Tuesday, November 18, 2014

No 797 "En mi opiniuon" Noviembre 18, 2014

 No 797 “En mi opinión”  Noviembre 18, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITORhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gif

Gatria: Black Gang Murder 5 Years Old White Girl; National Media Silent.

What would have happened if this little girl were black ???????????

Black Gang Murders 5-Year-Old White Girl; National Media Silent

 by Philip Hodges — 
In a mostly black neighborhood in Milwaukee, a black gang targeted a white household in a drive-by shooting and ended up murdering a white 5-year-old girl named Laylah Petersen who was sitting on her grandpa’s lap. And of course, because of the racial circumstances being black-on-white, the national media largely ignored it. In fact, in the local media reporting of the incident, they claimed that the little girl was shot by a “stray bullet.” Uh-huh.
Two black males in Milwaukee walked up to the home of a white family, in a majority black neighborhood, and unleashed a hail of gunfire. A five-year-old white girl was murdered while sitting on her grandfather’s lap.
Milwaukee police say there is no question the shooters were deliberating trying to kill people inside the house. At least a dozen bullets were fired directly into the house. There may have been a third person driving a getaway car.
The house was located in a census tract that is 77% black and 14% white.
The Milwaukee Sentinel and Milwaukee channel 6 have actually been trying to downplay the murder. They are falsely reporting that it was “a stray bullet.” That directly contradicts all the evidence found by police.
You can see all the shell casings left behind outside the house they targeted. So, these guys waltzed up to the house, started shooting, and then one of their buddies came to pick them up and speed away.
Yet, the local media don’t acknowledge that this had anything to do with race. They don’t even mention it. This was one of the few white families in a mostly black neighborhood. Why else would a black gang target a white family?
And they say it was only a stray bullet, as if it was some kind of accident.
It doesn’t matter whether the gang knew that the little girl was there in the house or not. They targeted the household, and they shot into the house. Anyone who ended up dying as a result would be victims of first-degree murder, because that was the gang’s intent.
Read more at http://lastresistance.com/8514/black-gang-murders-5-year-old-white-girl-national-media-silent/#tXjIJP1bMTbLfPl1.99

“En mi opinion”

1-              Nunca subestimes a un idiota, en

Los Estados Unidos al menos dos

han llegado a ser presidentes…

2-              Los políticos aspiran a ser como
Mickey Mouse.  Ser tan encantadores que la gente tú te  olvides que son RATAS…
LRGM.

 

‘GET A GUN': Supposed #Ferguson

Cop Warns, ‘We Won’t Be Able to

Protect You’

If you thought the riots were bad, get ready for this. It’s not looking like the verdict will be in the protesters’ favor.
The Police Wives Association is soliciting donations and has raised more than $5,000 over the past several weeks, accordingto local media outlet KMOV Mobile News. They are accepting anything from food and drink to clothing and Tylenol, a continuation of similar efforts by the group during the protests in Ferguson at the end of the summer.
However, not all preparation is as benign. St. Louis Cop Talk, a forum for regional cops, has been active with chatter, opinions and advice about the predicted unrest in Ferguson.
Under the name “A Concerned Cop,” one person shared a warning: “If you do not have a gun, get one and get one soon. We will not be able to protect you or your family. It will be your responsibility to protect them. Our gutless commanders and politicians have neutered us. I’m serious, get a gun, get more than one, and keep one with you at all times.”
Other posts on the forum echo that sentiment, going so far as to label the protesters and activists in Ferguson as “terrorists,” and calling out local businesses that have identified themselves as supporters of the protests there.

 

Amenper: El cruce de Cables de la

Internet de Obama.

Este escrito de Gordon Crovitz, nos dice de la obsesión y los enredos de Obama, en sus intentos de regular la Internet.
Es interesante como saca leyes del 1880 para enredar la situación, en su interés en censurar la Internet.
Pero legalmente es imposible que pueda censurar, sólo regular, aunque a veces casi sea lo mismo pero no lo es completamente. 
Pero, por favor, porque seguir con legalismos, Obama debe de ser sincero como Gruber, que dijo que los votantes eran estúpidos, Obama debe de dejar de pensar que somos estúpidos, y ser sincero, dejarse de enredar los cables y  decir que lo que quiere es censurar la Internet para que nosotros no descubramos su desgobierno.

 What a Tangled Web Obama Weaves
Treating the Internet like a utility won’t achieve the president’s supposed goal, so why pursue it?
By L. GORDON CROVITZ
Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but Bill Clinton deserves credit for the most important Internet policy: a bipartisan consensus reached during his administration in the mid-1990s to keep the Internet free of regulation. The Web would be permissionless, so that innovators could start sites and other digital offerings without waiting for regulatory approval.
In a surprise speech last week, President Obama demanded the end of the unregulated Internet, ratcheting up his campaign to subject the Internet to century-old regulations written to micromanage public utilities. Mr. Obama pressured the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which was based on railroad regulations from the 1880s and used to oversee AT&T when it was a telephone monopoly. Regulators set prices, terms and conditions and must approve new products.
ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Obama says Internet service providers will “limit your access to a website” without Title II oversight. Pro-regulation lobbyists have made this argument from the beginning of the Web—and every year are proven more wrong. The Internet boomed precisely because it wasn’t regulated. In 1999 the FCC published a paper titled “The FCC and the Unregulation of the Internet.” The study contrasted the dramatic growth of the open Internet with that of the sluggish industries subject to Title II’s more than 1,000 regulations. Sen. Ted Cruz got it right last week when he tweeted that Title II would be ObamaCare for the Internet.
Amazing as it seems, under these regulations federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve, prioritize and set “just and reasonable” prices for broadband, the lifeblood of the Internet.
When Apple first offered Internet access on the iPhone, Steve Jobsdidn’t have to ask regulators for permission. Instead of network operators prioritizing traffic based on technical optimization, as they do today, under Title II regulators would prioritize streaming video from Netflix , pornographers or church services. Title II would invalidate “nonneutral” practices such as T-Mobile offering mobile phones with free music. Surgeons operating remotely via robotic systems may no longer have access to a latency-free (no lag time) connection to the Internet.
Title II regulation would also be a hidden tax increase: Broadband consumers would pay the 16.1% tax on interstate revenues under the Universal Service Fund. State utility commissioners would also get oversight of the Internet.
Mr. Obama claims that regulators can always “forbear” from the more onerous regulations of Title II. But the nature of regulators is to regulate, not to forbear. And as FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly explained at a Free State Foundation policy seminar last week, regulators can’t forbear even if they want to. The law, he said, sets the “bar so high for forbearance that it is nearly impossible to meet, especially when the Commission deals with core common carrier provisions on a nationwide basis,” as with the Internet.
Title II wouldn’t even get net-neutrality advocates what they say they want. They object to “paid prioritization” by Netflix and YouTube, which at peak times account for more than half the broadband capacity in the U.S. These bandwidth hogs couldn’t function without fast lanes on the Internet. They invest in huge networks of computer servers in many data centers to ensure smooth delivery of their content. Title II would bless these different tiers of service.
Everyone agrees that broadband providers should not discriminate based on the content of a website or other digital service, but broadband providers already pledge to their users that they won’t discriminate. If they did, regulators can enforce this version of “neutrality” without the draconian Title II by prohibiting “commercially unreasonable” network management practices.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Mr. Obama last year, knows that Title II would be a disaster for the Internet. He has never supported it. The New York Times reported that the pressure from Mr. Obama last week made Mr. Wheeler “testy, defensive and a bit angry that he might be seen as a political pawn.” He deserves to be angry: The president is making him choose either to run his independent agency independently or to become a political lackey for the White House.
Last week, Senate Republicans warned the FCC that Title II is “last century’s rules” and they would fight it. Some Democrats went further, with the Progressive Policy Institute, run by policy advisers from the Clinton administration, questioning Mr. Obama’s motives. They warned that the “likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory agenda unrelated to net neutrality.”
The last time net neutrality became a big political issue was in the 2010 midterm elections, when all 95 congressional candidates who campaigned for net neutrality were defeated. Americans like their unregulated Internet, and they want to keep it.


The lies that are central to Obama’s agenda
Share the joy
By Kyle Smith-November 16, 2014-NY Post
Damn Americans. They just don’t see the wisdom of surrendering to experts the power they need to remake the country into a progressive paradise.
Sighing with regret, liberals like Jonathan Gruber admit that they’re forced to hoodwink the citizens. For their own good.
Gruber, the MIT economist who (in the words of The New York Times) “put together the basic principles of” ObamaCare and helped Congress “draft the specifics of the legislation” is one of a long line of liberals driven by the belief that the stupidity of the American people is so insurmountable that persuasion is futile. Liberalism: the place where compassion blurs into condescension.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,” Gruber said, in a newly unearthed 2013 video that went viral last week.
Gruber’s jocular tone wasn’t surprising. In explaining why a huge tax increase was disguised to conceal it from the American people, he was admitting what was obvious to close observers: The law is really just a redistribution scheme.
Even the Democrats didn’t think ObamaCare could pass by being so described.
That’s why deception, as Gruber says, was central to its design.


Clemente Sanchez: Lección de Putin a Occidente ¡¡FORMIDABLE!!
Hace dos años el rey de Arabia visitó a Putin en Moscú.
Antes de partir le dijo a Putin que quería comprar una gran parcela y
edificar, con dinero totalmente árabe, una gran mezquita en la capital rusa.
"No hay problema", le contestó el ruso, "pero con una condición: que vuestra
majestad autorice a que se construya también en su capital árabe una gran
iglesia ortodoxa" .
" No puede ser" dijo el árabe.
"¿Por qué? preguntó Putin.
"Porque su religión no es la verdadera y no podemos dejar que se engañe al
pueblo".
"Yo pienso igual de su religión y sin embargo permitiría edificar su templo
si hubiera correspondencia, así que hemos terminado el tema"
El 4 de agosto de 2013 el líder ruso, Vladimir Putin, se dirigió al
parlamento de su país con este discurso acerca de las tensiones con las
minorías étnicas:
"En Rusia vivid como rusos! Cualquier minoría, de cualquier parte, que
quiera vivir en Rusia, trabajar y comer en Rusia, debe hablar ruso y
debe respetar las leyes rusas. Si ellos prefieren la Ley Sharia y vivir una
vida de musulmanes les aconsejamos que se vayan aquellos lugares donde esa
sea la ley del Estado...Rusia no necesita minorías musulmanas,
Esas minorías necesitan a Rusia y no les garantizamos privilegios especiales
ni tratamos de cambiar nuestras leyes adaptándolas a sus deseos. No importa
lo alto que exclamen "discriminación", No toleraremos faltas de respeto
hacia nuestra cultura rusa. Debemos aprender mucho de los atentados suicidas
de América, Inglaterra, Holanda y Francia, etc. Si queremos sobrevivir como
nación.
Los musulmanes están venciendo en esos países y no lo lograrán en Rusia. Las
tradiciones y costumbres rusas no son compatibles con la falta de cultura y
formas primitivas de la Ley Sharia y de los musulmanes.
Cuando este honorable cuerpo legislativo piense crear nuevas leyes, deberá
tener en mente primero el interés nacional ruso, observando
que las minorías musulmanas no son rusas."
Los miembros del Parlamento Ruso puestos en pie ovacionaron a Putin durante
cinco minutos.


Amenper: Necesitamos la
“Pax Americana”
Oímos el escepticismo sobre vigilancia del mundo, o sea la teoría de que los Estados Unidos no deben ni pueden ser el policía del mundo, expresado por el Presidente Obama y el senador Rand Paul.
Pero el retiro de Estados Unidos y la pasividad lo que han hecho es alimentar el  resurgente terrorismo islamista, los intentos de restaurar el imperio soviético Vladimir Putin, el empuje de armas nucleares de Irán nucleares, y las crecientes tensiones  creciente entre China y Japón, aliado de Estados Unidos que pone en peligro las  garantías de seguridad estadounidenses.
Los Estados Unidos no están en declive; está en retirada en todo el mundo debido a decisiones de una política errante de Obama que hacen un cambio de curso tanto posible como necesario.
El mundo necesita  un policía, y es preferible que sea los Estados Unidos, que China, Rusia u otra nación, la que desempeñe ese papel.
Claro que eso no es posible con Obama o Rand Paul como presidentes.
¿Cuán graves podrían ser las consecuencias de la continua retirada de Estados Unidos?
Bueno vamos a ver  escenario plausible en unos cuantos años.
Con una decididamente aislacionista América; habría una desaceleración económica en todo el mundo; veríamos una agresión China hacia Taiwán;  una situación en el Oriente Medio que conduciría a tanto Arabia Saudita como Irán para producir libremente armas nucleares; más malestar económico europeo; y un curso internacional de intromisión por parte de Rusia en los países vecinos, para restaurar el imperio soviético, en la américa latina con la reanudación de las relaciones con Cuba, ésta se fortalecería económicamente y el comunismo se extendería totalmente en los países de Latinoamérica.
Esto ilustra el tipo de peligros que Estados Unidos podría enfrentar  si no revierte su retirada del resto del mundo.
La  "Pax Americana" no sólo para el continente americano, pero como  se utilizó principalmente en sus connotaciones globales modernas relativas a la paz después del final de la II guerra mundial en 1945, ha desaparecido, y la necesitamos de nuevo.
En este sentido moderno, la “Pax Americana” había venido para indicar la posición militar y económica de los Estados Unidos en relación con otras naciones.
La “Pax Americana” que hemos tenido por años, ha producido el libre comercio y la movilidad del capital entre los mercados globales y la alta estimación de tolerancia y apertura que son absolutamente vitales para los Estados Unidos y el mundo.
Este camino de aislacionismo y renunciar a ser el líder del mundo libre que ha adoptado Obama, lo vimos surgir con Jimmy Carter, con funestos resultados, pero revertidos por suerte con la administración de Ronald Reagan que salvó al mundo.
No es tarde para revertir los daños hechos por la administración de Obama, aunque ha podido hacer y hará más por el tiempo que ha tenido en el poder, en comparación con los cuatro años de Carter.
Pero es imperativo el elegir un presidente en el 2016 que vuelva a los valores de la nación, no sólo en política internacional pero en la política doméstica.
No necesitamos un libertario que nos ayude en la economía doméstica y entregue el liderazgo mundial, porque la política internacional repercute en la economía doméstica, ahora más que nunca, cuando la tecnología y los modernos medios de comunicación han convertido al mundo en una sociedad homogénea y parroquial.


Los Republicanos tienen que ser inteligentes, ponerse las pilas y demostrar liderazgo si quieren ver el fruto en las presidenciales del 2016
Elecciones 2014: significado y deberes
  ARMANDO GONZALEZ
     Sabemos que Barack Obama es bueno, por lo menos, en algo: elegir a Barack Obama como presidente de Estados Unidos. Cuán bueno es como presidente es algo que se presta a largo debate. Y algo menos debatible es que es terrible como líder de su partido. No se supone que fuera así. En el 2008, Obama se suponía que fuera el precursor de una   nueva era liberal. El candidato Obama, recién llegado de Berlín, nos dijo: “Este es el momento por el cual el mundo ha estado esperando”.
   Confiado en que la historia estaba de su lado, Obama manejó su presidencia de forma partidista, aprovechando mayorías demócratas en el Congreso y logró aprobación para Obamacare   , el mayor logro de legislación social en varias décadas. Lo más interesante de esto es que Obamacare nunca ha sido popular. El presidente, simplemente, no pudo “venderla”. De marzo del 2009 a marzo del 2010, pronunció, por lo menos, un discurso semanal promoviendo Obamacare. Pero, a pesar de sus celebradas habilidades retóricas, el público nunca “compró” la idea.
   En el 2010, el congresista de Arkansas Marion Berry le advirtió que Obamacare se sentía como una repetición del desastroso HillaryCare de 1993 que condujo a una derrota en las elecciones congresionales de 1994 donde los demócratas perdieron 54 escaños en la Cámara y Newt Gingrich se convirtió en el presidente de la Cámara. Obama se burló del comentario de Berry y le dijo: “Bueno, la diferencia entre ahora y 1994 es que ahora me tienen a mí”. Unos días después   , los demócratas perdieron 63 escaños en la Cámara.
   Después del desastre del pasado martes 4, cualquier pensamiento de una coalición pro Obama suena como una ilusión. Los votantes jóvenes desertaron al Presidente, los hispanos se quedaron en su casa y los blancos no hispanos votaron republicano 30 por ciento por encima de los que votaron   demócrata. Contrario a lo que los demócratas tratan de hacernos creer, esta no fue una elección anti-incumbente. Estas elecciones fueron un acto de repudio a Obama, su partido y sus ideas. Los republicanos ganaron escaños senatoriales en Iowa y Colorado, estados que Obama ganó dos veces. Las contiendas para gobernador en estados demócratas como Maryland, Illinois   y Massachusetts fueron al Partido Republicano. El Senado, donde los republicanos necesitaban ganar seis escaños netos para lograr mayoría, lograron siete, y casi con toda seguridad, dos más en los próximos días.
   Y, ahora que los republicanos tendrán mayoría en ambas cámaras del Congreso, ¿qué significa eso? Ahora tienen que demostrar que saben gobernar. La derrota —o la masacre como la llamó The Economist— marca el final del Obamismo, una especie de liberalismo de izquierda que se entromete en nuestras vidas, ejecutado con tal incompetencia y, últimamente tan impopular, que será apenas recordado como un paréntesis en la historia política de Estados Unidos. El mismo Obama definió esta elección días antes cuando dijo: “Mis ideas están en la boleta. Todas y cada una de ellas”.
   Los republicanos deben controlar   la agenda nacional. De forma determinada y firme. Enviarle al Presidente un proyecto de ley por semana, comenzando por aquellos que deben tener apoyo demócrata como el oleoducto Keystone XL. Otra sería la autoridad para negociar tratados internacionales de comercio de forma rápida (fast track), algo que todo presidente desea, esto le daría una especie de victoria a Obama y demostraría bipartidismo y magnanimidad (así como buen sentido económico). Después, un proyecto de ley para repatriar $ 2 billones (trillones en inglés) que corporaciones de Estados Unidos mantienen en el exterior evadiendo los altísimos impuestos de Estados Unidos. Seguido por un proyecto de ley para facilitar la exportación de gas natural y petróleo y un proyecto de ley para seguridad de fronteras.  
   En cuanto a Obamacare, poco a poco. Repeler el impuesto a equipos e instrumentos médicos, repeler el mandato individual, repeler el mandato patronal y repeler el subsidio federal para compañías de seguros que, por mala administración, se vean en problemas. Si Obama los veta, que los demócratas defiendan los vetos durante los próximos dos años.
   Aprovechen la oportunidad. La percepción hoy, gracias a los demócratas y la prensa cómplice, es que la disfunción en Washington es culpa del partido del No. Expongan al verdadero agente del No. Muestren que con Harry Reid impotente, el Congreso puede funcionar. Pasen legislación. Cuando Obama firme demostrarán su seriedad y habilidad para gobernar. Cuando Obama ejerza su veto, ustedes habrán clarificado el origen del No y comenzarán a preparar el camino para el 2016.
    AGonzalez03@live.com 

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

Support Builds in GOP for Government Shutdown Over Obama Immigration Orders

Momentum is building in the House in the GOP caucus to attach a rider to the Continuing Resolution that would fund the government until the end of the fiscal year that would defund agencies charged with implementing President Obama’s coming executive orders on immigration.
The amendment would almost certainly be unacceptable to Democrats in the Senate. This would set up a showdown with the White House, giving President Obama and the Democrats the option of failing to fund the government past December 12, leading to a shutdown.
“I am insisting on that [rider] because the president is violating his executive privilege,” GOP Rep. Paul Gosar, who represents the border state of Arizona, said in an interview Friday.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) called the plan to block the executive action through the government-funding bill “a great idea.” Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who defeated then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the June GOP primary in part by accusing his opponent of supporting “amnesty,” said he also backed the proposal.
Asked if a government shutdown would be worth halting Obama’s immigration action, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) replied: “When you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not appropriate to contemplate the political consequences. You should uphold the Constitution come what may.”
The call to arms by conservatives is a challenge for GOP leaders in both chambers, who also oppose executive action by Obama but acknowledge they have not settled on a plan to stop it.

Amenper: Nuestros Aliados Musulmanes
No puedo defender el comunismo, esta doctrina no sólo destruyó nuestra patria pero ha creado la inestabilidad política en el mundo en todas sus versiones.
Pero sin lugar a dudas, los ideólogos originales del comunismo, aunque equivocados o con maldad, expresaban más coherentemente sus ideas. Eran más civilizados.
El islam, se presenta de una manera irracional, con el crimen no cómo en el comunismo a escondidas y con excusas, pero como una doctrina permisible públicamente, como las ejecuciones de ISIS.
Nuestros aliados musulmanes, no son mejores, no sólo en su violencia, pero en la manera como expresan su idolología.
Tenemos al presidente de Turquía, que hace unas declaraciones absurdas sobre el descubrimiento de América.  ¿Cómo un presidente de una nación puede presentar fanáticamente este punto de vista sin una substanciación histórica plausible?
Para los que no vieron sus declaraciones las copio a continuación según apareció en Yahoo, sin cambiar nada.
Estambul (AFP)  El presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan dijo el sábado que las Américas fueron descubiertas por los musulmanes en el siglo XII, cerca de tres siglos antes de que Cristóbal Colón pudiera poner los pies allí.
"Los contactos entre América Latina y el Islam se remontan al siglo XII. Los musulmanes descubrieron América en 1178, no Cristóbal Colón,” dijo el presidente conservador Islámico en un discurso televisado durante una cumbre en Estambul de líderes musulmanes de América Latina.
"Los marinos musulmanes llegaron a América desde 1178. "Colón mencionó la existencia de una mezquita en una colina en la costa cubana, dijo Erdogan.
Erdogan dijo que Ankara estaba incluso dispuesto a construir una mezquita en el lugar mencionado por el explorador Genovés.
"Me gustaría hablar de ello a mis hermanos cubanos. Una mezquita iría perfectamente en la colina de hoy," dijo el líder turco.
Los libros de historia dicen que Colón llegó al continente americano en 1492 cuando buscaba una nueva ruta marítima a la India.
Una pequeña minoría de los eruditos musulmanes ha sugerido recientemente una previa presencia musulmana en las Américas, aunque nunca se ha encontrado ninguna ruina precolombina de una estructura islámica.
En un polémico artículo publicado en 1996, historiador Youssef Mroueh se refiere a una entrada del diario de Colón que menciona una mezquita en Cuba. Pero la frase se entiende que es una referencia a la forma del paisaje en una forma metafórica.

Tal parece un chiste, y como tal se los mandé hace unos días, y cómo alguien sin importancia me puedo tomar esa libertad.  Pero el que dijo lo que copia arriba es un jefe de gobierno de un importante país, y un supuesto aliado de los Estados Unidos en la región, y no lo dijo como chiste sino como algo importante y real. Y esto sin tomar en consideración su referencia amistosa a Cuba.


Para remendar Cielito Lindo, el condado necesita $55 millones

Dice ex juez que trabajo allí, que es mejor vender dicho edificio

MIAMI 18 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2014, nhr.com—“La mejor opción para salirnos del edificio del 73 West Flagler (Cielito Lindo), es ponerlo a la venta”, nos dijo un ex juez que conoce muy bien los problemas que existen en ese edificio, porque trabajó allí.
De acuerdo con Beatrice Butchko, jueza administradora asociada del Circuito Judicial 11 de Florida, “el Condado debe buscar el dinero para reparar las columnas, y son unos $25 millones de dólares sin incluir la reparación de los daños causados por filtraciones o esparcimiento de partículas de asbesto”.
Sin embargo cuando el pasado 29 de enero nelsonhortareporta.com descubrió los problemas que tenía el deteriorado edificio ubicado en el 73 West Flagler, pedimos bajo la ley 119 de registros públicos todos los documentos sobre el estatus de las reparaciones que se hacían en Cielito Lindo.
Se nos hizo llegar la información sobre las condiciones del edificio y de un estudio, y se nos dijo que el edificio no ofrecía peligro en ese momento.
Según el condado en ese momento, “el edificio se está renovando como parte de un programa continuo de mejoramiento de estas instalaciones, el proyecto actual de $30 millones de dólares incluye, mejoras del techo, alrededores y la fachada”.
O sea ya el condado había adjudicado $30 millones para ese proyecto que estaba en proceso, el condado contrató  a la firma de ingenieros G.M. Selvy para realizar el estudio estructural y una revisión de las estructuras de apoyo del Palacio de Justicia señaló que “ha levantado preocupaciones con respecto a algunas de las columnas de soporte ubicadas en el sótano del edificio”, dijo la nota que el 29 de enero nos envió el condado, vía correo electrónico.
El estudio de ingeniería hecho por G.M. Selvy, indicó que, “sobre el actual uso y ocupación del edificio, no tenemos una preocupación inmediata de colapso o fallo basado en las observaciones visuales”, dijo.
De acuerdo con los ingenieros de G.M. Selvy, “los edificios de esta edad tienen una inherente redundancia incorporada en su diseño que ayuda enormemente a la estabilidad global de la estructura.  Sin embargo, dada la pérdida estimada de acero en algunas de las áreas de pruebas, algunas fallas localizadas pueden tener lugar en caso de una carga excesiva.  Dicho esto, le recomendamos una evacuación completa del edificio en caso de un huracán de nivel 1.  Nuestra opinión está sujeta a cambio basado en la disponibilidad de información del futuro y los resultados de ensayos destructivos.  Al término de nuestra evaluación, conjuntamente con los resultados de los ensayos destructivos, apuntalamiento temporal se puede recomendar para las columnas que son consideradas inseguro unidad tal vez como reparaciones completa puede ser proporcionado”.
Gastarse $30 millones que se adjudicaron según señalan los registros públicos enviados a nelsonhortareporta.com en enero del 2014, y ahora otros $25 millones sumarian $55 millones para “remendar” un edificio viejo, Nuestro amigo el ex juez tiene razón cuando nos dijo que “lo mejor era ponerlo a la venta”.


On Obama and the Nature of Failed Presidencies…
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - 03:01 Print Text Size
We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now entered the final phase of Barack Obama's presidency, and like those of several other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political configuration within it and surrounding it.
The midterm elections are over, and Congress and the president are in gridlock. This in itself is not significant; presidents as popular as Dwight Eisenhower found themselves in this condition. The problem occurs when there is not only an institutional split but also a shift in underlying public opinion against the president. There are many more sophisticated analyses of public opinion on politics, but I have found it useful to use this predictive model.
Analyzing a President's Strength
I assume that underneath all of the churning, about 40 percent of the electorate is committed to each party. Twenty percent is uncommitted, with half of those being indifferent to the outcome of politics and the other half being genuinely interested and undecided. In most normal conditions, the real battle between the parties -- and by presidents -- is to hold their own bases and take as much of the center as possible.
So long as a president is fighting for the center, his ability to govern remains intact. Thus, it is normal for a president to have a popularity rating that is less than 60 percent but more than 40 percent. When a president's popularity rating falls substantially below 40 percent and remains there for an extended period of time, the dynamics of politics shift. The president is no longer battling for the center but is fighting to hold on to his own supporters -- and he is failing to do so.
When the president's support has fragmented to the point that he is fighting to recover his base, I considered that a failed presidency -- particularly when Congress is in the hands of the opposition. His energy cannot be directed toward new initiatives. It is directed toward recovering his base. And presidents who have fallen into this condition near the end of their presidencies have not been likely to recover and regain the center.
Historically, when the president's popularity rating has dipped to about 37 percent, his position has been unrecoverable. This is what happened to George W. Bush in 2006. It happened to Richard Nixon in 1974 when the Watergate crisis resulted in his resignation and to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 during the Vietnam War. It also happened to Harry Truman in 1951, primarily because of the Korean War, and to Herbert Hoover before World War II because of the Great Depression.
However, this is not the final historical note on a presidency. Truman, enormously unpopular and unable to run for another term, is now widely regarded as one of the finest presidents the United States has had. Nixon, on the other hand, has never recovered. This is not therefore a judgment on Obama's place in history, but simply on his current political condition. Nor does it take failure to lose the presidency; Jimmy Carter was defeated even though his popularity remained well in the 40s.
Obama's Presidency
Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one over the economy and three over wars -- Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well. However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and although it began in failure, it became clear that a successful end was conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because after eight years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.
Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is that given the president's lack of popularity -- and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years -- the president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them, so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.
Acting within Constraints
This does not mean that the president cannot act. It simply means that it is enormously more difficult to act than before. Gerald Ford, replacing Nixon but weakened by the pardoning of his predecessor, could not stop Congress from cutting off aid to South Vietnam during the final Communist assault. George W. Bush was able to launch the surge, but the surge was limited in size, not only because of strategic conditions but also because he had lost the ability to force Congress to fund alternative expansions of the war. In each of the failed presidencies, the president retained the ability to act but was constrained by the twin threats of an opposition-controlled Congress and his own party's unwillingness to align with him.
At the same time, certain foreign diplomatic initiatives can continue. Nixon initiated negotiations between Egypt and Israel that culminated, under Carter's administration, in the Camp David Accords. Truman tried to open negotiations with China, and the initiative's failure had little to do with opposition to a negotiated settlement in Korea.
The president has few domestic options. Whatever Obama does with his power domestically, Congress can vote to cut funding, and if the act is vetoed, the president puts Congressional Democrats in mortal danger. The place where he can act -- and this is likely the place Obama is least comfortable acting -- is in foreign policy. There, the limited deployment of troops and diplomatic initiatives are possible.
Obama's general strategy is to withdraw from existing conflicts in the Middle East and contain and limit Russian actions in Ukraine. The president has the ability to bring military and other pressure to bear. But the United States' opponent is aware that the sitting president is no longer in control of Washington, that he has a specific date of termination and that the more unpopular things he does, the more likely his successor is to repudiate them. Therefore, in the China-North Korea model, the assumption is that that continuing the conflict and negotiating with the successor president is rational. In the same sense, Iran chose to wait for the election of Ronald Reagan rather than deal with Jimmy Carter (who was not a failed president).
This model depends on the opponent's having the resources and the political will to continue the conflict in order to bargain with the president's successor, and assumes that the successor will be more malleable. This is frequently the result, since the successor can make concessions more readily than his predecessor can. In fact, he can make those concessions and gain points by blaming the need to concede on his predecessor. Ironically, Obama used this strategy after replacing George W. Bush. The failed president frequently tries to entice negotiation by increasing the military pressure on the enemy. Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush all took this path while seeking to end their wars. In no case did it work, but they had little to lose politically by trying.
Therefore, if we follow historical patterns, Obama will now proceed slowly and ineffectively to increase military operations in Syria and Iraq, while raising non-military pressure on Russia, or potentially initiating some low-level military activities in Ukraine. The actions will be designed to achieve a rapid negotiating process that will not happen. The presidency will shift to the other party, as it did with Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush. Thus, if patterns hold true, the Republicans will retake the presidency. This is not a pattern unknown to Congress, which means that the Democrats in the legislature will focus on running their own campaigns as far away from Obama and the next Democratic presidential candidate as possible.
The period of a failed presidency is therefore not a quiet time. The president is actively trying to save his legacy in the face of enormous domestic weakness. Other countries, particularly adversaries, see little reason to make concessions to failed presidents, preferring to deal with the next president instead. These adversaries then use military and political oppositions abroad to help shape the next U.S. presidential campaign in directions that are in their interests.
It is against this backdrop that all domestic activities take place. The president retains the veto, and if the president is careful, he will be able to sustain it. Obama will engage in limited domestic politics, under heavy pressure from Congressional Democrats, confining himself to one or two things. His major activity will be coping with Syria, Iraq and Russia, because of both crises and the desire for a legacy. The last two years of a failed presidency are mostly about foreign policy and are not very pleasant to watch.

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.



Convicted Terrorist Known as the ’20th Hijacker’ Has a Stunning Claim About the 9/11 Attacks

Billy Hallowell  Share This
·         Tweet This
·          
·          
A man known as the “20th hijacker” who is serving a life sentence for his admitted role in conspiring to murder Americans in the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 has come forward with some shocking new allegations, claiming that a Saudi Arabian royal helped fund the devastating terror events.
In this undated file photo provided by the Sherburne County Sheriff Office, Zacarias Moussaoui is shown. (AP Photo/Sherburne County, Minn., Sheriff’s Office, File)
Zacarias  Moussaoui, 46, has said, more specifically, that a Saudi prince paid to train him and the 19 hijackers in the time leading up to the attacks.
He issued these allegations in recently filed federal court documents, alleging that the prince was fully aware that the training was being done on behalf of Osama bin Laden, according to the Daily Mail.
“I am ready to testify about all the above and more in your court in an Open Hearing that I request,” Moussaoui said in a handwritten court document dated October 23.
According to his account, Prince Turki Al Faisal AlSaud met with him, provided him with funding and also financially assisted the other 19 Sept. 11 terrorists.
Moussaoui also detailed an alleged Al Qaeda plan to shoot down Air Force One when Bill Clinton was in office — a purported plot that he said involved an employee at one of Saudi Arabia’s embassies, according to the Oklahoman.
The Saudi government has denied any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in the past and some say that Moussaoui‘s own credibility is at issue in taking his claims at face value, especially considering that a defense psychologist once said he suffers from delusions as a result of paranoid schizophrenia.
Still, this isn’t the first time Saudi Arabia has been accused of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.
As for Moussaoui, he was originally arrested in August 2001 — just one month before 9/11 — after staffers at a Minnesota flight school became concerned over his quest to learn to fly a Boeing 747, despite not having a pilot’s license.
Moussaoui was initially arrested on immigration charges before the attacks and was held in custody just weeks later when they unfolded; in 2005, he pleaded guilty to conspiring with the hijackers.
A courtroom drawing shows Al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui shouting “I will be free. Before the end of George Bush I will get out.” as he is led out the courtroom by a marshal in Bryan US District Court May 2006 in Alexandria, Virginia. (AFPPHOTO/COURTROOM DRAWING BY ART LIEN)
Just one year later, though, an audio recording revealed that bin Laden was separating himself from Moussaoui, claiming that the man wasn’t part of the 9/11 attacks, the Daily Mail reported.
These facts aside, Moussaoui claims to have given a deposition in October to lawyers who are representing insurance companies and victims seeking damages from Saudi Arabia over claims that the country was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.



Republicans weigh government shutdown to stop Obama.  by Cowboy Byte

If that what it takes….
Check it out:
One Republican leader on Sunday held open the possibility that his party could move to shut down the government in an attempt to stop President Barack Obama from taking executive action on immigration policy.
A vocal group of conservatives in the House of Representatives is pressing to use government funding as leverage to prevent any White House moves that would allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay and work in the United States.

https://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gifhttps://blu172.mail.live.com/ol/clear.gif

¿ Va EUA. rumbo a una Dictadura? Lean          y Decidan. Identifiquen a losTraidores.                    Gatria@aol.com

Lo mas increible  es que La Prensa (Bueno la Liberal e Izquierdista) y algunos Oficiales electos : Senadores y Congresistas respalden a que EUA.,vaya hacia una Dictadura donde un hombre tome determinaciones , las que le de la gana, por si solo. Ya el pueblo se boto a muchos, pero aun quedan mas.

La dictadura (del latín dictatūra) es una forma de gobierno en la cual el poder se concentra en torno a la figura de un solo individuo (dictador) o élite, generalmente a través de la consolidación de un gobierno de facto, que se caracteriza por una ausencia de división de poderes, una propensión a ejercitar arbitrariamente el mando en beneficio de la minoría que lo apoya, la independencia del gobierno respecto a la presencia o no de consentimiento por parte de cualquiera de los gobernados. 
Un dictador en una democracia representativa es cuando el ejecutivo ignora las otras ramas del gobierno, y el poder se concentra en la figura de un solo individuo que ejecuta arbitrariamente su voluntad sin el consentimiento de cualquiera de los gobernados.
Cuando el presidente Obama gobierna a través de decisiones ejecutivas, sólo días después que los votantes han rechazado su agenda de gobierno, está llenando la descripción de dictador.
La amenaza, que ya es casi un hecho, de una acción ejecutiva sobre inmigración, sin tomar en consideración si es adecuada o no, es una acción dictatorial.
La división de poderes es lo que ha diferenciado a esta nación de otras en el mundo, es la que ha hecho la democracia americana el ejemplo de democracia que es la admiración y envidia del mundo.
No sabemos cuál será la reacción de los otros poderes, las cámaras legislativas y la judicial, pero cualquier actitud de protesta será rechazada por el dictador.
Esta no sera la primera , ya el aspirante a dictador  lo ha hecho  varias veces. Es importante recordar los nombres  de todos los que siguen respaldando al Dictador, incluyendo La Prensa.


State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson

Guess they have to get ready for the return of the thug racists.
Check it out:
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive orderdeclaring a state of emergency in his state on Monday. The order was posted as St. Louis residents wait anxiously on the decision of the county’s grand jury as to whether or not Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson should be brought up on any charges for the shooting death of Ferguson resident Mike Brown. 
The August 9 incident between Brown and Wilson immediately sparked violent confrontations between law enforcement and protesters for several days thereafter.
According to the order, Nixon is directing “the Missouri State Highway Patrol together with the St. Louis County Police Department and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights and ensure public safety in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis region.” The order continues with further jurisdictional operation plans:
I further order that the St. Louis County Police Department shall have command and operational control over security in the City of Ferguson relating to areas of protests, acts of civil disobedience and conduct otherwise arising from such activities.
I further order that the Unified Command may exercise operational authority in such other jurisdictions it deems necessary to protect civil rights and ensure public safety and that other law enforcement agencies shall assist the Unified Command when so requested and shall cooperate with operational directives of the Unified Command.
I further order, pursuant to Section 41.480, RSMo, the Adjutant General of the State of Missouri, or his designee, to forthwith call and order into active service such portions of the organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property and assist civilian authorities and it is further directed that the Adjutant General or his designee, and through him, the commanding officer of any unit or other organization of such organized militia so called into active service take such action and employ such equipment as may be necessary to carry out requests processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol and ordered by the Governor of the state to protect life and property and support civilian authorities.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/state-emergency-declared-ferguson/

Obama tells Ferguson protesters: Stay the course

Only fitting that America’s racist Troublemaker-in-Chief, Barack Obama would meet with Ferguson agitators and tell them to “stay the course.”

H/T to The Gateway Pundit for finding this little jewel hidden in The New York Times report:

But leaders here say that is the nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,” said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop killing us.”
At times, there has been a split between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.
Some of the national leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a conversation about Ferguson.
According to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama “was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can to keep peace.”
In other words, even if Officer Darren Wilson is found innocent, continue to act as if Ferguson is the hot bed of racist cops shooting unarmed teens.
In a time when Obama should be calming people about Ferguson, telling people to trust the justice system–a system in which ironically he is “the man”–Obama is playing into the Civil Rights v2.o narrative.
And their mantra is hypocritically, “Stop killing us!”
Allow me to finish it: “Because we are doing just great killing ourselves!”
If America has anything to overcome, it’s Obama and the racist minions that are constantly stirring up trouble. These people make far too much political hay stirring up the “ignorant,” low information, as ObamaCare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber noted about the typical Liberal.
Racism is where the money is, and the Left profits daily on such nonsense. So “Stay the course” means, keep the money in racism and other Leftist nonsense flowing.
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2014/11/obama-tells-ferguson-protesters-stay-course/



This Former FBI Official Just Betrayed Holder And Obama Without Holding Anything Back

"It won’t be long before the American people turn their..."

Ron Hosko is a former assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division (CID) at FBI Headquarters in Washington — the culmination of a distinguished 30-year career with the Bureau.
Hosko is now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, whose mission is to protect law enforcement professionals by fighting for their legal rights.
The fight that Ron Hosko has just taken on — and taken to the highest levels of the federal government — is against his former boss. In a scathing letter written to President Obama and obtained by investigative reporter Katie Pavlich at townhall.com, Hosko accuses Eric Holder of polluting the Department of Justice with a highly politicized atmosphere and agenda.
Hosko also charges Obama’s Attorney General with bringing a clear prejudice to his office, promoting an aggressive antagonism toward the law enforcement community.
As an example of Holder’s divisive and dangerous antagonism, Hosko cites the racially charged tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, where Holder personally injected himself into the conflict and the controversy between protestors and police.
This puts our communities at greater risk, especially the most vulnerable among us,” Hosko wrote in the letter exclusively obtained by Townhall. “Your attorney general, Eric Holder, is chief among the antagonists.
Hosko’s lengthy letter to Obama also looks beyond Holder’s personal involvement in the Ferguson conflict, according to the Pavlich article:
“It won’t be long before the American people turn their attention to other matters. Long after Ferguson is forgotten, police officers across America will still remember the way their senior federal executives turned their back on them with oft-repeated suggestions that race-based policing drives a biased, broken law enforcement agenda.”
While this may be Hosko’s first time writing a letter to the president that’s highly critical of Holder, it’s not his first public criticism of the outgoing Attorney General. About a month-and-a-half ago, Hosko penned a biting opinion piece for foxnews.com on Holder’s politicizing of the Ferguson incident involving officer Darren Wilson:
What seems abundantly clear is that the leadership Department of Justice is unconcerned about Officer Darren Wilson’s legal fate, since it has already reached its own conclusions about what happened that night in Ferguson.
Unfortunately, politicization of what is supposed to be blind justice is hardly unusual in the Obama administration.
Clearly, this one-time top official at the FBI holds the Obama administration, and particularly Eric Holder, in very low regard:
The Obama administration is obviously turning its back on the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities. Its politicization of our nation’s justice system only makes it more difficult for police to do jobs that are already dangerous and, too often, life-threatening
Read more at
http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-former-top-official-fbi-just-said-eric-holder-scathing-letter-obama/#VBubyvZPT5YTkaFP.99

The Western Center.
Enough Is Enough... If Barack Obama Moves Forward With His Dictatorial Amnesty Decree, IMPEACH HIM!

       Did you watch Barack Obama's press conference the afternoon after the election? Did you hear him say, on one hand, that he wants to work with Congress and THEN DEMAND that Congress either send an amnesty bill that is acceptable to him to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree? 

       It's clear that Barack Obama didn't get the message the that the American people just sent to Washington. It's clear that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world is behaving like a petulant child... sticking his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down and yelling loudly so he can't hear what the American people are trying to say to him... and it's clear that he will not change his ways. 

       Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the childishness... the American people are sick and tired of the dictatorial delusions of godhood... the American people are sick and tired of the lawlessness... and, most of all, the American people are sick and tired of Barack Obama. 

       And so, it's time to send Congress an even stronger message. 
If Barack Obama moves forward with his dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT HIM IMPEACHED.
The American Sent You A Clear Message On November 4, 2014 And It Wasn't: "Compromise With Barack Obama" Or "Work With Barack Obama To Get Stuff Done." ... The American People Sent You To Washington To Stop Barack Obama... PERIOD! 

       Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said it best: "How can you govern with a president that disobeys the Constitution? How can you govern with a president that is demonstrably lawless when he thinks he has to be?" 

       The answer to Rush's rhetorical question is, 
you can't! 

       And at some point, our elected officials will also have to come to the inescapable conclusion that
BARACK OBAMA IS THE PROBLEM. He will not "work with Congress to get things done" ... he will not "compromise" with Congress. With Barack Obama, it's either his way or the highway and if our elected officials choose the former, only then will the liberal media hallelujah choir proclaim that they're truly "compromising" and "working to get things done." 

       And we're not the only ones who have made that observation: 

       
- Erick Erickson with RedState observed: "As the reality of a Republican wave became imminent... a dangerous narrative began to take hold among the conservative talking heads on cable news and in the victory speeches of the victorious Republicans. The narrative was that now that the Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress, it is incumbent upon them to work with Obama and the other Democrats in the service of 'getting things done' and 'fixing the broken system.'" 

       
- Rush Limbaugh said: "The Republican Party was not elected to fix a broken system or to make it work. The Republican Party was not elected to compromise. The Republican Party was not elected to sit down and work together with the Democrats. The Republican Party was not elected to slow down the speed the country is headed to the cliff and go over it slowly." 

       
- Conservative icon Gary Bauer stated: "Likewise Republicans shouldn't fall into the trap of trying to resuscitate so-called comprehensive immigration reform. ... In the days ahead, there will be a lot of talk about compromise and cooperation in Washington. Let President Obama make the first move by dropping his plans for a mass executive amnesty." 

       It's clear. The liberal media and the Washington elites are trying to spin the message that the American people just sent to Washington beyond human comprehension, but 
patriotic Americans, like you, have the power to fight this phony narrative and the time to stop Obama is now, before he irrevocably changes America. 
Obama Gave The American People The Bird.
       Senator Ted Cruz called it right when he said that "the era of Obama lawlessness is over." Make no mistake, that's the message that the American people sent to Washington and, if you agree, then you're not alone. 

       
- Erickson again: "If voters really wanted people who would work closely with Obama and other Democrats to 'get things done,' they would have just voted for more Democrats. ... Say what you want about the information level of the average voter, but absolutely no one was confused into thinking that they were replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the hopes that the Republican would be more friendly to the Democrat agenda." 

       
- Limbaugh essentially said the same thing: "If they [the American people] wanted you to work with the Democrats, you wouldn't have won. If they wanted the Republicans to work with the Democrats and to help the Democrats accomplish more, they would have just elected the Democrats." 

       
- Cruz went on to say: "It is incumbent on Republicans to stand up and lead. ... You know, the fact that the people rose up and voted the Democrats out of power doesn't necessarily mean they trust the Republicans. They've given us another chance. But we've got to earn that trust, and the way to earn that trust is to listen to the priorities of the people." 

       It's time for our elected officials to start earning some trust. Yes, impeachment is a bold move but Barack Obama is NOT afraid to be bold. 

       When he mounted the stage and proclaimed that Congress either send an acceptable amnesty bill to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, he wasn't pushing half-measures or painting with pale pastels. 

       Even liberal media personalities couldn't believe what they were hearing:

       
- NBC's Chuck Todd said that said that Obama must know that he "is going to know that if he does this, he is starting a political war..." 

       
- CNN's Candy Crowley: "If he makes a major move along the lines of what we've been hearing... that would be like just popping a grenade and throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor." 

       
- But The National Journal's Ron Fournier said it best, "After this repudiation, acting on immigration by fiat would be the political equivalent of literally flipping the country the bird." 

       Even liberals know that Obama is bold as brass. It's time for Republicans to be just as bold. The House of Representatives has the votes necessary to advance Articles of Impeachment and 
if Barack Obama views himself as a dictator, then it's time for Congress to show Mr. Obama what happens to dictators in the United States of America.
Dispelling The Media Myth That Impeachment Will Hurt Republicans...

       The media has done an outstanding job of rewriting history and advancing the false narrative that impeaching Barack Obama will somehow hurt Republicans, so much so that even some conservatives believe it. 

       And if you believe the media narrative, then ask President Al Gore whether or not he believes that the impeachment of Bill Clinton kept him out of the White House. The historical record is very clear.

       
- The liberal paper of record, The New York Times wrote: "Mr. Gore confronted Mr. Clinton in the Oval Office after Mr. Gore ran for president in 2000... In the course of a brutal one-hour exchange, aides to both men said, Mr. Gore blamed Mr. Clinton for his loss — suggesting that he had been dragged down by the burden of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings." 

       
- Back in 1999, the Chicago Tribune wrote: "President Clinton conceded Thursday that his impeachment scandal may hurt Vice President Al Gore's election hopes, acknowledging that 'a lot of people who may not like me may hold it against him.'" 

       
- Back in 2001, The Telegraph wrote: "The two, whose relationship has been very difficult since the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment that followed it, had their showdown alone inside the White House and it lasted for more than an hour... Another source who knows both told the Washington Post that the tone of the conversation was 'very, very blunt.' The newspaper said that while the former vice-president's friends called the meeting 'very constructive,' the Clinton side saw it as a much angrier event in which Mr. Gore laid bare a simmering resentment of his former boss." 

       Don't be fooled, the media narrative that impeachment hurts Republicans only gained a firm footing when the Pretender-in-Chief took the oath of office. 

       And when it comes to the theory that the impeachment of Bill Clinton hurt Republicans in Congress; another fact that is often ignored by the media is that 
even though Republicans lost a handful of seats in Congress, they actually maintained majority control in both House of Congress once the dust settled from the 2000 election. 

       But 
what is even more historic is that one year after impeaching Bill Clinton, Republicans gained control of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover occupied the Oval Office (until RINO Senator Jim Jeffords switched parties 5 months later and gave the Democrats marginal control of the Senate). 

       
So exactly how did impeaching Bill Clinton hurt Republicans? ... But dispelling false narratives aside, there is another reason why impeachment needs to be on the table: 

       Barack Obama's ego is tremendous. He does not want to go down in history as one of three presidents ever impeached in the United States of America. 
Obama fears impeachment and if Congress sends him the message that he is subject to impeachment then he will either behave or he will be gone.
Floyd Brown

 

Un curioso texto de Bakunin.c. Clemente Sanchez

Vale la pena que leas del propio Bakunin, el texto que sigue, y  que ayuda a  separar la cizaña del trigo. Lo mismo Solyenitzin un siglo más tarde, exterioriza conceptos similares que inscribe en el prólogo de una de sus obras: “la Revolución Rusa es una revolución hecha en Rusia pero quienes la llevaron a cabo no eran rusos”.
Leé detenidamente:
Mijaíl Alexándrovich Bakunin (30 de mayo de 1814 - 1 de julio de 1876) fue un anarquista ruso contemporáneo de Karl Marx. Es posiblemente el más conocido de la primera generación de filósofos anarquistas y está considerado uno de los padres de este pensamiento, dentro del cual defendió la tesis colectivista. Además, perteneció a la francmasonería con la intención de inclinarla hacia postulados anarquistas.
"Marx es un judío y está rodeado por una pandilla de pequeños, medianamente inteligentes, astutos, ágiles y especuladores judíos así como los judíos lo son en todas partes agentes bancarios y comerciantes, escritores, políticos, corresponsales de periódicos de todas las tendencias políticas; en pocas palabras, corredores literarios así como son corredores de la Bolsa, con un pie en la Banca y el otro en el movimiento socialista, y con sus traseros sobre la prensa alemana. Se han apoderado de todos los periódicos y ya se pueden imaginar la nauseabunda literatura que producen.

Ahora, todo este mundo Judío, que constituye una secta explotadora, un pueblo de sanguijuelas, un parásito voraz, cercanos e íntimamente conectados el uno con el otro, sin importar no sólo las fronteras sino tampoco las diferencias políticas. Este mundo Judío está hoy a disposición de Marx o de Rothschild. Estoy seguro que, por un lado, los Rothschild aprecian los méritos de Marx y por el otro lado, Marx siente una inclinación instintiva y un Gran respeto por los Rothschild. Esto puede parecer extraño. ¿Que podrían tener en común el comunismo y la Alta Finanza? ¡oh, oh! El comunismo de Marx busca un fuerte Estado centralizado, y donde ello exista debe, inevitablemente, existir un Banco Central estatal, y dónde esto exista allí la parasitaria Nación Judía -que especula con el trabajo del pueblo- encontrará el medio para su propia existencia...

En realidad esto significaría para el proletariado un régimen de cuartel, bajo el cual los trabajadores y trabajadoras -convertidos en una masa
uniforme- se levantarían, irían a dormir, trabajarían y vivirían al compás de un tambor; el privilegio de conducir quedaría en las manos de los
 técnicos y educados, con un amplio campo para negociados provechosos realizados por los judíos, que serían atraídos por la enorme extensión de las especulaciones internacionales de los bancos nacionales...

(Polámique contre les Juifs, Paris, 1872).

Asombrosa ingenuidad.                                                    

 

Es increíble como alguna gente que parece inteligente y que ha tenido acceso a una educación de cierta calidad, puede caer en tan elemental trampa, esa que muestra una candidez serial solo admisible en la niñez.

El éxito, en los negocios, en la vida personal, en la actividad política o inclusive en las relaciones interpersonales, nunca es el producto de meros golpes de suerte, sucesos impensados u ocasionales actos espasmódicos.

Ese camino jamás es lineal. Está repleto de obstáculos, de infinitos desvíos y momentos especiales en los que se requiere detenerse y a veces hasta retroceder para luego recién desde allí seguir avanzando.

Cuando se observa un efectivo cambio en el rumbo de las decisiones políticas de un territorio que se encamina con mayor determinación hacia un futuro mejor, eso no ha ocurrido por obra de la casualidad, de un habilidoso truco de magia o de un guiño del destino.

La inmensa mayoría de las veces, esas transformaciones que tanto se anhelan, son la consecuencia inevitable de una combinación de situaciones particulares, de acciones prácticas y detonantes generados por la coyuntura. Nada ocurre porque sí, por un simple accidente o por azar.

Es difícil comprender la conducta de algunos individuos que siendo astutos, capaces y hasta exitosos en sus círculos profesionales, suponen que en el campo de la política y de los espacios sociales, el progreso puede alcanzarse de la mano del eterno voluntarismo.

Es incomprensible esa actitud de quienes tienen plena conciencia de lo mucho que les ha costado estar allí donde están y llegar hasta ese meritorio lugar que ocupan. Muchos de ellos le han dedicado miles de horas a estudiar para conseguir cierto status académico. Otros han trabajado en diferentes lugares, a veces en condiciones casi indignas, con un ahínco desproporcionado y haciendo un enorme sacrificio para desarrollarse.

Algunos llegaron aunque no todos. Sin embargo, todos aprendieron la lección. Ahora saben que el recorrido es muy complejo y que la perseverancia es vital para conseguir cualquier meta propuesta.

Bajo estas reglas y en ese contexto, es inadmisible que un ser humano que sabe del valor del esmero y que conoce por experiencia propia, que la constancia es un atributo esencial, pueda creer tan inocentemente que en la vida ciudadana se pueden obtener evoluciones importantes solo con ganas.

Si en lo personal, si en la existencia propia, eso se torna muy difícil, a veces casi imposible, mucho más aun es lograr esas mejoras en una sociedad. Es importante comprender la naturaleza del problema. Cuando eso no se logra, sucede lo ya conocido, con individuos haciendo demasiado sin conquistar los resultados esperados, dedicando energías a lo inconducente.

Existe un agravante que preocupa también. Cada batalla perdida, cada maniobra fallida, solo consigue instalar en el ambiente una gran desazón, una frustración que carcome las fuerzas de cara al próximo intento. Cuando triunfa la resignación sobreviene lo peor, el acostumbramiento a la situación actual, el conformismo interminable y con él,  la más absoluta decadencia.

Cambiar la realidad no es un objetivo imposible, pero se requiere tomar la iniciativa e imprimirle una impronta diferente. Para ganarle a la mediocridad, resulta fundamental entender lo más básico de la partitura.

Es allí donde aparecen los mayores problemas. En la comprensión de este fenómeno social. No se puede pretender caminar en el aire creyendo que la ley de gravedad no hará su parte. Ningún esfuerzo puesto al servicio de hacer lo inadecuado generará algún resultado favorable.

Comprender esta dinámica es solo una parte del asunto. La otra es entender que para avanzar en positivo se precisan consensuar una nómina de mínimos acuerdos con los otros, con los que piensan diferente.

La tarea es construir sobre aspectos comunes, encontrar esa masa crítica para conseguir desde allí una fortaleza estructural que logre que esas voces tengan trascendencia y se puedan multiplicar, aunque no necesariamente sean la mayoría numérica, pero sí que tengan una significación relevante.

Si realmente se quiere protagonizar el cambio, si se pretende lograr transformaciones en el rumbo de los acontecimientos, primero habrá que entender los mecanismos bajo los cuales funciona la sociedad. Desde esa acabada comprensión de la dinámica, se puede iniciar una labor ininterrumpida que tendrá un norte definido, pero no un plazo predecible.

En materia de comportamientos sociales no existen demasiadas certezas. No se trata de una ciencia exacta. Pero no menos cierto es que haciendo lo correcto, eligiendo las estrategias convenientes y utilizando las tácticas oportunas con el debido criterio, se puede avanzar en el sentido apropiado.

Si se quiere realmente cambiar el estado de situación habrá que hacer mucho más que unos pocos esfuerzos aislados. Suponer que una movilización ciudadana, una denuncia judicial o un ciclo televisivo de carácter crítico, es suficiente para lograr un objetivo de real transformación es no entender absolutamente nada y denota una asombrosa ingenuidad.

Alberto Medina Méndez.
albertomedinamendez@gmail.com

 

 

Breaking: Obama Directly Implicated In Obamacare Scandal By 39 Second Video

"And Obama was like...I can't just do this..."

NORVELL ROSE  
You’ve no doubt heard the phrase “preponderance of the evidence” with regard to civil lawsuits taken to trial. Keeping that phrase in mind…
With regard to the rapidly developing case involving ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber, the trickery and deception surrounding the design and passage of the health care law, and the Obama administration’s complicity in what appears to have been serious and concerted efforts to fool the American public, the preponderance of the evidence is pointing to the direct involvement of the President of the United States in a purposeful fraud.
With yet another Gruber video now front and center in what is quickly becoming a scandal — and with this latest video put into context with previous revelations made by the MIT economist and ObamaCare consultant — it will likely be increasingly hard for the White House to steer clear of the exploding controversy.
Thanks to an investigative report at thegatewaypundit.com, we learn that Jonathan Gruber — widely acknowledged to have played a key role in helping to develop the Democrat-driven bill that became ObamaCare — attended a significant White House meeting at which President Obama was present.
The article cites a “smoking gun” transcript of a “Frontline” interview from PBS in which Gruber confirms that Obama was in the room and fully engaged in the discussion when the important “Cadillac tax” deception was crafted.
Via thegatewaypundit.com, here are selected excerpts from Jonathan Gruber’s June 2012 TV interview for the PBS program — note that Gruber says Obama was present, engaged, and “very interested” in how to fool the Congressional Budget Office whose blessing the bill badly needed:
“So we had a meeting in the Oval Office with several experts, including myself, on what can we do to get credible savings on cost control that the Congressional Budget Office would recognize and score as savings in this law.
And that was a meeting — it was very exciting, once again, because the economists in the room all said the number one thing you need to do is you need to take on the tax subsidy to employer-sponsored insurance.
Now, the problem is, it’s a political nightmare, … and people say, “No, you can’t tax my benefits.” So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how could we make this work?
And Obama was like, “Well, you know” — I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, “Look, I can’t just do this.” He said: “It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.”
Recognizing that the incriminating Gruber videos — being surfaced now one after another in rapid succession — are actually starting to get critical attention in the mainstream media, the Obama White House is trying to distance itself from the talkative ObamaCare architect.
But Official White House visitor logs make that distancing effort difficult, as the Daily Caller points out:
President Obama personally crafted a major ObamaCare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings.
Gruber attended five of the 12 White House meetings with top experts to design Obamacare in 2009, according to a 2011 transcript of an MSNBC program that Gruber appeared on.
Given the “preponderance of the evidence” thus far — and the distinct prospect that even more incriminating Gruber videos will surface — it will likely be increasingly difficult for the Obama White House to credibly claim that the president’s signature legislative accomplishment was passed with any semblance of true transparency or integrity.
You can watch a key part of the Jonathan Gruber “Frontline” interview by clicking on the video above.
Read more at
http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obama-now-directly-implicated-in-obamacare-deception-scheme-in-another-gruber-video/#0I1wtRlUKeCUCzeV.99

 


Michelle Obama Sends Desperate Email Expressing Fear Of Impeachment

October 2, 2014 1:21pm PST

The Obamas are becoming more and more desperate as they live in daily fear of impeachment. Today, Michelle sent a pathetic email to one of her minions in which she begs him for help.
The leaked email has the subject line “I really need you,” and it only gets more sad from there…
Screen Shot 2014-10-02 at 3.14.51 PM
Sorry, Michelle, but not even Drew can help you or your idiot husband now…
What do you think of this email? Let us know in the comments below!



Gustavo Rojas:  Cuando pueda regresar a Cuba, me gustaria.......

  Cubanadas de nuestra época  Cuando pueda regresar a Cuba,
>   me gustaría, antes que nada, visitar al Platanal de
> Bartolo, ver al Gallo de Morón, ir al Perico y visitar el
> lugar exacto donde corrieron los liberales. Un gran deseo
> mío es poderle estrechar las manos a los Guapos de Yateras
> y también poder ir de cacería utilizando la Carabina de
> Ambrosio.
> 
> Me gustaría echarle salsita a las butifarras del Congo, ir
> a Luyanó para ver si todavía vive Bigote de Gato,
> encontrar a Matías Pérez, conocer a Olga la Tamalera, y
> sobre todo encontrar a Adela, aquella chismosa que "vio
> al dentista con un tremendo vacilón".  Quisiera ir a Cacarajicara a tomarme una
> Maltina, y me gustaría montarme en el Burro de Bainoa y en
> La Mula que tumbó a Genaro.
> 
> ¡Cuánto yo daría por conocer a Mingoyo el de la soga, al
> Gallito del Ring,
> a Pelayo el del palo encebado ...
> 
> Quisiera ver la pelota que Miñoso hacía bailar el
> Cha-cha-cha, me gustaría ir a Prado y Neptuno a ver si por
> ahí todavía pasa "La Engañadora", encontrarme a
> Catalina para que me compre un guayo, y conocer las cuevas
> que Felipe Blanco un día, bailando el sucu-sucu, les tapó
> a los majases.
> 
> Desde que tengo uso de razón he escuchado hablar del Bobo
> de la Yuca y yo espero, que me ayuden a encontrarlo y
> saludarlo, y conocer al Hombre de la Casa Prado, e ir al
> solar del Reverbero, y a Coco Solo y a Llega y
> Pon...  ¿Ustedes saben si está vivo Julián el de la
> Gaita? A ese también me encantaría conocer.
> 
> Es una verdadera lástima que ya murió El Caballero de
> París, porque yo tenía mucho interés en ser su amigo.
> 
> Quisiera conocer el Merequetén porque todo el mundo dice
> "le ronca ", pero yo no sé exactamente en Cuba
> dónde queda eso...
> 
> Uno que me interesa muchísimo encontrar es a Pelencho el de
> "Ave María,
> Pelencho, que bien me siento".
> 
> Desde luego, no hay nadie en el mundo que a mí me gustaría
> conocer más que a la Guajira Guantanamera .....¿Dónde
> estará metida esa guajira?.......... y quisiera saludar a
> Simón el Enterrador, y quisiera ver al Río Manzanares que
> no dejaba pasar a Rolando La Serie para
>   ver a su madre enferma. ¿Ese río está en Cuba? También
> me encantaría encontrarme con María Cristina, la que mi
> quiso gobernar...
> 
> Quisiera conocer el lugar exacto de Cuba donde por primera
> vez "se formó un titingó", y conocer a "la
> pequeña que Enrique Santiesteban invitaba a beber de su
> copa".  Me gustaría visitar a Balance el borracho de
> la Taberna de Pedro para ver si ya dejó la bebida, y
> conocer a "la mujer de Antonio", la que
> "camina así" y me encantaría saludar al hombre
> que tira el cañonazo de las nueve.
> 
> Desearía conocer al policía
>   Tiburcio Santamaría y al periodista Sindulfo Vinagreta
> y Unga de Vaca, y sería un verdadero placer encontrar a la
> mujer que tenía
> "aquellos ojos verdes". Quisiera que me
> presentaran a Flora, la que anotaba; ir
> "a donde el Diablo dio las tres voces", visitar a
> Remanganagua , que me encanta el nombre de ese pueblo, pero
> no lo conozco, y visitar todos los establos de Cuba para ver
> si todavía viven Tormenta, Centella y Azabache, los
> caballos de los 3 Villalobos.


Urgent Survey on Obama, Amnesty, and Impeachment
 
https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/facebook.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/twitter.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/googleplus.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/linkedin.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/stumbleupon.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/reddit.png  https://s3.amazonaws.com/skins.emailcampaigns.net/images/social/delicious.png 
 POLL: Is Obama's Amnesty an Impeachable Offense?

Dear Conservative: 
Please participate in this urgent poll on President Obama’s plan grant Executive Amnesty to an estimated 6 million immigrants who have entered our country illegally. 
Is Obama’s Executive Amnesty an Impeachable Offense?
If President Obama makes good on his threat to grant Executive Amnesty to 6 million immigrants who entered our country illegally, how should Congress respond? 
>>>Click Here to Participate in this Urgent National Survey
After you complete the survey, there's an 
option to donate to a public information campaign to BLOCK AMNESTY.

 “FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

En mi opinión