Monday, November 24, 2014

No 802 "En mi opinion" Noviembre 24, 2014

 No 802 “En mi opinión”  Noviembre 24, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

Report: Israel Considering Military Action Against Iran

By Greg Richter
As the deadline for nuclear talks between the P5+1 powers and Iran looms on Monday, Israel is warning it might use military power if a deal doesn't meet with its approval, The Jerusalem Post reports. 

"Current proposals guarantee the perpetuation of a crisis, backing Israel into a corner from which military force against Iran provides the only logical exit," the Post quoted Israeli government sources as saying.

The current proposal would restrict Iran's nuclear program for 10 years and cap its ability to produce weapons-grade material, the Post reported. The agreement would require Iran to give its material to Russia to be converted to peaceful use and would call for stringent inspections.
Story continues below video.

But Israel is wary of the proposal, with an Israeli official noting, "our intelligence agencies are not perfect."

The official pointed out that Iran's nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom were not known of for years. 

"And inspection regimes are certainly not perfect," the official said. "They weren't in the case in North Korea, and it isn't the case now – Iran's been giving the [International Atomic Energy Agency] the run around for years about its past activities."

Critics of the deal in the United States also have pointed to Iran's past broken promises.

The Post said that members of P5+1 have indicated they may be willing to forgo a requirement that Iran fully disclose secret weapons work. The P5+1 is made up of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany.
Israel's biggest issue with the deal is its "sunset clause," the Post reported. 
"You've not dismantled the infrastructure, you've basically tried to put limits that you think are going to be monitored by inspectors and intelligence," the Israeli official told the Post. "And then after this period of time, Iran is basically free to do whatever it wants."

The Obama administration denies that charge, telling the Post by email, "following successful implementation of the final step of the comprehensive solution for its duration, the Iranian nuclear program will be treated in the same manner as that of any non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] – with an emphasis on non-nuclear weapon."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened military force against Iran multiple times since 2009, and even sought authorization from his cabinet in 2011, the Post reported.

Israel has bombed suspected nuclear facilities in the past. In 1981, an Israeli airstrike took out a nuclear facility being built near Baghdad, Iraq, and in 2007 another airstrike hit a suspected nuclear site in Syria.

Netanyahu, in an interview Sunday on 
ABC's "This Week," reiterated his warning that Iran is working on an intercontinental ballistic missile. He has said in the past that the West should be just as concerned as Israel because Iran would not need an ICBM to hit Israel – only Europe or the United States.
"If for any reason the United States and the other powers agree to leave Iran with that capacity to break out, I think that would be a historic mistake," Netanyahu told ABC. 
Meanwhile, 
The Associated Press reports that the United States is asking to extend the talks as Monday's deadline is approaching with little hope for a deal.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/israel-netanyahu-iran-military/2014/11/23/id/609149/#ixzz3JzdhQoDM 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

 

 

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/#xi12KXOo8BJrXJM7.99


The protests in Ferguson, Mo., on Friday night grew larger than previous days’ gatherings of protesters, despite the rain and cold weather. Police officers used a megaphone to ask protesters to leave the street outside the Ferguson Police Department or they would be arrested. In this video, protesters responded by chanting ”F— the police” and shouting “We don’t give a f— about your laws like you don’t give a f— about our lives.” Warning: Video contains foul language.
Protesters then moved to West Florissant Street and blocked traffic in front of a McDonald’s restaurant and chanted, “Who shut sh– down? We shut sh– down!” Warning: Video contains foul language.
​The employees working inside of the 24-hour McDonald’s restaurant were so frightened that they locked the doors and temporarily closed the store until protesters moved down the street. 
The protesters meanwhile did not seem nearly as concerned about potential violence, and some even brought their children to help block traffic. 
A grand jury’s decision to indict police officer Darren Wilson, who is suspected of shooting 18-year-old Michael Brown, could come at any moment. Residents and law enforcement alike are preparing for a worst-case scenario that could include the loss of life as a result of violent protests.


Republican House Hires This Liberal Law Professor To Sue Obama…Libs Loudly Cry Foul

House Speaker John Boehner has hired prominent...

NORVELL ROSE  
To many observers of politics or the law, this might seem to be a strange brew indeed — the “odd couple” pairing of Republican Speaker John Boehner with liberal law professor Jonathan Turley in the House’s ObamaCare lawsuit against the president for whom Turley has said he voted.
Confused? Let’s check the facts.
House Speaker John Boehner has hired prominent constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley to lead the legal team in going after President Obama in court on behalf of the House of Representatives.

As the Washington Examiner explains, Turley will represent the House in its lawsuit against Obama’s unilateral, and potentially unconstitutional, move to delay implementation of a key Obamacare provision requiring large firms to offer healthcare coverage to their employees.
“Professor Turley is a renowned legal scholar who agrees that President Obama has clearly overstepped his Constitutional authority. He is a natural choice to handle this lawsuit,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said.
“Boehner…has not ruled out expanding the lawsuit to include a challenge to Obama’s promised executive order to legalize millions of undocumented immigrants. For now, however, the lawsuit remains focused on Obamacare.”
Considering Turley’s recent criticism of what he views as the dangerous overreach of a power-hungry president — criticism expressed in testimony before Congress — his involvement with the House suit against Obama shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.
A self-described liberal who says he voted for Obama and even supports nationalized health care, the George Washington University Law School Professor nonetheless believes the president has often exceeded his authority.
Via huffingtonpost.com, we learn that Turley posted why he took on the current case against the president whom he helped to elect on his blog:
“Unilateral, unchecked Executive action is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in our constitutional system. This case represents a long-overdue effort by Congress to resolve fundamental Separation of Powers issues.
“In that sense, it has more to do with constitutional law than health care law.”
Notably, in the same Huffington Post article, liberal angst over Turley’s new alignment with Boehner and the GOP House is on full display:
“Democrats quickly criticized the hire on Tuesday, noting Turley’s many appearances on Fox News, where he frequently criticizes the administration on health care and immigration reform.
“‘Even for $500-per-hour in taxpayer dollars, Speaker [John] Boehner has had to scour Washington to find a lawyer willing to file this meritless lawsuit against the President,’ said Drew Hammill, spokesman for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
“‘Now, he’s hired a TV personality for this latest episode of his distraction and dysfunction.'”
Of course, liberal Democrats and their supporters in the media were more than happy to feature and fawn over Jonathan Turley in numerous appearances on MSNBC when his criticisms aligned with theirs.
Lately, though, as noted on wikipedia.org:
“…Turley has a strong libertarian streak and sometimes infuriates the left with a contrarian position.[10] For instance, he has said, “It is hard to read the Second Amendment and not honestly conclude that the Framers intended gun ownership to be an individual right.”


Amenper: El problema histórico de los Negros en Estados Unidos
El problema de los negros en Estados Unidos es algo difícil de explicar.  Parece algo extraño que a través de los siglos, en una democracia como la americana, no se haya podido lograr una igualdad racial.
No podemos decir que en Cuba la tuviéramos, pero estuvimos mucho más cerca que en los Estados Unidos, y en una Cuba republicana sin Castro, se hubiera progresivamente logrado, porque se veía avanzar.
He sido un testigo de esta situación en los Estados Unidos, por la historia que he estudiado y por lo que he vivido bajo dos etapas diversas de la desigualdad racial. No se ha podido lograr nada en Estados Unidos, el problema negro ha sufrido bien definidas etapas de diversidad racial entre negros y blancos y la desigualdad persiste.
Primera etapa, la esclavitud, con los negros abajo, en esa perversa institución de la esclavitud que existía en aquella época en todo el mundo. Hubo diferentes razas esclavizadas, blancos europeos, chinos encomendados en Estados Unidos y latinoamerica, hubo esclavos de todos colores, pero los más abundante fueron los negros que se esclavizaban entre sí en Africa y se vendían a los blancos esclavistas que los exportaban a Ámerica. 
Cómo una reacción lógica a la injusticia de la esclavitud vino la emancipación, con una etapa de calma después de la guerra civil, durante la presidencia de Andrew Johnson.
Pero después surgió la segunda etapa en el sur, con la reconstrucción, una etapa en que los negros con complicidad política de los norteños abusaron de los blancos.
La película “The birth of a Nation” enseña este momento en la historia.  Hoy se determina que era una película racista, pero lo que enseña es la realidad del principio de la época de la reconstrucción, quizás exagerada, pero es una manera de ver cómo se sentía el pueblo sureño en aquella etapa.
Si no lo conocen en estos tres enlaces pueden tener una idea de la trama que representa el problema racial en el sur en 1915, representado en la película, durante la reconstrucción más de una década después de la guerra civil.
El último enlace les da una percepción de los diferentes puntos de vista raciales y sociales.
 Pero lo que podemos ver es algo que sucedió y no se habla hoy en día. Los negros durante la reconstrucción ocuparon cargos en las cámaras legislativas como aparece en la película, antes de que llegara la segregación.

Por reacción surgieron las guerrillas sureñas, con milicias como los del KKK y otros, que se impusieron creando la tercera etapa, que fue la segregación, esta tercera etapa dejó a los negros abajo, discriminados por  las leyes “Jim Crow” que representan la tercera etapa, la segregación..
Por reacción por las injusticias de la segregación, hubo la lucha de los negros del sur por sus derechos civiles. Con la ayuda del norte y por sus luchas, lograron terminar con las injusticias de la segregación.
Cómo en la etapa de la emancipación hubo una etapa pacífica, pero después vino, también por intervención política, el racismo a la inversa... la cuarta etapa.
Progresivamente hemos visto a los negros tomar privilegios de las leyes de derechos civiles para tomar privilegios sobre los blancos. Un presidente negro no ha logrado la igualdad racial, al contrario, la ha incrementado, la división racial entre negros y blancos es peor que antes de tener un presidente negro. 
Esta cuarta etapa pudiera llevar a una posible quinta etapa, en que los negros se vean de nuevo discriminados por la reacción de los blancos ante sus acciones.
Lo que está pasando en Ferguson es el cómo un forúnculo en el cuerpo de la nación.  El punto blanco del forúnculo está en Ferguson, y está a punto de explotar, soltando toda la materia putrefacta en forma de motines raciales que traerán una inestabilidad política y racial y la reacción de los blancos ante estos hechos.
Lo único que lo pudiera prevenir sería que los tribunales ante el chantaje cedan y declaren culpable a un inocente. Esto no resolvería el problema, sólo lo dilataría hasta el próximo incidente. 
La irracionalidad de los militantes negros es tan evidente que no admite excusas.  ¿Cómo se va a chantajear al poder judicial para decirles lo que tienen que determinar en las cortes? ¿Cómo se puede exigir, que si no declaran culpable al blanco, pagarán las consecuencias como motines?. Esto sólo se puede considerar como un abuso racista por parte de los militantes negros hacia los blancos. Y al final, los negros serán los más perjudicados.
Viví personalmente la tercera etapa del abuso al negro por la segregación, y la cuarta etapa del abuso de negro de los derechos civiles estableciendo una discriminación racial a la inversa, y me parece que quizás vea la quinta etapa nacer si se producen los anunciados motines.
Los negros no lograrán nada con los motines como no sea algo de muerte y destrucción, pero cuando se calmen los ánimos, puede ser que queden de nuevo abajo por la reacción de los blancos.
El balance de la igualdad de negros y blancos, nunca se podrá lograr mientras sigan predicando por agendas políticas la diversidad racial y la lucha de clases disfrazada de lucha de razas.
Es un problema político, no racial, pero se manifiesta en el racismo por ambas partes y América seguirá siendo una nación dividida hasta que no haya un movimiento cívico que establezca la verdadera igualdad ciudadana.  Porque una acción siempre trae una reacción, y si no se detienen las acciones la historia de etapas de desigualdades raciales nunca acabará..


Amenper: Vigencia Moderna de
 “La Republica” de Platón
¿Está nuestro mundo dirigiéndose hacia un futuro de más democracia? ¿O estamos presenciando el ocaso de la misma?
Desde la cuna de la civilización, cómo una premonición, los filósofos griegos vieron los peligros de la formación de la tiranía dentro de una democracia.
El filósofo griego Platón hizo una famosa advertencia: "De la democracia surge por naturaleza la tiranía, y la más agravada forma de tiranía y esclavitud sale de la forma más extrema de libertad" (La República, Libro VIII). ¿Es acertada esta advertencia? ¿Y estará empezando a ocurrir así en los Estados Unidos?
La larva de la tiranía crece en las entrañas del régimen democrático desde el mismo día de su nacimiento, precisamente porque otorga a los ciudadanos voz y voto sobre todos los problemas de la ciudad (léase sociedad), explica el filósofo griego.
Como ninguno es capaz de entender absolutamente todos esos problemas –porque son disímiles y complejos– las democracias tienden a delegar la solución de aquellos ­temas a personajes que, utilizando sus grandes habilidades retóricas, engañan a los ciudadanos, ofreciéndoles soluciones aparentemente buenas. Pero lo que ocurre en realidad, argumenta Platón, es que esos líderes apelan a los sentimientos y no a la razón de los ciudadanos, alimentando en ellos pasiones negativas, como el odio, la lucha de razas y clases y privilegios sin el fruto del trabajo, lo cual en realidad es un tipo de ambición desmedida.
El futuro dictador utiliza a los ciudadanos que lo apoyan como ejército personal para atacar a cualquiera que se oponga a sus designios. También lanza acusaciones inescrupulosas, insulta y enjuicia a cualquiera que tenga ansias de libertad, explica el filósofo griego.
Pero el tirano muestra sus verdaderos colores solo cuando el dinero –que antes se repartía a manos llenas– comienza a escasear. Para conseguir fondos, el dictador empieza a imponer contribuciones (impuestos) cada vez más onerosas al pueblo, explica Platón. Ahí es cuando su popularidad comienza a declinar y cuando el tirano se convierte en una figura aún más autoritaria.
Sólo entonces el pueblo entenderá qué clase de hijo ha encumbrado en el poder; sólo en ese momento se dará cuenta que la liberación del yugo de los ricos que tanto había ofrecido el político electo se ha convertido ahora en un nuevo yugo, esta vez impuesto por el tirano que un día el mismo pueblo eligió, creyendo que él sería su única salvación.
Esto de que habla Platón no es el tradicional debate entre el Estado versus el mercado, sino más bien entre el desarrollo autoritario versus el desarrollo en libertad.
Esta corriente de pensamiento proviene todo individuo –los hay socialistas, conservadores y de otros colores– que añora llegar a concentrar poder político para imponerle a toda la sociedad decisiones íntimas: desde lo que podemos fumar y dónde, hasta lo que debemos comer y lo que nuestros hijos deben aprender en las escuelas.
Se están produciendo cambios geopolíticos masivos, la tecnología moderna ha facilitado la comunicación de las culturas, y la influencia de una cultura foránea que luce más atractiva que nuestra cultura tradicional.  Nos hablan de complicadas fórmulas para el bienestar para todos.
Pero detrás de esas complicadas fórmulas está ese desprecio por el derecho que tiene cada individuo a elegir sobre la mayoría de los aspectos de su vida, acompañado de una arrogancia de poseer un conocimiento superior de lo que les conviene a otros. Esto contrasta con la confianza que tenía Hayek en “los esfuerzos independientes y competitivos de muchos”, su respeto por el derecho de las personas a planificar sus propias vidas y la humildad de reconocer que los conocimientos que alguien pueda tener siempre son limitados, sin importar cuántos títulos se hayan obtenido.
Creo que lo que nos expone Platón en “La Republica” no necesita mucha explicación o estudio, simplemente levantar los ojos del libro y mirar a nuestro alrededor.


Giuliani: 93 Percent of Blacks Are Killed by Blacks

By Greg Richter
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani says that the media focusing on the Ferguson, Missouri grand jury should spend more attention on why white police officers are in black neighborhoods to start with.

"I find it very disappointing that you're not discussing the fact that 93 percent of blacks in America are killed by other blacks," Giuliani said Sunday on "Meet the Press." 

The case of white police officers killing blacks are the exception rather that the rule, he said. 

"We are talking about the significant exception," Giuliani said. 
Story continues below video.


But a very heated author and professor Michael Eric Dyson said Giuliani was drawing a "false equivalency," saying that most blacks who kill other blacks go to jail and they are not sworn by the state to uphold the law. 

Giuliani said 70 percent to 75 percent of crime in New York City takes place in predominantly black areas, and that's why there is a large police presence in those places. 

"The white police officers wouldn't be there if you weren't killing each other," Giuliani said.

The debate was sparked by discussion of the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri in August. The unarmed 18-year-old was killed by white police officer Darren Wilson, sparking weeks of protests, some of which turned violent.
Giuliani says people pushing for an indictment from the grand jury probing the Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Missouri are perverting the criminal justice system. 
"This grand jury is under incredible pressure … to indict. I feel sorry for these people because they know if they walk out of that grand jury room and have not indicted they may have created a massive riot in their city and maybe throughout the United States," Giuliani said.

"To me, that kind of pressure is completely inconsistent with the American criminal justice system. And the people who are putting on that pressure should be ashamed of themselves," the former mayor said.

Fear of more unrest has led Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to declare a state-of-emergency pre-emptively.

Nixon, a Democrat, has faced criticism for that move, but Giuliani said he understood since he found himself in similar situations as mayor of America's largest city.

"I would have had a state of emergency, but I would have kept it quiet," Giuliani said. He said he would have had police on alert and placed them where they wouldn't be seen by the public so they would be ready at a moment's notice to stop any kind of violence.
But, he added, Nixon was in a no-win situation. 
"Had he not declared a state of emergency, he'd probably get criticized for not doing it," Giuliani said.

The ex-mayor said he is concerned that no one is explaining to the public that grand juries are kept secret to protect innocent people since that system has a lower burden of proof than court.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/giuliani-ferguson-cop-black/2014/11/23/id/609109/#ixzz3JvgwjiV8 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!


Ted Cruz: Obama Essentially 'Counterfeiting Immigration Papers'

Sen. Ted Cruz continued his attack Sunday on President Barack Obama's executive order granting legal status to up to 5 million illegal immigrants, saying that the presidents argument he was just using prosecutorial discretion is "just simply nonsense." 

"For 4 to 5 million people here illegally he's promising to print up and give work authorizations," the Texas Republican said on  
"Fox News Sunday."  "Essentially, he's gotten in the job of counterfeiting immigration papers." 
Cruz said the order goes beyond the 5 million specified, and actually extends to nearly all the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. He said a memo he sent to Homeland Security instructs the department not to enforce immigration laws except against violent criminals and a few others. 

Cruz was asked about his call for Congress to fight Obama's plan by funding each agency through individual bills and attaching a rider to not fund Homeland Security until Obama reverses his executive order.
Obama would be expected to veto such bills, which brings back the specter of a government shutdown. 
"You're willing to shut down departments and you're willing to take the backlash?" host Chris Wallace asked. "I mean, it didn’t work very well with Obamacare, sir."

Cruz, who led the budget fight against Obamacare in October 2013 that was blamed for the two-week partial government shutdown, responded that the media was wrong then and is probably wrong now. 

Pundits, even those from the conservative side, predicted Cruz's budget fight would cost Republicans seats in the House and Senate. Instead, Cruz pointed out, the GOP gained seats in both houses and took control of the Senate.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ted-Cruz-immigration-order-illegals/2014/11/23/id/609110/#ixzz3JvhSa6c8 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!


Watch: Michele Bachmann Is About To Take On Obama, And She Needs America’s Help

“We need to have your viewers..."

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN) appeared on Hannity Thursday night to urge Sean Hannity’s viewers to get involved with defunding President Obama’s executive order on immigration by “melting the phone lines.” Although Congress is not currently in Washington D.C., Bachmann explained they will be back at work from December 1st through the 11th. She invited the Fox Channel audience not only to call their congressmen and senators, but to actually join her for a rally at the Capitol building.
“We need to have your viewers melt the phone lines.  So, I’m asking your viewers to join us, Wednesday, December 3rd at high noon on the west steps of the Capitol.  Come, rally, and then go visit your Senator and go visit your Congressman.  And you can make the difference and we can get this thing defunded.  We can do this, but we need the viewers to come and help us.”
Bachman was elected in 2006 to become the first Republican woman to represent Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District in the House of Representatives. Bachmann is leaving office at the end of this year. Republican Tom Emmer, who won her vacated seat, will be the only new member of Minnesota’s congressional delegation when the 114th Congress gets underway in January.




Obama Claims ‘Borders Mean Something,’ Illegal Immigrants Shouldn’t Get Rewarded

Talk about trying to play both sides of the issue. Obama says one thing, does another, but really means something else.
Check it out:
On Friday, at the Las Vegas, Nevada high school where then-candidate Barack Obama pivoted to his “Si, Se Puede” (Yes, we can) message in 2008, President Barack Obama celebrated his executive amnesty in which he essentially declared, “Yes, I can.” 
After announcing his executive amnesty at the White House on Thursday evening that will give temporary amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, Obama went to Del Sol High School in Nevada and became the salesman-in-chief. Obama will reportedly try to “aggressively” sell his executive amnesty in the coming weeks across the country, including next Tuesday in Chicago with Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Mayor Rahm Emanuel.
He sold his executive overreach by claiming that his executive amnesty was not “amnesty” but actually “accountability” for illegal immigrants. 
“It’s not amnesty,” Obama claimed. “What we are offering is accountability.” 

Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014
/11/obama-claims-borders-mean-something-illegal-immigrants-shouldnt-get-rewarded/


Amenper: Pardon my Espangli
Pero yo soy de Mayami
Soy proud de ser Cubano de Sagua the Big, pero también soy proud to be Cubiche de Mayami.
Mayami es la tierra del espangli, donde podemos shopear en los moles, y botear en la bahía. 
Donde tenemos un tin de basque que son la candela, por eso le dicen los heats. 
Tenemos restoranes donde se puede jamar lonche o diner, lo mismo anglo que cubiche, nica,mejicano o lo que sea hasta empacharnos.
Tenemos dulcerías que podemos comer dulces sabrosos hasta empalagarnos.
Y cuando estamos empalagados o empachados, no hay manera de decirlo que no sea en espangli, ¿How could you say empalagado o empachado, in yanqui?
Espangli is good, it is easy, if we are speaking in yanqui, y no sé como decir que no me da la “gana”  de hacer algo in yanqui pues digo “no me da la gana” in my espangli, porque hablando en espangli hablamos como nos da la gana..
En Mayami aprovechamos lo mejor de la lengua cubiche y yanqui, con tonos ticos, nicas, boricuas, chicanos y otras modalidades que molemos en el picadillo del espangli. 
Lo que hemos hecho es “estrenar” una lengua, because, si no fuera así como podría decir “estrenar” en yanqui, no sé cómo se dice.
Estreno de una película es premiere, pero eso no es lo que queremos decir cuando estrenamos un par de zapatos. ¿Release? no, eso tampoco es lo que queremos decir cuando usamos algo nuevo.
Pero en espangli es fácil, estrenar es estrenar, y estamos estrenando una nueva lengua un language de nosotros en Mayami,
Bueno, hasta then, see you luego.



Amenper: Barack Obama, American Caudillo
By RICH LOWRY November 19, 2014
To think that President Obama has taken the oath of office four times (through accidents of circumstance, twice each time he was elected). Taking the oath must have become such old hat that he stopped paying attention.
The president is now on the verge, if the reporting is correct, of issuing an executive amnesty for illegal immigrants based on an astonishingly blatant contempt for the constitutional order that he is sworn to uphold. Where does Abraham Lincoln go to get his Bible back?
The last 400 years of Anglo-American political history can be read as a successful effort to establish and maintain a system tethering the executive to the law. What President Obama is contemplating will undermine that achievement, both through his own lawlessness and the precedent he will create for subsequent presidents to operate by extra-legal fiat.
There are many opponents of the president's executive amnesty, but few as eloquent as the president himself over the years. It doesn't take a former constitutional law professor to know that Congress writes the law and the president executes it, even if he finds it personally distasteful.
This is basic. The president, slightly condescendingly, said at a Univision townhall at Bell Multicultural High School in Washington, D.C. in 2011 that everyone was there studying hard "so you know that we've got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws."
Thank you for the civics lesson, Mr. President. He has gone back to the drawing board since then. His new theory is that the president huffily demands that laws pass and if Congress refuses, he can create a new legal dispensation to his liking.
President Obama insisted the other day that his previous ringing statements about the separation of powers were only in response to questions about whether he could impose comprehensive immigration reform on his own. This is so demonstrably false, you wonder why he even bothered. As Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post demonstrated, the president was repeatedly asked about exactly the sort of action he is now about to undertake.
The president and his supporters pretend that the Immigration and Nationality Act contains a gigantic asterisk that says, notwithstanding the elaborate legal infrastructure set out in the law and the distinctions among different categories of immigrants, the president can do whatever he wants.
No Congress would ever write the law this way. And even if it did, it wouldn't pass constitutional muster.
"The case law," according to David Rivkin of the law firm Baker Hostetler, "clearly recognizes that delegations of any type of legislative authority to the president must contain some limiting principles; they can never be open-ended. To do otherwise, would unconstitutionally transfer core legislative powers to the president."
The president's defenders rely on the notion of prosecutorial discretion, the existence of which is uncontroversial. The executive doesn’t have the resources to hunt down and prosecute every violator of our laws, and therefore has to establish enforcement priorities.
The Congressional Research Service did a report on prosecutorial discretion and immigration that, for the most part, emphasizes its piddling reach. It says, for instance, that immigration officers may use discretion to decide whom to stop, question, and arrest; whether to issue or cancel a Notice to Appear; whether to settle or dismiss a proceeding; and so on.
No one heretofore has thought this leeway could be used by a president as warrant to eviscerate an entire statutory scheme.
Again, if the reporting is accurate, the administration will announce a class of people numbering in the millions that can get work permits, Social Security numbers, and legal identification, at clear variance with the laws passed by Congress.
This isn’t prosecutorial discretion—making enforcement decisions based on limited resources—it is affirmatively expending resources not appropriated by Congress for this purpose to administer a new system.
Under the Obama precedent, future presidents can use the pretense of prosecutorial discretion to dispense with swaths of the federal code and unilaterally come up with alternatives.
Can’t prosecute all pot dealers? Ignore the drug laws. Can’t find every tax scofflaw in the country? Re-write the tax code. The only limits will be the legal imagination and brazenness of the White House at any given moment.
Prior presidents have, in keeping with the law, provided temporary relief to foreign nationals whose native countries have been torn by civil strife or natural disasters. George H. W. Bush gave safe harbor to Chinese students after Tiananmen Square in 1990. Bill Clinton did the same for Central Americans here after hurricanes hit the region in 1998. The numbers involved were typically in the hundreds or thousands.
All this makes for a sound basis in precedent and the law for President Obama’s decision to give Syrians safe harbor in 2012, as their country descended into hellish chaos. It doesn't come close to justifying his impending executive amnesty.
The gotcha example of George H.W. Bush granting amnesty to some spouses and children of recently legalized immigrants in 1990 isn’t apt either, since the scale was much smaller (only about 140,000 people took advantage of it) and Congress voted to codify it within months.
No matter how much the president’s defenders stretch for a legal justification and for a precedent, the conclusion is unavoidable that no one has done this before. President Obama is said to want to build his legacy, and he will—as a man who is shamefully careless of his oaths and constitutional obligations.
Rich Lowry is editor of National Review


Policia Negro Mato Joven Blanco 2 dias despues de lo de Ferguson.No es i...

Gatria@aol.com

Dos dias despues de los sucesos de Ferguson, un Policia Negro mato a un joven Blanco en Utha.  Mientras que lo de Ferguson ha sido reportado por la Prensa miles de veces, la muerte en Utah permanece en SILENCIO.
¿ Quien ha visto lo del Policia Negro ? ¿ Por Que solo se Reporta los hechos de Ferguson...Por Que no se Reporta Utha ?
Pregunta: ¿Are Media Increasing Tensions in Ferguson ?
 ¿ Es la Prensa Responsible por el Aumento de   las tensiones en Ferguson ?.
WASHINGTON, D.C. - NOVEMBER 23: Protestors march in front of the Ferguson Police Department in Ferguson, on November 23, 2014. The U.S. awaits a grand jurys decision on whether to bring charges against a white police officer for fatally shooting an unarmed black teen. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Anadolu Agency/Getty Images)
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) - Despite preparations for a weekend decision in the Ferguson shooting case, the grand jurors apparently need more time to deliberate, and the uncertainty just seemed to feed the anxiety and speculation Sunday in a city already on edge.
More than 3½ months have passed since police Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, killed unarmed black 18-year-old Michael Brown after a confrontation in the middle of a street in the St. Louis suburb. The shooting triggered riots and looting, and police responded with armored vehicles and tear gas.
Many in the area thought a grand jury decision on whether to charge Wilson with a crime would be announced Sunday, based partly on a stepped-up police presence in the preceding days, including the setting up of barricades around the building where the panel was meeting.
The grand jurors met Friday but apparently didn't reach a decision, and they were widely expected to reconvene on Monday, though there was no official confirmation of that.
During church services Sunday, some pastors encouraged their flocks not to fret.
A choir sang, "We need you Lord right now" at the predominantly black Greater Grace Church in Ferguson. The pastor, Bishop L.O. Jones, referred to the pending grand jury decision briefly.
"Everybody stand to your feet and tell somebody, 'Don't be afraid. God is still in control,'" Jones said as church members repeated after him.
The Rev. Freddy Clark of Shalom Church in nearby Florissant told the mostly black interdenominational congregation that "justice will be served" whichever way the decision goes, because God will take care of it.
"None of us are pleased about what happened," said parishioner James Tatum. "Whatever the verdict is, we have to understand that's the verdict."


Lindsey Graham: House Benghazi Report Is ‘Full Of Crap’

Still trying to find the truth.
Check it out:
Republican South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that he believed the House Intelligence Committee’s Benghazi report, which vindicated many administration claims, was “full of crap.”
GRAHAM: I think the report’s full of crap, quite frankly.
HOST GLORIA BORGER: Why? Why?
GRAHAM: The Deputy Director of the CIA when I asked him, “Do you know who changed the talking points?” with Senator Ayotte and McCain, and Susan Rice sitting by his side said the FBI changed the talking points, when in came to al-Qaida. Only later did we find out through a lawsuit that Mike Morell was deeply involved in changing the talking points, the deputy director of the FBI, when he was sitting in front of a congressional panel and he was asked, “Does anybody here know who changed the talking points?” He sat silent. So the intel community through him lied.
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/34969/lindsey-graham-house-benghazi-report-full-crap/

 

Lindsey Graham: New Benghazi Report 'Full of Crap'

By Sandy Fitzgerald
A House committee's report released Friday that exonerates the CIA, the military and Obama administration officials for their response to the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, is "full of crap," South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN Sunday.

The latest findings come from a declassified two-year investigation by the House Intelligence Committee, which looked at all sides of the incident, including claims that the White House cooked up phony talking points for then-UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

"I'm saying the House Intelligence Committee is doing a lousy job policing their own," Graham told CNN correspondent Gloria Borger on the "State of the Union" program.
"I'm saying that anybody who has followed Benghazi at all knows that the [former] CIA deputy director [Mike Morell] did not come forward to tell Congress what role he played in changing the talking points and the only way we knew he was involved is when he told a representative at the White House, I'm going to do a hard review of this, a hard rewrite," said Graham. 
Further, he said, while Morell had initially said the FBI changed the talking points on what had been said about the attacks, a lawsuit later revealed that Morell was more involved than he had admitted. 

"Who told [National Security Advisor] Susan Rice that the compound consulate was substantially strong and significantly secured?" Graham said. "That wasn't in the talking points, but she said that."

Graham said there are still too many questions remaining about who was responsible for "the version most politically beneficial to the administration," to accept the report that was released Friday.

In a joint statement accompanying the release of the report, Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., and the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Md., said its probe was extensive.
But Graham countered that the document is a "bunch of garbage...a complete bunch of garbage," with its claims, and that it's a "good question" why Rogers, the Republican committee chair would believe statements to the contrary. 
Further, Graham pointed out 
reports of an email from earlier this year that showed White House White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes advising Rice to focus on a YouTube video as the cause of a spontaneous protest when she hit the talk show circuit the Sunday after the attacks.

"When Susan Rice was on television after the attack, she said on three different occasions the consulate was strongly, substantially and significantly secure," said Graham Sunday. "She gave an impression to the American people that these folks were well taken care of when it was in fact a death trap."

The report also said there is no evidence there was a stand-down order when it came to security for the Benghazi facility, an other point Graham denied Sunday.

"I can tell you that three contractors working for the agency said that they were told to wait for 20 minutes," said Graham. "This report puts all the blame on the State Department and absolves the Intelligence Committee. When the Department of Defense Committee has looked at it, the Department of Defense was held blameless."
And as a result, Graham said, "everybody is pointing fingers to everybody else," but when the report that came out Friday said here was "no manipulating of the American people, that is absolute garbage." 
And when the report said there is no evidence that CIA personnel misled Congress, Graham said, "I don't buy the idea that the agency did not mislead Congress because I was there when they misled me."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/benghazi-report-full-of/2014/11/23/id/609108/#ixzz3JvgQa4uP 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!


Eric Holder Removes Death Penalty For Four Cop Killers In Virginia

“I think justice needs to be served..."

On Friday, United States Attorney General Eric Holder eliminated the possibility of the death penalty for four co-defendants charged in the murder of a reserve police officer in Virginia.
Travis Bell (also known as Kweli Uhuru), Daniel Mathis, Shantai Shelton, and Mersadies Shelton were indicted in May for murdering Waynesboro reserve police officer Captain Kevin Quick, WRIC reported at the time. Quick was reported missing on February 1 when he did not arrive at his girlfriend’s residence; five days later he was found dead.
According to The Daily Progress, Holder removed the possibility of the death penalty. United States Attorney Timothy Heaphy, who is tasked with prosecuting the case, said, “I know the attorney general takes these cases very seriously.”
“[The Attorney General] reviews each potential death penalty case at his kitchen table, often late at night. I have known [Holder] for years and continue to have great confidence in him and his judgment.”
The four individuals, members of a street gang connected to “The Bloods”, are charged with carjacking and kidnapping in addition to murder. They will be facing trial May 4, 2015.
Scott McDevitt, a resident in Waynesboro, told WHSV the murder has upset the community, located 96 miles west of Richmond.
“I think justice needs to be served and I think the people who committed the crime need to pay for the crime, but deciding who lives and who dies – that’s not all right either.”
When appearing in federal court Friday, U.S. District Judge Glen E. Conrad asked if the defendants wanted to change their pleas, but they maintained their innocence and showed no emotion during the 45-minute proceeding.
Uhuru was the only defendant to speak during the proceeding, saying, “I feel like it’s a violation of my due process rights even though I haven’t done anything wrong,” he said, referring to the treatment he allegedly receives at a local prison in Salem, Virginia. Conrad said he would look into it and “see what I can find out” while placing Uhuru in administrative segregation.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/eric-holder-removes-death-penalty-4-cop-killers-virginia/#34Uslv1Vd3ozbw2K.99

 “FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

En mi opinión
No 802 Noviembre 24, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR