Saturday, January 24, 2015

No 857 "En mi opinion" Enero 24, 2015

No 857 “En mi opinión”  Enero 24, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR Center for Journalism. House GOP Votes To Deny Obama's Executive Amnesty... But Senate Planning A Betrayal.
       John Boehner and House Republicans are finally starting to get the message. Last week, they passed a bill that will fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) andDENY DHS the funds to execute Barack Obama's unconstitutional Executive Amnesty Decree. 
       But the future of this bill in the Senate is uncertain. We are already hearing whispers from Capitol Hill that Senate Republicans may capitulate to Barack Obama and the Democrat minority and, in the spirit of so-called compromise, scuttle the language that denies Barack Obama the funds to implement his unlawful decree. 
       And we're not about to let that happen. 
Senate Republicans need to hear from patriotic Americans like you right now and they must be told, in no uncertain terms, that the American people will not tolerate any so-called compromise that allows Barack Obama's unconstitutional and imperial amnesty decree to stand. 
Don't Be Fooled By The Media Narrative.
       In the coming days you'll hear the professional pundits, the politicians and the media advance a disgusting and deceptive narrative. 
       They'll tell you that blocking the funding that will allow Barack Obama to issue work permits, Social Security and Medicare to 5 million illegal aliens will also jeopardize DHS's ability to combat terrorism at home and abroad. 
       They'll tell you that Republican inflexibility puts Americans in imminent danger, and it is probably not a coincidence that the lame-stream media has been pumping up the coverage of terrorist activities in recent days. 
       But what no one in the media is telling you is that John Boehner, when he initially betrayed the American people by funding Obama's illegal decree, funded DHS through February 27, 2015. 
       And that means that there is no rush to capitulate to Barack Obama and Senate Democrats because DHS is fully funded for at least six weeks. 
       If Senate Democrats filibuster this bill in the Senate, let them explain to the American people why they are willing to cut-off DHS funding to preserve an unconstitutional amnesty decree; and if Barack Obama pulls out his veto pen, then let him explain to the American people why he is willing to jeopardize our national security over his unconstitutional and imperial amnesty decree. 
       And while they're busy explaining themselves, our elected officials will have 6 weeks to go back to the drawing board and pass a bill that reflects the will of the American people... 
but in order for that to happen, Senate Republicans must stand strong today. 
"Why Would Any Member Of Congress Who Opposes Executive Amnesty Provide President Obama The Funds To Carry It Out?" -Senator Jeff Sessions 
       Senator Sessions went on to say: "President Obama’s executive amnesty voids the laws Congress has passed in order to foist on the nation measures Congress has refused to pass. In violation of U.S. law, it grants illegal immigrants work permits, Social Security, and Medicare — taking jobs and benefits directly from struggling Americans. The President has arrogated to himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, live, work, and claim benefits in the United States." 
       Sessions was right when he made that statement and he is still right today. 
       Make no mistake, any Senator who feels the need to capitulate to Barack Obama right out of the gate is simply trying to find an excuse to support amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and is willing to allow Barack Obama to shred the Constitution to do it. 
       Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Case in point... consider the following statement from Mr. Amnesty, Senator Lindsey Graham: 
"We can’t go too far here because look what happened in Paris. The Department of Homeland Security needs to be up and running." 
       Nice try Lindsey, but we're not buying it and if we can offer some advice, wait another month before you try to peddle you amnesty capitulation narrative. 
       Instead of running in fear over the prospect of a DHS shutdown that is six weeks away, Republicans need to fight and force Democrats to explain to the American people why they're willing to play politics with our national security today. 
Floyd Brown


TV executives relationships with Obama Administration. With Photos

luis carril… Surprised? 
You still wonder who made Obama into a real political figure after only serving half a term as a senator?
TV executives relationship with the Obama Administration:
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications. 
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood 
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nodes. 
And now you know why it is no surprise the national media is in Obama's pocket.
You think there might be a little bias in the news ? 
It also explains the cover up of Benghazi. [among many other things]

Gustavo Rojas. Importan information:  "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
When you read this you will understand why Obama refuses to say the words "radical Islam."..
I didn't originate this, but it checked out with Google and Snopes…
Did you know that we now have a Muslim government?
John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Obama's top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.
Hillary Clinton's top advisor, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for  Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim.
Homeland Security Advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim.
Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.
Obama's Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim.
And last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama.
It's questionable if Obama ever officially took the oath of office when he was sworn in. He didn't repeat the oath properly to defend our nation and our Constitution. Later the Democrats claimed he was given the oath again in private?
CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible.
Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur'an.
Congresswoman Michele Bachman was vilified and almost tarred and feathered by Democrats when she voiced her concern about Muslims taking over our government.
Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East.
The more damage Obama does, the more arrogant he's become!
Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us.
It can only get worse!

Rasmussen Poll: Mitt Romney Leads GOP Pack

By Andrea Billups
A new poll from Rasmussen Reports has found Mitt Romney atop a growing field of GOP contenders.
The telephone survey of likely Republican voters found Romney, with his high name recognition, leading a slate of nine possible candidates with 24 percent support, Rasmussen said.
The poll asked respondents who they would pick if the GOP presidential primary were held right now — far in advance of its actual date.
Coming in behind the 2012 GOP presidential nominee were former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush at 13 percent, conservative columnist and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 12 percent and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker at 11 percent.
Both Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie earned 7 percent support while Florida Sen. Marco Rubio gained 5 percent along with former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Four percent chose other candidates and 12 percent said they were undecided, Rasmussen said.  
Republicans are working to coalesce behind a strong candidate who might take on Hillary Clinton, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee.
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll, however, found Clinton beating all top GOP contenders in a head-to-head contest, creating concern for Republicans as more candidates ponder a White House bid, CNN reported.
Little emerged publicly from a meeting between Romney and Bush, who had a cordial talk over lunch Thursday in Salt Lake City, to discuss their competing ambitions,
The New York Times reported.
previous Rasmussen poll noted that voters want a fresh face, and not the usual suspects, as they choose a GOP presidential hopeful. Just 10 percent said they should choose a candidate who has run in the past.

No estamos todos los que somos, ni somos todos los que estamos…..

The Obama administration sends career State Dept. officials to "negotiate" with and go up against KGB-trained master spies from Cuba's nefarious and deathly efficient intelligence apparatus.
Who do you think will come out ahead?
EXCLUSIVE: Senior Cuban Spies Leading “Normalization” Talks With US  (que lindo, ingeniosidad Americana)
By Chris Simmons
Gustavo Machin
Two career Cuban spies, Josefina Vidal Ferreiro and Gustavo Machin Gomez, will lead this week’s migration and normalization discussions with the United States. The pair are members of Cuba’s primary foreign intelligence service – the Directorate of Intelligence (DI), and serve as Director and Deputy Director, respectively, of the North American Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MINREX).  This is Machin’s second time in the Division, having served as Deputy Chief in 2003 and Division Chief from 2004-2005.
As Havana’s lead “diplomats” on U.S.-Cuban relations, they handled the Alan Gross negations, the return of three of Havana’s jailed spies, and the artificial insemination of DI officer Adriana Perez O’Connor (wife of freed spy Gerardo Hernandez). Perez herself was a member of the Wasp Network – the largest Cuban spy ring ever known to operate in the US. Incidentally, when details are eventually released regarding the Obama administration’s secret talks to restore US-Cuba relations, Vidal and Machin will undoubtedly be at the center of events.
From the DI’s perspective, MINREX’s North America Division is now seen as a de facto wing of the spy service. This assignment is so important that three former members were appointed to ambassadorships. Now we are witnessing the unprecedented return of Ambassador Gustavo Machin to serve as Josefina Vidal’s deputy. Given this pattern of events, I think it’s fairly safe to say Vidal is Raul Castro’s choice to be the first Cuban Ambassador to the United States.
Espionage Backgrounds
Josefina Vidal 
Little is publicly known about Vidal’s espionage career.  In May 2003, the US expelled 14 Cuban diplomats for espionage. Seven diplomats were based at the Cuban Mission to the United Nations and seven at the Interests Section. Among the seven Washington-based spies declared Persona Non Grata was First Secretary Jose Anselmo Lopez Perera.  His wife, First Secretary Josefina Vidal, also known to the US as a Cuban Intelligence Officer, voluntarily accompanied her expelled spouse back to Cuba.
Previously, Vidal’s lone known success was her support to the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); in particular, Julia E. Sweig, a CFR Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of the Latin America Program. In her book, Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and the Urban Underground, Sweig profusely thanked six Cuban spies for assisting her with her research. The six intelligence officers were Jose Antonio Arbesu, Ramon Sanchez Parodi, Fernando Garcia Bielsa, Hugo Yedra, Jose Gomez Abad and Josefina Vidal.
The son of a revolutionary hero, Gustavo Machin Gomez, was expelled in November 2002 in retaliation for the Ana Belen Montes case. In 2003, he was Deputy Director of MINREX’s North America Division and Chief the following year. In 2006, he was appointed Cuba’s first ambassador to Pakistan, where he is believed to have targeted US counterterrorism operations in the region. He then returned home to head the International Press Center before his current assignment.
DI officer Johanna Tablada preceded Machin in his second tour as Deputy Division Chief before her appointment as ambassador to Portugal.  She was suspected of being assigned to Department M-I, the elite element focused on targeting the US intelligence community, universities, and Congress.
Eduardo Martinez Borbonet previously assisted Vidal as a Counselor in the North America Division.  In November 2011, two weeks after a landslide victory propelled longtime Havana-ally Daniel Ortega into a controversial third term, he became Havana’s ambassador to Nicaragua.
In late December 1998, First Secretary Martinez Borbonet was expelled for his involvement in the South Florida based Wasp Network.  The diplomat-spy served at the Cuban Mission to the United Nations (CMUN), the traditional hub for Havana’s US-based espionage operations. He had arrived approximately eight years earlier as a lowly Third Secretary.

SOTU Speech: Obama’s Finest Trickery

Do not fall for it.

FLOYD BROWN  23, 2015
On Tuesday, Barack Obama gave the most disgraceful State of the Union speech in history.
You could cut the air in the chamber as he attempted to call for civility in politics… which was quickly followed by him heckling the Republican Congress to their faces.
Obama’s “greatest” proposal is what some Republicans have called his “Robin Hood” package.
With tax revenue and spending at all-time highs, he still wants the government to get a bigger share of the nation’s revenue.
But remember, Robin Hood was a hero. And Obama isn’t fooling anyone…

The Tales of Robin the Hoodwinker…

Obama’s tax reform proposals wouldn’t be revenue neutral. Instead, he looks to increase taxes by $320 billion, aiming to fund a raft of new social programs. “Free” community college tuition is high on Obama’s “do-good” list.
But also taking precedence on the list are tax increases targeted at stock traders and investors. Obama wants to raise the capital gains tax rate from $0.20 to $0.28. He even had the audacity to say President Ronald Reagan accepted this high rate in the 1980s – forgetting to let his audience know Reagan wanted them lower.
On top of the new levy of capital gains, he wants to increase fees on America’s largest banks. These fees, like most corporate taxes, would flow on and be paid by the customers. (Read: average Americans struggling to make ends meet.)
Putting the nail in our economy’s coffin, Obama wants to raise estate taxes. This would hit small business and farmers hard.
Essentially, Obama’s hit list has been dubbed the “Robin Hood” tax package by Republicans. But this is the wrong rhetoric. You see, Robin Hood helped the poor against an overtaxing tyrannical state. Robin Hood fought the officials of the government.
Instead, Obama’s plan is more reminiscent of the Sheriff of Nottingham who abused the poor to fill the coffers of the greedy king.

More Tricks and Mind Games

Apparently, the idiots running the GOP communications operation don’t really understand how big government is strangling America.
Small businesses, the engine of a growing economy, are at an all-time low… and by the look of things, not many new ones are being created, either. After all, innovation and small business are what create jobs.
Plain and simple, the small guy gets hosed as Obama tells him everything that he’s doing is for him.
And while the Obama economy has favored the wealthy Obama donors who fill his campaign coffers, the number of billionaires is rapidly growing under his regime. You see, Obama’s stifling regulation kills competition against the big guys already in business. Therefore, the rich keep getting richer.
Sure, the president uses “class warfare” rhetoric; but it’s all a part of government doublespeak. It’s nothing but more Obama schemes and mind games…
Regardless of party lines, money talks. So when you hear that Obama’s plans are being called “dead on arrival,” don’t believe it. John Boehner and the Republicans could adopt many of Obama’s proposals in advance of the 2016 elections.
After all, they want to be liked, too… and keep in mind, Robin Hood was the protagonist of the story.



Has the president exceeded his authority on immigration?
Obama to Announce Immigration Plans Thursday
In the State of the Union address, President Obama declared: “We can’t put the security of families at risk by taking away their health insurance, or unraveling the new rules on Wall Street, or refighting past battles on immigration when we’ve got a system to fix. And if a bill comes to my desk that tries to do any of these things, it will earn my veto.”
Unfortunately it’s not that simple. There’s a lawsuit heading President Obama’s way.
On November 20, 2014, the president issued an executive order to suspend immigration laws for approximately four million illegal immigrants. Was this constitutional?  Twenty-four states in a single lawsuit—and one Federal District Court in Western Pennsylvania—have responded with an emphatic “No.”
The lawsuit was instituted in early December by Texas and its Attorney General Gregg Abbott and has not yet been heard by the U.S. Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas. To date, 23 states have joined Texas in the litigation. The Pennsylvania memorandum opinion was issued by Federal District Judge Arthur J. Schwab in the case of U.S. v. Juarez-Escobar in December 2014. Thecase involved an undocumented immigrant who was charged with reentering the United States after having been deported.
How do President Obama’s executive actions violate the Constitution according to the multi-state lawsuit and Judge Schwab’s memo opinion?
In both the lawsuit and opinion, the key U.S. Constitutional provision which President Obama’s action is said to violate is found in Article II, section 3, the Presidential Article. Section 3 is composed of a list of duties which the president is required to carry out, such as the duty to give information to Congress on the State of the Union, receive ambassadors and other public ministers, and commission all officers of the United States. But tucked away in Section 3, Clause 5 is one of the lesser-known but extremely important Constitutional imperatives called the “Take Care Clause.” It simply says that the president “shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
Why is this clause so important to the challenges being made to the president’s executive action? As the multi-state lawsuit clearly puts it, “the President of the United States announced that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States … that unilateral suspension of the Nation’s immigration laws is unlawful.” It is unlawful because it is a failure to see that “the Laws be faithfully executed,” in this case, the president refusing to enforce existing immigration statutes. Moreover, as Judge Schwab points out, this action actually “constitutes ‘legislation’ and effectively changes the United States’ immigration policy.” He adds: “[Obama] may not take Executive Action that creates law.”
The Obama administration has offered two defenses for the executive actions. The first is necessity. It is the claim that the president was forced to act by the inaction of Congress on the subject of immigration. Judge Schwab easily disposes of this claim. “Perceived or actual Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the executive.” To assert that inaction by Congress is a basis for an executive power grab displays a monumental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of American government. When Congress does not act on an issue, such as immigration, its refusal can be considered a choice in favor of the status quo. In other words, the legislative branch speaks through both its actions and inactions. A president can only act within the powers given him by Article II of the Constitution, no matter what another branch does or fails to do.
The second defense offered by the administration for Obama’s executive action is “prosecutorial discretion.” This claims that the president is not really suspending immigration laws but merely instructing authorities to exercise discretion in deporting undocumented immigrants. (This despite President Obama’s public statement that “I just took action to change the law.”)  Both Judge Schwab and the multi-state lawsuit say that there is no similarity between ordinary prosecutorial discretion and Obama’s executive action.
Ordinary prosecutorial discretion is exercised on an individual case-by-case basis. For example, a prosecutor, by discretion, may decide to settle a case without trial, may decide to appeal a decision, or may decide to dismiss a case. As the Office of Legal Counsel, an organ of the Department of Justice, itself admitted, Obama’s action does “not merely enable individual immigration officials to select deserving beneficiaries.” Instead, Obama’s executive action, according to Judge Schwab, “goes beyond prosecutorial discretion.” It is not a case-by-case process, but instead it allows large groups of individuals—in all probability, millions—to qualify for deportation deferrals by meeting preset eligibility requirements and, in addition, to gain certain rights such as work permits and other benefits. Both the process and the extension of certain benefits are uncharacteristic of ordinary prosecutorial discretion.
It will be up to the courts and Congress to rein in President Obama’s exercise of raw executive power. They should remind him of his statement a few years ago: “I know some here wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law [on immigration] myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.”
Precisely so, Mr. President.
Editor’s Note:  The Honorable Arthur J. Schwab is a trustee of Grove City College.
Dr. John A. Sparks is the retired dean of the Calderwood School of Arts & Letters, Grove City College, Grove City, Pa., and teaches constitutional history and business Law on a part-time basis. 

En mi opinión

No 857  Enero 24, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR