No 910 “En mi
opinión” Marzo
24, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE
As Iran Chants ‘Death to America’,
Obama Is Saying This
What are we as Americans supposed to make of this?
I’d like to share with our readers — even those detractors who struggle
with truth and reading comprehension — a simple lesson in lexicon.
I’ve had enough of this incessant talk about getting a “deal” with Iran.
This is not that Seventies game show “Let’s Make a Deal” and Monty Hall is not
emceeing this exchange — although he may be able to do a better job.
America must not, should not, be making “deals” with the number one state
sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world. Then again, it was just a week ago
that Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, dropped Iran and
Hezbollah from the terrorist list — how accommodating and convenient.
But consider this recent “message to the Iranian people” from President
Obama as reported by CNSnews.com, “To everyone celebrating Nowruz—across the
United States and in countries around the world—Nowruz Mubarak. For thousands
of years, this has been a time to gather with family and friends and welcome a
new spring and a new year. Last week, my wife Michelle helped mark Nowruz here
at the White House.”
Obama called on the Iranians to help him overcome people in the United
States and elsewhere who oppose the nuclear deal he is trying to negotiate with
Iran. “Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain,” he said. “And
there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic
resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to
speak up for the future we seek.”
“As I have said many times before, I believe our countries should be able
to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy,” Obama said. “Iran’s Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear
weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear
weapon.” The video was posted on the White House website with Farsi subtitles —
how diverse and inclusive.
Someone obviously forgot to remind President Obama that Iran has state-run
media and chances are the Iranian people didn’t get to see his and first lady
Michelle’s glad tidings. Furthermore, at a time when you should be attempting
to stand strong against the Iranian regime of mad mullahs ,why is it necessary
to deliver a happy New Year greeting — which will only be seen by the clerics
and the ruling theocrats?
Now, I find it hard to believe the Supreme Leader Khamenei would issue a
fatwa against nuclear development after the revelation of his most recent
comments.
After all, Khamenei has so publicly displayed his affection for our
Constitutional Republic. “Last month, in a speech to his air force commanders,
the ayatollah boasted of Iran’s achievement in enriching uranium to the
20-percent level. Twice during the speech, according a transcript made by the
BBC, the air force commanders chanted: “Death to America.”
“EMO” Este problema es mucho mas grande de lo que todos se
imagina, esto hay que cortarlo de raiz desde ahora mismo. Esta gente si quieren
implantar el sistema que tenían en sus pueblos donde se morían de hambre y opresión.
NOSOTROS NO VAMOS A PERMITIR QUE ELLOS IMPLANTEN AQUÍ UN SISTEMA DESPOTICO, QUE
ELLOS
NO PUDIERON AGUANTAR.
“NO”
FEMALE MAYOR OF
IRVING: Tells Islam & Their Sharia Law To Kiss Texas’ Ass (So to speak)
AMENPER: Nuestros padres
fundadores musulmanes.
Escuchamos mucho sobre
la herencia Judeo-cristiana de los Estados Unidos, pero según el Presidente
Obama, "el Islam ha sido insertado en el tejido de nuestro país desde su
fundación."
Eso es lo que el
Presidente dijo en una conferencia de la casa blanca en la "lucha contra
el extremismo violento".
Obama ha dicho cosas
similares en el pasado: "Yo también sé que el Islam siempre ha sido una
parte de la historia de América", dijo Obama en un discurso de junio de
2009 en el Cairo, Egipto.
"El Islam siempre
ha sido parte de América," dijo en una declaración de 2010 el día que
marcaba el comienzo del Ramadán.
Y en una
declaración de 2014, Obama dijo que la fiesta "recuerda también de los
muchos logros y contribuciones de los musulmanes estadounidenses para construir
a la estructura de nuestra nación y fortalecer la base de nuestra
democracia."
En su discurso en la
Casa Blanca, Obama estaba haciendo el punto de que las naciones occidentales
deben mostrar que "reciben a personas de todas las religiones," en un
momento cuando "los extremistas" en las naciones occidentales
son "hostiles a los musulmanes".
"Aquí en Estados
Unidos, el Islam ha sido tejido en el tejido de nuestro país desde su
fundación. por generaciones--(Aplausos entusiastas de los musulmanes
presentes)--generaciones de musulmanes inmigrantes vinieron y fueron a
trabajar como agricultores y comerciantes y trabajadores de
fábricas, y ayudaron a establecer los ferrocarriles y construir
América.
Buscando en la internet
para verificar lo dicho por Obama, tengo que reconocer que en un sitio encontré
que Washington y los otros padres de la patria eran musulmanes, la foto de
arriba lo comprueba, aunque cuando me fijé mejor pude observar que la página
estaba creada por Eric Holder.
Cuando busqué en la
página del “Fundación Heritage” lo que encontré es lo siguiente:
"El primer centro
islámico en la ciudad de Nueva York fue fundado en la década de
1890. La primera mezquita de Estados Unidos, esto es un hecho
interesante, en Dakota del norte. “(Fue establecido en 1929).
Dos de esos hitos
pasaron bien después de la Fundación de los Estados Unidos, sin embargo
la primera relación de
la nueva nación con el Islam fue tenso y desagradable.
Según el documento de la
Fundación Heritage, poco después de la fundación de América, los Estados Unidos
"fue arrastrado en los asuntos del mundo islámico por una creciente serie
de ataques sin provocación a estadounidenses por piratas musulmanes, los
terroristas de la época," que saquearon naves americanas y capturaron
marineros americanos, sujetándolas por un rescate o vendiéndolos como esclavos.
En su discurso el
Presidente Obama también dijo que los musulmanes estadounidenses ahora sirven
como agentes de la de inteligencia de seguridad nacional y soldados.
Esto si se lo creo, por eso estamos tan jodidos.
En su discurso en la
misma Cumbre, Obama señaló que muchos estadounidenses no conocen a un solo
musulmán, y forman una impresión distorsionada acerca del Islam por lo que oyen
en las noticias.
Aquí si está
completamente equivocado, todos los americanos conocen a un musulmán que vive
en la Casa Blanca, y la impresión aunque está distorsionada por su discurso y
las noticias que oímos, no por eso no lo conocemos.
AMENPER: Nueva estrategia de Guerra
La Casa Blanca anunció
hoy que está adoptando una política exterior totalmente nueva, basada en el
movimiento "Manos-para arriba-no-disparen" que está cobrando impulso
con las organizaciones comunitarias en los Estados Unidos
"Si funciona en las
calles de Estados Unidos, si es efectivo como nuestra estrategia doméstica,
puede funcionar como doctrina de política exterior también", dijo
el Presidente Obama, hoy lunes en una conferencia de prensa.
"Esto puede sonar
como una medida dura, pero no dudaremos en usarlo cuando la seguridad de los
estadounidenses está en juego", agregó.
“Esta es una estrategia
que ha sido usada por diferentes países como Italia y Francia y que ha evitado
un gran número de bajas en sus encuentros con el enemigo”.
Se entiende que el secretario
de estado estadounidense John Kerry inmediatamente comenzará a implementar esta
estrategia en el extranjero donde Irán e ISIS están presentes, así como con
Rusia, Corea del norte y otros matones internacionales que están tomando
ventaja de los Estados Unidos.
Nancy Pelosi expresó su
aprobación afirmando que con tal opción sobre la mesa seguramente aliviará
todas las amenazas terroristas extranjeras y nacionales, permitiendo al
Homeland Security pasar más tiempo en importantes proyectos como el monitoreo
de libertad de expresión en Fox News, y las violaciones contra las minorías en
panaderías heterosexuales que niegan servicio a los ciudadanos gays.
Preguntado por la nueva
estrategia de la administración de Obama, el primer ministro de Israel hizo las
siguientes declaraciones, a las cuales nos unimos aunque no sabemos lo que
quiso decir, pero me lo imagino….האנשים האלה כמה בני זונות, לא צריך אמא
AMENPER: Me mandan esta oración, pero cómo esto no es lo que yo le quisiera decir a
mi Señor, he agregado en letras rojas mi pensamiento y mi oración en cuanto a
cómo envejecer.
SENOR , ENSENAME A ENVEJECER
iSenor!
iEnsename a envejecer! Hazme comprender que la Comunidad no tiene la culpa si ya no me encomienda
responsabilidades
ni pide mi opinion y ha llamado a otros para que ocupen mi lugar. Aleja de mi el orgullo de la experiencia vivida y
la convicciones de que soy necesario.
Señor ¡No permitas que envejezca en mi interior!
Haz comprender a los otros que yo todavía sirvo y que puedo ser útil, que los
años sirven de experiencia, que la experiencia vivida es conocimiento, no
orgullo, y que puedo ser necesario en mi trabajo, que esto puede ser una
realidad no una convicción vana.
Que no me aferre unicamente a la ley del tiempo mientras
poco a poco me voy
desprendiendo de las cosas y me de cuenta de que
en este turnarse de tareas, descubro una de las experiencias mas interesantes
dela vida que se renueva bajo el impulso de tu Providencia.
Que me aferre a mi condición sin pensar en la ley del
tiempo, que me dé cuenta que la vida no ha terminado y que me queda por hacer
en este mundo mientras tú decidas que debo de permanecer
aquí. Porque tu Providencia es tu voluntad y por algo me dejas aquí.
Haz, oh Senor, que
yo pueda ser util todavfa, contribuyendo con el optimismo y la oracion a la alegrfa y al
entusiasmo de quienes estan de turno en las responsabilidades, viviendo
un estilo de vida humilde y Sereno en contacto con el mundo
encontinua renovaci6n, sin quejas sabre el pasado, conviertiendo mis
sufrimientos humanos en un don
de reparaci6n social.
Haz, oh señor que
trate y pueda ser útil todavía, contribuyendo no sólo con el optimismo pero con
mi trabajo que sea parte de las responsabilidades no un simple espectador, que
la mejor manera de cooperar con la reparación social, sea con el producto de mi
trabajo.
Que mi retire de la vida activa se cumpla de una manera simple y natural como un f eliz ocaso
del sol.
Que
cuando me retire de la vida activa sea por tu voluntad, no la mía ni de otros,
que cada día de los que decidas que me quede en este mundo no sea un feliz
ocaso de sol, porque los ocasos son tristes no felices, que cada día sea como
un feliz nuevo amanecer.
Perdona si solamente hoy, en
la tranquilidad, logro comprender todo lo que Tu me has amado y socorrido. Que al menos ahora yotenga viva y penetrante la percepci6n del destino
de gozo que me has preparado
y hacia el cual me has encaminado desde el primer dfa
de mi vida.
Que no sea hoy pero
cada día que me quede logre comprender todo lo que TU me has amado y socorrido,
del destino del gozo que me has preparado, manteniéndome saludable y capaz para
que desde el primer día de mi vida hasta mi 81th. Cumpleaños haya podido
mantenerme activo y útil
Senor I iensename a envejecer así! AMEN
Señor !enseñane a
envejecer como sea tú voluntad no la de los que escriben oraciones para que yo
las repita sin sentirlas! porque tu dijistes que no te hablara con vanas
repeticiones sino como a mi Señor que estas en los cielos.
Señor,
¡enséñame a envejecer con dignidad y utilidad no como dice el almanaque de los
hombres, pero como dice el almanaque de tu voluntad!
Que
otros se den cuenta que la edad no nos hace estúpidos, que todavía podemos
escribir mejor que los más jóvenes que mandan oraciones sin saber poner la
"ñ" y los acentos y lleno de errores. Que Dios me ayude y los ayude a
ellos. AMEN
Estamos buscando un candidato
decente para alcalde que no sea un metiroso o un ladron, ni un descarado para
Miami Dade:
1- Que no
haya sido ni sea político profesional nunca.
2- Que no
se robe los dineros de los contribuyentes.
3- Que se
someta a un tribunal de cuentas al final de su mandato para que testifique que
sus propiedades y peculio no sea mayor de los que represento su sueldo de
alcalde u otras fuentes legales y agenas a su posición de alcalde.
4- Que al
final de su mandato se someta a una inspección de la diferencia de su dinero y
sus propiedades.
5- Que
se comprometa a eliminar el MDX “Miami Dade XpresWay” (Departamento que ha
puesto todos los peajes en las carreteras) Y a eliminar todos los Peajes.
6- Que
no engañe a los contribuyentes tratando de robarse dineros públicos diciendo
que va a reparar el edificio de la corte.
7- Que
no engañe al contribuyente diciendo que el inversionista no van a pedir dineros
públicos y luego le dan dineros públicos.
8- Que no tenga ni hijos ni amigos “Cabilderos”
9- Que
no traiga amigos de el para que sean “Vice-Alcaldes” (Cargo que ni existía) Y
luego les pague $100,000 o más mas gastos.
10-
Que se
comprometa que al final de cada trimestre se reúna con los ciudadanos del
condado a responder las preguntas de los ciudadanos sobre su gestión durante
este trimestre.
11-
Que la deuda y
los movimientos económicos, compras, gastos, del condado sean expuestos en un
sitio público para que los electores puedan tener control de su
administración.
12-
Que sea
juzgado por los tribunales si favorece de forma económica a sus amigos o
familiares.
13-
Que no le
tenga miedo a los gánsteres que hasta hora han desgobernado y desguazado el
condado Miami Dade y casi todas las alcaldía de las ciudades.
“EMO” Por favor envíenme todas las características que considera debe tener
el alcalde que usted quiere que administre, fiscalice y controle al Condado Miami Dade.
Envienme ambien los nombres de las personas que ustedes consideren que sea
la persona que se puede enfrentar con esta difícil tarea.
Lázaro R González Miño
AMENPER:
EL LIBRE MERCADO.
Algunos me dicen que
estoy obsesionado con la importancia de libre mercado por mis intereses
particulares.
Quizás esto sea en parte
verdad, y no lo considero como un mal, la legítima ambición personal es el
motor del libre mercado que genera la riqueza no sólo del individuo pero de la
nación.
Con la creación de la
riqueza viene la creación de nuevos empleos y el pago de mayores impuestos para
lo que debiera ser el mantenimiento de los servicios públicos necesarios y
ayuda con beneficios a los que lo necesiten.
Pero ni siquiera
cuando no estaba envuelto en el libre mercado, siempre consideré el sistema
como algo natural, algo inherente en el ser humano, un sistema que no es creado
por el hombre pero que es establecido para el hombre por Dios, la naturaleza o
como quieran llamarlo.
El libre mercado es el
más transformador de los sistemas económicos. Promueve innovación e invención,
deja al hombre en libertad para que desarrolle sus capacidades sin
limitaciones.
Produce nuevas
industrias, productos y servicios y mejora los existentes.
Piensen en millones de
individuos comprometidos libremente en una infinita variedad de acciones cada
día, es imposible concebir todos los beneficios que se producen en nuestra
economía en un momento dado- ¿Puede un gobierno burocrático centralizado
manejar esta economía?, Marx decía que si, la historia ha demostrado que no. Lo
vimos en nuestra Cuba, y vemos en cada repetición del ensayo marxista.
El libre mercado crea
más riqueza y más oportunidades para más personas que cualquier otro modelo
económico. Esto es exactamente por qué la izquierda--sean ellos socialistas,
marxistas o izquierdista demócratas—lo atacan sin tregua.
En el libre mercado uno
mismo promueve libertad , autosuficiencia, valores compartidos y tratos
honestos y la persona crea la propiedad, ya sea material o intelectual que es
la legítima ambición que motiva al individuo.
Eso no quiere decir que
no haya ladrones en el libre mercado: existen en cada esfuerzo, especialmente
en el gobierno, por eso la corrupción es mayor, mientras mayor y más poderoso
es el gobierno como en los sistemas socialistas. Pero cuando consideras los
billones de dólares de las transacciones que componen el mercado libre, el
número de delincuentes es relativamente pequeño.
En el entorno social, el
individuo se siente satisfecho cuando ve el fruto de su trabajo, mejora su
autoestima cuando ve los beneficios de acuerdo con el esfuerzo.
El mercado libre mejora
del individuo, la familia y la comunidad. Y no discrimina contra ninguna raza,
religión o género. Adam Smith nos lo explica en sus libros- Cuando una persona
crea un servicio o un producto, no lo hace pensando que el que va a comprar su
producto es blanco, negro, chino o mujer u hombre, católico o protestante, ni
siquiera si es musulmán o inmigrante ilegal, no le importa.
El libre mercado es un
intrincado sistema de interacción voluntaria, económico, social y cultural que
están motivados por los deseos y necesidades del individuo y la comunidad.
La clave para entender
el libre mercado es propiedad privada, por eso la izquierda no cree en ella.
Porque la izquierda es
colectivista, la justa repartición de la riquezas, lo que realmente es la
injusta repartición de los logros de los individuos, y destruye a los que
producen privándolos de su propiedad.
Como Marx les enseñó, en
un sistema de libre mercado, el primer paso para el socialismo es la creación de
impuestos para incursionar en la propiedad de los que producen las riquezas de
la nación.
Impuestos opresivos y
regulación de la propiedad privada pueden convertirse en una forma de
servidumbre, especialmente si dicha confiscación ocurre debido a decisiones
arbitrarias e ilegítimas por parte de una burocracia gubernamental. Es decir:
las decisiones que no son constitucionales.
Lo que pensamos los
conservadores, y esto es el primer principio de gobierno conservador, es que el
gobierno federal sólo debe de tratar de aumentar el producto bruto, ayudando a
las personas que producen este producto, este es el principio del pastel, no es
dividir el pastel para que todos tengan un pedazo pequeño, pero hacer un pastel
más grande para que todos tengan un pedazo mayor.
La izquierda crea una
ilusión de lucha de clases a través de una variedad de inventos como el
impuesto sobre la renta. Pero el 40% de los asalariados no pagan
ningún impuesto a la renta son los productores lo que pagan los impuestos
Cuando los impuestos se
convierten en la manera intervencionista del estado para incautarse de la
propiedad privada que es el dinero creado por los productores, este es el
principio del socialismo.
En esta administración
vemos la creación de impuestos basados en la mala ciencia o no ciencia, del
cambio climático basado en ideas creadas por un emocionalismo que será
pasajero, pero que lo mantienen vigente, sin importarle que el tiempo les quite
la razón.
Los impuestos para los
beneficios sociales son otro método socialista para fomentar la lucha de
clases.
Los beneficios sociales
como los impuestos son una necesidad en la sociedad, pero el incrementar
artificialmente estos beneficios a personas que no lo necesitan con motivos
políticos, es el método de la llamada repartición de la igualdad económica.
Pero "Igualdad
económica" es inalcanzable, incluso en los Estados socialistas más
brutales y opresivos
Pero sirve a propósito
de la izquierda para crear un sistema de clases: artificialmente creado
categorías económicas. De esta manera, la izquierda despierta envidia de clase.
El mercado libre, por lo tanto, se dice que es incapaz de servir al interés
público porque produce "resultados injustos". Esto requiere mayor
intervención del gobierno.
Mayor intervención del
gobierno significa menor libertad para el individuo.
Y por esta razón, los
conservadores creemos que el libre mercado es un baluarte fundamental contra el
totalitarismo. Y parece que la izquierda está de acuerdo porque es implacable
en su asalto en el mercado libre.
Here’s the Sad Democrat Party Response to Ted Cruz
Running for President
Liberals don’t have an answer for the conservative
message.
Check it out:
Within minutes of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
announcing that he’s running for president in 2016, the official Democratic
Party Twitter account took a swing at the conservative candidate.
The Democrats immediately accused Cruz of
costing the U.S. economy $24 billion as the “architect of the disastrous 2013
government shutdown.”
This will surely not surprise Cruz or his
campaign team. As the first Republican to announce his candidacy, Cruz will
undoubtedly become an even bigger target for the left than he was before.
Read
more at http://patriotupdate.com/2015/03/heres-the-sad-democrat-party-response-to-ted-cruz-running-for-president/
|
Scott Walker a 'Scrappy Republican' on Road to the GOP Nomination.
|
|
Dear Lazaro R,
I would
like to share with you a
 bit of the enthusiasm from
conservatives out on the campaign trail who met and heard Gov. Scott Walker
in South Carolina last week. Go, Scott, Go!
“When
Jim Ulmer came to see Scott Walker here last week, he was transfixed.‘He’s the little engine that could,’ Ulmer said,
describing the Wisconsin governor who
successfully battled labor unions and has rocketed to the front of the
Republican presidential race.
‘He has
guts,’ said Ulmer, 52, Republican Party chairman in rural Orangeburg County. ‘The people of America are looking
for another Ronald Reagan, someone we can believe in, someone who will keep freedom safe.
Walker could be it’…
‘He
represents everything I want in a president,’ Joan Boyce, 61, a school cafeteria worker, said after seeing him
speak at a barbecue dinner in Greenville. ‘He’s refreshing for a change. He
feels honest to me — he really does. He doesn’t talk like a politician. He talks like a regular guy’…
‘Look,’
said Wilma Storey, 65, an accountant. ‘He won three
elections. You’ve got to give it to the man. He’s a fighter. And that’s what
we’ve been lacking — a fighter’… ‘It was wham, bam, right on point,’ she
said, pounding her right first into the palm of her left hand. ‘Decisiveness — that’s what I want. He’s a
president in waiting’…
‘He
said everything I wanted to hear and I just said, “Preach it, brother!”’ said Mary Mills, 66, who works in
the food stamp program’s fraud department, after seeing Walker in Columbia…
“He
looks like a working man to me,” said Martin, 60, the party chair in remote
Williamsburg County. “He gets us. We need him — he’s fresh, young, has hope
and energy and will get out there and work.He’s our kind of candidate. He’ll
beat Hillary — I know he will.”(Republicans rally to Scott Walker’s call, believing he’s a
scrappy survivor,Washington
Post, 3/22)
A genuine
conservative with big, bold conservative ideas — Scott Walker has the leadership
qualities so urgently needed in Washington today.
Scott
Walker is strongly considering a run for President.
As he
tours early primary states like South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire, it is critical for
conservatives to rally their support behind Scott Walker.
We need
to encourage him in the strongest of terms to take the next immediate step —
Go, Scott, Go! Scott Walker 2016!
Let
send a BIG, BOLD message to Scott Walker — take the next immediate step, champion our conservative
American values, and ‘we’ve got your back’!
‘Go
Big, Go Bold’ — Conservative leadership for America — Scott
Walker 2016!
Go
Scott, Go!
Bob
Adams
Treasurer
Go Big,
Go Bold PAC
P.S. — As Scott Walker tours early primary states like South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire, it is critical for conservatives to rally their support behind Scott Walker.
P.P.S.
— Now is the time for conservatives to
 rally behind Scott Walker. With your pledge of any amount, we’d be happy to send you this
awesome ‘Go Big, Go Bold!’ bumpersticker! It’s our way of saying thank you — while helping to build
support for Scott Walker.
OTRO NUEVO ESCANDALO DE LOS CLINTON. Y
NADIE INVESTIGA DE DONDE SALE EL DINERO???
THIS IS WHAT
"BROKE" LOOKS LIKE !
Amazing isn't It ?
Welcome to the Clintons '
$11 Million Dollar
Mansion ,-- New York state
Hillary
Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator now comes under this fancy "congressional retirement staffing plan" which means that if she never gets re-elected, she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies. If Bill out-lives her, he then inherits HER salary until he dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary ($20,000 a month) until he dies. If Hillary out-lives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies, Guess who pays for that? WE DO!
Clinton's 20 Acre - $11 million mansion is common knowledge. For her to establish NY residency, they purchased
this mansion in
upscale Chappaqua , New York ....makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.
Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments are around $10,000/month.
But an extra residence had to be built by the government on the acreage to
house the Secret Service Agents. Any
improvement to the property is owned by the property owners...the Clinton 's. So....the Clinton's charge the federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of the extra residence to house the Secret Service staff which is just about equal to their mortgage payment. He is the ONLY ex-president to use this loophole, thus earning the name 'Slick Willie'.
This means that we, the
taxpayers, pay the Clinton's, salary, mortgage, transportation, safety and security
as well as the salaries for their 12 man
staff and it is all perfectly legal.
AND DON’T FORGET HIS
GOVERNOR’S PENSION AND HER SECRETARY OF STATE PENSION…..
When She runs for President,
will you vote for her ?
How many people will YOU send this to? |
GLEN Beck Slams Obama! Obama Is A Special Kind Of Liar
Illinois
State Employees Sue Over Mandatory Union Dues
In a lawsuit filed Monday,
three state employees in Illinois challenged a law which forces them to pay
union dues even when they aren’t in a union.
“Illinois law forces most
employees of state government to pay money to a union as a condition of keeping
their job,” Diana Rickert, the director of media relations for the Illinois
Policy Institute, noted in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.
In many states workers who
decide not to be in a union still have to pay a fee. The fee, known as fair
share dues, is meant to only cover the cost of representation as opposed to
political contributions or other financial transactions taken by unions. While
supporters of the idea argue unions have to represent nonmembers anyways so
they might as well pay something, opponents believe nonmembers should have the
right to not pay anything at all.
“The legal action being filed
today argues that state workers have a First Amendment right not to pay for
speech they disagree with by an organization they don’t want to support,”
Rickert continued. The three state workers are being represented by Liberty
Justice Center, the legal arm of IPI.
“Every time a new government
worker is hired, the union gets a cut,” Rickert continued. “Even if the worker
doesn’t want to be in a union, pay money to a union or be covered by the union
contract, the worker has no choice.”
Recent court cases are giving
hope to groups like IPI and others opposed to mandatory union dues. Most
notably, last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home
health workers could not be forced to belong to a union or pay fees to a union.
If the Illinois case goes to the Supreme Court, which Rickert is optimistic it
will, a favorable ruling could mean the end of mandatory dues for government
workers.
“We believe the court will
outlaw the practice of forcing government workers to pay money to a union if
they don’t want to be a part of the union,” Rickert also noted. “This would
deliver a devastating blow to government unions across the entire country.”
Local lawmakers have also gone
after mandatory union dues. In February Gov. Bruce Rauner ordered state
agencies to stop collecting fair share dues while also filing a federal lawsuit
to end the state law that requires them. Democrat lawmakers and unions in the
state were quick to condemn the governor’s actions.
Increíble que en
pleno siglo XXI esté sucediendo esto y los poderosos de la tierra se queden
callados ........
ESTE CORREO ES OBLIGACIÓN MORAL REMITIRLO A TODO EL MUNDO!!!!!.
Este correo tiene una imagen muy fuerte, pero muy fuerte; pero lo más FUERTE, el que nadie lo haya publicado e incluso que prohíban publicarlo. ¿Hasta dónde puede llegar el cinismo que tenemos en este país que estén pasando estas cosas, y que no se diga nada de esto y que tengamos todos los días polémicas; por ejemplo:que cómo tiene que ir la hija del Rey hasta la puerta del juzgado con coche o andando?.
ESTE CORREO ES OBLIGACIÓN MORAL REMITIRLO A TODO EL MUNDO!!!!!.
Este correo tiene una imagen muy fuerte, pero muy fuerte; pero lo más FUERTE, el que nadie lo haya publicado e incluso que prohíban publicarlo. ¿Hasta dónde puede llegar el cinismo que tenemos en este país que estén pasando estas cosas, y que no se diga nada de esto y que tengamos todos los días polémicas; por ejemplo:que cómo tiene que ir la hija del Rey hasta la puerta del juzgado con coche o andando?.
… ¿Hasta cuándo EUROPA y AMÉRICA debenpermanecer calladas ? ¿ Dónde se
encuentran esoshipócritas Políticos de pacotilla , que
ante esta masacre miran hacia otro lado ? …
¿DÓNDE ESTÁN LOS ORGANISMOS DEFENSORES DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS? ¿dónde? ¿dónde están o es que estos no son seres humanos por ser sólo cristianos o es que no es creíble porque lo denuncia un misionero?????,
Cristianos quemados vivos en Nigeria: un holocausto monstruoso, ante la indiferencia internacional!!!!.
DENUNCIA DEL PADRE Juan Carlos Martos cmf
Segretariato di PV Missionari Clarettiani
¿DÓNDE ESTÁN LOS ORGANISMOS DEFENSORES DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS? ¿dónde? ¿dónde están o es que estos no son seres humanos por ser sólo cristianos o es que no es creíble porque lo denuncia un misionero?????,
Cristianos quemados vivos en Nigeria: un holocausto monstruoso, ante la indiferencia internacional!!!!.
DENUNCIA DEL PADRE Juan Carlos Martos cmf
Segretariato di PV Missionari Clarettiani
Al publicar este
impresionante documento gráfico en Facebook, he pretendido denunciar ante la
opinión pública internacional unos hechos monstruosos, absolutamente
silenciados por los medios de comunicación de masas; un auténtico genocidio tan
monstruoso y bestial como los episodios más abyectos de los campos de
exterminio nazis.
Para mi sorpresa, facebook me ha recriminado por publicar este documento gráfico, como denuncia del holocausto que sufren los cristianos en Nigeria desde hace más de 10 años. Conforme a la política de seguridad de esta red "social", la fotografía se ha clasificado como material "pornográfico", "violento" o "inapropiado" y, por ello, me castiga prohibiéndome subir durante una semana cualquier otra fotografía. Y me amenaza con actuaciones "drásticas" si prosigo en mi intento de denunciar documentalmente la terrorífica conculcación de los derechos humanos en Nigeria.
Este proceder de los responsables, (facebook-España) supongo, es un atentado a la libertad de expresión y un insulto desvergonzado a las 500 víctimas (sólo en este episodio brutal) masacradas por el terror islámico por el simple hecho de ser cristianos.
Yo creía que esta red social, Facebook, nacida en USA, no hincaba la rodilla ante el terror. Sobre todo tras sufrir en sus propias carnes el espeluznante atentado del 11-S, como nosotros el 11-M, víctimas de la furia enloquecida y salvaje del terror islámico.
Me parece increíble que en España, un estado democrático y de derecho -donde constitucionalmente se garantiza la libertad de culto, expresión y pensamiento (Art.16 y 20 CE)- se intente amordazar a los ciudadanos mediante amenazas y coacciones, vulnerando su libertad de expresión, por considerar "inapropiado" un documento gráfico (no un montaje fotográfico) que refleja en toda su crudeza una realidad bestial.
Por el contrario, los directivos de facebook España, deberían felicitarse de esta denuncia pública -hecha con el ánimo de que esta barbarie jamás se repita, y que se castigue a los culpables- pues es un derecho y un deber ciudadano: un servicio a la sociedad, último objetivo, supongo, de toda red "social" que se precie.
De hecho, si las matanzas continúan, es en buena medida porque se sigue ocultando la verdad al pueblo soberano, no vaya a ser que la sepa y "se indigne": el silencio cómplice de la mayoría de los medios de comunicación propicia la indiferencia de la comunidad política internacional ante este holocausto monstruoso.
Eso sin olvidar la cobardía instalada en el mundo occidental frente al terrorismo islamista. Entre nosotros, una consecuencia más de la estúpida "Alianza de civilizaciones". ¿Se imaginan la reacción del terrorismo islámico en el caso de una matanza de musulmanes a manos de cristianos en una mezquita? ¿Cómo -y cuánto- de beligerantes serían las portadas de nuestros medios de comunicación condenando los hechos?
Por todo ello, desde este humilde blog, pido a quienes me lean un favor: que difundan por todos los medios a su alcance esta fotografía. Al menos para que sirva de homenaje a estos mártires, ya que, desgraciadamente, facebook parece que ha tomado partido por los verdugos, queriendo ocultar la difusión de tan trágicos acontecimientos.
Para mi sorpresa, facebook me ha recriminado por publicar este documento gráfico, como denuncia del holocausto que sufren los cristianos en Nigeria desde hace más de 10 años. Conforme a la política de seguridad de esta red "social", la fotografía se ha clasificado como material "pornográfico", "violento" o "inapropiado" y, por ello, me castiga prohibiéndome subir durante una semana cualquier otra fotografía. Y me amenaza con actuaciones "drásticas" si prosigo en mi intento de denunciar documentalmente la terrorífica conculcación de los derechos humanos en Nigeria.
Este proceder de los responsables, (facebook-España) supongo, es un atentado a la libertad de expresión y un insulto desvergonzado a las 500 víctimas (sólo en este episodio brutal) masacradas por el terror islámico por el simple hecho de ser cristianos.
Yo creía que esta red social, Facebook, nacida en USA, no hincaba la rodilla ante el terror. Sobre todo tras sufrir en sus propias carnes el espeluznante atentado del 11-S, como nosotros el 11-M, víctimas de la furia enloquecida y salvaje del terror islámico.
Me parece increíble que en España, un estado democrático y de derecho -donde constitucionalmente se garantiza la libertad de culto, expresión y pensamiento (Art.16 y 20 CE)- se intente amordazar a los ciudadanos mediante amenazas y coacciones, vulnerando su libertad de expresión, por considerar "inapropiado" un documento gráfico (no un montaje fotográfico) que refleja en toda su crudeza una realidad bestial.
Por el contrario, los directivos de facebook España, deberían felicitarse de esta denuncia pública -hecha con el ánimo de que esta barbarie jamás se repita, y que se castigue a los culpables- pues es un derecho y un deber ciudadano: un servicio a la sociedad, último objetivo, supongo, de toda red "social" que se precie.
De hecho, si las matanzas continúan, es en buena medida porque se sigue ocultando la verdad al pueblo soberano, no vaya a ser que la sepa y "se indigne": el silencio cómplice de la mayoría de los medios de comunicación propicia la indiferencia de la comunidad política internacional ante este holocausto monstruoso.
Eso sin olvidar la cobardía instalada en el mundo occidental frente al terrorismo islamista. Entre nosotros, una consecuencia más de la estúpida "Alianza de civilizaciones". ¿Se imaginan la reacción del terrorismo islámico en el caso de una matanza de musulmanes a manos de cristianos en una mezquita? ¿Cómo -y cuánto- de beligerantes serían las portadas de nuestros medios de comunicación condenando los hechos?
Por todo ello, desde este humilde blog, pido a quienes me lean un favor: que difundan por todos los medios a su alcance esta fotografía. Al menos para que sirva de homenaje a estos mártires, ya que, desgraciadamente, facebook parece que ha tomado partido por los verdugos, queriendo ocultar la difusión de tan trágicos acontecimientos.
Senators
Call For Defunding The United Nations If Obama Goes To The UN Against Israel
“Here’s what the president needs to
understand."
The
Obama administration made a lot of noise over the weekend about its
displeasure at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments over the
future of Palestinian statehood. Even though Netanyahu walked back his comments
in an olive branch to the administration, the White House’s negative,
threatening rhetoric towards the Jewish State has not diminished; in fact, it
has increased.
What
concerns many lawmakers in the House and the Senate are the administration’s
threats to possibly change the level of support that America gives Israel in
the United Nations. Historically, the United States has been the nation that prevents
adverse action against Israel such as the United Nations proclaiming
Palestinian statehood. Some senators over the weekend fired a shot across the
administration’s bow on this issue.
Advertisement-content continues below
The US
Congress should reconsider funding for the United Nations if the Security
Council approves a resolution on Palestinian statehood, Republican Senator John
McCain said on Sunday.
McCain, in
an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, said President Barack Obama
should not even be considering such a resolution.
Senator
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to cut off funding to the United Nations if
President Obama uses it to bypass Congress on Iran sanctions on Thursday’s “On
the Record” on the Fox News Channel.
“Here’s
what the president needs to understand. If you go to the UN Security Council
and you try to bypass the Congress to get this deal approved by the UN Security
Council, but not come to your own Congress, then you’re going to risk Congress
cutting off money to the United Nations” he stated.
The
rubber is hitting the road here at the tail end of the disastrous Obama
presidency. This is a very dangerous time for our nation. Our Congressional
leaders are going to have to step up and defend the American way of life and
our allies in the face of threats to injure them from our treasonous White
House.
This
may be the last opportunity for an old warrior like John McCain to rise to the
occasion when his country needs him.
The views expressed
in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not
necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#8LTWpwfXSyUdfST3.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#8LTWpwfXSyUdfST3.99
Hillary
email recipients might consider witness protection
The thing about emails, is
that there is a “sender” and a “recipient”, so Hillary’s problems
just got exponentially way worse.
Hillary may have dumped her emails, but now the hunt begin for
those on the receiving end. And if Hillary’s history of
cover-ups is any indication, there
could be a few bodies in her wake.
Hillary’s problem is, as
the number of Democrats abandoning her grows, so does her gaunlet of
protection.
As Trey Gowdy expands the
search for real truth, Hillary’s chances to be the first white female president
have diminished to, “good luck with that.”
Representative
Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee, told Reuters these
included aides to Clinton and perhaps “aides to aides.”
“We
sent a subpoena to the State Department for emails from a number of individuals
within the State Department, other than Secretary Clinton,” Gowdy, a
Republican, said in a phone interview.
A
New York Times report this month that Clinton had used a personal email account
for government business while the chief U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013 has
reinvigorated the committee’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks
that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
I sure would love to be
fly on the wall at the Clinton’s, but what I wouldn’t want to be is anybody on
the receiving end of her emails.
It's FINALLY HERE!
Kevin Jackson's hilarious take on Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!
Kevin Jackson's hilarious take on Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!
Enjoy this excerpt from the book:
"The money in diversity is enormous,
even bigger than former sportscaster turned political pundit turned
sportscaster Keith Olbermann’s ego. Wouldn’t you like to be a “reverend” and
father children out of wedlock without repercussions? If you study hard, this
book will teach you how to have your non-profit organization pay your mistress
and your child support – all at the same time. You must be so black that if you
eat sushi, watch reruns of Dawson’s Creek and Friends, or enjoy the ballet, you
will hang yourself."
PRE-ORDER
NOW!
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/hillary-email-recipients-witness-protection/
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/hillary-email-recipients-witness-protection/
Senators
Call For Defunding The United Nations If Obama Goes To The UN Against Israel
“Here’s what the president needs to
understand."
The
Obama administration made a lot of noise over the weekend about its
displeasure at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments over the
future of Palestinian statehood. Even though Netanyahu walked back his comments
in an olive branch to the administration, the White House’s negative,
threatening rhetoric towards the Jewish State has not diminished; in fact, it has
increased.
What
concerns many lawmakers in the House and the Senate are the administration’s
threats to possibly change the level of support that America gives Israel in
the United Nations. Historically, the United States has been the nation that
prevents adverse action against Israel such as the United Nations proclaiming
Palestinian statehood. Some senators over the weekend fired a shot across the
administration’s bow on this issue.
The US Congress should reconsider funding for the United Nations if
the Security Council approves a resolution on Palestinian statehood, Republican
Senator John McCain said on Sunday.
McCain, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, said
President Barack Obama should not even be considering such a resolution.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to cut off funding to the
United Nations if President Obama uses it to bypass Congress on Iran sanctions
on Thursday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.
“Here’s what the president needs to understand. If you go to the UN
Security Council and you try to bypass the Congress to get this deal approved
by the UN Security Council, but not come to your own Congress, then you’re
going to risk Congress cutting off money to the United Nations” he stated.
The
rubber is hitting the road here at the tail end of the disastrous Obama
presidency. This is a very dangerous time for our nation. Our Congressional
leaders are going to have to step up and defend the American way of life and
our allies in the face of threats to injure them from our treasonous White
House.
This
may be the last opportunity for an old warrior like John McCain to rise to the
occasion when his country needs him.
The views
expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not
necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#zKWvXv07BZKHw1la.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#zKWvXv07BZKHw1la.99
A
merced de los asalariados de la política.
El tema es tan incómodo como políticamente incorrecto
para la inmensa mayoría. La política está hoy en manos
de demasiados inescrupulosos, personajes de escasa formación y dudosa moral,
individuos con más aptitudes para la ingeniería electoral que para gobernar
eficazmente. Claro que existen excepciones a la regla, lo que solo confirma la
norma general.
En ciertos países, los políticos son personas que han triunfado previamente en
sus profesiones, que han logrado ser exitosos en lo suyo, que han construido un
capital intelectual y económico significativo digno de ser elogiado y
aplaudido. Ellos llegan a la política solo para completar el círculo, por
prestigio o bien para aportar algo a su comunidad, pero ya no para enriquecerse
o conseguirse una remuneración que les permita sobrevivir.
Eso no los hace intrínsecamente mejores que el resto. No es que esa
circunstancia garantice que harán lo óptimo, pero se constituye en una
diferencia vital para poder comprender el mecanismo que regirá las decisiones
que impactarán en todos. Cuando la política está plagada de personas que buscan
en esa actividad una compensación económica, se tomarán determinaciones que no
priorizarán sus consecuencias en los ciudadanos, sino en como afectará sobre su
propia "continuidad laboral".
Los que llegan a la política con ese propósito, el que consigue un cargo para
acceder a una retribución, sabe que cuando culmine su ciclo deberá buscar en
otro lugar esos ingresos que le permitan ganarse la vida y sustentar a los
propios. Si ese sujeto depende de ese sueldo para mantener su estándar de vida,
si obtiene más renta en la función pública que fuera de ella, sus decisiones
estarán siempre condicionadas por su situación personal.
El no pretenderá favorecer a la gente, sino conservar su puesto, sostenerse en
el poder para asegurar su espacio y por lo tanto sus beneficios. Su futuro
personal y el de su familia dependen de ese esfuerzo, por lo tanto, siempre se
concentrará en asegurar votos. El mejor modo de lograrlo será apelar a la
interminable demagogia populista. No vino a esa función para pasar a la
historia ni para generar los cambios que la sociedad necesita. Está ahí solo
para subsistir por todo el tiempo que le sea posible.
La cuestión va más allá. Su dependencia salarial lo subordina tanto que ni
siquiera siente la libertad de renunciar cuando así lo desee y volver a lo de
siempre con dignidad. Eso lo condena a asumir con mucha cobardía las órdenes
que emanan de su jefe político, a riesgo de quedarse en la calle.
Cuando se seleccionan dirigentes, resulta primordial conocer sus logros en la
labor profesional. Si esas personas no han alcanzado la excelencia en lo
elegido, si en el pasado no han realizado lo suficiente para mantenerse por sus
propios medios, sin favores estatales, prebendas o privilegios, pues
difícilmente hagan lo correcto cuando les toque en suerte gobernar.
Ellos solo esperan llegar al poder para cobrar una mensualidad. Eso podría
empeorar si su objetivo incluye premeditadamente alcanzar compensaciones
"adicionales" de la mano de la omnipresente corrupción estructural,
esa que le ofrecerá inconfesables ganancias desproporcionadas.
Muchos sostienen que la política es para cualquiera y que todos deben tener esa
posibilidad. En realidad, lo saludable sería que los mejores en los negocios,
en sus actividades, en cualquier profesión, pudieran estar dispuestos a
contribuir en la búsqueda de las soluciones necesarias.
Si el que ingresa a la política lo hace solo para "ganar" más, para
construirse un salario, para progresar individualmente, pues entonces la que
está en problemas es la sociedad toda. Cuando los que gobiernan son los que
solo saben vivir del Estado, y sus posibilidades fuera de ese ámbito son
escasas, pues se corre un enorme peligro y el resultado es predecible.
Ese funcionario, solo espera estar cerca del "tesoro", ese que sueña
con administrar discrecionalmente y que pretende depredar sin piedad. Si su
meta es esa, si espera cobrar más allí que fuera de la política, pues entonces
la sociedad será su próxima víctima por demasiado tiempo.
Lamentablemente, los que son un ejemplo en lo suyo, los que aprendieron a
generar ingresos genuinamente, demostrando ser útiles a sus comunidades, no
desean ser parte de la política. Al menos no en una cantidad suficiente como
para evitar que la política haya sido cooptada por los energúmenos que ingresan
a ella para saquear sin miramientos a los contribuyentes.
Los votantes tienen una gran responsabilidad en esto que no sucede por
casualidad. Si los exitosos, se sintieran respaldados, si se estimulara a los
más capaces a comprometerse con las soluciones, otra sería la historia. La
visión infantil de suponer que la "política grande" es territorio de
todos y que cualquiera puede conducir el barco, es tremendamente nefasta.
Como en todos los ámbitos de la vida, como en casi cualquier actividad, algunos
han demostrado una habilidad superior al resto. Los mejores son los que deben
estar en el juego y ser protagonistas, lo que debe poder verificarse de
antemano, con credenciales y evidencias demostrables.
El aterrizaje, en el mundo de la política, de los improvisados, de los amigos
del poderoso de turno, de los que solo buscan un empleo para salir del paso y
ganarse algo de dinero, no conseguirá que esta sea una sociedad mejor. Creer en
eso, no solo es ingenuo, sino también, un verdadero despropósito.
Más grave es rechazar públicamente esas premisas, para luego validarlas con
actitudes personales cotidianas. Eso tampoco ayuda. Es imprescindible mejorar
la política. Pero para eso hay que ocuparse, como sociedad, de alentar a
diario, sin mezquindad, a los sobresalientes, a los que pueden exhibir con
orgullo sus victorias y estimularlos para que reemplacen pronto a los parásitos
de siempre, esos que pululan en el Estado. Si se esperan resultados
superlativos, es indispensable extirpar a los mediocres, para que los ciudadanos
no queden a merced de los asalariados de la política.
Alberto Medina Méndez
albertomedinamendez@gmail.com
WND ANALYSIS
TED CRUZ DEPLOYS RONALD REAGAN SECRET TO VICTORY
Republican
even borrows tactic from Obama
WASHINGTON
– Ted Cruz is counting on the help of Barack Obama to win the White House.
That
is, the senator intends to learn from the lessons of Obama’s 2008 “grassroots
guerrilla campaign” for president, which the Texan often has spoken of
admiringly.
But,
while Cruz will borrow tactics from arguably the right’s greatest archenemy, he
will follow the playbook of the right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan.
Grassroots
support was the key to general election victories for both Obama and Reagan,
but, like the Gipper, Cruz must first conquer his own party’s establishment.
He
intends to do that not by appealing to the center, but by being his own man, an
unapologetic conservative, and expanding the appeal of the Republican Party,
just like Reagan.
And,
just like Reagan, he intends to wage an insurgent campaign.
Merriam
Webster defines “insurgent” as “one who acts contrary to the policies and
decisions of one’s own political party.”
And
that defines the Cruz strategy: He will not try to win over the GOP
establishment; he will bypass Washington and go straight to the voters.
It
is a simple but detailed plan. And it is based on a simple premise: A moderate
approach will lead to certain defeat; only a conservative approach can lead to
victory.
Cruz shared the outline of his
strategy at a recent gathering of a few conservative journalists, attended by WND:
·
Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington.
·
Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats
and FDR Democrats.
·
Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core
beliefs.
·
Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support
from libertarians.
·
Energize and mobilize evangelical voters.
Most
of those details are taken straight from the Reagan playbook. So, what advice
would a former Reagan aide have for Cruz?
“Ted
Cruz needs no advice,” Jeffrey Lord told WND.
An associate political director
in the Reagan White House, Lord wrote an in-depth comparison of the Gipper and
Cruz published in the American Spectator on Monday called, “The Texas
Reagan announces for president.”
In
that article, Cruz explicitly told Lord he intends to pursue a 21st-century
version of the insurgency strategy pioneered by the late Ronald Reagan.
Lord
told WND that Cruz’s speech Monday morning announcing his candidacy for
president was “truly amazing” and “right on the mark.”
The
former Reagan aide also explained why Cruz appears to have the right stuff to
be the right’s first successful insurgent presidential candidate since the
Gipper.
Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington
Cruz’s
speech was not meant to win over the Washington establishment. It was aimed at
Americans in the heartland who, he believes, yearn for a leader who speaks with
conviction, rather than a candidate who will try to appeal to the center.
“He
was bold, positive, and forthright,” Lord told WND. “Like Reagan, he was
totally unapologetic about his conservatism – and the Cruz idea of
‘courageous conservatism’ was a way of answering the old Bush line about
‘compassionate conservatism,’ which by definition was apologizing for being
conservative.”
Cruz’s
speech showed what he believes is the lesson of Reagan’s success: The way to
win is not to try to please as many voters as possible, but to convince voters
of the quality of his convictions and that he is a man who will stick to his
principles.
“That
was the key to Reagan,” said Lord. “Reagan was not only unapologetic about
being a conservative, he was proud to be one. Ted Cruz believes exactly the
same thing – and it shows.”
See
the campaign video: “Ted Cruz for President”
A
few weeks ago, WND
quoted Cruz describing
how establishment Washington hated Reagan as a candidate and how he went over
the heads of GOP elite to take his case straight to the people, from whom his
real power came.
After
Monday’s speech, reporters questioned Cruz’s mettle and ability to win an
arduous campaign, but the candidate said it wasn’t about him, responding,
“That’s where you’re lacking the faith in what’s happening across this
country.”
He
explained, “It’s coming from the people. Washington won’t turn us around, but
what will turn us around is millions of courageous conservatives who are
inspired to reignite the promise of America.”
That
echoed a line in Cruz’s speech in which he asked people to “Imagine, imagine
millions of courageous conservatives across America rising up together to say,
in unison, we demand our liberty.”
That
message struck the right chord with Amy Kremer, the former head of the Tea
Party Express, who said the Cruz candidacy “will excite the base in a way we
haven’t seen in years.”
Lord’s
article noted, “Cruz has run aggressively against the Beltway culture since the
moment he arrived in town. He’s a proud outsider even within the institution of
the Senate, accentuated by his favorite hashtag: #MakeDCListen.”
“Cruz
likes to say the biggest divide in American politics isn’t between Republicans
and Democrats; it’s between ‘the people and the entrenched politicians in
Washington, D.C.’”
That
approach has earned Cruz the wrath of the Washington elite, even in his own
party.
Lord
wrote, that just makes the senator even more Reaganesque: “It is safe to say
that as with Reagan, Ted Cruz’s adversaries can’t stand him, which, in the eyes
of his admirers, is more than enough to see the newly declared candidate as the
Texas Reagan.”
That
has cost Cruz the financial support of GOP king-makers, but it is making
him a hero to the Republican’s grassroots base.
“Thus
it is that like Reagan, Ted Cruz has become highly unpopular with Establishment
Republicans. Not to mention the foaming furies he ignites from liberals who, in
the day, hated Reagan in precisely the same way,” wrote Lord.
But
Cruz’s grassroots support comes from his willingness to “draw a line in the
sand” and hold steadfast for causes and principles he believes are worthwhile,
such as the government shutdown over defunding Obamacare in 2013, which, Lord,
wrote, “was furiously assaulted by many of Cruz’s Republican Senate colleagues
and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their
way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular
mandatory health program.”
However,
with conservative luminaries such as talk-radio host Mark Levin raving about
Monday’s speech, key endorsements seem likely, as Cruz’s grassroots campaign appears
to have begun with immediate momentum.
Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats and FDR
Democrats
It
was no coincidence that, in his speech Monday, Cruz quoted Democrat President
Franklin Roosevelt’s immortal words, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,”
then immediately spoke of Reagan’s boldness in cutting taxes, demanding the
release of the American hostages in Iran and his determination to win the Cold
War.
Cruz
is courting admirers of both presidents and considers that a key to winning the
White House.
WND reported how Cruz had recently told a
small group of reporters that the reason GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney
lost the 2012 election was because two groups of voters had stayed home:
evangelicals and blue-collar Reagan Democrats.
Cruz
insisted the only way to get crossover voters was to do what candidate Reagan
had done: Stick to principles and frame the election as a fundamental choice
between liberal and conservative governing philosophies.
The
senator noted how Reagan was so successful with that strategy that he was the
only president to ever have a type of crossover voter named after him, Reagan
Democrats.
And,
Cruz maintained, in sticking to his core beliefs rather than pandering to as
many voters as possible, Reagan had given “FDR Democrats a reason to cross
over” and support a candidate who would be a consistent man of his convictions,
even if they might disagree with him on some issues.
It
was notable that Cruz ended his speech with a nod to one of Reagan’s most
inspirational beliefs, declaring, “We will restore that shining city on a hill
that is the United States of America.”
Cruz
knows the GOP brand is in need of some image repair, after years of Democrats
hammering the GOP as stupid, evil, crazy and, especially, greedy.
But
he also sees that as an opportunity to flip the script on the mainstream
narrative of the GOP as party of the rich and Democrats as party of the poor.
As
WND reported, Cruz intends to run a populist campaign aimed at explaining to
working Americans the benefits of conservatism to everyone.
He
sees that as an opportunity to expand his appeal beyond his conservative base,
because, as he told the American Spectator, “The image created in the
mainstream media does not comply with the facts.”
Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core beliefs
“Show
me where you stood up and fought,” Cruz challenged potential candidates in a
speech given in Iowa in January.
Cruz
has said the GOP presidential candidate must be someone who has, time and
again, chosen principle over politics – a candidate willing to take an
unpopular stance if it is based on solid principle.
The
feisty Texan, of course, has earned a reputation as someone willing to
repeatedly and tirelessly go against both Democrats and establishment GOP
leaders in his efforts to repeal Obamacare and stop amnesty.
Lord
noted that keeping principles in practice, as well as in theory, reflected
Reagan’s view, “that the GOP should move the center to the right – not, as
the GOP establishment believes, move the right to the center.”
Cruz
has said the critical mistake that could cost the GOP another presidential
election would be playing it safe by running another moderate candidate too
“squishy” on the issues.
The
real litmus test for the best candidate, insisted Cruz, was whether he or she
had “stood up to fight on principle” on the most critical issues, such as
amnesty, Obamacare, the runaway national debt, Second Amendment rights and the
struggle to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Emphasizing
reporters should watch what candidates have done more than what they promise,
and that actions should speak louder than words, the senator turned to
scripture as the best guide of all, noting, “You shall know them by their
fruits.”
Sticking
to principles does not come without considerable risk in Washington.
Lord
noted how when Cruz drew a “line in the sand” in the fight against Obamacare in
2013, he “was furiously assaulted” by many of his “Republican Senate colleagues
and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their
way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular
mandatory health program.”
“Cruz
was also opposed at the time by other potential GOP presidential candidates Jeb
Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, as well as the losing 2012 party
nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Insisting Cruz was badly damaging the
party’s 2014 chances was former Bush 43 top White House aide Karl Rove.
“In
February 2014, when Cruz, in another line-in-the-sand moment insisted on
holding Senate Republicans accountable in a vote to raise the debt limit, the
Establishment GOP turned on him again. The Wall Street Journal editorialized
that Cruz was ‘The Minority Maker.’”
However,
as Lord also observed, “the 2014 elections brought a tidal wave of support for
the Republican Party, giving it the best showing since 1928 with a take-over
of the Senate and more seats in its House majority.”
Sticking
to his guns has given Cruz another, perhaps surprising, dividend: what may be
the growing respect of his peers and former antagonists.
When
Cruz joined Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in filibustering the nomination of eventual
CIA Director John Brennan over drone policy, Sen. John McCain referred to the
duo as “wacko birds.”
Cruz
never responded with a personal attack, instead, characteristically adhering to
Reagan’s “11th commandment” of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans in
public.
Over
the weekend, just before Cruz announced his candidacy, CNN quoted McCain as
saying of Cruz: “He is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
He and I are friendly, and I think he is a very viable candidate.”
McCain
also suggested Cruz could beat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency in 2016.
Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support from
libertarians
Cruz
aides have told reporters he sees as the GOP as composed of four branches:
establishment, libertarian, social conservative and tea party.
His
strategy in the GOP primary races is to win tea-party and conservative votes
and peel off support from libertarians, as well as energize and mobilize
evangelical voters among the social conservatives.
A
Cruz aide used a March Madness metaphor to described the strategy to National
Review, equating the four GOP branches to four brackets.
“We’re
the number one seed in the tea-party bracket,” he said, adding, “I think this
makes us the number one seed in the evangelical bracket.”
Cruz
told the American Spectator he intended to pursue “a 21st-century version of
the insurgency strategy” pioneered by Reagan, and bringing together “national
security, social, pro-growth, and libertarian conservatives.”
See
Ted Cruz’s speech announcing his candidacy for president:
Lord
recounted how the “Reagan coalition broadened the base of the party to bring in
everyone from evangelicals to women to union workers to Latinos.”
Cruz
sees the key to victory in expanding the base by attracting voters with
conservative principles and re-creating what Lord described as Reagan’s
“virtual army of supporters who had previously never spent a day in politics.”
The
Texan’s hope is that will also offset the GOP establishment’s advantage in
fundraising, where Bush is expected to raise $100 million, while Cruz hopes to
raise $40 to $50 million.
And,
as Lord also noted, Cruz is counting on his base-broadening strategy to
overcome a severe deficit in the polls, where CNN recently had him at just 4
percent support.
Energize and mobilize evangelical voters
It
is no accident that Cruz announced his candidacy for president at Liberty
University, which advertises itself as the largest Christian university in the
world.
He
maintains low voter turnout among evangelicals and blue-collar “Reagan
Democrats” cost the GOP the election in 2012.
“Today,
roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting; they’re staying home,”
said Cruz in his speech Monday. “Imagine, instead, millions of people of faith
all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.”
Focusing
on religious conservatives could help provide Cruz a jump start in two early
primaries.
An
entrance poll in 2012 found 57 percent of voters in the Iowa Republican
caucuses described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.
An
exit poll found 65 percent of South Carolina voters were born again or
evangelical.
Cruz
often reminds audiences his father is a pastor.
In
his announcement speech, Cruz credited Christian faith with saving his family
in the 1970s.
He
described how his parents lived a “fast life,” both “drinking far too much,”
neither with a “personal relationship with Jesus” and separating when he was
three.
But
his father converted to Christianity, “And God transformed his heart and
he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to
be with my mother and me.”
“Were
it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would not have been
saved, and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the
household.”
Will history repeat?
Why
does Cruz appear so confident and enthusiastic when he is beginning a race for
the White House with 4 percent support?
Probably
because he has beaten long odds before, and handily, by sticking to the Reagan
formula and running to the right, not the center.
As
Lord wrote, “In early 2011, he was still the little-known, Harvard-educated,
Cuban-American former Texas solicitor general considering a long-shot run
against wealthy Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Cruz essentially did not
register in the polls when he launched his Senate run.”
But,
defying the pundits, his insurgent campaign based on conservative principles
forced Dewhurst into a runoff, even though he finished 10 points behind.
“Two
months later, Cruz erased that deficit and walloped Dewhurst – who by then had
spent $25 million of his own fortune trying to salvage his campaign – by 14
points in the runoff,” recounted Lord.
He
concluded, “A conservative star had been born.”
Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-deploys-ronald-reagan-secret-to-victory/#UuT2JxrXpJVrDXPQ.99
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-deploys-ronald-reagan-secret-to-victory/#UuT2JxrXpJVrDXPQ.99
Ted
Cruz Is Running For President! Watch His NH Speech!
Finally We Get Bold Colors Not
Pale Pastels. Cruz Is A True Conservative! Join The Cruz Brigade. Text The
Word: Constitution To The Number 33733
New Hampshire 3-15-15 Speech Plus Questions, And Answers. http://conservative50plus.com/blog/ted-cruz-is-running-for-president-listen-to-his-nh-speech/
New Hampshire 3-15-15 Speech Plus Questions, And Answers. http://conservative50plus.com/blog/ted-cruz-is-running-for-president-listen-to-his-nh-speech/
Did
Anthony Kennedy Just Show His Hand On The Obamacare Subsidies Case?
Justice
Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a run-of-the-mill budget meeting Monday may have
signaled how he intends to vote in this year’s biggest Obamacare lawsuit over
the legality of federal premium subsidies.
In a
Monday budget request before the House Appropriations Committee, Justice
Anthony Kennedy, typically the swing vote on the Court, made comments that
could suggest he’s leaning in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell. The question in the
pivotal case is whether the text of Obamacare restricts the law’s popular
premium subsidies to state-run exchanges, of which there are only 14, and bans
them from the vast majority of states that use the federally-run exchange,
HealthCare.gov.
The battle
over the lawsuit about Obamacare subsidies currently before the Supreme Court
has focused on whether anyone’s got a solution if the Court’s decision ends up
skyrocketing HealthCare.gov premiums.
The
administration is arguing that the language in the bill doesn’t exclude federal
marketplace customers from the subsidies and seems to be trying to convince the
Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and
therefore for the Court’s image. Department of Health and Human Services
secretary Sylvia Burwell has repeatedly sworn that the administration will not
even have a back-up plan prepared in case they lose the case — although
anonymous officials have said elsewhere that there is a contingency plan in
place. (RELATED: Report: Obamacare Backup Plan Is To
‘Declare’ HealthCare.gov A Contractor For States)
Congressional
Republicans, who typically support the plaintiffs’ interpretation that
subsidies are for state exchanges only, have countered that tactic by releasing
their own plans in the case of a decision eliminating the federal exchange
subsidies.
But it may
turn out that the Court may choose to not consider the likelihood of Congress
restoring the subsidies at all. While he wasn’t overtly discussing King v. Burwell, Kennedy’s comments on Monday
certainly suggested that it isn’t the Court’s role to predict what a certain
Congress would do in response to their cases.
“We
routinely decide cases involving federal statutes and we say, ‘Well, if this is
wrong, the Congress will fix it.’ But then we hear that Congress can’t pass a
bill one way or the other. That there is gridlock. Some people say that should
affect the way we interpret the statutes,” Kennedy said Monday. ”That
seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully
functioning branches of the government, government that are committed to
proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the
problems of this republic.”
Court
experts immediately grabbed onto the comments, which were in response to a
question from Florida GOP Rep. Ander Crenshaw about “politically-charged
issues” before the Court, as a likely reference to the furor over King v. Burwell.
Josh
Blackman, an assistant professor of law at the South Texas College of Law who
specializes in the Supreme Court, points out that strategy to put pressure on
the Court due to Congress’s reaction even made its way into the courtroom —
much to the chagrin of at least one justice. During oral arguments in the
case earlier this month, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli suggested to Justice
Antonin Scalia that the current Republican-controlled Congress wouldn’t come up
with a fix.
JUSTICE SCALIA:
Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that —
that takes care of the problem.
It happens all the time.
Why is that not going to happen here?
GENERAL VERRILLI:
Well, this Congress, Your Honor, I – I –
(Laughter.)
GENERAL VERRILLI:
You know, I mean, of course, theoretically —
of course, theoretically they could.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I –
I don’t care what
Congress you’re talking about.
If the consequences are
as disastrous as you say, so many million people
without — without insurance and whatnot, yes, I think
this Congress would act.
“It was
said in a very snarky or sarcastic way,” Blackman told TheDC about Verrilli’s
comments. “I was sitting in the Court and I thought that was inappropriate. I
think that’s what Kennedy was referring to here.”
Kennedy
made no reference to the case, and Blackman stressed that it’s impossible to
know exactly what the justice was thinking. But “he seemed very much directed
with how he wanted to handle that question,” Blackman said. “The fact that he
said this makes me think this issue is on his mind.”
The Supreme
Court’s decision in the case is expected in June.
¿Cuales son los sistemas socioeconómicos que existen actualmente?
Ponchar aqui
INVITADO
Julio
M.Shiling,
El politólogo y
escritor Julio Shiling explicó la diferencia entre el sistema socioeconómico
existente en los países democráticos y el sistema socioeconómico que existe en
China conocido como capitalismo de estado.
Saludos,
Jesús Angulo
Periodista , Presentador del programa ENTÉRESE,
WLRN TV 17, domingo 6:00 PM y
Productor y Director de TV PARA CUBA
Jesús Angulo
Periodista , Presentador del programa ENTÉRESE,
WLRN TV 17, domingo 6:00 PM y
Productor y Director de TV PARA CUBA
Mi
video preferido:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgy9inZ4MOk&list=LL7Kn9dtC-XN95yk8jcTNInQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgy9inZ4MOk&list=LL7Kn9dtC-XN95yk8jcTNInQ
BREAKING: Netanyahu Makes
His Move to DESTROY Obama’s Entire Agenda
Now that Barack Obama’s attempt to torpedo Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party at the Israeli polls has
failed, the president is about to learn just how unpleasant payback can be.
Sources have indicated the recently-reelected Israeli
prime minister has dispatched diplomats to France in order to destroy Obama’s
negotiations on Iran’s nuclear
capability.
France is one of the P5+1 powers conducting the
negotiations in Switzerland, as well as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. As
such, it can realistically veto any agreement Obama and Kerry decide to cook
up.
In addition, France has also been the power most
skeptical of the negotiation process. They’ve expressed grave reservations
about the March 31 deadline to reach a tentative framework for a deal, as well
as the proposed deal’s ability to effectively limit Iran’s production of
nuclear material.
Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz is
flying to Paris to meet with French officials, as Prime Minister
Netanyahu apparently
believes them to be the most likely to reject such a deal.
“This is an effort to prevent a (nuclear) deal that is
bad and full of loopholes, or at least … to succeed in closing or amending some
of these loopholes,” Steinitz told Israel Radio (H/T Pat Dollard).
In the past, Steinitz said, France has “helped us a
great deal,” noting that the French were the driving force behind the Iranians being limited to 20 percent fissile
material purity during the preliminary November deal.
Volumes are spoken by the fact that a French
socialist regime under Francois Hollande has been of more assistance to Israel
in its time of need than America.
It’s becoming painfully obvious that Obama’s
direction in the P5+1 negotiations isn’t driven by political reality, but by
personal animus. He’s willing to let a pariah state retain the ability to
manufacture a nuclear weapon partially out of spite for Benjamin Netanyahu.
That street goes two ways, though, and Benjamin
Netanyahu has driven down it many, many times. If he has his say, Barack Obama
will be left empty-handed, with little more than his misplaced anger and
general humiliation
No comments:
Post a Comment