No 411 6/14/13 “En mi opinión” Lázaro R
González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
Hoy 14 de Junio es EL DIA DE LA BANDERA en Los Estados Unidos. En honor a este pais. Pongamos una bandera en el portal de nuestras casas.
¡FELIZ DIA DE LOS PADRES!
El próximo dia 16 de Junio será El dia de los padres. Ese es un día de contrastes y connotación en mi vida. El dia 16 de Junio del 1957 también un Día de los padres, mi padre desapareció en el estrecho de la Florida en el yate “Lili Moory” y nunca se recobraron sus restos o el barco. “El dia 16 de junio” Día de los padres del 2007 Nació mia linda nieta Kadie y para más hechos relacionados, mi esposa se llama “Lili” La vida nos enfrenta con hechos que no podemos modificar o entender para bien o para mal. Lázaro R González Miño
Marco Rubio: Enmienda sobre derechos gay mataría el proyecto de reforma inmigratoria. “En mi opinión” ¿Yo no sé qué tiene que ver la mariconeria y el tortillerismo con los asuntos de inmigración? Lázaro R González Miño
(CNN) – El senador Marco Rubio afirmó este
jueves que votará en contra de su propio proyecto de reforma inmigratoria si
termina incluyendo derechos para las parejas homosexuales y lesbianas.
"Si este proyecto de ley incluye algo que dé a las parejas homosexuales
derechos migratorios y demás, eso mata el proyecto. Me salgo de eso",
dijo. "He dicho eso en repetidas ocasiones. No creo que vaya a suceder, y no
debería ocurrir. Ya es un tema en sí suficientemente difícil".El senador demócrata Patrick Leahy, de Vermont, propuso la medida esta semana, al presentar una enmienda que exigiría al gobierno reconocer los matrimonios entre personas del mismo sexo en los que uno de los cónyuges es estadounidense.
"Buscar la igualdad de protección ante la ley para la comunidad LGBT es lo correcto", dijo en un comunicado al anunciar la iniciativa.
No está claro si el Senado votará sobre la enmienda, pero la propuesta prácticamente no tiene posibilidades de obtener los 60 votos necesarios para superar el trámite.
Rubio, que hizo estos comentarios el jueves en un programa de radio conservador presentado por Andrea Tantaros, también dijo que retiraría su apoyo al proyecto si la versión final no incluye disposiciones para reforzar la seguridad en la frontera, algo que ha reiterado en los últimos días.
"Si la situación en la frontera no mejora en este proyecto, no se aprobará", declaró. "No pasará del Senado, y no tiene posibilidades en la Cámara de Representantes. No se convertirá ley. Perderemos el tiempo".
Convenient: The White House Snoops On You, But Not On Mosques!
That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
Read the rest here.
Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/06/convenient-the-white-house-snoops-on-you-but-not-on-mosques/#ixzz2WCC4dofX
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Otra guerra en que TODO VA CONTRA USA
Ricardo
Samitier
He Aquí Las Pruebas De Cómo Ha
Cambiado USA…
Los Patriotas Que Fundaron Los Estados Unidos...
Siempre “Compraron Territorios” para no entrar
en guerras... ó también esperaron a que la “Fruta
Madurara” para expansionar el país... La Mejor
Prueba es su participación en la Guerra De
Cuba... la cual esperaron 50 años...
Toda persona que siga las NOTICIAS del mundo... SABE
desde hace pocos meses, la “PRENSA LIBRE” de Occidente recibió la orden de diariamente reportar la
Guerrilla de Siria... que lleva 2 años... y para nadie es un secreto que
Israel, las potencias de la OTAN y los estados árabes sunitas productores de
petróleo y especialmente SAUDÍ ARABIA... son los que suministran y apoyan a los
"rebeldes" sirios...
Mientras que Irán, Rusia y Hezbollah en el Líbano,
apoyaban el régimen de Assad.
Después de casi 2 años de lucha y 73.000 o más muertos.
Ayer Obama anunció que los EE.UU. ahora abiertamente VAN oficialmente a
involucrase, antes lo hacían “SECRETAMENTE”... y se calcula que esta guerrita
de Obama va a costar 75 millones diarios...
LA PREGUNTA ES; ¿PARA y POR QUÉ?
Vamos a analizarlo:
1. ¿Qué interés de seguridad nacional, existe en Siria?
2. ¿Que posibilidad existe de que los problemas de Siria
puedan afectar a la gente de los EE.UU.?
· ¿Puede Siria atacarnos? No!
· Es Siria, un enemigo de USA? No!
· Es Siria, una amenaza para sus vecinos? No!
· Es Siria, una amenaza para ISRAEL y sus otros vecinos? No!
Entonces, ¿Qué Está Haciendo Obama... Metiendo a USA en
Siria?
¿Por qué los dólares de nuestros impuestos, que se gasta
allí?
¿Por qué nos están involucrando en una guerra, que NO
NOS afecta y no es asunto nuestro?
¿Por qué no esperamos la “Fruta Madura” como hicieron los fundadores de este país... y lo hicieron
grande... ENTRANDO SIEMPRE AL FINAL... cosa que se hizo en la PRIMERA y la SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL...
¿Quién Está Dirigiendo Obama???
Sin duda son los “Promotores del Nuevo Orden Mundial”
Que además de IMPONER SUS PEONES en todos los países... NECESITAN ARRUINAR a USA...
Por cierto que el “NUEVO ORDEN” está
dividido en TRES GRUPOS... los “OCCIDENTALES” dirigidos
por ateos, homosexuales y CAPITALISTAS que nunca
trabajaron y HEREDARON EL DINERO...El segundo grupo son los musulmanes que están divididos es DOS uno por los
ayatolas de IRÁN y el otro por el REY de Saudí Arabia al
que Obama lo saludó con una genuflexión... y los
CHINOS... que con PACIENCIA están esperando que Obama... LIQUIDE A USA como
PODER MILITAR...
WND EXCLUSIVE
Obama gun-runners 'got away with it'
Critics say intimidation keeps shops, others, from complaining about lack of progress
Michael Carl is a veteran journalist
with overseas military experience and experience as a political consultant. He
also has two Master's Degrees, is a bi-vocational pastor and lives with his
family in the Northeast United States.
A congressional committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., may
have moved on to other Obama administration scandals, but Arizonans still want
answers to the Fast and Furious gun-running project that sent thousands of
weapons to drug lords in Mexico.
Will they get them?
Not if a reported conspiracy of intimidation and enforced silence wins.
Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association President Noble Hathaway said it angers
Arizonans that it looks like the federal officials involved with Fast and
Furious “got away with it.”
“To Arizonan’s it looks like they all got promotions and were commended
for executing this scheme. I hope I am wrong but that is the appearance it
had,” Hathaway said.
“By having the top people in management saying they did not know about
it, this is worse than just saying they made a mistake and moving on. Not many
in this administration preach personal responsibility though so it’s par for
the course,” Hathaway said.
A former U. S. intelligence and State Department Security officer who
still has connections in the State Department says he knows why “they got away
with it.”
The operative, who asked not to be named, said silence is part of the
deal.
“It is highly likely that gun shops in Arizona were forced to assist the
U. S. government [in] getting the Fast and Furious guns and ammunition out of
the country into Mexico,” he said. “As a result, the gun shops don’t dare
elucidate in public on this issue.”
He said many of Arizona’s gun shops were intimidated into cooperating
with the federal government and now are being intimidated into silence.
“The government intimidation process included a threat to restrict gun
shops’ acquisition of these products through stiffer regulations of the
products. This was done by executive action,” he said.
There is evidence that the former intelligence operative and security
officer’s claims are on target.
A gun shop owner who declined to allow WND to use his name said he believes
that the reason the issue has faded from public and that no gun shops will talk
to the media is political pressure.
One gun shop owner refused to speak on record and referred WND to House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform spokeswoman Becca Watkins.
WND contacted several gun shops in the Phoenix and Tucson areas and all
but one declined to be interviewed about the Fast and Furious investigation.
Their response was, “We’re not interested.”
Hathaway says he’s aware that other issues have taken center stage in
the country, but because Arizonans want answers, he wants the Fast and Furious
investigation to remain alive.
“I hope that after all the other government scandals have been resolved
that some focus will again be turned to this issue. Its just one more reason
that the U.S. citizen is becoming very distrustful of their government,”
Hathaway said.
“In this instance (it’s the government) wanting to keep the honest
citizen from owning a certain firearm but giving 2,000 of them to the drug
cartels and bandits south of the border. Go figure,” Hathaway said.
One gun shop owner was willing to go on the record. Black Weapons Armory spokesman Tommy Rompel said he believes some firearms dealers refused to
talk to the media because they fear the media more than the government.
“My sense is that they’re paranoid about talking to the press. They’re
afraid the media will take their words out of context,” Rompel said.
Hathaway said even though Fast and Furious it not in the headlines every
night, “I believe we Arizonans are still concerned with this.”
“I would say we are still vigilant on this matter and have not forgotten
this misguided venture by the Justice Department,” Hathaway said.
Hathaway says the people of his state have a practical reason to be
concerned.
“We are the ones most likely to be killed by this bad element south of
our borders which had so many guns put in their hands by the U.S.,” Hathaway
said.
He said he doesn’t believe more such sales are occurring.
“Every dealer I knew and do know was and is very conscious of not
putting firearms in the hands of drug dealers and other vermin,” he said. But
the drug dealers now already have the guns.
He said, “We want good citizens to be armed and our families protected
from these violent people operating in and out of our state.”
FBI director in the dark about IRS probe
The country’s top investigator seemed to be in the dark Thursday when
pressed to provide details of the IRS investigation into the tax agency’s
targeting of Tea Party and conservative groups.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, seemed to rattle FBI Director Robert Mueller
for not knowing the specifics surrounding the IRS probe.
“You’ve had a month now to investigate,” Jordan said. “This has been the
biggest story in the country and you can’t even tell me who the lead
investigator is. You can’t tell me the actions the inspector general took which
are not typically how investigations are done. You can’t tell me if that’s
appropriate or not. This is not speculation. This is what happened.”
Mueller repeatedly declined to answer Jordan’s questions, saying he
couldn’t because the investigation was ongoing or that he’d have to get back to
the lawmakers with answers.
Report: President’s Africa trip expected to cost $60 to $100 million
The U.S. government will spend an estimated $60 to $100 million on an array of security and travel provisions for an Obama family trip to Africa later this month, according to a report published by The Washington Post on Thursday.The costs include air transportation for 56 vehicles, including 14 parade limousines, trucks carrying bulletproof glass to install at hotels, specialized communications vehicles, an ambulance capable of handling biological and chemical contaminants, and one with X-ray equipment.
Read more: http://cowboybyte.com/22272/report-presidents-africa-trip-expected-to-cost-60-to-100-million/#ixzz2WCGqqKJS
They're enforcing Obamacare? Ted Cruz (editor@ijreview.com)
To: lazaroformiamidade@hotmail.com
Please find an important message from Ted Cruz below:
--------------------------------------------------------------
|
FBI hasn’t contacted a single tea party group in IRS probe, groups say Vince Coglianese
There is no evidence that the FBI has contacted a single tea party group in its criminal investigation of the Internal Revenue Service, according to the groups the IRS abused.
“We have not been contacted by any federal investigative agency and, to date, none of our clients have been contacted or interviewed by the FBI,” Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice told The Daily Caller on Thursday. The ACLJ has filed suit against the IRS on behalf of 25 conservative groups, with additional groups being added in the next couple weeks, according to a spokesman.“I have been very surprised that I have not heard from anybody and frankly, none of my clients have. I talk to other tea party leaders on a regular basis,” said Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer largely credited with pushing the IRS abuses to the forefront.
“It’s been a month and I can’t see any evidence of an investigation of the IRS,” Mitchell told TheDC Thursday. She represents nine tea party groups targeted by the IRS.
Tea Party Patriots — a group with thousands of local chapters — “has not been contacted by the FBI” either, according to Jameson Cunningham, the group’s spokesman.
The revelation suggests that the FBI is in no hurry to get to the bottom of the scandal, despite the Obama administration’s promise to investigate the IRS’s multi-year abuse of conservative groups.
The Constitution is not negotiable Rand Paul (rand.paul@rand-2016.com)
To: Lazaro R Gonzalez|
Dear Lázaro R Gonzalez Mino I recently published an op-ed on FoxNews.com about the dangers of Barack Obama’s NSA sifting through our phone records and emails. Unchecked government spying turns our constitutional principles upside down. That’s why I’m asking ten million Americans to fight back against the NSA’s data collection by joining my class action lawsuit. Take a few moments to read my op-ed below and then sign the Joining Statement for my class action law suit. If you have already signed, please forward this email to your friends. In Liberty, Senator Rand Paul
Sorry,
Mr. Obama, the Constitution is not negotiable
By Sen. Rand Paul / Published June
12, 2013 / FoxNews.com
In the United States, we are supposed to have a government that is limited with its parameters established by our Constitution. This notion that the federal government can monitor everyone’s phone data is a major departure from how Americans have traditionally viewed the role of government. If this is acceptable practice, as the White House and many in both parties now say it is, then there are literally no constitutional protections that can be guaranteed anymore to citizens. In the name of security, say our leaders, the Constitution has become negotiable. This is what the White House is saying when it defends the National Security Agency’s gathering of Verizon’s client data en masse, or what President Obama calls a “modest encroachment” on our rights, as he assures us that “Nobody is listening to your phone calls.” Anytime we give up our liberty—we lose. Perhaps he can also assure us that nobody at the Internal Revenue Service is targeting political dissidents. Perhaps he can assure us that nobody at the Justice Department is seizing reporters’ phone records. Sorry, Mr. President, but “trust me” is not good enough. President Obama says, “You can't have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.” But we couldn’t have 100 percent security even if we turned America into a total police state—something too many seem eager for—because there’s no such thing as a risk free society. When balancing liberty against security, the American tradition has always been to err on the side of liberty. Targeting potential terror suspects by obtaining a warrant is an “inconvenience” the Founders’ intentionally put upon the government in order to protect the privacy of citizens. Now this president turns this core constitutional principle on its head. There are also Republicans who seem to want more power for government and less for citizens. One senator, a particularly zealous defender of the surveillance state, has said that he would be fine with “censoring the mail” if “necessary” to keep us safe. This senator would open citizens’ mail, detain them indefinitely if he decided they were dangerous, claw his way through their trash, peek in their bedrooms if he decided they were an enemy, and then if they dared to ask for a lawyer, he would bark: "Shut up! You don’t get a lawyer!" Such arrogance and tone deafness! A government as omnipotent as this may be powerful enough to spy on all of its citizens all of the time, but doesn’t seem to be able to even stop terrorists like the Boston Marathon bombers and the “underwear bomber” – both of whom set off warnings before they were noticed. Instead of monitoring billions of phone calls and spying on law-abiding Americans, perhaps we should have been done more targeted monitoring of the Boston bombing suspects, one of whom traveling to Chechnya, largely undetected. Clutching desperately for relevance, some Republican Senators point wildly at the Boston Marathon bombing and grit out, "See, I told you so! America is too part of the battlefield.” Duh! No one is arguing that our enemies won’t attack us here and that we shouldn't defend ourselves. Constitutionalists simply argue that we can defend the homeland and the Bill of Rights simultaneously, and to relinquish concrete liberties for an illusive security is a fool's errand. I can remember not so long ago, when the war caucus—and we don’t need to name any names—were all saying “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Now, they are saying we have to give up our liberties to fight them here? Who is winning this battle? Regardless, anytime we give up our liberty—we lose. National security is the federal government’s top priority. We have always balanced liberty with common sense security precautions. There are unquestionably exceptions to every rule. But those who continue to defend the National Security Agency’s actions are essentially saying that something that would be controversial even as an exception—blanket phone trolling by the government—is now the new rule. They are saying it’s OK to spy on citizens’ phone data without a warrant, not just one time or a few times, but all the time. They are saying that suspending the Bill of Rights is now the new normal. In my world, the Constitution still applies. Click here to view the article at FoxNews.com Obama Pledges Indirect Support to Al Qaeda. McCain Applauds.
Written by Gary North on June 14, 2013
President Obama has promised to send military
aid to the rebel forces in Syria. Senator McCain
and ex-President Clinton both had publicly chastised Obama for hesitating.
On Tuesday evening, Clinton warned Obama that
he risked looking like a “total wuss”
and a “total fool”
if he continued to sit to the sidelines.
On Wednesday, Obama made his pledge to do what
Clinton recommended.
The White House has not yet identified which accusation President Obama is
trying to avoid: being a total wuss or a total fool.
This announcement was good news for the
Jabhat al Nusra Front, which is one of the rebel groups. Its chief recently
swore allegiance to Sheik Ayman al-Zawahri, who is generally regarded as
having replaced Osama bin Laden as the head of Al Qaeda. USA Today
reports the following.
Lebanese Sheik Omar Bakri, a Salafist who
says states must be governed by Muslim religious law, says al-Qaeda has
assisted al Nusra for some time.
“They provided them early on with technical,
military and financial support , especially when it came to setting up
networks of foreign jihadis who were brought into Syria,” Bakri says. “There
will certainly be greater coordination between the two groups.”
The United States government last December
identified al Nusra as a terrorist entity.
Officially, the Obama Administration has said
that its goal is to send arms only to non-terrorist troops fighting in Syria.
Unfortunately, this goal has not gained widespread support in Syria.
Tamer Mouhieddine, spokesman for the Syrian
Free Army, a force made up of Syrian soldiers who have defected, said the
recent announcements would not change his group’s attitude toward al Nusra.
“The rebels in Syria have one common enemy —
Bashar Assad — and they will collaborate with any faction allowing them to
topple his regime,” he said.
Economic theory teaches that whenever a
government subsidy increases the supply of any scarce resource, the tendency
is for the price of the subsidized item to decline. This price decrease
increases demand for the subsidized item. This mean that weapons flowing from
the United States government to rebel forces in Syria will result in lower
prices for the al Nusra Front.
By reducing the price of participating in the
rebellion, the United States government will lower al Nusra’s costs. Economic
law is true: “When prices fall, more is demanded.”
This is why, economically speaking, the
United States government will be subsidizing participation in a terrorist
organization in the Middle East. The subsidy is indirect, but it is no less
real economically than a shipment of weapons directly to al Nusra.
Because al Nusra’s cost of obtaining weapons
will fall, this will free up al Nusra’s economic resources for charitable
work. It uses these resources to gain support in the Syrian countryside.
Aaron Zelin at the Washington Institute for
Near East Policy in Washington says al Nusra’s ability to provide security
and basic needs such as bread and fuel to Syrian civilians, as well as to
reopen shops and restart bus services, has won gratitude from people who
would not usually adhere to its strict ideology.
Zelin says some Syrian people have criticized
al Nusra for banning alcohol, forcing women to wear a full veil and whipping
men who are seen with women in public.
When you think “al Nusra,” think “Taliban.”
The effect of any U.S. government subsidy to
the “good” rebel forces in Syria will be to subsidize the “bad” rebel forces.
This is what is known as a side effect.
A side effect is an effect that the person causing the effect does not
approve of. There will be lots of side effects in Syria as a result of
Obama’s new policy.
Read more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/06/14/obama-pledges-indirect-support-to-al-qaeda-mccain-applauds/#ixzz2WC6JAmmV
“LUIS POSADA CARRILES” HONOR A QUIEN HONOR MERECE.
MI MÁS
PROFUNDO RESPETO A ESTE BRAVO MAMBY.
Lázaro R
González Miño
|
Por estos días Luís Posada Carriles lleva una existencia apacible y privada donde sus familiares y un puñado de amigos íntimos le dispensan el cariño y le profesan la admiración que se ha ganado con su incansable lucha a favor de la libertad de Cuba. Atrás han quedado los tiempos en que los Chávez y los Castro utilizaban a Posada como cortina de humo para esconder sus flagrantes violaciones de la libertad y de los derechos humanos de los pueblos de Cuba y de Venezuela. Para suerte de los venezolanos, ya Chávez está muerto y los cubanos que aspiramos a una Cuba próspera y democrática, entre quienes desde luego me encuentro, saludaríamos con júbilo las muertes de Fidel y Raúl Castro.
A quienes me acusen de no ser un buen cristiano les respondo que, en nombre del cristianismo, se han llevado a cabo las batallas más cruentas de la historia. Que a los diablos no se les convence con palabras sino se les vence con la fuerza de las armas. Esa es la cruzada en que ha estado enfrascado Luís Posada en el curso de su ya larga existencia.
Pero el Posada de estos días ya no es una amenaza para nadie. Ya no es el joven impetuoso, enamorado y generoso con quién compartí un tugurio en el sur oeste de la ciudad de Miami en los tres primeros meses de 1961, antes de alistarnos en la Brigada 2506. Luís me dijo por aquellos días que dedicaría el resto de su vida a combatir el flagelo del comunismo. Confieso que, en aquel momento, no lo tome en serio. Pero, andando el tiempo, me demostró con hechos que cumpliría su promesa.
Fracasada la invasión de Bahía de Cochinos por la traición de Kennedy, Luís se fue a Venezuela a formar fila junto a quienes defendían a la democracia venezolana de las garras de la tiranía comunista de La Habana. A golpe de plomo y pantalones ascendió en jerarquía dentro de la estructura de la DISIP, policía política venezolana. Cuando me lo encontré en Caracas a mitad de la década de 1970 ya era el Comisario Basilio y se había convertido en el terror de los comunistas venezolanos y de los agentes infiltrados en Venezuela por la tiranía de los Castro.
Para la década de 1980 se encontraba en Guatemala, protegiendo de la jauría comunista al presidente Vinicio Cerezo. Fue allí donde los Castro decidieron pasarle la cuenta. Un sicario a sueldo de los terroristas que oprimen a Cuba le propinó siete balazos que lo pusieron al borde la muerte. Posada, sin embargo, no solo se negó entonces a morir si no me ha jurado después que se propone sobrevivir a su enemigo Fidel Castro. Y yo se lo creo.
Pero el hecho por el cual alcanzó mayor notoriedad fue su intento de dar muerte a Fidel Castro durante los eventos de la Décima Conferencia Iberoamericana de Jefes de Estado, celebrada en Panamá los días 17 y 18 de noviembre del año 2000. La conspiración fue descubierta y Posada, junto a sus compañeros Novo, Jiménez y Remón, fueron condenados por los tribunales panameños. Sin embargo, una Mireya Moscoso que no se dejó intimidar por las amenazas de los Castro, les concedió el perdón presidencial.
Vino finalmente a los Estados Unidos donde, después de prolongadas y costosas escaramuzas judiciales en las cuales se demostró su inocencia, se ha dedicado por completo a la pintura, arte en el que adquirió destreza durante sus múltiples etapas de encarcelamiento. Aquel joven impetuoso es actualmente un anciano afable e inofensivo, pero sigue siendo el mismo tipo simpático que se gana al instante el afecto de quienes tengan la fortuna de escuchar sus ocurrencias en cualquier conversación privada.
Me he extendido en los pormenores de la vida de Posada y en la descripción de su actual existencia para poner en contexto estas preguntas: ¿Por qué motivo un mediocre ideólogo de la izquierda como Alejandro Armengol vomita su pestilente vitriolo contra Luís Posada? ¿Por qué afirma que el historial de Luís Posada "lo descalifica como patriota y luchador por la democracia"? ¿Por qué pide una investigación sobre "la supuesta participación de éste en los atentados dinamiteros ocurridos en La Habana en 1997 y 1998"? ¿De dónde sacó que "ya la guerra fría terminó hace años"?
Mi respuesta al autoproclamado inquisidor de la moral política, vocero del apaciguamiento más infame y alabardero solapado de las tiranías de izquierda. Usted, señor Armengol, estirando al máximo el calificativo, como todos sus colegas de la gran prensa que se arrodilla ante la testosterona de los déspotas populistas no perdonan, ni siquiera después de muertos, a los adversarios que no han logrado destruir. Posada es uno de esos adversarios que, ante el fracaso de Castro de quitarle la vida, ustedes se proponen ahora quitarle el honor y negarle la gloria.
Por otra parte, a usted y a sus compañeros de la izquierda virulenta les produce una aguda urticaria la sola mención de los nombres de Francisco Franco y Augusto Pinochet. Años después de muertos todavía les endilgan el calificativo de dictadores. El primero salvó a España de la marea roja que poco tiempo después asfixió a Europa Oriental y el segundo salvó a Chile de la infame suerte que por estos días corre Venezuela. Y ambos pusieron en marcha procesos pacíficos de transición a la democracia. En un odioso contraste, esa prensa ideológicamente parcializada llama gobernantes a tiranos como los Castro y presidentes a gente que se roba elecciones como los Chávez, los Maduro y los Ortega.
En cuanto a su afirmación de que "ya la guerra fría terminó hace años", le sugiero que se lo diga a las hijas de Laura Pollán y de Oswaldo Payá, a la madre de Orlando Zapata y a los familiares de centenares de presos políticos cubanos. Lo remito, asimismo, a la brutal represión en las calles de Caracas contra los partidarios de Capriles y a la masacre de 80,000 sirios por el régimen de Assad. Para usted la guerra terminó en 1989 con la caída del Muro de Berlín. Para esas víctimas, la guerra fría habrá terminado, pero la guerra caliente en la recuperación de su libertad parece no tener final a la vista. Estoy seguro de que la mayoría de ellas saludarían como libertador a quien le diera un pistoletazo a cualquiera de sus opresores. Esas víctimas no pueden darse el lujo de sus farisaicos escrúpulos, señor Armengol, porque enfrentan todos los días circunstancias de vida o muerte.
Y hablando de pistoletazos y de vida o muerte no puedo evitar incurrir en una fantasía retrospectiva y me pregunto: ¿Qué habría pasado si el 26 de julio de 1953 Fidel Castro hubiera caído en las manos de Luís Posada en vez de las del Arzobispo Enrique Pérez Serantes y del Coronel Alberto del Río Chaviano? Me inclino a la firme creencia de que allí habría terminado la carrera gansteril de Castro. Y más importante todavía, el pueblo de Cuba se habría ahorrado 54 años de pesadilla que amenazan con extenderse aún más ante la inercia de un pueblo acostumbrado al yugo y una oposición totalmente domesticada.
En cuanto a Venezuela, tengo una fantasía similar. ¿Qué habría pasado si entre los comunistas y traidores contra los cuales combatió Posada en su condición de Comisario Basilio hubiera estado un ratón llamado Hugo Chávez que se escondió cuando fracasó su golpe de estado en febrero de 1992? Estoy convencido de que Venezuela no sería hoy un satélite de los Castro y Cuba sería la nación libre y soberana por la que han muerto miles de cubanos desde nuestras guerras de independencia.
En la restauración de esa patria donde quepamos todos los cubanos, con la obligada excepción de sus actuales tiranos, necesitamos del concurso de todos los hijos de Cuba. Cada cual luchará con los instrumentos a su alcance y según la dimensión de su coraje porque, en estos momentos de urgencia, todos los medios son lícitos y solamente la inercia es un delito. Pero, si tenemos en cuenta que los tiranos han demostrado que jamás entregarán el poder por las buenas, no queda otra alternativa que utilizar la fuerza militar como el camino más idóneo para alcanzar nuestra libertad. Tenemos, sobre todo, que estimular a los oficiales jóvenes que tienen acceso a los armamentos a que se inspiren en el ejemplo de Luís Posada y disparen el pistoletazo salvador de la patria.
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
Feds to Force States to Surrender Mental Health Data to FBI
Posted
on: June 13th,
2013
“Any regulatory change
wouldn’t require congressional approval.” That’s the word from the spokesperson
for the Department of Health and Human Service (HHS), an agency created by the
framers of the United States Constitution to fulfill Americans’ constitutional
right to health care. Not. One wonders what said Founding Fathers would make of
a federal fiat that forces state mental-health authorities to “transmit records
of anyone who has been declared mentally unfit by a court or other authority to
the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, maintained by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.” You know; so they can be permanently
disqualified from firearms purchases. Without due process. Without an appeals
system. Hello? Did I wake up in Soviet Russia this morning? The thing is . . .Like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (and Really Big Fires) the HHS is an agency that considers the law of the land a relatively minor impediment to their sacred work of protecting the public from disease, death and yes, terrorism. In this case, the HHS is raising a middle finger to the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996
Read more: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/6708/feds-to-force-states-to-surrender-mental-health-data-to-fbi#ixzz2W8UPNnxX
Glen Beck: New Whistleblower Document Will Take Down Government. http://www.westernjournalism.com/beck-new-whistleblower-document-will-take-down-government/
Obama Confirms Christians in Military are Targets
President Obama has threatened to veto a bill that would protect military members' religious free speech rights, confirming fears that his Administration plans to target Christians who discuss their faith.The House Armed Services Committee last week passed an amendment on H.R. 1960, the National Defense Authorization Act, that would protect Christians and members of other faiths.
The amendment was made necessary because of recent revelations that the Pentagon has been working with notoriously anti-Christian atheist activist Mikey Weinstein, founder of the misleadlingly named Military Religious Freedom Foundation, to craft a policy that could subject Christians who are caught talking about their faith to punishment, including court martial.
The Pentagon denies that's the plan, trying to draw a distinction between "proselytizing" and "evangelizing," which are synonyms in most dictionaries.
Weinstein is a far-left fanatic and loose cannon who has publicly stated that Christian evangelizing is tantamount to treason and that Christians should be punished, by the hundreds if need be. He also apparently has easy access to the upper echelons at the Pentagon and to left-wing bigshots such as former Ambassador Joe Wilson, he of "yellowcake" fame.
The amendment introduced by Republican John Fleming of Louisiana drew an objection from the White House, which released a message that states:
"Expansion and Implementation of Protection of Rights of Conscience of Members of the Armed Forces and Chaplains of Such Members: The Administration strongly objects to section 530, which would require the Armed Forces to accommodate, except in cases of military necessity, 'actions and speech' reflecting the 'conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member.' By limiting the discretion of commanders to address potentially problematic speech and actions within their units, this provision would have a significant adverse effect on good order, discipline, morale, and mission accomplishment."
The statement also includes a threat that Obama will veto the bill if it arrives at his desk with the amendment intact.
The policy that has been developing at the Pentagon would also cover chaplains, not just ordinary troops, who try to persuade other military members to adopt Christianity or any other religion. Although coercing someone in religious matters has long been prohibited by the military branches, it's never been perceived as a widespread problem until recently, largely due to Weinstein's lobbying, by all accounts.
"Someone needs to be punished for this," Weinstein said. "Until the Air Force or Army or Navy or Marine Corps punishes a member of the military for unconstitutional religious proselytizing and oppression, we will never have the ability to stop this horrible, horrendous, dehumanizing behavior."
Weinstein is part of the cadre -- dare we say cabal? -- of foes of Christianity who seek through the courts, government agencies and legislation to force biblical religion out of public sight while installing their own religion, atheism, as a state-mandated faith. By calling atheism a "nonreligion" and hiding behind phrases like "separation of church and state" and "religious freedom," the atheist agenda is advanced.
By threatening to veto the amendment to the defense bill, President Obama is continuing his Administration's record of attacking biblical religion.
Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/11245/obama-confirms-christians-in-military-are-targets/#ixzz2W8Szzaw3
LA GUERRA MODERNA:LA METAMORFOSIS
(6-12-5:15PM)
Por Marzo Fernández (Exclusivo para Nuevo Acción)
Cuando uno analiza toda la información a que nos someten los medios,
creo que todos coincidimos que estamos en plena lll Guerra Mundial, la guerra
de la Alta Tecnología. Años ha, lo más importante era capturar al mensajero,
descifrar los códigos, secuestrar la valija y los correos diplomáticos,
infiltrar al enemigo, engañarlo con medidas de desinformación. Todo eso es
historia antigua, primero que interrogar al contrario, es incautar su
computadora y su celular, ahí está todo lo que se necesita. La alta tecnología,
te lo permite todo, en el orden militar; conocer los planes del enemigo, el
armamento que posee, los efectivos para el combate, sencillamente todo. Pero la
alta tecnología, también se hace extensiva para las actividades industriales,
económicas, y sociales, medios de comunicación y lo más importante y cotidiano,
tu convivir con el resto de la sociedad. EL GRAN BROTHER lo sabe todo. Donde
llega la realidad y donde comienza la ficción, es difícil establecer los
límites, es parte del sistema que aprovecha para lo más importante: la
inoculación del miedo a la población.
Cuando triunfó la robolución, los principales enemigos eran los GUSANOS, al fragor del combate y de una lucha a muerte, surgieron los CONTRA-REVOLUCIONARIOS, los ANTICOMUNISTAS, todos sin excepción guerreros de primera línea. Después vino una metamorfosis sistemática, de acuerdo a un nuevo tipo de lucha, que dejaba a un lado, las armas de combate. Surgieron los OPOSITORES, posteriormente los DISIDENTES y lo que está de moda en la actualidad, PERIODISTA INDEPENDIENTE. Todas estas actividades tienen un alto contenido pacífico y un buen grado de sumisión.
Cuando triunfó la robolución, los principales enemigos eran los GUSANOS, al fragor del combate y de una lucha a muerte, surgieron los CONTRA-REVOLUCIONARIOS, los ANTICOMUNISTAS, todos sin excepción guerreros de primera línea. Después vino una metamorfosis sistemática, de acuerdo a un nuevo tipo de lucha, que dejaba a un lado, las armas de combate. Surgieron los OPOSITORES, posteriormente los DISIDENTES y lo que está de moda en la actualidad, PERIODISTA INDEPENDIENTE. Todas estas actividades tienen un alto contenido pacífico y un buen grado de sumisión.
Como hemos señalado en otras oportunidades, también el escenario de
lucha cambió de sitio. Dejó Cuba, para instalarse en Miami. Aunque parezca
increíble, los nuevos combatientes arriban a esta plaza totalmente controlados,
con una agenda muy estricta y rigurosa.
Pregúntenle a ese gran cubano conocido por Katungo, o a Dionisio de la
Torre, que ejercen el periodismo combativo y de barricada, si han podido
entrevistar a los nuevos combatientes o si siquiera acercarse a ellos. Solo
ofrecen sus mensajes de lucha a los grandes medios, y a organizaciones que son
en definitiva los que aportan el soporte financiero.
Pero más aún, las conferencias de prensa de estos combatientes se
celebran con la participación de personas rigurosamente seleccionadas, y sin
acceso de ningún tipo a cubanos no invitados. Aunque como yo, asistan con su
bandera en la mano. INCREIBLE PERO CIERTO. Es más fácil para un cubano asistir
a un acto político del presidente de USA, que al de un disidente. Recuerden
siempre, cada organización, si es importante, tiene su DISIDENTE.
Todos saben, que las noticias de Cuba son totalmente manipuladas,
siempre tratan de dar una imagen que no existe. 4 o 5 personas con una bandera
protestando en Palmarito de Cauto, o cualquier otro municipio campesino. O
reunidos en una casa, creando una organización y pidiendo ayuda financiera.
Donde está el combate de verdad es en Miami, donde están y trabajan los espías, es aquí. Nadie habla ya de Ana Belén, del profesor Carlos Álvarez, del que estaba en el Dpto. de Estado, la red Avispa, y los que a cada rato nos sorprenden. Acuérdense, la política del FBI: "es mejor tener un espía controlado y monitoreado, que meterlo preso, y que te los sustituyan por uno que no conoces". Y sabemos, que estamos llenos.
Donde está el combate de verdad es en Miami, donde están y trabajan los espías, es aquí. Nadie habla ya de Ana Belén, del profesor Carlos Álvarez, del que estaba en el Dpto. de Estado, la red Avispa, y los que a cada rato nos sorprenden. Acuérdense, la política del FBI: "es mejor tener un espía controlado y monitoreado, que meterlo preso, y que te los sustituyan por uno que no conoces". Y sabemos, que estamos llenos.
Lo más triste, son los Tontos Útiles, personas realmente buenas, que
se dejan embaucar con los cuentos de caminos. Al igual que intelectuales, que
se creen que por su nivel de capacidad son inmunes a los agentes de penetración
y al final son víctimas de su propia autosuficiencia. Solo recomiendo: siempre
en guardia y vigilante los comunistas no tienen amigos y son traicioneros.
Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior June 13, 2013 by Dan Calabrese Bet you didn’t know this.
I’ve decided to reprint a piece of work I did nearly five years ago, because it seems very relevant today given Hillary Clinton’s performance in the Benghazi hearings. Back in 2008 when she was running for president, I interviewed two erstwhile staff members of the House Judiciary Committee who were involved with the Watergate investigation when Hillary was a low-level staffer there. I interviewed one Democrat staffer and one Republican staffer, and wrote two pieces based on what they told me about Hillary’s conduct at the time.I published these pieces back in 2008 for North Star Writers Group, the syndicate I ran at the time. This was the most widely read piece we ever had at NSWG, but because NSWG never gained the high-profile status of the major syndicates, this piece still didn’t reach as many people as I thought it deserved to. Today, given the much broader reach of CainTV and yet another incidence of Hillary’s arrogance in dealing with a congressional committee, I think it deserves another airing. For the purposes of simplicity, I’ve combined the two pieces into one very long one. If you’re interested in understanding the true character of Hillary Clinton, it’s worth your time to read it.
As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.
The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
Why?
“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.
“As soon as the impeachment resolutions were introduced by (then-House Minority Leader Gerald) Ford, and they were referred to the House Judiciary Committee, the first thing Douglas did was hire himself a lawyer,” Zeifman said.
The Judiciary Committee allowed Douglas to keep counsel, thus establishing the precedent. Zeifman says he told Hillary that all the documents establishing this fact were in the Judiciary Committee’s public files. So what did Hillary do?
“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.
The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.
Zeifman says that if Hillary, Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar had succeeded, members of the House Judiciary Committee would have also been denied the right to cross-examine witnesses, and denied the opportunity to even participate in the drafting of articles of impeachment against Nixon.
Of course, Nixon’s resignation rendered the entire issue moot, ending Hillary’s career on the Judiciary Committee staff in a most undistinguished manner. Zeifman says he was urged by top committee members to keep a diary of everything that was happening. He did so, and still has the diary if anyone wants to check the veracity of his story. Certainly, he could not have known in 1974 that diary entries about a young lawyer named Hillary Rodham would be of interest to anyone 34 years later.
But they show that the pattern of lies, deceit, fabrications and unethical behavior was established long ago – long before the Bosnia lie, and indeed, even before cattle futures, Travelgate and Whitewater – for the woman who is still asking us to make her president of the United States.
Franklin Polk, who served at the time as chief Republican counsel on the committee, confirmed many of these details in two interviews he granted me this past Friday, although his analysis of events is not always identical to Zeifman’s. Polk specifically confirmed that Hillary wrote the memo in question, and confirmed that Hillary ignored the Douglas case. (He said he couldn’t confirm or dispel the part about Hillary taking the Douglas files.)
To Polk, Hillary’s memo was dishonest in the sense that she tried to pretend the Douglas precedent didn’t exist. But unlike Zeifman, Polk considered the memo dishonest in a way that was more stupid than sinister.
“Hillary should have mentioned that (the Douglas case), and then tried to argue whether that was a change of policy or not instead of just ignoring it and taking the precedent out of the opinion,” Polk said.
Polk recalled that the attempt to deny counsel to Nixon upset a great many members of the committee, including just about all the Republicans, but many Democrats as well.
“The argument sort of broke like a firestorm on the committee, and I remember Congressman Don Edwards was very upset,” Polk said. “He was the chairman of the subcommittee on constitutional rights. But in truth, the impeachment precedents are not clear. Let’s put it this way. In the old days, from the beginning of the country through the 1800s and early 1900s, there were precedents that the target or accused did not have the right to counsel.”
That’s why Polk believes Hillary’s approach in writing the memorandum was foolish. He says she could have argued that the Douglas case was an isolated example, and that other historical precedents could apply.
But Zeifman says the memo and removal of the Douglas files was only part the effort by Hillary, Doar, Nussbaum and Marshall to pursue their own agenda during the investigation.
After my first column, some readers wrote in claiming Zeifman was motivated by jealousy because he was not appointed as the chief counsel in the investigation, with that title going to Doar instead.
Zeifman’s account is that he supported the appointment of Doar because he, Zeifman, a) did not want the public notoriety that would come with such a high-profile role; and b) didn’t have much prosecutorial experience. When he started to have a problem with Doar and his allies was when Zeifman and others, including House Majority Leader Tip O’Neill and Democratic committee member Jack Brooks of Texas, began to perceive Doar’s group as acting outside the directives and knowledge of the committee and its chairman, Peter Rodino.
(O’Neill died in 1994. Brooks is still living and I tried unsuccessfully to reach him. I’d still like to.)
This culminated in a project to research past presidential abuses of power, which committee members felt was crucial in aiding the decisions they would make in deciding how to handle Nixon’s alleged offenses.
According to Zeifman and other documents, Doar directed Hillary to work with a group of Yale law professors on this project. But the report they generated was never given to the committee. Zeifman believes the reason was that the report was little more than a whitewash of the Kennedy years – a part of the Burke Marshall-led agenda of avoiding revelations during the Watergate investigation that would have embarrassed the Kennedys.
The fact that the report was kept under wraps upset Republican committee member Charles Wiggins of California, who wrote a memo to his colleagues on the committee that read in part:
Within the past few days, some disturbing information has come to my attention. It is requested that the facts concerning the matter be investigated and a report be made to the full committee as it concerns us all.
Early last spring when it became obvious that the committee was considering presidential “abuse of power” as a possible ground of impeachment, I raised the question before the full committee that research should be undertaken so as to furnish a standard against which to test the alleged abusive conduct of Richard Nixon.
As I recall, several other members joined with me in this request. I recall as well repeating this request from time to time during the course of our investigation. The staff, as I recall, was noncommittal, but it is certain that no such staff study was made available to the members at any time for their use.
Wiggins believed the report was purposely hidden from committee members. Chairman Rodino denied this, and said the reason Hillary’s report was not given to committee members was that it contained no value. It’s worth noting, of course, that the staff member who made this judgment was John Doar.
In a four-page reply to Wiggins, Rodino wrote in part:
Hillary Rodham of the impeachment inquiry staff coordinated the work. . . . After the staff received the report it was reviewed by Ms. Rodham, briefly by Mr. Labovitz and Mr. Sack, and by Doar. The staff did not think the manuscript was useful in its present form. . . .
In your letter you suggest that members of the staff may have intentionally suppressed the report during the course of its investigation. That was not the case.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Doar was more concerned that any highlight of the project might prejudice the case against President Nixon. The fact is that the staff did not think the material was usable by the committee in its existing form and had not had time to modify it so it would have practical utility for the members of the committee. I was informed and agreed with the judgment.
Mr. Labovitz, by the way, was John Labovitz, another member of the Democratic staff. I spoke with Labovitz this past Friday as well, and he is no fan of Jerry Zeifman.
“If it’s according to Zeifman, it’s inaccurate from my perspective,” Labovitz said. He bases that statement on a recollection that Zeifman did not actually work on the impeachment inquiry staff, although that is contradicted not only by Zeifman but Polk as well.
Labovitz said he has no knowledge of Hillary having taken any files, and defended her no-right-to-counsel memo on the grounds that, if she was assigned to write a memo arguing a point of view, she was merely following orders.
But as both Zeifman and Polk point out, that doesn’t mean ignoring background of which you are aware, or worse, as Zeifman alleges, confiscating documents that disprove your argument.
All told, Polk recalls the actions of Hillary, Doar and Nussbaum as more amateurish than anything else.
“Of course the Republicans went nuts,” Polk said. “But so did some of the Democrats – some of the most liberal Democrats. It was more like these guys – Doar and company – were trying to manage the members of Congress, and it was like, ‘Who’s in charge here?’ If you want to convict a president, you want to give him all the rights possible. If you’re going to give him a trial, for him to say, ‘My rights were denied,’ – it was a stupid effort by people who were just politically tone deaf. So this was a big deal to people in the proceedings on the committee, no question about it. And Jerry Zeifman went nuts, and rightfully so. But my reaction wasn’t so much that it was underhanded as it was just stupid.”
Polk recalls Zeifman sharing with him at the time that he believed Hillary’s primary role was to report back to Burke Marshall any time the investigation was taking a turn that was not to the liking of the Kennedys.
“Jerry used to give the chapter and verse as to how Hillary was the mole into the committee works as to how things were going,” Polk said. “And she’d be feeding information back to Burke Marshall, who, at least according to Jerry, was talking to the Kennedys. And when something was off track in the view of the Kennedys, Burke Marshall would call John Doar or something, and there would be a reconsideration of what they were talking about. Jerry used to tell me that this was Hillary’s primary function.”
Zeifman says he had another staff member get him Hillary’s phone records, which showed that she was calling Burke Marshall at least once a day, and often several times a day.
A final note about all this: I wrote my first column on this subject because, in the aftermath of Hillary being caught in her Bosnia fib, I came in contact with Jerry Zeifman and found his story compelling. Zeifman has been trying to tell his story for many years, and the mainstream media have ignored him. I thought it deserved an airing as a demonstration of how early in her career Hillary began engaging in self-serving, disingenuous conduct.
Disingenuously arguing a position? Vanishing documents? Selling out members of her own party to advance a personal agenda? Classic Hillary. Neither my first column on the subject nor this one were designed to show that Hillary is dishonest. I don’t really think that’s in dispute. Rather, they were designed to show that she has been this way for a very long time – a fact worth considering for anyone contemplating voting for her for president of the United States.
By the way, there’s something else that started a long time ago.
“She would go around saying, ‘I’m dating a person who will some day be president,’” Polk said. “It was like a Babe Ruth call. And because of that comment she made, I watched Bill Clinton’s political efforts as governor of Arkansas, and I never counted him out because she had made that forecast.”
Bill knew what he wanted a long time ago. Clearly, so did Hillary, and her tactics for trying to achieve it were established even in those early days. http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-clinton-fired-for-lies-unethical-behavior/
¿No crees en extraterrestres? Entonces ¡mira esto! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLApvWaBwgw&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs
NSA leaker mysterious despite hours of interviews Leaker who told the world US secrets also says much about himself; some details questioned
WASHINGTON
(AP) -- The man who told the world about the U.S. government's gigantic data
grab also talks a lot about himself.
Mostly
through his own words, a picture of Edward Snowden is emerging: fresh-faced
computer whiz, high school dropout, wannabe Green Beret, disillusioned cog in a
secret bureaucracy.
He's
retained an aura of secrecy despite sitting for several days of interviews with
The Guardian, some posted in online video. Snowden combines an earnest, deeply
serious demeanor with a flair for the dramatic.
Snowden,
29, fled the U.S. for a Hong Kong hotel last month to go public with top secret
documents gathered through his work in Hawaii as a contractor through Booz
Allen Hamilton with the National Security Agency, where he worked as a systems
analyst. He revealed startlingly voracious spy programs that sweep up millions
of Americans' telephone records, emails and Internet data in the hunt for
terrorists.
With
the United States considering criminal charges against him, Snowden told the
South China Morning Post he hoped to stay in the autonomous region of China
because and he has faith in "the courts and people of Hong Kong to decide
my fate."
He's
also talked of seeking asylum from Iceland or Russia. And he suggested the
United States might hire Chinese gangs to get him. The adversaries he's made by
disclosing secrets are so powerful that "if they want to get you, they'll
get you in time," Snowden told The Guardian newspaper of London, which
first reported his revelations.
Why
would a man "living in Hawaii in paradise and making a ton of money"
decide to leave everything behind, he asked. Because he realized that his
computer savvy was helping erect an ever-expanding "architecture of
oppression" and he believed the people must be told.
From
a secret location in Hong Kong, he told the newspaper: "The reality is
that I have acted at great personal risk to help the public of the world,
regardless of whether that public is American, European, or Asian."
Snowden's
leaked documents have had an enormous impact. Some have questioned, however,
his descriptions of his power as a Booz Allen contractor and other details of
his life.
For
example, he said he was earning $200,000 a year. When Booz Allen fired him,
they said his salary was $122,000.
"I,
sitting at my desk, had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your
accountant to a federal judge to even the president if I had a personal
email," Snowden told The Guardian on videotape.
Asked
by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, about that comment, NSA Director Gen. Keith
Alexander said simply that it was false. "I know of no way to do
that," Alexander told senators in a hearing Wednesday.
Former
NSA and CIA director retired Gen. Mike Hayden called Snowden's claim
"absurd legally and technologically." Former NSA Inspector General
Joel Brenner also doubts it.
"I
do not believe his statement," Brenner said. "And if he tried, I
believe he would be discovered, stripped of his clearance, and summarily
fired."
Brenner
said, however, that Snowden appears to have had extraordinary access to things
he should not have and that will be investigated.
Snowden
also raised eyebrows by declaring that in his job he "had access to the
full roster of everyone working at the NSA, the entire intelligence community
and undercover assets all around the world, the locations of every station we
have, what their missions are and so forth."
Guardian
journalist Glenn Greenwald, who first reported the phone-tracking program and
conducted the Snowden interviews, describes him as "very steadfast and
resolute about the fact that he did the right thing."
Jonathan
Mills, father of Snowden's long-time girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, described him
as "very nice. Shy, and reserved."
"He's
always had strong convictions of right and wrong, and it kind of makes
sense," said Mills, who said he was "shocked" when he heard the
news about Snowden.
In
her blog, Lindsay Mills, a dancer and art college graduate, writes of a
boyfriend she refers to only as "E." On Monday, she wrote that
"at the moment all I can feel is alone." She said her hand and been
forced, that she was typing on a "tear-streaked keyboard," and that
"sometimes life doesn't afford proper goodbyes."
Snowden
told the South China newspaper that he hasn't dared contact his girlfriend or
family since allowing his identity as the leaker to be revealed Sunday in The
Guardian.
His
father, now retired from the U.S. Coast Guard and living in Pennsylvania, told
ABC News in a brief interview that he was worried about his son and still
processing what had happened. Lonnie Snowden said he last saw his son two
months ago, over dinner.
Snowden's
parents are divorced and his mother, Elizabeth Snowden, declined to talk to
reporters as she left her Maryland home Monday morning.
Joyce
Kinsey, a neighbor living next to the gray clapboard condominium in a quiet
Ellicott City neighborhood, said Snowden's mother, whom she knows as
"Wendy," bought the condo more than a dozen years ago.
When
he was about 16, Snowden lived in the condo without his family for a couple of
years, Kinsey said. His mother would drop by with groceries and a girlfriend
visited every weekend. Kinsey recalled seeing Snowden through the blinds,
working on a computer "at all times of day and night." She had the
impression he was sort of a "computer geek."
Snowden
spent part of his childhood in Wilmington, N.C., before his family moved to the
Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., an area rife with government workers. He
attended public school in Anne Arundel County, from elementary school through
three semesters at Arundel High School in Gambrills, according to a county
school spokesman.
Snowden
told The Guardian he didn't finish high school but studied computers at a
Maryland community college.
He
wanted to be a Green Beret. Snowden served in the Army from June to September
in 2004 at Fort Benning, Ga., where he declared his intent to qualify for the
Special Forces, said Col. David H. Patterson Jr., an Army spokesman. Snowden didn't
complete basic training and was discharged. The Army wouldn't give other
details.
Snowden
said he tapped his computer skills to get an information technology job at the
CIA and rose quickly through the ranks.
Snowden
said he left the CIA in 2009 to begin working for a private contractor that
assigned him to a functioning NSA facility, stationed on a military base in
Japan.
Steven Spielberg pronostica una “implosión” de la industria del cine
(CNN) - Muchos fanáticos del cine consideran a Steven
Spielberg un visionario. La última visión del afamado director, sin embargo,
podría decepcionar a más de uno.
Durante un evento el miércoles en la Universidad del Sur de California,
Spielberg pronosticó la “implosión” de la industria cinematográfica, según The Hollywood Reporter.
Las cosas podrían ponerse tan mal, dijo Spielberg, que “deberán pagarse 25
dólares para ver la próxima ‘Iron Man’ y apenas 7 para ver ‘Lincoln’”.El director indicó que los cambios podrían darse tras el fracaso de varias películas de alto presupuesto y fuertes expectativas. “El mayor peligro es que eventualmente haya una implosión o un colapso de la industria”, precisó. “Habrá una implosión cuando tres, cuatro o hasta seis filmes de altísimos presupuestos fracasen; se dará un cambio de paradigma”, agregó.
Las apreciaciones de Spielberg fueron compartidas por su colega George Lucas, quien también participó del encuentro. El creador de la saga “Star Wars” coincidió con los pronósticos y dijo que la televisión por cable hoy es “mucho más aventurera” que la industria del cine. El dúo les advirtió a los estudiantes que vivían un tiempo de fuertes cambios para el cine y quienes lo producen.
“El camino para ingresar a los cines es cada vez más chico”, concluyó Lucas.
Obama’s Snooping Excludes Mosques…Yes, He’s THAT Transparent
The White House assures that tracking our every phone call and keystroke is to stop terrorists, and yet it won’t snoop in mosques, where the terrorists are.That’s right, the government’s sweeping surveillance of our most private communications excludes the jihad factories where homegrown terrorists are radicalized.
Since October 2011, mosques have been off-limits to FBI agents. No more surveillance or undercover string operations without high-level approval from a special oversight body at the Justice Department dubbed the Sensitive Operations Review Committee.
Who makes up this body, and how do they decide requests? Nobody knows; the names of the chairman, members and staff are kept secret.
We do know the panel was set up under pressure from Islamist groups who complained about FBI stings at mosques. Just months before the panel’s formation, the Council on American-Islamic Relations teamed up with the ACLU to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.
Before mosques were excluded from the otherwise wide domestic spy net the administration has cast, the FBI launched dozens of successful sting operations against homegrown jihadists — inside mosques — and disrupted dozens of plots against the homeland. http://minutemennews.com/2013/06/obamas-snooping-excludes-mosques-missed-boston-bombers/
Did Obama Build His Super Database Using the NSA?
Connecting the dots is a necessary prerequisite in getting to the truth. Is it possible that the NSA scandal, the gathering of massive amounts of electronic information on every American, has been used by Obama and Co. to build a political data base second-to-none?The following is from a January 2013 NBC article “Obama Campaign Gives Database of Millions of Supporters to New Advocacy Group”:
“President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has turned over its most valuable asset — a massive computer database containing personal data on millions of American voters — to a new advocacy group created to advance the White House agenda on issues ranging from gun control to immigration reform.
“Organizing For Action (OFA), the advocacy group set up in recent weeks by the president’s top political aides, has already acquired access to the database under a leasing agreement with the Obama campaign, Katie Hogan, a former Obama campaign aide who is now serving as spokeswoman for the lobbying group, told NBC News. The information will be used to unleash an ‘army of the door knockers’ to back the president’s legislative agenda as well as raise money for ‘issue ads’ – particularly in crucial congressional districts, she said.”
At this point, it can’t be proved, but I’m suspicious. An investigation needs to be made on the possibility that the information on “millions of Americans” has been mined and obtained illegally.
Then there’s Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who’s always giving away Democrat secrets. It’s too bad that Republicans don’t listen to her. Consider this from an interview she had with Roland Martin in February:
“The President has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.
“That’s going to be very, very powerful. That database will have information about everything on every individual on ways that it’s never been done before and whoever runs for President on the Democratic ticket has to deal with that. They’re going to go down with that database and the concerns of those people because they can’t get around it. And he’s [President Obama] been very smart. It’s very powerful what he’s leaving in place.”
Read more: http://MinutemenNews.com/2013/06/did-obama-build-super-democrat-database-using-the-nsa/#ixzz2W8EHAUIJ
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment