. “EN MI OPINION” ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’ .
. Martes,
Febrero 5 2013 No 310
Editor Lázaro R González Miño .
|
BREAKING NEWS ALERT
Tue, 5 Feb 2013 02:14:30 GMT -
This is a developing story and we
expect to have more information soon. Go to NBCNews.com for
further developments.
|
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
Khaled
Abdullah / Reuters file
Tribesmen examine the
rubble of a building in southeastern Yemen where American teenager Abdulrahmen
al-Awlaki and six suspected al-Qaida militants were killed in a U.S. drone
strike on Oct. 14, 2011. Al-Awlaki, 16, was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who
died in a similar strike two weeks earlier.
By Michael
Isikoff
National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
A confidential Justice Department
memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American
citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of
al-Qaida or “an associated force” -- even if there is
no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active
plot to attack the U.S.National Investigative Correspondent, NBC News
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects abroad, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.
Michael Isikoff, national investigative correspondent for NBC News, talks with Rachel Maddow about a newly obtained, confidential Department of Justice white paper that hints at the details of a secret White House memo that explains the legal justifications for targeted drone strikes that kill Americans without trial in the name of national security.
“The condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Read the entire 'white paper' on drone strikes on Americans
Instead, it says, an “informed, high-level” official of the U.S. government may determine that the targeted American has been “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of a violent attack and “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.” The memo does not define “recently” or “activities.”
As in Holder’s speech, the confidential memo lays out a three-part test that would make targeted killings of American lawful: In addition to the suspect being an imminent threat, capture of the target must be “infeasible, and the strike must be conducted according to “law of war principles.” But the memo elaborates on some of these factors in ways that go beyond what the attorney general said publicly. For example, it states that U.S. officials may consider whether an attempted capture of a suspect would pose an “undue risk” to U.S. personnel involved in such an operation. If so, U.S. officials could determine that the capture operation of the targeted American would not be feasible, making it lawful for the U.S. government to order a killing instead, the memo concludes.
The undated memo is entitled “Lawfulness of a Lethal Operation Directed Against a U.S. Citizen who is a Senior Operational Leader of Al Qa’ida or An Associated Force.” It was provided to members of the Senate Intelligence and Judiciary committees in June by administration officials on the condition that it be kept confidential and not discussed publicly.
Although not an official legal memo, the white paper was represented by administration officials as a policy document that closely mirrors the arguments of classified memos on targeted killings by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all executive branch agencies. The administration has refused to turn over to Congress or release those memos publicly -- or even publicly confirm their existence. A source with access to the white paper, which is not classified, provided a copy to NBC News.
“This is a chilling document,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU, which is suing to obtain administration memos about the targeted killing of Americans. “Basically, it argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it’s easy to see how they could be manipulated.”
In particular, Jaffer said, the memo “redefines the word imminence in a way that deprives the word of its ordinary meaning.”
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment on the white paper. The spokeswoman, Tracy Schmaler, instead pointed to public speeches by what she called a “parade” of administration officials, including Brennan, Holder, former State Department Legal Adviser Harold Koh and former Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson that she said outlined the “legal framework” for such operations.
Pressure for turning over the Justice Department memos on targeted killings of Americans appears to be building on Capitol Hill amid signs that Brennan will be grilled on the subject at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
On Monday, a bipartisan group of 11 senators -- led by Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — wrote a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to release all Justice Department memos on the subject. While accepting that “there will clearly be circumstances in which the president has the authority to use lethal force” against Americans who take up arms against the country, it said, “It is vitally important ... for Congress and the American public to have a full understanding of how the executive branch interprets the limits and boundaries of this authority.”
Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs
The completeness of the administration’s public accounts of its legal arguments was also sharply criticized last month by U.S. Judge Colleen McMahon in response to a lawsuit brought by the New York Times and the ACLU seeking access to the Justice Department memos on drone strikes targeting Americans under the Freedom of Information Act. McMahon, describing herself as being caught in a “veritable Catch-22,” said she was unable to order the release of the documents given “the thicket of laws and precedents that effectively allow the executive branch of our government to proclaim as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for the conclusion a secret.”
In her ruling, McMahon noted that administration officials “had engaged in public discussion of the legality of targeted killing, even of citizens.” But, she wrote, they have done so “in cryptic and imprecise ways, generally without citing … any statute or court decision that justifies its conclusions.”
In one passage in Holder’s speech at Northwestern in March, he alluded – without spelling out—that there might be circumstances where the president might order attacks against American citizens without specific knowledge of when or where an attack against the U.S. might take place.
“The Constitution does not require the president to delay action until some theoretical end-stage of planning, when the precise time, place and manner of an attack become clear,” he said.
But his speech did not contain the additional language in the white paper suggesting that no active intelligence about a specific attack is needed to justify a targeted strike. Similarly, Holder said in his speech that targeted killings of Americans can be justified if “capture is not feasible.” But he did not include language in the white paper saying that an operation might not be feasible “if it could not be physically effectuated during the relevant window of opportunity or if the relevant country (where the target is located) were to decline to consent to a capture operation.” The speech also made no reference to the risk that might be posed to U.S. forces seeking to capture a target, as was mentioned in the white paper.
The white paper also includes a more extensive discussion of why targeted strikes against Americans does not violate constitutional protections afforded American citizens as well as a U.S. law that criminalizes the killing of U.S. nationals overseas.
It also discusses why such targeted killings would not be a war crime or violate a U.S. executive order banning assassinations.
“A lawful killing in self-defense is not an assassination,” the white paper reads. “In the Department’s view, a lethal operation conducted against a U.S. citizen whose conduct poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States would be a legitimate act of national self-defense that would not violate the assassination ban. Similarly, the use of lethal force, consistent with the laws of war, against an individual who is a legitimate military target would be lawful and would not violate the assassination ban.”
Take a Rare Look at How Obama Decides to Send Drones to Kill Americans
By Adam Clark
Estes | The
Atlantic Wire – 2
hrs 4 mins ago
Human
rights advocates were floored on Monday night when NBC News published the
details of an alarming Justice Department memo detailing the protocol for sending drones
after United States citizens. It's not as if they hadn't suspected that the
Obama administration's top secret drone attack protocol contained some unsavory
details. They just
didn't expect them to be so frightfully broad. The scoop by Michael Isikoff is
actually startling not for the details but rather for the lack of details. It's
very vague about a decision-making process that puts American lives on the
line. Put simply, the government believes that a lethal drone attack
against an American citizen is justified if the targets are a) "senior
operational leaders" of al-Qaeda or b) "an associated force."
One of
those two qualifiers is infinitely more worrisome than the other. Going after
leaders of al Qaeda makes sense. That's what the War on Terror is all about,
right? Breaking down networks of violent terrorists and keeping Americans safe.
If an American happens to be caught up with al Qaeda, someone like Anwar
al-Awlaki, then well… they shouldn't be surprised if they're getting chased by
drones. At least that's what
we've been told so
far. How and why these attacks are carried out by drones is also detailed in
the memo, but we'll
get back to that in a second.
But what
does "an associated force" mean? It seems like the guy who sells the
terrorists bomb supplies would probably qualify, but what about the unknowing
neighbor or the hired hand? Can we just kill them too in good conscience? Quite
unfortunately, the government isn't exactly sure. The memo suggests that anyone
who "present[s] an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United
States" qualifies for assassination "a lawful killing in
self defense," but that "does not require the United States to have
clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take
place in the immediate future." In other words, an "informed,
high-level" official can order the killing of any American citizen
that was "recently" involved in threatening "activities."
As Isikoff points out, the memo fails to define both of those terms.
"This
is a chilling document," said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the
American Civil Liberties Union. "Basically, it argues that the
government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American
citizen. … It recognizes some limits on the authority it sets out, but the
limits are elastic and vaguely defined, and it's easy to see how they could be
manipulated." We've already seen some of this vague authority in action. A
couple of years ago, The New York Times provided some
insight into how
subjective the process of deciding when to kill and when not to kill American
citizens based on a top secret memo that justified the killing of al-Awlaki.
That document as well as this latest leak from the Justice Department
essentially says that a lethal attack, likely by a drone, is the method of choice
whenever a capture mission would put other American lives on the line. Again,
the documents are very vague about where to draw the line.
Inevitably,
this latest revelation into how the Obama administration runs the War on Terror
behind closed doors leads to more questions than answers. How, for instance, do
they decided when to kill non-U.S. citizens? Previous reporting on the issue
says that the government considers any
military-aged male to be an insurgent, so it seems like pretty much anybody in the
general region of Afghanistan or Pakistan could expect to find themselves in
America's crosshairs. But again, we don't know because the Obama administration
is keeping it completely secret, despite years worth of
calls to disclose
its decision-making process.
This could
be the beginning of an enlightening time for those who demand answers about the
government's shady drone program. On Thursday, John Brannan has his
confirmation hearing
where the Senate will decide whether or not he's fit to run the Central
Intelligence Agency. Since he's more or less
the architect of America's drone war, we're sure the Senators will have a question
or two about this memo and, we hope, some memos that we haven't seen before.
Newtown father: ‘You’ll have to take my guns from my cold dead hands’
Posted
on: February 4th,
2013
A video of a father, Bill
Stevens, whose daughter attended Sandy Hook Elementary school, scene of the
mass shooting in December, is making its rounds today of his testimony against
gun control at a Working Group Public Hearing at the Connecticut State Capitol
on gun violence prevention.Although his daughter was not harmed in the shooting, his daughter’s friend’s little sister was a victim.
In his testimony, he was very clear on his stance against going after legal gun owners and that no one will take his freedom away to protect his daughter.
Stevens told the panel that he is not there to cite statistics, lives saved by a gun or the economic impact. He was there to remind those people about the U.S. Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution of the State of Connecticut in regards to self-defense.
Este es uno de los mas valiosos email que he recibido. COMO LA SANGRE DE ABEL, "SU SANGRE CLAMA POR RESPUESTAS"
Le salió el “Tiro Por La Culata”PADRE de una estudiante del colegio COLUMBINE que le asesinaron a su hija
Fue
invitado al congreso para que testificará ante el subcomité Judicial de la
Cámara... Supongo que nuestros líderes nacionales ESPERABAN que este padre
HABLARA a favor del control de las armas de fuego...
Se trata de un discurso que dio ante el comité de justicia de la Cámara de Representantes del Congreso de USA el señor Darrel Scott, padre de Rachel Scott de 12 anos, una de las víctimas de la masacre por el tiroteo en la escuela secundaria Columbine en Littleton Colorado, el 20 de abril del 1999. Lo que él dijo a este comité de los diputados del Congreso de USA en una sesión especial fue una verdad dolorosa. Ellos no estaban preparados para lo que el señor Scott tenía que decir y no fue recibido bien su mensaje. Este mensaje se debe difundir para que lo escuchen todos los padres, los maestros, los políticos, los sociólogos, los psicólogos y también todos los expertos. Las valientes palabras de Darrel Scott son poderosas, penetrantes y profundamente personales. No queda duda de que Dios mandó a este hombre como una voz clamando en el desierto. Lo siguiente es una porción de la transcripción:
Desde los inicios de la creación siempre ha existido el bien y el mal en los corazones de los hombres y las mujeres. Todos tenemos las semillas de la bondad y la violencia. La muerte de mi maravillosa hija Rachel Joy Scott y las muertes de la heroica maestra y los heroicos once niños que también murieron no deben ser en vano. Su sangre clama por respuestas. El primer acto de violencia de que tengamos conocimiento fue cuando Caín mató a su hermano Abel en el campo. El villano no fue el club del que él formaba parte, tampoco era miembro del National Club Association. El verdadero asesino fue Caín y la razón del asesinato sólo se pudo haber encontrado en su corazón. En los días que siguieron a la tragedia de Columbine me asombré de la rapidez con que algunas personas culparon de esto a grupos como la Asociación Nacional del Rifle (NRA). Yo no soy miembro de esta asociación, no soy cazador y ni siquiera poseo un arma. No estoy aquí para representar o defender a esta asociación, porque no creo que sean los responsables de la muerte de mi hija. Por ello no creo que ellos necesiten ser defendidos. Si yo creyera que ellos tienen algo de responsabilidad en la muerte de mi hija Rachel, yo sería su oponente más poderoso. Yo estoy aquí hoy para declarar que el tiroteo de Columbine no sólo fue una tragedia, fue un evento espiritual que debería forzarnos a buscar realmente en quién recae la culpa. Mucha de la culpa recae aquí en este cuarto. Mucha de la culpa recae detrás de los mismos dedos de los acusadores. Yo escribí el siguiente poema hace cuatro noches el cual expresa mis mejores sentimientos. "Sus leyes ignoran nuestras necesidades más profundas. Sus palabras son aire vacío. Ustedes nos han despojado de nuestra mejor herencia. Ustedes han dejado fuera de la ley a nuestras oraciones simples. Ahora los tiros llenan nuestros salones de clases, Y niños preciosos mueren. Ustedes buscan respuestas en todas partes. Y se preguntan por qué. Ustedes regulan leyes restrictivas. A través de un credo legislativo. Y todavía fallan al entender. Que Dios es lo que necesitamos".
Y continuó diciendo: Hombres y mujeres somos seres compuestos por tres partes. Todos tenemos cuerpo, mente y espíritu. Cuando rechazamos reconocer a la parte tercera de nuestro ser, creamos un vacío que permite al mal, al prejuicio y al odio entrar rápidamente y causar estragos. La presencia espiritual estuvo vigente en nuestro sistema educativo la mayor parte de nuestra historia. Muchos de nuestros colegios más grandes empezaron como seminarios teológicos. Esto es un hecho histórico. ¿Qué nos ha pasado como nación? Hemos rechazado honrar a Dios, y al hacerlo abrimos las puertas al odio y a la violencia. Y cuando algo tan terrible como la tragedia de Columbine ocurre, los políticos inmediatamente buscan chivos expiatorios como la NRA. Ustedes inmediatamente buscan pasar más leyes restrictivas que contribuyen a erosionar nuestras libertades personales y privadas. No necesitamos más leyes restrictivas. Eric y Dylan no hubieran sido detenidos por detectores de metales. Las leyes no podrán detener a algunos que pasan meses planeando este tipo de masacre. El verdadero villano está en sus corazones. Mientras mi hijo Craig permanecía escondido bajo su mesa en la biblioteca de la escuela y vio a dos de sus amigos asesinados frente a sus ojos no dudó en orar en la escuela. Yo reto a cualquier ley o político a negarle a mi hijo ese derecho. Yo reto a cada joven en América y en el mundo a darse cuenta que desde abril 20 de 1999 en la escuela Columbine las oraciones volvieron a usarse. No dejen que las oraciones de estos estudiantes sean en vano. Atrévanse a entrar al nuevo milenio haciendo caso omiso de la legislación que viola su derecho divino de comunicarse con Dios. A todos ustedes que apuntan sus dedos hacia la NRA yo les doy un reto sincero. Atrévanse a examinar su propio corazón antes de tirar la primera piedra. La muerte de mi hija no será en vano. Los jóvenes de este país no permitirán que esto pase - Darrell Scott
Debemos hacer lo que los medios de comunicación no hacen - dejar que la nación escuche el discurso de este hombre y enviar esto a todos los que podamos.
Dios bendiga a todos los que pasen este mensaje!
February
5, 2013
It’s time America got answers!
Please sign our letter to Congress calling for a thorough congressional investigation of Benghazi!
Dear “En Mi Opinion” readers,
Last Friday, a terrorist blew himself up at the U.S. embassy in Turkey.
Unfortunately, this likely won’t be the last time this occurs.
This is what happens when American leadership signals weakness, indecision and wavering in response to the threat of radical Islam.
Our enemies didn’t miss President Obama’s mixed-message response to the Benghazi consulate attack.
They watched UN Ambassador Susan Rice blame the attack on a video, which only encouraged militants to riot in front of American embassies all over the world.
They know that no one has yet been arrested for the attack.
They saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s outrageous response during her congressional testimony, when she asked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” regarding why the attack happened.
It’s time America got answers!
Please sign our letter to Congress calling for a thorough congressional investigation of Benghazi!
Dear “En Mi Opinion” readers,
Last Friday, a terrorist blew himself up at the U.S. embassy in Turkey.
Unfortunately, this likely won’t be the last time this occurs.
This is what happens when American leadership signals weakness, indecision and wavering in response to the threat of radical Islam.
Our enemies didn’t miss President Obama’s mixed-message response to the Benghazi consulate attack.
They watched UN Ambassador Susan Rice blame the attack on a video, which only encouraged militants to riot in front of American embassies all over the world.
They know that no one has yet been arrested for the attack.
They saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s outrageous response during her congressional testimony, when she asked, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” regarding why the attack happened.
|
While the American
people still don’t have answers to many of the questions swirling around
Benghazi, our enemies have drawn their own conclusion—they see weakness,
confusion and indecision.
And they have become emboldened as a result. It’s past time America got answers, answers that weren’t forthcoming at the House and Senate hearings. This is why we’re urging you to sign our open letter to the House leadership demanding the creation of a House Select Committee to thoroughly investigate what happened in Benghazi and why. |
Unanswered questions include:
|
Rep. Frank
Wolf has introduced H. Res. 36, which calls for the creation of this Select
Committee.
The House leadership needs to hear from the grassroots that there is a demand for the creation of this committee to thoroughly investigate what happened in Benghazi.
Please add your name to our open letter to the House leadership, and forward this email to everyone you know.
It’s tragic enough that the families of the four men who died in Benghazi still don’t have all the answers.
But how many more of our embassies are now in the crosshairs of Islamic jihadists as a result?
The House leadership needs to hear from the grassroots that there is a demand for the creation of this committee to thoroughly investigate what happened in Benghazi.
Please add your name to our open letter to the House leadership, and forward this email to everyone you know.
It’s tragic enough that the families of the four men who died in Benghazi still don’t have all the answers.
But how many more of our embassies are now in the crosshairs of Islamic jihadists as a result?
Invitation: Nationwide Protests Against Barack Obama Saturday Feb 16 2013
La Falsa Caridad
.LOS POBRES Y LA CARIDAD
CRISTIANA
Uno puedo ser bondadoso, sólo con el fin de obtener una recompensa, o una aceptación de la sociedad. Sin embargo, con la caridad Cristiana, la amabilidad, se convierte en una virtud que se practica desinteresadamente, es la que nos une más a Dios, haciéndonos parte de Dios que por caridad al mundo dio su vida para perdón de nuestros pecados.
Uno puedo ser bondadoso, sólo con el fin de obtener una recompensa, o una aceptación de la sociedad. Sin embargo, con la caridad Cristiana, la amabilidad, se convierte en una virtud que se practica desinteresadamente, es la que nos une más a Dios, haciéndonos parte de Dios que por caridad al mundo dio su vida para perdón de nuestros pecados.
En la caridad la mano izquierda no sabe
lo que hace la derecha, no espera recompensa
La caridad es la virtud sobrenatural
por la que amamos a Dios sobre todas las cosas y al prójimo como a nosotros
mismo… por amor a Dios.
No importa quién es el recipiente de la
caridad, si es una persona con una necesidad emocional o por pobreza, sin
importar las causas que los llevaron a esas condiciones.
Pero existen hoy en día instituciones
religiosas politizadas, que usan sus contribuciones a los pobres, como un
espectáculo público para su agenda política, para estimular la lucha de clases,
proclamando una falsa caridad cristiana.
Vemos as estas instituciones ir a Cuba,
y hacer declaraciones públicas en noticieros internacionales. Condenando el
“Bloqueo Imperialista” cuando paradójicamente si hubiera un bloqueo ellos no
pudieran estar en Cuba.
Lo que existe en Cuba es un
embargo parcial de una nación soberana, Cuba puede negociar en todo el mundo, y
si hay pobreza es por el bloqueo del gobierno al pueblo. Van a ayudar a los
pobres en un gobierno que no acepta que hay pobres en Cuba, que todos son
iguales (aunque algunos son más iguales que otros) que lo que existen son
víctimas del bloqueo.
Este uso de la falsa caridad, un axioma de Marx, es tan viejo como el propio cristianismo.
En una historia de la Biblia, que voy a
contar, no en mis palabras, pero haciendo un “copy-paste” de la Biblia en el
internet, verán como cristo reaccionó a la falsa caridad.
La historia ocurre cuando Jesús y sus
discípulos, después de una larga caminata, llegaron a Betania y se hospedan en
casa de su amigo Lázaro, y sus hermanas María y Marta el pasaje dice así en el
evangelio de Juan:
…. Y le hicieron allí una cena; Marta servía, y Lázaro era uno de los
que estaban sentados a la mesa con él. 12:3 Entonces María tomó una libra de
perfume de nardo puro, de mucho precio, y ungió los pies de Jesús, y los enjugó
con sus cabellos; y la casa se llenó del olor del perfume.
12:4 Y dijo uno de sus discípulos, Judas Iscariote hijo de Simón, el que le había de entregar:
12:5 ¿Por qué no fue este perfume vendido por trescientos denarios, y dado a los pobres?
12:6 Pero dijo esto, no porque se cuidara de los pobres, sino porque era ladrón, y teniendo la bolsa, sustraía de lo que se echaba en ella.
12:7 Entonces Jesús dijo: Déjala; para el día de mi sepultura ha guardado esto.
12:8 Porque a los pobres siempre los tendréis con vosotros, más a mí no siempre me tendréis
12:4 Y dijo uno de sus discípulos, Judas Iscariote hijo de Simón, el que le había de entregar:
12:5 ¿Por qué no fue este perfume vendido por trescientos denarios, y dado a los pobres?
12:6 Pero dijo esto, no porque se cuidara de los pobres, sino porque era ladrón, y teniendo la bolsa, sustraía de lo que se echaba en ella.
12:7 Entonces Jesús dijo: Déjala; para el día de mi sepultura ha guardado esto.
12:8 Porque a los pobres siempre los tendréis con vosotros, más a mí no siempre me tendréis
Así como la motivación de Judas no era
la caridad a los pobres, sino su deshonestidad, lo mismo los nuevos Judas de
las instituciones religiosas politizadas, son deshonestos y no reflejan la
verdadera y desinteresada Caridad Cristiana.
La utilización de los pobres para
agendas políticas ateas, no sólo no son representativas del Cristianismo, sino
que son utilizadas como un arma para destruir el Cristianismo.
Obama ordena a los bancos dar hipotecas sin GARANTIAS... To r.samitier@live.com
Hay Algunos Que Piensan Que El Derrumbe
De U.S,A Será Dentro De 20 Años... Pero Es Más Pronto...
La Gran Recesión de 2008 es ampliamente atribuida al presidente
Clinton. (quien está probado es un aberrado sexual... que alcanzó
excitaciones eróticas RARAS introduciéndole un tabaco a Mónica en la vagina...)
fue Clinton quien creó leyes a través de órdenes
ejecutivas (como Obama está haciendo ahora) que requirieron que los
bancos otorgaras tasas preferenciales a los
compradores potenciales que tenían crédito problemático y no, no
serían capaces de recibir estos tipos de préstamos generosos.
El presidente
Clinton fue advertido de que los préstamos subprime eran una mala idea, pero no
hizo caso.
Iba montado en
lo alto de la popularidad y no prestar atención a los consejos de los expertos.
Como era de esperar, muchos de esos préstamos se incumplieron y la economía del
mundo casi destruido por la arrogancia de él.
En 2008, el
presidente Obama fue elegido y decidió gastar cientos de miles de millones de
dólares de los contribuyentes para rescatar a una economía que fue diezmada por
la política económica del presidente Clinton.
Al hacerlo,
Obama creó una deuda sin precedentes y causó la devaluación del crédito de
nuestra nación por primera vez. Pero ese es el plan desde el principio,
de los Socialistas Fabianos TANTOS
MIEMBROS DEL PARTIDO DEMOCRATA que del REPUBLICANO...
desde las
épocas del presidente Wilson, Roosevelt y incluyendo al Republicano
Eisenhower... control que solo mermo con REAGAN... pues los Bush eran conocidos
como socialistas del ala republicana liderada por Rockefeller...
No se trata de
la redistribución de la riqueza... sino del establecimiento del Comunismo...
gracias a que el mundo quiebra y las masas van a ACEPTAR un moderno sistema
FEUDAL...
Ninguno de los
mencionados que quedan vivos va a admitir abiertamente que son Socialista...
aunque lo han hecho en repetidas ocasiones bajo otros nombres...
Bush padre
declaro que trabajaba “Para un nuevo orden mundial” y su hijo declaró que
el era un “Un conservador COMPASIVO”
Obama mucho
menos van a admitir que es un marxista, pero un vistazo a su trayectoria
demuestra fácilmente que lo es...
Como si nada
la semana pasada, el presidente Obama aprovechó para firmar órdenes ejecutivas
en las políticas de la ley requieren a los bancos a dar hipotecas subprime. ¿Suena familiar? El presidente Obama está tratando de hundir
la economía una vez más para continuar sus políticas marxistas.
Las Dietas AMENPER@aol.com
Me dice el médico
que tengo que perder peso, pero es que a mi me gusta
ganar pesos no me gusta perderlos.
Pero trato de
seguir todos los consejos y las instrucciones de la dieta, pero no
logro bajar de peso.
Dicen que trate de hacer una dieta balanceada y equilibrada..
Pongo lo que me voy a comer en una parte de la balanza y los
postres en la otra, y mantengo el equilibrio.
Dicen que el primer día de la dieta es el más difícil, después es
más fácil.
Yo siempre cumplo bien el primer día, después es verdad que es más
fácil, no hago más dieta
No repita solo coma el primer plato..
También cumplo esto, siempre me sirvo tres porciones en el primer
plato después no repito.
No ordene postre cuando vaya al restaurant
Yo nunca ordeno postre, me como el que ordena mi esposa.
.
Coma despacio.
Trato de comer despacio, hay veces que estoy comiendo por
dos horas.
Coma frutas y vegetales
Como vegetales y frutas, pastel de manzana, cake de zanahorias,
dulce de fruta bomba, boniatillo, etc. Pero no bajo.
Me han dicho que la mejor dieta es la de Ajo y Agua, pero no me he
decidido a seguirla
¡AJOderse y AGUAntarse!
|
|||
|
WHY MY PRESIDENT CANNOT LOSE !
|
While President Barack Hussein Obama takes the stage at his 2nd Inauguration he talks about our responsibility to ensure everyone gets their "fair share" and a "fair shot".... In government subsidized housing everywhere across America, people are sitting in their living rooms watching the inauguration on their big screen T.V.'s and cheering him on.... We felt like this was the perfect time to share this important story with you. Recently, our good friend Michael (a local realtor) shared his experience with Elisa and I about an "Obama supporter" he encountered while showing homes to a low income, working family in Pontiac , Mi.. We asked him to please write it down so we could share it with you. You should be sitting down while reading this: "As a realtor for the past 28 years I thought I'd seen or heard it all. until now. I was showing homes in Pontiac , Mi. one afternoon recently and showed up at a home at the 4:00 pm, time my appointment was scheduled for. After I woke up the homeowner, she let us in and then proceeded to tell my buyers and I that she has already entered into a contract to sell the home on a short-sale. (a short-sale is a sale where the banks accepts less money than is owed on the home). After some chit-chat, she proceeded to tell us that she and her sister (who also lived in the area) were buying each other's homes via the short-sale process. I mentioned to her that I thought relatives could not be involved in those transactions. She smiled and said "we have two different last names so no one knows the difference". She went on to tell us that each of them owed over 100k on their homes and were in the process of buying each other's homes for about 10-15k cash. To top it off, they were each receiving $3,000.00 in government provided relocation assistance at the closing. My buyers and I were amazed that she was outright admitting to fraud and yet, she continued. She began to tell us that the best part of her scheme was that because they currently were not working that they (both) are now receiving section 8 vouchers. I said I thought those were for renters and she said "that's the best part; me and my sister are going to be renting each other's homes so we don't even have to move, and Obama is going to give us each $800.00 a month to pay the rent!" She then picked up a picture she had framed of Obama and did a little happy dance around her living room and while she kissed the picture she was singing "thank you Obama.... Thank you Obama." So here is the bottom line. both of these scammers got at least $80,000.00 in debt forgiven, $3,000.00 in cash for relocation (when in fact they did not relocate) and to boot, you and I will now be paying (through our taxes) $1,600.00 in rent for each of them each and every month.... Perhaps forever! Is it any wonder why so many people have decided that all they have to do is vote for the democrats and they will be taken care of for life at the expense of the taxpayers? I would not be at all surprised if they are receiving food stamps and whatever other programs are available for anyone who is willing to lie to get assistance. These women went from working and paying about $900.00 each in mortgage payments to staying home and getting paid $800.00 each per month to live in the same home they had been living in and all they had to do was lie on a few papers. This craziness has to stop! I'm sure this kind of fraud is going on each and every day all across the country and no one wants to touch the subject of entitlements because they might offend someone or lose a vote or two. By the way... She had an almost new SUV in the driveway, three flat screen- TV's and a very nice computer set up in her living room which was furnished entirely with nice leather furniture. It's the new 'American way'..... For all of the "do-gooder's" who voted for Obama to help the "less fortunate"....cheers..... Here is a link to some of the government assistance programs available today: http://www.usa.gov/ click at “Just For YOU” – “citizens.” Click “Topics”; “Benefits, Grants and Financial Aid” and “homes/housing assistance. WOW! |
Obama Failed E-Verify: Linda Jordan Fined For Challenging Obama’s
Identity Fraud
http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-f...
Here is the story of how a mother and homemaker in Washington State
stood up to challenge the identity fraud of Barack Obama. Learn how she paid a
price for her courage to run the president through E-Verify. Share with your
friends!FacebookEmailPrintRed…
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,
http://economyincrisis.org, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com,
. “EN MI
OPINION” .
. Editor Lázaro R González Miño .
La creación de riqueza que es la única alternativa a la
superación de la pobreza. Los derechos individuales son éticamente la antítesis
de los derechos humanos.
No comments:
Post a Comment