Powerful New Ad Slams President Obama Over Lethal Fast and Furious Operation

Vicious Mexican Drug Cartel Arrested for Laundering Money in Horse Racing

by William Bigelow 

  In a frightening example of how the Mexican drug cartel has infiltrated American society, the FBI arrested seven members of the cartel on Tuesday in New Mexico with evidence that the cartel has laundered millions of dollars in the American horse racing industry. Jose Trevino Morales, his wife, and seven of their associates were arrested at their stables and charged with one count each of money laundering. Trevino’s older brother, Miguel Angel Trevino Morales, is the second in command of the Zetas drug cartel, which is known for its vicious brutality, including kidnapping, decapitating and dismembering enemies. Miguel uses techniques on enemies such as the "guiso," or stew, in which enemies are placed in 55-gallon drums and burned alive.

The laundering operation spent millions of dollars to buy, train, breed and race quarter horses in the Southwest. Richard Weber, the chief of the IRS' criminal investigation unit, said, "This case is a prime example of the ability of Mexican drug cartels to establish footholds in legitimate U.S. industries and highlights the serious threat money laundering causes to our financial system."

The indictment states that the Trevino brothers and their group quietly arranged to buy quarter horses with cash while using aliases. Yet there were brazen aspects to the operation; some of the horses had names like Number One Cartel and Coronita Cartel. One of the cartel’s horses, Mr. Piloto, won a $1 million prize at Ruidoso Downs on Labor Day 2010, going off at odds of 22-1. His trainer, Felipe Quintero, 28, was one of the cartel’s members arrested Tuesday.

The U.S. Embassy in Mexico issued a travel advisory Tuesday, warning U.S. citizens in Mexico to maintain a low profile because there could be retaliation.

The cartel paid high prices for the horses, and had a reputation for paying their bills. Debbie Schauf, the director of the Oklahoma Quarter Horse Racing Association, said:

They were also recognized for taking care of their business. They paid their bills and didn't cause any trouble. You didn't have a food vendor or veterinarian calling to say they couldn't get these guys to pay their bills. They were good citizens in the horse industry. It didn't raise a lot of eyebrows when these guys came to the sales and started paying cash. What raised eyebrows was the quality of the horses they were buying and the amount of money these mares cost.

The FBI knew whom they were dealing with; when they raided the racetrack they wore bulletproof vests while they collected the  evidence. Forty-one horses, including Mr. Piloto, had seizure warrants placed on them so they could not be transported to Mexico.
The chief of the IRS Criminal Investigation unit, Richard Weber, attested to the danger of the cartel’s involvement, calling their actions a “prime example of the ability of Mexican drug cartels to establish footholds in legitimate U.S. industries.”
James Phelps, a Southwest border expert, said horse racing would seem a perfect place to hide funds:

When you have hundreds of billions a year in your industry and you can’t ship the bulk of the cash back, it has to go somewhere.  They are buying huge ranches in locations across the Southwest and mountain states. It’s just a very viable way to launder the cash.

Big Peace

NBC Nightly News Devotes Mere Seconds to First-Ever Mention of Fast and Furious

by Mary Chastain 

  In the eighteen months since the Operation Fast & Furious investigation began, Brian Williams and NBC Nightly News have never mentioned the Department of Justice's gunwalking controversy. Every single time Mr. Holder has testified or a major development happened, NBC Nightly News ignored it. Tonight, in their first mention of the scandal--ever--NBC Nightly News and Brian Williams distorted Attorney General Eric Holder’s testimony.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While the majority of the testimony covered Operation Fast and Furious, NBC made it appear that the hearing was mainly over the national security leaks. The segment even made it appear that Senator John Cornyn called for Mr. Holder to resign over said leaks when, in fact, he expressed his greatest frustration with Mr. Holder over Fast and Furious.

NBC devoted roughly thirty seconds to Fast and Furious in a segment lasting two minutes and seventeen seconds--the explanation of the controversy less than a third of it. No background information was given about the operation and no mention was made of how it led to the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and over 300 Mexicans. You'd think that after eighteen months, NBC's producers would want to give their in-the-dark audience some information to get up to speed on the controversy.

There is no way Williams and everyone involved in NBC Nightly News could watch Mr. Holder’s testimony and not notice Fast and Furious. They went out of their way to make sure the primary topic of discussion at the day's hearing was not the main story of their report. This news segment is further proof that the mainstream media seeks to control viewers' reaction to issues of great public concern with less information, not more.

Big Journalism

Mitt's Magnificent Management of the Malevolent Media

by John Nolte

 
 From the beginning of the GOP primary season I made no secret of the fact that the number-one quality I was looking for in a candidate was the man or woman who best understood the threat the corrupt media poses and had the best plan to combat it. Without that, nothing else matters. You might be the second-coming of Ronald Reagan, but if you can't comprehend how dirty the media plays to elect Democrats, you can't win. Though I had misgivings about Mitt Romney in other areas, it became pretty clear fairly early on that he was a tough, shrewd candidate backed by a tough, shrewd campaign team that showed some real signs of promise in the media arena.

Since securing the nomination, though, Team Romney has shown more than promise. In fact, they've shown a real brilliance in the handling of Obama's Media Palace Guards -- from their unwillingness to disavow Donald Trump; to ruining David Axelrod's media event; to a stubborn refusal to get sidetracked off an economic message by media-created distractions; to an understanding that New Media is now a powerhouse able to push a message into the daily political narrative -- something the corrupt media no longer owns completely.

Today, deep in this Financial Times piece, we learn that when it comes to handling the media, the Romney campaign is even doing the little things right:

The Orlando event had all the traits of the tightly managed Romney campaign – from the last-minute notification and limited access for the media to the favoured venue, a local small business.

As soon as he hit the rope line to talk to supporters, Mr Romney’s staff turned up the rock music played through speakers scattered around the hall to deafening levels, as they always do.

The music, aimed at preventing reporters overhearing or recording comments to supporters that could prove embarrassing, is one of the myriad ways the campaign tries to control its message.

How many times have we seen the corrupt media throw a GOP campaign off course due to a supporter's question in a rope line. It's all a game of gotcha, a way for the media to talk about anything other than  Obama's failed policies.

Romney and company have obviously figured out what John McCain never did: That if you play on the turf the media demands you play on, that if you seek their approval, you will lose.

For example, Romney understood that the media conspiring with the Obama campaign (which it did) to force him to repudiate Donald Trump is only a two day story.

Unless, of course, you cave.

Then it's a five day story after the media reports on Romney's distancing of himself, Trump's response, etc. Actually, before the election is over, it becomes a 50 day story because by showing weakness, the media will demand Romney repudiate everyone and everything.

We have a long, agonizing, five-month rollercoaster ride ahead of us. Romney will make some big mistakes, Obama will find his voice and surge, and who knows where it will all end up.

At the very least, however, we do know that Romney understands the most vital thing, and that's that a failed president is easily beatable once you get through his Media Palace Guards.

I don’t know if Romney will win, but I now know he can win. 

Big Journalism

White House Disputes Documents, Claims Obama Never Joined New Party

by John Sexton

 
 This week the White House decided to double-down on a claim about the President's past involvement in a social democratic party in the mid-90s. In 2008 when Stanley Kurtz first raised the issue, the campaign labeled it a "crackpot smear." Now, despite two newly discovered documents that prove Obama joined the New Party in 1996, the White House is still maintaining Obama was not a member. The two documents were dug up by Stanley Kurtz last week and published at Buzzfeed yesterday. As previously reported, minutes of a January 11, 1996 meeting plainly state that Obama attended, spoke, answered questions, asked for an endorsement, signed a "Candidate Contract" and "joined the New Party." Here's the document:



The cache of documents published yesterday also includes an alphabetical list of members who are caught up on their dues and a separate list of members who are behind on their dues. The "Not Paid Up" list is dated April 17, 1997 and includes Obama's name. There is also a column titled "DATEJOIN" which indicates the date that each delinquent member first joined the New Party. The date 1/11/96 appears next to Obama's name (red arrow below). That is the date of the meeting in question, minutes of which state that Obama "joined the New Party."
 

Despite this documentary evidence that Obama joined the New Party on 1/11/96 and was listed in their (lapsed) membership rolls in April 1997, Buzzfeed spoke to several members of the Party who claim that Obama wasn't a member and that the group didn't really have membership:

"Obama was never a member, never active in anything," said Dan Swinney, a co-chair of the Party at the time and now the head of the Center for Labor and Community Research in Chicago, who was present at the 1996 meeting, according to the minutes. "I wish he was. He was obviously a progressive Democrat, but not a member of the New Party."
"There was really no process" for becoming a member, Swinney said.

This is an astounding claim given documents which appeared on the Party's website at the time. For instance, this 1997 page titled "Join the New Party" which reads:

[T]he New Party's work depends on our members. With your support, we can continue to push for living wages, campaign finance reform, strong public schools and a clean environment. The New Party offers two membership options; annual dues or monthly sustainer pledges.

The page then includes a form which applicants are to send (along with their check) to a New York address "ATTN: Membership Services." Elsewhere on the same site (copyright 1997) the Party explains how chapters are formed from dues-paying members:

The New Party is run by dues-paying members, who are organized into chapters. The national organization provides support for chapter growth and coordination. Every member gets one vote.

Additionally, the documents Buzzfeed published contain a 13 page list of more than 300 members who had not paid their annual dues (including Barack Obama whose membership would have expired 1/11/97 making him 4 months overdue at the time the list was published). Nearly all of these delinquent members have a phone number associated with their name. The area codes are overwhelmingly 312 and 708, i.e. Chicago area codes. There are 3 exceptions out of 300+, all of which are in Illinois. In other words, this is (lapsed) membership list for the Chicago chapter of the New Party. The claim that the Chicago group did not keep track of membership in 1996-1997 is demonstrably false.

In any case, what exactly is the argument being offered here? Two members of the Party, Dan Swinney and Amy Sherman, were at the meeting Obama attended in 1996 according to the minutes. Both claim they don't recall him at all. Nevertheless they are both certain that even if Obama was there, he didn't join. It's a very selective memory lapse.

The purpose of keeping meeting minutes is to preserve a written record of what happened at a given meeting rather than rely on fading and sometimes faulty recollections. In this case, the meeting minutes, the membership list with Obama's join date, and the "Candidate Contract" which requires candidates receiving an endorsement join the Party--all these documents trump the faulty memories of former Party members.

And please note that none of the people interviewed offered any explanation for the meeting minutes. They simply "had no explanation for the document."

But I can offer an explanation for why these former Chicago New Party members, Dan Swinney and Amy Sherman, might be motivated to claim Barack Obama was never a member. Both Swinney and Sherman are Obama supporters. Sherman donated $301 to Obama for America last July. Swinney donated $250 to Obama in April of this year. Given a choice between showing the campaign was dishonest in 2008 or having a convenient memory lapse, it's not hard to guess which option supporters of the President would find more appealing. For the record, I contacted both Swinney and Sherman and asked them to explain their understanding of membership. Neither of them responded.

But the most striking fact about the Buzzfeed story is that the White House has chosen to double down on its claim that Obama never joined the New Party despite multiple, contemporaneous documents to the contrary. So far, no one claims the documents are fake or have been altered in any way. The documents state clearly and unambiguously that Obama joined the New Party on 1/11/96 and further indicate that doing so meant writing a dues check. And whether you believe Obama's membership in a Euro-socialist party is a story or not, the fact that team Obama was dishonest about his involvement when this issue came up in 2008 is a story by any standard.

Big Government

Why the Media Hates and Fears Super PACs

by John Nolte

 

 

 To begin with, you can't look at the mainstream media as a biased or out-of-touch entity. Instead, you have to look at the media for what it really is: a gaggle of left-wing operatives disguised as journalists who use objectivity and a near-monopoly to control the news and information-narrative all in an effort to damage the Right and promote the Left.

As we've seen since the rise of the Internet and the media criticism that has become much of its muse, the media cannot be reasoned with, made to see the error of its ways, or shamed into doing its job honestly. This is a corrupt institution and if you love your country,  the only moral approach in dealing with it should be to do whatever you can to put it out of business.

And "business" is why the media fears the Supreme Court decision known as "Citizens United," a First Amendment victory that allows individuals and corporations -- through the use of the dreaded super PAC -- the right to spend as much money as they want on electioneering. Because the "business" of the media is not the dissemination of information for the public good or even commercial profit, but rather the furthering of leftist causes, what most terrifies the media is the competition for the narrative these super PACS will hopefully create.

But to understand how terrified the media is of super PACs, you have to examine just how hypocritical and un-American their objections are.

First off, at its very core, the media is objecting to free and unlimited political speech -- the very thing protected by the very first Amendment. The media's outrage that there are now no longer restrictions on how much money a company or individual can spend to further a political cause, is the same as expressing outrage that that most sacred of American rights -- unlimited political speech -- is no longer limited by a tyrannical government.  

But most hypocritically glaring is the fact that Obama, the Left, and the media (but I repeat myself) have always enjoyed many of the very same rights "Citizens United" has now given to everyone -- but they wanted those rights all to themselves.  

Prior to "Citizens United," a private or public sector union (funded with our tax dollars) could pretty much spend as much as they desired on electioneering (almost 100% of it benefiting the left) -- a right not extended to the company that hired these union workers or those among us not in a union.

Fact: In 2008, unions spent hundreds of millions of dollars to elect Obama.

Fact : In 2008, you heard almost no media outcry against all of that "outside money affecting elections." Today, that's all you hear, especially after a Republican victory like the one last week in Wisconsin.

Prior to "Citizens United," the only corporations, big or small, allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to push a political agenda were … media companies.  

ABC, NPR, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, The Washington Post, Politico, The Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, The New York Times, and on and on, are all corporations, and in some cases, part of gargantuan multi-national corporations -- and yet before "Citizens United" not a single one lived under political spending restrictions.

In other words, while NBC could spend billions through the Nightly News, the Today Show, its entertainment programming like Saturday Night Live, and MSNBC to openly shill for leftist causes, every other corporation could not. While Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a huge corporation (Viacom) amplifying their furthering of leftist causes, every other individual in the country had their free speech restricted.  

Furthermore, if you were a General Electric and owned all or part of NBC, you could openly use that branch of your corporation to spend as much money as was possible to push for left-wing causes.

Think about this: pre-"Citizens United," the system was so immoral and gamed, that the purchase of a newspaper, television network, or cable news outlet is what gave you a workaround the campaign finance laws.

Thanks to "Citizens United," though, what you now have are mainstream media corporations forced to compete on a level playing field with other individuals and corporations, who can now spend as much money as MSNBC and Politico and The Washington Post, etc. to affect the outcomes of our nation's politics.  

And this is why the media so loathes "Citizens United" and those beautiful super PACs that have blossomed as a result.  

This is also why the media's reactions to super PACs has been panic, lies, threats, and bullying.

The media is not only openly coordinating its attacks on super PACs (with the Obama campaign), but it's also coordinating attacks on those who dare run or donate to super PACs. Politico's Maggie Haberman outing a Romney super PAC donor's silly misdemeanor criminal record isn't reporting, it's blackmail and sending a message to others that there's a price to pay for muscling into the business the corrupt media once had a monopoly on.  

Rather shamelessly, the media is now openly lying about the effect "Citizens United" had on Wisconsin -- lying through its teeth.

The New York Times, CNN, NBC, NPR,  Politico, Comedy Central, unions, and all the rest are nothing more than super PACs, and now they're mad as hell that everyone's allowed in on the game. 

 Big Journalism

Lessons from the Wisconsin Recall

by David A. Bego 

 Big Labor took a roundhouse to the chin despite the millions of dollars in member dues spent in an attempt to recall Wisconsin Governor Walker. Conservatives and practical-minded Americans, however, cannot become complacent with this victory.  Big Labor showed how desperate it was in orchestrating the offensive recall. Big Labor thumbed its nose at the citizens of Wisconsin and America because it could not win the original election legitimately. In doing so, it resorted to a campaign of misinformation, coercion, propaganda, and intimidation to bully its way to victory. Thankfully, Americans are waking up and drawing a line in the sand with Big Labor and all who endorse or utilize such tactics -- tactics which are uncalled for in modern America.

Interestingly, nearly a third of union members who cast votes in the recall election did so for Governor Walker, as did 48 % of voters who live with union members. Additionally, teachers in Wisconsin have been showing their disdain for union tactics, as polls of active teachers show that Wisconsin teachers' positive view of the teachers unions has declined from 58% to 43%, while negative views of the unions doubled from 16% to 32%. Furthermore, Wisconsin unions's ranks dropping ahead of the recall vote is another indicator that rank and file members continue to question Big Labor policies and voted ahead of time with their feet.

Wisconsin membership in AFSCME fell from 62,818 to 28,745 over the past year. Apparently, they don't like their union dues and credit card fees (see Big Labor: credit card profiteers) and interest utilized for political purposes, especially for an unnecessary recall election.

Ultimately what Wisconsin means is that there is opportunity for a major conservative victory in November.

However, a few critical lessons must be remembered and implemented.

1.) It is the economy and we are not stupid! Fiscal responsibility trumped union power in Wisconsin. Fiscal responsibility must be trumpeted nationwide.

2.) Complacency will end in defeat. Big Labors’ gasping dinosaurs are headed toward extinction. Remember, desperate people do desperate things. Expect a down and dirty fight to the finish, which must be countered with professionalism, character, and ethics.

3.) The conservatives and Tea Party countered the union foot soldiers with an effective ground game. Now it must be done nationwide.

4.) Don't be afraid to expose the misinformation, propaganda, and coercion for what it is, and counter with common sense and the truth. The majority of people will wake up and understand.

5.) Don't buckle to the intimidation tactics. Look the bully in the eye and smile.

6.) Don't be afraid to expose the opposition’s agenda – socialism through the catch phrase "Social Justice."

7.) Don't be afraid to expose the truth about the opponent's past affiliations. A person or entity's past affiliations speak volumes.

8.) Take the offensive. The best defense is a strong offense.

9.) Use the unions/Democrats misuse of members’ dues against them.

10.) Don't buy into the ruse that the "Citizens United” case created an unfair playing field for Republicans. Expose the fact that it merely evened a playing field that Big Labor had been exploiting for years at the expense of membership dues.

These lessons must be learned and implemented if the decline of American exceptionalism is to be reversed this November!

Big Government