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.
Los
estudiantes de FIU TIENEN QUE PAGAR Y MUCHO DINERO PARA PODER ASISTIR A CLASES
Y GRADUARSE. [NO ES DE GRATIS]
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.
DAILY EVENTS UNDER FEATURE
BOEHNER
WARNS OBAMA NOT TO PLAY WITH AMNESTY FIRE
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.
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.
Amenper: LOS NOVELONES
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.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obamas-bad-week-just-got-worse-surprise-supreme-court-action/#EsE2Wq1JVtHFp5RF.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obamas-bad-week-just-got-worse-surprise-supreme-court-action/#EsE2Wq1JVtHFp5RF.99
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
Amenper:
Issa: Holder ‘at
the heart’ of Fast and Furious debate
Idiot cronies probably not a good
thing to call the Chairman.
Check it out;
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.
Perspectiva
El Nuevo Herald
Miami
AQUELLA PALABRA
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
561-762-0288
El Nuevo Herald
Miami
AQUELLA PALABRA
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
561-762-0288
DAILY EVENTS UNDER FEATURE
THE REPUBLICAN WAVE DEBUNKED BIG MYTHS ABOUT THE OBAMA ERA
'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.)
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/11/07/will-get-castrated-new-improved-senate/#QwRMdb2t8W52QTsL.99
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.
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:
|
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…
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.”
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment