Thursday, February 16, 2012

IMPORTANT WOMAN TALK LOCATED HERE (Click on the Banner)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Visit Our Cartoon Roll's at TOP Entered Daily

Posted by BH 7:02 2-16

RUSH LIMBAUGH TRANSCRIPT " I Told You So "

TPosted by BH 6:20 pm 2-16

From the Rush Limbaugh Show

"George, what are you talking about?" 
February 16, 2012
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, today is one of those days. I'm gonna have to go back to our archives. Everything I predicted, pretty much everything back in December, is now starting to happen in full force.  And the whole point of it is to depress you and dispirit you, like the unemployment numbers looking magical now, Obama's approval numbers looking magical now. The Republicans look like blithering idiots now.  In fact, Ed, grab audio sound bite number one.  This is what I warned you about back on December 20th.
RUSH ARCHIVE:  I have warned you this kind of thing is going to happen.  The unemployment number is going to precipitously drop and it's going to get close to 8% by next November.  Just mark my words.  That's in the can.  It's in the cards.  Also, Obama's approval number now is up five points over the last three months or some such thing. So here we go. Approval number is up. I'm just warning you now not to get dispirited.  I'm warning you now not to think that the actual emotion or passion for changing course, defeating Obama, repealing Obamacare, it is ratcheting up.  It's not weakening. It's not tiring. It's not getting lazy.  People are not giving up, but you are not gonna see that evidence. You're not gonna see evidence of that passion or energy that you have and that your fellow citizens have for change.  You're not gonna see it.  What you're instead going to be told is that, "Wow, look at Obama's approval numbers -- wow.  And unemployment, look at the number, coming down, oh, it's all coming together."  That's gonna be combined with Obama, as he's saying now, as I predicted he would say, "It's worse than we thought it was. They didn't tell us how bad it was."
RUSH:  All of that is from December 20th, all of it, and don't you feel that way?  Did I not tell you how you were gonna feel, did I not warn you, do not succumb to this?  I know it's hard.  I've got a Rasmussen poll result today.  Rasmussen.  This is not Gallup.  This is not ABC. It's not CBS/New York Times. It's not NBC/Wall Street Journal. It's not ABC/Washington Post.  Rasmussen.  I guarantee you, this poll is gonna be put on the equivalent of every Democrat locker room.  Fifty-two percent say it's better for the GOP to work with Obama than stand on principle. 
Rasmussen: "Most voters still think Republicans and Democrats in Congress are out of touch with their respective party bases but now believe it’s more important for the GOP to work with President Obama than to fight him." Rasmussen.  Now, I know you're saying, "But, Rush, maybe you're wrong.  Maybe we are dispirited and maybe all this good news for Obama is real, and maybe the takers do outnumber us, and maybe we ought to feel like moving to New Zealand.  Come on, Rush."  I'll tell you when it's time to move to New Zealand.  No, not yet.  It's only February.  All of this is predictable, is my point.  Everything that's happening in the media today, everything Obama is doing, was totally predictable.  And because it's predictable, so is this polling result.  But it's only February. 
Who knows what's gonna happen with the economy.  My gosh, four-dollar gasoline is headed down the pike, maybe five-dollar-a-gallon gas.  Obama's gonna try to spin that as evidence of a good economy, but he's also proposed raising taxes on the oil companies.  It's in his so-called budget.  Now, that budget's never gonna see the light of day.  It's not intended to because he wants to run against a do-nothing Congress, but there's nothing stopping the Democrats, they control the Senate, there's nothing stopping them from proposing a tax increase on Big Oil.  You've got Obama proposing to reduce the nuclear arsenal by 80%.  The Republican primary process, I mean this is starting to get under a lot of people's skin. 
There's another thing I predicted to you that is starting to happen.  You got Democrats out there that are talking about the year of the woman as though it's 1992 all over again, all about this contraception stuff.  You know, the news about Santorum is so predictable, that Santorum wants women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.  There are even some conservatives, so-called conservative bloggers and media people that are joining in that chorus because they're for Romney.  The conservative blogosphere for Romney is joining with the left-wing attack on Santorum.  TIME Magazine yesterday, there was a story, Michael Scherer, I think that's how he pronounces his name, I'm not sure, but there's a one-hour video of Santorum talking about all this, and the TIME Magazine guy urges his readers, he has the link to the video, he says, "Start here," 17 minutes into it.  Seventeen minutes into it?  Well, what's in the first 17 minutes that you don't want us to see? 
If you watch the whole video, and you have the whole thing in context, you learn that Santorum is not trying to get the federal government and doesn't support and would not do, would not have the federal government get on a contraception kick.  It just wouldn't happen.  But if you take some of what he says out of context, as you can with anybody, you could make the case, if you skip the first 17 minutes, and the pro-Romney people in the conservative media have skipped the first 17 minutes because they want to take Santorum out.  So, in the meantime, we are where I told you yesterday.  The people still watching videotape from last Saturday at the Beverly Hilton hotel involving Whitney Houston.  Those people try to put as many notches in their belt every night.  Their lives exist, getting up, finding somebody to have sex with, maybe somebody else, then going to bed, getting up and repeating it. You tell them that a Republican wants to take away their birth control pills and they don't care what else is going on.  And this is what the objective is. 
They try to screw as many people as they can before they go to bed, get up and do it again.  You know the people I'm talking about.  The bottom line, let me put it to you this way.  The news media is now calling the so-called controversy over Obama's birth control mandate a culture war.  Don't forget who started this.  Obama started this by requiring the Catholic Church, well, not the church, but schools and so forth, to pay for this, to pay for everybody's contraception, to pay for everybody's abortions, to pay for all the abortion related stuff.  Don't forget last week.  And of course there was an uproar and an outcry and Obama ostensibly heard it and said, "Okay, okay, I'll make the insurance companies do it," and everybody said, "Good, good, we beat Obama back, good."  No, we didn't. 
The president just unconstitutionally mandated that insurance companies now provide free -- by the way, this group that gets up, tries to screw as many people as they can every day and go to bed and do it again, they believe in free.  They think there is something free.  Anyway, Obama got all this started.  Now, there is a culture war.  The news media is calling the controversy over Obama's birth control mandate a culture war.  They are using that phrase all over cable news, culture war.  I have to hand it to 'em.  They set this up back in January with Stephanopoulos and that Republican debate in New Hampshire.  They set it up.  None of this is real.  Do you understand, none of this really happened.  "Romney, do you support contraception?" 
"Do you -- I'm just asking you theoretically, do you --"
"George, the states could do it, I suppose, but nobody wants to, George," said Romney.  They went back and they found this one hour interview of Santorum and, ergo, we're in the middle of a culture war.  But may I ask you to do something?  Look around, look at the abysmal state of our culture.  We are in a period of cultural depravity and rot, and everybody knows it.  Are we not?  Now, the Democrats would love for that to become an issue because they think that that isolates the pro-lifers, the hicks and the hayseeds that come to the forefront of the Republican Party, people that live in the South, people don't know how to have the right kind of lunch packed for their kids in North Carolina. Gotta have federal agents to see that kids are eating properly.  That group. 
The Democrats and the media chomping at the bit, champing at the bit, whatever the hell, eager for this whole culture war thing to surface, because what does it do?  It takes everybody's attention away from the ongoing economic destruction.  I don't care about the unemployment numbers today, and I don't care about the so-called improvement in jobs and Obama's approval numbers.  They desperately want people's attention off of the economy and Obamacare and the culture war.  They think they can go back to their archive pages and bring that issue back, and they think it's a slam-dunk winner for them.  But is the lack of free birth control really the most important social issue facing the country today?  I don't think so. 
In fact, something tells me that if the upcoming election could be decided on social issues, the Republicans could win that in a landslide because we're on the right side of the culture war. The problem is we're scared to death of it! The Republican establishment wants no part of it. They want no part of the culture. They want no part of social issues. They have been ticked off about this. I've told you the story about how some establishment guy approached me in the Hamptons in the '90s. He had his index finger poking me in the chest and said, "What are you gonna do about the Christians?"
I said, "What? I'm just here trying to have a cigar after dinner."
(shouting) "What are you gonna do about the Christians?"
"What are you talking about?"
"They're destroying us! We're never gonna win the presidency with Christians and this pro-life stuff. You've gotta get them off of it. They listen to you."
I said, "They're only 24 million voters. You wouldn't win jack without 'em."
It turns out the guy's wife was constantly nagging him about abortion and so were these other establishment guys' wives nagging them about it. So the Democrats are trying to revive this. Ain't no doubt about it. None whatsoever. So I guess we'll discuss it along with other stuff that's in the news today, but this poll from Rasmussen: 52% say it's better for the Republicans to work with Obama. You know the bad thing about this? Republican leaders in Congress are gonna see this. Remember, Rasmussen is considered to be Republican. If there's a Republican poll versus a Democrat poll, Rasmussen is a Republican poll. So the Republican leaders in the House and Senate, they're gonna see this.
"See? See? See? They do want us to work with Obama! They do want us to cross the aisle. They do want us to have a moderate candidate!"
That's what they're going to get out of this. (interruption) Well, the payroll tax cut extension, they... (groans) I wish you hadn't brought that up 'cause I'm really ticked off about it. That's textbook how (speaking of screwing) to screw yourself. As I say, I'm gonna explain all this. I'm just here in our first segment setting the table. A corresponding poll, there's a Gallup poll out. Yesterday, Gallup said the real unemployment number 9%; the real underemployment number is 19.1%. So while the regime is claiming that the unemployment rate's gone down to 8.3%, Gallup says it is at 9%. The difference is Gallup uses raw numbers, not seasonally adjusted numbers. I'm starting to believe that "seasonally adjusted" is just code word "for manipulated to help incumbent presidents."
It's not just Obama. I think "seasonally adjusted" is designed to help the establishment, both parties in power, currently, in Washington. Then they went out and they talked to some small-business people. They asked 'em... I mentioned this yesterday, too. Of small businesses making $20 million a year annual or less, 85% say: Nope, not hiring anybody. And Gallup went out and they asked, "Why are you not looking for new employees?" And the answers were: Health costs and government regulations. So in the real world where the pedal hits the metal, where the rubber meets the road, nothing has really changed. But in the media and the polling data and on cable news?
You would think, folks, that it's 2008 again and we're dealing with The Messiah and all is lost. But it isn't the case. Everything is happening according to predictable plan. Folks, I am not a seer. I'm not Nostradamus. I just know liberals. That's all. I'm able, on December 20th, to tell you what is going to be in the news on February 16th because I know liberals, because I know the media. I don't have any clairvoyant talents or abilities; I just know liberals, and, if I can predict it back on December 20th, what it means is I can predict manipulation. I can predict how they are going to be acting. Nobody can predict what's actually going to be happening in the real world the next day or the next week, but you can predict what liberals are gonna do, regardless what reality is.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT





RUSH: On this Santorum interview, you may have noticed that there is not a transcript. At least there wasn't mid-morning today, and I couldn't find one yesterday. There is no transcript of the Santorum interview, the TIME Magazine interview, the link where the writer says, "Join this interview at 17 minutes in." Right. There is no transcript because, if you read what Santorum says in that interview, it is perfectly clear that he's expressing his private feelings; that he would not try to impose his views on the public through legislation. He says plainly that he would never try to do that.
Now, what's being said about Santorum (by the media and by conservative bloggers who are for Romney) is that Santorum is gonna try to impose his moral values on the country from the White House and via legislation. And he would not do that. Now, he might try to lead on it -- use the bully pulpit, make speeches on it -- but in terms of legislating his personal morality, would never do it. So it's a non-story! But they found enough in there they can take out of context to make it sound as though what Santorum can't wait to do is get elected president and then outlaw contraception and abortion with an executive order.
That's what they want people to believe that he's going to do.
END TRANSCRIPT

Well Let's See: High Priced Dinner then OFF to LA for some FUND RAISING , OH YEA , SUCH A LIFE

Posted by BH 544 pm 2-16

http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/02/15/after-high-end-d-c-dinner-president-obama-flies-off-to-l-a-for-private-fundraisers/ 

by Ulsterman
As the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt threatens violence against Israel, and as Senate Democrats declare Barack Obama’s own budget dead on arrival, what does the president do?  Why fly to the other side of the country of course to raise some more campaign cash!




HEY BRO - You Take Them Food Stamps ?



Yesterday the Obamas enjoyed a high-end (and high calorie) Valentines dinner at one of the most exclusive and upscale restaurant digs in D.C.  There First Lady Michelle Obama – she of the “Lose weight fat America” demands, sat down to enjoy a five course meal that included Lobster, caviar, butter poached oysters,  potato pancake and black truffel, and chocolate cheesecake.  Apparently the First Lady’s concerns over the nation’s eating habits only extends to the “little people” of the country.
It would appear the dinner left President Obama far too exhausted to remain on the job at the White House the following day – his next day consisted of flying off to California to sit in at not one but two private resident fundraisers.  Gotta keep those big California money laundering…err…donations coming!
Back in Washington D.C. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gone on record indicating the Senate will not even entertain the possibility of putting the just released multi-trillion dollar deficit budget of Barack Obama up to a vote – fearing the president’s irresponsible budget would be politically damaging to Democrats facing tough re-election battles.  House Republicans in the meantime are preparing to pass their own budget – just as they did last year.  The next time you hear a weak-minded liberal complain of the oft-repeated phrase “Do-Nothing Congress”, remind them it has been the Democrats in the Senate who have time and again blocked the business of Congress and allowed President Obama to simply rule through a series of executive orders that bypass long-standing Constitutional practice

Two Things that COULD Keep Obama From Being ReElected ?

Posted by BH 5:36 2-16

President Barack Obama recently assured El Salvador that the United States would not deport more 200,000 Salvadorans residing illegally in the United States. 
As the election nears, and the president looks to court Hispanic voters, he also created a new position of "public advocate" for illegal immigrants. His duties would appear to be to advocate that millions circumvent, rather than follow, current federal law.
The administration has also said it will focus enforcement only on those who have committed crimes -- with the implicit understanding that it is no longer a crime to illegally enter and reside in the United States. In contrast, Obama has caricatured those supporting completion of a fence on the border as wanting to place alligators in the Rio Grande.
It is time that Americans revisit the issue and ponder very carefully the morality of entering the United States illegally.
True, American employers have welcomed in illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor.(Mostly Republicans) Employers were happy to pass the ensuing social costs on to taxpayers. To summarily deport those who have resided here for 20 years, obeyed the law, worked hard, stayed off public assistance and are now willing to pay a fine, demonstrate English proficiency and pass a citizenship test would be impracticable, callous and counterproductive.
Most, however, probably do not fit those reasonable criteria.
More importantly, we forget that the influx of millions of illegal aliens unfairly undercuts the wages of the working American poor, especially in times of high unemployment.
Crossing the border was also hardly a one-time "infraction." It was the beginning of serial unethical behavior, as illegal aliens on everyday forms and affidavits were not truthful about their immigration status.
The legal process of immigrating to America was reduced to a free-for-all rush to the border. Million of applicants abroad wait patiently, if not naively, in line to have their education, skills and capital resources evaluated. But they are punished with delay or rejection because they alone follow immigration law.
Billions of dollars in state and federal social services do not just help provide parity to illegal aliens, but also free them to send back about $50 billion in remittances to Latin America each year. That staggering sum also suggests that Mexico and other Latin American governments, as an element of national policy, quite cynically export human capital to gain U.S. dollars, rather than make the necessary economical, social and political reforms to keep their own at home.
Nor is it very liberal to turn illegal immigration into an issue of identity and tribal politics. Too many advocates for open borders and amnesty argue about the politics of ethnic solidarity rather than considerations of immigration law. In other words, we do not hear much national outrage over the plight of the occasional Pole, Nigerian or Korean who overstays his tourist visa, but rather equate the circumvention of immigration law almost exclusively with social justice for Latinos.
How reactionary and illiberal that debate has become, when Mexican Americans who object to the undermining of immigration law are slandered as sellouts, while non-Hispanics who do the same are smeared as racists and nativists.
In fact, illegal immigration unfairly warped perceptions of undeniable Hispanic success. If one does not include millions of recently arrived poor Latin American foreign nationals in federal and state surveys, then Hispanic American citizens prove statistically to be assimilating, intermarrying, integrating, and finding economic success at rates comparable to many other immigrant groups of the past.
To mean anything, laws have to be followed. When newcomers choose to ignore them, then the entire structure of jurisprudence crashes as well. If aliens are free to ignore federal immigration law, then cannot citizens likewise pick and choose which statutes they find inconvenient?
Finally, illegal immigration has wrongly been couched in terms of a xenophobic and insensitive exploiter preying on a more noble and defenseless guest. In truth, the United States is the most generous host in the world, and never more so than during the present age.
There are now about 40 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, both legal and illegal immigrants. That is both the greatest absolute number and percentage of the population in our nation's history. No other country in the world is more liberal in its legal immigration policies or has been more caring toward new arrivals. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and shows an ignorance of how most countries, who now export their citizens to the U.S., treat any who would do the same to them.
We can argue about the history or the future of illegal immigration. But please spare us the psychodramatic appeals to a higher morality.
In most regards, illegal immigration has proven as immoral as it is unlawful.

Please A Little Honesty About Immigration ?

Posted by BH 5:36 2-16

By: Victor Davis Hanson

President Barack Obama recently assured El Salvador that the United States would not deport more 200,000 Salvadorans residing illegally in the United States. 
As the election nears, and the president looks to court Hispanic voters, he also created a new position of "public advocate" for illegal immigrants. His duties would appear to be to advocate that millions circumvent, rather than follow, current federal law.
The administration has also said it will focus enforcement only on those who have committed crimes -- with the implicit understanding that it is no longer a crime to illegally enter and reside in the United States. In contrast, Obama has caricatured those supporting completion of a fence on the border as wanting to place alligators in the Rio Grande.
It is time that Americans revisit the issue and ponder very carefully the morality of entering the United States illegally.
True, American employers have welcomed in illegal aliens as a source of cheap labor.(Mostly Republicans) Employers were happy to pass the ensuing social costs on to taxpayers. To summarily deport those who have resided here for 20 years, obeyed the law, worked hard, stayed off public assistance and are now willing to pay a fine, demonstrate English proficiency and pass a citizenship test would be impracticable, callous and counterproductive.
Most, however, probably do not fit those reasonable criteria.
More importantly, we forget that the influx of millions of illegal aliens unfairly undercuts the wages of the working American poor, especially in times of high unemployment.
Crossing the border was also hardly a one-time "infraction." It was the beginning of serial unethical behavior, as illegal aliens on everyday forms and affidavits were not truthful about their immigration status.
The legal process of immigrating to America was reduced to a free-for-all rush to the border. Million of applicants abroad wait patiently, if not naively, in line to have their education, skills and capital resources evaluated. But they are punished with delay or rejection because they alone follow immigration law.
Billions of dollars in state and federal social services do not just help provide parity to illegal aliens, but also free them to send back about $50 billion in remittances to Latin America each year. That staggering sum also suggests that Mexico and other Latin American governments, as an element of national policy, quite cynically export human capital to gain U.S. dollars, rather than make the necessary economical, social and political reforms to keep their own at home.
Nor is it very liberal to turn illegal immigration into an issue of identity and tribal politics. Too many advocates for open borders and amnesty argue about the politics of ethnic solidarity rather than considerations of immigration law. In other words, we do not hear much national outrage over the plight of the occasional Pole, Nigerian or Korean who overstays his tourist visa, but rather equate the circumvention of immigration law almost exclusively with social justice for Latinos.
How reactionary and illiberal that debate has become, when Mexican Americans who object to the undermining of immigration law are slandered as sellouts, while non-Hispanics who do the same are smeared as racists and nativists.
In fact, illegal immigration unfairly warped perceptions of undeniable Hispanic success. If one does not include millions of recently arrived poor Latin American foreign nationals in federal and state surveys, then Hispanic American citizens prove statistically to be assimilating, intermarrying, integrating, and finding economic success at rates comparable to many other immigrant groups of the past.
To mean anything, laws have to be followed. When newcomers choose to ignore them, then the entire structure of jurisprudence crashes as well. If aliens are free to ignore federal immigration law, then cannot citizens likewise pick and choose which statutes they find inconvenient?
Finally, illegal immigration has wrongly been couched in terms of a xenophobic and insensitive exploiter preying on a more noble and defenseless guest. In truth, the United States is the most generous host in the world, and never more so than during the present age.
There are now about 40 million foreign-born people residing in the United States, both legal and illegal immigrants. That is both the greatest absolute number and percentage of the population in our nation's history. No other country in the world is more liberal in its legal immigration policies or has been more caring toward new arrivals. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and shows an ignorance of how most countries, who now export their citizens to the U.S., treat any who would do the same to them.
We can argue about the history or the future of illegal immigration. But please spare us the psychodramatic appeals to a higher morality.
In most regards, illegal immigration has proven as immoral as it is unlawful.

INSIDER IS BACK FROM ULSERMAN (CHECK THIS OUT)

Posted by BH 5:24 2-16
The INSIDER Is Back ?
http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/02/16/better-sit-down-for-this-one-folks/

Reports now circulating that Kamala Harris to be President Obama’s next pick for Supreme Court Justice.
From a just released ABA Journal report:
SCOTUSblog does some prognosticating and says California Attorney General Kamala Harris could be the next nominee tapped for the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  (LINK)
For those familiar with the White House Insider interviews, that name will certainly ring familiar.
For those who perhaps are not quite up to speed, read the following from a related report on Kamala Harris:
 

-The California Attorney General is Kamala Harris.  Her brother-in-law is a  gentleman by the name of Tony West who himself is an Assistant Attorney General working directly under Obama Attorney General Eric Holder.  Insiders are already indicated West may in fact be among a short list of potential replacements should Holder resign his position.
Now Tony West was a big time campaign bundler for Barack Obama back in 2008 as was described by this San Francisco Chronicle report in 2009:
As co-chairman of Obama’s campaign, West was instrumental in helping the candidate raise an estimated $65 million in California and has been considered a rising star in both the legal and political circles of the nation’s most populous state. He is an attorney in the San Franciscooffices of Morrison & Foerster.
$65 million dollars is a lot of campaign cash – even by Obama standards.  And Mr. West also gained notoriety in 2007 as a member of the “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh’s defense team.  So we have a former Obama campaign bundler and defense attorney of a Taliban terrorist, who also happens to be the brother in law of the California Attorney General whose state just received a multi-billion dollar housing bailout – the same man who might soon find himself being placed in the position of being the next Attorney General of the United States.
Let that sink in folks.  Really.  Take a deep breath and let that sink in…
Ok – so take what you have just been learned about Tony West, Kamala Harris, and Barack Obama – and let us now add the possibility of some serious campaign donation fraud.  We are talking tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars – all being funneled through California.
Here is an excerpt from a very much related Insider interview:
…and then in 2010 you got my friend going directly against the Obama administration – working against their candidate of choice.  And you need to remember…California…Obama lost the primary out there.  That plays a part in this…the president needed to lock up this position.  That 2010 election was much more important to him than folks realize…and my friend…I’ll repeat it again…he was working against the Obama White House in 2010.
(Long Pause) …he would be dead within months of losing that election.  Timing…timing is everything huh?  Coincidence?  Maybe.  Maybe not…
…and the Senator…they don’t get out of this unscathed either…their entire…my understanding is their entire campaign fund…gone.  Taken.  And THAT is going down around the same time my friend dies.  Again…you wanna call that coincidence?  How much coincidence can a fella take before they start to question what the f-ck is going on?  That’s where I was at at that point…what the f-ck is going on?
…that theft…the individual involved…no way they should have been in that position.  Who authorized that?  They already had baggage, a poor reputation…and she’s the one in charge of the millions of dollars sitting in a United States Senator’s campaign fund?  Bullsh-t!  NO way.  NO fu–ing way.  She was placed there by somebody with the authority…with the muscle to make that happen.  Not in a state this important.  Not with…like I said…all the things on the line…the union legislation…the challenges coming against Obamacare…no way a woman like that is allowed in that position unless she was there to do something very specific.
UM:  The theft?
Insider:  That is part of it…but I think it goes deeper.  You come across those donation allegations that sorta swirled around the Obama campaign back in ’08?  All the fake names…how difficult it was to trace the source?
…What if you had certain groups…unions, foreign donations…whatever…they needed to get money – talking a sh-tload of money to Obama back when he was runnin’.  I say this as somebody who experienced how much cash was floating around that campaign – it was unbelievable.  Money was never an issue.  NEVER.  It was everywhere…and how…no way they raised all that money on the up and up. You just knew people were getting around the donation limits – had to be.  There was…there was so much damn money in that campaign.  Staggering.
What if the individual responsible for that theft…what if they were acting as some kind of laundering organization?  And what if she represents a small fraction of the entire fu–ing operation that all ties back to the administration?  Tens…hundreds of millions?  Billions?  Who the f-ck knows?  The entire election system…the funding…what if it’s all corrupted?  All of it?
…This is out there stuff…I know.  Sh-t yeah…I know…but what if my friend…he figured it out?  Maybe it was that…maybe I’m way the f-ck off  the mark here.  But…you know the Obama campaign…somethin’ like $300 million…maybe more…probably more…it’s not disclosing those donors?  It hasn’t yet?  They never will.  A ton of donors…laundered in…hidden from view…and that kind of money…you can buy a senator…you can buy a judge…you can buy…
…You’re willing to kill for it.
UM:  How’s that possible?  $300 million?  Undisclosed?
Insider:  Yes it’s possible – it was DONE.  This president – Obama…he did it.  Is doing it…and he’ll do it again…his people…they will do it again.  And maybe this time…maybe they’re up to a billion dollars…more?  Nobody knows.  Money from China?  Pakistan?  Iran?  Libya?  Nobody fu–ing knows.  That’s what I’m trying to lay out here…and I know it’s a convoluted mish…mish-mashing mess…that’s how they get away with it all.  Make it all so damn…messy.  You can’t follow it all…it’s impossible.
______________________

SCHOOL OFFICIAL: Partents may NOT Know What's Best for Children ? YOU SAY WHAT ?

Posted by BH 5:05 pm 2-16

TO FREE ZONE FROM
 


School Official: Parents Don't 'Know What Actually is Best' for Children

kyoder
Wednesday, February 16, 2012 - 5:36pm

Debbie Squires, an education official for the Michigan Elementary and Middle School Principals Association, states that parents, 'may WANT what's best for their child,' but, 'they may not KNOW [what's best for their child].' During a Michigan House Committee meeting determining parents’ school choice, she claims that educators know better than parents when it comes to children.

Squires explains that, ‘educators go through education for a reason,” to later imply that child-caring requires special education. She elaborates that parents, or, ‘individual residents,’ lack the vision of ‘what actually is best from an education standpoint’ for their children.

Education Committee Chair Thomas McMillin strongly reacts, “Wow. Parents don’t know what’s best for their child.”

Yes, wow, that education raises teacher authority above parental authority. Wow, that teachers interpret better what each unique child needs most. Educators know a child through employment, but parents live with a child throughout life. Educators may want children to succeed, but they lack the type of love and sacrifice that is exclusive to parenting.

Perhaps educators need education not only on children, but also on parents - to learn that parents contain the ability to both want and know what’s best for their children at the same time.

METH IN MEXICO: A TURNING POINT IN THE DRUG WAR ?

Posted by BH 3:53 pm 2-16


STRATFOR

Meth in Mexico: A Turning Point in the Drug War?
By Ben West | February 16, 2012
Security Weekly

Mexican authorities announced Feb. 8 the largest seizure of methamphetamine in Mexican history -- and possibly the largest ever anywhere -- on a ranch outside of Guadalajara. The total haul was 15 tons of pure methamphetamine along with a laboratory capable of producing all the methamphetamine seized. While authorities are not linking the methamphetamine to any specific criminal group, Guadalajara is a known stronghold of the Sinaloa Federation, and previous seizures there have been connected to the group.

Methamphetamine, a synthetic drug manufactured in personal labs for decades, is nothing new in Mexico or the United States. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has led numerous crusades against the drug, increasing regulations on its ingredients to try to keep it from gaining a foothold in the United States. While the DEA's efforts have succeeded in limiting production of the drug in the United States, consumption has risen steadily over the past two decades. The increasing DEA pressure on U.S. suppliers and the growing demand for methamphetamine have driven large-scale production of the drug outside the borders of the United States. Given Mexico's proximity and the pervasiveness of organized criminal elements seeking new markets, it makes sense that methamphetamine would be produced on an industrial scale there. Indeed, Mexico has provided an environment for a scale of production far greater than anything ever seen in the United States.

But last week's methamphetamine seizure sheds light on a deeper shift in organized criminal activity in Mexico -- one that could mark a breakthrough in the violent stalemate that has existed between the Sinaloa Federation, Los Zetas and the government for the past five years and has led to an estimated 50,000 deaths. It also reveals a pattern in North American organized crime activity that can be seen throughout the 20th century as well as a business opportunity that could transform criminal groups in Mexico from the drug trafficking intermediaries they are today to controllers of an independent and profitable illicit market.

While the trafficking groups in Mexico are commonly called "cartels" (even Stratfor uses the term), they are not really cartels. A cartel is a combination of groups cooperating to control the supply of a commodity. The primary purpose of a cartel is to set the price of a commodity so that buyers cannot negotiate lower prices. The current conflict in Mexico over cocaine and marijuana smuggling routes shows that there are deep rifts between rival groups like the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas. There is no sign that they are cooperating with each other to set the price of cocaine or marijuana. Also, since most of the Mexican criminal groups are involved in a diverse array of criminal activities, their interests go beyond drug trafficking. They are perhaps most accurately described as "transnational criminal organizations" (TCOs), the label currently favored by the DEA.

Examples from the Past

While the level of violence in Mexico right now is unprecedented, it is important to remember that the Mexican TCOs are businesses. They do use violence in conducting business, but their top priority is to make profits, not kill people. The history of organized crime shows many examples of groups engaging in violence to control an illegal product. During the early 20th century in North America, to take advantage of Prohibition in the United States, organized criminal empires were built around the bootlegging industry. After the repeal of Prohibition, gambling and casinos became the hot market. Control over Las Vegas and other major gambling hubs was a business both dangerous and profitable. Control over the U.S. heroin market was consolidated and then dismantled during the 1960s and 1970s. Then came cocaine and the rise in power, wealth and violence of Colombian groups like the Medellin and Cali cartels.

But as U.S. and Colombian law enforcement cracked down on the Colombian cartels -- interdicting them in Colombia and closing down their Caribbean smuggling corridors -- Colombian producers had to turn to the Mexicans to traffic cocaine through Mexico to the United States. To this day, however, Colombian criminal groups descended from the Medellin and Cali cartels control the cultivation and production of cocaine in South America, while Mexican groups increasingly oversee the trafficking of the drug to the United States, Europe and Africa.

The Mexican Weakness

While violence has been used in the past to eliminate or coerce competitors and physically take control of an illegal market, it has not proved to be a solution in recent years for Mexican TCOs. The Medellin cartel became infamous for attacking Colombian state officials and competitors who tried to weaken its grasp over the cocaine market. Going back further, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel is thought to have been murdered over disagreements about his handling of the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas. Before that, Prohibition saw numerous murders over control of liquor shipments and territory. In Mexico, we are seeing an escalating level of such violence, but few of the business resolutions that would be expected to come about as a result.

Geography helps explain this. In Mexico, the Sierra Madre mountain range splits the east coast and the west from the center. The Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean coastal plains tend to develop their own power bases separate from each other.

Mexican drug traffickers are also split by market forces. With Colombian criminal groups still largely controlling the production of cocaine in jungle laboratories, Mexican traffickers are essentially middlemen. They must run the gauntlet of U.S.-led international interdiction efforts by using a combination of Central American traffickers, corruption and street-gang enforcers. They also have to move the cocaine across the U.S. border, where it gets distributed by hundreds of street gangs.

Profit is the primary motivation at every step, and each hurdle the Mexican traffickers have to clear cuts into their profit margins. The cocaine producers in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia can play the Sinaloa Federation and Los Zetas (as well as others) off of each other to strengthen their own bargaining position. And even though keeping the traffickers split appears to create massive amounts of violence in Mexico, it benefits the politicians and officials there, who can leverage at least the presence of a competitor for better bribes and payoffs.

For Mexican drug traffickers, competition is bad for the bottom line, since it allows other actors to exploit each side to get a larger share of the market. Essentially, everyone else in the cocaine market benefits by keeping the traffickers split. The more actors involved in cocaine trafficking, the harder it is to control it.

The Solution

Historically, organized criminal groups have relied on control of a market for their source of wealth and power. But the current situation in Mexico, and the cocaine trade in general, prevents the Mexican groups (or anyone) from controlling the market outright. As long as geography and market forces keep the traffickers split, all sides in Mexico will try to use violence to get more control over territory and market access. We assume that Mexico's geography will not change dramatically any time soon, but market forces are much more temporal.

Mexican criminal organizations can overcome their weakness in the cocaine market by investing the money they have earned (billions of dollars, according to the most conservative estimates) into the control of other markets. Ultimately, cocaine is impossible for the Mexicans to control because the coca plant can only grow in sufficient quantity in the foothills of the Andes. It would be prohibitively expensive for the Mexicans to take over control of coca cultivation and cocaine production there. Mexican criminal organizations are increasing their presence in the heroin market, but while they can grow poppies in Mexico and produce black-tar heroin, Afghanistan still controls a dominant share of the white heroin market -- around 90 percent.

What Mexicans can control is the methamphetamine market. What we are seeing in Mexico right now -- unprecedented amounts of the seized drug -- is reminiscent of what we saw over the past century in the infancy of the illegal liquor, gambling, heroin and cocaine markets: an organized criminal group industrializing production in or control of a loosely organized industry and using that control to set prices and increase its power. Again, while illegal methamphetamine has been produced in the United States for decades, regulatory pressure and law enforcement efforts have kept it at a small scale; seizures are typically measured in pounds or kilograms and producers are on the run.

Mexican producers have also been in the market for a long time, but over the past year we have seen seizures go from being measured in kilograms to being measured in metric tons. In other words, we are seeing evidence that methamphetamine production has increased several orders of magnitude and is fast becoming an industrialized process.

In addition to the 15 tons seized last week, we saw a record seizure of 675 tons of methylamine, a key ingredient of methamphetamine, in Mexico in December. From 2010 to 2011, seizures of precursor chemicals like methylamine in Mexico increased 400 percent, from 400 tons to 1,600 tons. These most recent reports are similar to reports in the 1920s of U.S. liquor seizures going from barrels to shiploads, which indicated bootlegging was being conducted on an industrial scale. They are also eerily similar to the record cocaine seizure in 1984 in Tranquilandia, Colombia, when Colombian National Police uncovered a network of jungle cocaine labs along with 13.8 metric tons of cocaine. It was the watershed moment, when authorities moved from measuring cocaine busts in kilograms to measuring them in tons, and it marked the Medellin cartel's rise to power over the cocaine market.

A True Mexican Criminal Industry?

Anyone can make methamphetamine, but it is a huge organizational, financial and legal challenge to make it on the industrial level that appears to be happening in Mexico. The main difference between the U.S. labs and the Mexican labs is the kind of input chemicals they use. The U.S. labs use pseudoephedrine, a pharmaceutical product heavily regulated by the DEA, as a starting material, while Mexican labs use methylamine, a chemical with many industrial applications that is more difficult to regulate. And while pseudoephedrine comes in small individual packages of cold pills, methylamine is bought in 208-liter (55-gallon) barrels. The Mexican process requires experienced chemists who have mastered synthesizing methamphetamine on a large scale, which gives them an advantage over the small-time amateurs working in U.S. methamphetamine labs.

Thus, while methamphetamine consumption has been steadily growing in the United States for the past two decades -- and at roughly $100 per gram, unpure methamphetamine is just as profitable on the street as cocaine -- it is even more profitable for Mexican traffickers. Methamphetamine does not come with the overhead costs of purchasing cocaine from Colombians and trafficking valuable merchandise through some of the most dangerous countries in the Western Hemisphere. Precursor materials such as methylamine used in methamphetamine production are cheap, and East Asian producers appear to be perfectly willing to sell the chemicals to Mexico. And because methamphetamine is a synthetic drug, its production does not depend on agriculture like cocaine and marijuana production does. There is no need to control large swaths of cropland and there is less risk of losing product to adverse weather or eradication efforts.

For the Mexican TCOs, industrializing and controlling the methamphetamine market offers a level of real control over a market that is not possible with cocaine. We expect fighting over the methamphetamine market to maintain violence at its current levels, but once a group comes out on top it will have far more resources to expel or absorb rival TCOs. This process may not sound ideal, but methamphetamine could pick the winner in the Mexican drug war.

NYTimes Embraces Stolen Heartland Institute Docs, Snottily Dismisses Climate Skepticism

Posted by BH 3:45 pm 2-16
From Media Research Center

NYTimes Embraces Stolen Heartland Institute Docs, Snottily Dismisses Climate Skepticism

While former environmental reporter Andrew Revkin showed a double standard in his Wednesday coverage of Climategate versus his coverage of documents swiped from climate-change skeptics, he looked positively fair compared to the hostile reporting on the stolen documents Thursday by Times colleagues Justin Gillis and Leslie Kaufman, “ In Documents, a Plan to Discredit Climate Teaching.” The reporters suggest a highly dubious two-page "Climate Strategy" memo "closely matched that of other documents" in tone and content, reminiscent of the paper's September 15, 2004 headline in defense of the infamous Rathergate fraud: "Memos on Bush Are Fake But Accurate, Typist Says."
Gillis and Kaufman accuse Heartland of fighting “climate science,” and cast its opponents as noble “defenders of science education.” Skeptics would accuse them of using classrooms to spread global-warming hysteria. (Last Christmas a piece by Gillis was eviscerated by a climate scientist as “perhaps the worst piece of reporting I've ever seen in the Times on climate change.”)
Unlike the Times’ arms-length treatment of the “Climategate” emails, the Times embraced these stolen documents in much the same way it welcomed the secret and classified diplomatic cables from Wikileaks, while giving only lip service acknowledgment to Heartland pointing out at least one of the trove is a fake:
Leaked documents suggest that an organization known for attacking climate science is planning a new push to undermine the teaching of global warming in public schools, the latest indication that climate change is becoming a part of the nation’s culture wars.
The documents, from a nonprofit organization in Chicago called the Heartland Institute, outline plans to promote a curriculum that would cast doubt on the scientific finding that fossil fuel emissions endanger the long-term welfare of the planet. “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective,” one document said.
While the documents offer a rare glimpse of the internal thinking motivating the campaign against climate science, defenders of science education were preparing for battle even before the leak. Efforts to undermine climate-science instruction are beginning to spread across the country, they said, and they fear a long fight similar to that over the teaching of evolution in public schools.
In a statement, the Heartland Institute acknowledged that some of its internal documents had been stolen. But it said its president had not had time to read the versions being circulated on the Internet on Tuesday and Wednesday and was therefore not in a position to say whether they had been altered.
Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute. In an apparent confirmation that much of the material, more than 100 pages, was authentic, the group apologized to donors whose names became public as a result of the leak.
The Atlantic’s Megan McArdle convincingly argued that the two-page document is an obvious fake.
The Times condescendingly dismissed Heartland’s skeptical perspective:
The documents say that over four years ending in 2013, the group expects to have spent some $1.6 million on financing the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, an entity that publishes periodic reports attacking climate science and holds lavish annual conferences. (Environmental groups refer to the conferences as “Denialpalooza.”)
Heartland’s latest idea, the documents say, is a plan to create a curriculum for public schools intended to cast doubt on mainstream climate science and budgeted at $200,000 this year. The curriculum would claim, for instance, that “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy.”
It is in fact not a scientific controversy. The vast majority of climate scientists say that emissions generated by humans are changing the climate and putting the planet at long-term risk, although they are uncertain about the exact magnitude of that risk. Whether and how to rein in emissions of greenhouse gases has become a major political controversy in the United States, however.
Environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr. eviscerated a December 25, 2011 article by Gillis as “perhaps the worst piece of reporting I've ever seen in the Times on climate change.” This one isn’t much better.






Heartland Institute Warming Skeptics Victimized by Fraud But Still Blamed by Environmental Reporter Revkin

Andrew Revkin, former environmental reporter for the New York Times, and now “Dot Earth” blogger for the paper, showed a stark double standard in his reporting Wednesday on a batch of documents obtained by fraud from the Heartland Institute, a group skeptical of human-based global warming hysteria. Revkin even blamed the victim of the fraud for failing to condemn the previous leak of the "Climategate" emails.
At first glance the incident is similar to Climategate -- the leaked emails from the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit that rocked the scientific world in November 2009 and helped erode support for apocalyptic predictions of global warming. The emails included some shockingly shoddy science and venomous attacks on climate-change dissenters by ostensibly objective climate scientists, and documented attempts to avoid legal Freedom of Information Act requests.
Yet while Revkin's reporting has constantly spotlighted the Heartland Institute and other groups for taking corporate funding, he seems to assume climate-change scientists, who receive government funding while actively avoiding legal FOIA requests, are somehow immune to vested interests, such as keeping up the (now fading) drumbeat of a climate crisis.
Revkin's Climate-gate post on Dot Earth (written back when he was a fulltime reporter) took a dim view of the release of the emails, assuming illegality although the leaker has never been identified, leaving open the possibility an internal whistleblower was responsible.
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here. But a quick sift of skeptics' Web sites will point anyone to plenty of sources.
In a July 2010 post he even asked,“Was the East Anglia Incident a Crime?” But Revkin showed none of that moral disapproval in his Wednesday reporting, when it came to the undeniable theft from the Heartland Institute, a group skeptical of global warming:
A blog storm began building Tuesday and broke on Wednesday as environmental groups posted a batch of documents -- ranging from tax forms to lists of donors to a 2012 Heartland “climate strategy” -- that appeared to expose the group’s game plan, budgets and backers in remarkable detail.
Late on Wednesday, Heartland posted a statement asserting that the strategy document was a “total fake” and the others, while appearing to be authentic, might have been altered and were, in any case, obtained through criminal means.
Revkin quoted Heartland: “Identity theft and computer fraud are criminal offenses subject to imprisonment. We intend to find this person and see him or her put in prison for these crimes....honest disagreement should never be used to justify the criminal acts and fraud that occurred in the past 24 hours.” He then accused Heartland of hypocrisy, while signaling to readers that he agrees with the global warming alarmists:
Wouldn’t it have been great if a similar message had some from the group and its allies after the mass release of e-mails and files from the University of East Anglia climatic research center in 2009 and last year -- documents that skeptics quickly and repeatedly over-interpreted as a damning “Climategate”? That hasn’t been Heartland’s approach.
And it certainly isn’t Revkin’s approach now.

FOR OUR TEXAS FRIENDS ?

Posted by BH 9:59 am 2-16


SPEAKING GERMAN IN TEXAS
In Texas there is a town called New Braunfels, where there is a large German-speaking population.
One day, a local rancher driving down a country road noticed a man using his hand to drink water from the rancher's stock pond.
The rancher rolled down the window and shouted: "Sehr angenehm! Trink das Wasser nicht. Die kuehe haben darein geschissen."
Which means: "Glad to meet you! Don't drink the water . The cows have shit in it."
The man shouted back: "I'm from New York and am just down here campaigning for Obama. I can't understand you. Please speak in English."
The rancher replied: "Use both hands."

I'M NOT RACIST SO I GUESS I WASN'T INVITED TO VOTE ?

EDITOR'S NOTE !

Posted by BH 8:40 am 2-16

"If you allow Government to Mandate and Control Life at it's Beginning.  Government will eventually Mandate and Control Life at it's Ending B.H.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...