PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Sr K who wrote (465033)1/14/2012 12:12:29 AM
10 Recommendations   of 657287
Snopes has proven to be a hard left website. If you want to have any credibility, you should refrain from using them as a fact checker on any subject matter. They are like a Media Matters for the web.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (465029)1/14/2012 12:18:17 AM
From: Sr K
   of 657287
A mayor does not make the laws.

Steyn should have taken 2 aspirin powders and edited his story in the morning.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: DMaA who wrote (465042)1/14/2012 12:23:28 AM
From: Sr K
   of 657287
That's why I usually post a link. The current SI editor was converting the http:// (as it is doing here) portion to a blue link, so I just started it with the www.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: LindyBill who wrote (465026)1/14/2012 12:26:15 AM
From: Tom Clarke
   of 657287
They're living up to their cheesy logo.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Sr K who wrote (465047)1/14/2012 12:41:14 AM
1 Recommendation   of 657287

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: TechKim who wrote (465030)1/14/2012 12:47:11 AM
From: goldworldnet
   of 657287
I do agree we need more representative government and term limits would help in that regard since career politicians have become a ruling class.

* * *

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3)

To: goldworldnet who wrote (465050)1/14/2012 1:06:47 AM
3 Recommendations   of 657287
Fast and Furious: Mystery of the White Guns

Has yet another "gun walking" operation been uncovered?
by John Hayward

The House Oversight committee is looking into yet another Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms operation in which, as a source told the L.A. Times, “apparently guns got away again.” Hopefully the Bureau doesn’t lose track of alcohol and tobacco as often as they let firearms “get away” from them, or we’ll be looking at the kind of public health crisis the White House actually cares about.

The operation currently on the desks of “gun walking” investigators Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) was called Operation White Gun. Despite the odd code name, it had nothing to do with cracking down on heavily armed white supremacists. It was all about arming the Sinaloa cartel, the same murderous Mexican gang who got all those guns from Operation Fast and Furious.

Operation White Gun was supposedly more like a normal sting operation, where Fast and Furious simply threw 1,700 American guns across the border, without any real attempt to track them. As the L.A. Times recounts it:

According to documents that the ATF sent to the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces, an umbrella group of U.S. agencies that seeks to disrupt major drug trafficking and money laundering, White Gun targeted nine leaders of the Sinaloa cartel. The list included Joaquin "Chapo" Guzman, who heads the cartel and is Mexico's most wanted drug suspect.

In ATF reports, MacAllister wrote that U.S. intelligence showed cartel members were setting up military-type training camps in the Sierra de Durango mountains, near Guzman's northern Mexico hide-out, and wanted to bolster their arsenal with grenade launchers and .50-caliber machine guns.

The agents focused first on Vicente Fernando Guzman Patino, a cartel insider who was identified as one of their weapons purchasers and who often used code words and phrases, saying "57" for "OK," for instance.

In fall 2009, the ATF team sent an undercover agent posing as an arms dealer to Guzman Patino. Photos of weapons, including a Dragon Fire 120-millimeter heavy mortar, were emailed to his "Superman6950" Hotmail account.

According to the ATF documents, Guzman Patino told the undercover agent that "if he would bring them a tank, they would buy it." He boasted he had "$15 million to spend on firearms and not to worry about the money." He wanted "the biggest and most extravagant firearms available."

Well of course you’re not going to get a tank, Mr. Patino. U.S. politicians aren't interested in pushing any tank-control legislation.

The upshot of this little email exchange between the undercover ATF agent and the gun-happy Sinaloa quartermaster was a classic crime-drama meet outside a restaurant in Phoenix, where the ATF man popped open his trunk and showed the delighted Patino a stockpile of weapons, including “a Bushmaster rifle and a Ramo .50 heavy machine gun.” And then…

… well, we don’t know what happened next. The investigation suddenly ended. No documentation unearthed so far confirms whether Patino got any White Gun weapons or not.

Some lower-level stooges got busted by the same undercover agent after they tried to trade crystal meth for shoulder-launched missiles, but none of the cartel bigwigs targeted by White Gun seem to have been taken down in the operation.

ATF agent Hope McAllister, a leader in the Operation Fast and Furious disaster, reportedly spent some time in Mexico during the summer of 2010 looking for White Gun weapons among the ordnance seized from cartel killers by the Mexican government. That behavior is not consistent with a tightly-controlled sting operation run by people who know exactly where all the contraband merchandise went. “Sooooo… you guys wouldn’t happen to have seized any of the guns on this list, would you? No? Oh, well, just thought I’d ask. Adios!

This is all very strange, because usually the Obama Justice Department is so meticulous with its paperwork, and so eager to show it off to congressional investigators and the public. The L.A. Times’ source inside the investigation said of the White Guns, “How many got into Mexico? Who knows?” I’ll bet the answer to that question, at least initially, will not be “Attorney General Eric Holder.”

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (465018)1/14/2012 1:30:09 AM
From: KLP
3 Recommendations   of 657287
Re Obama and any of the Repub candidates (except Paul) heard in an old movie tonight something that applies to today:

50% of any one of them is better than 100% of the one they oppose....

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: LindyBill who wrote (464974)1/14/2012 1:37:11 AM
From: KLP
9 Recommendations   of 657287

Government Unless You‘ve Been Shot at by the Taliban ’Shut Your Mouth, War Is Hell’: Allen West Weighs in on Urinating Marine Scandal Posted on January 13, 2012 at 4:47pm by Becket Adams Comments (518)
Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a former Army lieutenant colonel, sent The Weekly Standard an email commenting on a recent video depicting what appears to be four U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of Taliban terrorists. The email reads as follows [emphases added]:

I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah.

All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq?

The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter.

As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.

Rep. West, who served in both Operation Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom, wrote the email in response to how some U.S. politicians and media pundits have reacted to the Marines’ video. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for example, has strongly condemned the actions depicted in the video.

“Anyone, anyone found to have participated or know about it, having engaged in such conduct, must be held fully accountable,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday, calling the incident a “potential war crime.”

The four men in the video were members of a sniper team in a unit that lost seven members in action last summer in Afghanistan, according to Newser.

(h/t The Weekly Standard

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (5)

To: goldworldnet who wrote (465050)1/14/2012 1:40:59 AM
From: KLP
2 Recommendations   of 657287

Senators warn new EPA rules would raise gas prices By Judson Berger

Published January 13, 2012 |


Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.

The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.

Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."

They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.

This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.

"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.

The lawmakers on the letter were: Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; and Mark Begich, D-Alaska.

The EPA did not comment on the senators' complaints.

Asked Friday for a response to the concerns, the EPA said: "EPA is still in the process of developing the proposal."

An EPA official said publicly in November that the agency was developing the so-called "Tier 3" standards proposal during a House subcommittee hearing.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told lawmakers that the proposal would help the country meet its "clean air goals."

"Motor vehicles and their fuel are an important source of compounds that form air pollution," she said.

Oge said reducing sulfur in gasoline would make emission control technology more effective, and "the end result would be cleaner air."

If the EPA formally issues the proposal, it would probably take more than a year for the agency to review public comments and finalize any plan.

A Senate Republican aide said the authority to tighten the sulfur standards comes from the Clean Air Act but noted that EPA has the discretion to either impose the standards or not.

The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson

The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck.

"They're extraordinarily expensive relative to the last round of sulfur reductions," the aide told


Read more:

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.