.“EN MI OPINION” IN GOD WE TRUST.

.No 338 Lunes, Marzo 18 2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño.

Recibimos ESTE Mensaje de una amiga: Lázaro, tiene Ud. información sobre MDX , la cia. de expressway que van aumentar los tolls de 836 & 826? Esta Ud. haciendo algo para parar, no se cuantas veces hemos pagado por la 836 & 826. Sldos. Iraida

Si tengo información… Que son unos degenerados, unos descarados, que cobran por una carretera que pagamos PARA HACERLAS Y MANTENERLAS con nuestros impuestos, y que esos politiqueros que hacen eso son LOS MISMOS POR LOS CUALES LOS VOTANTES DEL CONDADO, VOTAN Y LOS SACAN COMO FUNCIONARIOS ELECTOS PARA QUELES HAGAN TODAS ESTAS MACHANGADAS. SI LOS PROPIOS ELECTORES SE BAJAN LOS PANTALONES Y SE VIRAN DE ESPALDA ES SEGURO QUE ELLOS HAGAN ESTO. CUANTAS VECE HEMOS COMBOCADO A UNA MANIFESTACION DE PROTESTA Y LA HEMOS TENIDO QUE CANCELAR PORQUE LOS QUE SE COMPROMETEN A IR SON 4 GATOS.

In response to the petition; “Don't raise the toll rates on Dolphin

Expressway (SR 836) and Airport Expressway (SR 112).”

We appreciate your comments and concerns regarding the community’s transportation

needs. MDX was created to oversee five critical expressways within Miami‐Dade County

and to ensure that all tolls we collect on these roadways stay in Miami‐Dade County and

are reinvested in our community. Did you know that these five roadways are not funded

by tax revenue ‐ no property tax, no gas tax and no half‐penny sales tax? We operate,

maintain and improve these roadways with only the revenue from the tolls collected.

In 2006, MDX’s Board approved an Open Road Tolling (ORT) Master Plan to move our

community forward by improving our infrastructure and preparing for the future. By

maximizing technology, eliminating tollbooths and converting to all electronic toll

collection we are able to make your commute safer and more efficient. In addition, as

our community continues to grow and expand, it is important our infrastructure not only

keeps up with the current demand but also be planned for the future needs of future

generations. The biggest challenge we are faced with is that only 55% of our users

currently pay a toll – which means this group is funding 100% of the improvements. ORT

allows for fair and equitable tolling of all drivers. If you pay a toll today we want to

ensure that you are paying the proportionate amount for the roadway you use and that

the other 45% do the same. How much everyone will pay is exactly why we need your

participation in this process. Some will pay the same, some will pay less, some will pay

more but everyone will pay their fair share.

The MDX Board will approve new rates and locations in March at a Public Hearing, only

after a set of open house public meetings scheduled later this month. These meetings

are designed to obtain your input and to keep you properly informed on what these

funds will be used for. Please visit www.mdxway.com for meeting locations and times

and once again we urge you to “Be Here, Be Heard, Be Informed”. Contact us directly

with your comments and concerns to mdxort@mdxway.com.

Thank you,

Javier Rodriguez, P.E.

Executive Director

“EMO” “En mi opinión” Todo o gran parte de lo que se dice aquí no es cierto. LRGM.

Francisco empieza a trabajar derecho. Felicitaciones LRGM.

El Papa Francisco ordena al cardenal Bernard Law, el encubridor del mayor número de pedófilos, casi 297, que abandone en menos de 24 horas su puesto y sus aposentos en Santa Maria Maggiore en Roma

El Cardenal Bernard Law deberá de abandonar
en menos de 24 horas su cargo y aposentos en
Santa María Maggiori, Roma, por orden del
nuevo Papa, Francisco I

Según publica este viernes el diario italiano Il Fatto Quotidiano, al encontrarse con el cardenal Bernard Law cuando acudió a rezar a la Basílica Santa María Maggiore, el Papa Francisco desencajó la cara y se alejó inmediatamente de él señalando "no quiero que siga frecuentando esta Basílica".

Cabe recordar que el cardenal estadounidense de 82 años Bernard Law fue acusado de encubruir a unos 250 curas pederestas entre 1984 y 2002. Law estaba a punto de recibir la citación judicial para responder ante los tribunales estadounidenses de sus actos cuando en diciembre de 2002, poco después de verse obligado a dimitir como arzobispo de Boston en medio del escándalo, abandonó EEUU y se trasladó a Roma. Algo que muchos interpretaron como una jugada del Vaticano para protegerle de los jueces estadounidenses y evitar de ese modo que tuviera que sentarse en el banquillo de los acusados de su país a rendir cuentas de sus actos.

Israelis Distrust Obama’s Resolve on Iranian Nukes, Syrian Weapons

Monday, 18 Mar 2013 11:15 AM

President Barack Obama is due to make his first official visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories this week, looking to improve ties after sometimes rocky relations with both sides during his first term in office.

Despite the fact that Obama oversaw ever-closer military ties between the two nations, he has never won the affection of ordinary Israelis, who resented the fact that he did not visit their country in his first term, but did go to Egypt and Turkey.

A poll in the Maariv daily newspaper on March 15 said 68 percent of Israelis had an unfavorable or hostile attitude toward Obama, while just 10 percent said they liked him.

Editor's Note: Obama ‘Blunder’ Spawns Massive Profit Opportunity

Obama is not expected to arrive with any new Palestinian peace initiative and will spend most of his time in Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the Middle East, where he will make a keynote speech to hundreds of students.
The American president will hold separate talks with both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who finally formed a new coalition on Friday after a January election that weakened his grip on government.
Here are some of the issues that are likely to dominate the March 20-22 visit:
Iran and the Bomb

Israel and the United States agree that Iran should never get a nuclear bomb, dismissing Tehran's repeated assertion that its atomic program is peaceful. However, the two allies are at odds over how fast the clock is ticking on the need for preventative military action should diplomacy fail.
Netanyahu last year set a "red line" for Iran's nuclear program, saying the Islamic Republic should not be allowed to obtain 240 kg (530 pounds) of 20-percent enriched uranium.

Israeli officials have warned this tipping point could be reached by the spring or summer of 2013, although experts believe Iran has since slowed its stockpiling of 20-percent fissile uranium to ward off the threat of attack.
Obama said on March 14 that Iran was still more than a year away from developing a nuclear weapon and repeated his assurance to Israel that military force remained a U.S. option.
Israeli officials, who see Iran's nuclear advances as an existential threat, make no secret of the fact that they would prefer to see the U.S. military, with its greater firepower, tackle Iran's far-flung atomic installations. Tehran is improving its defenses and Israel worries that sooner rather than later Israeli warplanes will not be able to destroy this infrastructure. This would mean its own military option would be off the table, leaving Israel utterly reliant on Washington.
The White House believes Israelis have yet to reach a consensus on how to confront Iran, according to a source familiar with the administration's thinking, who added that Obama would stress the need for patience with sanctions and diplomacy. U.S. officials also hope a high-profile recommitment to Israel's security will increase public pressure on Netanyahu to avoid aggravating the situation while negotiations continue.
No "Grand Peace Plan"

Obama is likely to press both the Israelis and Palestinians to return to the negotiating table, but he told American Jewish leaders in private before the trip that he did not intend to deliver a "grand peace plan" during the visit. Participants said the president did not preclude the possibility of launching an initiative in six months or a year.
The mood was very different at the start of his first term, when Obama said peace between Israelis and Palestinians was a top priority. His 2009 "new beginning" speech in Cairo raised Palestinian hopes of establishing a state in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Middle East War.
Obama revived direct peace talks in 2010, but they collapsed soon afterward when Netanyahu refused to bow to Palestinian demands to extend a partial freeze on settlement building.
Both the Palestinians and Israelis felt let down by Obama, for very different reasons. The Israelis begrudged the fact that at the start of his first term, he publicly told Israel to halt all Jewish settlement-building, saying this put unfair pressure on Netanyahu to make unilateral concessions.
The Palestinians were furious when Obama then backed away from his demand over settlement construction, saying the peace talks were doomed unless Washington twisted Israel's arm.
Both sides say that without a serious U.S. engagement, the chances of a deal are close to zero. However, few U.S. analysts expect Obama to expend much political capital on an elusive peace accord that has tied up so many of his predecessors.
Netanyahu's new government includes former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who will take charge of pursuing peace with the Palestinians. But the presence of fiercely pro-settler elements in the coalition, including within the prime minister's own Likud party, suggests a breakthrough is unlikely.

Editor's Note: Obama ‘Blunder’ Spawns Massive Profit Opportunity
Settlement Expansion

Israeli settlement expansion lies at the heart of much of the rancour between Netanyahu and Obama, who has said the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement.
Most major powers regard settlements as illegal under international law and an impediment to peace. The Israelis claim historical and biblical ties to the West Bank and East Jerusalem, home to some 500,000 settlers, and dispute their building in these areas is illegal.
All Israeli leaders since 1967 have backed the settlement movement, but Netanyahu has been especially supportive. Yuval Steinitz, who was replaced as finance minister last Friday, said in November the government had quietly doubled the portion of the national budget dedicated to West Bank settlements.
In December and January, Israel announced plans to build more than 11,000 new houses on land Palestinians want for a future state. Pro-settler politicians have landed several top jobs in the new Netanyahu government, including the housing minister, who has pledged to keep on building.
Many Western diplomats based in Jerusalem privately question whether the so-called two-state solution of an independent Israel living alongside an independent Palestine is still viable given the never-ending expansion of settlement blocs.
Israel's press says Obama has pointedly not invited students from a university in the West Bank settlement of Ariel to attend a speech he is meant to give in Jerusalem this week.
Relations between Obama, 51, and Netanyahu, 63, have been marked by slights, mutual suspicion, and outright antipathy.
Supporters of Netanyahu accuse Obama of trying to browbeat Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians, particularly over the issue of settlements. Obama supporters say Netanyahu interfered in the 2012 presidential election, overtly backing Republican challenger Mitt Romney.
In one Oval Office meeting in 2011, Netanyahu gave Obama a public lecture on Jewish history. A year later, when the Israeli leader visited the United States, Obama said he was too busy to meet him. They will try to reset their relationship this week.

Annual U.S. military aid to Israel is put at $3 billion.
Editor's Note: Obama ‘Blunder’ Spawns Massive Profit Opportunity

Upheaval Causes Friction

Regional upheaval across the Middle East has proved another source of friction between Israel and the United States over the past two years.

Israeli officials were especially incensed by what they saw as Washington's approval for the ousting of Egypt's former president, Hosni Mubarak, in February 2011. The late President Anwar Sadat signed the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, a pillar of Israel's regional security strategy, in 1979.

Seen from Netanyahu's office, U.S. policy-making in the region has been naive and failed to anticipate the rise in power of Islamist forces in one Arab nation after another.

U.S. officials argue that Washington could not have stood in the way of the march of history and believe that dialogue with the new governments that have emerged in the wake of the Arab uprisings is the only way to forge meaningful ties.

Israel would now like to see the United States play a more active role in supporting non-Islamist rebels battling President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, fearful that growing power vacuums in its northern neighbor will be filled by jihadist militants.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-israel-visit-palestinian/2013/03/18/id/495151?s=al&promo_code=12D80-1##ixzz2NzpWrCJH
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

King Obama Couldn’t Eat at Hill Meeting Without Food ‘Taster’By Clash Daily / 15 March 2013 /

WASHINGTON — Following President Obama’s lunch meeting with Senate Republicans on Capitol Hill, Maine Republican Senator Susan Collins described the food served and said the president was not able to eat since his “taster” was not present. http://clashdaily.com/2013/03/king-obama-couldnt-eat-at-hill-meeting-without-food-taster/

“University of Maine recipe for healthy lobster salad — I pointed that out to the president in keeping with the first lady’s initiatives and Fox Family Potato Chips made in Aroostook County where I’m from and wild blueberry pie full of anti-oxidants, see this was a healthy lunch as well. We did have a little ice cream on the pie too, also made in Maine, Gifford’s Ice Cream. So in all seriousness this was well received,” Collins told reporters on Thursday after the meeting at the Capitol.
“Unfortunately, you know, the president can’t,” said Collins when asked if Obama ate at the lunch meeting.
“He looked longingly at it,” Collins continued. “He honestly did look longingly at it, but apparently he has to have essentially a taster, and I pointed out to him that we were all tasters for him, that if the food had been poisoned all of us would have keeled over so, but he did look longingly at it and he remarked that we have far better food than the Democrats do, and I said that was because I was hosting.”

Bill Gates III Es Conocido Por Interrumpir A sus Empleados durante las presentaciones de Nuevos Programas (Ricardo Samitier) diciendo:

"Esa Es La Cosa Más Estúpida Que He Escuchado!

Ayer declaró que Obama Necesita Tener más Poder para tomar decisiones. En otras palabras pidió al congreso: “Que Le Den A OBAMA Derechos Dictatoriales...

Ayer el “Hombre más Rico del Mundo” demostró ser un FASCISTA... Y se ganó que el mundo entero le diga:

"Esa Es La Cosa Más Estúpida Que He Escuchado!

Benghazi Survivors ‘Told to Be Quiet’ by Obama Administration, Claims GOP Senator (Updated With Full Interview)

Mar. 15, 2013 4:56pm Jason Howerton http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/15/benghazi-survivors-told-to-be-quiet-by-obama-administration-claims-gop-senator/

US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) listens during a press conference on Capitol Hill March 7, 2013 in Washington, DC. The lawmakers spoke about the reported arrest of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, the son-in-law of Osama Bin Laden, who was taken into custody in the Middle East and is now allegedly being held in New York. Credit: AFP/Getty Images

The Obama administration has told the injured survivors of the Benghazi terror attack “to be quiet,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) alleges in an exclusive interview with Fox News.
While Congress presses for more information surrounding the infamous Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack, Graham says the survivors feel as if they can’t reach out and tell their stories. Critics of the White House’s handling of Benghazi say survivors have been completely inaccessible to Congress and the media.
When asked about Benghazi survivors, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters, “I’m sure that the White House is not preventing anyone from speaking.”
Graham told Fox News he isn’t buying it. He said, “the bottom line is they feel that they can’t come forth, they’ve been told to be quiet.”
“We cannot let this administration or any other administration get away with hiding from the American people and Congress, people who were there in real time to tell the story,” the senator from South Carolina added.
More from Fox News:
Graham continued to voice concern about the inaccurate or incomplete accounts that came from the Obama administration in the days following the attack. He is among a handful of Republican lawmakers pressing for access to and more information about the survivors.

Homosexual Agenda. Ricardo Samitier.

The Homosexual Agenda is a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality and homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.

President Barack Hussein Obama and nearly all Democrat politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own reelection, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy.

Among all the liberal belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish - unlike the vast charity performed by churches, homosexual charity can be considered an oxymoron.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).

[hide]

The Homosexual Agenda

Joseph P. Gudel, in That Which is Unnatural^[1] contended that the homosexual movement,

has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.

In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi proclaimed,

We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives. ^[2]

In an article entitled "Gays on the March" in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated:

What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.^[3]

A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.^[4]

In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.

The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."

Leo commented,

A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).^[5]

Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive Crafting “Gay” Children,^[6] reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD, stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who were trained in the “zapping" of any who rebuffed homosexuality.^[7] And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. ^[8]

This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:

"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." ^[9] "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."^[10]

Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:^[9]^[11]

1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)

2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."

3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."

4. "Make gays look good."

5. "Make the victimizers look bad."

6. "Get funds from corporate America."

United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

“

Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.^[12]

”

Vic Eliason of Crosstalk America rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation. This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.

Specific goals

The goals of the homosexual movement include:

1. Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws.

2. Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.

3. Ignore the clear message of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination unto God because their first amendment rights allow them to.

4. Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.

5. Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.^[13]

6. Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech"^[14]^[15]^[16]

7. Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality^[17]

8. Lobbying for equal employment rights.^[18]^[19]

9. Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.^[20]

10. Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality^[21]

11. Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference^[22]

12. Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.

13. In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.

14. Demands protections from job discrimination. ^[23]

15. Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. ^[24]

16. Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality^[25]

17. Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples^[26]

18. Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda

The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.^[27] An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal.^[28]

Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts, noted that the President has,

signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.

pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.

declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.

pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.

declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."

Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.^[29]

Strategies and psychological tactics

Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.^[30] This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"^[31], as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.^[32]^[33]^[34]^[35]^[36]^[37]^[38]^[39]^[40]^[41]^[42] In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.^[43] Another strategy used by supporters of the homosexual agenda is to publicly deny that such an agenda exists.^[44]

While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, After the Ball, is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists ^[45] Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill, who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."

"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."^[46]^[47]

Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,

There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts homosexuality and biblical interpretation examine and expose.]^[48]

Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"^[49] “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”^[50]^[51]

Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."^[52]

The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.

“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”^[53]

David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,

Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.^[54]

Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.^[55] The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.

Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.^[56] In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.^[57]

The charge of homophobia has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.^[58]

In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.^[59]

Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated: "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."

Erik Holland, author of The Nature of Homosexuality, perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."^[60]

It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.

Influence in the academic world

Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.

“

[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.^[61]

”

Opposing Christian Agenda

Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

Threatening to shut Salvation Army soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment ^[62]
Encouraging email activism
Producing and disseminating gay reform information
Influencing local media in what stories they produce
Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation^[63]
Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.

Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda

Some well known individuals/groups in the United States who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: Focus on the Family, Peter LaBarbera's American's for Truth, the Traditional Values Coalition (Louis Sheldon is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and Matt Barber of Concerned Women of America.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_Agenda

La descriminacion contra los hombres. Ricardo Samitier.

En España, hoy es San José. El día de los Padres. El Padre, es la figura más atacada de los últimos 50 años. ¿Por que?

POR NO SER HOMOSEXUAL. EL HOMOSEXUAL por la razón que sea... es básicamente un INADAPTADO SOCIAL...

Los planificadores de la derrota del mundo GRECO-ROMANO-CRISTIANO es decir del mundo civilizado... saben perfectamente que todos los INADAPTADOS benefician sus planes... esa es el motivo que en todas las revoluciones son aceptados y participan SIEMPRE GENTE FUERA DE LA LEY.

No olvidemos que Mao declaro públicamente que favorecía el trafico de drogas hacia occidente para acabar con él como lo hicieron con China con la guerra del OPIO...

En la sociedad actual...cada hombre que pierde su trabajo, es una familia rota. Cada familia rota, crea votantes socialistas.

Cada madre soltera, crea más votantes socialistas.

Cada familia dependiente del gobierno, crea generaciones de socialistas.

Hoy en día, hay que pedir perdón, por ser hombre. Por ser padre y POR NO SER HOMOSEXUAL. Los homosexuales discriminan... donde entra uno... el recomienda a otro... y la discriminación contra el hombre NO ESTA CONSIDERADA EN LA LEYES creadas para beneficiar a los homosexuales...

Una prueba son los servicios a los pasajeros en los aeropuertos están llenos de homosexuales... (No el mantenimiento, a ellos no les gusta tener las manos sucias de grasa) Ha llegado el momento que en el área de servicios al público... El único hombre bueno, es el hombre maricon.

Estamos viviendo, en una sociedad radicalmente pro anormal... Ser macho o hembra, es un delito social en este momento. ¿Por qué?

Una mujer, no quiere tener un hijo hija homosexual ella lo quiere tener NORMAL...

El mundo Unisex es inexistente... Las líderes “Feministas” de antaño... como las de hoy han sido siempre TORTILLERAS ENCUBIERTAS... eso es bien sabido pero nadie se atreve a decirlo...

Una sociedad Unisex, es una sociedad sin futuro!

¿Que tipo de sociedad queremos???

PROFECIA SOBRE CUBA EN 1955 POR RAFAEL DIAZ-BALART

VERDADERAMENTE PROFETICO

En la madrugada del 6 de mayo del 2005 falleció en la ciudad de Miami Rafael Díaz-Balart .

Esté usted o no de acuerdo con su posición política a través de los años, es asombroso revisar ahora, 54 años después, el profético discurso que pronunció en la Cámara de Representantes de Cuba (mayo de 1955).

Esta alocución fue con motivo de la amnistía concedida a Fidel Castro , que cumplía condena en el Presidio de Isla de Pinos por el artero asalto al Cuartel Moncada el 26 de Julio de 1953

Discurso de Rafael Díaz-Balart hace 54 años atrás.

Señor Presidente y Señores Representantes:

He pedido la palabra para explicar mi voto, porque deseo hacer constar ante mis compañeros legisladores, ante el pueblo de Cuba y ante la Historia , mi opinión y mi actitud en relación con la amnistía que esta Cámara acaba de aprobar y contra la cual me he manifestado tan reiterada y enérgicamente.

No me han convencido en lo más mínimo los argumentos de la casi totalidad de esta Cámara a favor de esa amnistía. Que quede bien claro que soy partidario decidido de toda medida a favor de la paz y la fraternidad entre todos los Cubanos, de cualquier partido político o de ningún partido, partidarios o adversarios del gobierno. Y en ese espíritu sería igualmente partidario de esta amnistía o de cualquier otra amnistía. Pero una amnistía debe ser un instrumento de pacificación y de fraternidad, debe formar parte de un proceso de desarme moral de las pasiones y de los odios, debe ser una pieza en el engranaje de unas reglas de juego bien definidas, aceptadas directa o indirectamente por los distintos protagonistas del proceso que se está viviendo en una nación.

Y esta amnistía que acabamos de votar desgraciadamente es todo lo contrario.

Fidel Castro y su grupo han declarado reiterada y airadamente, desde la cómoda cárcel en que se encuentran, que solamente saldrán de esa cárcel para continuar preparando hechos violentos, para continuar utilizando todos los medios en la búsqueda del poder total al que aspiran. Se han negado a participar en todo proceso de pacificación y amenazan por igual a los miembros del gobierno que a los de la oposición que deseen caminos de paz , que trabajen a favor de soluciones electorales y democráticas, que pongan en manos del pueblo cubano la solución al actual drama que vive nuestra patria.

Ellos no quieren paz.

No quieren solución nacional de tipo alguno, no quieren democracia, ni elecciones ni confraternidad.

Fidel Castro y su grupo solamente quieren una cosa: el poder, pero el poder total, que les permita destruir definitivamente todo vestigio de Constitución y de ley en Cuba , para instaurar la más cruel, la más bárbara tiranía, una tiranía que enseñaría al pueblo el verdadero significado de lo que es la tiranía, un régimen totalitario, inescrupuloso, ladrón y asesino que sería muy difícil de derrocar por lo menos en 20 años.

Porque Fidel Castro no es más que un psicópata fascista, que solamente podría pactar desde el poder con las fuerzas del comunismo internacional, porque ya el fascismo fue derrotado en la Segunda Guerra Mundial , y solamente el comunismo le daría a Fidel el ropaje pseudo-ideológico para asesinar, robar, violar impunemente todos los derechos y para destruir en forma definitiva todo el acervo espiritual, histórico, moral y jurídico de nuestra República.

Desgraciadamente, hay quienes desde nuestro propio gobierno tampoco desean soluciones democráticas y electorales, porque saben que no pueden ser electos ni concejales en el más pequeño de nuestros municipios. Pero no quiero cansar a mis compañeros representantes.

La opinión pública del país ha sido movilizada a favor de esta amnistía. Y los principales jerarcas de nuestro gobierno no han tenido la claridad y la firmeza necesarias para ver y decidir lo más conveniente al Presidente, al Gobierno y, sobre todo, a Cuba. Creo que están haciéndole un flaco favor al Presidente, sus ministros y consejeros que no han sabido mantenerse firmes frente a las presiones de la prensa , la radio y la televisión.

Creo que esta amnistía, tan imprudentemente aprobada, traerá días, muchos días de luto, de dolor, de sangre y de miseria al pueblo cubano, aunque ese propio pueblo no lo vea así en estos momentos.

Pido a Dios que la mayoría de ese pueblo y la mayoría de mis compañeros representantes aquí presentes, sean los que tienen la razón.
Pido a Dios que sea yo el que esté equivocado.

Mayor Gimenez vetoes Commission vote in favor of SafeWrap

• Mysterious meeting and a bluff preceded the decision of the Mayor

NOTA: Debido a las decenas de peticiones que hemos recibido en NHR.com solicitando que los articulos sean publicados tambien en ingles, les podemos informar que desde hoy martes estaremos publicando algunos de los articulos que más entradas hayan recibido. Así estaremos cumpliendo con las solicitudes de nuestros lectores, ya que a ellos nos debemos.

MIAMI, March 15, 2013, NHR.com– History repeats itself, as was the case with former Mayor Alex Penelas on February 26, 2001. After initially saying he would not veto the decision, Mayor Carlos Gimenez added fuel to the fire yesterday vetoing the determination of 9 of the 13 commissioners, who later voted unanimous in an 11-0 vote in favor of granting the contract to wrap bags at Miami International Airport (MIA) to the local company SafeWrap.
As justification for his veto Mayor Gimenez in his memorandum to the President of the Commission of Miami-Dade, Rebeca Sosa, and commissioners in general, is the loss of $6.79 million in three years, or $ 2,265,337 per year, based on projections of the company TrueStar, and the exaggerated prices ($20, $40 and $48) that that company would charge. We recall that thepresident of the Commission, Rebeca Sosa, asked the local company SafeWrapnot to increase the price to more than what is currently charged which is $15, saving consumers more than $ 6 million a year, which TrueStar could not meet by having to pay the 65% which was offered in its bid to the County in order to obtain the contract in the MIA.
According to what NHR.com has been able to find, in 2001, when Penelas vetoed the contract for wrapping bags in the MIA, which had been granted to Secure Wrap of Miami, a meeting was held a few hours after the vote of the commissioners where then Mayor Penelas was pressured into vetoing the decision.
Our sources informed us that the meeting took place with Penelas in a Boston Market establishment, with the owner of the company that lost the contract to wrap luggage, the former commissioner of the city of Miami Manolo Reboso, Penelas’ close friend, and lobbyist Jorge Luis Lopez. There was pressure put on Penelas to exercise the veto, and thus it came hours later. On March 8, 2001, 11 commissioners voted against the veto, while Miriam Alonso and Pedro Reboredo Penelas voted to support, making this a stunning blow to the political career of Alex Penelas.
In this case almost the same thing occurred. Our sources have informed NHR.com that during the 48 hours following the vote March 5 (always in March), there were several meetings between TrueStar lobbyist, Pablo Acosta,
his partner Jorge Luis Lopez, and other executives of the Italian company.
During these meetings calls were made, they gathered all of their supervisors and Giussepe Sgobio, General Manager of Sinapsis/TrueStar telling them “Fabio is coming and that they would have to remove them from the airport by force, that they would appeal to the Italian Ambassador and if needed Barack Obama himself. “On Monday the 12th, after pressuring Mayor Gimenez, Sinapsis created a plan that the mayor was not a stranger to. “Sinapsis would sue the County on Wednesday and the mayor would sign the veto on Thursday” the source said, and it did.

Also during the weekend, the mayor ordered his assistants to go to the airport and bring back documentation necessary to the plan, several
employees of the mayor occupied the mayor’s designated parking spot at the airport and waited for the documents, the plan was on.
The Chairwoman of the Commission Rebeca Sosa said “she did not understand why the mayor vetoed the decisions made by a supermajority of the Commissioners, including herself” and added, “Maybe he has to make a point, we have consciously voted on what we were doing.”
It is noteworthy that it was the same Carlos Gimenez who recommended the commissioners last year reduce $ 2.5 million from Sinapsis Trading USA’s original offer of $ 11.1 million they had promised, which is equal to $7.5 million over three years. “At that time Gimenez did not think that MIA would lose $ 2.5 million a year,” or estimated “potential loss of $ 7.5 million for the airport would require raising landing fees charged to airlines per 1,000 pounds in landing, as Gimenez stated in his veto,” said our source.
When all of the commissioners and the Chairwoman of the Commission herself,Rebeca Sosa, thought they ended this process and everyone hoped that the issue would not return for many years, the mayor suddenly stir the hornets’ nest again and returns with the controversial case of suitcases wrapped at the airport. As the never forgotten journalist Humberto Lopez would say: “and it continues…”

• Mandan a callar al administrador Joe Carollo

MIAMI, 19 DE MARZO DE 2013, NHR.com—Ayer el periodista del Miami Herald, Enrique Flor, fue entrevistado por Lourdes Ubieta y Ricardo Brown en Actualidad 1020; el tema: <Los Problemas de la ciudad de Doral>.
Los tres se preguntaban cómo era posible que una ciudad tan joven estuviera envuelta en grandes controversias, sin embargo la respuesta es simple: Joe Carollo.
“Doral siempre ha sido una ciudad tranquila, orgullo de sus residentes, pero llegó Joe Carollo y se ha alborotado” le dijo a NHR.com un residente de Doral asíduo a las peñas del Cuban Crafters en la calle 7 del noroeste.
Y no deja de tener razón, desde que Carollo fuera nombrado administrador del Doral las cosas se han ido complicando. Primero la controversia con Merrit Stierheim y de buenas a primera se ve implicado en la controversia entre el alcalde Luigui Boria y la comisionada Sandra Ruiz, a la que Boria se las arregló para destituirla como vice alcaldesa anoche en una audiencia alborotada en el ayuntamiento de Doral.
Y es que la ex vice alcaldesa Ruiz había acusado al alcalde Boria de estar envuelto en las negociaciones de una millonaria compra de un terreno sin habérselo informado a la comisión. Esto molestó al alcalde Boria e introdujo a Carollo en la controversia al éste sentirse aludido, como demostró declarándole a el Nuevo Herald, en tono molesto: “Ella no puede darme órdenes a mí y decirme a quién yo puedo llevar o no a una reunión de negociación”.
Fue durante la audiencia pública del miércoles 6, en que la vice alcaldesa Sandra Ruiz criticó al alcalde Boria por participar en una negociación conducida por Carollo para comprarle a J.P. Morgan un terreno de 1.2 acres donde se desarrollará la plaza central del downtown de Doral, frente al edificio municipal.
Anoche,en la sesión del Concejo, Boria, con su dificultad hablando en inglés, y leyendo, colocó una moción para destituir a Ruiz como vice-alcaldesa, y no tardaron los demás comisionados que apoyan a Boria a darle el voto.
A todo esto, Carollo levantó su voz para “poner en su lugar a Ruiz” y desde el público salió la voz de alguien simulando al Rey de España y le dijo “y porque no te callas”, sonrojando al administrador que prefirió hacerle caso al que gritó y permaneció en su asiento tranquilo.
Más tarde surgió otra confrontacion cuando la destituida vice alcaldesa Sandra Ruiz fue acusada por la comisionada Bettina Rodríguez Aguilera de usar la tarjeta de crédito de la ciudad para comprar exóticas ropas en Victoria’s Secrets, algo que Ruiz negó.
Carollo ha acusado a la comisionada Sandra Ruiz de presionarlo para buscar “cualquier cosa” contra el ex alcalde J.C. Bermúdez, quien cesó en la alcaldía el pasado mes de noviembre. Además, Carollo acusó a Ruiz de estar detrás de la campaña de revocatoria contra la concejal Bettina Rodríguez-Aguilera, provocando que de nuevo le gritaran desde el publico: “Y por qué no te callas”.

Para los que le gustan las cosas bellas. Este es un trabajo de mi amigo Gil T Friedman. Acabado de hacer en Alaska por él. Me las acaba de enviar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_cYKPAp7kc

. “EN MI OPINION” .

“The FREEDON never is Free” Editor Lázaro R González Miño .

Lazaro R Gonzalez

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

# 338, 3/18/2013 “EN MI OPINION”