No 940 “En mi opinión” Mayo 5, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR
“Remember Your Freedom is not free”
AMENPER: El Dilema de Raúl
Ahora que Carly Fiorina entra en la carrera por la candidatura Republicana,
tenemos todavía más donde escoger, y esto es la democracia, hay de todos los
colores, origen nacional con dos cubano-americanos, un afroamericano un
americano aplatanado que habla español, un americano libertario, y desde esa
gama podemos escoger a uno que se enfrente…. ¿a quién?
Bueno parecía que era a Hilary Clinton, pero ahora nos sale Bernie Sanders,
que en cuanto al comunismo es igual que Hilary lo único que los diferencia es
que Bernie no tiene vagina.
Aunque hay que reconocer que Bernie aunque sea reconoce que es comunista,
Hilary es comunista y mentirosa, lo cual son dos cualidades que la
beneficia a los ojos de los camaradas.
Sin mencionar que también tiene tetas, y así los recipientes de los
beneficios agregados en la sociedad parasitaria pueden mamar leche de gobierno
directamente de la madre. Algo que no puede ofrecer Bernie.
Pero Bernie puede quitarse la camisa como el camarada Putin aunque sea se puede hacer chicharrón con el pellejo, mientras tanto Hilary... bueno la verdad, nadie quiere ver eso.
Pero Bernie puede quitarse la camisa como el camarada Putin aunque sea se puede hacer chicharrón con el pellejo, mientras tanto Hilary... bueno la verdad, nadie quiere ver eso.
Van a que tener un concurso en vez de un debate, porque no tienen nada que
debatir, los dos piensan igual.
Pero como todos los socialistas creen en la producción de nada mientras toman el dinero de los que producen, digamos que van a producir un robo en lugar de un concurso. ¡Sí! Eso es todo! Pongan a los dos de ellos en un escenario y ver quién se le puede arrancar más dinero de sus millonarios bolsillos burgueses, al que más dinero se le robe, ese gana.
Pero como todos los socialistas creen en la producción de nada mientras toman el dinero de los que producen, digamos que van a producir un robo en lugar de un concurso. ¡Sí! Eso es todo! Pongan a los dos de ellos en un escenario y ver quién se le puede arrancar más dinero de sus millonarios bolsillos burgueses, al que más dinero se le robe, ese gana.
Pero todos los comunistas del mundo están preocupados, Obama está preocupado,
nadie sabe a quién apoyar, dos comunistas para la presidencia de Estados
Unidos, el sueño de Marx.
US Declaration of
Independence: Unprecedented Change to the World
filed under: guest commentary & reflections On June 7, 1776
Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee stood up in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia and offered
a resolution that would forever change the course of American and world history.
“Resolved: that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be,
free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the
British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of
Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved.”
The
congressional response to the Lee resolution was to create three
committees. The first was to draft a Declaration of Independence. The Second was to create an agreement for a
government uniting the colonies. The third was to create a sample treaty
for alliances and commerce with foreign countries.
The North
American colonies of the British Empire were about to embark upon a journey
that had never been taken before. There was little guidance from history.
Previous Declarations: Replacing One King with Another
456 years
earlier in 1320, the noblemen of Scotland had (19 earls and 39 barons) sent a
letter to Pope John XXII, asking for relief from the rule of England’s King
Edward and recognition of Robert the Bruce as King of Scotland. The Declaration of Abroath asked to terminate
allegiance to the British crown, and replace it with allegiance to a different
king.
In 1581, the
people of the Netherlands terminated their allegiance to Spain’s King
Phillip. This was done with the Act of Abjuration. The argument was that Phillip had abandoned his
kingly duties to the Netherlands and as a result he was owed no
allegiance. The people of the Netherlands though, like the Scots 260
years earlier, were looking for a new king, and wound up with the Duke of
Anjou, brother of the King of France.
In 1688,
England itself declared the English throne had been vacated by King James
II. James actually had been chased out of the country by the Dutch army
lead by the man who would become King William III. The 1688 English Declaration of Rights was employed to
change kings in England, but set no precedent for independence from the British
Empire.
Richard Henry
Lee’s June 7th resolution
to the Continental Congress, proposed the American colonies do something that
had never been done before in the history of the world. They would absolve
themselves of allegiance to King George, but would not seek out a new
king. They would govern themselves.
The Committee of Five to Draft the Declaration
While Congress
continued to debate the resolution and colonial congressmen sought instructions regarding how to vote on Lee’s
resolution a committee of five men set about preparing a congressional
declaration in case the resolution were adopted. On June 11, 1776, Benjamin
Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston
were appointed to the committee.
The committee
met regarding a general outline of the declaration and selected Jefferson to do
a draft. Jefferson did the drafting and submitted his draft to
other members for editing, particularly Adams and Franklin. On June 28,
1776, the committee sent its work to Congress. Congress deleted about a
fourth of the content and edited more. Jefferson referred to Congress’ work as the “the
emasculation and mutilation of my Declaration of Independence.”
Congress, on
July 2, 1776, adopted the Declaration in support of Lee’s original
resolution. It was the date that John Adams anticipated that: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable … in
the History of America … It ought to be
commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God
Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews,
Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this
Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”
The final
editing was completed on July 4, 1776, and that was the date on the copies
printed by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap, the evening of July
4th. Ultimately that became recognized as the national
birthday.
Over 100 Declarations Since 1776
“The American Declaration of 1776 was the first in
world history to identify sovereignty with
independence.” David
Armitage
From the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1320
Declaration of Abroath, the 1581 Act of Abjuration, to the 1688 Declaration of
Rights, when subjects were dissatisfied with their “sovereign” or royal ruler,
the solution had been to make a deal with the current ruler or find a new
one. The standard for a government was an empire principally controlled
by a royal family. The American Declaration of Independence changed this,
not just for America, but for the world.
There had
never been a Declaration like that made in 1776. In 1790, the people of
the province of Flanders declared they were independent of the Austrian Emperor
Joseph II. The successful slave revolt in Haiti was accompanied by a
Declaration of Independence from France on January 1, 1804. There are now
195 countries in the world. More than 100 of them came into being with
the issuance of a document whose heritage can be traced to the Declaration of
Independence.
There was no
precedent for the action of Second Continental Congress. There was no
precedent to begin a country based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The successful revolution of the United States, announced by its
Declaration of Independence, became a precedent for the world.
AMENPER: Obamacare,
Intervencionismo de Estado
.
Hay una distinción importante que hacer.
Hay una diferencia entre la libre empresa y la empresa privada.
Libre empresa es el ideal del libre mercado, con la interacción pacífica
entre los individuos sin ser regulados o subvencionados por el gobierno.
Bajo la libre empresa, cualquiera puede negociar con otra persona en
términos mutuamente acordados. Puesto que todas las interacciones son
voluntarias, necesariamente beneficiarán a todos los comerciantes, y tanto la
riqueza como el bienestar son libres aumentar sin la imposición de límites
artificiales del gobierno.
Toda libre empresa es privada,
pero no todas las empresas privadas son libres.
El fracaso de no llevar esta distinción en mente es lo que conduce al apoyo
del público de programas indefendibles como el Obamacare.
Vemos empresas de seguros privadas vendiendo Obamacare, anunciando cómo las
personas pueden calificar para no pagar nada. Claro que alguien
tiene que pagar por el seguro de los que no pagan nada, y estos empresarios
privados son cómplices del gobierno intervencionista en la economía...
El apoyo de la empresa privada a expensas de los mercados libres trae como
resultado simplemente el corporativismo, donde el negocio se convierte en una
extensión del gobierno en lugar de los agentes de la competencia y elección.
La base teórica de la política del gobierno hacia las empresas
estadounidenses ha sido ejecutada por más de 200 años por
"laissez-faire". Laissez-faire, o "deja solo," en una
traducción del francés, es un concepto que permite a los intereses privados que
tienen una virtual libertad tener rienda suelta en la operación de los
negocios.
El economista escocés del siglo XVIII Adam Smith ha influenciado
fuertemente el desarrollo de las ideas de laissez-faire, e indirectamente,
influyó en el crecimiento del capitalismo en América.
Argumentó que las acciones de particulares, motivados por el interés
propio, trabajan juntos para el bien de la sociedad mucho mejor si los mercados
son competitivos
No hay un ejemplo mejor de intervencionismo del estado como el Obamacare,
donde el gobierno utiliza a empresas privadas para establecer un sistema de
seguro que limita la libre empresa, la libertad de las personas de escoger su
propio seguro, su médico, su tratamiento a la vez que crea el monopolio estatal
que significa un único proveedor del cuidado de la salud, sin competencia,
que es el objetivo final del Obamacare, como fue abiertamente el intento
del Hillarycare durante la administración de los resbalosos Clintons.
Los enemigos de la libre empresa, presentan en su propaganda proponiendo el
socialismo ciertos defectos aparentes de la libre empresa, pero cuando
observamos detenidamente estos llamados defectos, vemos que son debido a
la asociación de gobiernos intervencionistas con la complicidad de empresas
privadas que se convierten en unas agencias del gobierno creando el capitalismo
de estado, que no es propiamente la libre empresa.
Un conservador es generalmente definido como alguien que favorece la
iniciativa privada y se opone a la intervención del gobierno; un liberal, un
socialista del siglo XXI, como la presente administración, y sus cómplices en
las empresas privadas son generalmente definidos como quienes usan la empresa
privada, pero está más dispuesto a aceptar la intervención del gobierno y lo
apoyan con entusiasmo.
¿Qué camino debemos de seguir? La mejor manera de vislumbrar el
futuro es mirando al pasado.
Los Estados Unidos han crecido para ser la nación más rica de todos los
tiempos con el capitalismo de libre mercado. Los lugares donde se ha
implantado el capitalismo de estado, siempre han fracasado.
La diferencia entre el capitalismo de estado y el capitalismo de libre
mercado es que el capitalismo de libre mercado es llegar a un voluntario y
mutuo acuerdo, transacción o comercio,independiente y libre, mientras que
el capitalismo estatal es el control de las corporaciones por el Gobierno; es
una forma híbrida de empresas públicas y privadas. Capitalismo de estado
significa la burocracia, la planificación central y las usurpaciones de
nuestras libertades.
Aquellos que se interponen en contra el capitalismo de libre mercado, con
capitalismo de estado, están oponiéndose al mayor motor de prosperidad material
en la historia humana: el capitalismo real. Capitalismo de libre mercado es la
fuente misma de civilización, progreso, paz y prosperidad.
AMENPER: ATAQUE UNA EXPOSICIÓN
CONTROVERSIAL DE CARTONES DE MAHOMA
Este es el título de la prensa complaciente
a un ataque a personas que estaban expresando pacíficamente su
manera de pensar.
Implícitamente al llamar a un acto de libertad de
expresión controversial, está justificando el ataque.
Vamos a ver, porque tengo este mojón atravesado en mi
mente que no me deja razonar.
Así que la figura de Cristo crucificado en un
recipiente de orine, no es controversial, la reunión de una convención de
Musulmanes, algunos patrocinadores del Yihad, para atacar a los que les
critican, no es controversial. Cuando se me traba el mojón es cuando
me dicen que tocar a los creyentes del Islam si es controversial e insensato porque
ponemos en peligro una comunidad tranquila como Garland, Texas.
Esta es la versión de MSNBC, así que los culpables son
los atacados no los atacantes.
¿Qué podemos hacer para complacer a los Jirafistas y a
MSNBC?, quizás podamos dar en donación nuestras hijas y nietas al
harem de los jirafistas y así nos dejarán tranquilos, creo que eso es los que
sugieren los liberales.
Porque ¿Qué otra cosa pudiéramos
hacer? Entran en el país sin problema, hacen lo que quieran en sus
barrios, en los que imponen su propia ley Sharía por arriba de la ley de la
nación, no se puede hablar mal de ellos, no se les puede tocar ni con el pétalo
de una rosa.
Mientras asesinan sin compasión a todos los que se le
oponen en Holanda y Francia y ahora están tratando de hacerlo en territorio
americano, pero no son culpables, los culpables son los que se le oponen,
porque son controversiales, los que se les oponen son el problema, no los
jirafistas.
Esta pendejería endémica que está invadiendo la
mentalidad de este país va en contra de los principios de los padres de la
patria que liberaron a los Estados de las injusticias de la corona Británica.
El Quijote de Cervantes dijo, “Cosas veredes Sancho
que faran fablar las piedras” pero se equivocó el Cervantes, porque ahora ni
las piedras pueden hablar, porque eso sería controversial.
|
||
 We're One Step Closer To Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama! UPDATE: It's official. Congressman Ted Yoho has just introduced H. Res. 198... a bill that lays the groundwork for the IMPEACHMENT OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. And now, it's up to each and every one of us to separate the cowards and liars in Washington for those who truly value the Constitution. It's time for each and every one of us to separate those who merely give lip-service to the notion that Barack Hussein Obama is LAWLESS from those who are willing to back up their words with action. H. Res 198 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and it's time for patriotic Americans to demand that EVERY Republican Member of Congress cosponsor this bill and move it to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up-or-down vote. And we need to make it clear that co-sponsorship is a litmus test and that any Member of Congress who does not add their name as a cosponsor is telling the American people that they support the Obama Dictatorship. "We Are Laying A Red Line. This Is The Rubicon." -Congressman Ted Yoho And what is Yoho's warning to Barack Hussein Obama? As stated in a recent interview, he is saying: "We are laying a red line. This is the Rubicon. [You] are forewarned: do not cross this line." But make no mistake, Yoho's legislation simply doesn't lay down a red line for Barack Hussein Obama. It lays down a red line for every future occupant of the Oval Office as well by specifically defining eleven separate violations that constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors" under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution. H. Res 198 says to Barack Obama and every future occupant of the White House:If you cross the line... if you commit any of one of the eleven violations of the public trust enumerated in H. Res 198... expect to be IMPEACHED! And Yoho knows that his resolution is going to cause a "firestorm." According to Breitbart, Yoho "anticipates [that] liberal commentators and Democrats will accuse the GOP of racism" for even daring to raise the subject of Barack Obama's impeachment in Congress. Yoho's response? ... Bring it on... "If people want to play the race card, and they will, that's their choice. If they want to play the political card – 'it's because he's a Democrat and you don't like him' – that's their choice. My job is to uphold the Constitution and I don’t care who the president is." Yoho went on to say that Mr. Obama's Dictatorial Amnesty Decree was the straw that broke the camel's back. Yoho calls it a "blatant, in-your-face 'I'm above the law and I'm going to do what I want. I'm a dictator, I'm a king'" moment. and Yoho, for one, is no longer willing to simply sit back and accept Mr. Obama's dictatorial rule. And now, each and every patriot reading this appeal must make a choice. Yoho has bravely placed his neck on the chopping block. Will you back his move? Or will you show him — by your lack of action — that doing what the American people want constitutes political suicide?
Patriotic Americans Must Back Yoho's Play. The Time
To Jump On The Impeachment Train Is Upon Us... It Is
Now.
As previously stated, Yoho's resolution lists eleven specific violations that fit the Constitution's standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors," and many of those actionsALREADY apply directly to Barack Hussein Obama. Among those specific actions are "failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement" and"substituting executive agreements for treaties." Quoting Yoho, Breitbart writes: "Other impeachable offenses would include initiating war without congressional authorization, spending funds in defiance of appropriations laws, and refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents of testimony 'issued for a legitimate legislative purpose.'" Yes, impeachment is a bold move, but Barack Obama has shown that he is not afraid to be bold. Congress must be just as bold and Yoho's resolution will lay the groundwork for bold moves that will lead to the removal of Barack Hussein Obama from office. In Washington these days, lies are called truth and the truth is called bigotry and racism. A Great Depression is called an economic recovery. We are told that the only means of saving the middle class is to tax it into non-existence. Illegal aliens now have more rights than American citizens and the great pretender, who has usurped the White House, kowtows to the very Islamic terrorists who have vowed to destroy us. The insanity must stop and there is only one way to cure the disease that is eating away at our country. There is only one way to reverse the Constitutional crisis that presently plagues us. Barack Obama must NOT be given two years of dictatorial rule to achieve his dream of fundamentally transforming this nation. Obama must be removed. At the very least, he must be put in check and an overwhelming show of grassroots support to Congressman Ted Yoho's resolution is a way to make that happen. The time to finally impeach Barack Hussein Obama is upon us... the time is now.
Floyd Brown
The Western
Center for Journalism is a 501©3 educational organization. Contributions are
tax-deductible as allowed by IRS regulations. Personal and corporate
contributions are allowed.
|
Jorge A Villalon: Scalia and Alito: Have
You No Sense of Decency, Sirs?
Hisham Ibrahim
In the 1940s and 1950s,
countless people in the US were being bullied and brutalized by the anti-communist scare tactics and character assassinations of
Senator Joseph McCarthy. The end of the McCarthy redbaiting era began when
Joseph Welch stood up to McCarthy after he attacked a young lawyer on his
staff. Welch was appalled by McCarthy's callous disregard and despite
McCarthy's power, challenged him by stating: "Until this moment, Senator,
I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." He
concluded by saying, "You've done enough. Have you no
sense of decency, sir? At
long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
In the recent marriage equality case, Supreme Court Justices
Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia argued that marriage equality opens the door to
polygamy, underage sex, and incest between brothers and sisters. This is the
modern equivalent of McCarthy redbaiting and deserves the same response.
The cruel, illogical,
heartless, and hateful arguments of Alito and Scalia give considerable support
and inspiration to right-wing groups who literally demonize our sisters and
brothers and sons and daughters who seek only to marry their same sex partners
just like the rest of us.
Alito and Scalia give
comfort to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who stated marriage
equality leads to incest. To Rick Santorum who compares same sex relationships to bestiality
and pedophilia. To the head of ironically named American Decency
Association who claimed that gay rights is a satanic attack on the US. And to legions of
other people and groups who practice hostility and violence against our sisters
and brothers.
It is one thing to have
these fringe haters outside on the courthouse steps. We allow the Ku Klux Klan
and the Nazi parties to demonstrate out on the steps. It is another matter
entirely when they are in the exalted position as members of the court and
while there feeding the fires of hatred in their public arguments.
It is past time for
family, friends, lawyers, legal associations and law schools to ask Alito and
Scalia to halt and to answer the question "Have you no sense of decency,
sirs?"
Alito, long criticized
for being a cranky, malicious mouthpiece of the anti-gay movement, was
at it again when the court heard the marriage equality case. Alito is already
famous for visibly shaking his head and mouthing opposition to President Obama in his 2010 State of the
Union address and for throwing a mini-tantrum when other justices dissent.
Alito argued that
approving the right to marriage equality for gay and lesbian people would open
the door for 12 year olds to marry, for brothers and sisters to marry, and make
polygamy possible for four lawyers who all want to marry each other. Alito's
problems are so often raised and widely known that they are characterized as his "polygamy perplex" by The New
Yorker.
Alito's fallacious
slippery slope arguments, transparently couched as questions, were so
ridiculous that they prompted John Stewart
to ask whether, in the case
where women fought for the right to vote, Alito might have asked "What if
one day a dog wants to vote? How about that ladies?"
Antonin Scalia, of
course not to be outdone, argued that if marriage equality was recognized ministers would be forced to conduct such marriages even if
their religious organizations opposed them. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor
pointed out that no ministers have ever been forced to conduct gay marriages
Scalia would not hear of it. When the lawyer arguing the case and Justices
Breyer and Kagan pointed out that the First Amendment already protected priests, rabbis, imams and ministers
from conducting marriages inconsistent with their religions,Scalia refused to concede.
Scalia, like Alito, also asked if
marriage equality means polygamy would have to be recognized.
As one wise friend pointed
out, our country still has the Ku Klux Klan but we do not take their arguments
seriously. And there are no respected people openly espousing their arguments
on the Supreme Court. No respected person openly argues that blacks and whites
should not marry. Nor do any people argue openly that women do not deserve the
right to vote. Yet, there are people on the Supreme Court who continue to
openly repeat the brutally crude applause lines of right-wing anti-gay hate
groups. It is time that stopped.
It is time all people of
good will stand up to the haters, especially those on the Supreme Court, and
say, "Until this moment, Justices, I think I have never really gauged your
cruelty or your recklessness... You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency,
sirs? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
More:
Marriage
Equality Gay
Marriage Antonin
Scalia Samuel
Alito Polygamy Pedophilia Ku Klux
Klan First
Amendment Sonia
Sotomayor Elena
Kagan Stephen
Breyer Rush
Limbaugh Rick
Santorum Satan John
Stewart Hate
Groups The
New Yorker Red Scare Joseph
Welch Joseph
McCarthy McCarthyism
Jorge Alberto
Villalón Y.
E mail:jorgeavillalon@bellsouth.net
Do-or-die time for Iran legislation
Legislation granting Congress the power to review a
nuclear deal with Iran is facing a life-or-death moment in the Senate.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is seeking an
agreement to allow votes on several controversial amendments backed by
conservatives that supporters of the bill say would kill it.
To buy more time, McConnell pushed off a planned
Monday night vote on a separate labor bill to consult with other Republicans.
The full conference is expected to talk about the Iran bill at their Tuesday
lunch.
ADVERTISEMENT
The majority leader has preferred not to pick sides in fights that divide his
conference, opting to let his colleagues hash things out and move toward
consensus.
Yet on the dicey Iran issue, some Republicans
predicted McConnell may have no choice but to file cloture to end debate on the
Iran measure and avoid voting on amendments that could kill the bill.
While this could anger conservatives, it would also
save a carefully crafted compromise drawn up by Senate Foreign Relations
Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and reluctantly endorsed by the White
House.
“I think that’s his only option. I know he doesn’t
want to do it. I don’t want him to do it, but it seems to me we could be
dragging this out for days and weeks,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday
evening.
McConnell was blindsided late last week when Sens. Tom
Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) set up a series of votes on
controversial amendments to the Iran bill, including one that would require
Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of any final nuclear deal.
Democrats have warned that if Rubio’s amendment comes
up for a vote, it will likely pass — derailing the broader bill.
Senior Democratic aides say McConnell cannot expect
Democrats to shoulder the dangerous burden of a killing a pro-Israel amendment.
Its passage could also endanger the nuclear talks,
which are set to continue until a June 30 final deadline. The Obama
administration says requiring Iran to recognize Israel would throw a monkey
wrench in the negotiations.
The GOP leader on Monday night decided against filing
cloture to end debate on the underlying Iran bill, which would have prevented a
vote on Rubio’s measure.
Democrats had expected McConnell to move Monday to end
debate. Instead, McConnell stuck to his pledge — at least for the time being —
to allow robust debates on the Senate floor and plenty of votes on amendments.
Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said
McConnell is trying to reach an agreement on amendments with members of his own
caucus as well as Democrats.
He said he cannot imagine Democrats agreeing to a vote
on Rubio’s amendment.
Corker said Monday he expects McConnell to move to end
debate and block the possibility of additional votes on amendments “fairly
soon.”
Walking out of McConnell’s office Monday evening,
Corker said he had a “very good meeting” and predicted “we’re going to finish
the bill this week.”
Rubio said Monday that he did not speak with McConnell
over the weekend and reiterated his desire to get a vote on his proposal while
acknowledging that his leader may not have that flexibility.
“I want to get a vote on my amendment but I understand
the process,” he said.
McConnell can’t delay a vote on Iran indefinitely
given the crowded Senate schedule.
The Senate must pass legislation to extend the
solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and surveillance authority for the National
Security Agency by the end of the month.
McConnell also wants to pass fast-track trade
authority before the Memorial Day recess.
“He doesn’t have the luxury of time on this one,” a
senior Democratic aide said of the Iran bill.
McConnell reiterated his pledge to allow free-flowing
floor debates just last week, when he said of the Iran bill, “we ought to have
a full and open and robust amendment process, and I believe that’s what we’ll
have.”
McConnell last month avoided a potential fight within
his conference over whether to restore the 60-vote threshold to end debate on
controversial nominees by helping to round up more than 60 votes to advance
Loretta Lynch, who was nominated for attorney general, to a final vote.
Jordain Carney contributed.
If you think your money is safe in the bank, you need
to think again
BANKS TURNING ACCOUNTS OVER TO
POLICE FOR SEIZURE!!!!?????
Criminal banksters turning
accounts over to criminal police????
Written by Damon Geller
Shocking new revelations demonstrate once again that, if you think your
money is safe in the bank, you need to think again. Coming on the heels
of a recent New York Times report that the nation’s biggest banks have
willingly turned bank accounts over to the IRS for total confiscation, the Wall
Street Journal now reports that banks are working with the Department of
Justice to turn customer bank accounts over to the police for seizure!
It’s all done in secrecy, often initiated by the bankers. Tragically, bank account
holders don’t even know they’re being targeted until after the money is seized
from their accounts. The banks’ deplorable actions have already resulted
in millions of dollars stolen from U.S. citizens without a shred of due
process. And in 80% of the cases, no criminal charges were ever filed.
Even more alarming — in a matter of just a few years — these cases of
unconstitutional bank account seizures have risen over 500%! Experts
advise that you have only ONE choice if you want to protect your savings and
retirement from the corrupt banks and government.
Banks Have Already Been Reporting You
Whenever a banker finds anything suspicious about the activity of a
customer, they are required by the federal government to file a suspicious
activity report, or SAR. What constitutes “suspicious activity” is at the
judgment of the bank. According to the handbook for the Federal Financial
Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect
to “Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an
affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more” if the bank merely suspects unlawful
activity, regardless of whether they have actual evidence.
Banks have minimum quotas of SARs they need to fill out and submit to
the federal government. If they don’t file enough SARs, they can be fined
or lose their banking charter, and bank executives and directors can even be
imprisoned for noncompliance. Chances are, your banker has filled one out
on you—they submitted 1.6 million SARs against loyal customers in 2013 alone!
Banks Rat out Loyal Customers to the Police
But now, the Department of Justice is urging banks to file additional
reports with the police, and they’re giving the police the authority to seize
bank accounts without due process, even if no crime has been committed!
Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell proudly explained, “We encourage
those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to
alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize
the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps.”
So whenever your bank suspects something ‘suspicious’ is going on, the
federal government urges them to pick up the phone and rat you out to the
cops! You might think this is no big deal, that you’ll just tell the
police where the cash came from and how it’s being used. Or you might
assume that you’ll have your day in court. Think again.
The IRS Already Seizes Accounts without Due Process
As recently reported by the New York Times, banks have already been
reporting millions of cash deposits under $10,000 to the IRS. From there,
the IRS is arbitrarily deeming these deposits suspicious and seizing all the
money in these accounts — without any evidence of a crime, without filing
criminal charges, and without allowing the account holder to fight the
confiscation in court!
What’s more, the number of IRS seizures has increased over 500% in just
a few years, and in 80% of the cases the IRS never files a criminal complaint
against the individual being seized. The median amount seized by the IRS
is $34,000, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more.
Individuals who are the victims of seizure often cannot afford to fight.
How big are the accounts the bankers turn over to the government for
seizure? The following are just a few of the horrifying cases exposed by
the New York Times:
·
The government
confiscated $447,000 from a family business in New York
·
The government
confiscated $33,000 from a small restaurant owner in Iowa
·
The government
confiscated $66,000 from an army sergeant in Virginia who was saving the money
for his daughter’s college educationSo when the police now come walking into
the bank to investigate your cash deposits or withdrawals, don’t just assume you
will have your day in court. You may wake up tomorrow and find your bank
account has been seized.
Government on the Brink of Disaster
So why are all these seizures of private savings happening?
Because the U.S. government and the Fed pumped trillions of dollars of YOUR
money into the banks and stock market over the last several years, catapulting
the U.S. debt to $28 trillion by 2018. And now, the U.S. government and
the Fed are completely out of ammo, with the Fed no longer able to buy U.S. treasuries.
They desperately need money to maintain their own power, and taxes are not
enough. So government officials are doing everything they can to keep the
Ponzi scheme going, such as seizing the public’s money through inflation,
deficits, and outright confiscation. And now they have enlisted their old
pals — the bankers — to help them get unfettered access to YOUR money without
due process.
Protect Yourself from Gov’t Confiscation Now
With our desperate government leaning on their banker friends to gain unprecedented
access to your money everywhere in the world, you need to take action NOW to
protect your savings & retirement. But when can’t trust your local
bank, and when the government has its hands in your bank accounts, retirement
accounts, brokerage accounts, and even the cash in your pocket – is any place
safe?
Absolutely. There’s ONE asset class this sits outside the financial
system and is completely secure from banker corruption, government confiscation
and global economic collapse: Gold & Silver. Gold & Silver
have been the best wealth protectors for over 5,000 years and have survived
every government & currency collapse in history. And when you own
PHYSICAL gold & silver, the banks and the government CANNOT seize your savings
with a click of a button.
So with the government spending way beyond its limits and seizing
control of your financial accounts, the time is now. Protect your savings
& retirement with physical gold & silver before you have nothing left
to protect. (Call 800-226-8106 to receive your free copy of Damon Geller’s
popular book, “Defend Your Money against Gov’t Confiscation,” or see below)
In a new tell-all book, Fidel Castro's former bodyguard, Juan Reinaldo
Sanchez, exposes the drug dealing and deception of the former Cuban president.
Photo: Alex Quesada ; Getty Images
For 17 years, Juan Reinaldo Sanchez served as a bodyguard to Fidel
Castro. But when he became disillusioned with the Cuban dictator’s hypocrisy
and tried to retire in 1994, Castro had him thrown in prison. Sanchez made 10
attempts to escape the island, finally making it to Mexico by boat, then across
the Texas border in 2008. Now he reveals all in his new book, “The Double Life
of Fidel Castro.” In this excerpt, Sanchez explains how he lost faith in the
revolution — and “El Jefe.”
The end of 1988. A day like any other was coming to a close in Havana.
In a few minutes, my life would be overturned.
Modal TriggerFidel had spent his afternoon reading and working in his office when he
stuck his head through the door to the anteroom, where I was, to warn me that
Abrantes was about to arrive.
Gen. José Abrantes, in his 50s, had been minister of the interior since
1985 after having been, notably, the commander in chief’s head of security for
20 years. Utterly loyal, he was one of the people who saw El Jefe daily.
While they met, I went to sit in my office, where the closed-circuit TV
screens monitoring the garage, the elevator and the corridors were found, as
well as the cupboard housing the three locks that turned on the recording mikes
hidden in a false ceiling in Fidel’s office.
A moment later, the Comandante came back, opened the door again, and
gave me this instruction: “Sánchez, ¡no grabes!” (“Sánchez, don’t record!”)
The interview seemed to go on forever . . . one hour went by, then two.
And so, as much out of curiosity as to kill the time, I put on the listening
headphones and turned Key No. 1 to hear what was being said on the other side
of the wall.
Disillusioned
Their conversation centered on a Cuban lanchero (someone who smuggles
drugs by boat) living in the United States, apparently conducting business with
the government.
And what business! Very simply, a huge drug-trafficking transaction was
being carried out at the highest echelons of the state.
Abrantes asked for Fidel’s authorization to bring this trafficker
temporarily to Cuba as he wanted to have a week’s vacation in his native land,
accompanied by his parents, in Santa María del Mar — a beach situated about 12
miles east of Havana where the water is turquoise and the sand as fine as
flour. For this trip, explained Abrantes, the lanchero would pay $75,000 —
which, at a time of economic recession, wouldn’t go amiss . . . Fidel was all
for it.
Juan Reinaldo SanchezPhoto: Alex Quesada
But he expressed a concern: How could they ensure that the parents of
the lanchero would keep the secret and not go and blab everywhere that they had
spent a week near Havana with their son, who was supposed to live in the United
States?
The minister had the solution: All they had to do was make them believe
their son was a Cuban intelligence officer who had infiltrated the United
States and whose life would be gravely endangered if they did not keep his
visit to Cuba absolutely secret. “Very well . . .” concluded Fidel, who gave
his agreement.
It was as if the sky had fallen in on me.
I realized that the man for whom I had long sacrificed my life, the
Líder whom I worshipped like a god and who counted more in my eyes than my own
family, was caught up in cocaine trafficking to such an extent that he was
directing illegal operations like a real godfather.
The Comandante, with his talent for dissimulation, went back to work as
if nothing was amiss. One has to understand his logic. For him,
drug trafficking was, above all, a weapon of revolutionary struggle more
than a means of making money.
His reasoning was as follows: If the Yanks were stupid enough to use
drugs that came from Colombia, not only was that not his problem — as long as
it was not discovered, that is — but, in addition, it served his revolutionary
objectives in the sense that it corrupted and destabilized American society.
Icing on the cake: It was a means of bringing in cash to finance subversion.
And so, as cocaine trafficking increased in Latin America, the line
between guerrilla war and trafficking drugs gradually blurred. What was true in
Colombia was just as true in Cuba. For my part, I never managed to accept this
twisted reasoning, in absolute contradiction to my revolutionary ethics.
Juan Reinaldo Sanchez shakes Fidel Castro’s hand after the former Cuban
president had won a medal.Photo: Juan Reinaldo Sanchez
In 1986, when economic aid from Moscow was starting to dry up, Castro
founded the MC Department (for moneda covertible, or “covertible currency”),
which traded in goods — illegal and legal — for hard currency from third
parties, principally Panama.
The MC Department soon acquired another nickname, the “Marijuana and
Cocaine Department.”
But the Americans became suspicious of Cuba’s drug dealing, and scandal
loomed. Fidel decided to take action to nip any possible suspicion about him in
the bud. He used the official daily paper, Granma, to inform its readers that
an inquiry had been opened.
Among the arrested were the respected revolutionary general Arnaldo
Ochoa and the minister I had overheard talking to Castro, José Abrantes.
The Machiavellian Fidel, while declaring himself “appalled” by what he
pretended to have discovered, claimed that “the most honest imaginable
political and judicial process” was under way.
Obviously, the reality was completely different. Comfortably installed
in his brother Raúl’s office, Fidel Castro and Raúl followed the live
proceedings of Causa No. 1 and Causa No. 2 on the closed-circuit TV screens.
Both trials were filmed — which is why one can today see large sections of it
on YouTube — and broadcast to every Cuban home, though not live: The government
wanted to be able to censor anything that might prove embarrassing.
Fidel even had the means to alert the president of the court discreetly,
via a warning light, whenever he thought a session should be interrupted.
And during breaks, the president of the court, the public prosecutor and
the jury members would swarm out onto the fourth floor of the ministry to take
their instructions from Fidel, who, as usual, organized and ordered everything,
absolutely everything.
Fidel Castro (right) and Revolutionary Gen. Arnaldo OchoaPhoto: AP
At the end of these parodies of justice, Gen. Ochoa was condemned to
death. José Abrantes received a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment.
After just two years of detention in 1991, he would suffer a fatal heart
attack, despite his perfect state of health, in circumstances that were, to say
the least, suspicious.
There followed the most painful episode of my career. Fidel had asked
that the execution of Ochoa and the three other condemned men be filmed.
And so, two days later, on a Saturday, a chauffeur arrived at the
residence, where I was, to deliver a brown envelope containing a Betamax
cassette video. Castro’s wife, Dalia, told Fidel’s men they should watch it.
The video had no sound, which made the scenes we began to watch even
more unreal. First, we saw vehicles arriving in a quarry at night, lit by
projectors.
I have often been asked how Ochoa faced death. The answer is clear and
unambiguous: with exceptional dignity.
As he got out of the car, he walked straight. When one of his torturers
proposed to put a band over his eyes, he shook his head in sign of refusal. And
when he was facing the firing squad, he looked death square in the face.
Despite the absence of sound, the whole excerpt shows his courage.
To his executioners, who could not be seen in the footage, he said
something that one could not hear but which one could guess. His chest pushed
out and his chin raised, he probably shouted something like, “Go on, you don’t
frighten me!” An instant later, he crumpled from beneath the bullets of seven
gunmen.
Castro made us watch it. That’s what the Comandante was capable of to
keep his power: not just of killing but also of humiliating and reducing to
nothing men who had served him devotedly.
His
Brother’s Keeper
After Ochoa’s death, Raúl Castro plunged into the worst bout of
alcoholism of his life. He had taken part in the assassination of his friend.
He turned to vodka, which had long been his favorite drink.
There was doubtless another factor involved: having watched the
elimination of his counterpart, Abrantes, Raúl could logically fear that he,
too, would be hounded from his position of defense minister.
The government No. 2 was dead drunk so often that the ministers and the
generals could not have failed to miss it. The Comandante decided to go and
lecture his younger brother.
I heard Fidel admonishing his brother, launching into a long, moralistic
tirade.
“How can you descend so low? You’re giving the worst possible example to
your family and your escort,” began the Comandante. “If what’s worrying you is
that what happened to Abrantes will happen to you, let me tell you that
Abrantes no es mi hermano [is not my brother]! You and I have been united since
we were children, for better and for worse. So, no, you are not going to
experience Abrantes’ fate, unless . . . you persist with this deplorable
behavior.
“Listen, I’m talking to you as a brother. Swear to me that you will come
out of this lamentable state and I promise you nothing will happen to you.”
Sure enough, shortly afterward, Fidel spoke out in praise of Raúl,
applauding his integrity and his devotion to the Revolution. Raúl, for his
part, carried on drinking vodka, but in far more reasonable quantities.
From “The Double Life of Fidel Castro: My 17 Years as Personal Bodyguard
to El Lider Maximo” by Juan Reinaldo Sanchez with Axel Gyldén.
Copyright © 2015 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s
Press, LLC.
http://nypost.com/2015/05/03/former-bodyguard-unmasks-fidel-castros-corrupt-double-life/
Could America Withstand Another Morally Rudderless
President? Tad Cronn
The Democratic Party
these days seems to just be tossing things at the wall to see if they stick as
it works out its 2016 presidential strategy.
The party doesn’t
seem to have a plan as its previous plan of “let Hillary crown herself queen”
falls apart.
Between revelations
of possibly helping Vladimir Putin gain control of America’s uranium
production, disclosure of her foundation’s non-disclosure of foreign donations,
stories about her brittle personality, and whatever else can be dragged up from
her closet full of skeletons, it’s a wonder that she hasn’t dropped out of
sight or been hauled off in chains.
Not a promising
beginning for a long-awaited lady leader of the free world.
Complicating things
is that most of the stories about Hillary are being spoonfed to the mainstream
media by the segment of the Democratic Party allied with President Obama and
his adviser Valerie Jarrett, who — surprise! — are backbiting the hand that has
fed them lo these past six and a half years.
So what’s the
Democrats’ solution?
Bernie Sanders,
self-described socialist and technically Independent. (He caucuses with the
Democrats.)
So, the party of
closet socialists is having its annointed heir-apparent challenged by an open
socialist who doesn’t even pay club dues.
I’m not sure that
Obama has fundamentally changed the United States enough to expect voters to
admit that they are socialists themselves by voting for Bernie, and his run for
the Oval Office may turn out to be the definition of quixotic.
But something tells
me he is just a tool in the Democratic toolbox, and his run is intended by the
non-Obama crowd to pull Hillary’s fat out of the fire by making her look less
radical … and less old.
I tossed in that one
because I’ve been seeing headlines like “GOP subtly attacking Hillary’s age,”
which is nonsense because a) only Democrats base political careers on physical
characteristics like age, gender and skin color; and b) there is so much to
criticize in Hillary’s career that age is among the last things the GOP would
even acknowledge.
It sounds like a
pincer maneuver in the Democrats’ perception war for the throne: Bernie is too
old; the GOP is running a bunch of whippersnappers; Hillary is just right.
Of course, there is
also the always-hopeful true radicals among the DP, who hope that Bernie’s
presence will pull Hillary to the left, away from those “centrist” lies, er,
policies she touts on the campaign trail. That, in some people’s minds, would
make her the perfect candidate: corrupt and openly communist, a suitable
replacement for Obama.
But at the moment, it
looks like Hillary’s star may be about to leave a crater in the middle of New
York, where she moved to run for Senate after Bill Clinton finished his
presidency.
And that’s just fine
with the White House Skunk Works, which would rather run Fauxcahontas,
Elizabeth Warren, the whitest Native American ever, who only put forth her
minority status when presented with the opportunity for a plum tenured
professorship.
Except for the Native
American claim, she’s basically Bernie Sanders in a dress.
So, in summation, the
Democratic Party has the Heir to the Annointed One; who is being attacked by
the Dogs of the Annointed One; while being challenged by Red Bernie; as Indian
Princess Dances With Perjury waits in the wings like a giggly schoolgirl.
The real question for
America is, can we survive yet another amoral, demagogic Democrat in the Oval
Office. The current one has us on the ropes. Assuming we survive the remainder
of Obama’s term, a One-World Socialist tag team could finish the job.
You can fool some of
the people all of the time. That’s the Democrat base.
The question for
Democrats is, can they quell their internal fighting in time to fool enough of
the people one more time?
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/05/could-america-withstand-another-morally-rudderless-president/#pW5c10J8pH63xPWw.99
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/05/could-america-withstand-another-morally-rudderless-president/#pW5c10J8pH63xPWw.99
"Jose
Valdesuso" <jvaldesuso@yahoo.com>NEWS FROM THE YEAR: 2059
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in
the seventh largest Country in the world, Mexifornia,
formerly known as California.
White minorities still trying to have English
recognized as the third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens Northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual
marriage.
Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica. No other country comes forward to help the beleagered nation.
Last Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2060.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.
Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such
a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Abortion clinics now available in every High School in United States.
Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR
even though gas is selling for 4532 Pesos per liter and gas stations are only
open on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules any punishment of criminals
violates their civil rights.
A Couple Finally Had Sexual Harmony . They had simultaneous Headaches.
Average height of NBA players is now nine feet seven inches with only 5 illegitimate children.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2060.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Floruba voters still having trouble with voting machines.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules any punishment of criminals
violates their civil rights.
A Couple Finally Had Sexual Harmony . They had simultaneous Headaches.
Average height of NBA players is now nine feet seven inches with only 5 illegitimate children.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2060.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Floruba voters still having trouble with voting machines.
“FREEDOM
IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment