“En mi opinión” IN GOD WE TRUST.
.No 354 Lunes, Abril 8, 2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
Dear Move On member,Social Security is not driving the deficit, therefore it should not be part of reforms aimed at cutting the deficit.
The chained CPI, deceptively portrayed as a reasonable cost of living adjustment, is a cut to Social Security benefits that would hurt seniors.
That's why I created a petition to President Barack Obama, which says:
Mr. President, the chained CPI is a cut to Social Security benefits that would hurt seniors—it's an idea not befitting a Democratic president. If you want to reform Social Security, make the wealthy pay their fair share by lifting the cap on income subject to Social Security taxes.
There are several sensible reforms to Social Security that should be considered to help make it sustainable, including lifting the ceiling on income subject to Social Security from $113,700 to $200,000 or more, as well as instituting a 1% raise in the payroll tax rate, a rate that hasn't changed in over 20 years.
Both of these reforms would go a long way toward protecting the long-term health of Social Security, but neither should not be conflated with efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit.
Thanks!
–Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor
This petition was created on SignOn.org, the progressive, nonprofit petition site. SignOn.org is sponsored by MoveOn Civic Action, which is not responsible for the contents of this or other petitions posted on the site. Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor didn't pay us to send this email—we never rent or sell the MoveOn.org list.
Our Royal Family....... Annie Gonzalez.
The redistribution of $1.4 billion each
year.
The most luxurious and costly royal presidency in history. Taxpayers
spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and
entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author
of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks. All those trips to Hawaii
add up. In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal
family.
Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal”
that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive
trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he
argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be
reined in.
Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama
family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of
the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase
in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the
frequency of a scheduled air line.”
Perspective: $1.4 billion is equal to spending seven times Mitt
Romney’s entire net-worth every year. If Romney had to pay for Barack and
Michelle’s lifestyle this year, he would have been bankrupted by the third week
in February.
We Don’t Need Obama’s Birth Certificate
April 6, 2013 by Louise
Hodges http://www.westernjournalism.com/we-dont-need-obamas-birth-certificate/
I have no use for Barack Obama. I don’t need a President with a history of drug abuse who puts the dreams of his father above the interests of the United States. Obama’s presidency is like a giant sinkhole, swallowing up everything we ever valued as Americans.
It’s almost an insult to our intelligence, to ask us to believe that Obama is a US citizen. He has a schizophrenic timeline of unexplained foreign travel, a list of aliases, and uncomfortable friendships with communists and hostile governments.
We can drop this debate over his birth certificate because we have something even more valuable. We have his mother’s passport files.
Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport files were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and then posted online. (Strunk v. US Department of State)
When Obama was young, children traveled as an addition to their parents’ passports.
Passport regulations required a photo of parent and child together, as well as a certified copy of a hospital birth certificate. State-issued IDs came much later.
If Obama was born in the United States, as everybody says, then there should be a photo of little Barack Obama with his mother, as well as a certified copy of his Hawaiian birth certificate in her file.
Surprise. There are no photos of little Barack Obama in the file. And of course, there is no birth certificate from any hospital in Hawaii.
I know the passport laws for children. Obama’s mother and I would be approximately the same age if she survived. I filled out the very same passport applications for my own daughter, three years after Obama’s mother took him to Jakarta. The laws were the same for both of us.
My daughter was born in an Army hospital in Japan in 1971, when my husband was in the Navy. I added her to my passport so I could bring her back to the United States.
I remember it like it was yesterday because my ex-husband complained about how complicated it was. We had to go to the hospital and get a certified copy of her birth certificate, re-take my passport photo with my daughter, crop it until it fit the requirements, and then go all the way to the US Consulate in Tokyo and stand in line. If there was anything the man hated, it was anything that cost him money or inconvenienced him.
I carried a joint passport for myself and my daughter through US Customs and Immigration in Hawaii. I can tell you from experience that if Obama’s mother tried to take her son through US Customs and Immigration in Hawaii without a joint passport for herself and her son, she would have been stopped.
The obvious question is, who took him through US Customs and Immigration and helped him board the plane in Hawaii? And who brought him back?
The only mention of little Barack Obama is when his mother tried to renew her passport at the US Consulate in Jakarta a few years later. We see evidence of that in the file.
She tried to trick the passport office. She went to the US Consulate in Jakarta and wrote “Barack Obama” in the section where you add your child. She thought, like we did, that they were going to add him to her passport, no questions asked.
They probably laughed and asked her how her son got to Jakarta without a US Passport.
When she failed to go get this Hawaiian birth certificate and retake her photo, the Passport Office crossed out his name.
She found herself stuck in Jakarta, trying to sneak her son back to the United States.
All Congress has to do is ask the Passport Legal Office to explain how Obama’s mother took him through US Customs and Immigration without a US passport. I don’t see that happening.
If there was a logical explanation, Obama should look forward to clearing his name. Or maybe we’ll get lucky, and he’ll just get on a helicopter and leave.
THE USUAL SUSPECTS
Bill Ayers confirms what Obama has denied
Weatherman domestic terrorist finally spills the beans
Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.
In an October 2008 interview on MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ show, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, categorically denied the fundraiser was ever held.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied/
Matthews asked Gibbs: “Did [Ayers] have a fundraiser for [Obama], or not?”
Gibbs, who would become the White House spokesman, replied: “No, he did not have a fundraiser for our candidate as he said ten seconds ago.”
However, in an interview last week with the Daily Beast, Ayers recalled that fundraiser.
Stated Ayers of his relationship with Obama: “We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was ‘a guy around the neighborhood,’ that was true.”
Does this explain infamous Ayers living-room meeting?
Is the socialist-oriented New Party the missing link at the center of that now infamous 1995 Obama fundraiser in Ayers living room in Chicago?
It was at that meeting that New Party member Alice Palmer announced she wanted Obama as her successor as state senator since she was stepping down to run for Congress.
WND has found that in the July 1996 edition of the New Party’s newsletter, the New Party news, the controversial party announced “the Illinois New Party capped off a month-long house party drive in Chicago.”
Further review of New Party literature from 1995 and 1996 finds that so-called house parties were regularly utilized by the New Party to introduce candidates to leading party activists as well as to raise money and recruit new members.
It is known that single-payer activist Quentin Young, who advised Obama on healthcare when the politician was a state senator, was present at the parlor meeting at the Ayers’ residence.
WND reported that Young was listed by the New Party as an early party founder and builder.
“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” Young was quoted as saying. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”
Chicago-based blogger Maria Warren was also present. She wrote that she remembered watching Obama give a “standard, innocuous little talk” in the Ayers’ home.
“They were launching him,” Warren wrote, “introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”
It would make sense that the New Party sponsored the get-together in Ayers’ living room for Palmer’s announcement.
Palmer was the New Party’s signed candidate for office. The New Party, which had partnered closely with ACORN, was mobilizing support for Palmer among its constituents and the larger Chicago progressive community.
New Party founder and Marxist activist Carl Davidson recalled screening Palmer and signing her up to the party.
Wrote Davidson:
In the next two elections in the city … the New Party has taken a slightly different approach. It organized a citywide candidates forum and invited a number of progressive candidates. Of those responding, two were of special interest, Alice Palmer and Willie Delgado … Both Palmer and Delgado attended the [New Party] forum and were thoroughly questioned by 70 or so New Party members. At the close, both publicly signed a “contract” with the New Party … Two weeks later, the New Party formally endorsed them and is now mobilizing support.
How was the New Party mobilizing the stated support for Palmer at the time, an effort that Palmer wanted transferred to Obama?
WND reported the New Party had such a close relationship with ACORN that at one point the two shared an office address, fax lines and email addresses.
ACORN led the New Party’s mobilization and voter drive efforts. In progressive circles at the time, the New Party was considered the de facto political wing of ACORN, a group with which Obama long maintained a close relationship.
Ayers and Dohrn, meanwhile, traveled in the same political circles as New Party leaders, making it even more likely the duo could have hosted a New Party house meeting. The duo were key supporters of Palmer.
In 1994 Dohrn and Bill Ayers were listed on a “Membership, Subscription and Mailing List” for the Chicago Committees of Correspondence, which was co-chaired by New Party founder Davidson.
WND found that Chicago activists Joe Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner were also listed as New Party leaders.
Iosbaker is a University of Illinois-Chicago office worker and a union steward for his SEIU local. His home was raided by the FBI in September 2010 reportedly as part of a terror probe investigating material support for jihadist groups.
Together with other activists raided in the same probe, Iosbaker and Weiner are founders of the so-called Committee to Stop FBI Repression, which protested the FBI raids.
Another founder of the committee whose home was part of the same raid is Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.
WND was first to report that Obama, while serving as a paid director of the far-left nonprofit Chicago Woods Fund, provided two grants to the AAAN. Obama served at the Woods Fund alongside Ayers.
AAAN was founded by a longtime Obama associate, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, is president of the Arab American Action Network.
The New Party, meanwhile, is coming under increased scrutiny after new information emerged further indicating Obama was a member of the party in the 1990s.
The New Party was a 1990s party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.
In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature listing Obama as a member.
Information uncovered in recent weeks, including Obama’s signed contract with the New Party, further establishes the president’s membership with the controversial organization.
Socialist goals
The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.
The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.
Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”
The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”
Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.
Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.
WND first reported on the event in 2010.
Obama listed as New Party member
In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own literature listing several new members of the New Party, including Obama.
Earlier this month, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”
Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.
Read
more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/bill-ayers-confirms-what-obama-has-denied/#pJgKeeSguLfxcdvW.99
Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal
WASHINGTON — In a long-awaited memoir, Gen. Stanley A.
McChrystal, the former U.S. commander in Afghanistan, writes that tensions
between the White House and the Pentagon were evident in the Obama
administration from its opening months in office.
The beginning of President Barack Obama’s first term
“saw the emergence of an unfortunate deficit of trust between the White House
and the Department of Defense, largely arising from the decision-making process
on Afghanistan,” McChrystal writes in the book, My Share of the Task: A
Memoir. “The effects were costly.”
The book by McChrystal, who was fired from his post in
2010 after an article in Rolling Stone quoted him and his staff making
dismissive comments about the White House, is likely to disappoint readers who
are looking for an account of infighting within the administration.
The book does not provide an account of the White
House meeting at which Obama accepted the general’s resignation. The book is to
be released on Monday.
An advance copy provides revealing glimpses of the
friction over military planning and comes as Obama is weighing, and perhaps
preparing to overrule, the troop requests that have been presented by the
current U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. John R. Allen.
The account is all the more noteworthy because
McChrystal, who retired from the Army, remains a respected voice among the
military and teaches a course on leadership at Yale.
According to the book, the tensions began before
McChrystal took command in Kabul, Afghanistan, and were set off by a request by
his predecessor, Gen. David D. McKiernan, for 30,000 additional troops at the
end of the Bush administration.
Instead of approving the entire request, Obama decided
in February 2009 that 17,000 would be sent, adding that decisions on additional
deployments would be based on further analysis.
From the White House perspective, McChrystal writes,
“this partial decision was logical.” After less than a month, the president had
increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan by 50 percent. Although Obama had cast the
conflict in Afghanistan as a “war of necessity” as a candidate, he was
nonetheless wary about a prolonged U.S. military involvement.
McChrystal has little to say about the episode that
led to the article in Rolling Stone. He writes that the comments
attributed to his team were “unacceptable,” but he adds that he was surprised
by the tone of the article, which he had expected would show the camaraderie
among the U.S., British, French and Afghan officers.
|
U.S. on alert for nuclear blast
overhead
'Space launch vehicle' could put kill electric grid, devastate nation |
|
WASHINGTON – U.S. officials quietly are
expressing concern that North Korea could use its "space launch
vehicle" to explode a high-altitude nuclear device over the United
States, creating an electromagnetic pulse that would destroy major portions
of the U.S. electrical grid system as well as the nation's critical
infrastructures.
The concern is so great that U.S. officials who watch North Korea closely are continually monitoring the status of the North Korean "space launch vehicle," whose status could suggest a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States. Want to know the full impact of an EMP? Click here to read more about WND's newest book: "A Nation Forsaken – EMP: The Escalating Threat of an American Catastrophe." They are aware of the three-stage missile North Korea launched last December that also orbited a "package," which experts say could be a test to orbit a nuclear weapon that then would be deorbited on command anywhere over the U.S. and exploded at a high altitude, creating an EMP effect. This concern is in addition to North Korea's latest threat to strike targets in Hawaii and the continental U.S., as well as possible attacks against U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan. The 28-year-old North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, has signed an order for North Korea's strategic rocket forces to be on standby to fire at U.S. targets. The signing was against a photo backdrop following an emergency meeting of his senior military leaders showing large maps that were labeled "U.S. mainland strike plan, specifically at Hawaii, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and Austin, Texas." One WND reader who traced the targeting to Texas said that it really was aimed at the Dallas/Fort Worth area. THIS is how an EMP event could bring the world's remaining superpower to its knees. Read it in "A Nation Forsaken". The latest North Korean threats occurred after the U.S. sent two B-2 stealth bombers to strike targets with inert bombs during joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises, which Kim considered a major provocation. "He finally signed the plan on technical preparations of strategic rockets, ordering them to be on standby to fire so that they may strike any time the U.S. mainland, its military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in South Korea," according to a statement by the North Korean news agency, KCNA. The statement added that the B-2 flights showed Washington's "hostile" intent, and the "reckless" act had gone "beyond the phase of threat and blackmail." In response, U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel condemned North Korea's actions which to date have included dissolving the 1953 armistice between North and South Korea, severing the military hotline with South Korea and putting its artillery forces on high alert and threatening, once again, nuclear strikes against the U.S. In recent weeks, North Korea also had released three videos showing a nuclear strike on the U.S. "We've made very clear that we have the capability and willingness to protect our interests and our allies in the region," according to deputy White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He said that the U.S. military exercises with South Korea should offer "pretty clear evidence" that the U.S. can defend its interests and those of its allies in the region. Sources say that sending the B-2s was in response to the recent North Korean threats to send a message – a message which Russia and China called a "provocative act." Russia and China have asked the U.S. to continue talking to North Korea and not to take military action against North Korea. In response to North Korea's initial bellicose rhetoric, Hagel ordered the deployment of additional Aegis anti-missile systems for the U.S. West Coast. They originally were destined for Europe. And a second anti-ballistic missile radar is to be installed in Japan. However, the Aegis anti-missile systems won't be operational until 2017, although there are some systems already deployed along the West Coast. North Korea's continuing threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against U.S. targets suggest to U.S. officials that its military is confident in the capability of its missiles and that its recent nuclear testing for miniaturization of a warhead to be placed on a missile similarly was successful. These officials are looking at the prospect that upon launch of the missile and a potential nuclear payload, it would take a polar path, clearly out of range of U.S. Aegis anti-missile systems. The fact that U.S.military officials are expressing quiet but increasing concern that North Korea could launch an EMP attack has raised alarms over the preservation of the U.S. national grid and such critical infrastructures as communications, energy, food and water delivery and space systems. This concern recently has been reinforced by a little-publicized study by the U.S. Army War College that said a nuclear detonation at altitude above a U.S. city could wipe out the electrical grid for hundreds, possibly thousands of miles around. The impact would be catastrophic. "Preparing for months without a commercial source of clean water (city water pressure is often dependent on electric pumping to storage towers) and stoppage of sewage treatment facilities will require net methods of survival particularly in populated areas," the military study said. The May 2011 study, titled, "In the Dark: Military Planning for a Catastrophic Critical Infrastructure Event," concluded that there is "very little" in the way of backup capability to the electric grid upon which the communications infrastructure is vitally dependent. Analysts say that it is apparent that Kim has ignored any advice from its closest friend, China, to stop any further missile or nuclear testing suggesting, as one official described Kim, as a "loose cannon." Kim also has been defiant of any United Nations Security Council resolutions similarly condemning the recent missile and nuclear tests. China had joined in approving those resolutions. "The time has come to settle accounts with the U.S.," the KCNA agency declared. "The Obama administration is either clueless or deceiving the American people with false assurances that North Korea's recent threats to destroy the United States are merely 'empty rhetoric' because they allegedly 'lack the capability,'" one former U.S. official told WND. Some regional analysts, however, believe that Kim is seeking to leverage the U.S. for further concessions while attempting to win favor with his own military to show how tough he can be. These analysts say that until now Kim has not had the support from the military that his father, Kim Jong-Il, had. His war-like tone may be indicative of attempts to solidify military support within his country. At the moment, experts are looking at efforts for preparations at known long-range missile launch sites. Those signs may be appearing. "North Korea's launch sites to fire off mid- and long-range missiles have recently shown increased movement of vehicles and forces," according to one South Korean official who described the activity at the sites as "brisk." "We are closely watching possibilities of missile launches," the official said. In this connection, officials have seen several vehicles moving to the Tongchang-ri missile site on the western coast, in what appeared to them to be preparations for testing its long-range missiles. Some observers, however, believe the latest threats of a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S. remain for now just domestic posturing and efforts to establish military credentials on Kim's part to show that he is more forceful than his father. In other efforts to determine warnings and indications of an attack, analysts are looking for major troop movements, although none has been detected to date. Late last week, a North Korean Mig-21 fighter jet flew near South Korea's front line airspace, known as the Tactical Action Line,but returned to base, according to a South Korean military official. In response, the South Koreans scrambled a KF-16 fighter. The TAL is the point between 20 and 50 kilometers north of South Korean airspace that will prompt the South Korea to scramble its fighter jets. |
Mas Pruebas... de la Traición Ricardo Samitier.
Richard
Bissell Le Mintió Al Congreso Mientras Investigaban El Fracaso De Bahía De
Cochinos o Playa Girón...
El
hecho cierto es que hasta Marzo 31 de 1961... Se mantenía el plan del
desembarco por el puerto de CASILDA en el municipio de Trinidad...
De
acuerdo a los archivos desclasificados sobre esta operación...
En
Enero de 1961... Un informe interno de la CIA informa que la efectividad de Radio Swan
comienza a disminuir: Si bien un gran número de cubanos aún escuchan la
estación, su credibilidad y su reputación sufre por programaciones que están
utilizando exageración con el fin de sensacionalismo. Un ejemplo: Uno de los
locutores dijo que había 3.000 rusos en un parque en Santiago de Cuba, los
residentes sólo tenía que caminar al parque a ver que esto no era cierto.
(Taylor Report, Anexo 2: CIA, breve historia de Radio Swan)
Es
decir Radio Swan... fue desde un principio SABOTEADA por sus productores...
Por
cierto el presupuesto y la programación aprobada por Eisenhower para crear
Radio Swan...se hicieron con la finalidad de la eliminación de TRUJILLO en la
R. Dominicana y Fidel Castro...
El 5 de enero 1961: En preparación
para una reunión del Grupo Especial, Tracy Barnes redacta un memorando al
Director de la CIA en la que destaca los problemas que deben abordarse.
Sostiene
que, contrariamente a las opiniones expresadas en una reunión de 3 de enero, la
operación no es capaz de alojar más de 750 miembros que era el plan inicial...
Más
importante aún, sostiene que la operación "DEBERÍA"
tener organizada una base en EE.UU. para el reabastecimiento
tras el desembarco... especialmente si las tropas tienen que
replegarse a las montanas y hacer guerra de guerrillas. (CIA, Material para la
Reunión del 5 de enero Grupo Especial, Memorando para el Director de
Inteligencia Central, 05/01/60)
Es Decir No Había
Ningún Plan De
Reabastecimiento...
NO lo
había... porque estaba PREVISTO QUE CASTRO
TRIUNFARA... y se consolidara la Revolución... y entregarle Cuba a la URSS...
15 de
febrero 1961, dos meses antes de la invasión...Thomas Mann, subsecretario de
Asuntos Interamericanos, escribe una nota a Rusk, ministro de estado...oponiéndose a la invasión. Mann señala que el plan
original de la CIA se basa en la suposición
de que la invasión inspirará a un levantamiento popular que es poco probable
que tenga lugar y que nunca antes en la historia ha
tenido lugar. "Por tanto, parece posible, incluso probable, que
nos encontraríamos con los siguientes escenarios:
1. El abandono de la brigada a su
suerte, lo que nos costaría muy caro en prestigio y respeto.
2. La ejecución del plan de
intentar mover la brigada a las montañas como guerrilleros, lo que plantearía
un problema prolongado de suministros aéreos.
3. Abierta intervención militar de
EE.UU.
Mann
sostiene que el derecho internacional, la imposibilidad de ocultar la mano de
los EE.UU., y el hecho de que el castrismo sería más útil a los EE.UU. como un modelo de fracaso socioeconómico, y no como un MÁRTIR o aun PEOR UN
VENCEDOR...
Todas
las razones anteriores concluí que sería en el interés nacional de proceder a
SUSPENDER unilateralmente este plan (Mann, El Plan de marzo 1960, 02/15/61)
En
febrero 27 de 1961: Un equipo de tres oficiales del Estado Mayor Conjunto a
quienes se les ordenó que examinaran la eficacia militar de la Fuerza
Expedicionaria de Cuba en su base de Guatemala. La evaluación señala que si no se logra atacar por sorpresa, EL ATAQUE VA A FRACASAR, y agregó que un solo
avión de Castro armados con ametralladoras calibre .50 podría hundir la
totalidad o la mayor parte de la fuerza de invasión.
11 de
marzo 1961: un mes y 6 días antes de la
INVASIÓN... En una reunión en la Casa Blanca entre 10:05 am y
12:15 pm, Richard Bissell presentó la operación propuesta de la CIA contra Cuba
al presidente Kennedy.
El
documento ofrece cuatro cursos de acción alternativos que implican el
compromiso de la fuerza paramilitar siendo preparado por los EE.UU. Estos
incluyen el curso de acción preferido por la CIA... llamado EL PLAN TRINIDAD que supone:
1. Un asalto anfibio /
aerotransportado .... para tomar una cabeza de playa CASILDA que esta contigua al terreno adecuado para las
operaciones de guerrilla... el Escambray... con un aterrizaje del
"gobierno provisional... tan pronto como la cabeza de playa había sido
asegurada.
2. La fuerza invasora son
capaces de repeler los ataques de las milicias Castro con pérdidas
sustanciales a las fuerzas atacantes seguidas por las deserciones de las
fuerzas armadas y la rebelión generalizada.
3. Si las acciones no tienen éxito
en la detonación de una gran revuelta, la fuerza de asalto se retiraba a la
zona de montaña contigua y continuar sus operaciones como una fuerza poderosa
de guerrilla.
El
presidente rechazó el Plan Trinidad como demasiado espectacular, demasiado
parecido a una invasión de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. Prefiere una invasión
tranquila, PREFERIBLEMENTE POR LA NOCHE, aparentemente
Kennedy un “Nino Millonario” convertido en presidente y “Comandante en Jefe” no sabía que estaba pidiendo
que el desembarco se convirtiera en el “Primer
Desembarco Nocturno y hasta hoy el ÚNICO EN LA HISTORIA militar...
En esa
reunión terminó con la petición del presidente que se presentaran nuevas y
mejores propuestas...
Los
funcionarios de la CIA, dirigidos por Bissell, se apresuran a producir un nuevo plan en menos de TRES DÍAS.
El 18
de marzo 1961: Richard Bissell envío a "Jim Noble", quien fue el
último jefe de estación de la CIA en La Habana, a Miami para reunir a los
líderes del exilio cubano en un cuerpo unificado.
Los
“Lideres” cubanos son convocados al Motel Skyways donde el asistente de Noble
en español les dice: "Si usted no salen de esta
reunión con una comisión, olvídense de ser participantes de esta invasión, ya
que hemos terminado."
Tres
días más tarde, los grupos de exiliados anunciar la creación del Consejo Cubano
Revolucionario, en sustitución del Frente Democrático Revolucionario. Dr. José
Miró Cardona es nombrado coordinador. (Wyden, p.116; Cronología de fuerzas
irregulares)
Es
decir; 1 MES ANTES no tenían ni un gobierno establecido... porque no les interesaba...
sabían que iban a perder...
He
Aquí La Prueba De Que No Existía El Plan
De
Invasión Por Bahía De Cochinos En Marzo 31
MAR
31,1961: El subsecretario de Estado Chester Bowles entrega un memorando al
Secretario Rusk aconsejando que LA DECISIÓN
sobre la operación de Cuba se realizará en una reunión del 04 de abril.
Bowles
considera el plan profundamente inquietante y un
grave error. "La invasión que ahora se pretende, tienen
solamente 33% de posibilidades de éxito. Esto hace que sea una operación muy
arriesgada. Si falla, la fuerza de Castro y el
prestigio se verá mejorado.
Si
usted está de acuerdo que esta operación sería un error, le sugiero que usted
personalmente y en privado comunique sus puntos de vista al Presidente. Supongo
que su voz será decisiva... Esto aparece en el libro de Schlesinger, MIL DÍAS,
p 235.
El 7 de
Abril; The New York Times publica una historia firmada por el periodista
Tad Szulc titulada "Unidades Anti Castro? Son entrenados para
luchar en las bases de la Florida." El artículo inclusive sobreestima la
Brigada diciendo que son cinco o seis mil hombres. Cerca del final de la
historia, Szulc incluso dice que los planes de invasión están en sus etapas
finales...
La
información en el New York Time demuestra que los planes eran de dominio
público y que había alguien que estaba filtrando la información... lo cual NUNCA HA SIDO ACLARADO...
Cuando
Kennedy leyó la historia, exclamo: “Castro no
necesita espías en los Estados Unidos, todo lo que tiene que hacer es leer el
periódico. (NYT, 04/07/61”
08 de
abril 1961: Jacob Esterline y Jack Hawkins, dos miembros de la CIA sub
comandantes directamente a cargo de la planificación
de la invasión, van a la casa de Bissell en el noroeste de
Washington DC y le informan DE QUE QUIEREN
RENUNCIAR. Sus principales preocupaciones son los cambios que la
Casa Blanca ha ordenado en la operación por lo que es mucho menos probable que
tenga éxito, "Las reducciones en la operación hechas por los políticos
hace TÉCNICAMENTE IMPOSIBLE GANAR",
según los informes dicen que Bissell les pide que se quede en el argumento de
que la invasión seguirá adelante con o sin ellos. A regañadientes aceptan su
solicitud. Esta narración aparece en dos libros (Wyden, p 160;.. Thomas, p 252)
No hay
dudas que había miembros de la CIA saboteando la invasión en el libro que
escribe Linch contando sus memorias dice: “Los motores fuera de borda
comprados para operar los botes de aluminio para bajar las tropas a tierra...
no necesitaban mezclar la gasolina con aceite... pero “POR ERROR” la gasolina
puesta en los motores estaba ligada y de contra excesivamente ligada... motivo
por el cual... solo 2 motores funcionaron durante el desembarco... eso fue reportado como error cuando fue un sabotaje...
Castro
Estaba Directamente Avisado
E
Informado Del Lugar Del Desembarco
En la
tarde del 16 de abril, el día antes de la invasión... el Comandante Juan
Almeida, compañero del Moncada, la cárcel, los campamentos de Méjico, el Granma
y la Sierra es enviado a revisar las tropas del sector de la Bahía de Cochinos
y visita el puesto de radio de Punta Perdiz. Se entera de que hay que tienen
contacto por radio con el puesto de mando en Santa Clara, pero no con el centro
de mando de la zona que ha sido situado en el central Australia, que es
la más cercana concentración de tropas para la defensa de la zona compuesto por
un batallón de 900 hombres y dos JS-2 tanques apostados en el
camino a Playa Larga en Girón, además el Batallón 339 de la milicia de
Cienfuegos.
Incapaz
de resolver los problemas técnicos del radio, ordena una compañía del batallón
a que se sitúen a todo lo largo de la bahía para fortalecer la defensa. Esto
aparece en el libro de Pino Machado, "La Batalla de Girón 67 y 68)
Es
decir... Castro (suerte que tiene) había fortificado una zona que por sus
condiciones geográficas no era propicia para un desembarco... por las
siguientes razones:
1. Es una costa de ROCA conocida
como diente de perro... y después de los 30 o 40 primeros metros se convierte
en una zona bajo en nivel del mar y un pantano de agua salada... en otras
palabras NO HAY AGUA POTABLE para
abastecer una tropa...
2. Existe una RETINGA de rocas...
que solo permite el paso de botes ligeros en MAREA
ALTA... retinga que los técnicos de la CIA que analizaban las fotos
de los U-2 pasaron a la historia “Oficialmente”
Confundieron” las rocas con hierbas marinas...
La Realidad Es Otra:
Castro
Estaba (y está) De Acuerdo Con Los Comunistas Fabianos De Washington...
Esta
conspiración fue realizada por profesionales y con enorme poder... es difícil
seguirles el rastro de papeles y documentos y muchos menos conocer quiénes eran
en realidad “AGENTES” y quienes NO... Pero el
hecho cierto es que Bissell mintió al Senado cuando dijo que se escogió Girón
como lugar del desembarco por tener un aeropuerto capaz de permitir levantar
vuelo a los aviones B-26 cargados de bomba... ya que no existía... los
brigadistas partieron de Puerto Cabezas el día 13 Jueves y el aeropuerto no
estaba terminando... el día Sábado 15 fue el primer bombardeo y a partir de ese
momento todas las obras se paralizaron... en la madrugada del Lunes 17... El
aeropuerto estaba terminando...
Aparentemente
Castro había ordenando trabajar hasta horas extra el viernes para terminarle a
Bissell la escusa del aeropuerto...
El
cambio del DESEMBARCO de Casilda a Bahía de Cochinos... fue sin duda una
conspiración... que en cualquier otro país... hubieran sino los participantes
condenando por traición... pero como hemos visto... TERMINO Bissell y todos los
FRACASADOS... con el presidente Y CONDECORADOS...
Todos
Estos Señores ENVIARON A Los Brigadistas A
Morir
Y Fueron Responsables Del Fracaso...
Por
cierto uno de los que murió sin saber la verdad fue Nikita
Khrushchev que en sus memorias escribió “ No me explico por qué razón Fidel
Castro se declaro Marxista Leninista cuando lo atacaron los Estado Unidos” El cumplía su acuerdo con los
Fabianos de entregarle a la URSS un país en América...
Obama y Kamala. Amnper.
Nota: Ese nombrecito “Kamala” es árabe verdad?
ES QUE TENEMOS OTRO MUSULMAN EN LA ADMINISTRACION DE BARRY SOETORO? LRGM. [Kamala Harris is the first
female,[3] African-American,[4][5] and Asian
American attorney general
in California, as well as the first ethnic Asian Indian American attorney general in the United States. [6][7] Esto es lo que dice Wikipedia (Todo el ‘rebondingo’
este es para evitar decir que es MUSULMAN… Una
mas pa’la tribu]
Es cierto que
Kamala Harris es una mujer muy atractiva, pero cuando el presidente de Estados
Unidos se atrevió a juzgar la apariencia de la fiscal general de California desató
la ira de muchos.
"Es brillante, es dedicada, es firme -dijo Obama el jueves
durante una reunión de recaudación de fondos en California- pero también
resulta que, de lejos, es la fiscal general más atractiva del país".
El cumplido provocó las carcajadas de los asistentes.
Y el presidente agregó: "oigan,
¡vamos es cierto!".
Obama ha pedido disculpas por sus
comentarios y la distracción que esto ha causado.
“Pido disculpas a la Fiscal Kamala
Harris por mis comentarios dichos en un momento de lujuria.
Quiero también aclarar que mis
comentarios sobre su firmeza, se refería a su carácter no a ninguna parte
específica de su anatomía”.
Record Number of Workers On Disability
In January 1997, there were 104,900,000 Americans working full time jobs and 4,385,374 on disability. That meant that there were only 24 people working full time jobs for every person on disability.
In March 2013, there were 115,841,000 Americans working full time jobs and 8,853, 614 people on disability. That means that we currently have only 13 Americans working full time jobs for every person on disability. In the last 16 years, the number of people receiving disability has almost doubled while the number of full time workers only increased by 10.9 million.
To put in another perspective, there are 2,707,120 people living in the city of Chicago. The number of Americans on disability would fill the city of Chicago 3.27 times. Even more telling is that the current population of New York City, as of 2011, is 8,244,910, which means that there are more Americans on disability than in the entire city of New York.
The unfortunate part of all of this is that I know people receiving disability who are perfectly capable of working full time jobs and I know other people who are physically unable to work full time jobs that can’t get disability. It all depends on your doctors and your lawyer. Find the right ones and you can get disability in the blink of an eye. Get the wrong ones and you get turned down time and time again.
I know one lady whose joints were eaten away from cortisone that a pain doctor pumped into her body over a period of time. If she’s on her feet for any length of time, her legs, ankles and feet swell so bad that she’s in danger of compartment syndrome. She also has a brain tumor and has lost part of her eyesight in one eye. To date, she has been turned down for disability.
I know of another lady who has severe back and hip problems. She’s had hip replacement surgery that failed. She can barely walk very far and she can’t sit for any length of time either. She also suffers from fibromyalgia and arthritis. It took her over 7 years and 5 applications before she finally received disability.
Then there is this lady that I know who claims to have fibromyalgia and migraines. She is one of the greatest hypochondriacs there are. She claims she can’t work, but I’ve known her to be able to do the things that she wants to do. She filed once for disability and was granted it right off the bat.
At the current rate of people receiving disability compared to the current job trends, by 2020, there could be as few as 4-5 full time workers for every person on disability. As it is now, the federal system can’t meet all of its financial obligations, let alone paying for double the amount of people on disability. Something has to be done to fix the system so that only those that truly need it get the help and those that don’t need it and are capable of holding down a job, even though they don’t want to, will be forced to do so.
Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/04/record-number-of-workers-on-disability/#ixzz2PsTRIfNF
Vice President Joe Biden called for the creation of a “new
world order” with new financial institutions, updated global rules, a level
playing field, and a prosperous China.
His
comments seem to refer to the president’s so-called pivot-toward-Asia – a
professed strategy of putting a greater focus on the Asia region.
His
statements come as the U.S. increased its deployments in the Pacific,
purportedly in response to threats from North Korea.
Those
military moves prompted much speculation in the news media that some of the
White House response to North Korea may be related to the larger pivot to Asia
that has been a major Obama administration policy goal.
Biden’s
remarks also come one week after China, Russia and other powers announced the
creation of a new economic order that would rival the Western-dominated World
Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Delivering
the keynote address at the Export-Import Bank Conference in Washington, D.C. on
Friday, Biden stated “the affirmative task we have now is to create a new world
order.”
He
continued: “Because the global order is changing again, and the institutions of
the world worked so well in the post-World War II era for decades, they need to
be strengthened, and some need to be changed.”
“So we have
to do what we do best, we have to lead,” he stated. “We have to update the
global rules of the road, we have to do it in a way that maximizes benefits for
everyone, because obviously, it’s overwhelmingly in our interests. This is not
a zero sum game, it’s overwhelming our interest, that China prosper, that
Mongolia prosper, that nations big and large, East and West (prosper). We have
to level the playing field so that companies and workers can compete in the
world, that the competition is fair and it’s healthy.”
On Friday, WND published
an article asking
whether the Obama administration’s military build-up in the Pacific is part of
the president’s so-called pivot-toward-Asia strategy, a move that could
demonstrate the biggest shift in world power since World War II?
It is
difficult for most seasoned observers to explain why Obama is suddenly responding
to North Korean aggression when the White House did little in 2008 when North
Korea refused to allow United Nations inspectors into its nuclear plants.
The Obama
administration also took little action when North Korea in 2009 carried out at
least two nuclear tests, one of which is believed to have been the cause of a
magnitude 4.7 seismic event.
The White
House did not allow the U.S. military any significant response when in 2010
North Korea torpedoed a South Korean navy ship, killing 46 sailors. North Korea
then shelled a South Korean island with little U.S. reaction.
Now,
purportedly in response to aggressive action by North Korea’s new leader, the
White House is sending to Singapore a new class of warship designed to fight in
coastal waters.
The Pentagon
also announced that it will deploy a missile defense system to the U.S. Pacific
territory of Guam to strengthen regional protection against a possible attack.
This after the Obama administration largely canceled a similar defense system
intended for Europe.
U.S.
warplanes, including fighter jets, U-2 spy planes and an A-10 attack jet, were
seen flying in South Korea yesterday as part of a massive joint military
exercise.
The U.S.
says it stands “poised to respond” at the border of North and South Korea,
where American troops are on high alert amid possible further Pentagon build-up
in the region.
U.S.
military ‘rebalance’
Why is the
U.S. now responding to North Korea?
Time
magazine says the “U.S. pivot toward Asia – and the potential for confrontation
with China – became a little more real this week with the arrival of a new
class of warship designed to fight in coastal waters.”
That pivot
has been declared by the Obama administration itself – a professed strategy of
putting a greater focus on the Asia region.
Earlier
this week, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “made clear the U.S. and the
Department of Defense remain committed to the rebalance towards the
Asia-Pacific region,” Pentagon spokesman George Little said after a meeting
between Hagel and Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Hagel told
Loong that “in the future there will be even more opportunities for closer
collaboration between the U.S. and Singapore,” Little said.
‘New
economic world order’
The U.S.
military shift comes as the so-called BRICS countries – Brazil, Russia, India,
China and South Africa – seek to create a monetary system to rival and even
surpass the West.
While it
received little U.S. media attention, last week at its fifth annual summit the
BRICS group unveiled what it said was a new development bank aimed at breaking
the monopoly held by Western-backed institutions.
The bank
would use $50 billion of seed capital shared equally between Brazil, Russia,
India, China and South Africa but would clearly be dominated by China.
Russian
President Vladimir Putin gave support for the bank while India’s trade minister
said BRICS will “have a defining influence on the global order of this
century.”
“It’s
done,” said South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan last Tuesday, adding
“we made very good progress” on the formation of a World Bank-analogue
development agency.
Iran’s
Press TV described the deal this way: “The BRICS bank will present an
alternative solution to the Western-dominated global banking system comprised of
the Bretton Woods institutions – the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary
Fund (IMF).
“The new
bank will provide a collective foreign exchange reserve and a fund for
financing developmental projects in order to address the needs of emerging and
poor economies.”
Press TV
reported, “BRICS members say the current global balance of power is unworkable,
with institutions such as the WB, the IMF and the United Nations Security
Council irrelevant in addressing matters concerning global economics.”
Under the
deal, the two largest economies of the emerging power groups, China and Brazil,
agreed to remove nearly half of their trade exchanges out of the U.S. dollar
zone – a significant blow to the U.S. dollar.
Some in the
U.S. are skeptical the BRICS moves will actually work.
Joseph S.
Nye, a professor at Harvard University, wrote in the Australian newspaper:
“Tellingly, the meeting in Durban failed to produce any details of the
structure of the proposed new development bank, suggesting that little progress
had been made in the year since the BRICS’ last meeting in New Delhi, where the
plan was announced.”
Continued
Nye: “In fact, despite a commitment to launch “formal negotiations” to
establish the bank, disagreements about the size and shares of the bank’s
capital have not been resolved.”
The New
American took the other side, arguing the BRICS bank is a step closer toward a
world government: “Aside from a planetary fiat currency and central bank, the
erection of a true world government was at the heart of BRICS regimes’
machinations outlined in their final agreement.”
The
publication pointed out the BRICS declaration at the end of last week’s summit
included, “We reiterate our strong commitment to the United Nations (U.N.) as
the foremost multilateral forum entrusted with bringing about hope, peace,
order and sustainable development to the world.”
The BRICS
statement added, “[W]e reaffirmed our commitment to the promotion of
international law, multilateralism and the central role of the United Nations.”
BRICS
clearly sees a reshaped economic world in which government-run companies play a
significant role.
“We
acknowledge the important role that State Owned Companies (SOCs) play in the
economy and encourage our SOCs to explore ways of cooperation, exchange of
information and best practices,” the declaration states.
“As the
global economy is being reshaped, we are committed to exploring new models and
approaches towards more equitable development and inclusive global growth.”
Anticonceptivos
“Por la libre” Amenper.
Un juez federal
falló el viernes que las restricciones de edad a las ventas de la llamada
píldora del día siguiente son "arbitrarias, caprichosas e
irrazonables" y debe ponérseles fin a más tardar en 30 días
El fallo del juez de distrito Edward Korman de Nueva York indica que los consumidores de cualquier edad podrán adquirir contraceptivos de emergencia sin receta médica, en lugar de demostrar primero que tienen 17 años o más, como ocurre ahora. Y podría permitir que la píldora comercializada con el nombre "Plan B One-Step" se venda no sólo en las farmacias, sino también en otro tipo de tiendas.
El fallo del juez de distrito Edward Korman de Nueva York indica que los consumidores de cualquier edad podrán adquirir contraceptivos de emergencia sin receta médica, en lugar de demostrar primero que tienen 17 años o más, como ocurre ahora. Y podría permitir que la píldora comercializada con el nombre "Plan B One-Step" se venda no sólo en las farmacias, sino también en otro tipo de tiendas.
Ha habido
oposición a los anticonceptivos por diferentes
razones, políticas, morales, medicas, religiosas y seculares.
Yo me encuentro en la oposición
secular, moral y política y médica, no religiosa. Pero creo también que es el
derecho de la institución Católica Romana el negar proveer a sus trabajadores
con anticonceptivos, es su derecho aunque no creo que el uso de anticonceptivos
sea un pecado.
Pero tengo que apoyar el derecho de
una institución a defender sus principios religiosos.
Por otra parte, aunque he usado
métodos anticonceptivos, nunca he usado en mi matrimonio las tabletas
anticonceptivas, por reservas personales sobre su funcionamiento. Siempre
he creído que el desnivelar el sistema hormonal artificialmente, pudiera tener
efectos secundarios negativos.
Este juez de Nueva York a determinado
que una tableta conteniendo Lovonogeserol, una hormona sintética de la
progesterona, pueda obtenerse, hasta en los 7-11, sin necesidad de receta a los
adolescentes de cualquier edad. Hay que considerar que, con esta disposición,
un menor de 12 años puede comprar esta droga como si fuera un paquete de
M&M.
Desde el punto de vista médico, esta
droga tiene numerosos efectos secundarios y sólo debe de ser usada bajo
supervisión de un profesional de la medicina.
No es el control de la venta de los
anticonceptivos lo que es “Arbitrario, caprichoso e irrazonable”, lo que lo es,
sin lugar a dudas, es esta disposición legislativa de un miembro del poder
judicial sin calificaciones médicas.
Desde el punto de vista moral, es
incitar a los adolescentes al sexo libre fuera del matrimonio y desde temprana
edad, creando también la posibilidad de la proliferación de las enfermedades
venéreas.
Desde el punto de vista político este
juez está legislando contra el derecho de los padres,al interferir la
supervisión sobre sus hijos.
Desde el punto de vista religioso se
está atentando sobre la doctrina de familias que profesan la creencia contra el
uso de anticonceptivos. Esto va en contra de las tradiciones de la libertad de
culto.
Y todo esto es visto desde el
punto de vista de una persona como yo, que aunque soy cristiano, no creo que el
uso de anticonceptivos sea pecar contra Dios. El mandato de “creced y
Multiplicaos”, tiene que ser visto como algo relativo. Es como si le ordenamos
a un camarero que nos llene un vaso de agua y sigue echando agua en el vaso
lleno que se está desbordando.
Además el apóstol Pablo en su carta a
los Corintios dice “7:5 No os neguéis el uno al otro, a no ser por algún
tiempo de mutuo consentimiento, para ocuparos sosegadamente en la oración; y
volved a juntaros en uno, para que no os tiente Satanás a causa de vuestra
incontinencia”.
O sea, que
el sexo no es sólo para la procreación, pero también es parte de la comunión
corporal del matrimonio, sin limitaciones.
Pero el uso indiscriminado de
los anticonceptivos no puede legislarse y mucho menos por un juez.
Sabado 6, de Abril del 2013
Sr. Barack Hussein Obama,
Presidente de Los Estados Unidos de América.
Estimados Amigos.
Con estupor escuche ayer al
presidente de los Estados Unidos decir que le iba a ofrecer al Congreso “cortes”
de los gastos del Social Security y del Medicare para que los congresistas aprobaran
el presupuesto propuesto por el.
En mi opinión, el presidente no tiene ningún tipo de
autoridad para ofrecer disminuir las pensiones del Social Security ni los
gastos del Medicare porque ese dinero no pertenece al presidente. ESE DINERO PERTENECE A LOS TRABAJADORES AMERICANOS
QUE CONTRIBUYERON DURANTE TODA SU VIDA LABORAL PARA CUANDO SE RETIRARAN
DISFRUTAR DE UNA SEGURIDAD SOCIAL PARA PASAR SU VEJES.
Ese dinero fue la
contribución de cada pago por parte de los trabajadores de un 7.5 % de su
salario más otro 7,5 % de los empleadores al retiro de los trabajadores en
América, o sea en total es el 15 % del salario devengado por cada pago.
Asumiendo que los pagos sean
mensuales, que en realidad casi siempre son semanales o quincenales y eso haría
matemáticamente mayor la ganancia de los intereses de este dinero,
tendremos que pagando solamente un 4% de
interés anual a una persona que devengue $50,000 anualmente. Y tomo el 4% para
tomar lo más bajo de la escala porque cuando yo llegue a los Estados Unidos
durante el Gobierno de Ronald Reagan se llegó a pagar hasta el 12% de interés
bancario y ahora los prestamos son de aproximadamente el 4% de interés.
A cada trabajador se le
descontaría anualmente el 15% de $50,000 que son anualmente $7,500 anuales,
unos $625.00 mensuales que ganarían un 4% de interés $25.00 dólares anuales
unos $2.08 mensuales en total eso hace mensualmente $627.08 pero al mes
siguiente contribuiría de nuevo con otros $627.08 y el dinero del mes anterior
habría ya ganado otro 4% que haría un total de $627.08 X 4% =>
627.08 + 25.08 + 627.08 = 1,279.24 en el segundo mes (Por la magia del
interés compuesto.) Y este proceso matemático seguiría creciendo hasta cifras
inmensas de dinero que nosotros acumularíamos, DURANTE TODA NUESTRA VIDA
LABORAL QUE ES DE 45 AñOS AVERAGE, con
cada pago al Seguro Social que es nuestro y no del gobierno. ESE DINERO ES
NUESTRO Y NINGUN PRESIDENTE, NI NADIE, LO PUEDE OFRECER COMO PRESA PARA QUE LOS
QUE HASTA AHORA SE HAN COMPORTADO COMO “UNOS ESTUPIDOS”. NUESTROS QUERIDISIMOS
SENADORES Y REPRESENTANTES EN EL CONGRESO.
Ese dinero no lo puede tocar NADIE ni usar en ninguna otra cosa que no
sea el pago del Social Security. NADIE TIENE EL PODER DE TOCAR ESTO.
Ya este individuo que nos
gastamos de presidente intento chantajearnos hace unos meses atrás diciendo que
iba a suspender los pagos del Social Security por problemas económicos. Aparentemente el Social Security debía
llamarse el Social Insecurity porque en manos de este presidente todo se
desvanece y todo va a la bancarrota. Este presidente tiene la “virtud” de
convertir los dineros del gobierno en vacaciones para él y su familia. Este
presidente usa el Social Security como carta de chantaje. Y no nos vamos a
dejar chantajear, porque NO NOS DA LA GANA.
Mire señor y le digo señor
por no llamarle de otra forma. TOCAR LOS DINEROS DEL SOCIAL SECURITY ES UN ROBO
DESCARADO. NO SE ATREVA PORQUE LOS RETIRADOS NO NOS VAMOS A QUEDAR SENTADOS EN
NUESTRAS CASA VIENDO COMO USTED HACE ESO CON NUESTRO DINERO.
Mire los viejos no tenemos
mucho que perder y yo estoy seguro que usted no quiere ver unos cuantos millones
de viejos inundando Washington.
JUEGUE CON LA CADENA PERO NO
JUEGUE CON EL MONO.
Yo estoy seguro que hay
muchísimos abogados que quieren hacer carrera y estarían dispuestos a llevar un caso como este
a la corte suprema y catapultarse a posiciones que le harían ganar mucho dinero
y esto es un caso que esta ganado porque ese dinero es nuestro y tratar de
quitárnoslo es un robo, más que un robo es UN CRIMEN.
Esta es mi opinión y mi más
enérgica protesta contra esta estafa y amenaza
con las que nos amenaza el Señor presidente de los Estados Unidos.
Lázaro R González Miño
The worst fears of progressive groups were confirmed Friday: President Obama's budget will include cuts to Social Security. But the call has gone out, and liberals are fighting back.
By Linda Feldmann | Christian
Science Monitor – 5 hrs ago
Liberal
groups issued a primal scream Friday over the news that President Obama’s budget next week will include
cuts to Social
Security.
The
president is proposing a new formula to calculate inflation, called “chained CPI,” effectively reducing annual increases in the
payments to most seniors. This would come as part of a compromise on deficit reduction with Republicans that would also include higher
taxes on the wealthy and increased spending on some domestic programs such as
infrastructure.
But to
progressive advocacy groups, compromising upfront on social safety-net programs
equals surrender, and they will have none of that. Supporters’ (and reporters’)
in-boxes exploded Friday with indignant reactions and suggestions of betrayal.
Petitions are circulating. Funds are being raised.
Mr. Obama may have stuck his hand in a hornet’s nest,
but having been safely reelected, he may feel he can take the gamble of
alienating some of his supporters in the name of trying to reach a deal. But
voices on the left disagree.
“The
president’s decision to include cuts to Social
Security benefits in his budget is wrong policy and dumb politics,”
writes Roger Hickey, co-director of the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF). “His chained CPI plan is wrong
because it hurts Americans who have worked hard their entire lives and who need
the support that Social Security gives them.
It is wrong because Social Security is financed separately and does not
contribute to the deficit.”
It is
“dumb” politically, Mr. Hickey continues, because now Republicans will call chained CPI a Democratic
proposal and will attack Democrats in the next election for trying to
cut Social Security.
In another
e-mail, CAF made a pitch for donations. “Social Security represents America at
its best, and now it is up to you to defend it,” writes the group’s other
co-director, Robert Borosage.
MoveOn.org and former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich released a video and petition
Friday urging Obama to drop chained CPI and propose instead a higher cap on
income subject to Social Security taxes.
“Social
Security is not driving the deficit; therefore it should not be part of reforms
aimed at cutting the deficit. The chained CPI, deceptively portrayed as a
reasonable cost of living adjustment, is a cut to Social Security that would
hurt seniors,” Mr. Reich says.
“There are
several sensible reforms to Social Security that should be considered to help
make it sustainable, including lifting the ceiling on income subject to Social
Security from $113,700 to $200,000 or more, as well as instituting a 1 percent
raise in the payroll tax rate, a rate that hasn't changed in over 20 years,”
Reich adds.
Jim Dean,
chairman of Democracy for America – and brother of former Democratic
National Committee
chairman Howard Dean – called the news that Obama’s
budget would include cuts to Social Security “a shot across the bow for the
progressives who called their neighbors, spent weekends knocking doors, and
donated millions to reelect him.”
An e-mail
from Mr. Dean links to a petition aimed at Congress.
“President
Obama thinks Democrats will fall in line behind these proposals,” Dean
continues. “If we can show that there is enormous opposition to these Social
Security cuts, we can pressure Democrats in Congress to take these devastating
cuts off the table.”
Where the
liberal outrage will lead is uncertain. There’s plenty in Obama’s forthcoming
budget that the Republicans have already rejected out of hand, including more
tax increases after those they conceded in the Dec. 31 "fiscal cliff"
deal.
Political
analysts already see the chances of a grand bargain on deficit reduction
between Obama and the Republicans as a long shot. So maybe the
hyperpartisanship of Washington will keep chained CPI from becoming
a reality. But in the progressive world, nobody’s taking any chances.
. “EN MI OPINION” .
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
No comments:
Post a Comment