managers are urging giant corporations like Walgreens to go nation-shopping for new residences abroad to evade the 35% U.S. corporate income tax.
In what are called “inversions,” dozens of U.S. companies have bought up foreign rivals, and then moved abroad to countries with lower tax rates, cutting revenue to the U.S. Treasury.
Why [are] our politicians continue to drive them [American companies] of the country?
If, as a nation, we are committed to “creating jobs,” does it make sense to impose the highest corporate tax rate in the Western world on our biggest and best job creators? Is this not economic masochism?
Many governors understand that if you want something in your state, you do not drive it out with high taxes. You strengthen the magnet of low taxes. Florida wants residents of other states to move there and retire there, so it has no income, estate or inheritance tax.
For years, Rep. Jack Kemp urged the creation of enterprise zones in poor communities like Benton Harbor, Michigan, and Harlan County, Kentucky. Businesses that relocated there would be exempt from corporate income taxes. Why not make the United States the largest enterprise zone on earth — by abolishing the corporate income tax?
If the corporate income tax were repealed, no U.S. company would think of moving abroad, and every transnational company would think about moving to the USA.
What a message this repeal of the U.S. corporate income tax would send to corporate headquarters worldwide: Relocate your company or next factory to the USA, keep every dollar of profit you earn, and either reinvest it here or take it home. Your call.
* TO BE CONTINUED...
* CONCLUDING... (Part 2 of 2)
How would America benefit? Every U.S. company, liberated from its corporate tax burden, would see its profits soar and have more cash on hand for cutting prices, raising wages and salaries, and new investment and hires. And every company that relocated here would create new U.S. jobs. This would be a stimulus package to end all stimulus packages!
Consider the other benefits of abolishing the corporate tax. Corporate lobbyists, who spend their days walking Capitol Hill corridors seeking tax breaks, and their evenings at fundraisers handing $1,000 checks to congressmen who can create tax loopholes — in a form of legalized corruption and glorified bribery, could be put out to pasture. Armies of tax lawyers, accountants and IRS agents could be shifted to more productive work. Companies could focus full time on creating new wealth, not finding ways to keep what they have earned.
Many politicians seem to think the corporate tax punishes the rich and powerful and is an indispensable weapon in reducing inequality and redistributing wealth. This is neo-socialist myth. As Ronald Reagan used to say, corporations don’t pay taxes, people do.
The billions in corporate income taxes paid by Wal-Mart and McDonald’s come out of the dollars spent by consumers who shop at Wal-Mart’s and eat at McDonald’s. Where else does Ford Motor get the money to pay its corporate income tax if not from dollars spent by Middle Americans on Ford cars and trucks?
How could we make up for the lost revenue to government? Simple. The corporate income tax last year produced $273 billion, less than a tenth of federal revenue. Imports, which kill U.S. jobs and subtract from GDP, totaled $2.7 trillion last year. Put a 10% tariff on imports, and the abolition of the U.S. corporate income tax becomes a revenue-neutral proposal.
[C]onsider what our political class has done to our once self-sufficient American Republic. We impose on businesses, our principal job creators, the most punitive corporate tax rate in the West. Through “free trade,” we tell U.S. companies that if they wish to avoid our taxes and get around our minimum wage, health, safety, and environmental laws, they can move to China, produce there, and bring their products back free of charge — and kill their competitors too patriotic to leave America.
* ISN'T IT TIME WE PUT AMERICA FIRST... THAT WE PUT AMERICANS FIRST?
Post a Comment