“En mi opinión” , IN GOD WE TRUST.
.No 387 Mayo 20, 2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
En mi opinión, Los Estados Unidos se encuentran en el
peor momento de su historia. Nunca antes nuestro país había sido atacado
tan fiera y descarnadamente. Estamos en una situación peor que en cualquiera de
las guerras mundiales, guerras contra Inglaterra o guerras de secesión y de
todos los atentados musulmanes que hemos enfrentado. Hoy tenemos el enemigo
dentro de nuestro país. Esta vez el cabecilla de los ataques a la nación americana
es el presidente de Los Estados Unidos, Barack Hussein Obama. Este es la
persona que en mi opinión, está dirigiendo la destrucción de nuestro país. La desmoralización
de la nación avanza a pasos agigantados cada minuto. Ahora es casi un delito mencionar
siquiera la palabra DIOS, los maricones y las tortilleras están en los lugares más
encumbrados de las posiciones políticas y de dirección; el manejo de la economía
nacional va dirigido al desastre total, los funcionarios del gobierno que están
a cargo de la protección de los derechos de los ciudadanos ahora conspiran y
atacan a los ciudadanos que juraron defender. El presidente musulmán dirige una
campaña despiadada para destruir la constitución de la nación que ha sido el
faro que ha guiado al país por más de 200 años por sendero de prosperidad y
respeto. El país se hunde en un desempleo y una deuda que ya navega rápidamente
a los 17 Trillones de dólares. Este musulmán presidente pretende disminuir el
poder de nuestras fuerzas armadas nucleares en un tercio de su poder disuasivo.
Este presidente musulmán mantiene más de 50 millones de americanos con
subsidios de desempleo y bonos de comida y alojamiento gratis pagados por los pocos
que trabajan. Los ciudadanos americanos nos sentimos acosados y aplastados por
el gobierno. Y los partidos de oposición y las fuerzas vivas de la nación, se
pasan la vida hablando estupideces y no hacen lo que tienen que hacer. Nosotros
los americanos no estamos de acuerdo con el estado de la situación y ya nuestra
paciencia está llegando al borde y nos sentimos compulsados a tomar soluciones drásticas.
Que DIOS ponga su mano para que de una forma civilizada y pacifica se pueda
sacar de ahí a todos los traidores y ponerlos tras las rejas de una prisión y
que los americanos podamos regresar a vivir en la nación libre, soberana y
prospera que nos legaron nuestros próceres.
Lázaro R González Miño
In my opinion, the United States
is in the worst time of its history. Never
before our country had been attacked so fiercely and starkly. We
are in a worse situation than in either of the world wars, wars against England
or wars of secession and all muslims who have faced attacks. Today we have the enemy
within our country. This
time the leader of the attacks on the American nation is the president of the
United States, Barack Hussein Obama. This
is the person who in my opinion is directing the destruction of our country. The
demoralization of the nation is making strides every minute. Now
it is almost a crime to even mention the word GOD, fags and dykes are in the
most exalted of political positions and leadership, the management of the
national economy is aimed at total disaster, government officials in charge protection
of the rights of citizens conspire now and attack the citizens they swore to
defend. Muslim
President directs a ruthless campaign to destroy the constitution of the nation
that has been the beacon that has guided the country for more than 200 years of
prosperity and respect trail. The
country is sinking into unemployment and debt and quickly navigates to the 17
Trillion dollars deficit. This
Muslim president aims to reduce the power of our nuclear forces in a third of
its deterrent power. This
Muslim president maintains more than 50 million Americans with unemployment
benefits and food stamps and free housing paid by the few working. American
citizens felt harassed and crushed by the government. And
the opposition parties and the living forces of the nation, they spend their
lives talking nonsense and do what they have to do. We
Americans do not agree with the state of the situation and because our patience
is approaching the edge and we are collated to take drastic solutions. May
GOD put your hand to a civilized and peaceful way to get there is all the
traitors and put them behind the bars of a prison and the Americans can return
to live in the free, sovereign and prosperous that we inherited from our heroes.
Lázaro R González Miño
Descubierto culpable de los escándalos amenper
El procurador
general nombró a Alfred Newman, también conocido como “hopeless“ como
investigador especial,para tratar de descubrir al culpable de los
acontecimientos que están preocupando a la ciudadanía.
Alfred Newman
acaba de anunciar a la prensa que ha detenido al culpable de todos los
acontecimientos.
“Primero interroué a todas las figuras del gobierno, el
depuesto comisionado del IRS, la secretaria de estado en el timpo de los
acontecimientos, Hillary Clinton, el procurador general y hasta al presidente
Osama. Todos declararon que se enteraron de los hechos por los períodicos
y que no sabían nada de ninguno de los hechos Mi experiencia investigativa me hizo
comprender que la culpa la tenía el Totí, y procedí a detenerlo”.
El Totí que se encuentra detenido dijo a los periodistas que él es inocente. “Soy un pajarito tranquilo, ni canto ni como frutas, no sé porque me echan la culpa de todo. Creo que es prejuicio porque soy negro Pero creo que en este caso lo que le pasa al investigador Newman es que se ha confundido de negro.
The Real I.R.S. Scandal
By SHEILA KRUMHOLZ and ROBERT WEINBERGER Published: May 15, 2013 276 Comments
The I.R.S. is
in the hot seat for scrutinizing conservative groups applying for tax
exemption. But do all 501(c)(4)'s need a second look? I.R.S. Chief Out After Protest Over
Scrutiny of Groups
(May 16, 2013)
· Management Flaws at I.R.S. Cited in Tea Party Scrutiny (May 15, 2013)
Related in Opinion
· Editorial: Take Politics Away From the I.R.S. (May 16, 2013)
· Taking Note: Is the I.R.S. an Independent Agency? (May 14, 2013) For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers’ Comments
Readers
shared their thoughts on this article.
NEWS that employees at the
Internal Revenue Service targeted groups with “Tea Party” or “patriot” in their
name for special scrutiny has raised pious alarms among some lawmakers and
editorial writers. Yes, the I.R.S. may have been worse than clumsy in considering an avalanche of applications for nonprofit status under the tax code, and that deserves scrutiny whether or not the agency’s employees were spurred by partisan motives. After all, some of these “tea party” groups are most likely not innocent nonprofit organizations devoted to the cultural significance of hot beverages — or to other, more civic, virtues. Rather, they and others are groups that may be illegally spending a majority of their resources on political activity while manipulating the tax code to hide their donors and evade taxes (the unwritten rule being that no more than 49 percent of a group’s resources can be used for political purposes).
The near vertical ascent in political spending by these “dark money” groups was prompted by the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, among others, freeing them to be more active in this realm.
And it’s a bipartisan scandal, though it’s hard to tell that judging by the names some groups have adopted — as the I.R.S. should know. Can you tell which of these lean left and which ones right? Patriot Majority USA, Crossroads GPS, American Future Fund and the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund. (Nos. 1 and 4 are liberal, 2 and 3 are conservative.)
The majority of the organizations that appear to be most politically active — from groups that run their own ads, like American Action Network and Americans for Prosperity, to the mysterious Center to Protect Patient Rights, which distributes money to other political groups — already have exempt status. There’s little evidence that the I.R.S. is looking into these groups.
The latest news will make that job more difficult. It’s unfortunate and unacceptable that these groups may have received more scrutiny and suspicion than they deserved — the I.R.S. reportedly even asked what books their leaders were reading.
But even more regrettable is the long-term damage to the credibility of the I.R.S. as an impartial arbiter of whether organizations merit tax-exempt status. This will be difficult to undo, particularly because of the secrecy required for the agency to effectively examine organizations without generating doubts about them, as well as to prevent other organizations from coming up with strategies to evade scrutiny in the future.
Indeed, the latest revelations are not the first to cause pushback by Congressional conservatives. In 2011, tax authorities considered applying the gift tax to large contributions to 501(c)(4) groups, and they sent letters to a handful of big donors informing them they may be taxed. The agency received a swift and forceful response from the Republican senators Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, John Kyl of Arizona and others demanding to know whether the I.R.S. was acting on the basis of partisanship.
The agency folded like wet cardboard: the deputy commissioner took the extraordinary step of ending the audits in progress. (That official, who has been the acting head of the agency, was fired yesterday by the president.)
Now Republicans like Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania are saying the search criteria used by the I.R.S. are “akin to an enemies list,” like the one kept by President Richard M. Nixon.
Mr. Toomey, it should be noted, has personal experience with these groups: in his last race, in 2010, he benefited from the outside spending of conservative 501(c)(4) groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition and Crossroads GPS, founded by Karl Rove. In fact, such groups spent $17.6 million on his behalf, while liberal counterparts spent $12.8 million helping his Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak.
With the surge of dark money into politics, we need to ensure that the I.R.S. is capable of rigorously enforcing the law in a nonpartisan, but also more effective, way. While we focus on the rickety raft of minor Tea Party groups targeted by the I.R.S., there is an entire fleet of big spenders that are operating with apparent impunity.
Congress has already announced hearings and investigations, and the service’s leadership will be grilled, as it should be. But it would be a travesty if the misdeeds here undermined the important work that must now be done to foster greater transparency, and to bolster confidence that the I.R.S. is in fact scrutinizing politically active groups across the board, regardless of their ideological bent.
Citizens need to rest assured that the integrity of our political system is intact. But achieving that assurance will take more than a tempest in a teapot.
Sheila Krumholz is the executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, where Robert Weinberger is the chairman of the board.
Obama [In-]Eligibility: Sworn Affidavit Provides Hundreds of Reasons to Determine Ineligibility
Keep in mind that this is not a press conference, but an affidavit submitted to a court. It is no longer a matter of just making information known, but this is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by Mr. Zullo under an oath which is administered by an authorized person to do so by law.There is much that we have covered here (at FreedomOutpost.com) regarding Obama’s eligibility. We’ve covered his background on a number of issues as well as the fraud of his birth certificate and history. The affidavit is far too long for a simple article, so we are making it available for you to read through. Without further ado, here is the complete text of the affidavit, along with relevant images.
View the
Affidavit: http://freedomoutpost.com/
Eric Holder Has No Idea
May 17, 2013 by News Editor Attorney General Eric Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday; and he didn’t know, wasn’t sure of, or simply couldn’t remember a lot of information.
http://www.westernjournalism.com/eric-holder-has-no-idea/
NO SE PIERDAN ESTO. VEANLO Y DESPUES QUE LO VEAN Y OIGAN ME ENVIAN UN E-MAIL DICIENDOME QUE COSA EL SABE Y QUE “c” DIJO????
Who Will Guard Us From Our Guardians?
The government scandals of the day are packed with irony: from the seizure of reporters’ phone record to the bungling in Benghazi; from the president’s slight of Thomas Jefferson to the IRS targeting opponents of big government. If Woody Allen, Carol Brunette, Mark Twain, and anyone else who made the observation that comedy is tragedy plus time are correct, perhaps this will be the fodder of funny men in the future, much as Monty Python tried to milk a few laughs from the Black Plague from the safe distance of 600 years.
But the Plague wasn’t funny then to the hundreds of millions who lived through it and died from it. And there is not much laughing room now in watching our government grow more lawless by the day.
Nothing can really top the irony of President Obama’s belittling just days ago of people who say we need to be aware that governments can become tyrannical. Presumably, Obama’s disdain extends to people like Thomas Jefferson who have warned about the need for vigilance against government abuse.
Such people “gum up the works,” said Obama.
What works, specifically, are those? The answer came within only days with the discovery that the IRS was politicizing enforcement of tax provisions. To make the irony complete, that story was immediately followed by news that the Justice department was snooping on reporters’ phone records without benefit of court orders or warrants.
The news that the Justice Department has been snooping through reporters’ phone records at least got the attention of the news media. It would be nice if the media were as concerned with the rest of the government’s neglect of the Constitution. It would be nice to see the lapdog press turn into the watchdog press.
Speaking of ironies, there are probably many in the media who don’t at all mind the IRS targeting opponents of big government – Tea Partiers and those interested in the Constitution – just as there are probably many conservatives who really don’t mind big government harassing big media.
Just when you think all of that is enough, we get the news that the Justice Department, itself suspected of gross indifference to the formalities of warrants, is now charged with investigating the IRS, which is indifferent to just about everything.
Meanwhile, those shocked – shocked, I tell you – to discover that the IRS has politicized tax enforcement are either wet behind the ears, or just dangerously naïve. We know that presidents from FDR to Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all used the IRS to target their opponents.
But use of the IRS as a weapon has not been limited to the executive branch. In a Wall Street Journal column (“A Brief History of IRS Political Targeting,” 5/14/2013), James Bovard recounts episodes of congressional abuse, for example of “an IRS official who had explained at an IRS meeting in San Francisco that audit requests from members of Congress or their staff had been shredded and also suggested how future requests from Capitol Hill could be camouflaged.”
Of the same practice used again, Bovard reports, “Audit requests from congressmen were marked ‘expedite’ or ‘hot politically’ and IRS officials were obliged to respond within 15 days. Permitting congressmen to secretly and effortlessly sic G-men on whomever they pleased epitomized official Washington’s contempt for average Americans and fair play. But because the abuse was bipartisan, there was little enthusiasm on Capitol Hill for an investigation.”
Sadly, it is true that the only time there is enthusiasm on Capitol Hill is when an investigation can produce partisan victories and electoral advantage. That would explain Capitol Hill’s interest in the Benghazi fiasco: If Hillary can be neutralized, and if Democrats can be faulted for mishandling Benghazi, Republicans are on the case. But their interest stops dead in its track at the question of what we were up to in Libya to begin with. After all, both Republican and Democrat fingerprints are all over the intervention in Libya. And if the government was using Benghazi as a staging area to run guns to rebels in Syria – fighters uncomfortably similar to Al Qaeda - then nobody wants to know.
The death of Ambassador Stevens and other Americans in Benghazi is a tragedy; but if the so-called diplomatic mission there was a CIA base, we deserve to know. We do know that whatever it was in Benghazi, it wasn’t an embassy. Or a consulate.
If the ambassador was really a CIA agent, that is a violation of our laws. We deserve to know. There is no law that commits the United States to protect illegal gunrunning. And there is no diplomatic immunity for weapons dealers.
Where would the Benghazi trail lead if Congress cared about more than their own political fortunes? Here’s a hint: what we do know is that of the people evacuated by air from Benghazi the night of the attack, seven were diplomatic and State Department workers. Twenty-three were CIA officers.
So from illegal operations overseas (does anybody remember a Constitutional declaration of war that authorized the U.S. to topple the government in Libya?) to snoops in the Justice department; from the targeting of political opponents by the IRS to a Congress concerned solely with the next election; from one badly stained department of government charged with investigating another to the president’s derision of Jeffersonian vigilance; from all this we are left to ask: who will guard us from our guardians?
Maybe it will all prove to be hysterically funny with the passage of enough time.
But for now, Ron Paul deserves apologies from those who, like Obama, believed that his calls for us to be vigilant about intrusive government were over the top.
Charles Goyette is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Dollar Meltdown. His new book is Red and Blue and Broke All Over: Restoring America’s Free Economy.
This article is taken from Charles Goyette’s Freedom & Prosperity Letter, a monthly political and financial newsletter, helping Americans protect themselves and their families. GO HERE.
Congressman: Obama A Tyrannical Despot http://www.westernjournalism.com/congressman-obama-a-tyrannical-despot/
Federal Court Slams Obama’s Abuse Of Constitution
The ruling by the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia came on the same day that a Senate panel considered a slate of five nominees for full terms on the labor board. Senate Republicans said Thursday they would oppose two of the nominees — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — because they currently sit on the board as recess appointments.
In its 2-1 decision ruling, the appeals court said that under the Constitution recess appointments can be made only between sessions of the Senate, not any time the Senate is away on a break.
The court’s action mirrors a far-reaching ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., earlier this year. The Obama administration has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an interpretation would invalidate hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents over more than 100 years.
The latest ruling says Obama had no constitutional authority to install attorney Craig Becker to the labor board in 2010 while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks. Becker is no longer on the board.
Obama Charged With War Crimes
The result of a zombie nation voting for “Change You Can Believe In?” The Middle East is seething with the Muslim Brotherhood vying with al-Qaeda for power. Our economy is about to collapse with an unsustainable $17 trillion national debt. Inflation is rampant. The Fed’s endless pumping is making the dollar worthless, and millions of people are out of work or have quit looking.
Obama is now embroiled in a huge coverup over Benghazi. He created a Tea Party enemies list through the IRS that makes Nixon look like a amateur. And last but not least, Obama’s chief apologist (the Associated Press) has discovered that their Pied Piper Obama used his magic flute not to charm them but to spy on them.
No problem. We’re just talking about failing to rescue Americans under attack, using Chicago thug tactics to silence your critics, and nullifying the First Amendment. It’s not that bad, is it?
Oh, but that’s not the half of it.
Obama has gone on a rampage by remote control, using drones to take out so-called “high-value” al-Qaeda targets. The only problem is that for every al-Qaeda target he takes out, scores of civilians—mostly women and children—are killed as “collateral damage.”
There are estimates as high as 98% of drone strike casualties being civilians (50 for every one “suspected terrorist”). The Bureau of Investigative Journalism issued a report detailing how the CIA is deliberately targeting those who show up after the sight of an attack, rescuers, and mourners at funerals as a part of a “double-tap” strategy eerily reminiscent of methods used by terrorist groups like Hamas.
Obama has killed thousands of civilians in order to prove to the American people that “al-Qaeda is on the run,” a fantasy only Obama and his minions believe.
Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a war-monger.
Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single high value target on a funeral procession! According to Dirty Wars:
Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help…they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”
According to Dirty Wars, this was simply one of the dozens of attacks on civilians in order to take out a single or handful of al-Qaeda suspects. The thousands of civilians that Barack Hussein Obama has murdered amounts to genocide.
Oh, but that’s not the half of it.
A nonpartisan group, The Constitution Project, in their mammoth 600-page report, has concluded that Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of the United States, should be indicted for war crimes in the authorization or coverup of the use of torture during interrogation on detainees at Guantánamo and CIA “black sites.”
Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, the Constitution Project’s mammoth study, “Task Force on Detainee Treatment“, has come to the conclusion that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of crimes against humanity.
In countless court cases and testimony, former and current detainees and witnesses report extensive use of torture.
According to the Constitution Project report, page 369, describing the court case Abdah v. Obama, Barack Hussein Obama secretly authorized the use of torture that included the prisoner being:
- Suspended from the ceiling
- Repeatedly drugged
- Whipped with electric cables
- Kept awake for days while being interrogated
- Shackled for days in complete darkness
Former naval captain and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Dr. Steve Pieczenik, along with countless others, have called for an internationally-led Nuremberg-style trial to begin immediately in order to indict and try Barack Hussein Obama for war crimes.
Step-by-step, America. First, we must impeach Obama for abandoning our brave Americans in Benghazi. First, we must impeach him for using the IRS to punish his enemies. First, we must impeach him for nullifying the First Amendment by spying on the press. And then the world can get on with finding Barack Hussein Obama guilty of war crimes.
Caudillismo. Amenper.
Ausencia de
consenso político y las teorías de gobierno utópicas son las que causan el
caudillismo en un pueblo. El socialismo encontróó una ventana por donde asociar el marxismo
con el caudillismo para obtener el poder.
En la Cuba
pre-Castro el caudillismo
fue clave para las dictaduras y para las luchas entre los partidos políticos.
El poder de los caudillos se basaba en el apoyo de fracciones importantes de
las masas populares, o de las instituciones militares, no tenía nada que ver
con la democracia representativa.
El caudillo era
el responsable de todo, los otros poderes estaban sujetos al caudillo. En mi
tiempo el caudillismo machista era predominante e indispensable para la
aceptación popular, el coraje revolucionario era mejor visto que la
intelectualidad, para que un partido político tuviera aceptación popular tenía
que tener el nombre “revolucionario”.
La revolución
contra Machado, creó un número de caudillos, todos con una percepción de
mecanismos informales y difusos de reconocimiento del liderazgo por parte del
pueblo. Todo esto desbocó en el máximo caudillo revolucionario, Fidel
Castro, el inventor del caudillismo latinoamericano aplicado al socialismo, un
modelo que ahora azota a la región
En los Estados
Unidos, el respeto a la separación de poderes limitaba la posibilidad de
caudillismo, cuando un gobernante era inepto, su ineptitud se controlaba por
las instituciones independientes, y la libertad de prensa mantenía al pueblo
bien informado para elegir a otro candidato en las elecciones por venir. Lo
vimos con el presidente Jimmy Carter, posiblemente el peor presidente que había
tenido los Estados Unidos, hasta el presente, pero su daño fue controlado y su
mandato fue corto.
Entonces ¿Cómo
ha caído este país en el caudillismo con Obama?
Sin lugar a
dudas la complicidad de los medios informativos fue lo que lo hizo posible. Las
especulaciones son numerosas, pero el hecho es que aquí lo tenemos, el
primer presidente caudillista norteamericano.
Como en el caso
de Fidel Castro que siempre ha gobernado por discurso, Obama también gobierna
por discurso.
Es una pérdida
de tiempo las sesiones del congreso para buscar culpables de los escándalos, el
origen se produce en los discursos de Obama. Los que ejecutaron los
deseos del caudillo son parte del sistema caudillista, reamente son incautos
seguidores del caudillo. Ellos mismos no se dan cuenta por que hicieron lo que
hicieron. La culpabilidad es del caudillo, pero su culpabilidad directa nunca
se encontrará.
Cuando
Obama menciona a una persona o a un grupo conservador, la voz del
caudillo es una orden, y el poder judicial, el senado o en este caso el
Internal Revenue Service, tiene que aceptar la voluntad del caudillo y ejecutar
sus deseos.
Quizás a
Obama y a Holdaer se le fue la rosca cuando atacaron al cuarto poder en
el caso de los periodistas de la Associated Press. Nos queda ver cómo
sale Obama de estos enredos con la clase periodista que han sido sus
aliados. Quizás haya pensado que ya está afianzado y no le hacen falta.
Estamos viviendo
tiempos interesantes, parece que estamos viviendo una novela de intrigas, y
esta es una novela que me gustaría que tuviera un buen final.
Los Jueces Federales
Son Los Que Ordenan, Legislan
y Mandan
Y Suspenden las Leyes Aprobadas. Ricardo Samitier.
Los Jueces Demócratas Nunca Han
Le Han Fallado… A su Partido… Siempre Votan A Favor De Causas Comunistas… Los
Nombrados Por Los Republicanos Han
Traicionando Sus Principios En Un 50% De Los Casos Siendo El Más Notorio John Roberts Jefe De La Corte Suprema Quien Decidió Que El
Obama Care Es Un Impuesto Y
Hizo La Ley De Obama El Sistema Médicos De
USA… En California Otro Juez Decidió
Que El Pueblo Que Voto Contra El Matrimonio Homosexual… No Sabía Votar Y Anuló Esas Elecciones… Ahora Otro Juez Anula La Ley Aprobada En Alabama
Por Mayoría Absoluta De Los Congresistas Electos Por el
Pueblo… Quienes Anularon Hasta El Veto Del
Gobernador Porque según él Es Inconstitucional… La Verdad Es Que Ya No Se Necesitan Los Congresistas Electos Por El Pueblo… Los Jueces Nombrados De
DEDO Por Los Presidentes… Son Los Que TIENEN LA ULTIMA
PALABRA… Por cierto… aunque es bien conocido que los
llamados sin razón lógica “GAY”
(ALEGRES)
Quienes
en verdad son MASOQUISTAS están sobre REPRESENTADOS en
la JUDICATURA… pues ya son el 21% de los jueces… En Miami tenemos DOS JUECES… QUE SE ENAMORARON Y dieron una FIESTA… No se casaron pues en la Florida… Todavía no está aprobada la UNION ABERRO-SEXUAL… Pero públicamente en la Fiesta FIRMARON un
contrato de “VIVIR JUNTOS DE POR
VIDA… que ROMANTICO… y estos DOS MASOQUISTAS aberrados son los que hacen justicia al 98% DE LA POBLACIÓN que NO SON MARICONES…
Jensen: Obama's History of Intimidation and Duplicitous Behavior
By
Rick Jensen May 17, 2013 12:19 pm
President Obama wants you to believe he is the Sergeant Schultz of
unlawfully targeted IRS harassments: "I know nussink! I see nussink! I
didn't even leave ze fundraiser zees mornink!"President Roosevelt used the IRS to intimidate and exact revenge on political enemies. Richard Nixon, JFK and Clinton co-opted the agency into a partisan sledgehammer designed to ruin lives and crush honest political opposition.
John Andrew's 2002 book, "The Power to Destroy," unearths these dank political corpses, destroying whatever naive notions you may have of those storybook figures.
What's most heinous is that a President would use the IRS to intimidate and harass ordinary Americans who believe a smaller, more effective government is best for their country and legally enjoy their constitutional right to assembly, sharing knowledge and education with fellow citizens.
Apparently, that's a serious threat to Mr. Obama.
The idea that a small group of rogue Midwestern agents decided to ruin their careers by illegally targeting nonprofit organizations whose names include the words "Tea Party" or "Patriot" and had a mission of constitutional education is absurd. It's even more absurd when you know the history of former presidents who have misused the IRS combined with the history of President Obama.
Here are some examples of the President's previous duplicitous behavior:
Mr. Obama has often regaled supporters with an emotional delivery of his "Thanks for your vote; I wish I could close Guantanamo" monologue.
Constitutional lawyers have written gigabytes on how Obama can close Guantanamo.
The ways to do it include applying the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, giving the president power to wage war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. The NDAA authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants and forbids him from transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil.
The NDAA does not ban the President from releasing detainees. Lawyers have written that section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them. That's all he has to do. It may not be a very bright thing to do, but he can do it.
The President also has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaeda by declaring our War on Terror with al-Qaeda is over. Ended. Done.
Such a declaration would result in the release of all the Guantanamo prisoners.
Do you think he really believes in the green energy schemes and was tricked by really smart campaign bundlers, or, rather, that he knew all along from government accountants and analysts that these companies were going bankrupt and he just wanted their millions of campaign dollars?
Report after report shows the Obama administration knew these companies were going bankrupt and that some of their technologies would not work. Still, the millions of dollars in bundled campaign contributions from their executives and commissioned venture capital firms flowed into Democratic bank accounts.
Billions of taxpayer dollars then flowed into the green scheme accounts of companies like bankrupt Solyndra, Abound Solar, SpectraWatt and Evergreen Solar.
He has used his executive power to obstruct the investigation into ATF gun-running to Mexican drug lords and is blocking the testimony of a Benghazi whistleblower.
His marketing group, Organizing for America, is engaged in a smear campaign of another Benghazi whistleblower, veteran diplomat Gregory Hicks.
President Obama and Eric Holder have also been caught spying on Associated Press reporters, stealing records of outgoing calls for both the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery.
If you can ignore these behaviors and many more, then perhaps the idea that our President was unaware of his IRS illegally intimidating and harassing innocent fellow Americans is possible.
Perhaps you can also believe he wasn't behind this illegal harassment and intimidation of innocent fellow Americans that just happened to occur during the last Presidential election cycle.
Perhaps.
-----
© Copyright 2013 Rick Jensen, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.
Rick Jensen is Delaware's Award-Winning Conservative Talk Show Host on 1150AM WDEL and 93.7FM HD3, Streaming live on WDEL.Com from 1pm — 4pm EST. Contact Rick at rick@wdel.com, or follow him on Twitter@JensenVoiceover.
Second federal court says Obama exceeded his power with recess appointments
By
Associated Press
May 17, 2013 6:43 am
WASHINGTON - A second federal appeals court
has found that President Barack Obama exceeded his power when he bypassed the
Senate to install a member to the National Labor Relations Board.The ruling by the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia came on the same day that a Senate panel considered a slate of five nominees for full terms on the labor board. Senate Republicans said Thursday they would oppose two of the nominees - Sharon Block and Richard Griffin - because they currently sit on the board as recess appointments.
In its 2-1 decision ruling, the appeals court said that under the Constitution recess appointments can be made only between sessions of the Senate, not any time the Senate is away on a break.
The court's action mirrors a far-reaching ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., earlier this year. The Obama administration has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, arguing that such an interpretation would invalidate hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents over more than 100 years.
The latest ruling says Obama had no constitutional authority to install attorney Craig Becker to the labor board in 2010 while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks. Becker is no longer on the board.
The White House declined to comment Thursday.
Both rulings have threatened to throw the labor board, the Consumer Financial Protection Board and other federal agencies with recess appointees into chaos. If they stand, hundreds of decisions by these agencies could be thrown out, reaching back several years.
The narrow interpretation of a president's recess appointment power would also effectively make it impossible for the president to ever use that power, giving the Senate's ability to block administration nominees indefinitely.
Obama has made 32 recess appointments during his presidency, nearly all of which would be considered invalid under the interpretation of these courts. The rulings could also threaten the recess appointments of previous presidents. President George W. Bush made 141 such appointments in eight years.
On Capitol Hill, Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he would not consider Block and Griffin because they refused to step down from the board after the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that they were unconstitutionally appointed. Block and Griffin said they wanted to abide by their oath to serve their country and argued that appeals courts have reached different conclusions about recess powers.
Democrats on the panel accused Republicans of obstructionism because the GOP and its allies in the business community have been unhappy with some of the union-friendly decisions issued by the board during Obama's administration. Unions warn that unless the nominees are confirmed soon, the board will be unable to function. It only has three members now, and the term of board chairman Mark Pearce expires in August.
In the 3rd Circuit case, the two-judge majority rejected the Obama administration's arguments that a Senate recess occurs any time lawmakers do not have a duty to attend, the Senate chamber is empty and the Senate cannot receive messages from the president.
"Defining recess in this way would eviscerate the divided-powers framework" of the Constitution, Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in a 102-page decision. "If the Senate refused to confirm a president's nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate's constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening."
Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was joined in his opinion by Judge Franklin Stuart Van Antwerpen, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.
A lengthy dissent came from Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr., who was appointed by Obama and joined the court in 2010. Greenaway said that under the majority's decision, the recess appointment power "is essentially neutered and the president's ability to make recess appointments would be eviscerated."
The strong dissent in the 3rd Circuit case makes it more likely the Supreme Court will decide to take up the issue when its new term begins in the fall, said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
"This situation will continue making it difficult for the NLRB and other agencies to operate," Tobias said.
The case was brought by New Vista, a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitative care center that argued its nurses were supervisors who were not allowed to form a union. The labor board ruled in favor of the union and New Vista appealed. The company argued that the board did not have enough validly appointed members to reach a decision because Becker was not a valid appointee.
The labor board has five seats and needs at least three sitting members to conduct business. At the time of the New Vista ruling, it had the minimum of three, but one member was Becker, the recess appointee.
Becker is no longer on the NLRB, but the current board also has only three members, two of whom are Obama recess appointees. More than a hundred companies have appealed NLRB decisions this year arguing that the board does not have enough validly appointed members to conduct business.
Obama admin released 32 felons from immigration detention (Seguro que se sentia solo)
By
Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) May 17, 2013 6:45 am
A detainee who had a felony
second degree robbery and countless convictions for prostitution and
solicitation for lewd conduct was among more than 300 people Immigration and
Customs Enforcement officials in Phoenix released in February as part of a
nationwide operation to save money.Anticipating budget cuts due in part to sequestration, ICE released from custody 2,226 detainees -- 342 in Arizona -- in February, a move that took many by surprise.
More than 600 detainees with criminal records, including 32 with multiple felony convictions were released nationwide, according to new information provided by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, a Democrat from Michigan.
The Phoenix office also released a detainee who had prior convictions for carrying a loaded firearm, DUI with a controlled substance, felony possession of drugs, second degree burglary, vandalism, and trespassing and another one convicted of an extreme case of driving under the influence and harassment, the news releases from the senators said.
The Department of Homeland Security re-apprehended 24 of the 32 detainees with felony convictions who had been freed and used alternatives to detention such as ankle bracelets for the remaining eight. It's not known how many of the 32 felons were released from detention facilities in Arizona.
Seven Democrat senators sent letter asking IRS to investigate groups…
By
New Hampshire Union Leader May 17, 2013 6:58 am
U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen,
D-N.H., and six other Democratic senators last year urged IRS Commissioner
Donald Shulman to investigate social-welfare organizations that get involved in
politics, an indication of political concern on the left over the IRS
tax-treatment given to politically active groups.New Hampshire Republicans said Shaheen should explain the 2012 letter sent to the IRS. Party Executive Director Matthew Slater said serious questions exist about whether the efforts "contributed to the outrageous practices that took place at the agency."
But the IRS had targeted Tea Party, Patriot and 9/11 groups starting in March 2010, according to Treasury Department watchdog report. That was nearly two years before Shaheen signed her name to the Feb. 16, 2012, letter.
The senators' letter makes no mention of the ideological leanings of the organizations, nor does it name any. The senators raise issue with tax-exempt status issued to "social-welfare organizations" that are formed to advocate for a political candidate or run attack ads against other candidates.
"The letter speaks for itself. Senator Shaheen asked the IRS to look into all groups -- regardless of their partisan leanings -- that might be exploiting the tax code for political purposes," said Shaheen spokesman Shripal Shah.
However, one of the seven senators -- Michael Bennett of Colorado -- issued a press release alongside the letter complaining about Republican operative Karl Rove's links to the organizations. Shaheen's office never issued a press release about her signing onto the letter, Shah said.
Last Friday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called on the FBI to investigate the IRS practices. House committees have scheduled hearings into the practice, and on Wednesday House Speaker John Boehner asked "who's going to jail over this scandal?" the Washington Post reported.
On Wednesday afternoon, Shaheen called on the IRS inspector general to undertake a complete audit of the tax-collecting agency.
"In light of these abuses, and in the interest of fairness for all taxpayers, we need a full and thorough audit of all of the IRS's practices. Only then will the IRS be able to regain faith and trust of the American public," Shaheen said.
Also Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., signed onto a letter with other Senate Republicans, calling on the president and his administration to cooperate fully with a Congressional investigation into the matter.
"This type of purely political scrutiny being conducted by an Executive Branch Agency is yet another completely inexcusable attempt to chill the speech of political opponents and those who would question their government, consistent with a broader pattern of intimidation by arms of your administration to silence political dissent," the letter reads.
Statements by Shaheen's office also noted her disapproval of the IRS.
Had the IRS adopted the bright line test for the 501(c)(4) organizations that the senators had called for, "the current IRS scandal may not have occurred." Of course, the IRS abuse had already been going on for two years when the senators wrote their letter.
The explanation? "If there was guidance in the first place, there wouldn't have been a need to call for guidance," Shah said.
Shaheen has been an advocate for more disclosure of the 501(c)4 groups. Unlike political action committees, the organizations receive tax-exempt status and do not have to disclose their donors.
In a July 17, 2012, speech on the Senate floor, Shaheen supported legislation to enact reporting requirements for the groups.
In the speech, she mentioned how the Koch brothers -- conservatives who bankroll groups such as Americans for Prosperity -- receive money from the oil industry and organizations that oppose environmental regulations, unions and campaign spending reform.
"As long as these donor lists are kept secret, there's no accountability for what these ads say," reads the floor speech, available on Shaheen's Senate website.
New Hampshire Democrats dismissed Republican concerns about Shaheen's 2012 letter, calling it a desperate attempt to distract from vile comments made by Republicans.
"It is impossible to read any NHGOP press release about the IRS with a straight face when their current chair owes more than $92,000 in unpaid taxes to the IRS," said party spokesman Harrell Kirstein.
BENGHAZI: LA VERDAD SE ABRE PASO.
Por Alfredo M. Cepero
Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero
Como
tantas otras naciones, los Estados Unidos tienen numerosos capítulos negros en
el curso de su historia. El más reciente es el abandono a manos de terroristas
islámicos de cuatro servidores públicos norteamericanos en el convulso frente
diplomático del Medio Oriente. Pero el hecho, de por sí un acto de cobardía,
adquiere proporciones de repugnancia cuando consideramos la trama elaborada
para encubrir la complicidad y la negligencia del gobierno de Obama que
condujeron al asesinato de esos cuatro norteamericanos. Veamos las tres piezas vitales del macabro rompecabezas. Primero, el Departamento de Estado, como demuestra un correo electrónico firmado por la Secretaria Hillary Clinton y mantenido en secreto hasta hace pocos días, se negó a aumentar las medidas de seguridad solicitadas por los diplomáticos destacados en Libia. Segundo, el gobierno de Obama se negó a proporcionar ayuda militar a los diplomáticos bajo ataque, a pesar de contar con información en tiempo real de la masacre que estaban teniendo lugar en Benghazi. Tercero, funcionarios de alto nivel de la Casa Blanca y del Departamento de Estado, con la complicidad de la prensa comprometida con la reelección de Obama, difundieron la falsa versión de que los ataques contra el consulado norteamericano en Benghazi habían sido motivados por un video insultante a la religión musulmana.
Pero, antes de continuar, quiero reclamar el crédito que no me reconocerán los defensores a ultranza del Presidente Obama. Durante el candente proceso electoral de 2012, cuando la noticia era ignorada por la gran prensa norteamericana, en un artículo que titulé "BENGHAZI: UN WATERGATE SANGRIENTO", escribí: "Pero, como se demostró en el escándalo de Watergate, no importa lo mucho que mintamos, la verdad tarde o temprano predomina sobre la mentira. Porque ninguna cantidad de torpes encubrimientos podrá ocultar el hecho de que, aunque Bin Laden esté muerto, al Qaida sigue matando americanos y que estos últimos fueron víctimas de la megalomanía y la insensibilidad de un hombre obseso por ser reelecto".
Los acontecimiento de la última semana me han dado la razón. Ya no son solamente Fox News y comentaristas catalogados de derecha como Sean Hannity quienes están confrontando las mentiras y las contradicciones en que ha incurrido el gobierno para ocultar lo acontecido en Benghazi. Algunos en la prensa de izquierda parecen tener una cierta reserva de pudor que les impide seguir siendo parte del encubrimiento. Y esto podría resultar fatal para Obama.
La indignación ha llegado a tal punto, que el Secretario de Prensa de la Casa Blanca, Jay Carney, fue sometido la semana pasada a una andanada de incisivas preguntas por un cuerpo de corresponsales que hasta la víspera habían ignorado todo acontecimiento negativo para la reputación del Presidente. El corresponsal de la cadena televisiva ABC lo cuestionó sobre quienes habían sido los autores de las 12 versiones diferentes de las falsas declaraciones formuladas por la Embajadora Susan Rice. En el curso de cinco comparecencias televisadas el domingo 16 de septiembre de 2012, cinco días después de la masacre del 11 de septiembre en Benghazi, la Embajadora Rice atribuyó los ataques en Benghazi a un video insultante a la religión musulmana producido en los Estados Unidos.
Los hechos posteriores han demostrado que, al día siguiente del ataque, todo el mundo que era alguien en el gobierno de Obama sabía que había sido un ataque terrorista desatado por militantes del grupo terrorista Ansar al-Sharia, afiliado a la Al Qaida que, durante la campaña política por la presidencia, Obama había hecho alarde de haber aniquilado. Ahora bien, la única mentirosa no fue Susan Rice. Catorce días después del ataque, el Presidente Obama repitió SEIS VECES la misma patraña del video ante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas.
Los pragmáticos podrían decir que las mentiras de Obama fueron características de la conducta de cualquier político que aspire a conservar su cargo en el curso de una apretada contienda electoral. Para esos señores quiero citar un incidente revelador del cinismo y la insensibilidad del hombre que hoy habita la Casa Blanca, según fue relatado por la madre de Sean Smith, una de las cuatro víctimas, al conductor de Fox News, Bill O'Reilly.
De acuerdo con la señora Smith, durante el acto de repatriación de los cadáveres el 14 de septiembre de 2012 en la Base Aérea de Andrews, cerca de Washington, el Presidente Obama le expresó sus condolencias por la pérdida de su hijo. Pero agárrense, Obama le prometió, mirándole a los ojos, que el gobierno llevaría ante la justicia a los responsable de estos asesinatos, sobre todo al autor del video difamatorio contra el Islam. No hay licencia que pueda justificar ni exonerar semejante bajeza y menos en boca del presidente de todos los norteamericanos a una madre atormentada por la muerte de su hijo.
Pero, a la mentira, tenemos que añadir la complicidad del Presidente y de la Secretaria de Estado en las muertes de estos hombres. Hillary, se negó a aumentar la seguridad en las sedes diplomáticas y Obama se negó a dar la orden de ayuda militar que, como comandante en Jefe, tenía el poder y el deber de dar. Veamos los hechos según han ido saliendo a la luz.
Gregory N. Hicks, el segundo del asesinado Embajador Stevens, declaró hace una semana ante el congreso que se ordenó a los miembros de los servicios especiales que no viajaran de Trípoli a Benghazi a las seis de la mañana del día de los hechos para proteger al consulado. El 26 de abril, un testigo presencial del ataque declaró a Fox News: "Yo sé con certeza que C110 estaban realizando servicios de entrenamiento en la región de Europa y del Norte de África desde donde tenían la capacidad de asistir a los sitiados". En esos momentos, Obama se había ido a la cama sin dar las urgentes órdenes de ayuda y en preparación para su viaje al día siguiente a Las Vegas con el objeto de recaudar fondos para su campaña de reelección. Una campaña que no pondría en peligro enfrentando a terroristas supuestamente diezmados y, por ende, forzado a admitir sus fanfarronadas sobre la aniquilación de al-Qaida. En la disyuntiva entre conservar el poder y salvar las vidas de cuatro seres humanos perdieron los seres humanos.
Sin embargo, todo parece indicar que el sueño de reelección y grandeza de Obama aquella noche de septiembre de 2012 podría transformarse en pesadilla durante el resto de su presidencia. Irónicamente, la misma pesadilla de un Richard Nixon que ganó las elecciones después de Watergate para caer más tarde en desgracia víctima de su arrogancia y su indiferencia. Los dos extremos podría muy bien tocarse en un futuro cercano.
El testimonio de tres funcionarios de carrera como Gregory Hicks, Mark Thompson y Eric Nordstrom no puede ser catalogado de vendetta política de la derecha republicana ni ignorado por la prensa, por mucho que esta quiera proteger a su mesías. Porque si esa prensa continuara apoyando a Obama en su encubrimiento de esta infamia perdería el poco prestigio que le queda en el público norteamericano. Además, ¿puede alguien pensar que haya elementos de derecha entre los burócratas del Departamento de Estado, la más zurda de las dependencias del gobierno federal?
Por otra parte, después de sufrir amenazas y destituciones los tres hombres han acudido a abogados experimentados en los laberintos de la burocracia de Washington como Joseph diGenova y Victoria Toensing. Estos tres testigos no parecen estar dispuestos a correr la suerte infame de las víctimas de Benghazi. Según el lenguaje vernáculo de los campesinos cubanos, a Obama se le ha puesto la caña a tres trozos.
Todo esto lo pone ante el imperativo de mantener a toda costa el control del senado en las elecciones parciales de 2014.Un senado controlado por los demócratas es su última carta de garantía para impedir una investigación exhaustiva y el riesgo de un juicio ante dicho organismo. A diferencias de los republicanos, que sumaron sus votos a los de los demócratas para enjuiciar a Nixon, los demócratas cierran el círculo alrededor de sus delincuentes sin el más mínimo reparo de moralidad o principios. Prueba al canto, la inmunidad que le otorgaron a un Clinton cuando el niño malo de Arkansas cometió perjurio en el juicio con motivo de su ataque sexual a Paula Jones.
Por el momento, la Cámara de Representantes, bajo control republicano, ha dado a la publicidad los informes de media docena de sus comités donde se pone al descubierto la elaborada campaña para ocultar la verdad y asignar responsabilidades en esta tragedia. Muchos proponen la creación de un Comité Especial similar al que investigó la debacle de Watergate. Pero, de una u otra manera, no tengamos dudas de que esta vez se llegará a la verdad total. Lo demandan los familiares de las víctimas, lo merecen los hombres y mujeres que sirven a los Estados Unidos en lugares remotos del mundo y lo reclama el elemental sentido de justicia que sirve de piedra angular al estado de derecho y a la convivencia civilizada.
La Nueva Nación es una publicación independiente cuyas metas son la defensa de la libertad, la preservación de la democracia y la promoción de la libre empresa. Visítenos en : http://www.lanuevanacion.com
The Feds Want Your Retirement Accounts
Quietly, behind the scenes, the groundwork is being laid for federal
government confiscation of tax-deferred retirement accounts such as IRAs.
Slowly, the cat is being let out of the bag.
Last January 18th, in a little noticed interview of Richard
Cordray, acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Bloomberg
reported "[t]he U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [CFPB] is
weighing whether it should take on a role in helping Americans manage the $19.4
trillion they have put into retirement savings, a move that would be the
agency's first foray into consumer investments." That thought
generates some skepticism, as aptly expressed by the Richard Terrell cartoon
published by American Thinker.
Days later On January 24th President Obama renominated Cordray as CFPB
director even though his recess appointment was not due to expire until the end
of 2013.
One day later, in the first significant resistance to President Obama's
concentration of presidential power, a three judge panel of the U.S. Court of
Appeals in Washington DC unanimously said that Obama's
Recess Appointments to the National Labor Relations Board are
unconstitutional. Similar litigation testing the Cordray appointment to
the CFPB is in the pipeline.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) created by the 2,319 page
Dodd-Frank legislation is a new and little known bureau with wide-ranging
powers. Placed within the Federal Reserve, a corporation privately owned
by member banks, the CFPB is insulated from oversight by either the President
or Congress, its budget not subject to legislative control. It is not
even clear that a new President can replace the CFPB director on taking
office.
Unusual legal and political environments have a significant impact on the
CFPB. With Cordray's recess appointment in doubt several questions remain
unanswered.
1) What will become of the CFPB when Cordray's appointment is found
invalid? An indicator comes from the NRLB, which operated
unconstitutionally for years without a quorum. In 2007 the Senate
threatened no NLRB nominations reported out of committee.
The NLRB continued operating with two members. Then a Supreme
Court ruling in June of 2010 invalidated the NLRB decisions for lack of a quorum. Fisher & Phillips give the
details about what was done next.
But recovery from the Supreme Court's sting was quick, with Liebman and
Schaumber still on the Board and with two new Members confirmed, ... the
suddenly full-strength Board simply added a new Member to the "rump
panel" of the original decisions and managed to rubber-stamp many of the
disputed Orders - at a record-setting pace - with the same result...
This may explain why President Obama renominated Cordray a year
early. Once confirmed Cordray can rubber-stamp decisions made while he
was unconstitutionally appointed. Otherwise those decisions will be invalidated.
2) What will the CFPB do with your money? The CFPB incursion into
individual personal savings, in order to control how you invest your money,
isn't a new idea. Current proposals grew from a policy analysis as disclosed by
Roger
Hedgecock.
On Nov. 20, 2007, Theresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic policy
analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, presented a paper
proposing that the feds eliminate the tax deferral for private retirement
accounts, confiscate the balance of those accounts, give each worker a $600
annual "contribution," assess a mandatory savings tax on every worker
and guarantee a 3 percent rate of return on the newly titled "Guaranteed
Retirement Accounts," or GRAs.
How would that be accomplished? The Carolina Journal reported Ghilarducci's
2008 testimony to Nancy Pelosi's House.
Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals
to confiscate workers' personal retirement accounts "including 401(k)s and
IRAs" and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security
Administration.
Your Government universal GRA investment savings account is an annuity
managed by Social Security. Hedgecock noted '[m]ake no mistake here:
Obama is after your retirement money. The "annuities" will
"invest" not in the familiar packages of bond and stock mutual funds
but in the Treasury debt!'
By 2010 Bloomberg published an article titled
"US Government Takes Two More Steps Toward Nationalization of Private
Retirement Account Assets." In that article Patrick Heller observed that,
with Democrat control of Congress and the Presidency:
[I]n mid-September 2010 the Departments of Labor and Treasury held
hearings on the next step toward achieving Ghilarducci's goals. The stated
purpose was to require all private plans to offer retirees an option to elect
an annuity. The "behind-the-scenes" purpose for this step was to get
people used to the idea that the retirement assets they had accumulated would
no longer be part of their estate when they died.
So the Government would get the money, not the estate or family of the
people who saved the money during a lifetime of work. That's a one
hundred percent death tax on savings. Worse, the most responsible and poorest
families will be penalized.
Democrats had a blueprint for diverting people's savings from private
investment to government debt. Then in 2010 the Tea Party won the
house...
3) Why should the Government intervene in people's savings
decisions? The justifications for Government intervention in private
financial decisions are varied. Panic over the economy, Wall Street,
mandating savings equity, eliminating investment risk, financial crisis losses,
retirement security, much-needed oversight, your 401K becomes a 201K, shoddy
financial products, and predatory investment bankers are just a few.
If the financial industry is so predatory, how is it possible that
savers keep any money? More importantly, we have all those government
agencies, FDIC, FINRA, SEC, Labor Department, Treasury Department, NCUA, Office
of Thrift Supervision, FHFA, NCUSIF, Comptroller of the Currency, Office of
Foreign Assets Control, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, hundreds
of criminal penalties, and state level regulators. Are we admitting the
Government is incapable of policing criminal and predatory behavior? Do
we have invincible predators plundering the people, or do politicians Cry Wolf?
And about that crisis in the economy. Former Congressman Barney
Frank, one of the authors of Dodd-Frank, admitted to Larry
Kudlow that Government was to blame for the housing crisis.
Professor Ghilarducci said "humans
often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain
a savings plan." Professor Ghilarducci tells us that people are
flawed, no argument there.
Her solution, substitute Government decisions for the judgment of the
millions of people who actually earned and saved the money. She fails to
mention the government bureaucrats wielding the power to compel you to comply
are themselves imperfect. Which is preferable, one faulty Government
solution or millions of individual free choices?
4) Are there other forces pushing Government to confiscate people's
savings? With $16 trillion in debt the short answer is yes. When
governments embark on a path of spending money they don't have, they resort to
financial repression. According to Wikipedia:
Financial repression is any of the measures that governments employ to
channel funds to themselves, that, in a deregulated market, would go elsewhere.
Financial repression can be particularly effective at liquidating debt.
Do we have any evidence that the US Government is pursuing financial
repression? Yes we do. Jeff Cox at CNBC.
"US and European regulators are essentially forcing banks to buy up their
own government's debt-a move that could end up making the debt crisis even
worse, a Citigroup analysis says."
An Investors Business Daily article, Banks Pressured to Buy Government Debts, notes that
"[b]anks can't say no. They fear the political fallout. So they meekly
submit to the government's dictates."
Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal reports that
"[i]n 2011, the Fed purchased a stunning 61% of Treasury
issuance." Then a CNS News article revealed
that "[s]o far this calendar year [2013], the Federal Reserve has
bought up more U.S. government debt than the U.S. Treasury has issued."
5) Is the health of Social Security (SS) a factor? There are several
potential measures of when Social Security retirement goes broke. One
measure is when FICA tax income doesn't cover the cost of retirement
checks. We have passed that point already. Others say that SS is
fine until the lock box runs out of special issue bonds (IOUs).
Even though the SS bonds in the lock box cannot be sold on the open market,
the Treasury Department remains under political pressure to honor that
obligation by borrowing real cash to redeem the IOUs. At least
until the IOUs in the lock box are gone. How long is that? Based on
a credible source, Bruce Krasting at Zerohedge suggests not
long.
SS consists of two different pieces. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance
(OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Both entities have their own Trust Funds
(TF). OASI has a big TF that will, in theory, allow for SS retirement benefits
to be paid for another 15+ years. On the other hand, the DI fund will run
completely dry during the 1stQ of 2016.
So Krasting expects the President and Congress will soon be forced to
choose between 4 solutions:
1 Increase Income Taxes
2 Increase Payroll Taxes
3 Cut disability benefits by 30%
4 Kick the can down the road and raid the retirement fund to pay for
disability shortfalls.
Krasting predicts Congress and Obama will be behind door number four.
His credible source is the Congressional Budget Office report Social
Security Trust Fund--February 2013 Baseline. In the footnotes it projects
a $1 Trillion drain on the retirement fund which currently holds $2.8
Trillion. That's a loss of approximately one third of the retirement
IOUs.
Krasting however omits another possible solution, politicians can raid
private retirement savings to put more IOUs in the lock boxes and more real
money in the Treasury. Other people's money is a temptation and $19.4
Trillion is a very large temptation.
Social Security is the largest entitlement program with a trust fund of
$2.8 Trillion IOUs, soon to be reduced by another $1 Trillion. Can any
politician, addicted to spending, resist that temptation of $19.4
Trillion? That's real people's real money that will be spent by
Government in exchange for IOUs given to the SS lock box.
Meanwhile newly minted Senator Elizabeth Warren has entered the
debate. Conservatives and Republicans have challenged the CFPB in the
wake of the unconstitutional recess appointment. Bloomberg speculates that Warren
might agree to trim the CFPB powers in a compromise. Bloomberg reported:
"A strong independent consumer agency is good for families and
lenders that follow the rules and good for the economy as a whole," Warren
said yesterday in an interview. "I will keep fighting for that."
[snip]
Some observers have suggested that Warren's original support for a
commission-led bureau might mean she would be amenable to compromise on that
issue. Warren spokesman Dan Geldon said such speculation is mistaken.
"Senator Warren thinks the single director structure makes sense
and that CFPB should continue to be able to operate, like every other banking
regulator, without relying on appropriations for its funding," Geldon
said.
Bloomberg also notes that soon "the Senate will have to decide
whether to vote to confirm director Richard Cordray in his post, which would
make a legal challenge pointless."
Conservatives and Republicans challenge the surrender of legislative
power to the bureau, the concentrated power of a single director, the
unconstitutional recess appointments, and the violation of constitutional
separation of powers. The Republican position is the constitutional
questions and litigation presently underway should be resolved prior to
approving a director of CFPB.
The constitutional issues surrounding Dodd -- Frank and the CFPB are
beyond the space for this article. For those interested in the legal
issues, a good synopsis can be found at the Mark Levin Radio
Show podcast for February 18th. Mark is an attorney
and his Landmark Legal Foundation has argued many cases before the Supreme
Court. He can explain complex legal issues in straightforward language.
US Government To Decide How Much Is Enough For Your
Retirement
Welcome to the new US. Socialism always has the same predictable process. Once the government collectivizes a sector then the politicos and bureaucrats get to work on "improving the system". In a private enterprise, that'd mean offering more to your customers for a cheaper price. In government, it is always the opposite, finding ways to reduce benefits for their "customers".
This is why Obamacare is and will be a disaster to anyone interested in having quality medical care and choice in the US. Once the government uses its force to gain a monopoly on a sector like medical care then all of a sudden it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your own body. You smoke? You should be stopped! Don't wear a seatbelt? You should be fined. Why? Because we are all paying for each other's medical care and so it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your health because it could potentially cost them more money.
The same has been happening since the US government has had a multi-decade long monopoly on retirement savings (IRAs). Since they get to make the rules they get to decide just how much is enough for your retirement and that is exactly what will be happening next week when President Obama will be releasing his budget plan which will limit how much a wealthy individual can keep in those tax-reducing IRA plans and other retirement accounts.
According to a senior administration official, wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving"...and of course in the communist administration's eyes, that's a real shame. The job of government is of course to "level the playing field" by stealing from and putting up obstacles for those with "too much."
What is the "reasonable amount" that he thinks is enough? The numbers being bandied about seem to indicate $3 million. Sounds like quite a bit, right? Well, let's look further at the proposal.
"The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013."
So, according to them, $205,000 per year is sufficient and people should not be allowed to have more than that in retirement savings. But, remember, disbursements from an IRA are taxable, so that $205,000, if you lived in any number of states where total income taxes are over 50%, very quickly brings that number down to around $100,000 after theft... or tax as they call it. Of course, that is just the beginning of other payments to the state. Your average person with a $3 million IRA probably lives in at least a $1 million house. If that person lived in New Jersey where property tax averages 1.89% of property value, then you can take another $19,000 off of the remaining $100,000 for property tax payments to rent his own home.
Of course, there will be numerous - countless really - other taxes paid over the course of the year... gasoline tax, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and numerous others. But, even without including those we are already below $7,000/month.
But here is the real kicker. If that person did take the $205,000/year annuity, their retirement funds would only last them fourteen years. Of course, some may state that they could and should be earning a return during that time which will extend it.
But your average person who owns mostly 2% paying dividend stocks or 2% paying Treasuries is actually losing nearly 10% per year to monetary inflation. The US central bank's current rate of money printing - which does and will turn into price increases - is over 10%. If they are losing 8% per year on that $3 million then it will only be ten years before that $3 million is actually only worth $1.3 million in real dollars.
That $205,000 per annum, at today's monetary inflation rate, also will only be equivalent to $90,000 in ten years time. After all the taxes to be paid that person would be likely eating cat food just to survive.
These are the wonders of the American Dream today. It is turning into a nightmare. They have you coming and going from all sides. And then, if you manage to survive all the taxes and inflation, whatever remaining money you have left will be mostly gutted by the death tax. Yes, there is a tax to die in the land of the free. And don't try to commit suicide either. That's illegal.
Next Confiscation
This, of course, is the warm up for big confiscation of retirement account money later on... a topic that has already been discussed openly in Congress. I can't understand why anyone would put their money in a retirement vehicle under government control. That's like putting your child in a cage full of lions for safekeeping.
A much better option would be a self-directed IRA like the one we offer here at TDV. Also, did you know that you can buy real estate with your IRA? A good option would be real estate in another nation-state since the US government would have a very hard time confiscating that. You could invest in an income-producing condo in beautiful Acapulco, for example...or you could buy investment property in our burgeoning liberty-minded community at Galt's Gulch, Chile.
You could also invest in precious metals in a self-directed IRA and get a significant amount of them into jurisdictions that are much less likely to collapse in the coming years (for more on doing that, see Getting Your Gold Out Of Dodge - free to TDV subscribers). And it wouldn't hurt to take some of those savings and invest in a foreign passport in a place that doesn't view your assets as their own.
The central planners in the US and most Western governments have and will decide how much is "enough" for you to have and if you manage to still have significant assets after that, they'll continue to whittle them away via taxation and inflation. It's all easily predictable as this is where things always go once things are socialized or collectivized.
As Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
We don't suggest you wait much longer before removing yourself and your assets from a system set on ensuring the equal sharing of misery.
Welcome to the new US. Socialism always has the same predictable process. Once the government collectivizes a sector then the politicos and bureaucrats get to work on "improving the system". In a private enterprise, that'd mean offering more to your customers for a cheaper price. In government, it is always the opposite, finding ways to reduce benefits for their "customers".
This is why Obamacare is and will be a disaster to anyone interested in having quality medical care and choice in the US. Once the government uses its force to gain a monopoly on a sector like medical care then all of a sudden it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your own body. You smoke? You should be stopped! Don't wear a seatbelt? You should be fined. Why? Because we are all paying for each other's medical care and so it now becomes everyone else's business what you do with your health because it could potentially cost them more money.
The same has been happening since the US government has had a multi-decade long monopoly on retirement savings (IRAs). Since they get to make the rules they get to decide just how much is enough for your retirement and that is exactly what will be happening next week when President Obama will be releasing his budget plan which will limit how much a wealthy individual can keep in those tax-reducing IRA plans and other retirement accounts.
According to a senior administration official, wealthy taxpayers can currently “accumulate many millions of dollars in these accounts, substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement saving"...and of course in the communist administration's eyes, that's a real shame. The job of government is of course to "level the playing field" by stealing from and putting up obstacles for those with "too much."
What is the "reasonable amount" that he thinks is enough? The numbers being bandied about seem to indicate $3 million. Sounds like quite a bit, right? Well, let's look further at the proposal.
"The budget would limit an individual’s total balance across tax-preferred accounts to an amount sufficient to finance an annuity of not more than $205,000 per year in retirement, or about $3 million in 2013."
So, according to them, $205,000 per year is sufficient and people should not be allowed to have more than that in retirement savings. But, remember, disbursements from an IRA are taxable, so that $205,000, if you lived in any number of states where total income taxes are over 50%, very quickly brings that number down to around $100,000 after theft... or tax as they call it. Of course, that is just the beginning of other payments to the state. Your average person with a $3 million IRA probably lives in at least a $1 million house. If that person lived in New Jersey where property tax averages 1.89% of property value, then you can take another $19,000 off of the remaining $100,000 for property tax payments to rent his own home.
Of course, there will be numerous - countless really - other taxes paid over the course of the year... gasoline tax, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes and numerous others. But, even without including those we are already below $7,000/month.
But here is the real kicker. If that person did take the $205,000/year annuity, their retirement funds would only last them fourteen years. Of course, some may state that they could and should be earning a return during that time which will extend it.
But your average person who owns mostly 2% paying dividend stocks or 2% paying Treasuries is actually losing nearly 10% per year to monetary inflation. The US central bank's current rate of money printing - which does and will turn into price increases - is over 10%. If they are losing 8% per year on that $3 million then it will only be ten years before that $3 million is actually only worth $1.3 million in real dollars.
That $205,000 per annum, at today's monetary inflation rate, also will only be equivalent to $90,000 in ten years time. After all the taxes to be paid that person would be likely eating cat food just to survive.
These are the wonders of the American Dream today. It is turning into a nightmare. They have you coming and going from all sides. And then, if you manage to survive all the taxes and inflation, whatever remaining money you have left will be mostly gutted by the death tax. Yes, there is a tax to die in the land of the free. And don't try to commit suicide either. That's illegal.
Next Confiscation
This, of course, is the warm up for big confiscation of retirement account money later on... a topic that has already been discussed openly in Congress. I can't understand why anyone would put their money in a retirement vehicle under government control. That's like putting your child in a cage full of lions for safekeeping.
A much better option would be a self-directed IRA like the one we offer here at TDV. Also, did you know that you can buy real estate with your IRA? A good option would be real estate in another nation-state since the US government would have a very hard time confiscating that. You could invest in an income-producing condo in beautiful Acapulco, for example...or you could buy investment property in our burgeoning liberty-minded community at Galt's Gulch, Chile.
You could also invest in precious metals in a self-directed IRA and get a significant amount of them into jurisdictions that are much less likely to collapse in the coming years (for more on doing that, see Getting Your Gold Out Of Dodge - free to TDV subscribers). And it wouldn't hurt to take some of those savings and invest in a foreign passport in a place that doesn't view your assets as their own.
The central planners in the US and most Western governments have and will decide how much is "enough" for you to have and if you manage to still have significant assets after that, they'll continue to whittle them away via taxation and inflation. It's all easily predictable as this is where things always go once things are socialized or collectivized.
As Winston Churchill said, "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
We don't suggest you wait much longer before removing yourself and your assets from a system set on ensuring the equal sharing of misery.
|
|||
|
This is a Freebie campaign from Pray For US - Pray
For The United States. You can send FaxGrams at absolutely no cost to five powerful House GOP Members today. |
|||
|
|||
|
For our specialized list for this campaign, we've chosen
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa,
Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte and Financial Service Chairman Jeb Hensarling. Just as the Pharisees conspired against Jesus, the Obama administration has been conspiring with Eric Holder to destroy Christians, patriots and anyone else who disagrees with Mr. Obama's policies. This scandal of the Justice Department is about much more than spying on the reporters for the Associated Press. Many of those reporters work in Washington, D.C. and speak to Members of Congress as confidential sources. Eric Holder very likely had his Justice Department attorneys spying on conservatives in Congress. The reporters' phone records were just the mechanism to do so. Holder has recused himself from the investigation because he was DIRECTLY INVOLVED in the decision to violate the First Amendment rights of these reporters and Congress Members. Please call for Eric Holder's impeachment today! Send FaxGrams to Congress and tell them to boot Holder out of office under Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority to impeach Cabinet members of the Obama administration such as Eric Holder. |
|||
|
|||
|
We're not charging for this campaign. We'll pick up
the cost of your faxes. In exchange, all we ask is that you pass the word on and share this message with as many people as possible. Send this link to your family members, friends and acquaintances in an email:
https://grassroots.cc/17418_130516_P4US_FB_Impeach_Eric_Holder
It's also a tremendous help to us when you share
this message on social media channels, such as Twitter and Facebook. You can
do so by using the buttons at the bottom of this message.Sincerely, |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Eric Holder: It Wasn’t Me!
Scapegoat or guilty party? Grilled on Capitol Hill
today, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed that it was his No. 2, Deputy
Attorney General James Cole, who gave the order to subpoena the Associated
Press's phone records, an intrusion that has set off a scandal for the Obama
administration. Earlier in the day, Holder said he could only "assume"
that Cole (a childhood friend ... ouch) had signed the order as part of an
investigation into the AP’s sourcing for an al Qaeda story. But later Holder
said he could confirm as much. As for himself, Holder said he had recused
himself from the AP sourcing probe entirely.
IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office.
BREAKING NEWS! IRS Official in Charge During Tea Party Targeting Now Runs Health Care Office...Read the latest now on TeaParty.org
ACTION: You asked for it! I am standing up against Obama right now, will you? “The President’s actions are a threat to this nation,” For these, and other offenses, which constitute high crimes and misdemeanors, we call for the immediate Impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama.
The Tea Party wants to send this urgent and personalized Blast Fax message to ALL 100 U.S. Senators AND ALL 435 U.S. Representatives at their DC offices.
Are you ready to be counted in our fight to Restore America?
TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast FAX to ALL 535 Members of Congress NOW!
View Your Fax Message
FAX BLAST all 100 Senators and 435 Congressmen one (1) time
OR
CLUSTER FAX: FAX BLAST all 100 Senators and 435 U.S. Representatives two (2) times
Thanks for standing with me, Tea Party
“EMO” Y pa’mi ni miren que yo si no tuve nada que ver con ese descaro inmundo. LRGM
Students Forced To Fund Lecture By Prostitutes
While I expect – and even encourage – universities to offer presentations by those with whom I disagree ideologically, today’s leftist administrators rarely allow any traditional speakers to counterbalance that exposure.
A recent series of lectures by prostitutes and strippers at the University of New Hampshire shows the outrageous lengths schools will go to legitimize and normalize immoral lifestyles.
Adding further insult to the conference is the fact that students compulsorily funded it through mandatory student activity fees. About half of the roughly $2,250 it cost to host the obscene antics came from that fund.
Self-described “sex worker” Kitty Stryker began a petition to collect both money and signatures to show support for the college in giving hookers “a voice when so many would rather silence us.”
The event was organized as part of a class assignment and received sponsorships from campus groups (including Queer Studies and Voices of Planned Parenthood, among others.)
While the objectionable content of the lectures obviously disturbed many students, the issue of financial waste was also a major concern.
Young Americans for Prosperity New Hampshire Director Greg Moore wanted to learn more about funding for the workshop and filed the necessary paperwork to attain that information.
With college costs skyrocketing in recent years, he said that a rally on behalf of prostitution used “funds that could be used elsewhere to keep tuition down.”
There are two very good reasons this conference should have been nipped in the bud; one is moral and the other financial. Unfortunately, leftists are notoriously unresponsive to reason in both categories.
Mario Vargas LLosa escribió: ¿Cómo
es eso posible?
|
SÍ, LLORO POR
TI ARGENTINA.
Durísimo
artículo de Mario Vargas Llosa.
Argentina, un país que era democrático cuando tres cuartas partes de
Europa no lo eran, un país que era uno de los más prósperos de la Tierra cuando
América Latina era un continente de hambrientos, de atrasados.
El primer país del mundo que acabó con el analfabetismo no fue
Estados Unidos, no fue Francia, fue la Argentina con un sistema educativo que
era un ejemplo para todo el mundo. Ese país que era un país de vanguardia
¿Como puede ser que sea el país empobrecido, caótico, subdesarrollado que es
hoy? ¿Qué pasó? ¿Alguien lo invadió? ¿Estuvieron enfrascados en alguna guerra
terrible?
No, los argentinos se hicieron eso ellos mismos. Los argentinos
eligieron a lo largo de medio siglo las peores opciones.
¿Cómo se entiende eso? Un país con gentes cultas, absolutamente
privilegiado, una minoría de habitantes en un enorme territorio que concentra
todos los recursos naturales. ¿Por qué no son el primer país de la Tierra?
¿Por qué no tienen el mismo nivel de vida que Suecia, que Suiza que Chile?
Porque los argentinos no han querido. Han querido en cambio ser
pobres. Seguir a “caudillos” de pacotilla, “salvadores” de porquería, locos,
desquiciados por su mismo odio a todo lo que sea diferente a su locura. Han
querido vivir bajo dictaduras, han querido vivir dentro del mercantilismo más
espantoso. Hay en esto una responsabilidad del pueblo argentino.
Para mí es espantoso lo que ha
ocurrido en Argentina. La primera vez que fui allí quedé maravillado. Un país
de clases medias, donde no había pobres en el sentido latinoamericano de la
pobreza. ¿Cómo pudo llegar a la presidencia una pareja tan diabólica,
manipuladora, populistas en grado extremo, corruptos de calle como los
Kirchner gobernando ese país?. Al menos ya uno no está!.
Esperemos que la
que queda no pueda seguir hundiendo a ese otrora gran país argentino!
Sin embargo, a juzgar por sus
diabólicas relaciones estrechísimas con el
desquiciado, paria, bestia troglodita, de la extinta y queridísima República
de Venezuela, todo parece indicar que ahora “Cristinita” se apegará aún más a
ese escoria, aprendiz de dictadorzuelo, quien ya bastante le ha financiado su
mandato a costa del noble pero incomprensiblemente inerte pueblo Venezolano.
¡Qué degradación política, qué
degradación intelectual! Argentina y Venezuela, dos países extraordinarios
vueltos pedazos por una sarta de demoníacos desquiciados!!! Por eso me
pregunto ¿Cómo es eso posible?
Mario Vargas
Llosa
Madrid, España
|
|
|
|
Help Protect America's Future by
becoming a National Security Fellow with Secure America Now. We bring
critical security issues to the forefront of the American debate. Ensure your
place on exclusive security conference calls with national security leaders
as well as earn your invitations to high-level Secure America Now debriefings
and events.
|
|
|
|
Para comentarios, sugerencias, aportes, artículos,
noticias, opiniones, ideas, o sugerencias enviarlos a los e-mails:
Para leer o
revisar publicaciones anteriores ir a los Blogs:
MrLazaroRGonzalez.blogspot.com,
EnMiOpinionLazaroRGonzalez.blogspot.com,
Para
ver nuestros Flash en Facebook:
. “EN MI OPINION” .
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE” Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
No comments:
Post a Comment