Saturday, November 8, 2014

No 789 "En mi opinion" Noviembre 8, 2014

No 789 “En mi opinión”  Noviembre 8, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR
“En mi opinión” Recuérdense que en la boleta de las elecciones, en el caso de darle a FIU la posibilidad de tomar los terrenos que tiene la Feria eso no es un pescado muerto. Que ni lo piensen.
1-La Feria tiene un contrato hasta el 2095 sobre ese terreno con el Condado Miami Dade. ¿Quién los va a indemnizar por esa pérdida?
2- Me han dicho que ya empezó la lloradera de que no tienen el dinero para pagar  la mudada!!! Y amigo mio esto es “O el Coquito o el Quilito”
3- ¿Cuánto dinero le pagara La FIU al condado por el uso de esos terrenos?  ¿CUANTO, CUANDO y COMO? Porque aquí es “el muerto ‘alante’ y la gritería atrás”…
4- Porque FIU es un NEGOCIO COMO CUALQUIER OTRO donde los accionistas desean recibir “DINERO” y mucho, como hasta ahora.
5- DE AHÍ PUEDE SALIR DINERO MAS QUE SUFICIENTE DINERO PARA HACER UN “CIELITO LINDO” DEL Tamaño DE LAS PIRAMIDES DE EGIPTO, quitar los tolls de las carreteras y botar a la basura las camaritas de los semáforos..
6- Si la gente que voto para que les dieran eso se equivocaron. Pues es tiempo de darle pa’tras al asunto y que suelten la plata.
Nosotros no podemos seguir haciendo el papel de comemierdas y haciéndole casos a los lavadores de cerebro en las elecciones, por lo menos yo no estoy dispuesto a hacerlo.

Lazaro  RGonzalez Mino  Editor.



 John Hayward  
Cruz: Obama, Reid Holding Border Children 'Ransom' For Immigration Reform
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) compared President Obama’s executive-order amnesty threats to a small child playing with matches in a press conference on Thursday.  “I’ve made clear to the president that if he acts unilaterally on his own outside of his authority, he will poison the well and there will be no chance for immigration reform moving in this Congress,” the Speaker declared.  “When you play with matches, you take the risk of burning yourself. And he’s going to burn himself if he continues to go down this path.”
Incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell went with a different metaphor.  “It’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull,” he
The President used his post-election press conference to essentially declare the midterm Republican tsunami irrelevant, command the victors to pass the kind of immigration reform Obama wants, and threaten to issue millions of amnesties to illegal aliens if the new Republican Congress doesn’t do it for him.  Conservatives who worry that the GOP leadership not-so-secretly wants to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that includes amnesty will be heartened to see Boehner pushing back against Obama’s threats.
For what it’s worth – and longtime critics of the Republican leadership will say its value should be measured in coins, not bills – Boehner’s pugnacious comments left considerably less wiggle room than Obama’s ominous, but somewhat vague, threat to use executive orders.  On the other hand, the Speaker said he still wants to find “common ground” on immigration reform, as did Obama.  There is still reason to worry about which side of the Rio Grande that common ground will be located on.
Boehner also vowed to repeal ObamaCare in the same press conference, so for the moment, the leadership appears eager to capitalize on the astonishing Republican victory in the midterms, assure the electorate Republicans hear them far more clearly than the semi-delusional President does, and reassure conservatives that working for a Republican Congress was not wasted effort.  Nothing would bring their victory lap to a crashing halt faster than a lousy immigration-reform deal.  Voters were at least as clear about their antipathy to amnesty as they were about their dislike for ObamaCare.  It cannot have escaped the GOP leadership’s notice that supporters of the late, unlamented “Gang of Eight” deal – which Obama touted this week as a model of bipartisan compromise – didn’t do so well in the midterm elections.
Conservatives are already irked at the leadership for making so many pre-emptive concessions to Obama on budget matters in the lame-duck session.  The only way these grumbles will subside is if Boehner and new Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell can persuade Republican voters they’re keeping the political powder dry for important action in the new Congress.  There is no way to speak persuasively about this plan; they have to do some pretty spectacular things once the new session begins.  It would be fair to say that few sessions have begun with higher expectations.  That’s the natural consequence of a historic victory.
Democrats certainly understand that – they’re huddled right now, talking about strategies to make the Republican Congress look ineffectual and demoralize their voters to prepare the battlefield for 2016, when the Democrats have structural advantages for retaking the Senate, and a presidential contest looms.  Let’s face it: the list of things Democrats and their media can browbeat and bamboozle Republicans into doing that would disgust and infuriate their voters is fairly obvious, and immigration reform tops the list.  Never forget that few issues present a wider gulf between what the broad American public wants, and what the Beltway-bubbled Ruling Class desires.  Immigration reform was the top story in Washington during periods when it wasn’t even in the top-ten list of issues the voters cared about.  It’s only high on their list now because Obama’s manufactured border crisis swept tens of thousands of aliens into the country, prompting the public to demand more border security, and less outright lunacy from the immigration system.
Of course the out-of-touch social engineer in the White House thinks the public is calling for a 500 percent increase in the policies that caused the last border crisis.  The prospect of a “reform” that would forever change the American electorate is nearly irresistible.  Obama and his strategists will say the long-term gains are worth any drubbings Democrats might take in the next election or two, while their new Big Government-friendly electorate is delivered.  Democrats who remember the President telling them the same thing with respect to ObamaCare might not be easily convinced this time.  A great deal of their structural advantage in 2016 will disappear if safe seats are put in play by voter outrage over an amnesty deal.
The obvious play for Republicans is to pass a security-only reform bill and dare Obama to veto it.  That’s what the public wants, and they’re going to respond angrily if Obama flips them another bird and starts babbling about the need to give “dreamers” what they want as part of a security package deal.  The public knows very well that when border security is “packaged” with anything else, security always goes on backorder, while everything the American people don’t want is delivered immediately.  The optics of Obama vetoing a border security bill would be horrendous enough to have Democrats up for re-election in ’16 huddled in their cloakroom, weeping in terror.  Let me make this blunt for any Republicans who don’t get it: the media thinks a sweeping deal that includes goodies for the amnesty lobby is the right thing to do, and will sneer at security-only legislation as an expression of xenophobia, but the American people don’t see it that way.  They might be willing to discuss measures for dealing with the illegal population already in the country, but only after they are reassured the illegal immigration problem isn’t going to get any worse.  This has always been the case, but it’s an especially strong attitude after this year’s border crisis, coupled with a shrunken-workforce economy that leads American citizens to quite reasonably ask why importing even more workers is good idea.
Meanwhile, what can Republicans do to neutralize Obama’s executive-order threat?  TheDaily Signal relates conversations with conservative Senate staffers who warn that the leadership’s eagerness to make lame-duck budget concessions to the President might neutralize their ability to defund amnesty if Obama orders it:
The White House may wait until after a spending bill clears Congress to announce changes in immigration policy. That’s why conservatives believe that agreeing to a long-term funding measure — one that lasts until Oct. 1 of next year — would lock into place funding for Obama’s program.
“I don’t think he will do this right after the election,” a third Senate aide said of Obama. “Because he knows we will make it an issue in the lame duck, and we have the momentum. There’s no reason to pass a long-term bill with a bunch of senators who won’t be there [after January].”
Conservatives prefer short-term funding, probably through February, so they can come back to the spending fight early next year. Then, in full control of the process, they could begin withholding funding the president would need to implement  immigration changes made without Congress.
So, for example, when an appropriations bill for an individual agency such as the Department of Homeland Security goes through Congress, lawmakers would provide no funds for an activity such as issuance of a specific number of work permits.
“I would be shocked if there’s anything but a short-term [bill], a fourth conservative Senate staffer said. “We can be very precise with it [in deciding what and how to defund immigration-related activities]. Ultimately, I don’t think McConnell will endorse a moderate view on immigration.”
I’m not so sure about that – the leadership seems awfully eager to throw away the power of the purse, to defuse Democrat talking points about another government shutdown.  That would be foolish for a number of reasons, including the rather obvious fact that even the last, very messy shutdown fight didn’t hurt Republicans in the midterm elections – a fact even left-wing analysts are conceding, with considerable astonishment – and the next showdown won’t feature Harry Reid throwing the government-shutdown switch while blaming Republicans for doing it.  Make Obama explain to the American people that he, and he alone will shut the government down to protect amnesty for illegal aliens.
Another idea mentioned in the Daily Signal article is legislation forbidding the President to expand amnesty programs such as his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, tied into must-pass spending bills.  Obama would predictably denounce such measures as “poison pills” and veto the bills… causing vulnerable Democrats to wince in agony as his veto pen scratched across the paper.  There’s a lot Republicans can do to make Obama’s drive for amnesty incredibly painful for his Party, and that would increase pressure from Democrat leaders on Obama to back down before he ruins their chances in the next election.
There are also Senate Republicans who want a direct Constitutional challenge to amnesty orders Obama might issue.  Six Senators – including Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Crapo of Idaho, Mike Lee of Utah, Pat Roberts of Kansas, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and David Vitter of Louisiana – wrote a letter to outgoing Majority Leader Harry Reid, reminding him “the Supreme Court has recognized that ‘over no conceivable subject is the power of Congress more complete’ than its power over immigration,” emphasizing that it is Reid’s duty to defend the Constitution against executive overreach, and promising to mount that defense themselves if Reid is incapable of handling it.
Given the level of Obama’s unpopularity after years of boasting about his “pen and phone,” I suspect the American people would be strongly on Republicans’ side during that battle.  Democrats have been pushing hard for the imperial Presidency during Obama’s reign, arguing that Congress should rubber-stamp everything the supreme executive wants, and give the voters one chance every four years to cash the President out if they don’t like where he’s taking the country.  Voters decisively rejected that appeal in the midterm elections.
After ages of Democrat bleating about Republican “gridlock,” they gave the Republicans incredible victories in both the Senate and the House.  Remember how Democrats and liberal pundits confidently predicted the public would punish those gridlocking obstructionists in the House by taking away Republican seats, and maybe even giving control of the chamber back to the Democrats?  Nope.  Instead, they bolstered the Republican majority beyond even the most optimistic pre-election predictions, to levels not seen in almost a hundred years.  So yes, I do believe the American people would support Cruz and his colleagues if Obama uses executive orders to provoke a fight over the Constitutional separation of powers… especially if it’s on an issue like amnesty, which the electorate vigorously opposes.
This is no time to go wobbly, Republicans.  Don’t feed the Lame Duck anything you might need to sustain your momentum in the next session  Remember, you’re playing with fire, too.

Amenper: Estrategia de Guerra
Vamos a aliarnos a Irán y Rusia para derrotar a ISIS ¿>”{*^%#@!&\;...
El general del ejército Lloyd Austin, hablando en el Pentágono el 17 de octubre, dijo que la negativa del Presidente Barack Obama a desplegar tropas en Irak o en Siria en la lucha contra el grupo del estado islámico ha obstaculizado los esfuerzos de la coalición para investigar las denuncias de las víctimas civiles y determinar el tamaño exacto de la fuerza se enfrenta, en el conflicto.
El plan de acción "sin botas sobre el terreno" ha sido criticado por los opositores y expertos militares que creen que la estrategia estadounidense es incompleta y miope. Al menos, no se debía anunciar, es ingenuo anunciar públicamente una restricción tan radical.
El general del ejército Martin Dempsey, Presidente del Junta jefes de personal, incluso ocupó los titulares en septiembre cuando dijo a la Comisión de servicios armados del Senado – sin ser preguntado directamente – que recomendaría implementar tropas en el terreno, tropas si la influencia del grupo estado islámico se convirtiera como parece estarlo logrando por su poder en una amenaza directa contra el suelo Americano.
Austin mismo según los informes, dijo a Obama en septiembre que las fuerzas de tierra sería necesarias para retomar las ciudades bajo el control de grupo estado islámico-  El general se negó a ofrecer más detalles al hablar en una conferencia de prensa en el Pentágono.
Entre los que han cuestionado la decisión del Presidente está el ex senador John Warner, quien asistió a la conferencia de Austin. El legislador de Virginia se desempeñó como Secretario de la Marina y luego como el influyente presidente del partido republicano del Comité de servicios armados del Senado.
Warner dijo  que la insistencia de Obama no suelo tropas proviene probablemente de un ambiente político hostil previos a las elecciones legislativas 
Basado en su experiencia anterior, dice que el gobierno iraquí seguramente pedirá a la casa blanca apoyos de tropas terrestres a la vez que refuerza sus propias fuerzas militares.
Y Austin, Warner dice, será clave para expresar esa opción al Presidente.
Hoy dos días después de las elecciones de mitad de período, Presidente Barack Obama está duplicando el número de soldados estadounidenses desplegados en Irak para entrenar a las fuerzas locales para luchar contra a los terroristas del estado islámico de Irak y el levante, el Pentágono dijo el viernes.
Los aproximadamente 1.500 soldados adicionales será en un papel de “no combatientes", dijo el Pentágono y comprometidos en un "esfuerzo de formación integral" para el ejército de Irak. El Secretario de defensa Chuck Hagel dijo que Obama ordenó al personal del aumento basado en una solicitud de Bagdad.
El Presidente está solicitando un monto adicional de $ 5,6 billones del Congreso para aumentar la contingencia en el extranjero del Pentágono
Si ven la secuencia de los hechos, desde septiembre Obama hubiera podido enviar las tropas, las cuales son insuficientes, pero pueden ayudar a la lucha contra ISIS. 
No lo hizo como dijo Warner por motivos políticos, y este es el problema que los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos tienen con su presidente.
Todo es basado en encuestas y posiciones políticas, el trabajo de un presidente no es estar en una campaña política permanente, pero administrar y gobernar el país de acuerdo con los mejores intereses de la nación.
Los combatientes del estado islámico - entre ellos muchos yihadistas extranjeros - tienen una reputación de brutalidad. Las atrocidades  cometidas por las filas del grupo incluyen secuestros, decapitaciones, crucifixiones, tortura. La posibilidad de que hagan estragos similares en nuestras ciudades es algo muy posible como dijo el General Dempsey.
Mientras tanto en su egolatría nuestro presidente está mirando a las encuestas para ver qué es lo próximo que tiene que hacer.
Por el momento se ha filtrado la estrategia principal del Presidente Obama le ha mandado una carta al Ayatola de Irán y se comenta que también envió una a Putin pidiéndoles ayuda en su lucha contra ISIS.  Lo que no sabemos es lo que les ha ofrecido por la ayuda. Sin lugar a dudas nos gastamos un presidente muy hábil en sus negociaciones y muy selectivo con sus aliados.

Hammer Time: Krauthammer, This Midterm Election Was ‘A Nuclear Explosion’

Krauthammer puts the hammer down and calls this midterm election as he sees it.
Discussing the midterm elections Wednesday night, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer told “Special Report” host Bret Baier the Republican victories were “the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal shellacking that you will ever see” and a “nuclear explosion.”
Krauthammer hit President Barack Obama for pretending the election didn’t mean much as he noted during his afternoon press conference that “two-thirds of the electorate didn’t show up.”
Krauthammer: [Obama] played as the puzzled observer. He was asked about the meaning of the election, and he said “I’ll leave to others the reading of tea leaves.” Was this really a subtle result? Was this sort of complicated and nuanced? This was the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal shellacking that you will ever see in a midterm election, and it happened on just about every level. You’ve got in the House the Republicans now have the largest majority since 1929.


Todos saben lo que es un novelón, en Latinoamérica le llaman culebrón, en inglés le dicen Soap Opera.
Es un drama serial por televisión o radio con características relacionadas con historias sobre la vida de varios personajes. Las historias se centran en las relaciones emocionales al punto de melodrama-
El nombre de "soap opera" provenía de que el patrocinio de muchas series de radio venían de  los fabricantes de jabón.
Noten que a pesar del uso de la palabra ópera es en el término figurado, los novelones generalmente no tienen números musicales cantando.  Las únicas notas altas que se oyen a la hora de los novelones, son la de los maridos como yo, cuando mi mujer me quita al programa de O´Reilly para ver el novelón, y tengo que ir para el screen room o para el cuarto para poder ver mi programa, o en este caso enviarles una descarga.
Siempre los novelones tenían un mensaje pero eran más bien morales. 
El Derecho de Nacer que fue un novelón famoso en Cuba que se trababa de los males del aborto.
Hoy los noveles “culturales” que tienen falsas ínfulas históricas verídicas, y nos traen mensajes políticos, casi siempre un mensaje socialista.
Los novelones de hoy en día son como un tipo de escena sociopolítica para hacer juegos políticos en la cual hay actores y espectadores representando una trama que trae un mensaje sublime o a veces directo.
 En el caso de los novelones políticos, el objetivo es identificar a los espectadores con el papel representado.
La representación en este caso estaría relacionada con la ciudadanía, las organizaciones políticas, los grupos periféricos a las grandes personalidades políticas y estratos sociales de clases y razas.
Casi siempre los blancos ricos son los malos, los pobres y negros son las víctimas, incitando la lucha de clases y las diferencias raciales.
Como es claro en cuanto a las organizaciones políticas los conservadores son egoístas retrógrados y los socialistas son intelectuales bondadosos.
Desde los diversos grados de subjetividad del espectador, este se puede identificar con la trama, y actuación de una escena, tenderá a tomar bandos, identificarse o idealizar a los personajes, todo esto al punto de inclusive conectar la emotividad personal con la realidad, eventos y momentos significativo entre los personajes a lo largo de lo puesto en escena. Esto lo lleva a la interacción de la vida real siendo influenciado en su preferencia política.
Hay algunas personas que se vinculan intensamente con la trama y asumen posturas de conexión directa con el novelón, el cual consideran una historia verídica, de este modo el bueno (personaje idealizado) es quien importa dentro del imaginario del espectador y el malo (personaje que se condena o se juzga) que es a quien se debe eliminar, y solo hay una forma de entender e interpretar la trama, la que conecta las emociones del espectador con lo ofrecido por el drama político.
Un novelón cultural-político en la actualidad  se pudiera considerar como un sofisma, un sofisma es usar una verdad evidente, en este caso algo histórico, para transformarlo en una falacia que se ajuste a una agenda política, como es el socialismo.
Vimos como en Cuba tan pronto se estableció el socialismo, tuvimos que soportar esos novelones socialistas, y sin lugar a dudas fueron efectivos para confundir a muchas personas de las maldades del siempre peligroso imperialismo americano y de la injusticia social en Estados Unidos.  A la vez se presentaba las maravillas del socialismo.
Hoy tanto los novelones que nos vienen de Latinoamérica como las películas de Hollywood están cargadoas de propaganda socialista.
Hablamos con personas que toman como verídica esta propaganda. 
La película JFK sobre la muerte de Kennedy es un ejemplo de como una película pude influenciar en las personas.  Aunque la película no tiene relación con hechos reales, sólo de forma circunstancial con el asesinato, la trama toma la forma en representación, de acusar a diferentes personas de conspiradores en los hechos,  como a los cubanos exilados y la derecha, en una trama imaginada.
 Pero como muchos lo ven como un hecho histórico, muchas personas lo toman como una historia verídica.
Hasta en las noticias de ciertos medios de comunicación, vemos en forma de sofismas, la propaganda política. para crear las condiciones en la mente de los oyentes a la recepción de lo inevitable del socialismo en el futuro.
Para nosotros los cubanos esto es sólo una sensación de déjà vu-
 El término déjà vu (en francés ‘ya visto’) o paramnesia describe la experiencia de sentir que se ha sido testigo o se ha experimentado previamente una situación nueva.
Y nosotros ya sabemos por lo experimentado de que se trata esta propaganda disfrazada de arte.
Pero se pueden disfrutar a veces estos novelones, se evitó el novelón de la vida de Hillary Clinton, con el legítimo reclamo que sería una propaganda para una candidata y no lo pudimos disfrutar.
Pero esperen porque pronto, cuando Obama cumpla su mandato podrán disfrutar de los numerosos novelones sobre la vida de Barack Hussein Obama.
Y quizás antes después de la esperada muerte de Fidel Castro, tendremos en nuestros televisores novelones sobre la vida del “Máximo Líder”
Tengo que terminar porque ya casi son las nueve y se acaba el novelón de mi mujer, sobre la vida de Suleimán que idealiza al imperio Otomano musulmán.
Este novelón puede ser educaciónal porque creo que puede enseñar a las mujeres la sumisión y la obediencia de la esposa en el matrimonio. Aunque todavía no he visto la identificación de mi mujer con la trama en este sentido. 
Pero ahora a las nueve, me deja ver en el televisor HD el programa de Megan Kelly.


Breaking: Surprise Supreme Court Action Could Be A Death Blow To Obamacare

...a major victory for opponents of Obama's..

Reeling from staggering Democrat losses in the midterm elections, the Obama White House has just been served another heaping helping of bad news — word that the U.S. Supreme Court will take a second close and critical look at the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
The announcement from the high court was something of a surprise, as the decision to hear the case was made by the justices without waiting for a split among federal appeals courts. Court watchers say the decision represents a major victory for opponents of Obama’s healthcare law who had lost a unanimous verdict at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
We get details on the SCOTUS announcement from USA Today:
The justices agreed without comment to reconsider that ruling, which upheld the law’s system of subsidizing the insurance policies it requires. That’s a setback for the administration and proponents of Obamacare, but it is not the final word.
The controversial program faces four separate lawsuits charging that billions of dollars in subsidies can only be offered in health care exchanges run by states. The federal government operates more than two-thirds of the exchanges.
Opponents mounted the recent set of challenges to the president’s signature legislative achievement based on the specific language of the law. It states that subsidies, offered in the form of tax credits, will be made available through exchanges “established by the state.”
They contend that nullifies the subsidies offered through the federally operated insurance exchange. Appeals court rulings on these challenges have been at odds with one another.
The justices’ decision Friday shows that they saw no reason to wait for the other rulings before deciding the subsidy issue on their own — and in that sense, it came as a surprise.
More than 5 million Americans would be affected if the subsidies are struck down. They have reduced monthly insurance premiums by 76% for those who qualify, federal health officials say. The average monthly premium dropped from $346 to $82.
The subsidies offered to ObamaCare enrollees are a linchpin of the health care law and help Democrats in their efforts to defend the “affordability” of the highly controversial legislation.




Here’s How Conservatives Aim to Stop Obama’s Action on Illegal Immigrants

Aides to conservative members of the U.S. Senate say their bosses are rallying around a strategy to prevent President Obama from taking executive action to move illegal immigrants toward citizenship: Use government funding bills to withhold the money the president needs to implement his plan.
At the same time, some of the Senate’s most conservative members are worried that party leadership could try to strike a deal with Democrats in the lame duck session on a longer-term spending agreement that could limit lawmakers’ ability to defund whatever Obama decides to do.
In a series of interviews with The Daily Signal, conservative Senate staffers said their lawmakers firmly oppose Obama’s acting on his own to allow millions of illegal immigrants to stay in the country.  However, they are open to supporting a piecemeal approach on immigration policy that would emphasize border security first.
The results of this week’s election — where Republicans took control of the Senate and picked up seats in the House with a platform opposed to unilateral immigration action by the president — only emboldened their will to fight it, the Senate staffers said.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah
“We know this issue motivates voters,” one aide said:
This election is validation for that. Voters don’t support amnesty and expanding DACA. It’s one of the only issues that is at the cross section of the economy and national security. We should not run from it. We should embrace it.
DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is the Obama administration program delaying deportation of illegal immigrants who were brought to America as children.
In a letter Wednesday to outgoing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., six Senate conservatives vowed to “use all procedural means necessary” to fight Obama’s executive action.
“This will create a constitutional crisis that demands action by Congress to restore the separation of powers,” wrote Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Mike Crapo, R-Idaho; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Pat Roberts, R-Kansas; Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.; and David Vitter, R-La.
Purse Power
Although GOP leadership in the House and Senate have spoken firmly against Obama’s plan to overhaul the immigration system — which the president confirmed Wednesday would come before the end of the year — conservatives question whether leadership’s words will be backed by action.
In a press conference yesterday in Washington, House Speaker John Boehner offered a stark warning that Obama not act alone.
“When you play with matches you take the risk of burning yourself and [Obama] is going to burn himself if he continues down this path,” Boehner said.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.,
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, all but certain to become majority leader in January, supplied his own analogy regarding unilateral action by Obama.
“It’s like waving a red flag in front of a bull,” he told reporters in Louisville the day after his re-election in the Republican wave.
In an interview with Time magazine, McConnell said he supported conservatives’ strategy to “push back on executive overreach through the funding process.”

But conservatives worry that an impatient public, tired of congressional gridlock, may push party leaders to strike conciliatory deals in an effort to show Republicans can govern.
One point of contention:  how to approach the “lame duck” period before the new Congress begins work in January.
A stopgap spending measure to fund the government expires Dec. 11, and Democrats and some Republicans want to end the pattern of short-term, fiscal-cliff budgeting that has defined the past few years.
Last month, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told Politico that he would like to use the lame duck session to pass a long-term government-funding bill.
Conservatives privately criticized the California Republican’s comment.
“That would be very unhelpful,” a second GOP Senate aide said. “You are giving up all leverage to stop the administrative actions that you disagree with.”
The Daily Signal agreed not to identify the aides to senators so that they could speak bluntly about their bosses’ concerns.
The White House may wait until after a spending bill clears Congress to announce changes in immigration policy. That’s why conservatives believe that agreeing to a long-term funding measure — one that lasts until Oct. 1 of next year — would lock into place funding for Obama’s program.
“I don’t think he will do this right after the election,” a third Senate aide said of Obama:
Because he knows we will make it an issue in the lame duck, and we have the momentum. There’s no reason to pass a long-term bill with a bunch of senators who won’t be there [after January].
Conservatives prefer short-term funding, probably through February, so they can come back to the spending fight early next year. Then, in full control of the process, they could begin withholding funding the president would need to implement  immigration changes made without Congress.
So, for example, when an appropriations bill for an individual agency such as the Department of Homeland Security goes through Congress, lawmakers would provide no funds for an activity such as issuance of a specific number of work permits.
“I would be shocked if there’s anything but a short-term [bill], a fourth conservative Senate staffer said. “We can be very precise with it [in deciding what and how to defund immigration-related activities]. Ultimately, I don’t think McConnell will endorse a moderate view on immigration.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
Another Option
As part of an emergency spending package to address the border crisis this summer, the House passed a bill offered by Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., that said the president cannot renew or expand DACA. It effectively ended the program.
If tying the immigration issue to a must-pass spending bill becomes too politically charged, conservatives could try to pass standalone legislation such as Blackburn’s — or something similar.
Although Obama never would sign such a bill, the conservative Senate staffers argue that it’s important to force Democrats to weigh in on immigration.
“Knowing that next year the president will have no political limitations and we won’t be able to stop him, we have to make it as painful as possible for Democrats to vote for it,” the first Senate aide said.
We will push very hard to make sure we get a number of opportunities to put Democrats on the record about every aspect of this issue — from the substance of what he does to the funding for it. The metric is not to force the president to do something. We want people to know who supports amnesty and who doesn’t.

‘Hope Springs Eternal’
Instead of stopping Obama’s unilateral action on immigration policy, Republicans could bring forward their own ideas.
Obama said Wednesday that he still wants Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to reform the immigration system. He promised that if Congress passes a bill, it would make executive actions “go away.”
Congress has had chances to do so.
More than a year ago, the Democratic-led Senate passed a comprehensive bill to clear the way for millions of illegal immigrants to move toward citizenship.
The House leadership refused to move that bill or a similar one to a vote, with many members calling it amnesty.
Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 presidential nominee, recently has speculatedopenly that a Republican-controlled Senate would mean passage of a conservative immigration reform bill.

House Speaker John Boehner
Boehner seemed to stagger on the issue during yesterday’s press conference.
The House speaker first said that if Obama acts on his own, he will “poison the well” and “there will be no chance of immigration reform moving in this Congress.”
Later, however, he said: “It is time for Congress to take care of a very difficult issue in our society.”
“It is just time to deal with it,” Boehner said, ending  his comments on immigration by telling reporters, “Hope springs eternal.”
If a vote were taken today, the conservative Senate aides doubt comprehensive legislation could pass either chamber. They point to the volatility of the border crisis during the summer, when thousands of unaccompanied children from Central America illegally entered the country.
“The Senate passed something. The House didn’t want it,” the fourth Senate aide said. “Congress has spoken on comprehensive immigration reform.”
Still, lawmakers may try to complete smaller-scale bills that would address issues in the immigration system individually, as House members proceeded to do last year.
“There are still some issues with guest worker visas,” the third Senate aide said. “You’ll see a lot more stronger enforcement measures and less pathway to citizenship.”
But ultimately, for lawmakers who feel slighted by what they view as excessive use of independent presidential authority, the preferred action might be to just say no.
“The whole message of the next Congress will be restoration of congressional power,” the fourth staffer said.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas


Issa: Holder ‘at the heart’ of Fast and Furious debate

Idiot cronies probably not a good thing to call the Chairman.
Check it out;
House oversight committee Chairman Darrell Issa told Fox News on Thursday that a massive trove of emails handed to his office on the eve of the elections indicates Attorney General Eric Holder was “at the heart” of deliberations over the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.
More than 64,000 pages of documents were given to the committee Monday night, a move Issa, R-Calif., said was a ploy to make sure they didn’t sway the election. But he said his staff is starting to go through them – already, one email exchange has surfaced in which Holder in 2011 blasted Issa “and his idiot cronies” looking into the botched anti-gun trafficking operation.

El Nuevo Herald


Con referencia a una de las papas más calientes de la actual
presidencia estadounidense, reza un titular AP esta noche (11/7) que
el fiscal general "[Eric] Holder lanzó insultos por 'Rapido y
Furioso'", el descabellado programa de una de sus dependencias que
entregó armas de asalto (cuando menos) a los carteles de
estupefacientes mexicanos, de las cuales una fue utilizada para
asesinar a uno de nuestros propios agentes fronterizos, dependiente de
aquella misma presidencia actual estadounidense.

Me imagino la palabra más lanzada.

Philip V. Riggio
2777 NE 183rd Street
Aventura, FL 33160



'Obamacare' Taking Center Stage In Arkansas Republican Primary
Guess what. Voters don’t really hate “obstructionism.” They hate the other party.
If we’re to believe the media-authored account of the past six years, the GOP has made rigid obstructionism of Barack Obama’s policies its sole agendum. In victory and in concession speeches, candidates of both parties still claim that “dysfunction” has been the biggest problem in Washington.
Where exactly have Republicans suffered for their stubbornness? The reality is that Republicans have been generously rewarded for their tenacity in stopping post-Obamacare progressive policy. Since 2010, the Republicans have pulled together a historic string of victories — with scores of seats changing hands in the House. If anything, what we learned is that politicians are far likelier to be penalized by the electorate for passing unworkable and overreaching legislation than they are for stopping it.
That’s just one myth we function under in Washington.
Another talking point we heard a lot leading up to the midterm elections, most notably from Fox News Channel’s Juan Williams, revolved around the idea that we were experiencing some broad reaction to a broken Washington — a revolt against incumbency and politics in general.
Though it’s true that most voters tell pollsters they abhor the bickering in Washington, according to exit polls more than a third of those who voted for a Republican congressional candidate claimed to be dissatisfied or angry with GOP leaders in Congress. And a quarter of those who voted Democratic claimed they were dissatisfied with Obama. The reality is that only one party was punished. American voters didn’t oust incumbents; they ousted Democrats. If Sen. Pat Roberts, R- Kan., could come back to win his race against a candidate whose entire rationale for running was to end partisanship, this was about holding not all elites accountable but Democrats.
For months, we’ve been also hearing how Democratic losses could be chalked up to “structural” problems. The map was the problem! “In this election cycle, this is probably the worst possible group of states for Democrats since Dwight Eisenhower. There are a lot of states that are being contested where they just tend to tilt Republican,” Obama told a local radio station.
That was an arguable contention to start with, but it was certainly shattered by the results. Moreover, you can’t have it both ways. When the president wins, his victory is driven by issues. When Democrats lose, they are untethered from policy or party. That myth can be put to bed. In 2012, Obama won Colorado 51.49 percent to 46.13 percent. Today 55 percent of voters there have a negative view of the president. While liberal Sen. Mark Udall was beaten handily, a less liberal governor, John Hickenlooper, a man who was lucky enough never to have had to vote for Obamacare, squeaked it out. In Iowa in 2012, Obama won 51.99 percent to 46.18 percent, but Republican Joni Ernst won the Senate seat held by retiring Democrat Tom Harkin. Maryland, Illinois and Virginia were all Obama country in 2012 and all saw surprisingly competitive races or worse.
When you break it down, this may have been one of the least “structural” losses for any party in a long time.
Another myth we heard for weeks leading up to the elections was that Republicans had abandoned Obamacare as an issue. Turns out some of the biggest winners in the most competitive states — Cory Gardner in Colorado, Ernst in Iowa — were full-throated critics of the Affordable Care Act and never shied away. According to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, Obamacare ads dominated TV and radio. The GOP ran about 13,000 Obamacare ads in Senate races in one week leading up to Election Day. When was the last time a single piece of legislation dominated a midterm in that way? No doubt Democrats will continue to argue that historic Republican gains had nothing to do with the most discussed legislation in America. But it is far more plausible that Obamacare has fathered two colossal-wave elections by the GOP in a mere four years — which, by any measurement, makes it the least popular federal law in our lifetimes.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.”

Who Will Get Castrated by the New, Improved Senate? (Hold on Tight.)

By Charles Hugh Smith
If you really think it matters which political party controls the U.S. Senate, please answer these questions. Don’t worry, they’re not that difficult:
1. Will U.S. foreign policy in the Mideast change from being an incoherent pastiche of endless war and Imperial meddling? Please answer with a straight face. We all know the answer is that it doesn’t matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.
2. Will basic civil liberties be returned to the citizenry? You know, like the cops are no longer allowed to steal your cash when they stop you for a broken tail light and claim the cash was going to be used for a drug deal.
Or some limits on domestic spying by Central State agencies. You know, basic civil liberties as defined by the Bill of Rights and the U.S. constitution.
Don’t make me laugh–you know darned well that it doesn’t matter who controls the Senate, Presidency or House of Representatives, nothing will change.
3. Will the predatory, parasitic policies of the Federal Reserve that virtually everyone from the Wall Street Journal to what little remains of the authentic Left understands has greatly increased income and wealth inequality be reined in? Please don’t claim either party has any will or interest in limiting the Fed’s rapacious financialization. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim–it is pure wishful thinking.
4. Will the steaming pile of profiteering, corruption, waste, fraud and ineptitude that is Sickcare in the U.S. be truly reformed so its costs drop by 50% to match what every other developed democracy spends per person on universal healthcare? It doesn’t matter if ObamaCare is repealed or not; that monstrosity was simply another layer of bureaucratic waste on an already hopelessly dysfunctional system.
If you answer “yes,” please run a body scan on yourself to detect the biochips that were implanted while you voted Demopublican.
(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Amenper: El Ser Humano

“Si las personas son buenas, solamente por el miedo al castigo, y porque tienen la esperanza de una recompensa, entonces los seres humanos somos sin lugar a dudas un grupo repulsivo “― Albert Einstein

No sé si Einstein dijo esto en un momento de ira contra la humanidad, o en un momento del sentimiento agridulce de la sátira. Creo que es lo último, a Einstein le gustaba la sátira en sus comentarios sobre la humanidad.
Creo que Einstein sabía que aunque en los sentimientos del ser humano prevalece el egoísmo y la maldad, los buenos sentimientos que contrarrestan estas bajas pasiones,  son usadas, no realmente por miedo al castigo de Dios o de los hombres, pero por la percepción propia que nos hace querer ser mejores para nuestra propia satisfacción.
La mayoría de las personas quieren y hacen lo posible por hacer el bien.
Hasta cuando el hombre hace mal, siempre trata de justificarse ante los demás y ante sí mismo.
Pero cuando el ego personal, la maldad, y la ambición del poder, son totales, es difícil para el hombre justificarse ante los demás y ante él mismo. 
Como en un tipo de gobierno autoritario, la autoridad del mal en una persona es controlable, pero en un tipo de gobierno totalitario, como en una persona infestada del mal totalitariamente el mal es incontrolable
Sinceramente, creo que nuestro presidente está infestado del mal totalmente, por eso su conducta es errática y difícil de entender. 
Trata de justificar la derrota en las elecciones porque 2/3 de las personas no votaron.  ¿Cuál es el razonamiento?  ¿Nos está diciendo que todas estas personas iban a votar por ellos? ¿Nos está diciendo que realmente el ganó las elecciones?  Es absurdo, si no votaron es porque están hastiados de la política bajo su administración, si fueran suyos hubieran votado en unas elecciones tan importante como estas, no son suyos son también sus contrarios.  Estas elecciones han sido un referendo a su persona, y esto le es imposible aceptar a su ego, pero sus justificaciones no tienen la más mínima credibilidad ni para su propia persona.
Por eso está usando el problema migratorio para crear una crisis que lo perjudicará a él y a toda la nación.
No es realmente el deseo de resolver un problema de inmigración, que existe, si realmente lo quisiera, esto lo hubiera podido implementar a su gusto. Sobre todo cuándo en sus primeros dos años controlaba el Senado y la Cámara.
No lo resolvió porque el problema es complejo y el 80% de la nación se opone a una amnistía total, y todavía él temía a la opinión pública.
La solución de un problema tan difícil, con efectos económicos secundarios en su implementación y en el futuro de la nación, tiene y debe de ser estudiado y legislado por ambas cámaras, no puede ser implementado por un plumazo de un pájaro loco.
Obama sabe todo esto, por eso no lo hizo antes, lo hace ahora porque está en un estado anímico de desesperación por el trastazo que recibió su ego, 
No le importa nada, lo que quiere es bronca, pierden su tiempo amenazándolo con impugnación, no le importa, en su ego no cabe la posibilidad de que impugne a la persona histórica que él cree representar.   
No le importa nada porque su egoísmo totalitario es incontrolable, los buenos sentimientos que todos tenemos se han atrofiado en su persona y las malas pasiones de oído, envidia y egoísmo están bailando y gozando en su persona-
Este país ha tenido la desgracia de haber escogido a una persona que ha sucumbido a las bajas pasiones, hay muchos como él en la sociedad, pero es terrible para una nación el tener a un ser humano de estas condiciones como el líder de la nación.

President Obama reacted to the election results with the absolute height of arrogance. By Glenn Beck
There are only so many ways to interpret the mindset of the American people in the wake of the midterm elections. Fed up with Washington? Yes. A rejection of President Obama’s agenda? Absolutely. A desire to get new blood into our leadership? Definitely. A sign that President Obama should just start governing by executive order? Ummmm, no. The opposite actually. But apparently President Obama didn’t get the message – his comments on the election are downright terrifying to anyone who believes in liberty and the rule of law.

“So to everyone who voted, I want you to know I hear you. To the two-thirds of voters who chose not to participate in the process yesterday, I hear you too,” President Obama said.

“Do you hear what he said?” Glenn said in response. “He said, I hear the people who voted. I want you to know I hear you. But you’re such a small inconsequential number. To the two-thirds that didn’t participate, I hear you well, how do you hear them, Mr. President?”

Glenn told listeners to couple these comments with President Obama’s willingness to govern by executive order if Congress won’t send him a bill he will sign.

“He’s going to move forward because we just can’t wait any longer. If congress decides to join him, fine. If they don’t. Fine. This is the definition of a dictator,” Glenn warned.

The news led to a discussion about the importance of humility, especially among people in power.
“If you are a person in power, you have to have humility. Learn that from George Washington. Be humble,” Glenn explained.

“If we’re going to come together, we need to have a couple of things. We need to be humble. Both sides need to be humble,” Glenn said. “We have to say, we don’t have the answers, you don’t have the answers, but we’ll do our best. We have to love America and recognize we’re not an evil empire because of her people, not because of the government. The government could become and has been an evil empire in the past, but her people stop her from being that, not the government. We have to believe in the system no matter how broken it is and work to strengthen the Constitution and its framework. We have to have mutual respect for one another with empathy, compassion, and humility, and we finally have to put our principles over politics and faith over religion.”

BOOM: Sarah Palin Warns GOP, ‘You Didn’t Build This’

Tell ‘em Sarah. Check it out…
Sarah Palin congratulated the Republicans on their sweeping victory in Tuesday’s elections, but she also issued a warning.
“Now, new Republican Congressional majority in the House and Senate, please realize that Americans were not necessarily voting FOR any party; they were voting AGAINST the continued dysfunction and corruption in D.C.,” the former vice presidential candidate wrote in a post on Facebook.
Just like the Democrats got “mauled” on Tuesday, Palin warned the same thing could happen to the GOP next time around.
“So, establishment types, remember that you didn’t build this! This majority that swept you into power tonight is thanks to the rank and file commonsense conservative grassroots. That’s who built it. And they expect results. They deserve the best for America.”

Obama Wrote Secret Letter to Iran’s Khamenei

Obama negotiating with terrorists yet again.

President Barack Obama secretly wrote to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the middle of last month and described a shared interest in fighting Islamic State militants in Iraq and Syria, according to people briefed on the correspondence.
The letter appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.
Mr. Obama stressed to Mr. Khamenei that any cooperation on Islamic State was largely contingent on Iran reaching a comprehensive agreement with global powers on the future of Tehran’s nuclear program by a Nov. 24 diplomatic deadline, the same people say.
The October letter marked at least the fourth time Mr. Obama has written Iran’s most powerful political and religious leader since taking office in 2009 and pledging to engage with Tehran’s Islamist government.
The correspondence underscores that Mr. Obama views Iran as important—whether in a potentially constructive or negative role—to his emerging military and diplomatic campaign to push Islamic State from the territories it has gained over the past six months.

Clemente Sanchez:
La sharia: Una ideología enemiga del género humano
. by Alberto Ramos

Los orígenes de la sharia (la ley islámica) están relacionados con una cultura y una escala de valores completamente extrañas a las de una sociedad moderna, fundada sobre la dignidad humana y los derechos de las personas.
Los partidarios de la sharia la consideran perfecta por ser supuestamente de origen divino. Como telón de fondo a la ley islámica, hay un concepto muy particular: un dios dominador, que prefiere el hombre a la mujer, que ama al musulmán pero detesta al no musulmán.
Ese dios de los musulmanes es muy distinto al de las espiritualidades en las que Dios es presentado como un soplo que inspira, eleva y humaniza antes que un amo implacable que dicta su voluntad y exige una sumisión total. Islam significa precisamente eso: sumisión.
Se puede hacer la analogía siguiente: los dioses del espíritu equivaldrían a la democracia en el terreno de la religión, mientras que el islam corresponde a la tiranía, mediante la sharia. En una democracia, las personas tienen derecho a la palabra, pueden debatir y opinar, pueden promulgar leyes al servicio de los valores fundamentales, para favorecer la convivencia y el bienestar del ser humano. Es decir, todo lo contrario que en las sociedades regidas por la sharia.
Algunos rasgos fundamentales de la ley islámica. Esto es la sharia:
– Autoriza que el hombre pegue a su mujer.
– Autoriza la poligamia.
– Autoriza la pedofilia.
– Promueve la pena de muerte para los apóstatas.
– Promueve la pena de muerte para los homosexuales.
– Promueve la pena de muerte para las adúlteras.
– Incluye la noción de supremacía y de superioridad del musulmán sobre el no musulmán.
– Obliga a los no musulmanes a pagar un impuesto especial (la jizya).
– Promueve la yihad para expandir el islam.
Recordemos que todas las escuelas de jurisprudencia islámica (hanafismo, malikismo, chafeísmo y hanbalismo) enseñan que los musulmanes deben declarar la guerra a los no musulmanes hasta su subyugación completa.
Cuanto más se impone la sharia en un país, más se vuelve este hostil a Occidente y a los valores que encarna: libertad de expresión, derechos humanos, libertad de religión, libertad de creer o no creer, laicidad, autonomía del Estado frente a la religión, etc…
La aplicación de la ley islámica significa:
– Los derechos de todo ser humano (musulmán o no musulmán) retroceden.
– Los derechos de la mujer son anulados.
– El espíritu de fraternidad universal desaparece, ya que la sharia divide el género humano en “fieles” e “infieles”, entre musulmanes y no musulmanes.
– Las libertades fundamentales retroceden.
– El estado de frustración y de odio del musulmán contra Occidente y todo lo que representan aumenta en razón de la aspiración del islamista a la dominación sobre el no musulmán.
En resumen: el bienestar del ser humano es inversamente proporcional a la implantación de la sharia. Si alguien lo duda, que eche una mirada a lo que está ocurriendo en los territorios bajo el control del Estado Islámico: degollamientos, decapitaciones, violaciones, asesinatos masivos, crucifixiones, niños pateando cabezas cortadas ante la mirada orgullosa y risueña de sus mayores… Y que nadie piense que eso es algo que ocurre lejos de aquí, menos mal. No estamos a salvo de esa plaga: el horror está en camino, sus agentes están entre nosotros. Nos los encontramos en la cola del supermercado, en el ascensor de nuestro bloque, en las plazas de nuestros pueblos…
Alberto Ramos | noviembre 6, 2014 en 1:47 am | Categorías: Internacional| URL: 

Nancy Pelosi on Democratic Voters: It’s Your Fault

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi reflected on the Election Day losses with fellow Democrats, saying that it really wasn’t the party’s messages or platforms to blame — rather, it’s more the voters’ fault, she suggested.
Specifically, Mrs. Pelosi said during a 75-minute call with caucus members that the reason Democrats lost had nothing to do with party message and everything to do with voter turnout — and that if more Democrats had turned up at the polls, more Democratic candidates would have won, she said, The Hill reported.
Now she’s calling on colleagues in Congress to do their “moral responsibility” and get more voters to the polls, she said, The Hill reported.
“Next year has to be the year to expand the universe of people who vote,” she said, a source on the call told The Hill. “I’m concerned that eligible voters did not vote in the election this year. We have the magic and the resources to have massive voter registration over the country — not just the places that might benefit the Democrats.”
En mi opinión