¡Impeach
obama!
No 414 6/19/13 “En mi opinión” Lázaro R
González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
¡Que el
congreso americano no tiene otra alternativa que hacerle un juicio de destitución
(IMPEACHMEN) a obama, no admite dudas!
La pregunta es porque el congreso no ha iniciado la recopilación
de pruebas y testimonios para iniciarlo y ganarlo. Los desmanes que ha cometido
el gobierno actual no son ningún secreto, se discuten todos los días por la
prensa y los norteamericanos. Hasta las naciones amigas (Que son pocas) y enemigas de USA están clamando
que eliminen a este individuo de la presidencia del país más poderoso del
mundo. Este “presidente” se ha atrevido a espiar no solo a sus enemigos políticos
sino a los ciudadanos comunes, se ha metido en sus teléfonos, computadoras y
hasta en sus reuniones privadas para husmear hasta en sus problemas personales
como la salud y cuánto gana y quiénes son sus amigos. Ha utilizado a los
departamentos del gobierno para espiar a una escala gigantesca los movimientos
de los norteamericanos y sin embargo no espía a los musulmanes que pusieron las
bombas y ni siquiera acepto las advertencias de los rusos sobre estos canallas.
Pero no solo eso es que ahora pretende aliarse con los que causaron la muerte
de casi 3,000 norteamericanos cuando el ataque talibán de las Torres Gemelas. Le
sigue pagando miles de dólares en la cárcel al musulmán que asesino a los
soldados en el fuerte de Texas. Está participando en ayudar a los enemigos de
los USA en la guerra de Siria en detrimento de la seguridad de Israel. La economía
del país nunca ha estado en un estado más desastroso desde la gran depresión y
este individuo no solo no tiene la intención de sanearla sino de ponerla aun
peor. Ha inventado un plan de salud que es un locura y una estupidez que no
tiene la menor posibilidad de implantarse sin crear un inmenso sisma en el cual
todos saldremos perdiendo. Este presidente no ha pasado ni un solo presupuesto
aprobado por el congreso. Ha hundido a la nación en la más horrible deuda que
ya se acerca a los 17 trillones de dólares. Es mayor que el de todos los
presidentes anteriores combinados. Y eso no tiene la menor intención de ser
resuelto. La pobreza de los norteamericanos ha regresado a la época de Kennedy
y Lindón Johnson con más de 50 millones de pobres que viven por debajo del
nivel de pobreza. Más de 30 millones están en los planes de “Food Stamps” La cantidad de personas en planes de viviendas
subsidiadas por el gobierno es mayor que en cualquier etapa pasada, son mas que
todos los habitantes de España. En el 2000 = 17.2 millones. 2004 = 23,8
Millones, 2008 = 28.2 millones y 2012 = 46,6 millones. El porciento de personas
trabajando es más bajo que cuando Jimmy Carter 63%. Los empleados “part time”
ha subido escandalosamente en parte gracias al fatídico obamacare. Los deshabilitados
están en el record de 10’ 978, 040 Los deshabilitados son más que TODAS las
personas que viven en los estados de Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, New
Jersey o Virginia. El desempleo de los negros es el 15% el más alto desde 1980.
Por orden de este inepto todos los meses se ordena de IMPRIMIR MILES DE
MILLONES SIN NINGUN RESPALDO en la economía
de USA. Esto es una locura, EL NOVEL DE DESVALORACION DEL DÓLAR ES CADA VEZ
PEOR. El índice de la producción industrial ha caído hasta el 5.2% negativo. La
caída de las ventas domésticas se arrastra en un 16%. Este presidente que no
hace nada correcto, es él ocupante de la casa blanca que más dinero público ha
gastado en vacaciones. ¿QUE
ES LO QUE ESPERA EL CONGRESO POR EMPEZAR UN JUICIO DE DESTITUCION DE ESTE
INDIVIDUO QUE ESTA DESTRUYENDO A ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA? “En mi opinión” Lázaro R González
Miño
LA CORTE
SUPREMA Alberto Pérez.
La Corte
Suprema tal como está evolucionando el poder judicial, es un peligro para la
democracia.
En vez de ser
una defensa de la constitución como debiera ser, ell poder judicial está
cambiando su condición de juzgar para ser un organismo legislativo, con
atribuciones superiores a las cámaras legislativas elegidas por los votantes..
Todavía el
Tribunal Supremo mantiene una frágil mayoría conservadora, aunque algunos de
los conservadores, han flaqueado en sus convicciones ante la presión de la
nueva cultura.
Cuando el
presidente Obama nombre suficientes magistrados para obtener una mayoría
liberal, la democracia constitucional como la hemos conocido desaparecerá.
Esta semana
el tribunal supremos dictó en un caso controversial, anulando el derecho del
Estado de Arizona de exigir la prueba de ciudadanía de los votantes.
El hueco
legal que aprovecharon los liberales para convencer a los magistrados
conservadores fue que el estado no tiene autoridad para legislar sobre el
proceso electoral, el cual tiene que ser regulado federalmente.
Pero la
realidad es que el estado de Arizona tuvo que involucrarse en el proceso
electoral y en las leyes de inmigración, sin corresponderle, porque el gobierno
federal no cumple con sus obligaciones de hacer cumplir las leyes de
inmigración y las leyes electorales.
En respuesta, los senadores Ted Cruz,
republicano cubano-americano de Texas y David Vitter, R -Luisiana, anunciaron
una modificación de la revisión de inmigración del Senado que permitiría
explícitamente Estados imponer esos requisitos.
En un comunicado, Cruz dijo que el
fallo de la Corte Suprema de Justicia deja un "agujero en la ley
federal" que debe ser abordado.
"Esto favorece el fraude
electoral y debemos asegurarnos de que nuestras elecciones son justas y
reflejan la voluntad de los ciudadanos", dijo.
La enmienda ajustaría la ley federal
para que los Estados podrían requerir prueba de ciudadanía para completar
cualquier formulario de registro federal de electores.
Mucha palabrería para decir lo que es
sencillo y básico, que usted tiene que probar que es ciudadano para votar,
porque esto es la ley, si usted no es ciudadano no puede votar.
Tanto las
leyes electorales actuales como las leyes de inmigración, no necesitan cambios
mayores, simplemente lo que necesitan es que se implementen.
Si una
persona tiene que ser ciudadano para votar, es el deber del gobierno federal el
implementar la ley- Si usted no tiene el permiso para entrar a un país
extranjero no puede hacerlo, los Estados Unidos, como cualquier país del mundo,
tiene derecho a cuidar sus fronteras y a cumplir sus leyes de
inmigración.
Ya quisieran
los inmigrantes en Méjico tener las leyes de inmigración de los Estados Unidos.
Es el deber del gobierno federal el hacer cumplir las leyes
constitucionales, es el deber del primer magistrado en cumplir las leyes que
juró que cumpliría cuando fue electo.
El problema
no se trata de leyes, se trata de que en la cúpula del poder, el fraude
electoral no es un problema, es parte de la agenda.
Este escrito de John Myers “Vuelco hacia la Tiranía” explica algo que nosotros los cubanos
experimentamos cuando Fidel Castro comenzó a instaurar la tiranía en
Cuba.
Orwell en su libro profético "1984” también nos
presentó en sus personajes, la psicología del cambio, visto desde el punto de
vista complaciente de sus víctimas. Como dice el personaje de la novela,
en el fondo sabemos lo que está pasando, pero preferimos protestar suavemente,
pensar que quizás no pase nada, o que no nos va a afectar personalmente.
Entonces decidimos no levantar demasiadas olas para que no nos afecte
nuestra comodidad cotidiana.
Lo que pasó en la novela de Orwell a los timoratos, fue
lo que le pasó en Cuba a los que esperaron pacientemente a que le pisaran el
callo.
Pero el día llega, no hay manera de evadirlo y el cambio
en nuestra vida será dramático y muy tarde para remediarlo.
Vuelco hacia la tiranía 19 De junio de
2013 Por John Myers
"Yo entiendo lo que hay detrás de lo que nos están
diciendo, pero espero lo contrario." — Thomas Pynchon, una introducción de
2003 del clásico libro de Orwell, “1984”
Después de los últimos meses, nada de
lo que dice el Presidente Barack Obama y su troika de Chicago (primera dama
Michelle Obama, asesor principal Valerie Jarrett y Procurador General Eric
Holder) me choca. Su ideología se basa en su herencia afro-americana y sus
simpatías islámicas. Lo que nos debe sorprender es que estamos permitiendo que la
administración de Obama haga lo que le da la gana sin ni siquiera una objeción,
no de la gente, no de la prensa pero tampoco de nuestros representantes
republicanos en el Congreso.
Nuestro último compromiso en Siria sólo
hará a esa nación en un caldo de cultivo para futuros terroristas. Las
consecuencias le serán excusas de la administración Obama para incluso
una mayor autoridad. Significará que los estadounidenses tendrán menos
libertades. Sin contar con la lógica indignación.
En una encuesta
reciente del Pew Research Center y The Washington Post, 56
por ciento de los encuestados dijo que el programa para rastrear los registros
por la Agencia Nacional de seguridad (NSA) es aceptable.
Sólo el 41 por ciento dijo que era inaceptable. Cuando se le preguntó acerca de
los esfuerzos contra el terrorismo, 62 por ciento
de los encuestados dijo que era más importante para el gobierno investigar las
amenazas de terror posible, incluso si el precio era de privacidad personal.
Yo no puedo comprender cómo casi dos de
cada tres estadounidenses están perfectamente dispuestos a dejar que Obama a
destrozar la cuarta enmienda. Se pone peor. Algunos republicanos en el Congreso
están sugiriendo que periodistas deben ser sujeto a
detención si sus artículos ponen a la nación en riesgo. Riesgo es
cómo define la administración de Obama a la libre expresión si molesta a su
gobierno. Si esto sucede, ahí va la primera enmienda. ¿Todo esto plantea la
pregunta: si estamos dispuestos a renunciar a estos derechos constitucionales,
estamos dispuestos a dar todo en la Constitución? ¿Sacrificará América el
derecho a portar armas e incluso la enmienda 22, el único instrumento que
limita al Presidente a dos mandatos?
Trato de no ser demasiado pesimista,
pero parece que estamos en un punto de inflexión — algo Malcolm Gladwell
estudió y escribió en su libro aclamado “El punto de inflexión: como cosas
pequeñas pueden hacer una gran diferencia”.
En ella, define como el estado de
cambio “sucede no poco a poco, pero en un momento dramático".
Napolitano: NSA Testimony on Surveillance Programs 'Bogus'
Tuesday, 18 Jun 2013 09:59 PM By Todd Beamon
Former
state court Judge Andrew Napolitano said on Tuesday that officials from the
National Security Agency “answered questions professionally” in their testimony
before Congress — “but I still think it’s bogus.”
“There was none of this as we got from Attorney General [Eric] Holder and FBI Director [Robert] Mueller,” Napolitano told Neil Cavuto on Fox News.
He was referring to comments from Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA’s director, on the agency’s two surveillance programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
Alexander testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the programs have foiled 50 terrorist plots worldwide, including one directed at the New York Stock Exchange.
“They can pick and choose which classified episodes their going to reveal,” said Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and Fox analyst. “Of course, they’re going to pick and choose the ones that make them look good.”
In attacking Alexander’s broader testimony, Napolitano specifically cited the general’s response to a question posed by Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the GOP chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Rogers asked whether the NSA had the “ability to listen to Americans’ phone calls or read their emails under these two programs?”
Alexander responded, “No, we do not have that authority.”
Napolitano observed: “Of course, he doesn’t have the legal authority to [listen to] the phone calls. That’s not what the question asked. The question asked, ‘Does he have the practical ability to do so?’ and he couldn’t answer that because the answer is ‘yes.’ And the president and General Alexander are both saying, ‘trust us.’
“The same administration said ‘trust us’ on Benghazi till we changed the story for times,” Napolitano added. “The same administration said ‘trust us’ on the James Rosen, Fox News search-warrant affair. The same administration said ‘trust us’ on the IRS targeting conservatives.
“Why should we trust them?” he asked Cavuto. “Why should we trust these people?”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/napolitano-nsa-surveillance-bogus/2013/06/18/id/510634?s=al&promo_code=13DF7-1##ixzz2WfdyIH9z
“There was none of this as we got from Attorney General [Eric] Holder and FBI Director [Robert] Mueller,” Napolitano told Neil Cavuto on Fox News.
He was referring to comments from Army Gen. Keith Alexander, the NSA’s director, on the agency’s two surveillance programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
Alexander testified to the House Intelligence Committee that the programs have foiled 50 terrorist plots worldwide, including one directed at the New York Stock Exchange.
“They can pick and choose which classified episodes their going to reveal,” said Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court judge and Fox analyst. “Of course, they’re going to pick and choose the ones that make them look good.”
In attacking Alexander’s broader testimony, Napolitano specifically cited the general’s response to a question posed by Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan, the GOP chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
Rogers asked whether the NSA had the “ability to listen to Americans’ phone calls or read their emails under these two programs?”
Alexander responded, “No, we do not have that authority.”
Napolitano observed: “Of course, he doesn’t have the legal authority to [listen to] the phone calls. That’s not what the question asked. The question asked, ‘Does he have the practical ability to do so?’ and he couldn’t answer that because the answer is ‘yes.’ And the president and General Alexander are both saying, ‘trust us.’
“The same administration said ‘trust us’ on Benghazi till we changed the story for times,” Napolitano added. “The same administration said ‘trust us’ on the James Rosen, Fox News search-warrant affair. The same administration said ‘trust us’ on the IRS targeting conservatives.
“Why should we trust them?” he asked Cavuto. “Why should we trust these people?”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/napolitano-nsa-surveillance-bogus/2013/06/18/id/510634?s=al&promo_code=13DF7-1##ixzz2WfdyIH9z
This MUST be
disseminated ALL ACROSS THE USA - this is unacceptable!! Our nation is under fire...thanks to who in the White House.
|
Lt. Col Matthew Dooley, a West Point
graduate and highly-decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint
Forces Staff College at the National Defense University . He had 19 years of
service and experience, and was considered one of the most highly qualified
military instructors on Radical Islam & Terrorism.
He taught military students about the situations they would encounter, how to react, about Islamic culture, traditions, and explained the mindset of Islamic extremists. Passing down first hand knowledge and experience, and teaching courses that were suggested (and approved) by the the Joint Forces Staff College . The course "Perspectives on Islam and Islamic Radicalism" ,which was suggested and approved by the Joint Forces Staff College , caught the attention of several Islamic Groups, and they wanted to make an example of him. They collectively wrote a letter expressing their outrage, and the Pro-Islamic Obama Administration was all too happy to assist. The letter was passed to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , Martin Dempsey. Dempsey publicly degraded and reprimanded Dooley, and Dooley received a negative Officer Evaluation Report almost immediately (which he had aced for the past 5 years). He was relieved of teaching duties, and his career has been red-flagged. "He had a brilliant career ahead of him. Now, he has been flagged." - Richard Thompson, Thomas More Law Center "All US military Combatant Commands, Services, the National Guard Bureau, and Joint Chiefs are under Dempsey's Muslim Brotherhood-dictated order to ensure that henceforth, no US military course will ever again teach truth about Islam that the jihadist enemy finds offensive ,or just too informative." - Former CIA agent Claire M. Lopez (about Lt. Col Dooley) The Obama Administration has demonstrated lightning speed to dismiss Military brass that does not conform to it's agenda, and not surprisingly, nobody is speaking up for Lt. Col. Dooley.
IT'S A SAD
DAY FOR THIS COUNTRY WHEN GOOD LOYAL MEN LIKE THIS GET THROWN UNDER THE BUS
BECAUSE NOBODY HAS THE COURAGE TO STAND UP!
Share this if you would. Lets bring some attention to this. |
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government-lest
it come to dominate our lives and interests"
Patrick
Henry
Do IRS employees deserve $70M in employee bonuses? By Associated Press June 19, 2013
6:55 am
“EMO” [Do you agree??? It’s you’re money and mine] LRGM
WASHINGTON - The Internal Revenue Service is about to pay $70 million in employee bonuses despite an Obama administration directive to cancel discretionary bonuses because of automatic spending cuts enacted this year, according to a GOP senator.Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa says his office has learned that the IRS is executing an agreement with the employees' union on Wednesday to pay the bonuses. Grassley says the bonuses should be canceled under an April directive from the White House budget office.
The directive was written by Danny Werfel, a former budget official who has since been appointed acting IRS commissioner.
"The IRS always claims to be short on resources," Grassley said. "But it appears to have $70 million for union bonuses. And it appears to be making an extra effort to give the bonuses despite opportunities to renegotiate with the union and federal instruction to cease discretionary bonuses during sequestration."
The IRS said it is negotiating with the union over the matter but did not dispute Grassley's claim that the bonuses are imminent.
Office of Management and Budget "guidance directs that agencies should not pay discretionary monetary awards at this time, unless legally required," IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge said in a statement. "IRS is under a legal obligation to comply with its collective bargaining agreement, which specifies the terms by which awards are paid to bargaining-unit employees."
Eldridge, however, would not say whether the IRS believes it is contractually obligated to pay the bonuses.
"In accordance with OMB guidance, the IRS is actively engaged with NTEU on these matters in recognition of our current budgetary constraints," Eldridge said.
The National Treasury Employees Union did not respond to requests for comment.
The IRS has been under fire since last month, when IRS officials acknowledged that agents had improperly targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status during the 2010 and 2012 elections. A few weeks later, the agency's inspector general issued a report documenting lavish employee conferences during the same time period.
Three congressional committees and the Justice Department are investigating the targeting of conservative groups. And key Republicans in Congress are promising more scrutiny of the agency's budget, especially as it ramps up to play a major role in implementing the new health care law.
Much of the agency's top leadership has been replaced since the scandals broke. President Barack Obama forced the acting commissioner to resign and replaced him with Werfel, who used to work in the White House budget office.
In a letter to Werfel on Tuesday, Grassley said the IRS notified the employee union March 25 that it intended to reclaim about $75 million that had been set aside for discretionary employee bonuses. However, Grassley said, his office has learned that the IRS never followed up on the notice. Instead, Grassley said, the IRS negotiated a new agreement with the bargaining unit to pay about $70 million in employee bonuses.
Grassley's office said the information came from a "person with knowledge of IRS budgetary procedures."
"While the IRS may claim that these bonuses are legally required under the original bargaining unit agreement, that claim would allegedly be inaccurate," Grassley wrote. "In fact, the original agreement allows for the re-appropriation of such award funding in the event of budgetary shortfall."
Werfel wrote the directive on discretionary employee bonuses while he was still working in the White House budget office. The directive was part of the Obama administration's efforts to impose across-the-board spending cuts enacted by Congress.
The spending cuts, known as "sequestration," are resulting in at least five unpaid furlough days this year for the IRS' 90,000 employees. On these days, the agency is closed and taxpayers cannot access many of the agency's assistance programs.
Werfel's April 4 memorandum "directs that discretionary monetary awards should not be issued while sequestration is in place, unless issuance of such awards is legally required. Discretionary monetary awards include annual performance awards, group awards, and special act cash awards, which comprise a sizeable majority of awards and incentives provided by the federal government to employees."
"Until further notice, agencies should not issue such monetary awards from sequestered accounts unless agency counsel determines the awards are legally required. Legal requirements include compliance with provisions in collective bargaining agreements governing awards." A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
US to open direct peace talks with Taliban
The Obama administration will open direct peace talks with the Taliban in Qatar in the next few days.The startling announcement Tuesday came the same day four Americans were killed during a rocket attack at Bagram Air Field, outside of Kabul.
U.S. and NATO forces handed over the lead on combat operations in Afghanistan to Afghan security forces separately on Tuesday.
President Obama, who has made ending the decade-long Afghanistan War a priority, sought to tamp down expectations for the talks, while Republicans greeted the announcement with skepticism.
"THE SAME CRIMINALS THAT DESTROYED THE
TWIN TOWERS IN NEWYORK"
NSA Chief: Wall Street Terror Plot Among Dozens Foiled by Surveillance
Gen. Keith
Alexander, director of the National Security Agency, testifies June 18 before
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The director of the
National Security Agency said Tuesday the government's sweeping surveillance
programs have foiled some 50 terrorist plots worldwide, including one directed
at the New York Stock Exchange, in a forceful defense of spy operations echoed
by leaders of the House Intelligence Committee.Army Gen. Keith Alexander said the two recently disclosed programs — one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism — are critical in the terrorism fight.
Intelligence officials have disclosed some details on two thwarted attacks, and Alexander offered some information on other attempts.
He said the NSA was monitoring a known extremist in Yemen who was in contact with an individual in the United States. Identifying that person and other individuals, Alexander said, officials "were able to detect a nascent plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange. ... The FBI disrupted and arrested these individuals."
The programs "assist the intelligence community to connect the dots," Alexander told the committee in a rare, open Capitol Hill hearing.
Alexander got no disagreement from the leaders of the panel, who have been outspoken in backing the programs since Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former contractor with Booz Allen Hamilton, disclosed information to The Washington Post and Britain's Guardian newspapers.
Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the committee, and Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland, the panel's top Democrat, said the programs were vital to the intelligence community and assailed Snowden's actions as criminal.
"It is at times like these where our enemies within become almost as damaging as our enemies on the outside," Rogers said.
Ruppersberger said the "brazen disclosures" put the United States and its allies at risk.
The general counsel for the intelligence community said the NSA cannot target phone conversations between callers inside the United States — even if one of those callers was someone they were targeting for surveillance when outside the country.
The director of national intelligence's legal chief, Robert S. Litt, said if the NSA finds it has accidentally gathered a phone call by a target who had traveled into the United States without their knowledge, they have to "purge" that from their system. The same goes for an accidental collection of any conversation because of an error.
Litt said those incidents are then reported to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which "pushes back" and asks how it happened, and what the NSA is doing to fix the problem so it doesn't happen again.
The hearing came the morning after President Barack Obama, who is attending the G-8 summit in Ireland, vigorously defended the surveillance programs in a lengthy interview Monday, calling them transparent — even though they are authorized in secret.
"It is transparent," Obama told PBS' Charlie Rose in an interview. "That's why we set up the FISA court," the president added, referring to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes two recently disclosed programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
Obama said he has named representatives to a privacy and civil liberties oversight board to help in the debate over just how far government data gathering should be allowed to go, a discussion that is complicated by the secrecy surrounding the FISA court, with hearings held at undisclosed locations and with only government lawyers present. The orders that result are all highly classified.
"We're going to have to find ways where the public has an assurance that there are checks and balances in place ... that their phone calls aren't being listened into, their text messages aren't being monitored, their emails are not being read by some big brother somewhere," the president said.
A senior administration official said Obama had asked Director of National Intelligence James Clapper to determine what more information about the two programs could be made public, to help better explain them. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to speak publicly.
Snowden on Monday accused members of Congress and administration officials of exaggerating their claims about the success of the data gathering programs, including pointing to the arrest of the would-be New York subway bomber, Najibullah Zazi, in 2009.
In an online interview with The Guardian in which he posted answers to questions, Snowden said Zazi could have been caught with narrower, targeted surveillance programs — a point Obama conceded in his interview without mentioning Snowden.
"We might have caught him some other way," Obama said. "We might have disrupted it because a New York cop saw he was suspicious. Maybe he turned out to be incompetent and the bomb didn't go off. But, at the margins, we are increasing our chances of preventing a catastrophe like that through these programs."
Obama repeated earlier assertions that the NSA programs were a legitimate counterterror tool and that they were completely noninvasive to people with no terror ties — something he hoped to discuss with the privacy and civil liberties board he'd formed. The senior administration official said the president would be meeting with the new privacy board in the coming days.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/nsa-surveillance-wall-street/2013/06/18/id/510504?s=al&promo_code=13DEA-1#ixzz2WfpB1FOD
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
¡Impeach obama!
En caso de que usted no reciba “En mi
opinión” en su e-mail lo puede leer en estos blogs:
5)
http://romelbpaz1.wordpress.com/
Copie estos links porque posiblemente los necesitara
en un futuro para que pueda leer “En mi opinión” si sigue la guerra contra
nuestro sitio web.
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En
mi opinión” Lázaro
R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE
TRUST’
No comments:
Post a Comment