.“EN MI OPINION” IN GOD WE TRUST.
.No 341 Jueves, Marzo 21 2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
Ocurre de nuevo.
QUANTICO, Va. (AP) — A Marine killed a male and female colleague in a shooting at a base in northern Virginia before killing himself, officials said early Friday.Authorities were called to the scene at Marine Corps Base Quantico around 10:30 p.m. Thursday, where they found one Marine dead at a barracks, base commander Col. David W. Maxwell told reporters.
Authorities later found a second victim dead, along with the body of the suspected gunman, who died of self-inflicted gunshot wound.
A base spokesman initially described the situation as a standoff. Maxwell said later in the morning that there was no standoff. Base spokesman Lt. Agustin Solivan later clarified that after the first shooting, police had the shooter “isolated” in a barracks dorm room at the base’s Officer Candidates School.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/22/3-dead-including-suspect-in-marine-base-shooting/#ixzz2OGslHEnM
Senate votes down Ryan budget, balanced budget requirement
The Senate defeated the House Republican budget Thursday evening, with five Republican senators joining Democrats in voting against it.The budget, authored by House budget committee chairman Paul Ryan, would balance the budget in 10 years through a combination of cuts to entitlement programs and non-defense discretionary spending. It passed in the House earlier on Thursday.
The Ryan budget was proposed as an amendment by a Democrat, Senate budget committee chair Patty Murray. The goal was to force Republicans to take a stance on a budget that Democrats see as unpopular and politically problematic. No Republican proposed the Ryan budget as an amendment.
Here you have who vote “NO” Sent by F.H. “EMO”
LRGM.
The Senate defeated the plan late Thursday
evening by a 40-59 margin
. The vote went almost entirely along
party lines, with the exception of five
Republicans who joined Democrats in voting against it: Sens. Rand Paul, Ted
Cruz, Mike Lee, Dean Heller, and Susan Collins.
El Papel nunca morira.
Hablando
de cosechas de plátanos. Amenper.
La Corta
vida del Maduro
La
separación de la fruta del árbol depende de velocidad de maduración y la vida
en postcosecha; y se asocia con el carácter climatérico y la capacidad de la
tasa respiratoria (constante o no). Un plátano por ejemplo tiene una
capacidad inferior que una manzana y su perecibilidad es mayor y la duración
después de caer del árbol es muy pequeña.
Lo que
quiere decir es que ya maduro por su falta de capacidad puede caer, y perecer
en un corto tiempo.
Hong Kong (CNN) -- The
United States' plans to beef up its
missile defenses against North Korea are likely to
inflame tensions that are running high over Pyongyang's nuclear program, China
said Monday.
"Bolstering
missile defenses will only intensify antagonism, and it doesn't help to solve
the issue," Hong Lei, a spokesman for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, said at a regular news briefing in Beijing.
The United
States will deploy additional ground-based missile interceptors on the West
Coast as part of efforts to enhance the nation's ability to defend itself from
attack by North Korea, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel announced Friday.
The U.S.
announcement came after North Korea recently threatened a pre-emptive nuclear
attack on South Korea and the United States in response to stepped-up U.N.
Security Council sanctions over its latest nuclear test last month.
The threat
from the regime of young leader Kim Jong Un was part of a recent barrage of
vitriolic statements, which included a vow to nullify the armistice agreement
that stopped the Korean War in 1953.
Military
and White House officials have said current U.S. missile defenses are adequate
for the present level of threat, and President Barack Obama said in an
interview with ABC News last week that he didn't think North Korea could carry
out a missile attack on the United States.
"They
probably can't, but we don't like the margin of error," Obama said.http://us-mg6.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.rand=argk6t1fgur62#
The 14
additional interceptors, to be installed by 2017, would bring the total to 44,
according to the Pentagon.
"The
reason that we are doing what we are doing and the reason we are advancing our
program here for homeland security is to not take any chances, is to stay ahead
of the threat and to assure any contingency," Hagel said.
Concerns
about regional stability
But Hong
said Monday that China believes that the anti-missile issue "matters to
global strategic balance and regional stability. It also matters to strategic
trust between relevant countries."
North Korea
on Saturday responded to the U.S. announcement by criticizing what it described
as the Americans' "hostile policy" and saying it won't negotiate with
them over its nuclear program.
Its nuclear
weapons "serve as an all-powerful treasured sword for protecting the
sovereignty and security of the country," a Foreign Ministry spokesman
said, according to the North's state-run Korean Central News Agency.
"Therefore, they cannot be disputed ... as long as the U.S. nuclear threat
and hostile policy persist."
Tensions on
the Korean Peninsula escalated in December, when North Korea successfully
launched a long-range rocket, putting a satellite in space for the first time.
The United
States and other Western nations called the launch a test of ballistic missile
technology, and the U.N. Security Council tightened sanctions on the regime in
Pyongyang.
North Korea
responded angrily to the U.N. measures, vowing to carry out its third nuclear
test. It made good on its promise last month, prompting the U.N. Security
Council to expand sanctions further, which in turn set off the latest flurry of
fiery North Korean rhetoric.
Should Obamacare Be Fully Repealed? Vote Here Now.
Obama’s Nuclear Weapons Drawdown Could Run Afoul of the Law
Thursday,
21 Mar 2013 11:18 AM By David Yonkman, Washington Correspondent
President
Barack Obama’s efforts to significantly curtail U.S. nuclear weapons without
seeking the proper Senate approval are at best misguided and worst illegal,
sources tell Newsmax.
Obama is exploring opportunities to achieve the reductions in infrastructure and capability he seeks – including a drawdown to 1,000 weapons – without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate that international treaties require.
Efforts to push the boundaries of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia are ill-advised, sources say. A proposal that seeks to achieve nuclear arms reductions outside the framework of New START, however, would run afoul of the law.
Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
“A presidential announcement that would try to do a nontreaty agreement would be prohibited by the code,” Baker Spring, a research fellow in national security policy at the Heritage Foundation, tells Newsmax.
The Senate has specifically spoken to the precise circumstances pertaining to any modification or reinterpretation of New START or a new agreement that would reduce the U.S. arsenal to levels below those included in New START.
The statements are found in the Senate-approved resolution of ratification accompanying New START. Specifically, Declaration 9 of the resolution states that any agreement or understanding that modifies, amends, or reinterprets New START should be submitted to the Senate for ratification.
Declaration 11 states that any new nuclear-arms reduction agreement beyond New START also should be subject to the treaty process and require Senate consent under the Constitution.
Pursuing additional nuclear reductions also could run afoul of the 1961 Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which requires congressional approval for nuclear-weapons disarmament.
Furthermore, New START in particular singled out such projects as the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Facility at Los Alamos, N.M. It was supposed to replace the aging Chemical and Metallurgy Research Facility to reconstitute the country’s ability to produce plutonium pits.
Obama certified to the Senate he would expedite it before New START went into effect, but then he delayed it by five years.
“The administration is clearly walking away from their commitments,” U.S. Rep. Mike Turner tells Newsmax. The Ohio Republican serves on the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Spring, of the Heritage Foundation, argues that slow-walking the CMRR also puts into question the legal framework in which the START treaty operates.
Additionally, the administration is contemplating unilaterally signing on to the international Space Code of Conduct because it cannot obtain the Senate’s consent.
Congress has a number of measures to challenge the president’s authority to disarm the United States through executive direction or informal agreement, according to Baker. It could challenge the president in court should his administration attempt to bypass the advice and consent of the Senate or through any number of legislative initiatives.
“Congress, and most particularly the Senate, has a variety of tools to preserve its just powers under the Constitution, and in this case as reinforced by statutory law,” Baker says. “Most are political, which should be preferable.”
Congress could direct that no funds that it appropriates may be used to dismantle the weapons in question.
The Senate could withhold confirmation of an important nominee unless the president commits not to undertake such reductions outside a treaty agreement. The Senate could also attach a condition to another treaty, requiring the president to certify that he will not dismantle any U.S. nuclear weapons except pursuant to a treaty agreement.
The latter was the approach used by the Senate to block former President Bill Clinton’s attempt to circumvent it in concluding an agreement with several newly independent states to establish succession to the Soviet Union under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tells Newsmax that she is “disappointed” Obama has given Congress no direction on how it intends to proceed with its ambitions to cut U.S. nuclear programs.
It is especially dangerous in light of Iran’s threats to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, as well as North Korea threatening neighbors such as Japan and South Korea.
The Florida Republican is clear in saying “the Constitution remains clear that the Senate must ratify any international treaty.”
Furthermore, she said, “It would be irresponsible to believe that an agreement [New START] with the Russian government will be honored when it has actively undermined U.S. interests at every turn and violates current arms-control agreements.
Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
“If North Korea or Iran is allowed to successfully develop a nuclear-weapon arsenal, the world is looking straight in the face of the most dangerous nuclear-arms race we could ever imagine, and we must use caution when discussing any depletion of our nuclear arsenal.”
Obama is exploring opportunities to achieve the reductions in infrastructure and capability he seeks – including a drawdown to 1,000 weapons – without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate that international treaties require.
Efforts to push the boundaries of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia are ill-advised, sources say. A proposal that seeks to achieve nuclear arms reductions outside the framework of New START, however, would run afoul of the law.
Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
“A presidential announcement that would try to do a nontreaty agreement would be prohibited by the code,” Baker Spring, a research fellow in national security policy at the Heritage Foundation, tells Newsmax.
The Senate has specifically spoken to the precise circumstances pertaining to any modification or reinterpretation of New START or a new agreement that would reduce the U.S. arsenal to levels below those included in New START.
The statements are found in the Senate-approved resolution of ratification accompanying New START. Specifically, Declaration 9 of the resolution states that any agreement or understanding that modifies, amends, or reinterprets New START should be submitted to the Senate for ratification.
Declaration 11 states that any new nuclear-arms reduction agreement beyond New START also should be subject to the treaty process and require Senate consent under the Constitution.
Pursuing additional nuclear reductions also could run afoul of the 1961 Arms Control and Disarmament Act, which requires congressional approval for nuclear-weapons disarmament.
Furthermore, New START in particular singled out such projects as the Chemical and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR) Facility at Los Alamos, N.M. It was supposed to replace the aging Chemical and Metallurgy Research Facility to reconstitute the country’s ability to produce plutonium pits.
Obama certified to the Senate he would expedite it before New START went into effect, but then he delayed it by five years.
“The administration is clearly walking away from their commitments,” U.S. Rep. Mike Turner tells Newsmax. The Ohio Republican serves on the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
Spring, of the Heritage Foundation, argues that slow-walking the CMRR also puts into question the legal framework in which the START treaty operates.
Additionally, the administration is contemplating unilaterally signing on to the international Space Code of Conduct because it cannot obtain the Senate’s consent.
Congress has a number of measures to challenge the president’s authority to disarm the United States through executive direction or informal agreement, according to Baker. It could challenge the president in court should his administration attempt to bypass the advice and consent of the Senate or through any number of legislative initiatives.
“Congress, and most particularly the Senate, has a variety of tools to preserve its just powers under the Constitution, and in this case as reinforced by statutory law,” Baker says. “Most are political, which should be preferable.”
Congress could direct that no funds that it appropriates may be used to dismantle the weapons in question.
The Senate could withhold confirmation of an important nominee unless the president commits not to undertake such reductions outside a treaty agreement. The Senate could also attach a condition to another treaty, requiring the president to certify that he will not dismantle any U.S. nuclear weapons except pursuant to a treaty agreement.
The latter was the approach used by the Senate to block former President Bill Clinton’s attempt to circumvent it in concluding an agreement with several newly independent states to establish succession to the Soviet Union under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, tells Newsmax that she is “disappointed” Obama has given Congress no direction on how it intends to proceed with its ambitions to cut U.S. nuclear programs.
It is especially dangerous in light of Iran’s threats to Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, as well as North Korea threatening neighbors such as Japan and South Korea.
The Florida Republican is clear in saying “the Constitution remains clear that the Senate must ratify any international treaty.”
Furthermore, she said, “It would be irresponsible to believe that an agreement [New START] with the Russian government will be honored when it has actively undermined U.S. interests at every turn and violates current arms-control agreements.
Latest: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll
“If North Korea or Iran is allowed to successfully develop a nuclear-weapon arsenal, the world is looking straight in the face of the most dangerous nuclear-arms race we could ever imagine, and we must use caution when discussing any depletion of our nuclear arsenal.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-nuclear-drawdown/2013/03/21/id/495699?s=al&promo_code=12E2A-1##ixzz2OCxncSDj
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Six months and
counting... Ricardo Samitier.
This week we
surpass six months since the terrorist attack in Benghazi that claimed
the lives of four Americans, and wounded many more.
And over the course of those 6 months, we’ve received
almost nothing but misdirection, half-truths, and outright lies from the
Obama Administration regarding what happened on that terrible night of
9/11/12.
From the very beginning, something about that night
prompted President Obama and his allies to hide the truth from the
American people. It all started with their bogus line that the attack was
due to a YouTube video which no one had ever seen and that it was not a
planned terrorist effort.
Then they denied that they could clearly see what
was going on that night – despite the fact we know they had live television
feed from their drones in the area.
They also denied that they could have possibly done
anything to assist our people on the ground – a claim refuted by numerous
current and retired military officers.
The Benghazi
coverup - Six months and counting...
Then they stonewalled for months as House and
Senate Republicans tried to pry information from the Administration and senior
officials during several hearings. When Hillary Clinton, SECDEF Panetta, and
others finally took the stand, they just continued the record of obfuscation
and blame-dodging that we’d seen in the past.
Now, 6 months
after a clearly coordinated terrorist attack on one of our embassies, we have
more new questions from our government than we have answers.
Why are exactly
zero of those terrorists in U.S. or foreign custody?
Why has not one
single U.S. official been held accountable or fired over the numerous appalling
failures detailed in the Administration’s reporting of the events?
Why are the
survivors of the attack being held under a de-facto gag order to prevent them talking
to Congress?
And for those
heroes we do know about – such as slain ex-Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen
Doherty – why has the Obama Administration refused to acknowledge their
courage under fire and their brave sacrifice that saved many lives?
The Benghazi
coverup - Six months and counting...
Why did President Obama state that his administration
has provided all information regarding “what happened in Benghazi” last
November – yet when the few reporters not “in the tank” for Obama asked for
photos, surveillance video, and answers to questions that demand answers, they
got stonewalled by a White House official?
One thing there is no question about, though – President
Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other high-ranking officials in the State
Department and the Obama DoD catastrophically mismanaged our response to the
Benghazi attack. Then they spent the next several months creating a web
of lies to cover their tracks.
The fact that after six months we’re still getting
nothing but canned statements and avoidance from this Administration
doesn’t mean we should give up – quite the opposite.
It means that
we absolutely must redouble our efforts so that
whatever they want so desperately to hide can come to light.
We owe it to
those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and the American people to
refuse to back down in our quest for the truth.
Today, we’re renewing our demands for a
special prosecutor to investigate what really happened in Benghazi. It
is abundantly clear that without such a legal device, the Obama Administration
will never accept culpability or reveal the truth about what happened that
night.
The Benghazi
coverup - Six months and counting...
Demand a
special prosecutor to investigate NOW
Unless we break through this cover-up and shine light
onto what happened six months ago, the arrogance and incompetence of
President Obama and his cronies will only get worse. We cannot allow their
foolishness to permanently belittle the strength and tarnish the presence of
America abroad.
Please, join us in telling Obama and his
Administration that we
won’t rest until we have the truth and justice is served. Sign on to
our demands for a special prosecutor for Benghazi today.
Sincerely,
Dick Brauer,
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
Co-founder, Special Operations Speaks
P.S. Every thing we have seen from this administration
since the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, points to a colossal
leadership failure in the Obama Administration and their attempts to
cover up the truth about what happened. It is up to us to hold them
accountable and to demand real leadership.
·
MIS AMIGOS COMO
LES PROMETI LES COPIO EL ARTICULO LEIDO ESTA TARDE POR CARINES HOY EN NUESTRO
PROGRAMA CADA TARDE CON CARINES Y AGUSTIN; EL MISMO LE FUE ENVIADO POR UN GRUPO
DE PERIODISTAS DE ALTA CREDIBILIDAD
OFICIAL DE EL SERVICIO SECRETO DE LA CASA BLANCA
Interceptado el Día 10/03/2013 - 11.57hrs Ref.
098-0089-675-3-13
Prevalece LA VERDAD de la gran farsa más monumental que
se haya hecho para engañar al mundo y al pueblo de Venezuela.
Resumen de la parte 1.-
El cuerpo del Presidente de Venezuela fallecido en Cuba
el 29 de diciembre de 2012 a las 4 y 45 pm hora estándar del este, y posteriormente
embalsamado el 3 de enero 2013 a un costo de 880 mil dólares por los
embalsamadores italianos los Shcorfino fue trasladado en secreto desde Cuba a
la capilla ardiente de la AM directo vía aeropuerto de la Carlota el día 5 a
las 4m, en vuelo de avión de las FAB y en el otro venia su familia y no como se
anunció que fue al hospital militar el 18 de febrero, según fuentes de la
inteligencia estadounidense y francesa proveniente de sus estaciones de Jamaica
y Granadinas
El coche con el falso féretro de Chávez recorrió las
calles de Caracas rumbo a la Academia Militar durante más de siete horas,
durante el largo cortejo fúnebre del miércoles, los venezolanos que llenaron
las calles de Caracas lloraron ante un féretro en el que no iba el cuerpo del embalsamado
Hugo Chávez.
Es la versión de varios altos oficiales activos
militares del Ejército conocedores del dispositivo de traslado, que aseguran
que el cadáver del presidente venezolano fue transportado de Cuba a Fuerte
Tiuna, en el complejo de Defensa donde se encuentra la Academia Militar. El
«cambiazo» se produjo en el sótano de esa institución, cuando llegó allí el
falso féretro al término de la procesión. Fue el único momento en que las
cámaras de televisión lo perdieron de vista.
La versión de esos altos oficiales militares,
comunicada por ellos mismos al diario ABC de Madrid a petición de mantener su
anonimato, confirma además la información ya avanzada por este diario de que
Chávez murió en Cuba y no en Caracas, como insiste el Gobierno venezolano.
El engaño de la procesión supone un nuevo montaje del
Gobierno, sumándose a la larga lista de mentiras con que el chavismo ha llenado
los últimos meses de vida de su líder. En realidad, el objetivo no era tanto
burlar al pueblo, como su utilización política. «Querían mostrar un baño de
multitudes con un claro interés político, todo trazado desde La Habana
permitiendo que la gente pudiera hasta tocar el féretro, el falso, sin poner en
riesgo la integridad física del verdadero; no iban permitir que este, por lo
que fuera, se cayera, cuando además parte de su estructura interna es de
vidrio», indica una de las personas al tanto de las circunstancias del
traslado.
De hecho, según destacan igualmente fuentes del MOSSAD,
servicio secreto israelita, tras producirse el cambio en el sótano de la
Academia Militar, la seguridad alrededor del ataúd pasó a ser estricta, sin que
se permitiera acercarse a nadie de la manera en que había ocurrido durante la
marcha. A partir de ahí todo pasó a ser solemne, sin el desorden populista
visto en el recorrido por la ciudad.
Estaba también la necesidad de la conservación del
cadáver. Someterlo a siete horas al calor de Caracas, a 29-30 grados celcius
cuando tenía que ser expuesto al público durante varios días antes de su sepultura,
no era lo más aconsejable.
Urna de vidrio -tipo Blancaniesves- rusa, llegó a La
Habana con dos embalsamadores rusos en diciembre.
Al Hospitalito
Después de que Chávez embalsamado hacia 72 días en La
Habana, como ya develó ABC de Madrid, el cadáver del presidente fue llevado por
la noche del 5 de marzo al aeropuerto venezolano de La Carlota, la Base Aérea
Generalísimo Francisco de Miranda, según aseguran los militares informantes. La
Carlota está en el interior de al este de la capital Caracas, más cerca de
Fuerte Tiuna que el aeropuerto internacional de Maiquetía. De allí fue
conducido al Hospitalito Vicente Salías, el centro médico de ese complejo
castrense, en el que se encuentra el Ministerio de Defensa. Su nombre se debe
al menor tamaño comparado con el Hospital Militar, situado a unos 7 kilómetros,
en otro lado de la ciudad. A unos doscientos metros del Hospitalito está la
Academia Militar.
En el Hospitalito, que posee una morgue, se abrió el
féretro, se revisó el estado en que había llegado el cuerpo tras el vuelo y se
concluyó la labor de vestirlo con el uniforme verde con boina roja militar
luego de un fuerte incidente entre Maduro y la familia. En algún momento del
miércoles el ataúd fue transportado al sótano de la Academia Militar.
Un féretro similar, vacío o con algún peso en su
interior con un maniquí facsímil con careta, fue llevado al Hospital Militar,
de donde el miércoles por la mañana partió la procesión popular. Cuando ésta
llegó a la Academia, durante un rato las televisivas perdieron de vista el
ataúd.
La excusa fue que había que adecentar el féretro, como
quitarle las flores y otras cosas que el pueblo había arrojado o reposicionar
la bandera que lo cubría. El que surgió de nuevo ante las cámaras, no ya sobre
la plataforma de un coche fúnebre, sino a hombros de militares y otras
autoridades, era el ataúd verdadero, que luego se abriría en la capilla
ardiente.
En el ínterin, en privado, un reducido grupo de
personas especialmente allegadas -la familia y probablemente los presidentes de
Argentina, Bolivia y Uruguay, presentes también luego en la ceremonia pública
celebrada en esa Academia Militar- tuvieron un acto íntimo.
Aunque la televisión venezolana no mostró ningún plano
cercano del féretro cuando este fue abierto para el adiós público, diversas
personas que acudieron a despedirse de los restos del presidente indicaron que
lo habían visto ligeramente hinchado y sin pelo, nada que ver con las falsas
fotografías difundidas por el Gobierno hace tres semanas..
Es importante que el pueblo de ese país, Venezuela,
sepa que el 17 de octubre de 2012 una vez que el presidente Chávez fue
informado en la Habana luego de someter a exámenes rigurosos, que le restaban
unos cercanos 60 días de vida, trasportó 13 toneladas de oro de las reservas
del Banco Central de ese país, Venezuela, que fueron transportados en un avión
ruso que partió del aeropuerto de la Carlota a las 6am del día 20 de octubre
hasta el aeropuerto de Rancho Boyero en Cuba. Y además sacaron de las reservas
del Internacionales 20.000 millones de dólares americanos que fueron
depositados en el Banco Central de Cuba. De allí que las reservas de ese país,
Venezuela, apenas disponen de 1.200 millones y por ello la restricción de
divisas para importar necesidades básicas de alimentos, medicinas, autopartes,
reactivos para laboratorios y equipos médicos que genera una grave situación
alimentaria causa del desabastecimiento severo que sufre ese país en estos
alimentos que amenaza con implosionar una situación de vastas proporciones en
los próximos tres meses.
. “EN MI OPINION” .
“The FREEDON never is Free” Editor
Lázaro R González Miño .
No comments:
Post a Comment