No 798 “En mi opinión” Noviembre 19, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro
R González Miño EDITOR
|
ESTE ESCRITO DE GARTH KAND SOBRE
LA TEORÍA DEL NUEVO SENADOR REPUBLICANO DE OKLAHOMA JAMES LANKFORD, TIENE ALGO
QUE HE MENCIONADO MUCHAS VECES.
EL ELECTORADO DEMÓCRATA NO ESTÁ
DE ACUERDO CON LOS ULTRALIBERALES DEL PARTIDO CON RESPECTO A INMIGRACIÓN. HAY
QUE RECORDAR QUE HASTA RELATIVAMENTE HACE POCO, LOS DEMÓCRATAS DEL SUR ERAN EL
PARTIDO DE LA SEGREGACIÓN. TENGO AMIGOS SUREÑOS DEMÓCRATAS QUE ESTÁN
COMPLETAMENTE EN DESACUERDO CON UNA AMNISTÍA.
ADEMÁS ES UN HECHO
CONOCIDO, LAS UNIONES Y LOS NEGROS TEMEN A LA INMIGRACIÓN QUE PUEDA AFECTAR SUS
EMPLEOS. CREO QUE OBAMA ESTÁ COMETIENDO UN ERROR DE CALCULO CON SU LEY
EJECUTIVA.
ESO LE DA FUERZA A LOS OFICIALES
ELECTOS QUE AHORA HACEN UNA MAYORÍA EN LAS CÁMARAS LEGISLATIVAS PARA ANULAR LA
LEY, O QUIZÁS OBAMA REACCIONE ANTES, Y LO PIENSE DOS VECES ANTES DE EJECUTAR
UNILATERALMENTE UNA LEY QUE ES IMPOPULAR HASTA EN SU PROPIO PARTIDO.
GOP HAS SECRET
WEAPON TO STOP AMNESTY
Congressman reveals why shutdown
isn't the only option
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
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
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 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
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 Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/illegals-executive-action-amnesty-immigrants/2014/11/18/id/608017/#ixzz3JWTiTm34
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/illegals-executive-action-amnesty-immigrants/2014/11/18/id/608017/#ixzz3JWTiTm34
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 time.com:
“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 thegatewaypundit.com,
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.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-obama-and-sharpton-met-secretly-with-ferguson-protestors-had-this-message/#2F148hadXJ48IZTl.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-obama-and-sharpton-met-secretly-with-ferguson-protestors-had-this-message/#2F148hadXJ48IZTl.99
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.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-still-refuses-admit-isis-islamic/#BBIwyVU2WfBhU9Ye.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-still-refuses-admit-isis-islamic/#BBIwyVU2WfBhU9Ye.99
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.
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.
Keystone Vote Falls Short in
Senate. BY FRANK THORP V, CARRIE DANN AND ANDREW RAFFERTY
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
NBC NEWS
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’
I’m sure this will be comforting to the innocent Americans who
died while you encouraged terrorists around the world.
Check it out:
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.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/obama-synagogue-attack-many-palestinians-died/
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/obama-synagogue-attack-many-palestinians-died/
Estimado Amigo. Actions
anmadus@aol.com
To: lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com
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
JODI RUDOREN, ISABEL KERSHNER11 hrs ago
© 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.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment