Gobierno de obama gasta $542 millones en abortos!‏ Para Matar A 334,000 Inocentes. Por Ricardo Samitier.

Uno Cada 90 Segundos!

El Gobierno Le Da 542 Millones De Dólares Anuales A

Planned Parenthood Una Asociación Socialista Y Atea

Para Que Les Resuelva El Problema A Los Irresponsables

Ellos Se Divierten Y Los Que Pagan Taxes Resuelven...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/08/A-Joyful-Planned-Parenthood-We-Aborted-Over-333-000-Babies-In-2011

NRA: White House has 'an agenda to attack the Second Amendment'

By UPI Staff January 11, 2013 6:55 am

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

UPI - National Rifle Association accused the White House of having "an agenda to attack the Second Amendment" and vowed to lobby Congress to stop U.S. gun limits.

At the same time, Vice President Joe Biden said the recommendations he makes to the White House would "relate primarily to gun ownership, and the type of weapons we own," adding there was growing support for tighter background checks on gun purchasers, restrictions on high-capacity clips and other moves.
Biden -- who met with the politically powerful NRA and other gun-rights groups Thursday and was to meet with video game industry representatives Friday -- said he would deliver his recommendations to President Barack Obama Tuesday. Obama has promised a quick effort to put them into practice.
But The New York Times reported Friday the White House believes a ban on military-style assault weapons will be exceedingly difficult to get through Congress. So it is pressing for other gun rules it thinks are more likely to win bipartisan support and reduce gun deaths, the newspaper said.
The White House doesn't want to make passing an assault-weapons ban the only definition of success, the Times said.
One option the administration is considering, the Times said, is toughening laws against people who buy firearms for others, a practice known as a "straw purchase," where the buyer lies about the identity of the ultimate possessor of the weapon.
The administration is considering longer prison terms for those who buy guns for others, the newspaper said.
Some administration officials discussed expanding mandatory minimum sentences for gun law violations, but the White House doesn't generally like that idea, the Times said.
Biden's task force -- which includes Attorney General Eric Holder, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and other Cabinet officials -- is also considering seeking additional money to enforce existing laws, the Times said.
After Thursday's meeting with the task force, the NRA issued a statement, assailing the administration.
"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the statement said.
"We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen," the statement said. "Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of Congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works -- and what does not."
Biden's task force has met with a number of groups this week, including medical associations, victims' rights and sportsmen's groups, entertainment-industry trade groups and gun retailers.
Obama ordered the task force to draw up a response to last month's school killings in Newtown, Conn.
The video game industry has been criticized, especially after the Newtown killings, for selling first-person shooter games, such as "Call of Duty" and "Medal of Honor: Warfighter," The Hill said.
Lawmakers and the NRA have suggested violent video games contribute to real-life aggressive behavior.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., introduced a bill last month that would require the National Academy of Sciences to study the effects of violent video games and video programming on children, The Hill said.
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/01/11/nra-white-house-has-an-agenda-to-attack-the-second-amendment/?subscriber=1

It’s Time Patriots Declare Victory In The 2nd Amendment War. Though it’s doubtful anyone will hear much about it, neither lawmakers, judges, or even a president has the constitutional authority to infringe upon the inalienable right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
One hundred thirty eight years ago, the Supreme Court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms “…is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
The case was United States v. Cruikshank; and the Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, God-given and independent of any mandatory approbation by men or their laws for its force and legitimacy.
The Founders were so certain as to the absolute nature of these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights that Alexander Hamilton suggested in Federalist No. 84 that it was unnecessary even to make them a part of the written Constitution. “For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do,” he wrote, clear in his assertion that men have no authority to meddle with rights deriving from God and nature.
All these years later, the Court has not changed its attitude about the inalienable rights of the American people. In the majority opinion of D.C. v Heller, the Court states that the 2^nd Amendment “codifies” the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms; it does not “give” us that right. “[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”
Yet for decades, it has been the aim of gun-banning lawmakers and left-wing jurists to transform the 2^nd Amendment into a nonsensical hodgepodge. Children are killed by a psychopath, and the left is pleased to claim that “assault weapons” must be responsible and should therefore be banned. “High capacity” magazines are deemed unnecessary for hunting, and this somehow means they must be outlawed. Individuals thought to be “too dedicated” to the Constitution are accused of being potential domestic terrorists; and for some unknown reason, Libertarians and veterans are not to be trusted as gun owners. It’s an extraordinary mix of non sequiturs designed to add confusion to the 27 word 2^nd Amendment.
Well, the Founders of this nation saw nothing complicated about the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; for theirs was a lesson of cruel experience learned from the British enemy during the Revolution. The British knew that disarming the colonies would mean an end to any war, and they focused all of their efforts on the capture of weapons, powder and ball. Surely this is a concept simple enough even for Dianne Feinstein—disarm an enemy, and they will become the easy prey of a would-be tyrant.
For the Founders, the right to keep and bear arms became nothing more complicated than “…the right of armed self-defense against tyranny.” Indeed, that was the purpose of the right as later expressed in the 2^nd Amendment. And in spite of the best efforts of modern hoplophobes and would-be tyrants to confuse the issue, it has not changed to this day.
It’s past time for American patriots to tell the left that issues concerning the right to keep and bear arms were decided long ago and in our favor. We will tolerate no further aggression against our inalienable right to defend our families, our lives, and our property from the treachery of thieves, liars, and tyrants who populate the Democrat Party.
To paraphrase Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars: “If you don’t try to steal our guns, we won’t kill you.” What could be fairer than that?!

El techo con goteras. Por amenper

Rivkin & Casey, es una firma financiera de Washington D.C. que ha trabajado con diferentes oficinas del gobierno como asesores económicos. Hoy escriben un artículo que recoge el Wall Street Journal, y que es muy ilustrativo sobre la situación del techo de la deuda y los falsos argumentos que expone la administración de Obama para que lo autoricen a fabricar más dinero sin fondos.

El primer argumento es que si no autorizan el aumento de la deuda es que esto causará una insolvencia total del gobierno, que aumentaría la actual insolvencia, y no podría pagar sus deudas..

Pero en la sección 4 del 14vo enmienda de la Constitución garantiza la integridad de las deudas federales y que el congreso no puede repudiar las deudas legalmente incurridas por el gobierno.

Además estas deudas se pueden pagar con los ingresos de más de 200 billones por mes que deben de ser más que suficiente para pagar sus obligaciones.

O sea que si el congreso no da el permiso para subir del techo de la deuda, todavía tendrá que dar el permiso para el pago de las deudas incurridas legalmente aunque realmente no es necesario..

El segundo argumento, es que los programas de beneficios están constitucionalmente protegidos por la constitución de los Estados Unidos. Este argumento es vital para la política de programas que el gobierno usa para mantener a un sector de la nación cautivo, dependiente de las ayudas.

Las obligaciones arriba descriptas como "deudas" y protegidas por la enmienda 14, no incluyen programas como el Medicaid y el Social Security. Estos y otros programas sociales no son parte de la deuda pública, que son los préstamos que se han hecho por el gobierno a través de bonos y otros instrumentos financieros. Los programas sociales son medidas políticas que están sujetas a las reglas de que un congreso puede cortar o eliminar los programas instituidos por un congreso anterior, y sin lugar a dudas el congreso autorizará los pagos sociales que son legitimamente de ayuda necesaria.

Esta distinción entre obligaciones de los programas y las deudas, fue reconocido por la Corte Suprema en el caso de Flemming V. Nestor en 1960.

El congreso no está en ninguna forma obligado constitucionalmente a permitir al gobierno a pedir un préstamo para pagar por programas de ayudas

El tercer argumento, es que el presidente tiene la autoridad para pedir préstamos sin permiso del Congreso.

La aserción de Nancy Piojosi de que el gobierno puede usar la sección 4 para aumentar arbitrariamente el tope de la deuda, es incorrecta y muy peligrosa constitucionalmente. La sección 4 no le da ningún poder al Presidente, al contrario, la enmienda 14 de la sección 4, otorga al congreso en poder para ejecutar cualquier legislación sobre las provisiones de este articulo.

Pero como dice el refrán español " Embustes y cuentos, de uno nacen cientos" y en el caso de Obama pudiéramos decir que nacen miles.

SI TIENES UNA PISTOLA PUEDES ROBAR UN BANCO PERO,
SI TIENES UN BANCO LES PUEDES ROBAR A TODOS.

Participan en “En mi opinión” Alberto L. Pérez “amenper”, Alexis Ortiz, Amb. Armando Valladares, Annie González, Ing. Armando López Calleja, J. Fresno, Bárbara Fernández, Carlos Bringuier, Efraín Sinaí, Eladio José Armesto, Enrique Enríquez, Enrique de Diego, Erick Ruiz, Emigdio Prado, Gerardo Alfredo DeSola, Georgina López, Gustavo Rojas, Héctor Molina, Héctor Lemange Sando, Irmende Méndez, Jesús Angulo, Jesús Marzo Fernández, Jorge A Villalon, Jorge Aguiar , José y Marcia Caula, J Fresno, Luis Pensado, Lili Samways, Manny Fernández, Margarita Sánchez, María Argelia Vizcaíno, May De La Vega, Mil amigos de Holguín, Miriam Pinedo, Miriam Dopico, Margarita Sánchez, Marlene, Martha Ruiz, María Lahullier, Olga Griñan, Oscar Díaz, Philip V. Riggio, Raúl Barroso, Reinaldo López jr, Ricardo Samitier, Rolando Antonio Lara, Sergio Bello, Sofía Iduate, Sonia “Chuchin” Castell, Tony Flores, V J Marino, William Benard, Victor M Caamaño, http://news.yahoo.com, NoticieroDigital.com , CNN Español, LaNuevaNacion.com, TheBLAZE.com, The WesternCenterforJournalism.com, LastResistance.com, NewsMax.com, RealClearPolitics.com, GOPUSA.com, LIGNET.com, TheTradingReport.com, Beforeit’sNews.com,