No 405 6/7/13 “En mi opinión” Lázaro R
González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
Yunier UN CUBANO que se atreve a lo que muchos no hacen.
[Por favor reenvíen este mensaje a todos los que ustedes conozcan] Gracias LRGM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7zWG7ycTo&feature=youtu.be&noredirect=1
Should Eric Holder Resign? Vote in Urgent Poll
NY Times: Obama Administration 'Has Lost All Credibility'
For the second time in as many months, The New York Times on Thursday blasted the Obama administration for its
surveillance practices — this time saying that the White House has “now lost
all credibility” after reports that it has been collecting the telephone
records of millions of Verizon customers.
“Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it,” the Times said in a scathing editorial. “That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act … was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.”
Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?
Just a few hours later, however, the Times inexplicably changed the wording of the editorial to say the administration has now lost "all credibility on this issue," a much softer and different tone. No reason was given for the change.
Last month, the Times ripped the Justice Department for labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak about North Korea’s nuclear missile program.
The administration has “moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news,” the newspaper’s editorial said last month.
This latest rebuke from the Times editorial board, which has long been friendly toward President Barack Obama and his administration, stems from news reports that the National Security Agency has been collecting telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top-secret court order issued in April.
According to The Guardian in London, the blanket order requires Verizon, the nation’s No. 2 telecommunications company, to hand over information on all calls in its systems — both within the United States and between the U.S. and other countries.
Verizon, based in New York, must provide the data on an “ongoing, daily basis” through July 19. The order was issued to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25.
The data include the numbers of both parties on a call, location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversations itself are not covered in the order, the Guardian reports.
While the order covers calls in Verizon’s business services division, “it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division,” the Times said in its editorial. “There is every reason to believe the federal government has been collecting every bit of information about every American’s phone calls except the words actually exchanged in those calls.”
Dismissing one Obama administration official’s observation that names of the callers are not collected as “lame,” the Times quoted the official as saying that the data are collected “to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”
“That is a vital goal,” the editorial concedes, “but how is it served by collecting everyone’s call data? The government can easily collect phone records (including the actual content of those calls) on ‘known or suspected terrorists’ without logging every call made.
“Essentially, the administration is saying that, without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know who Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where.
“To casually permit this surveillance — with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power — fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy.”
The editorial also called defense of the practice by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “absurd” and challenged assertions by Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the committee’s GOP vice chairman, that the surveillance has “proved meritorious, because we have gathered significant information on bad guys and only on bad guys over the years.”
“But what assurance do we have of that,” the Times editorial asked, “especially since Ms. Feinstein went on to say that she actually did not know how the data being collected was used?”
The editorial then turned its attention to the president himself.
“Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press,” the Times said. “Even then, it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions.
“We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order,” the Times editorial continued. “But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy ‘puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.’”
The editorial even quoted Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, who attacked the NSA on Thursday for overstepping its authority with the secret order to collect the data on millions of Americans.
“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” Sensenbrenner told the Times. “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.
“Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American,” he said.
As such, the Times editorial board concluded, “This stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.”
“Mr. Obama is proving the truism that the executive will use any power it is given and very likely abuse it,” the Times said in a scathing editorial. “That is one reason we have long argued that the Patriot Act … was reckless in its assignment of unnecessary and overbroad surveillance powers.”
Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals?
Just a few hours later, however, the Times inexplicably changed the wording of the editorial to say the administration has now lost "all credibility on this issue," a much softer and different tone. No reason was given for the change.
Last month, the Times ripped the Justice Department for labeling Fox News reporter James Rosen as a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a news leak about North Korea’s nuclear missile program.
The administration has “moved beyond protecting government secrets to threatening fundamental freedoms of the press to gather news,” the newspaper’s editorial said last month.
This latest rebuke from the Times editorial board, which has long been friendly toward President Barack Obama and his administration, stems from news reports that the National Security Agency has been collecting telephone records of millions of U.S. customers of Verizon under a top-secret court order issued in April.
According to The Guardian in London, the blanket order requires Verizon, the nation’s No. 2 telecommunications company, to hand over information on all calls in its systems — both within the United States and between the U.S. and other countries.
Verizon, based in New York, must provide the data on an “ongoing, daily basis” through July 19. The order was issued to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on April 25.
The data include the numbers of both parties on a call, location data, call duration, unique identifiers, and the time and duration of all calls. The contents of the conversations itself are not covered in the order, the Guardian reports.
While the order covers calls in Verizon’s business services division, “it seems very likely that it extends beyond Verizon’s business division,” the Times said in its editorial. “There is every reason to believe the federal government has been collecting every bit of information about every American’s phone calls except the words actually exchanged in those calls.”
Dismissing one Obama administration official’s observation that names of the callers are not collected as “lame,” the Times quoted the official as saying that the data are collected “to discover whether known or suspected terrorists have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in terrorist activities, particularly people located inside the United States.”
“That is a vital goal,” the editorial concedes, “but how is it served by collecting everyone’s call data? The government can easily collect phone records (including the actual content of those calls) on ‘known or suspected terrorists’ without logging every call made.
“Essentially, the administration is saying that, without any individual suspicion of wrongdoing, the government is allowed to know who Americans are calling every time they make a phone call, for how long they talk and from where.
“To casually permit this surveillance — with the American public having no idea that the executive branch is now exercising this power — fundamentally shifts power between the individual and the state, and repudiates constitutional principles governing search, seizure and privacy.”
The editorial also called defense of the practice by Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, “absurd” and challenged assertions by Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the committee’s GOP vice chairman, that the surveillance has “proved meritorious, because we have gathered significant information on bad guys and only on bad guys over the years.”
“But what assurance do we have of that,” the Times editorial asked, “especially since Ms. Feinstein went on to say that she actually did not know how the data being collected was used?”
The editorial then turned its attention to the president himself.
“Mr. Obama clearly had no intention of revealing this eavesdropping, just as he would not have acknowledged the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, had it not been reported in the press,” the Times said. “Even then, it took him more than a year and a half to acknowledge the killing, and he is still keeping secret the protocol by which he makes such decisions.
“We are not questioning the legality under the Patriot Act of the court order,” the Times editorial continued. “But we strongly object to using that power in this manner. It is the very sort of thing against which Mr. Obama once railed, when he said in 2007 that the Bush administration’s surveillance policy ‘puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide.’”
The editorial even quoted Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the Wisconsin Republican who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, who attacked the NSA on Thursday for overstepping its authority with the secret order to collect the data on millions of Americans.
“As the author of the Patriot Act, I am extremely troubled by the FBI’s interpretation of this legislation,” Sensenbrenner told the Times. “While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses.
“Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American,” he said.
As such, the Times editorial board concluded, “This stunning use of the act shows, once again, why it needs to be sharply curtailed if not repealed.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-nytimes-lost-credibility/2013/06/06/id/508541?s=al&promo_code=13BF5-1#ixzz2VXdJ5kId
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
New app claims to prevent government eavesdropping on cell phones Alex Pappas
The developers of a new mobile app may have just caught a break — and
found a new group of potential customers — with the revelation that government
is secretly snooping on Verizon cell phone users.
Developers in South Africa have developed an app called Seecrypt, which they say protects cell phone users from having their calls and
texts tracked.
It was revealed Wednesday that the National Security
Agency has forced Verizon to turn over phone records of customers inside the
United States in the name of fighting terrorism.
But the developers of Seecrypt say you can get around the NSA with their
app.
Users, according to the developers, don’t have to worry about the
government knowing who they are talking with.
For the app to work, both people wanting to text or call each other must
have the application. But when the application is used, the phone company will
not know the identity or phone number of the other person on the line. It
will only know that the caller used Seecrypt.
Once the communication begins, it becomes encrypted and private.
According to a release at the company’s launch last month, the app is
available for Apple and Android smartphones.
“Creating a scalable encrypted
voice-over-data application that can operate with minimal latency anywhere in
the world is not easy,” said Mornay Walters, the CEO and co-founder of
Seecrypt, at the company’s launch. “Seecrypt met and surpassed this challenge
by using a set of proprietary protocols and a carrier grade back-end
infrastructure that operates on a privately controlled and globally deployed
network.”
Porque
“En mi opinión” aquí el gobierno de obama va a
terminar registrándonos hasta el “cucurrucucu paloma” a todos los que de alguna
forma critiquen su régimen. Lázaro R González Miño (Cuidado si en un futuro
inventen un lector de pensamiento… Porque los comunistas son así opresores
hasta del pensamiento libre. http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/new-app-claims-to-prevent-government-eavesdropping-on-cell-phones/
Miss World Pageant Scraps Bikinis Because They Offend Muslims
Miss World is synonymous with scantily clad women strutting their stuff on stage.But this year the pageant will be significantly more subdued, after organisers announced that they are scrapping the traditional bikini round in a bid to avoid offending the Muslim hosts.
The contest, which will crown a global beauty queen chosen from 137 participants, will take place in September on the island of Bali in Indonesia.
Read more: dailymail.co.uk
Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/06/miss-world-pageant-scraps-bikinis-because-they-offend-muslims/
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.
Jay Leno Gets Thunderous Applause for Suggesting IRS Should be Shipped to Gitmo Kyle Becker On June 5, 2013
Jay Leno is really having a blast nowadays since he is on the outs at NBC’s “The Late Show.” The veteran comic will be replaced by Jimmy Fallon next year, and Leno is not holding back.
And Jay is taking his shots at the IRS while he can. It must be decades since a perfect storm of tax scandals provided the all-clear to go after the IRS without being too fearful of an audit. After all, Jay just got $15 million to leave the network, which should make Mazerati dealers extremely excited. http://www.ijreview.com/2013/06/56997-jay-leno-gets-thunderous-applause-for-suggesting-irs-should-be-shipped-to-gitmo/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%231909&utm_campaign=06-06-2013%20IJ%20ReviewNSA, FBI secretly mines data from major Internet companies
The NSA and the FBI are mining the user data
of nine major Internet
companies, an expose by The Washington Post revealed Thursday evening.
of nine major Internet
companies, an expose by The Washington Post revealed Thursday evening.
The previously undisclosed program — called PRISM — allows intelligence
analysts to directly tap the servers of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google,
Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google,
Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple.
The audio and video chats, photographs, emails, documents and connection logs of
users are all available to be extracted and analyzed by intelligence analysts.
, documents and connection logs of
users are all available to be extracted and analyzed by intelligence analysts.
The names of the companies appear in the order of when they joined the
“court-approved” program, which began in 2007. Dropbox is reportedly
“coming soon.”
98 percent of PRISM’s product is derived from intelligence gathered from
Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google.
The Guardian and NBC News also confirmed the existence of PRISM, whose analysis is used
in out of seven NSA reports and was cited in 1,477 articles of
the President’s Daily Brief in 2012.
“In exchange for immunity from lawsuits, companies such as Yahoo and AOL
are obliged to accept a “directive” from the attorney general and the director
of national intelligence to open their servers to the FBI’s Data Intercept
Technology Unit, which handles liaison to U.S. companies from the NSA,” wrote
The Washington Post.
“In 2008,” the newspaper continued, “Congress gave the Justice
Department authority for a secret order from the Foreign Surveillance
Intelligence Court to compel a reluctant company “to comply.”
The companies that responded to the Post’s requests for comment —
including Google, Facebook and Apple — denied any participation in PRISM.
The government’s 41-slide PowerPoint presentation — dated April 2013 — and
supporting materials describing the program were provided to The Washington
Post by a career intelligence officer looking to expose a “gross
intrusion of privacy.”
“They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the
officer said to The Washington Post.
NSA Secretly Collecting Phone
Records Of All U.S. Verizon Calls Gregory Ferenstein
Ya no solo es el IRS el que persique y castiga a los
criticos del Presidente Obama ahora tambien se espia a los
ciudadanos. America despierta antes de que sea tarde ! Wake Up America !
The National Security Administration is
secretly collecting phone record information for all calls on the Verizon
network. “Under the terms of the blanket order, the numbers of both parties on
a call are handed over, as is location data, call duration, unique identifiers,
and the time and duration of all calls,” reports The Guardian,
which broke the story of the top-secret project after it obtained record of a
court order mandating Verizon hand over the information.
The contents of the call are not recorded
and it is also not known whether Verizon is the only cell-phone carrier
complying with the massive spying project. The court order concerns all calls
to, from, and within the United States.
With this so-called “metadata,” the
government knows “the identity of every person with whom an individual
communicates electronically, how long they spoke, and their location at the
time of the communication,” explains the Guardian.
The Senate’s tech-savviest member, Ron
Wyden (CrunchGov Grade: A), has been
discretely warning citizens of these kinds of secretive government projects.
“There is now a significant gap between what most Americans think
the law allows and what the government secretly claims the
law allows,” wrote Wyden and Senator Mark Udall to embattled Attorney Eric
Holder.
The order apparently draws from a 2001
Bush-era provision in the Patriot Act (50 USC section 1861). The revelation
dovetails similar exposes on massive government spying projects, including one
project to combine federal datasets and look for patterns on anything which
could be related to terrorism.
Late last year, I wrote about a few actual harms that citizens should be worried
about from these
types of big-data spying programs. Blackmailing citizens critical of the
government seemed like a distant hypothetical, until we learned that the IRS
was auditing Tea Party groups and journalists were being wiretapped. Nefarious
actors inside the government like to abuse national security programs for
political ends, and that should make us all (even more) suspect of government
spying.
Some government secrecy is necessary for
national security purposes. But it’s justified based on our trust that the
information will be used with care. With every passing scandal, the
justification for these types of programs becomes more and more questionable.
Either way, this is a massive PR disaster
for Verizon. While it’s true that AT&T had it’s own spying scandal, misery still loves company. It’s
in Verizon’s interest to somehow implicate other carriers in the spying
program. If Verizon is, indeed, not the only carrier, I suspect we’ll be
finding out in the near future. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/06/06/nsa-said-to-be-spying-on-millions-of-verizon-users/?subscriber=1
Kansas Law: No More Government Money Promoting Gun Control
Written by Gary North on June 7, 2013
The
governor of Kansas has signed a law that prohibits local governments from using
taxpayers’ money to promote gun control. They may not produce or distribute
“any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, electronic communication, radio, television
or video presentation” that is related to gun control.
They
may not hire lobbyists, either.
Gun
control promoters say this is an infringement on their constitutional right to
take money from taxpayers and then use this money to promote their own agendas.
One local official protested. “The next thing you know, the state will pass a
law that closes tax-funded schools. Public schools are based 100% on the idea
that local governments can and should use taxpayers’ money to promote agendas
that a lot of taxpayers oppose. I mean, once you accept the idea that a local
government can’t use taxpayers’ money to promote its own agenda, where will
this stop?”
OK, I
faked that quote. But it is consistent with the critics’ protests.
Critics
of the bill argue that the bill comes dangerously close to violating the First
Amendment rights of cities and towns that want to see changes in state or
federal gun laws. Mayor Mike Dever of Lawrence, Kansas, told the Associated
Press that he is frustrated with the state’s concealed carry law and now
worries about to what extent he can challenge the law.
“It
kinds of creates an interesting dilemma for local government agencies, when
they feel strongly about something and have to be careful,” Dever said.
We need
more interesting dilemmas like this. Lots more. Read
more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/06/07/kansas-law-no-more-government-money-promoting-gun-control/
Fighting within Chavez clan. Pugna dedans la famille pour l`heritage de Hugo Chavez ¡Familiares se caen a dentelladas por lo que se robo hugo chavez, que miserables!!!
English
Fighting within Chavez clan. for the billionaire heritage
French Lutte dedans la famille pour l`heritage de Hugo Chavez
________________________________
Conflictos familiares entre los hijos por la herencia millonaria de Chávez
Según fuentes consultadas, las hijas de Hugo Chávez junto como Hugo (Jr) “Huguito”, estarían estableciendo una demanda contra María Gabriela Chávez Colmenares dado que ella se habría quedado como Heredera Universal de la multimillonaria fortuna acumulada por su padre el entonces presidente Chávez.
De acuerdo a los trascendidos la madre de Hugo Chávez, la abuela Helena se encontraría furiosa y al borde de una ataque de nervios ya que desde que desde el entierro de Chávez, María Gabriela no solo no le ha devuelto un llamado telefónico sino que además se ha negado a repartir la herencia con sus hermanos Rosa Virginia, Rosa Inés y Huguito de modo tal que las internas, peleas y rivalidades se están haciendo sentir fuertemente en el clan Chávez consecuencia del reparto de los bienes del difunto Presidente.
Sumado a todo este escándalo aparece en escena otra hija del difunto expresidente Hugo Chávez de nombre Génesis María de quien su progenitora también reclama para su hija parte de la herencia que el caudillo populista caribeño dejó valuada en miles de millones de dólares.
French Lutte dedans la famille pour l`heritage de Hugo Chavez
________________________________
Conflictos familiares entre los hijos por la herencia millonaria de Chávez
Según fuentes consultadas, las hijas de Hugo Chávez junto como Hugo (Jr) “Huguito”, estarían estableciendo una demanda contra María Gabriela Chávez Colmenares dado que ella se habría quedado como Heredera Universal de la multimillonaria fortuna acumulada por su padre el entonces presidente Chávez.
De acuerdo a los trascendidos la madre de Hugo Chávez, la abuela Helena se encontraría furiosa y al borde de una ataque de nervios ya que desde que desde el entierro de Chávez, María Gabriela no solo no le ha devuelto un llamado telefónico sino que además se ha negado a repartir la herencia con sus hermanos Rosa Virginia, Rosa Inés y Huguito de modo tal que las internas, peleas y rivalidades se están haciendo sentir fuertemente en el clan Chávez consecuencia del reparto de los bienes del difunto Presidente.
Sumado a todo este escándalo aparece en escena otra hija del difunto expresidente Hugo Chávez de nombre Génesis María de quien su progenitora también reclama para su hija parte de la herencia que el caudillo populista caribeño dejó valuada en miles de millones de dólares.
Blueprint for dismantling 'ObamaCare'
- 07/30/12 11:51 AM ET
Here’s the
blueprint for how the states can eviscerate three central pillars of ObamaCare,
crippling it and set the stage for replacing it if Mitt Romney takes the White
House and the GOP takes the Senate this November.
Two reasons
compel dismantling ObamaCare. First is restoring individual liberty by
empowering states against the national government and citizens against both.
Second is recognizing that free markets outperform centrally-planned markets,
so private-sector healthcare will better serve Americans than
government-controlled Obamacare ever could.
However disappointing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision, by a separate 7–2 vote the justices opened the door for the states to assert their sovereignty in an equally-unprecedented opportunity. The Court has declared for decades that it’s theoretically possible for federal spending to exceed Congress’ power under the Spending Clause of the Constitution, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. That possibility became reality on June 28.
Medicaid is nominally a federal-state “partnership” consuming 20% of state budgets. ObamaCare grows Medicaid by an additional $434 billion per decade to cover all Americans up to 138% of the poverty line. The feds promise to pay for 90% of this expansion (though they cannot be held to that), leaving states to pay at least another $50 billion.
If any state declines to participate in the expansion, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could strip that state of 100% of its Medicaid dollars. Every voter in that state would continue funding Medicaid through payroll taxes twice a month, but now would be subsidizing the other 49 states. Rejecting the expansion would thus be a political death wish for any governor or legislature.
This coercion is an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty, so the Court struck down part of ObamaCare’s massive Medicaid expansion. The four justices against the individual mandate would have invalidated this entire expansion. While Chief Justice Roberts wouldn’t go that far, he was willing to strike down the provision authorizing stripping all Medicaid funds. So now states can refuse to expand Medicaid by foregoing the additional funding.
So first, states must reject the Medicaid expansion. This will leave millions of people subject to the individual mandate unable to get coverage from this government entitlement. Many of those people are exempt from the penalty (tax?) anyway, but others are not. Those people vote heavily Democratic, and they’ll surely demand the mandate be amended to exempt them.
Second, states must refuse to create state-based exchanges, which provide heavily-subsidized insurance policies to middle-income Americans not provided healthcare by employers. Because it would violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle to require states to create or run the exchanges, if a state doesn’t do it, HHS will directly create and run it.
But there are no tax subsidies if HHS runs an exchange, so no incentive for people to flock to the exchanges; they’d pay full price. While many high-risk individuals would do so, it would still be vastly more expensive. Many will instead choose to pay the penalty (tax?) for violating the individual mandate.
Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, ObamaCare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.
Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges.
More than half the states sued to have ObamaCare struck down. Presumably most will now pursue their options to decline the Medicaid expansion, not create exchanges, and thereby also save their companies from federal penalties. Medicaid, the exchanges, and the employer mandate are three of the central pillars of the Obamacare system.
This will create an unworkable patchwork nationwide, between states with semi-socialized medicine and healthcare costs spiraling out of control, versus those with private-sector medicine. Expect doctors, insurers, and providers to flock to these friendlier states, creating an increasingly unbalanced system. Then ObamaCare will start coming apart at the seams, and momentum will build to repeal and replace.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/241005-blueprint-for-dismantling-obamacare
However disappointing the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare’s individual mandate in a 5–4 decision, by a separate 7–2 vote the justices opened the door for the states to assert their sovereignty in an equally-unprecedented opportunity. The Court has declared for decades that it’s theoretically possible for federal spending to exceed Congress’ power under the Spending Clause of the Constitution, thereby violating the Tenth Amendment. That possibility became reality on June 28.
Medicaid is nominally a federal-state “partnership” consuming 20% of state budgets. ObamaCare grows Medicaid by an additional $434 billion per decade to cover all Americans up to 138% of the poverty line. The feds promise to pay for 90% of this expansion (though they cannot be held to that), leaving states to pay at least another $50 billion.
If any state declines to participate in the expansion, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) could strip that state of 100% of its Medicaid dollars. Every voter in that state would continue funding Medicaid through payroll taxes twice a month, but now would be subsidizing the other 49 states. Rejecting the expansion would thus be a political death wish for any governor or legislature.
This coercion is an unconstitutional violation of state sovereignty, so the Court struck down part of ObamaCare’s massive Medicaid expansion. The four justices against the individual mandate would have invalidated this entire expansion. While Chief Justice Roberts wouldn’t go that far, he was willing to strike down the provision authorizing stripping all Medicaid funds. So now states can refuse to expand Medicaid by foregoing the additional funding.
So first, states must reject the Medicaid expansion. This will leave millions of people subject to the individual mandate unable to get coverage from this government entitlement. Many of those people are exempt from the penalty (tax?) anyway, but others are not. Those people vote heavily Democratic, and they’ll surely demand the mandate be amended to exempt them.
Second, states must refuse to create state-based exchanges, which provide heavily-subsidized insurance policies to middle-income Americans not provided healthcare by employers. Because it would violate the Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering principle to require states to create or run the exchanges, if a state doesn’t do it, HHS will directly create and run it.
But there are no tax subsidies if HHS runs an exchange, so no incentive for people to flock to the exchanges; they’d pay full price. While many high-risk individuals would do so, it would still be vastly more expensive. Many will instead choose to pay the penalty (tax?) for violating the individual mandate.
Third, if employers with 50+ employees do not provide federally-approved healthcare, ObamaCare imposes a $2,000 penalty per employee, per year. (Minimum penalty $100,000.) However, that penalty is triggered when those employees receive tax subsidies from a state-based exchange.
Since HHS-run exchanges have no subsidies, for states refuseing to create exchanges, no employer in that state will be subject to that penalty. This means business owners will band together to lobby their state not to set up exchanges.
More than half the states sued to have ObamaCare struck down. Presumably most will now pursue their options to decline the Medicaid expansion, not create exchanges, and thereby also save their companies from federal penalties. Medicaid, the exchanges, and the employer mandate are three of the central pillars of the Obamacare system.
This will create an unworkable patchwork nationwide, between states with semi-socialized medicine and healthcare costs spiraling out of control, versus those with private-sector medicine. Expect doctors, insurers, and providers to flock to these friendlier states, creating an increasingly unbalanced system. Then ObamaCare will start coming apart at the seams, and momentum will build to repeal and replace.
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/241005-blueprint-for-dismantling-obamacare
Alguien está oyendo sus
llamadas
Auditoría Alberto Perez, amenper.
El Servicio de Impuestos Internos (IRS)
se disculpó con el Tea Party y otros grupos de derecha tras reconocer que sus
solicitudes de exoneración impositiva eran estudiadas con especial
detenimiento. Un funcionario reveló el viernes que las organizaciones que
incluían términos como “Tea Party” o “patriotas” en sus nombres eran elegidas
por la división del IRS responsable de investigar a quienes desean ser
considerados como organizaciones de beneficencia en virtud de la ley tributaria
de Estados Unidos. El IRS sostiene que la selección no tenía motivos políticos,
(¿¿¿) sino que se trataba de un intento acelerado de analizar el aumento de
solicitudes. El informe de un inspector general señala que también apuntaban a
los grupos que cuestionan el gasto del gobierno, la deuda y los impuestos. Los
máximos funcionarios del servicio se habrían enterado en 2011, pero recién
ahora emitieron una disculpa pública.
Steven Miller director del IRS,
declaró "En
primer lugar, me quiero disculpar en nombre del Servicio de Rentas
Internas por los errores que cometimos y el pobre servicio que
proporcionamos", dijo Miller en una audiencia ante el Comité de Medios y
Arbitrios de la Cámara de Representantes.
Hoy el comisionado de la División
de Pequeños Negocios y Autoempleo del Servicio de Recaudación Fiscal (IRS) ,
Faris Fink, ha pedido perdón a los contribuyentes porque el organismo destinó
más de 50.000 dólares en la producción de varios vídeos promocionales,
incluido una parodia de la película de ciencia ficción Star Trek.
Leyendo estas
noticias, no puedo negar mi coincidencia con estos oficiales del IRS, comprendo
su arrepentimiento, y ahora me siento mucho más tranquilo.
Si el IRS me
hace una auditoría y encuentra que algunas de mis deducciones de negocios no
son propiamente relacionadas por un viaje de negocios, pero de placer, lo único
que tengo que hacer es disculparme....soorry.... y ellos me perdonarán.
Es muy bueno
tener unos oficiales públicos tan sensitivos.
Gobierno estadounidense está espiando a todos los clientes de la operadora
Verizon Alberto Perez, amenper.
¿Has llamado
últimamente a alguna persona en Estados Unidos que tuviera un celular de la
operadora Verizon? Pues bien, probablemente en estos momentos la Agencia
de Seguridad Nacional de EE. UU. (NSA) debe tener registrada toda la
información de esa llamada.
Ésto se debe a que
–como lo reveló el periódico inglés The
Guardian– una orden judicial secreta y hasta ahora desconocida para el pueblo
estadounidense sostiene básicamente que el gobierno de ese país tiene “una
autorización sin límites para obtener todos los datos por tres meses, (desde el
25 de abril) hasta el 19 de julio” de todas las llamadas realizadas bajo
la operadora estadounidense Verizon, la que debe entregar informes diarios
detallados a la NSA.
Pero, ¿que tipo de
información está recolectando la NSA desde Verizon? La orden indica que deben
entregar “todos los detalles de las llamadas, o ‘metadatos telefónicos’ creados
por Verizon para llamadas realizadas entre Estados Unidos y otros países, y
todas las llamadas al interior de Estados Unidos, incluyendo las llamadas
locales“.
La orden es
específica, y estos metadatos telefónicos consisten por lo bajo –o sea,
perfectamente además podrían grabar la conversación en los números
telefónicos, el número IMSI, el número IMEI de los equipos (un número único y
universal identificador de cualquier teléfono celular), el número de las
tarjetas telefónicas utilizadas, hora y duración de la llamada, etcétera. O
sea, datos capaces de responder quién eres, donde estás, con quién hablabas,
por cuanto tiempo, y cuando llamaste.
Si bien usualmente
estos tipos de órdenes judiciales son limitadas, como por ejemplo una cantidad
limitada de líneas telefónicas asociadas a sospechosos de pertenecer a grupos
terroristas, en esta ocasión la corte determinó que se debe registrar una
cantidad prácticamente ilimitada de información. ¿Para qué? Quién sabe. Todos
somos sospechosos.
La Casa Blanca
entregó recientemente una declaración al respecto, y defendió la recolección de
datos afirmando que es “una herramienta crítica para proteger a la nación
de amenazas terroristas“. O sea, no ven nada malo en ésto.
Chris Christie nombró a Jeff Chiesa senador interino. AlbertoPerez. Amenper.
El gobernador
Chris Christie, anunció el nombramiento del fiscal general estatal Jeff Chiesa
como senador interino hasta la elección especial de octubre.
Chris Christie
había anunciado el pasado martes una elección especial para sustituir a
Lautenberg, con lo que desechó la opción de nombrar a un correligionario suyo
del Partido Republicano que se mantuviera en el puesto hasta noviembre de 2014,
cuando concluye el mandato del fallecido senador.
Christie, de 50 años, es un republicano moderado muy popular en el
estado, por lo que si usaba sus poderes para nombrar a un republicano
conservador e intentaba forzar su reelección hubiera dañado a su imagen de
dialogante y abierto, así como sus posibilidades de reelección en los comicios
de noviembre próximo. ¨Por otro lado, el, elegir a un demócrata o a un
republicano moderado podía dificultar sus posibilidades de aspirar a la
candidatura republicana a la presidencia de Estados Unidos en 2016, en un
Partido Republicano donde los moderados del noreste de Estados Unidos son
vistos con crecientes reticencias por la rama conservadora
Finalmente,
considerando las alternativas y ante los comentarios de los miembros del
partido Republicano que consideraron que había que aprovechar la oportunidad de
tener un miembro del partido conservador en un Senado controlado por los
liberales demócratas Christie optó por nominar a Chiesa.
En la
conferencia de prensa Chiesa dijo que es un Republicano Conservador, y con
respecto a la reforma de inmigración dijo que creía que lo primero es asegurar
las fronteras.
Victoria
Pírrica. Alberto Perez.
Siento tener
que discrepar con muchos de mis aliados conservadores sobre el problema de
inmigración. No es que piense diferente, es que trato de ver el asunto de
una manera pragmática, mirando las alternativas.
De cualquier
manera tal parece que la victoria será de los que no quieren que pase la
ley. Es probable que se paralice en el congreso. Pero si así sucede
será una victoria pírrica.
El nombre de
victoria pírrica proviene de Pirro, rey de Epiro,
quien logró una victoria sobre los romanos con el costo de miles de sus
hombres. Se dice que Pirro, al contemplar el resultado dijo "Otra
victoria como ésta y volveré solo a casa""-Así que ahora, cuando
alguien dice que algo es una victoria pírrica, ellos quieren decir que es una
victoria obtenida con más daño del vencedor que del vencido
Digo esto
porque mirando al problema migratorio, ¿Qué sucederá si no se aprueba la ley?
Estamos en un
gobierno que realmente no quiere resolver el problema, estamos en un momento en
que la inmigración ilegal está desbocada.
Como bajo
esta administración, es políticamente incorrecto perseguir a los inmigrantes
ilegales, y no hay ley reguladora, lo que tenemos es una amnistía de hecho.
De acuerdo,
la ley está llena de huecos, pero en general es un control disuasivo que
pudiera ser adecuado, y los huecos se rellenan si logramos una administración
conservadora o al menos unas cámaras legislativas conservadoras.
Pero mientras
tanto es conveniente establecer un sistema de controles.
¿Que no se
implementarán? Esto es una conjetura basada en las experiencias
previas y es respetable, pero hay que tratar algo, la inercia es lo establecido
que es el problema. Algunas normas legales serían como un freno, al menos es
algo mejor que lo que tenemos ahora, hasta en el caso en que no se cumpla
cabalmente.
Si somos
optimistas y pensamos que en tres años tendremos un gobierno conservador,
entonces no hay problemas todo se arreglará.
Pero
con la victoria pírrica en estos momentos, lo que se consigue es que por otros
tres años tengamos el caos migratorio en el que seguirá el desborde de
inmigrantes ilegales atravesando nuestras fronteras, vaciando las arcas del
tesoro público, llenando nuestros hospitales, infestando nuestra cultura, y con
una frontera porosa por donde se filtran las drogas para nuestra
juventud.
Si somos
pesimistas y pensamos que pudiéramos tener la desgracia de una nueva
administración liberal, hay que sumar a los tres años al menos cuatro más,
siempre sin regulaciones disuasivas, con el relajo sin fronteras en las
fronteras. Esta situación seria irrevensible.
Si se
consigue una victoria en el congreso contra la ley, creo que hay que decir
al revés de Pirro, “con victorias como esta se nos llena la casa”.
Las Riquezas Alberto
Perez. Amenper.
¿Qué cosa es
las Riquezas de las Naciones que explicaba Adam Smith en su libro? ¿Qué cosa
son las riquezas de una persona, lo que hace a una persona que sea realmente
“rico”?
Las riquezas
son relativas, realmente no se trata de la acumulación de dinero.
Para que una
persona sea “rico”, sencillamente tiene que vivir dentro de sus posibilidades
económicas, entonces es “rico”.
Un millonario
que se excede en sus gastos con un estilo de vida por arriba de sus millones,
termina en la pobreza y tiene una vida intranquila.
Una persona
con una entrada determinada, que vive gastando menos de lo que gana y puede
pagar sus obligaciones a tiempo, es “rico” y vive una vida tranquila.
Lo mismo se
puede aplicar a las naciones.
Si una nación
gasta más de sus ingresos, no importa si trata de buscar la solución con
aumentos impositivos a sus ciudadanos, ese país terminará en la pobreza.
Lo que ha
hecho a los Estados Unidos el país más rico del mundo, no es su poderío
industrial, el poderío económico de los Estados Unidos es un producto derivado
de su responsabilidad fiscal.
Los Estados
Unidos fueron el ejemplo de la ética de trabajo y responsabilidad y fueron una
vitrina que enseñó al mundo como se crean las riquezas de las naciones.
Pero el mundo
prefiere envidiar a aprender.
No es
realmente una filosofía económica, se puede fracasar con austeridad como se
puede fracasar con los estímulos estatales.
Porque si
estas condiciones no están acompañadas con el sentido de la responsabilidad, si
el pueblo no se hace responsable de su vida y sólo pide privilegios del
estado, y el gobierno para recibir votos concede esos privilegios, la economía
nunca se estabiliza.
El sistema de
dependencia estatal se ha establecido de tal forma que cuando un gobierno trata
de imponer la austeridad, la clase dependiente, violentamente pide la
restitución de sus llamados “derechos”, y el gobierno se pliega a ceder a las
demandas para evitar la inquietud social.
Si todos
sabemos cuál es la razón que hizo grande a los Estados Unidos, si lo único que
tenemos que hacer es simplemente mirar para atrás, ¿Por qué es que no miran
para ver lo evidente?
Lo que sucede
es que hay intereses políticos que no quieren que vean.
En los
choches de mi pueblo le ponían a los caballos anteojeras,
esas solapas de vaqueta para impedir que vieran por los lados y para
atrás, para que no fueran a tirar coces.
Los políticos
le ponen al pueblo esas anteojeras virtuales, porque no quieren que el pueblo
vea lo que pasa a su alrededor y para que no miren para atrás y evitar que vean
cosas que no le convienen.
La solución
es que el pueblo se quite las anteojeras.
Los “8 Grandes” Lideres Del Mundo Recibirán El Mismo Trato Que “Catalina La Grande De Rusia” Ricardo Samitier.
Les Están Construyendo En Irlanda
“Pueblos FANTASMAS” Para Tapar La Miseria.
Aquí tienen la noticia...
Todos los edificios abandonados les están pintado las
falladas y en las vidrieras y ventanas les están poniendo fotos de personas...
para cuando pasen “Los Lideres del G8” No vean la miseria en la que viven los siervos de los
banqueros...
Los Asiáticos Siguen Comprando Oro, En Cantidades Récord, Pero El Precio Del Oro En Papeles,
Permanece Bajo. Ricardo Samitier.
Lo Que No Se Pueden Explicar... a No Ser Que Están
Preparándose para La Caída Del Dólar y el Euro...
India importó 162 toneladas métricas de oro mayo - frente a 142,5 en abril. Compradores
de la India se burlaron del aumento de los derechos de importación impuestas
por el gobierno para tratar de mantener la balanza comercial del país de
conseguir controlarlo...
Pero los burócratas están en un aprieto: "El gobierno esta cauteloso y no desea aumentar más los
derechos de importación", dice
un informe de Reuters, "porque podría alentar el
contrabando."
La Importaciones De Oro De China Siguieron Creciendo A
136.185 Toneladas De 60.958
Para leer la noticia completa
Está A Punto De Lograrse La Entrega De USA Por Los Comunistas De Ambos Partidos. Ricardo
Samitier.
Ha sido una LABOR DE MUCHOS AÑOS... comenzó con
Wilson y la creación de la LIGA DE LAS NACIONES sueño de los “HOMO SAPIENTES ” reportado en la
BIBLIA como “La Torre De Babel.”
En 1948 Estados Unidos propuso entregar a la
RECIÉN CREADA ONU todo el control del mundo... pero Stalin UN
NACIONALISTA RUSO... se negó a participar y también rechazo el PLAN MARSHALL...
Un país que produce comida y trabaja... casi
automáticamente se convierte en UN GRAN PAÍS... el cual como los barcos es difícil pararlos...
Para lograr destruir a USA, entre los
políticos y los sindicatos manejados por GÁNSTER que lógicamente
tienen TODAS LAS CONDICIONES para ser MAGNÍFICOS
COMUNISTAS la primera
industria que LLEVARON A LA QUIEBRA... nadie lo notó fue la industria de la transportación de
pasajeros por barco... el país más poderosos no DEJO DE TENER BARCOS...
Después el único país que después d la II
Guerra Mundial tenia las fabricas de automóviles INTACTAS... siguió
produciendo automóviles que eran de INFERIOR CALIDAD... Hasta que PERDIERON
EL MERCADO...
En Fin los POLITIQUEROS y los SINDICALISTAS poco
a poco lograron convertir a USA DE UN PAÍS
EXPORTADOR... en un país de servicios e importador, pero aun
peor, se endeudo hasta la NARIZ!
El gobierno se endeudo. Los negocios, se
endeudaron, las familias, también... el dólar
todos sabemos que se mantiene... SOLO PORQUE SOMOS POTENCIA MILITAR...
Ahora solo HACE
FALTA QUE DEJE DE SER... POTENCIA MILITAR... y Obama
ya acordó firmar los tratados con la ONU sobre armamentos y DESTRUIR LAS BOMBAS ATÓMICAS...
Al Dólar; Ya Le Pasaron Los “3 Estrikes”
Falta, El Arbitro Que Cante, ¡Fuera!
Eso Va A Suceder Cuando Deje De ser Potencia Militar...
Para Los “Muy Ocupados”
Como Obama Nos Gobierna
Resumen De Como
El IRS Gastó $49 Millones De Nuestro Dinero…
El IRS gasto $ 49 millones en 225 conferencias al
año fiscal 2010 a 2012, incluyendo $ 4,1 millón
en la reunión de Anaheim, según el informe del inspector general
dado a conocer hoy.
En Anaheim, algunos empleados del IRS se quedaron en
habitaciones a un costo de hasta $ 3,500 por noche,
y el organismo pagó $ 135.350.00 a los
invitados, incluyendo $ 17.000 para una conferencia a cargo de Erik Wahl en
"The Art of Vision", dijo el informe.
Para leer toda la noticia...
La Revolución Norte Americana Comenzó Por Taxes
Robinhood También Se Rebeló Por Taxes...
1776-2013
A viajar con el alcalde Giménez se ha dicho
• Conocidos cabilderos compartirán el viaje de negocios a Francia y España
MIAMI 7 DE JUNIO DE 2013, NHR.com—El pasado 4 de abril, NHR.com reportó
que se estaba planeando que una comitiva encabezada por el alcalde de
Miami-Dade, Carlos Giménez, viajara a Francia para presenciar de primera mano
la organización del Show Aéreo de Francia, uno de los más grandes en el mundo.
La razon: traer un show aéreo al Condado Miami-Dade.
Decíamos entonces que de acuerdo con
nuestras fuentes, existía cierta polémica en el ambiente ya que Giménez quería
incluir a Espana en ese viaje, con una estancia en Madrid, pero no tenia
excusa, y para tal quería incluir una misión comercial que prepararía el
abogado cabildero muy cercano al alcalde, Jorge Luis López, a través del Beacon
Council, lo que resultó factible, aunque en lugar de ir a Madrid habría que ir
a Barcelona.
Según nuestras fuentes dentro del condado,
este viaje a Barcelona es puramente vacacional, “ya que en estos momentos en
que España está al borde de la bancarrota, qué negocios se podrían conseguir”.
En el reporte de NHR.com del 4 de
abril también se mencionó que el comisionado José “Pepe” Díaz, que fue el de la
idea original de traer el show aéreo francés, quería participar en el mismo,
pero aparentemente el alcalde se oponía. Al respecto, ayer llegaron a NHR.com
nuevas noticias informando que es que Díaz permanecerá en Miami y el viaje lo
hará el comisionado Javier Souto.
Por otra parte, ahora se habla de
raras coincidencias, y es que al viaje se han unido los que algunos conocedores
del vaivén condal identifican como “el team García Toledo”, o sea, un grupo de
cabilderos que andan en busca de contratos para el proyecto de reparación del
sistema deteriorado de alcantarillado de Miami-Dade que fuera aprobado el
pasado martes por la Comisión condal.
Esta coincidencia está llamando la
atención porque existe un “cono de silencio” que prohibe a los cabilderos que
estén vinculados al proyecto del alcantarillado cabildear con los comisionados
y el alcalde, y resulta que Alex Ferro, sub jefe de Personal; Fernando
Figueredo, director de Comunicaciones; Marcelo Llorente, su socio Alex Hackler,
y Ralph García Toledo y su esposa Vicky, están incluidos en el paquete del
viaje. “Se hace difícil pensar que no hablarán del tema del alcantarillado”,
señaló un empleado del condado muy al tanto de lo que ocurre en el piso 29 del
Ayuntamiento.
En la comitiva también figuran William
Talbert, presidente del Buró de Convenciones de Miami; Alyce Robertson, de la
Autoridad de Desarrollo del Downtown de Miami; el director interino del Beacon
Council, Robin Reiter, y varios representantes de firmas de abogados, bancos y
empresas de la construcción.
NHR.com conoció que la nuera de
Giménez, Bárbara, y Lourdes, la esposa del alcalde Giménez, tanmbién irían en
el viaje. La fuente añadió que “se desconoce si Carlos Jr, está incluido en la
lista de los viajeros.
De acuerdo con Suzy Trutie, vocera del
Condado, los boletos de avión para el viaje tienen un costo de aproximadamente
$1.350 por persona, y el alojamiento por persona costaría $1.539 dólares, y se
afirma que la organización sin fines de lucro Trade Mission Center for the
Americas reembolsará los gastos de comida y otros imprevistos.
Giménez despide a alto funcionario del Condado
• La cesantía de Mario Goderich Jr. Ha causado gran sorpresa
MIAMI, 7 DE JUNIO DE 2013, NHR.com—El sorprendente despido del
subdirector del Departamento de Recursos Económicos y Regulatorios de
Miami-Dade, Mario Goderich Jr., ha causado sorpresa entre los que le conocían.
Goderich, hijo del conocido y
prominente Juez del Condado y de la corte de apelaciones del mismo
nombre, ha sido por los últimos 27 años empleado del condado. De acuerdo con el
alcalde Carlos Giménez “nosotros lo despedimos”, sin ampliar detalles sobre el
arresto y la investigación que rodea el caso.
La cesantía de Goderich está pendiente
a la discreción de la alcaldía que vigila muy de cerca la investigación llevada
a cabo por la unidad de corrupción pública del Departamento de Policía de
Miami-Dade.
El abogado de Goderich, Brian
Tannebaum, declaró que su cliente desconoce de qué se trata la investigación.
“A mi entendimiento, se ha iniciado
una investigación pero no se ha llegado a ninguna determinación y se desconoce
si el estado va a presentar cargos”, dijo Tannebaum, quien añadió “me ha
sorprendido de la manera que el Condado ha manejado esta situación.” Y es que
de acuerdo con nuestras fuentes, Goderich fue escoltado de su oficina por
agentes de seguridad y no se le permitió extraer ninguna de sus pertenencias de
la misma.
A Mario Goderich Jr., quien tenía un
salario anual de $140.244, se le entregó una carta de despido por el
vicealcalde Jack Osterholt, quien también es director del Departamento de
Recursos Económicos y Regulatorios del que Goderich era subdirector.
Este despido se produjo horas después
de que la fiscalía estatal de Miami-Dade anunció la detención de Jesús
“Jay” Pons y Bruno Díaz, dos ex empleados del Departamento de la Administración
de Servicios Generales del Condado, que de acuerdo con las acusaciones
participaron en una estafa que le costó millones de dólares a los
contribuyentes; la esposa de Pons, Diana, también fue arrestada.
Preguntada la fuente de NHR,com si el
arresto de Goderich estaría vinculado con estos arrestos, nos dijo que no
podría asegurar si era parte de esta estafa.
Otra fuente consultada por NHR.com
dijo que la investigación tiene que ver con el uso indebido de los fondos de
los empleados para su uso personal.
NHR.com continuará indagando sobre
éste y otros arrestos.
Paul
Ryan Wipes the Floor with Dem Rep. Wednesday,
June 5, 2013
Congressmen
Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis). clashed at Tuesday House Ways
and Means Committee hearing on the IRS’ targeting of conservative groups.Rep. McDermott said that Tea Party groups wouldn’t have been scrutinized if they didn’t apply for tax-exempt status and engage in the activities they did.
Rep. Ryan deviated from his original question and responded directly to McDermott’s claims.
Holder misses deadline to clear up testimony on
reporter surveillance
Published June 05, 2013 FoxNews.com, Enviado por Enrique Enriquez
Attorney
General Eric Holder has missed the deadline set by Republicans to personally
explain questionable testimony he gave on reporter surveillance, as lawmakers
threaten to subpoena Holder if necessary.
The deadline set by House
Judiciary Committee Republicans was close-of-business on Wednesday. An aide
told FoxNews.com they have "not received a response."
The Justice Department
earlier this week penned a response to the Republican leaders of the committee.
But it was authored by a lower-level official, and committee leaders complained
it did not address their concerns.
"A letter from a
subordinate that fails to answer many of our questions does not suffice,"
Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., and Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., wrote in a
letter sent Tuesday.
The committee wants Holder
to explain his May 15 testimony.
At the time, the attorney
general said under oath he knew nothing of the "potential
prosecution" of the press. Days later, it emerged that Holder was involved
in his department's successful effort to obtain Fox News reporter James Rosen's
personal emails -- the DOJ sought access to the documents by arguing Rosen was
a likely criminal "co-conspirator" in a leak case.
The Justice Department
explained Monday in a letter to GOP committee leaders that the investigation
never escalated into any prosecution of the reporter.
"The Attorney
General's testimony before the Committee on May 15, 2013, with respect to the
Department's prosecutions of the unauthorized disclosure of classified
information was accurate and consistent with these facts," the letter
said.
Yet the letter also
acknowledged that Holder "was consulted and approved the application for
the search warrant." And, while Republican leaders of the House Judiciary
Committee demanded an explanation from Holder himself, the letter was signed
not by him but by a "principal deputy assistant attorney general."
The Justice Department,
though, was not expected to provide any other paperwork to the committee on
Wednesday -- which puts the question to GOP leaders whether they will
aggressively pursue the issue.
Earlier in the week,
Sensenbrenner said his committee is prepared to compel Holder to explain if he
doesn't make the Wednesday deadline.
"I think we ought to
subpoena the attorney general to come back and answer those questions
specifically," he told Fox News on Sunday, when asked what happens if
Holder misses the deadline.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y.,
agreed.
He told Fox News on
Monday that Holder "absolutely" should return to the committee to
explain his May 15 comments.
|
06/07/2013The Senate will begin debate
on the Gang of Eight’s immigration proposal next week. Here are four words to
watch out for as the Senators make their case—and warnings about what they
might mean.
1. COST “Cost” is one word that should come up in the immigration debate, because the Gang of Eight’s amnesty proposal has a cost that is simply too high for Americans to bear. Heritage analysis found that amnesty would cost taxpayers trillions of dollars. Amnesty means that illegal immigrants become legal—and become eligible for Obamacare benefits, Social Security, welfare, and Medicare. But they won’t pay enough into the system in taxes to cover the cost of all these benefits, meaning the rest of the taxpayers will have to bear the burden. This simply isn’t fair to hard-working Americans. 2. BORDER Despite claims of security—and talk of amending the bill—the Gang of Eight immigration bill doesn’t secure the border. Instead, it “delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.” As James Carafano, Heritage’s E. W. Richardson Fellow, explains: “Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border.” 3. AMNESTY Heritage President Jim DeMint has said that it’s a false choice for people to say that amnesty is necessary to immigration reform. Amnesty encourages more illegal immigration, and that is not what immigration reform is supposed to do. Former Attorney General Ed Meese, Heritage’s Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow Emeritus, reminds us that America has tried this before, and it didn’t work:
Today they call it a “roadmap to
citizenship.” Ronald Reagan called it “amnesty.” And he was right. The 1986
reform did not solve our immigration problem—in fact, the population of
illegal immigrants has nearly quadrupled since that “comprehensive” bill.
4. “COMPREHENSIVE” Beware the word “comprehensive.” As Meese notes above, the amnesty of 1986 was also called a “comprehensive” approach to immigration reform. It doesn’t work, and it’s not what we need. We need a separate, step-by-step approach to immigration reform. An approach that works—that the American people can trust—would start with reforming the legal immigration system and enforcing the security measures that are supposed to be in place. Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad. Quick Hits:
|
|
The Heritage Foundation | 214
Massachusetts Avenue, NE | Washington, D.C. 20002 | (800) 546-2843
The ‘strange’ IRS audit of a Romney fundraiser and her extended family
Caroline May
The Internal Revenue Service’s political targeting might not have been
limited to a few “rogue Cincinnati agents” or even organizations seeking
nonprofit status. A major Mitt Romney fundraiser and campaign official —
along with her husband and three other family members — all a visit from
the taxman in 2012.
In an interview with The Daily Caller, Kit Moncrief, a big-money
fundraiser and state chair in Texas for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign,
recounted an unusual telephone call she received from an IRS agent on her
personal cell phone in the spring of last year.
“The first place [the agent] called me was on my cell phone,” Moncrief
said, explaining that she believed the only place the agent could have
accessed the number was from a Romney list. “The number is listed under my
husband’s name. She wouldn’t have been able to be able to have my cell phone
number because on the IRS form it shows the office number.
“She would have had to have gotten it from the Romney list. That’s the
only way I can figure out how she got the number,” Moncrief said.
The family business, Moncrief Oil, had faced an audit in
the 1990s due to a whistle-blowing employee. But according to Moncrief, the
agent explained that her call was due to an “administration directive.”
“She said, ‘Let me just tell you this was not a disgruntled employee,
this was a directive from the administration to look into y’all,’” Moncrief
said.
“I don’t know if the directive was for money or political, both of
which seem very wrong to me,” Moncrief added later when asked for further
clarification on the “directive.” She added, “They seem to want to punish
people who do well or people who disagree with them.”
Moncrief said the process was “strange” on two levels.
“It was just very strange, number one that she called me for the
family business. The tax returns would have said to call the office. And
number two she probably said something that she shouldn’t have said, that
this was a directive from the administration,” she added.
According to Kit Moncrief the agent was very interested in her, asking
Moncrief’s employees specific questions about her activities.
Kit and her husband Charles Moncrief were not the only Moncriefs the
IRS visited.
En mi opinión, aquí el gobierno de obama va a
terminar registrándole hasta el “cucurrucucu paloma” a todos los que
critiquen su régimen. Lázaro R González Miño
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/06/the-strange-irs-audit-of-a-romney-fundraiser-and-her-extended-family/#ixzz2VXFqasSj
La falsa mendiga
de New York. Cuantas mas habran por ahí. Esta
persona con evidentes defectos físicos, pide
limosna por las calles de Nueva York. Fue vigilada por las cámaras de una
cadena de TV. Usa el tren para llegar a su
vehículo, un minivan que aparca en Queens, N.Y. Se cambia
dentro y sale como una chica de menos de 30 años.
Recibe 50 donaciones por hora - haciendo cuentas, aproximadamente $400 dólares por día de 8 horas, sin impuestos y de $ 8 a 10,000 dólares por mes... nada mal. Cuando la periodista le dice que la descubrieron caminando erguida, y por qué hace eso, ella no contesta....
Es
interesante ver que la mayoría de las
personas bien intencionadas, al creer que se hace una caridad en la calle en
realidad y en la mayoría de los
casos, está aportando
dinero a mafias y a simuladores sin conciencia.
|
EnMiOpinionLRGM.wordpress.com/
“En mi opinión” Lázaro
R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
No comments:
Post a Comment