Affiliate Marketing Secrets

My life is heading in a direction I am not sure of.
I am a clever kid. I get good grades in school and have all my subjects on higher level and get good marks. I am planning on applying for university admission next year, but something is really wrong.
Everyone expected me to become a doctor or engineer. OR at least something worth studying for. (Studies are expensive). But I have another plan with my life. I want to go into advertising (with a focus on the art – Art Director). I am going to study for a BA (hons) in Visual Communications Design.
Well my problem is that no one, not even me, expected me to be interested in something like this. I don’t know if I’m making the right decision. Are there job opportunities for Art Directors (I know you work your way up). Do they pay well?
I always imagined myself having a comfortable life, driving nice cars, and always said If I become something great I can have that life (We are not the richest people).
Now I am totally interested in something else, something that probably doesn’t even pay well…
Am I making the wrong decision? Should I reconsider my future? I really don’t know what to do…
HELP PLEASE!!!! 🙁

The ugly truth about Benghazi and Team Obama
By Michael Goodwin
Published November 19, 2012
| New York Post
Until Friday, there were two possible explanations for why the White House failed to immediately call the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. One was incompetence, the other was worse.
Now there is only one, and it is the worse one. Based on the persuasive testimony of ex-CIA boss David Petraeus, it is clear the Obama administration made a deliberate decision to mislead Congress and the American people.
The repeated claim that the attack was spontaneous and grew out of a demonstration against an anti-Islam video — a claim made by the president and secretary of State as they stood next to the bodies of four dead Americans — was a monstrous lie. It was vile and done for the basest of reasons.
Because we now know the truth of what happened — CIA reports were edited to remove the names of al Qaeda groups involved in the attack, Petraeus said under oath — we also know the motive. It was political self-preservation, meaning the president and his team put politics first.
[pullquote]
The timing helps tell the tale. Just days removed from his Charlotte convention, where he danced on the grave of Osama bin Laden and boasted that al Qaeda was decimated, Obama couldn’t bear to admit that affiliated groups were thriving in North Africa. And he certainly couldn’t admit they had carried out a murderous attack on our consulate on the 11th anniversary of the most awful day in American history.
To do so would be to acknowledge the failure of his decision to ignore hard-line Islamists and that his team had erred egregiously in rejecting pleas for more security from Libya Ambassador Chris Stevens.
So the president lied, including in a speech to the United Nations, where he cited the video as the reason for the attack. He sent out reams of flunkies to do the same, including his snide press secretary, Jay Carney.
Most notably, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on five Sunday television shows to spin the nonsense about the hijacking of a demonstration — a demonstration that never existed. Rice made a fool of herself, and now, she, too is damaged goods.
Oddly, Petraeus, brought down by the reckless affair with his biographer, nonetheless looks like the only honest man in the drama.
A briefing he gave soon after the attack is now more suspect because it adhered to the party line, despite his belief that it was always a terrorist attack.
But Friday in his testimony behind closed doors, Petraeus told the truth as he knew it, even though the administration announced the day before that it was investigating his conduct at the CIA.
If that was meant to pressure him to protect the president, it failed spectacularly. Whatever his personal failings, Petraeus reinforced his reputation for professional integrity.
The next move is up to Congress. While Democrats are predictably and shamefully trying to deny the significance of Petraeus’ revelation, Republicans say they are determined to get the full truth, wherever the hunt takes them.
Especially as the president begins a new term, and huge economic and tax difference must be resolved, the country would be better served if the administration co-operates. But their behavior up to now does not make that seem likely. Having built their web of lies, it would be hard to suddenly come clean.
The first tests will come with the next round of hearings. Any attempt by the White House to block the appearance of any official who played a role in shaping the false narrative should be seen as proof that the stonewalling continues.
In that case, the full power of the constitution must be brought to bear. Nobody is above the law, even the president.

venues and “venue shopping” (or “strategic decision making”)
rule making
why Congress passes broad, non-specific legislation
Administrative Procedure Act of 1946
“capture” of regulatory agencies
political executives
civil service
White House Office of Public Liaison
inner and outer cabinet departments
clientele groups
policy implementation & how it defines policy
standing to sue
amicus curiae
class action suits
SLAPP suits
limitations of courts as venues for interest groups
Rutherford Institute
ACLU, ACLJ
Brown v. Board of Education
Robert Bork
Interest groups and Supreme Court nominations since Bork & Thomas
Harriet Miers
role of ABA in judicial selection
why there are many judicial vacancies currently
who becomes a federal judge and how
resources needed to lobby the courts
lobbying coalitions (ad hoc and enduring)
“Wednesday meeting” and “Tuesday group”
“strange bedfellows” (examples)
factors that increase the chances of coalition success
“iron triangles” (or “subgovernments”)
issue networks
importance of advocacy explosion in explaining issue networks
hollow cores, multiple niches, sloppy boundaries, expertise
advantages possessed by business in influencing government
limitations and counterweights to business power
extent of bias in the interest group system as a whole (Berry & Wilcox)
B & W’s “three commonsense standards” for regulating interest groups
status of the Madisonian system today (Cigler & Loomis)
blurring of roles between interest groups and parties
blurring of representation
Tom DeLay

I am increasingly annoyed at the constant flack GB is getting for selling the UK’s national reserves of Gold between 99-02 at the so called bottom of the market.
I feel that that the criticism of the decision has cost the UK £7 billion yet this is misleading that is TODAY’S price not the price at the time the reserves were sold.
If it turns out there were political shenanigans going on, like secret deals with Goldman Sachs, the International Banking Establishment, or to manipulate the gold/$ price, then yes, this decision was flawed.
However taken in the context of prices at the time and the government needed some cash for what ever reason then its hardly fair to criticise the man.
Its always easy to say; “should have done” with hindsight. Yet GB wasn’t to know the future price of gold would be 4 x the price nearly a DECADE later was he ?
no one truly knows the top or bottom of any market do they ?
Is $1600 an ounce the top of the market ?

In a dilemma here, this summer. I have been offered to play for a traveling team opposed to playing for my sr. league team. For the traveling team we will be playing double the games the senior league is playing and it is a better chance to get noticed. But, playing for the sr. league team is my school affiliated team and I have played with those boys all my life. Which one would be the better decision? Thanks

the shooter was an independent Satan worshiper?
Jared Lee Loughner was a registered independent, didn’t vote in 2010 election
By Chris Cillizza
Suspected Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner registered as an independent voter in Arizona in the fall of 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters.
Loughner registered to vote on Sept. 29, 2006, identifying himself as an independent. Records show he voted in the 2006 and 2008 elections but is current listed as “inactive” on the state’s voter roles — meaning that he did not vote in November.
The political affiliations of Loughner, who is being charged by state and federal authorities with the shooting of Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D) as well as 19 other victims outside a Tucson grocery store on Saturday, have become the subject of a white-hot partisan debate in recent days.
In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, liberals sought to paint Loughner as an anti-government, tea party conservative. Conservatives retorted that Loughner lacked anything close to a coherent political philosophy — a case strengthened by subsequent glimpses into his personal life that suggests someone struggling with mental illness.
Loughner’s decision to affiliate as an independent rather than a Republican or Democrat would seem to affirm the sense that while he targeted Giffords in the attack, it was not a decision born of a set of deeply held political beliefs that fit neatly into either party.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/jared-lee-loughner-was-a-regis.html