Saturday, February 11, 2012

Obama's Anti Regilious Implosion ?

Posted by BH 6:15 pm 2-11 

Bless me Father, For I have Sinned,  My Last Confession was ?  Woooo , wait ,  Are you Allah ? Sorry,  Can I have a Basket of Churches Fried Chicken and a Order of Fries Please... Forget I was Here ? And Hey.  the Chicken is for Michelle ?   oh Yea, OK
Obamacare Obamas Anti Religious Implosion
By Matt Barber
Barack Obama may have just lost the election. He has foolishly gone to war in an election year with tens of millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews – Democrat, Republican, and independent alike. He has thrown down a radical feminist gauntlet and dared the Church to pick it up.
They’ve picked it up.

From running up trillions in debt and deficit, to the vast expansion of the size and scope of federal bureaucracy, Mr. Obama has done more in three years to supplant our 236 year-old Constitutional Republic with a Euro-style socialist autocracy – than a lesser Marxist could have accomplished in a lifetime.
But controlling the purse strings is not nearly enough. A central element of full-blown secular-socialism is the suppression of religious liberty – principally, freedom of conscience.
Karl Marx once said: “The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion.”
When Karl Marx speaks, Barack Obama listens.
In what is perhaps the most egregious executive overreach in our lifetime, the president’s Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has unconstitutionally decreed that both Catholic and Protestant organizations must violate fundamental tenets of the Christian faith by providing ObamaCare coverage that includes birth control, sterilization and various forms of abortion. This is as blatant a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee to religious “free exercise” as we’ve ever seen.
Despite two pathetic feints at “compromise,” Obama’s illegal requirement that faith-based groups pay for policies providing immoral “reproductive services” remains in full force.
On Friday, the Obama administration offered its latest non-compromise “compromise.” reports: “The White House announced today that, instead of forcing religious employers to pay for birth control, it will force insurance companies to offer the drugs free of charge to all women, no matter where they work.”
America: this arrogant, narcissistic, amoral man thinks you’re stupid. Who do you think pays for the insurance policies that provide “free” birth control, sterilizations, and abortifacients to employees? Why, the very religious organizations doctrinally prohibited from paying for these “services” in the first place, of course.
This is nothing but a South Side Chicago shell game, dressed up as a concession. Obama’s unprecedented attack on the First Amendment continues full steam ahead.
In Dreams from My Father, Mr. Obama writes: “To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.” It should come as little surprise that, among those carefully selected friends, he gives his “Marxist professors and the structural feminists” top billing. In fact, as we approach the 2012 general election, it has become alarmingly clear the degree to which various secular “isims” have shaped the development of Obama’s ungodly worldview.
From the moment he falsely claimed, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” many have screamed from the rooftops that, despite his incongruous claims to be a Christ follower, Barack Obama, in reality, harbors tremendous animus toward all things Christian.
It’s not surprising, then, that – even prior to his latest act of anti-religious authoritarianism – a Pew Research Center survey had determined that, under Obama’s leadership, “the number of [religious] voters who identify as a Democrat has declined, while the number saying they lean toward the GOP has risen.”
Some highlights:
·White evangelical Protestant support for the GOP has grown from 65 percent in 2008 to 70 percent today;
·80 percent of Mormons now say they identify with or lean toward the Republican Party;
·White mainline Protestants, who were evenly divided between the parties in 2008, now favor the GOP by a 12-point margin;
·White non-Hispanic Catholics, who gave Democrats an eight-point advantage in 2008 now give Republicans a seven-point advantage at the end of 2011 (a remarkable 15-point swing);
·Even Jewish voters – traditionally one of the strongest Democratic constituencies – have moved noticeably in the Republican direction; Jewish voters favored the Democrats by a 52-point margin in 2008 but now prefer the Democratic Party by a significantly smaller 36-point margin.
It stands to reason that, in the wake of his most recent attack on religious freedom, Democrat’s favor with the faithful will only further erode.
Catholics especially are having none of it. Bill Donohue, president of the non-partisan Catholic League lashed out last week: “Never before; unprecedented in American history for the federal government to line up against the Roman Catholic Church.”
Ms. Sebelius first feigned compromise in the aftermath of the original announcement, haughtily granting some religious groups one year “to adapt to this new rule.”
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” responded Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
In the spirit of Martin Luther King Jr., many Catholic priests across the nation have vowed civil disobedience. On January 29, they read a form letter to parishioners pledging that Catholics “cannot – we will not – comply with this unjust law.”
Nor should they.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced a bill called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 2012 that would restore liberty of conscience to religious groups. Evangelical leaders are allying en masse with their kindred papist travelers.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, said “ObamaCare is a direct attack on the moral and religious beliefs of our nation. One year will not change religious tenets that have been in place for thousands of years. This administration has pressed its radical pro-abortion agenda on the American people and around the world … ObamaCare is an assault on our freedom.”
Dr. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), has said “we will not comply” with this law. He has pledged to face jail time instead: “We want the law changed, or else we’re going to write our letters from the Nashville jail, just like Dr. King wrote his from the Birmingham jail.”
This is the stuff of civil war. This is a battle Barack Obama and Democrats cannot win. He has two choices: He can either stubbornly stand firm and continue to give the GOP a tremendous election year bat with which to beat him about the head and neck; or he can cave and further cultivate the snowballing narrative that he is weak and impetuous.
Either way, the president has suffered a self-inflicted wound so deep that it may not heal before November, especially since (as evidenced by his latest illusory “accommodation”) he can’t seem to stop picking at the scab.
Matt Barber (@jmattbarber on Twitter) is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Vice President of Liberty Counsel Action (LCA on Facebook).


POSTED BY BH 5:40 pm 2-11

Get's a little Deep, Don't give up.....Bill

All This Adds up to = We Is Screwed!

%&($%@%^^$(_&$#$@%$  WTF ?
Gasoline deliveries reflect recession and growth. The recent drop in retail gasoline deliveries is signalling a sharp contraction ahead.
Mish recently posted some intriguing charts depicting a significant decline in gasoline consumption (additional charts here).  Then correspondent Joe R. forwarded me this stunning chart of gasoline retail deliveries, from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:(EIA)
As Joe noted, this data is interesting because it is un-manipulated, that is, it is not “seasonally adjusted” or run through some black-box modifications like so much other government data.
Retail gasoline deliveries, already well below 1980 levels, have absolutely fallen  off a cliff.Is the plunge inventory-related, i.e. are storage facilities so full that retailers are simply putting off deliveries?
Though I don’t have data on hand to support this, I know from one of my correspondents who is in the gasoline distribution/delivery business  that gasoline is very much a “just in time” commodity: gas stations are often close to running out of fuel when they get a delivery. Stations aren’t holding huge quantities of surplus gasoline; that’s not how the business works.
Given the absence of “extra storage” in gas stations (and the fact that the number of gas  stations has fallen dramatically since 1980), it is reasonable to conclude that retail delivery is largely a function of demand, i.e. gasoline consumption.
Even if you dismiss the recent plunge as an outlier, the declines in retail gasoline deliveries are mind-boggling.If you look at the data from 1983 to 2011 on the link above, you will note that delivery declines align with recessions.
For example, deliveries jumped from 50.1 million gallons per day (MGD) in November 1983, when the nation was emerging from the deepest postwar recession then on record, to 58 MGD  the following November (1984).
Deliveries steadily rose to a peak of 67.1 MGD in July 1998, declined marginally in the 2001-2 recession and then surged to 66.8 MGD in August 2003. If we just look at one month–say November–then we see that deliveries remained in  a remarkably consistent channel from 1994 to 2008, between 54 MGD and 63 MGD, with the higher numbers occuring in the “peak bubble years”  of 1998 and 2003.
In 2010, gasoline deliveries declined to the low 40s–literally falling off the charts.In November 1983, deliveries were 51.1 MGD; in November 2010, they were 42.8 MGD, and in November 2011 they were 30.9 MGD.
Does this reflect higher fuel efficiencies in the U.S. vehicle fleet? To examine fuel efficiency and other macro-trends, I assembled some charts of fuel efficiency (courtesy of theEarly Warning blog) and a graph of employment, a commonly used proxy for economic activity/growth.
Let’s start with some basic data about population and vehicles.There are 254 million passenger vehicles registered in the U.S.Some percentage of these are classic cars and other vehicles that aren’t driven much, but nonetheless the number of vehicles that are in regular use is large.
U.S. population in 1983 was approximately 234 million. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates the current population at313 million.
Vehicle sales  declined from  a record 17.4 million in 2000 to 11.5 million in 2010.
Driving, as measured by national Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), began to plateau as far  back as 2004 and dropped in 2007 for the first time since 1980. Per capita driving followed a similar pattern, with flat-lining growth after 2000 and falling rates since 2005.  These recent declines in driving predated the steady hikes in gas prices during 2007 and 2008. Moreover, the recent drops in VMT (90 billion miles) and VMT per capita (388 miles)  are the largest annualized drops since World War II.
Here are two charts of U.S. employment which show two  periods of strong expansion: in the late 1990s and in 2002-08.
If the number of jobs were correlated to gasoline deliveries, then we would expect deliveries to be close to those registered in 2003 and 1999, since the number of jobs has declined to the levels of those years.
Instead, we find deliveries are dramatically lower: November 1999: 59 MGD November 2003: 63.8 MGD November 2010: 42.8 MGD
Once again, this is not an outlier: deliveries for all of 2010 were between 42 and 46 MGD, compared to deliveries in the high 50s/mid 60s in 1999 and 2003.
There are all kinds of other things that influence the number of miles driven, but there is little evidence that any one factor can account for a 47% drop in retail gasoline deliveries.  For example, it is well-known that the U.S. economy has shifted to a digital, service economy in the past 30 years, and since more people can “consume” (via shopping at, etc.) and “produce” (work from home) without driving, then it makes sense that people are driving less.
But if we examine the data, it’s difficult to attribute the massive recent drops to people ordering stuff online or working from home more. After all, people were working from home and ordering stuff online in 2003, when gas deliveries reached 63 MGD, and in November 2006, when deliveries were 58.8 MGD.
Deliveries in November 2011 were 30.9 MGD, a staggering 47% decline.
What about fuel efficiency? here are two charts from theEarly Warning blog. They show a significant increase in the 1980s, but only modest improvement through the 1990s and 2000s.
If we use the same year as in the employment analysis, 1999, we see there was a 6% rise in efficiency from 1999 to 2010. This would suggest 6% of the decline in gasoline deliveries can be attributed to increased efficiency. But what about the other 40% of the decline?That cannot be attributed to higher efficiency.
I’ve marked up the first chart to show the secular trends in efficiency and employment.
There are no data-supported broad-based drivers for dramatically lower gasoline consumption other than austerity and lower economic activity.  The code-word for “austerity and lower economic activity” that is verboten in the Mainstream Media is “recession.” Indeed, if you examine the EIA data, the only causal factor that has backing in the data is recession–or if you prefer, austerity and lower economic activity.
Then there is the price of fuel.People have to go to work, pick up the kids, get their meds, etc., and few urban centers in the U.S. have mass transit systems that are up to the task of replacing autos. So most Americans have what we might call non-discretionary driving. But as the price of fuel rises, people find ways to lower their discretionary driving by combining trips, shopping less often, shortening or eliminating vacations, etc. Enterprises reduce costly business travel with  teleconferences and other digital technologies.
Data supports the notion that high oil prices lead to recession.For example, Chris Martenson recently made a compelling case for this inWhy Our Currency Will Fail(“Note that all of the six prior recessions were preceded by a spike in oil prices.”)
Household income doesn’t rise just because oil is climbing in cost, and so the extra money spent on fuel is diverted from other consumption or saving (capital accumulation). Higher fuel costs lower household capital formation and reduce consumption/economic activity.
Oil has been elevated for months, kissing $100 and rarely dipping below $90/barrel. Do higher oil costs explain the decline in gasoline consumption? Once again, they undoubtedly influence consumption, but that cannot explain the 40% drop in consumption. After all, when oil spiked in 2008 to $140/barrel, deliveries only dropped by a few million gallons: from 58.8 MGD in July 2007, before the spike, to 54.8 MGD at the point of maximum pain in July 2008.
The cost of oil has declined sharply from mid-2008, yet consumption has tanked from 54.8 MGD in July 2008 to 42.4 MGD in July 2011. That’s a hefty 21% decline.
What other plausible explanation is there for the decline from 42.4 MGD in July 2011 to 30.9 MGD in November 2011 other than a dramatic decline in discretionary driving?That 27% drop in a few months in unprecedented, except in times of war or sharp economic contraction, i.e. recession.
If we stipulate that vehicles and fuel consumption are essential proxies for the U.S. economy, then we can expect a steep decline in economic activity to register in other metrics within the next few months.
Such a sharp drop would of course be “unexpected” given the positive employment data of the past few months. But as the data above shows, employment isn’t tightly correlated to gasoline consumption: gasoline consumption reflects recession and  growth.
In other words, look out below.
Charles Hugh Smith – Of Two Minds

Now that That's all understood, Anybody want a 
Drink ?   How about a Bottle ?   


Posted by Herbie Swartz
1:45 pm  2-11"
3 QUESTIONS (Orig Post)

From Woody P. 2-11
1. Back in 1961 people of color were called 'Negroes.' So how can the 
Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American' when the term wasn't even used at that time?

2. The birth certificate that the White House released lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961. It also lists Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right?

At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in " Kenya, East Africa ". This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the "British East Africa Protectorate".

3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital". This cannot be, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978?


Post-colonial history (from Wikipedia)
You would have thought that the people in the Obama administration with all that Ivy league liberal education would have caught these obvious errors.

Let's see, we can't report these issues to Eric Holder, he's proven that but if we vote them out of power, we can put them all in prison and not have to pay their benefits. The more like Nancy and Harry that we can put on the list means more savings. That's a budget reduction plan I can support

Now who's the bright penny?



 I'll Gar-n-tee no one would take you gun's or freedom away...not without one hell of a fight !

John Wayne

Date of Birth
26 May 1907, Winterset, Iowa, USA
Date of Death
11 June 1979, Los Angeles, California, USA (lung & stomach cancer)
Birth Name
Marion Robert Morrison 
Height 6' 4" (1.93 m)
Mini Biography
John Wayne (born Marion Morrison) was the son of pharmacist Clyde Morrison and his wife Mary. Clyde developed a lung condition that required him to move his family from Iowa to the warmer climate of southern California, where they tried ranching in the Mojave Desert. Until the ranch failed, Marion and his younger brother Robert E. Morrison swam in an irrigation ditch and rode a horse to school. When the ranch failed, the family moved to Glendale, California, where Marion delivered medicines for his father, sold newspapers and had an Airedale dog named "Duke" (the source of his own nickname). He did well at school both academically and in football. When he narrowly failed admission to Annapolis he went to USC on a football scholarship 1925-7. Tom Mix got him a summer job as a prop man in exchange for football tickets. On the set he became close friends with director John Ford for whom, among others, he began doing bit parts, some billed as John Wayne. His first featured film was Men Without Women (1930). After more than 70 low-budget westerns and adventures, mostly routine, Wayne's career was stuck in a rut until Ford cast him in Stagecoach (1939), the movie that made him a star. He appeared in nearly 250 movies, many of epic proportions. From 1942-43 he was in a radio series, "The Three Sheets to the Wind", and in 1944 he helped found the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a Right-Wing political organization, later becoming its President. His Conservative Political Stance was also reflected in The Alamo (1960), which he produced, directed and starred in. His patriotic stand was enshrined in The Green Berets (1968) which he co-directed and starred in. Over the years Wayne was beset with health problems. In September 1964 he had a cancerous left lung removed; in March 1978 there was heart valve replacement surgery; and in January 1979 his stomach was removed. He received the Best Actor nomination for Sands of Iwo Jima (1949) and finally got the Oscar for his role as one-eyed Rooster Cogburn in True Grit (1969). A Congressional Gold Medal was struck in his honor in 1979. He is perhaps best remembered for his parts in Ford's cavalry trilogy - Fort Apache (1948), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) and Rio Grande (1950).


Posted by BH 10:44 am 2-11

We have always known how anti-Israel and biased CNN (Crescent News Network) is. Now there is no pretense. They have laid bare their antisemitism for all the world to see. Unabashed prejudice. One can only imagine the propaganda packaged as "news" that we will be subjected to from their 'Palestinian' stringers.
CNN's Israel bureau is downsizing, reportedly to cope with a reduced budget due to falling advertising revenues.

That doesn't explain why they fired four Israeli Jewish journalists (out of a crew of 8), and retained only Arab journalists. The local chief editor of CNN is now an Arab.

Among the long time news personnel let go were Moshe Cohen, editor, fired after 10 years with CNN; Izi Landberg, Producer, about 25 years with CNN; Avi Kaner cameraman fired after 10 years with CNN; and Michal Zippori desk producer.

CNN's usual procedure in the past was to send both a Jewish and an Arab reporter out on stories. Now, they're only going to send an Arab journalist, with all that implies. It's no secret to anyone that Arab journalists have to toe the Fatah and Hamas line if they want to do reporting on stories in Gaza and the Arab occupied areas of Judea and Samaria without taking the risk of being murdered.

CNN's coverage of Israel and the Middle East conflict has been questionable for a very long time, and it's going to get even worse now that it will only be reported from one side's point of view. The fact that this also coincides with the brass at CNN's point of view and their willingness to take steps to ignore even basic journalistic ethics to promote shows how far a once respected news source has fallen.


Posted by BH 9:29 am 2-11

The message from Indiana and elsewhere is that aligning yourself too closely to unions is a losing strategy.


After the 2008 election, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and, of course, the presidency. They used that victory to push through an agenda as radical as any seen in this country since FDR—unprecedented deficit-financed stimulus spending, more regulations, a new health-care entitlement, etc.
In 2010, the Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives and seven Senate seats in a startling reversal of fortune. But instead of rethinking their agenda, Democrats in Washington have doubled down, marching in lock-step toward ever bigger government.
Well, the states are now starting to change the playing field. The latest shock to the Democratic agenda is Indiana's adoption of a right-to-work law that bans contracts that require private-sector employees to pay union dues. And there are many more such changes on the state level to follow.
Most high-school civics students would agree that no American worker should either be prohibited from joining a union or required to join one as a condition of employment. And no union member—or anyone else for that matter—should be required to contribute to political causes they oppose. Yet in 27 states, if more than 50% of workers agree to create a union shop, workers are still required to join the union and pay dues even if those dues are used for political causes they disapprove of.
As of Feb. 1, the day Gov. Mitch Daniels signed the right-to-work bill into law, that's no longer the case in the Hoosier State. That's progress, and part of a growing trend at the state level. Indiana is now the 23rd state to adopt a right-to-work law. The possibility for states to pass right-to-work laws was created in section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, which amended the FDR-era pro-union Wagner Act.
But just because it was the right thing to do, don't think it was easy for Gov. Daniels to do it. Not only did every Democrat in Indiana's House and Senate vote against the bill, but five Republicans in the House and nine in the Senate also voted against it, testament to the influence of union power in Washington and state capitals across America.
Associated Press
The message from Indiana and elsewhere is that aligning yourself too closely to unions is a losing strategy.
Passing the right-to-work legislation isn't Gov. Daniels's first success in Indiana. On his first day in office in 2005 he removed former Democratic Gov. Evan Bayh's executive order allowing collective bargaining for state employees. As a result, over the next six years the number of Indiana state employees paying union dues fell to fewer than 1,500 from more than 16,000. He also signed school voucher legislation increasing parents' choice for their children's education. And to top it all off, his approval ratings remain high.
The last state to pass right-to-work legislation was Oklahoma a decade ago, where a referendum led to the law's enactment in 2001. New Hampshire came close to passing a right-to-work law after the House and Senate approved the legislation in 2011, but a veto by Democratic Gov. John Lynch killed it. Although term limits do not exist in New Hampshire, Gov. Lynch will not seek re-election in 2012, making a push for right-to-work legislation once again likely.
The benefits to states having right-to-work legislation are overwhelming. As demonstrated by a number of economists, most notably Ohio State's Richard Vedder and Harvard's Robert Barro, the economies in states with right-to-work laws grow significantly faster than those in forced-union states. They also have higher employment growth, attract more residents, and have more rapid growth in state and local tax revenues than forced-union states.
But right-to-work laws are only one example of states taking on the Democratic agenda and public-sector unions. Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri are all preparing legislation to eliminate their state's progressive personal income-tax codes. Last year Ohio repealed its state estate tax, and the issues in Wisconsin surrounding Gov. Scott Walker's battle with state workers over budget constraints and collective bargaining are legend.
Gov. Walker is not alone. Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam has signed legislation ending public-school teachers' collective-bargaining rights, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has removed collective-bargaining rights on issues such as state-employee contributions to pension and health-care plans.
Meanwhile, Democrats, for better or worse, have staked their future on tight partnership with the unions. Unfortunately for them, not only is union membership a fraction of what it once was, but half of all union members today are public-sector employees—teachers, nurses, police officers, firemen, prison guards. In 1983, when President Reagan fired the air-traffic controllers for walking out on their jobs, two-thirds of all union members were in the private sector.
Not only is union membership declining, but in some of the most ardent pro-union states, such as California, the unfunded liabilities of public-employee retirement plans are pushing those states toward financial collapse and intolerably high tax rates.
The message from the states—and especially from Indiana—is that allying oneself too closely with unions is a losing strategy. President Obama and his Democratic allies should take note: They've hitched their fortunes to a falling star.
Mr. Laffer, chairman of Laffer Associates, is co-author with Stephen Moore of "Return to Prosperity: How America Can Regain Its Economic Superpower Status" (Threshold, 2010).


POSTED BY BH 9:24 AM 2-11

There's something about Mitt. And whatever it is, a few folks are definitely allergic. Maybe they sense he has the same connection to humanity that a drive shaft has to bouillabaisse. Could be he's worth more than most small Balkan nations. Might be the Mormon thing or perhaps he just smells odd.
It's almost funny. After crushing Newt Gingrich in Florida, the nomination for the Republican primary race was written off as a done deal with Romney all but handed the crown and the beaucoup bouquets reserved for winners. And by his post election strut, you could tell the candidate thought along similar lines. Not measuring the drapes or anything, but definitely photo shopping names for inclusion on the bottom line of a bumper sticker.
But the express train to the Tampa printers derailed on the winter plains of the Midwestern states of Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri with Rick Santorum somehow swooping down to sweep all three. Having had to slap up a different wannabe front-runner every week, Romney must feel like he's playing Whack a Mole with a mallet made out of yogurt-soaked cat hair clippings.
Whatever that something about Mitt is, it causes conservatives to contract the dreaded "Itchy I-Don't-Knows," every time they get close to walking down the aisle with the former governor from Massachusetts. It's a rash that erupts only when Willard's name tops the national polls. A serious knee-buckling case of Buyer's Remorse. Of course the clueless plastic smile of an aged Ken doll hasn't acted as a sufficient antidote either.
The tone deaf man with the tin ear grinningly claimed he was not concerned about "the very poor." As Randy Jackson might say, "A bit pitchy, dawg." The problem is, most normal humans suspect Romney's definition of "very poor" consists of anybody without a pastry chef permanently on call. The very next day, apparently concerned that his post elitist message wasn't being taken seriously he hugged Donald Trump. Which would be terrific if he were running for Poster Child of the 1%.
Someone on his staff has to tell the guy he already resembles a police sketch artist rendering of a white-collar criminal. The MBA voted "Most Likely to be Perp -- Walked up a Courthouse Steps with a Trench Coat Draped over his Handcuffs." Looks more like Gordon Gekko than Michael Douglas does. Go on, Mitt. Say it."Greed is good." Feel better now?
The only people who can relate to this guy are country club chaps with a penchant for calling their wives "lovey." He wasn't groomed, he was assembled out of an Ikea box. "One White Male Politician; Standard."
Romney won Florida by airing 12,000 ads compared to Gingrich's 300, and doing the same to Rick Santorum should be easier than pudding on a stick, since the former Pennsylvania senator is financing his campaign mostly through bake sales and scrounging under couch cushions.
Santorum actually brags about running such a low-key campaign he flies middle seats on United. We're supposed to entrust the presidency to a guy who can't snag a decent travel agent?
Something else about Mitt is he's an absolute blooming chameleon. And over the next couple of weeks, expect to be treated to the Borg Candidate assimilating Santorum's passion for fighting the culture wars with the megaphone turned up to LOUD. Who knows, Mitt could well decide to go all in. And start wearing sweater vests.


Posted by BH 8:50am 2-11



Posted by BH 8:42am 2-11


Romney and Paul in FaceDown in Maine ?

Posted by BH 8:32am 2-11

Maine's presidential caucuses come at a critical time for Mitt Romney. Shaken by a string of failures, Romney is hoping to avoid a fourth consecutive defeat Saturday on the path to his party's nomination. 
The former Massachusetts governor has stepped up efforts to court local Republicans in recent days, reflecting growing concern over feisty GOP rival Ron Paul in what has essentially become a two-man race here. Neither Newt Gingrich nor Rick Santorum, who defeated Romney in contests in Missouri, Minnesota and Colorado on Tuesday, are actively competing in Maine. 
Romney wants Maine to help assuage heightened scrutiny over his on-going struggle to win his party's skeptical conservative wing. State officials will announce a winner Saturday evening, a day after Romney delivered a high-profile Washington address in which he described himself as "a severely conservative Republican governor." 
Paul, a libertarian-minded Texan, is fighting to prove he's capable of winning at all, particularly in a state where his campaign has focused considerable attention. He has scored a handful of top three finishes in other early voting states, but his strategy is based on winning some of the smaller caucus contests where his passionate base of support can have an oversized impact. 
There is no reliable polling to gauge the state of the Maine election, which drew fewer than 5,500 voters from across the state four years ago. But Romney's recent activities suggest a win is by no means assured, despite the natural advantages of being a former New England governor competing in a state he won with more than 50 percent of the vote four years ago. 
He unexpectedly changed his schedule Friday night to add personal appearances at two caucuses Saturday -- a day he had planned to take off, despite being the last big day of voting in a state where the caucuses span one week. Romney faced a rowdy crowd at a town hall-style meeting in Portland Friday night, where one heckler was removed by police. Others asked pointed questions about his off-shore bank accounts, feelings about the nation's poor, and his continued support for the natural gas extraction process known as fracking. 
"That's a good question. I gotta take some shots now and then or it wouldn't be interesting," Romney said when asked about investments in the Cayman Islands. "I pay all the taxes I'm required to pay under the law -- by the way, not a dollar more." 
This Maine caucuses began Feb. 4 and will largely conclude Saturday, when the state GOP will announce the results of the nonbinding presidential straw poll. The contest has drawn virtually none of the hype surrounding recent elections in places like Florida and Nevada, where candidates poured millions of dollars into television and radio advertising. 
After he and his allies spent a combined $15.9 million in Florida alone, Romney had placed only a small cable television ad buy to air Friday and Saturday totaling several thousand dollars. But he dispatched surrogates to the state in recent days -- including his eldest son, Tagg -- and hosted a telephone town hall to supplement Friday's campaign stop. 
Paul has been more active, supplementing an aggressive ground operation with visits to shore up support. He has three more public appearances scheduled Saturday. There is reason to believe he won't make things easy for Romney. 
Paul did reasonably well here four years ago, earning more than 18 percent of the vote, and his support has grown since then in a state whose electorate isn't afraid to support candidates outside the mainstream. The tea party -- hardly a Romney ally -- has also exerted significant influence in the Pine Tree State, taking over the GOP platform and helping to elect Gov. Paul LePage
"Paul needs to show he can win somewhere," GOP strategist Phil Musser said. "My sense is a win in Maine for Romney would be nice. But to be honest, Ron Paul is camped out up there and he needs to win one." 
The timing of the contest also raises the stakes. 
The narrative coming out of Maine will likely reverberate in the political echo chamber for weeks, given there isn't another election until Arizona and Michigan host their contests Feb. 28. Romney hopes that narrative will be more positive than it has been over the last week, arguably his worst of the year.

Facebook Parenting: For the troubled teen.

Posted by BH 7:54am 2-11
warning:  (Strong Language)

Statement by religious scholars on contraceptive coverage policy change

posted by BH 7:40am 2-11 Using CrocoDoc Screen at Free Zone Media
See zoom in/out buttons at bottom

Pentagon Plans for Bunker Buster Bomb

posted by BH 7:32am 2-11

Sharia Finance - List of Sharia Compliant Banks

POSTED BY BH 7:22AM 2-11
From GBTV and Various

Shariah Finance
Thursday, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:12 PM EST
Today on radio, a caller asked for a list of Sharia compliant banks after watching last night’s Global Caliphate Special. We said we would dig and see what we could find, and we found this list from Sharia Finance Watch (via Citizen’s Warrior). You can get more information on Shariah Finance HERE
Alpha Natural Resources
Asset Acceptance Capital Corporation
Aviva Plc
BNP Paribas Group
Citibank, N.A.
Credit Agricole, S.A.
Deutsche Bank AG

Dow Jones & Company Inc.

Equity Insurance Group Limited

Goldman Sachs Group
HBOS plc
HSBC Holdings plc
INVESCO Perpetual
Julius Baer Group
Maersk Logistics
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
Clear and evident information regarding Sharia Finance:
Morgan Stanley
NYSE Euronext
Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Singapore Power


Posted by BH 7:17am 2-11
 From  Fox News

Iran will soon unveil "big new" nuclear achievements, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Saturday while reiterating Tehran's readiness to revive talks with the West over the country's controversial nuclear program.
Ahmadinejad spoke at a rally in Tehran as tens of thousands of Iranians marked the 33rd anniversary of the Islamic Revolution that toppled the pro-Western monarchy and brought Islamic clerics to power.
Ahmadinejad did not elaborate on the upcoming announcement but insisted Iran would never give up its uranium enrichment, a process that makes material for reactors as well as weapons.
The West suspects Iran's nuclear program is aimed at producing atomic weapons, a charge Tehran denies, insisting it's geared for peaceful purposes only, such as energy production.
Four rounds of U.N. sanctions and recent tough financial penalties by the U.S. and the European Union have failed to get Iran to halt aspects of its atomic work that could provide a possible pathway to weapons production.
"Within the next few days the world will witness the inauguration of several big new achievements in the nuclear field," Ahmadinejad told the crowd in Tehran's famous Azadi, or Freedom, square.
Iran has said it is forced to manufacture nuclear fuel rods, which provide fuel for reactors, on its own since international sanctions ban it from buying them on foreign markets. In January, Iran said it had produced its first such fuel rod.
Apart from progress on the rods, the upcoming announcement could pertain to Iran's underground enrichment facility at Fordo or upgraded centrifuges, which are expected to be installed at the facility in the central town of Natanz. Iran has also said it would inaugurate the Russian-built nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr in 2012.
Iran's unchecked pursuit of the nuclear program scuttled negotiations a year ago but Iranian officials last month proposed a return to the talks with the five permanent U.N. Security Council members plus Germany.
"Iran is ready for talks within the framework of equality and justice," Ahmadinejad repeated on said Saturday but warned that Tehran "will never enter talks if enemies behave arrogantly."
In the past, Iran has angered Western officials by appearing to buy time through opening talks and weighing proposals even while pressing ahead with the nuclear program.
Washington recently levied new penalties aimed at limiting Iran's ability to sell oil, which accounts for 80 percent of its foreign revenue, while the European Union adopted its own toughest measures yet on Iran, including an oil embargo and freeze of the country's central bank assets.
Israel is worried Iran could be on the brink of an atomic bomb and many Israeli officials believe sanctions only give Tehran time to move its nuclear program underground, out of reach of Israeli military strikes. The U.S. and its allies argue that Israel should hold off on any military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities to allow more time for sanctions to work.
Before Ahmadinejad spoke Saturday, visiting Hamas prime minister from Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, also addressed the crowd, congratulating Iranians on the 1979 anniversary and vowing that his militant Palestinian group would never recognize Iran's and Hamas' archenemy, Israel.
Also at the Tehran rally, Iran displayed a real-size model of the U.S. drone RQ-170 Sentinel, captured by Iran in December near the border with Afghanistan. Iran has touted the drone's capture as one of its successes against the West.
The state TV called the drone is a "symbol of power" of the Iranian armed forces "against the global arrogance" of the U.S.
The report broadcast footage of other rallies around Iran, saying millions participated in the anniversary celebrations, many under heavy snowfall.

Sharyl Attkisson skips C-PAC awards ceremony, CBS sends a PATCON FBI informant instead.

Posted by BH 7:11 am 2-11

 Free Zone Media Follow up on Story from Yesterday.
She Had Committed to Attend and Speak ?

Sharyl Attkisson skips C-PAC awards ceremony, CBS sends a PATCON FBI informant instead.

Yup, that's right -- Chris Isham. He was an FBI informant during the OKC bombing investigation back in the 90s when he was with ABC. Now he's Sharyl's boss. Go figure.


Anonymous said...
Attkisson has seemed pretty "straight-up" for a MSM journalist - one could if she's succumbing to political pressures - OR, DOCUMENTING those pressures and letting things play out a bit Isham might consider being worried
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...