Wednesday, November 19, 2014

No 798 "En mi opinion" Noviembre 19, 2014

 No 798 “En mi opinión”  Noviembre 19, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR


Congressman reveals why shutdown isn't the only option
 GARTH KANT About Email Archive

WASHINGTON – The walls were bare and the office was in boxes, but Rep. James Lankford, R-Okla., isn’t just moving out, he’s moving up – all the way up to the Senate.
As a conservative on the rise, his opinion is in increasing demand, and the Oklahoman was repeatedly grilled on national television the day before as to whether the GOP would be willing to risk a government shutdown to stop a presidential executive order granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.
In an interview with WND, Lankford presented an intriguing alternative scenario in which a shutdown may not be even necessary, making talk of it premature.
He suggested President Obama’s executive order could turn out to be more talk than action and might have very little actual effect on immigration policy.
“My suspicion on this is the president is going to cobble together a bunch of stuff they’ve already done. They are going to change titles and some things and find a way to make this look like a big package. He doesn’t have the legislative authority, actually, to make a lot of decisions. He’s done executive orders in the past that have had big titles but didn’t actually make big changes,” the senator-elect told WND..
And, in that case, he said a shutdown would be a massive overreaction.
“So, we’ll see what this is,” he said. “I’m kind of keeping my powder dry until I see exactly what this is.”
Lankford also implied the GOP may have a secret weapon in the battle to stop amnesty: Democrat voters.
He noted that any unilateral move by the president to grant amnesty is unpopular with most voters. In fact, an exit poll showed 74 percent of voters would disapprove of it.
And if it is unpopular with two-thirds of voters, that means it is unpopular with Democratic voters as well.
That means amnesty is cause for Democrats in elected office to be wary, too.
Lankford mentioned an untold story, so far, was how many Democratic lawmakers were “very nervous” over the prospect of a voter backlash among their supporters over amnesty, especially after the landslide that just gave the GOP control of the Senate.
That’s why, before even discussing a shutdown, the GOP is hoping public opinion will persuade Democrat lawmakers, and perhaps even the president, to change their minds.
Some conservatives see a shutdown as the only option to stop amnesty, if Obama does issue an executive order. GOP leaders are particularly wary that the public would blame Republicans.
The GOP-controlled Congress could send the president a series of short-term spending measures, called continuing resolutions, or CRs, before a Dec. 11deadline. The CRs could fund everything but the tools he would need to implement amnesty, perhaps including such things as the printing millions of new Social Security cards.
If Obama refused to sign such bills, the government would then be unfunded after Dec. 11 until either the president or Congress changed course.
The GOP was blamed by the mainstream media over the 15-day government shutdown in the fight to stop Obamacare in 2013. But the GOP then went on to a huge election victory in 2014.
So, WND asked Lankford, what was the political risk of another shutdown, if it was that important to stop amnesty?
“People don’t see the budget connection to this (amnesty). So, that will be difficult, just convincing people why you need a government shutdown to deal with it,” he replied, while noting it was an easier connection for voters to make in the Clinton presidency when the issue was welfare reform.
“People understood how shutdowns were connected to that issue – it was entitlement reform and budget related.”
Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has flatly said there will be no shutdown this year.
Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said he did not think a shutdown should be taken off the table.
When asked if GOP leaders would back efforts to use CRs to stop amnesty, risking a shutdown, Lankford succinctly replied, “I don’t know yet. We’re about to find out.”
While Lankford wants Obama to show his cards before the GOP reacts, Republicans may have an important ace up their sleeves: public opinion.
“The president, in whatever he proposes, doesn’t have full public support. If he had full public support, we would have already passed something, because people would have risen up and said this is what we want. But that’s not where people are,” said Lankford.
He said it was significant to note, “When Oregon votes and says we don’t want illegal driver’s licenses, its pretty clear that the American people are not opposed to immigration. They are opposed to illegal immigration.”
The senator-elect also pointed out the irony in Democrats’ unwillingness to see what was good for the goose as good for the gander.
“I’ve told some of my Democratic colleagues, tell you what, when the next Republican president comes in, he’ll just give amnesty to everyone on Obamacare, and just do a unilateral waive and say, ‘I’m not going to enforce the individual mandate, I’m not going to enforce anything on businesses, I have that authority, is that OK?’” Lankford said with a mischievous smile.
He added, “And, of course, they all say, ‘No, that’s not OK.’ Because, of course, they want to protect Obamacare. So why is it suddenly OK with amnesty? The president can’t just wave a wand and ignore the law and just change it unilaterally. It’s not legal.”

Experts: Scope of Obama's Amnesty Order Would Be Unprecedented

By Melanie Batley
As early as next week, President Barack Obama is expected to issue an executive order to grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, a use of power that would be unprecedented in U.S. history.
According to 
The Washington Post, presidents for the last 40 years have had broad authority over how the country deals with illegal immigration. 
But Obama's intent to bypass Congress and make new laws could be an outright violation of his constitutional oath to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," the Post said.
"Can a president who wants tax cuts that a recalcitrant Congress will not enact decline to enforce the income tax laws? Can a president effectively repeal the environmental laws by refusing to sue polluters, or workplace and labor laws by refusing to fine violators?" wrote  Robert Delahunty, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas, and University of California Berkeley law professor John Yoo in the
Texas Law Review.
In 2011, Obama effectively admitted he was prohibited to act, saying in an interview, "This notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true … We are doing everything we can administratively. 
"But the fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce."
Since then, however, the president took executive action to prevent the deportation of 1.7 million immigrants under the age of 30 who were brought to this country as children, giving them the power to apply for temporary work permits.
It is expected that Obama's next step will be to expand the policy to include the parents of child immigrants, giving permission to as many as 6 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily stay in the country and be protected from the threat of deportation.
The move stops short of granting them legal status and is therefore well within his rights, one expert said.
"The notion that the president cannot use his authority to grant temporary reprieve is patently absurd," David Leopold, a Cleveland immigration lawyer, told the Post.
Since the mid-1970s, the Immigration and Naturalization Service has been using prosecutorial discretion for "both practical and humanitarian" reasons, and administrations have used their discretion to varying degrees since then.
In 1986, President Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to 3 million people who had come to the United States before 1982, and he subsequently decided to allow 1.5 million spouses and children stay. Their exemption from deportation was ultimately made law under former president George H.W. Bush, according to the Post.
But no president has ever exercised his discretion as broadly as Obama is expected to do, the Post said, prompting the question about whether the scale of the move is the distinguishing factor that makes his use of authority materially different from previous presidents.
Regardless, it appears the president is banking on the fact that Congress will do little to stop him, the Post said.
Congress has few tools at its disposal to stop the president's action from going into effect. It has the ability to pass legislation that would cancel any executive action or prevent funding to implement the new regulations. 
The idea of launching a lawsuit has also been floated, but it is unclear what role, if any, the judiciary would play in potentially arbitrating a dispute between Congress and the executive branch.
A third unlikely option would be impeachment, requiring a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
"I think the president wants a fight," GOP Rep. Tom Cole said on ABC's "This Week," according to the Post. "I think he's actually trying to bait us into doing some of these extreme things that have been suggested. I don't think that we will."
The debate about the president's authority comes as
a new poll by USA Today shows that most Americans oppose any executive action, with 46 percent saying the president should wait for the new Republican-controlled Congress to act, and 42 percent saying he should take action now. Another 10 percent are unconvinced either way.
Read Latest Breaking News from 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Amenper: Pensando en 2016
Grover Norquist: 2016 será el campo presidencial más fuerte del partido Republicano desde 1980. 
No podemos saber lo que pasará en el 2016, al no ser que tuviéramos un espejo como el del cuento de la Reina de la historia de Blanca Nieves que nos diga cuál será el próximo presidente.
Pero a falta del espejo en la pared, no nos queda más remedio que tener que escuchar lo que nos tienen que decir los analistas, y hoy estamos leyendo lo que nos dice Grover Norquist.
Grover Glenn Norquist es un analista político y activista Republicano que es fundador y Presidente de los norteamericanos para la reforma tributaria.
Un republicano de tendencia libertaria, Norquist fue uno de los coautores del “Contrato con América” de 1994 es muy respetado dentro del partido republicano por su larga trayectoria con el partido y su conocimiento probado.
Norquist dice que el campo primario republicano para la Presidencia en el año 2016 incluirá la línea más fuerte  de candidatos desde 1980, cuando Ronald Reagan venció a George H.W. Bush para reclamar la nominación del partido.
El grupo de candidatos del partido republicano de 2016 "va a ser el campo más fuerte que los republicanos han tenido desde Reagan corrió,"  dijo el miércoles en una conferencia de Washington
Norquist no estaba muy impresionado con el campo republicano del año pasado.
En 2012, "tenías 10 republicanos en el escenario. Tres de ellos estaban aspirando para Presidente, los otros siete estaban aspirando para un programa de entrevistas radiales o para vender libros, “dijo.
"Esta vez mira alrededor, y observa quienes están sobre la mesa".
Entre los potenciales candidatos republicanos 2016, Norquist enumeró cinco gobernadores actuales o anteriores y un senador solitario.
Su lista de sólidos contendientes  incluye el gobernador de Wisconsin Scott Walker, el gobernador de Nueva Jersey, Chris Christie, el ex gobernador de Florida Jeb Bush, el gobernador de Texas Rick Perry, gobernador de Luisiana Bobby Jindal y Kentucky el senador Rand Paul.
Dijo que los gobernadores tienen generalmente una base más sólida para ejecutar que los senadores porque pueden citar los logros específicos en sus Estados, mientras que los senadores "tienen simplemente discursos que pueden dar".
Lo bueno es que  "todos corren como Republicanos tipo Reagan” dijo Norquist.
Que así sea, digo yo.

Revealed: Obama Met Secretly With Ferguson Protesters And Told Them Something Unbelievable

"A number of the high-profile protesters met secretly with President Obama..."

Tensions in and around the troubled town of Ferguson, Missouri, are rising sharply in anticipation of the release any day now of the grand jury report on the police shooting that left Michael Brown dead of multiple gunshot wounds.
Responding to calls from protest organizers, many outsiders have been gathering in the St. Louis area, planning their response to what some believe is the likely outcome of the grand jury’s lengthy investigation — no indictment of police officer Darren Wilson.
Now it’s been revealed that on November 5th — the day that Democrats fully realized the midterm elections were a blowout of their party — a number of the high-profile protesters met secretly with President Obama and MSNBC host Al Sharpton. From The Daily Mail:
“It was a meeting the Gateway Pundit notes was not included on the president’s daily schedule.
“Sharpton told the [New York] Times that Obama urged the group to ‘stay on course.'”
While that previously undisclosed meeting may have been the first time Obama himself met with protest organizers — in a role reminiscent of his community organizer days — it certainly wasn’t the only time a top-level Obama official made a point of getting together with those demanding an indictment of white cop Darren Wilson.
In August, Attorney General Eric Holder personally went to Ferguson with top Justice Department officials to talk with community leaders protesting the Brown shooting. As reported on
“Holder, who was joined in Ferguson by Acting Assistant Attorney General Molly Moran and other Justice Department officials, expressed gratitude to those working in the area to keep tensions cool amid the daily protests.
“During brief statements on Wednesday, Holder said he understands the mistrust for law enforcement the people of Ferguson have expressed while also sharing personal interactions he has had with officers throughout his life.”
The county seat of Clayton, Missouri, where the grand jury is considering the case, has been targeted by protestors who vow to shut down the city should Wilson not be indicted on criminal charges for the Brown killing.
“Many residents and officials in the region fear another wave of rioting similar to the one in August that led to the burning out of multiple businesses if the grand jury decides not to charge Wilson.
“‘We are bracing for that possibility. That is what many people are expecting. The entire community is going to be upset,’ if Wilson is not indicted, said Jose Chavez, 46, a leader of the local Latinos en Axion group.
And as noted at, agitators getting ready to take to the streets once again are not ruling out more violence and looting of the kind that followed Michael Brown’s shooting death.

Amenper: Adorando en La Catedral de Washington…
La Catedral Nacional en Washington, D.C. — es una de las más importantes iglesias Episcopales en América — y es la Iglesia tradicional donde en algún momento, todos los presidentes han ido como un símbolo de aceptación de que éramos una nación cristiana- Incluyendo al actual presidente Barack Hussein Obama.-
Quizás alguno de los presidentes no fuera de esa denominación, pero lo hicieron como un acto simbólico de lo que los valores judeo-cristianos representaban en la fundación de esta nación.
Bueno, esta iglesia fue el viernes el anfitrión de un servicio de oración musulmana a Alá y Mahoma su profeta.
El servicio de oración musulmán, llamado "Jummah" o el viernes a la oración, fue conducido por Ebrahim Rasool, el Embajador sudafricano en los Estados Unidos, quien es musulmán, y el reverendo Canon Gina Campbell, párroco de la Catedral, en cooperación con la toda la sociedad musulmana del área.
Los musulmanes, en dos grupos separados, hombres y mujeres, despojado de sus zapatos, (espero que algunos se hayan lavado los pies, aunque seguramente no todos) Extendieron sus alfombras de oración, se arrodillaron y oraron mirando al este hacia la Meca, dando la espalda al Crucifijo delante de la capilla, enseñando su trasero a Cristo.  .
El reverendo Campbell dijo que la Catedral era un "lugar de oración para todas las personas," añade, "nos permite estirar nuestros corazones y busquemos profundizar misericordia para nosotros adoramos al mismo Dios."
Perdón, reverendo Campbell, pero eso es una reverenda mentira, y una reverenda estupidez en alguien que dice representar al cristianismo.
Nosotros no adoramos al mismo Dios, nosotros adoramos a un Dios de paz, que murió en la cruz por los pecados del mundo, un Dios de amor, que nos enseña a perdonar, no a un Dios de odio que nos enseña a matar y a decapitar a los que no piensan como nosotros.
Si ellos quieren adorar a Alá, el vengador itinerante, el enemigo asesino de cristianos y judíos,  pueden hacerlo, se les  ha permitido construir sus mezquitas en este país algo que ellos no nos permiten a nosotros en sus países como Irán.. ¿Por qué no adorar en sus mezquitas y dejar tranquilas a nuestras iglesias? Somos un país fundado sobre principios cristianos".
No podemos ni queremos ir a sus países y orar en sus mezquitas, ni siquiera nos dejan en sus países orar en nuestras iglesias, si siquiera permiten a los cristianos existir en sus países..  ¿Se imaginan que pidamos a ellos que nos dejen orar a Cristo en una de sus mezquitas?
Sencillamente, somos diferentes, no podemos cohabitar ni en los países ni en los templos, no por las creencias de ellos, no la nuestra.
Cuando, como turista hube de visitar a una mezquita, tuve que quitarme mis zapatos, tuve que hacer lo que me pidieron sobre el respeto a sus creencias. Cuando he tenido que visitar a una sinagoga, lo mismo, he tenido que cubrir mi cabeza y hacer como lo que me indicaron.  Es lógico, estoy en su casa. Pero lo que ellos han hecho es darle la espalda a Cristo en su propia casa. Es cómo decir, yo hago en tu casa lo que me venga en ganas, porque no te tengo ningún respeto.
La diferencia entre las relaciones de musulmanes y cristianos solamente se puede cambiar si ellos cambian, no podemos cambiarlos claudicando, porque eso significarían renunciar nosotros a nuestras creencias.
El reverendo Gary Hall, decano de la Catedral, dijo a the Washington Times, "si nos podemos inspirar a aquellos de nosotros que no son extremistas para encontrar una manera de estar juntos... podríamos empezar a construir algo que nos bendiga, Dios bendiga a nuestros hijos, bendiga a todos los pueblos de la tierra."
Por favor, en primer lugar, está llamándonos extremistas a los que creemos en Cristo, y que el Alá que ellos predican no es Dios, que Cristo es Dios, por eso somos cristianos, y se supone que esa sea nuestra iglesia.  Está llamando extremista a los cristianos, ¿Entonces resulta que nosotros somos extremistas y ellos no?  ¿No me diga reverendo? ¿Ellos no son extremistas? Bueno le sugiero que se dé una vuelta por Irán y trate de predicar a Cristo en una mezquita.  Mientras tanto, por favor, mida sus palabras, mida sus acciones.
Hubo una mujer que gritó algo sobre Cristo durante el culto, fue agarrada violentamente y sacada de la de la Catedral y entregado a la policía, que la dejaron Ir sin cargos.
Menos mal, porque hubiera sido algo curioso ver que le ponen cargos criminales a alguien por hablar bien de Cristo en una iglesia cristiana durante un culto musulmán.
El reverendo Campbell le dijo al Times, "aquí en la Catedral hemos adoptado un desafío empinado para crecer en nuestra identidad como una casa para la gente. Esta oración marca un momento histórico. Esta oración simboliza una gran esperanza para nuestra comunidad. Como llegar a conocerse, se construyen puentes más y hay menos espacio para el odio y los prejuicios se interponga entre nosotros."
Primero reverendo, si, es un momento histórico, pero un momento históricamente infame.
No simboliza una esperanza para la comunidad, significa una rendición incondicional de nuestros valores cristianos.  No nos tenemos que conocer, por desgracia los conocemos bien, los conocemos por nuestros muertos, los conocemos por los crímenes cometidos por los musulmanes en nombre de ese Alá que hoy se adora en su iglesia de espaldas a la cruz de Cristo.
Cuando estos liberales hablan de odios y prejuicios, siempre se lo achacan a la parte que es el recipiente del odio y los prejuicios.  Vivimos en tiempos interesantemente aberrantes, son muy difíciles de razonar.

Obama Still Refuses To Admit ISIS Is Islamic

"The president is living in an alternate reality."

The Islamic State beheaded another American this week. The Obama administration’s response revealed its stubborn determination to deny reality.
Peter Kassig was a former Army Ranger and emergency medical technician who was moved by the suffering of Syria’s civilians and returned to the region after his discharge to provide aid. He helped some of the one million Syrian refugees who have fled into Lebanon, using his own funds to buy supplies like diapers and other necessities and driving an ambulance into Syria. He was kidnapped in October of 2013.
According to those who analyze such things, something went wrong with the video of Kassig’s beheading. It wasn’t caught on tape. We can speculate that the former Ranger had enough strength left to fight back. Perhaps his was not the only blood on the sand. In any case, ISIS felt obliged to offer video of Syrian soldiers’ beheadings instead, together with a tutorial on the history of the Islamic State, which began as an al-Qaida cell. The Islamic State executioner joked over Kassig’s severed head, “He doesn’t have much to say.”
President Obama condemned the atrocity, saying that Kassig “was taken from us in an act of pure evil by a terrorist group.” He continued, “While ISIL revels in the slaughter of innocents, including Muslims, and is bent only on sowing death and destruction, Abdul-Rahman was a humanitarian who worked to save the lives of Syrians injured and dispossessed by the Syrian conflict.”
Hold on. Kassig converted to Islam and took the name Abdul-Rahman — but only in captivity. Obama’s insistence upon using his Islamic name reflects his continuing belief that by denying Islamic extremism, he can promote peace. “ISIL’s actions represent no faith,” he said, “least of all the Muslim faith, which Abdul-Rahman adopted as his own.”
When someone converts at the point of sword, in hopes of saving his life, is that “adopting the Muslim faith as his own”? Who is Obama respecting by using the Islamic name: Kassig or his executioners?
The New York Times explained it this way: “The president used the Muslim name that Mr. Kassig adopted after his capture, making the point that the Islamic State had killed a fellow Muslim.” If that’s the motive for using the Islamic name, it raises this question: Who does Obama imagine is unaware that the Islamic State kills Muslims? Certainly in the very tape confirming the beheading of Kassig, ISIS provided graphic and high-definition evidence of the execution of 13 Syrian soldiers. They weren’t Baptists. A recent UN report depicts widespread ISIS terror and horror across Syria and Iraq. “Executions have been recorded in Aleppo, Raqqa, Idlib, Al-Hassakeh and Deir Al-Zor provinces,” according to a Reuters account. “Witnesses saw scenes of still-bleeding bodies hanging from crosses and of heads placed on spikes along park railings.”
But Obama is still at pains to protect the good name of Islam. He condemns the barbarism of ISIS and other terrorists, but feels the need to quickly add that their crimes “represent no faith, least of all” Islam.
Least of all? The president is living in an alternate reality. Throughout the Muslim world, extremism is in full bloom. Only a minority of Sunni extremists travel under the name al-Qaida. Others are called al-Nusra (Syria) and AQIM (North Africa) and IS (Iraq and Syria) and Wahhabi (Saudi Arabia) and Boko Haram (Nigeria) and Abu Sayyaf (Philippines) and Taliban (Afghanistan and Pakistan) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (Pakistan) and al-Fatah (Palestinian territories) and Hamas (Gaza). The Shia extremists include the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah (Lebanon), and the Mahdi Army of Iraq.
Most Muslims worldwide doubtless want only to be left in peace. They are the first, but far from the only victims of a movement that has taken the Islamic world by storm, and that Barack Obama thinks he can wish away by denying.

Amenper: Keynesianismo
No podemos decir que John Maynard Keynes, fuera comunista, pero su filosofía económica viene muy bien en el período de implantación del comunismo, y la aceptación de su doctrina tiene un generador común con el comunismo que es la envidia al que tiene más que uno y el considerar que tenemos el derecho a recibir del gobierno algo que no hemos obtenido con nuestro trabajo.
Keynes fue personalmente en su época  y es ahora por los gobernantes seguidores a su filosofía el mayor enemigo del libre mercado, el cual denuncia como algo perjudicial a la economía. 
La teoría antes de Keynes,era la de los conservadores Burke y Adam Smith de que la economía de mercado era la generadora de empleos, y que dejándola operar libremente a corto o mediano plazo automáticamente proporciona pleno empleo.
Keynes introduce al gobierno en la economía del libre comercio, .
Según la economía keynesiana, la intervención del estado es necesaria en ciclos de baja actividad económica. Abogó por el aumento de los impuestos y su uso en forma de estímulos y beneficios para mitigar los efectos adversos de la economía.
Esto fue adoptado durante períodos de recesión por diferentes gobiernos  pero en la década de los 70s ya se vio el resultado adverso en las economías que lo habían adoptado.
La elección de Obama y la crisis financiera del 2008, ha causado un resurgimiento en el pensamiento Keynesiano, y los resultados han sido tan adversos como antes. 
La recuperación que siempre ha seguido a una recesión en los Estados Unidos, ha sido bajo el Keynesianismo de Obama lenta e incompleta. 
En Japón, el keynesianismo lo ha llevado a prácticamente una recesión, está en todas las noticias hoy, y ya están tomando medidas para volver el sistema anterior 
Unos de los problemas de Keynes es que su filosofía no se preocupa por las generaciones futuras.  Para Keynes, impuestos y préstamos, es la solución, no importa que el país como hoy los Estados Unidos se mantengan con una deuda de trillones de dólares subiendo diariamente sin control ni final a la vista
Filosofía famosa Keynes de interés sólo por el presente, se presenta frente a la filosofía económica de Edmund Burke y Adam Smith, quienes creían que había un contrato social entre los vivos como los muertos.
El no pensar en lo que viene atrás y tratar de solucionar el problema con dinero prestado es algo que es muy común en las personas y en los gobiernos.  Pero tarde o temprano tanto en lo personal como en los gobiernos, la burbuja explota. 
Keynes. era homosexual y estaba casado con una bailarina, con la que él probablemente habló de la "poesía" y de "ballet" más bien que de "procrear" y no tuvo hijos, realmente nunca tuvo una familia ni una vida tradicional.
Quizás esa manea de ser lo hizo crear una doctrina que resuelve de momento y deja los problemas para la próxima generación.
Los gobiernos como los que abrazan el socialismo del Siglo XXI que son notablemente influenciados por Keynes, promulgan estímulos a las empresas compinches, y provocan grandes déficis durante los períodos económicos débiles. Esta no es la solución, es como esconder la cabeza en la tierra como el avestruz. Sólo creando nuevas riquezas se logra estimular la economía, y son los pequeños negocios los que crean nuevos empleos, no el gobierno.
No se puede estimular la economía tomando riquezas de unos para dárselos a otros, porque esto no aumenta la riqueza de la nación, sino que la destruye cuando los productores de las riquezas no puedan producir para darles más a los otros. Es algo sencillo pero no es popular pensar así.
La envidia es un motor generador tanto para la filosofía de Keynes como para la filosofía comunista, porque la envidia no es la envidia del pobre al rico, puede ser la envidia de un pobre hacia otro menos pobre, y de un menos rico hacia uno más rico.  La envidia no hace distinciones ni tiene fronteras. 
Es más fácil si tienes problemas creer que tienes derecho a tomar de otro, esto es mas "sabroso" que producir con tu trabajo.
Una frase de Keynes es que a la larga todos estaremos muertos, pero la realidad es que a la larga nuestros hijos, nietos y bisnietos estarán vivos y tendrán que lidiar con las consecuencias de nuestras acciones y decisiones económicas.
Abajo les estoy enviando un artículo del Wall Street Journal sobre el problema económico de Japón cuando abrazó el Keynesianismo. 
Otro fracaso más de la filosofía de Keynes, pero no será el último, porque el Keynesianismo como el comunismo renace de sus cenizas por el estímulo de la envidia.
Japan’s Keynesian Recession
The familiar advice to spend more and raise taxes fails again.
Nov. 17, 2014 7:28 p.m. ET
Shinzo Abe has made little secret of his plans to postpone next year’s consumption-tax increase and call a snap election. Monday’s third-quarter GDP statistics show why the Japanese Prime Minister may be rediscovering his political backbone. Japan’s economy contracted at a 1.6% annual rate, meaning the country is officially in recession.
The numbers surprised analysts, who had predicted a bounce after the April 1 consumption-tax increase tanked the economy in the second quarter. Instead consumption barely budged and is still down 4.7% since April. Companies chose to play it safe and drew down inventories rather than increase production. The real economy contracted more severely than the GDP numbers suggested, since a fall in imports inflated the trade surplus.
The third quarter continues a depressing pattern. This is Japan’s fourth recession since 2008, and even when the economy is technically growing it remains on life support. Annual growth has averaged 0.85% since 1992.
This year’s contraction is much worse than that of 1997, the last time Japan increased the consumption tax. That recession was dismissed by the Ministry of Finance mandarins as a fluke or the result of the Asian financial crisis. They were wrong.
Now they warn that if Mr. Abe postpones next year’s planned consumption-tax increase to 10% from 8%, Japan’s fiscal credibility will suffer and financial markets will punish the country. That is belied by the stock market’s positive response this month to rumors that Mr. Abe is about to announce a delay.
The Prime Minister desperately needs to re-establish his economic-policy credentials as growth slumps and his popularity declines. Mr. Abe raised hopes in 2012 that he could reinvigorate Japan, and voters gave him a large majority in parliament. So far he has squandered that opportunity by setting the wrong priorities.
Mr. Abe overcame resistance within the Ministry of Finance and Bank of Japan to appoint BOJ Governor Haruhiko Kuroda, who has pursued aggressive monetary bond-buying. But inflation has barely budged and lending is flat; businesses complain that they’ve been hurt by the weakening yen. Mr. Kuroda doubled down on Oct. 31, but so far he has only delivered more proof that monetary policy alone can’t sustain economic growth.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that Mr. Abe challenged the Finance Ministry’s power over elected politicians. If he cancels the consumption tax increase and wins an election as a result—more than 70% of the public opposes the increase—he will have sent a useful message.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is reported to have acquiesced to another classic Finance Ministry blunder, a supplementary budget of five trillion yen ($43 billion). Since Japan’s bubble economy burst in 1990, Tokyo has tried to spend its way back to prosperity. Government expenditure has risen to about 40% of GDP from 30%, and national debt has swelled to 227% of GDP. (See the nearby chart.) The additional spending provides only a temporary growth blip, but debt rises and then taxes rise to finance it, harming growth and further increasing debt.
In the snap election, voters are likely to trim Mr. Abe’s 61% majority in the lower house of the Diet. But he should get a second chance to turn an electoral mandate into national revitalization. To do so, he has to deliver on the most important part of his economic program, the stalled “third arrow” of reform to liberalize the domestic economy and cut tax rates.
More than Japan’s future is at stake. Since 2008 the U.S. and most of Europe have copied Japan’s strategy of government-driven growth, and the result has also been bigger governments with less growth. Having tried everything else, Mr. Abe will have to embrace supply-side reform if he wants to fulfill his growth promise.

Senators supporting the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday came up one vote short of securing approval for the controversial project after days of intense lobbying from some of the pipeline’s biggest supporters in the upper chamber.
Fourteen Democrats joined all 45 Republican senators in voting for the pipeline, which needed 60 votes to pass. The finally tally was 59-41.
Senator Calls Keystone XL the 'Extra Lethal' Pipeline
Endangered Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu aggressively backed the bill and spent the past week attempting to convince colleagues to support the project. She pushed for the vote during the lame duck session of Congress after her re-election race in Louisiana advanced to a December 6 runoff. Because the Keystone project is popular in their home state, Landrieu and GOP challenger Rep. Bill Cassidy have jostled for credit for supporting the bill.
Landrieu rarely left the Senate floor in the lead up to the vote, passionately making the case for what she called a common-sense jobs project that will make oil more affordable.
“There is no blame, there is only joy in the fight," Landrieu said after the vote. "Where I come from, we just never talk about quitting. And we dont talk about whining."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California led the opposition to Keystone's approval, which she called the “Extra Lethal” pipeline because of the harm it would do to the environment. But Boxer credited Landrieu for her leadership in bringing the bill to a vote.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven of North Dakota, another chief backer of the bill, predicted Monday they would be able to get enough votes to send the bill to the president’s desk. But independent Sen. Angus King’s announcement Tuesday afternoon that he would not support it was a troubling sign for Hoeven and Landrieu.
"Congress is not - nor should it be - in the business of legislating the approval or disapproval of a construction project," King said in a statement. "And while I am frustrated that the President has refused to make a decision on the future of the pipeline, I don't believe that short-circuiting the process to circumvent his Administration is in the best interest of the American people."
Even if the vote had passed, it appeared headed for a presidential veto. Environmental activists have decried the impact of its construction. The Obama administration has said that it wants to wait for a full State Department review of the project’s effects – and it has been skeptical that the project would create the long-term job gains touted by the pipeline’s backers.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest reiterated Tuesday that Obama doesn't support the bill. "It certainly is a piece of legislation that the president doesn’t support because the president believes this is something that should be determined through the State Department and the process that is in place to evaluate projects like this," he said.
The House passed their version of the bill on Friday, 252-161-1, with 31 Democrats joining Republicans to pass it.

Obama on Synagogue Attack: ‘Too Many Palestinians Have Died’3KShare 175Tweet 35 3Reddit 21

I’m sure this will be comforting to the innocent Americans who died while you encouraged terrorists around the world.
Check it out:
President Obama has responded to today’s terrorist attack on a synagogue in Jerusalem in which four Israeli Jews attending morning prayers condemning the attack, and stating that “the majority of Palestinians” want peace.
In a statement delivered to the White House press pool, President Obama responded to the attack by declaring that “too many Palestinians have died,” as well as Israelis, in the struggle between the state of Israel and the terrorist group Hamas and its affiliates, including the internationally active Muslim Brotherhood. “At this difficult time,” the President told reports, “I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and reject violence.”
“We have to remind ourselves that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis overwhelmingly want peace,” the statement concludes, before the President begins remarks on the Ebola crisis in West Africa. The President did not take questions.
The President’s remarks follow Secretary of State John Kerry’s response to the terrorist attack, in which he called “on Palestinian leadership at every single level to condemn this in the most powerful terms.” Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas, on his end, nominally condemned the attack while “stressing the need to end the causes of such attacks like tensions over what Jews call the Temple Mount and Palestinians call al-Aqsa Mosque.” Such a dismissal of the increasingly out-of-control terrorist activity by Palestinian extremists received the typical benefit of the doubt from mainstream media.

Estimado Amigo. Actions

Hola Lázaro!
Las críticas de Bakunin al Marxismo, son de suma importancia para mi. Porque el democídio del siglo XX fue siempre, por las ideologías de izquierdas.
El comunismo, fascismo, nazismo, todas, son socialistas.
Bakunin, como buen anarquista, fue el primero en reconocer el gran fallo del Marxismo. Está dirigido por hombres y no por ángeles!
El identificó, primero que nadie, que el Marxismo iba terminar en una dictadura.
Cuando públicó sus críticas, fue hostigado, atacado y trataron de desprestigiarlo. El anti-semitismo de Bakunin, es el mismo que el de Lord Byron, Bismarck, Lindbergh y muchos más.
Finalmente, todo ser pensante llegamos a la misma conclusión.
No somos nosotros, los anti-semitas.
Son los Semitas, los genocidas de los Gentiles!
Porque no respetan la vida humana, de los no-judios.
La Robolución Bolchevique fue un plan Masónico-Judió que demoró 100 anyos en preparar.
El Congreso de Viena en 1815 selló el destino del Czar ruso, porque fue el único que no entregó su sístema monetaria al banco Rothschild.  Habia que destruir a Rúsia, porque fue capaz de marchar
desde los Urales, hasta París!  Habia que destruir al Czar.  Las otras potencias, ya estaban en sus manos.
El Plan Globalista de los Rothschild, era usar a la Unión Soviética para esclavizar al mundo entero.
Casí lo logran!
El invento de la bomba atómica y la muerte de FDR, cambió la dinámica, pero no la meta.
Los líderes soviéticos despues de Stalín, todos, erán "comunistas" de traje y corbata!
Ni Stalín, ni Mao, ni Castro (hasta hace poco) se vestían de uniforme, porque estabán siempre de lucha!!
Con la caida del muro de Berlín, empezó la nueva fase de 100 anyos.
Los Globalistas tienen tiempo, porque tienen todo el dinero, casi todos los recursos primários y controlan
todos los bancos y los medios.
Pero lo que controlan mejor que nada, son a los partidos políticos!
Comprar al hombre vago, pero hábil, es muy barato y ellos crean el dinero.
En USA, ambos partidos son organos de los Bancos de Wall Street.
Luchar por nuestros derechos, dentro de estos marcos, es inútil.
Por eso, hay tantos "independientes"!
Ningún Republicano, a echo nada por Qba!
Los politiqueros qbanos, incluyendo Rubio y Cruz, son voceros de Israel.
Traicionan a sus raices, diariamente, con cada voto!!
Qba y USA son por razones históricas, geográficas y socialmente,
hasta por razones familiares y deportiva, una sola entidad económica inseparable!!!
Lo que sucede, es que tenemos una conección íntima con el Pueblo americano, pero una lucha a muerte, con el Gobierno secreto americano.
Por eso, el verdadero qbano, es Americanista!
Necesitamos a los americanos, para poder ser libres!!
Nuestro gran problema, es que el buen Pueblo Americano,
tiene un Gobierno, completamente ocupado por los intereses bancarios de Wall Street y la mafia sionista de Hollywood.
Su trabajo, no puede prosperar, porque estás completamente dentro del campo Republicano.
El Partido Republicano, en su cima, es igualito al partido Demócrata!
No discuten ideologías, sinó políticas!!
La mejor prueba, es el aborto...
Los Demócratas quieren asesinar bebés, en cualquier momento del embarazo y alegan que es un derecho de la mujer, el infanticidio.
Los Republicanos, quieren asesinar a los bebés, en caso de violación, malformidad y la salúd de la madre.
Eso, no es una cuestión de ética, ni moralidad!
Para ellos, es solo, el mejor camino al poder!!
No hay, ni un solo Republicano que diga...
El Partido Republicano, defiende el derecho a la vida de todos!
Primero, porque no lo creen.
Segundo, lo que quiere un politiquero es ganar.
No tienen principios, solo políticas!!
No son capaces, ni defender los derechos de los bebés prenacidos!!!
Tendrían mucho más apoyo popular, si fueron éticos de verdad.
Con la imigración, son iguales!
Ningúno, quiere defender la frontera!! Ilegal, es ilegal.  Basta!
Que no comprendes?
Si entraste ilegalmente, no eres imigrante.  Eres ilegal.
EEUU es igual que una casa privada.
Hay que tener puertas o se convierte en un mercado público.
Que es lo que quieren, los Globalistas!
Pero, que es lo que desea el Pueblo Americano??
Nadie quiere vivir en un mercado público!
Menos, con Ebola!!
Por lo tanto, querido amigo y compatriota, estamos luchando contra dós frentes!
En favor del Pueblo americano, en contra de sus Partidos!!
Porque detrás de ambos partidos, está la mano oculta,
que puso y mantiene a los Castros. Yo estoy desesperado por regresar, pero no como vencido!
Qba, nunca será libre, si no liberamos primero a Washington DC.
1saludo y que Diós le bendiga!!!
“Nota: No creo que los miembros de ISIS, Hamas y otros árabes terroristas, cuando combaten con bombas y cohetes tengan respeto por la vida  de Los Judios.” Lázaro R González Miño  

Four Killed in Jerusalem Synagogue Complex
The New York Times
© Ronen Zvulun/Reuters Israeli police at the scene of an attack at a synagogue complex in West Jerusalem on Tuesday morning. The attack left four worshipers dead.
JERUSALEM — Two Palestinians armed with a gun, knives and axes stormed a synagogue complex in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighborhood of West Jerusalem on Tuesday morning, the Israeli police said, killing four men in the middle of their morning prayers.
The police killed the assailants in a gun battle at the scene that left one officer critically wounded. It was the deadliest attack on Israeli civilians in more than three years, and the worst in Jerusalem since 2008. Witnesses and Israeli leaders said the site and the fact that the victims were slain while wearing prayer garments were reminiscent of long-ago pogroms.
“To see Jews wearing tefillin and wrapped in the tallit lying in pools of blood, I wondered if I was imagining scenes from the Holocaust,” said Yehuda Meshi Zahav, the veteran leader of a religious emergency-response team, describing the ritual straps and prayer shawls worn by the worshipers. “It was a massacre of Jews at prayer.”
The 7 a.m. attack on a synagogue complex that is at the heart of community life in the Har Nof neighborhood shattered Israelis’ sense of security and further strained relations with Palestinians at a time of soaring tension and violence. Six people, including a baby, a soldier and a border police officer, have been killed in a spate of vehicular and knife attacks fueled in large part by a dispute over a holy site in the Old City known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount.
The four victims were all rabbis, one born in England and three in the United States, including Moshe Twersky, 59, part of a celebrated Hasidic dynasty.
Relatives identified the attackers as two cousins, Odai Abed Abu Jamal, 22, and Ghassan Muhammad Abu Jamal, 32. They were described as being motivated by what they saw as threats to the revered plateau that contains Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock. Although Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has repeatedly asserted that he will not alter the status quo at the site, where non-Muslims can visit but not openly pray, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority has called on his people to protect the area and has warned of a “holy war” if it is “contaminated” by Jews.
“They carried out this operation because of the fire in their hearts — they were under pressures, pressures, pressures and in one ripe moment, the explosion took place,” said a relative who gave his name as Abu Salah, holding photographs of the men. “I say in full mouth, it is a religious war which Netanyahu has started,” he added. “It will end the way we like.”
Mr. Netanyahu called Tuesday’s attack “the direct result of the incitement” led by Mr. Abbas and Hamas, the militant Palestinian faction, and vowed to “respond with a heavy hand to the brutal murder of Jews who came to pray and were eliminated by despicable murderers.”
Secretary of State John Kerry of the United States called the attack “a pure result of incitement.”
“The Palestinian leadership must condemn this,” Mr. Kerry said in London, after speaking by telephone to Mr. Netanyahu, “and they must begin to take serious steps to restrain any kind of incitement that comes from their language, from other people’s language, and exhibit the kind of leadership that is necessary to put this region on a different path.”
Mr. Abbas responded to Mr. Kerry’s demand, offering his first denouncement of any Palestinian attack during the recent escalation.
“We condemn the killing of civilians from any side,” he said in a statement published by Wafa, the official Palestinian news agency. “We condemn the killings of worshipers at the synagogue in Jerusalem and condemn acts of violence no matter their source.”
But other Palestinian leaders praised the attack as a response to what they see as a threat to the holy site, and to the recent death of a Palestinian bus driver in Jerusalem. Relatives and friends of the driver, Yousef al-Ramouni, who was found hanged in his bus Sunday night, insisted he had been lynched by Jews, though the Israeli police said an autopsy on Monday ruled that his death was a suicide.
Mustafa Barghouti, a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization’s central committee, said on Al Jazeera early Tuesday that the attack on the synagogue complex was “a normal reaction to the Israeli oppression.”
Mushir al-Masri, a Hamas spokesman, wrote in a Facebook post: “The new operation is heroic and a natural reaction to Zionist criminality against our people and our holy places. We have the full right to revenge for the blood of our martyrs in all possible means.”
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine took credit for the attack, though Micky Rosenfeld, a spokesman for the Israeli police, said the authorities were still investigating whether the assailants were affiliated with any group.
“We’re also looking to see why they targeted this synagogue, were they familiar with this neighborhood,” Mr. Rosenfeld told reporters in a conference call, though he declined to confirm news reports that one of the suspects worked in a nearby grocery store. “They came in from the local areas, took advantage of that they had work purposes to roam freely around Jerusalem.”
Within two hours of the attack, scores of Israeli security forces had stormed Jabel Mukaber, the Palestinian neighborhood of East Jerusalem where the suspects lived, spraying tear gas at their family home and into hills of olive trees.
Relatives said the younger assailant’s parents, three sisters and a brother were arrested, along with the wife, mother and five brothers of the older attacker, who had three children, ages 6, 5 and 3.
“I salute Odai and Ghassan for this heroic operation,” said a cousin, Huda Abu Jamal, 46. “Every Palestinian should strike. Our conditions are too bad. These men have no jobs. Al Aqsa is in danger. The settlers brutally hanged Yousef. We raise our heads high.”
Witnesses at the synagogue complex where the assault took place said the attackers were wearing jeans and T-shirts, and no masks, and shouted “God is great” in Arabic as they burst inside.
In addition to Rabbi Twersky — a son of Isadore Twersky, a Harvard scholar known as the Tolner Rebbe of Boston who died in 1997, and a grandson of Joseph Dov Soloveitchik, the Orthodox philosopher and teacher who died in 1993 — those killed, according to the police and local news organizations, were Rabbi Avraham Shmuel Goldberg, 68, a British-born father of six; Rabbi Aryeh Kopinsky, 43; and Rabbi Kalman Levine, 55. Like Rabbi Twersky, Rabbi Kopinsky and Rabbi Levine, were both American immigrants to Israel.
At least a dozen worshipers were injured, several of them seriously, in the attack on Kehilat Bnei Torah, a complex that houses several prayer groups and a large community hall on a quiet street in Har Nof. Several residents said the building was a center of life for Jews of Eastern European descent, with the hall serving as a popular spot for weddings, film screenings and speeches.
Yossef Pasternak, who was praying at the synagogue, told Israel Radio he had heard gunshots at the height of the morning service.
“I turn around and I see a man with a pistol who starts shooting point blank at people next to him,” Mr. Pasternak said. “Immediately after, someone enters with a knife, a butcher-type knife, and also goes on a rampage in all directions.” Mr. Pasternak said he had hidden under a chair.
Rabbi Shmuel Pinchas said his 13-year-old grandson had done the same. “He crouched under a chair, blood spattered on him from the person who sat in front of him, he fainted,” Rabbi Pinchas said. “People were in the middle of prayer and people could not respond. There is nowhere to hide as the synagogue is closed on all sides.”
Joyce Morel, a doctor who lives in Har Nof, said she had treated a man at the scene who was hit in the back with an ax and also shot, and the police officer, who was shot in the head. Another man had slipped on blood and fallen down a flight of stairs, breaking his leg.
“Everybody in the neighborhood is in a state of shock,” Dr. Morel said. “My son-in-law prays there regularly, his father prays there, my grandchildren are there frequently, my husband studies across the street from there every single day. It’s really a center for the community.”
Avi Nefoussi, a volunteer medic who lives a few blocks from the synagogue, said he arrived before the shooting stopped. He said he had helped evacuate some of the injured on stretchers, “then, unfortunately, we saw some bodies lying on the floor.”
One face looked familiar. It was a man in his 40s who Mr. Nefoussi “knew personally, very well,” though he declined to identify him pending notification of his family.
The man, like the others, was wearing the traditional fringed tallit used in prayer, as a wedding canopy, and sometimes as a funeral shroud. Mr. Nefoussi said he had covered the body with it before leaving.

En mi opinión