No 472 “En mi opinión” Agosto 31, 2013.
Editor Lázaro R González Miño “IN GOD WE TRUST”
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
RICARDO SAMITIER: Obama Está DESESPERADO Por Ayudar A La Hermandad Musulmana…
Con Un PRÉSTAMO DE LA ARTILLERÍA DE USA...
Para beneficiar el triunfo de los enemigos de OCCIDENTE y el mundo CRISTIANO...
¿Hasta Cuando El Congreso Va A Seguir Ayudando A Obama y Sus Planes???
Los Congresistas en el limbo comiendo “hunga de vaca’ de Vacaciones...
Los “PACIFISTAS”… Desenfrenados
Tratando De Iniciar Una Guerra…
Obama, “Premio Noble De La Paz” Por sus Buenas Intenciones
Y Kerry “Pacifista Contra Todas Las Guerras” hasta que logró
Ser MINISTRO DE ESTADO... Alegan... que se mataron niños con
Gases tóxicos... y que es obligatorio PROTEGER A TODOS CONTRA
FUTUROS ATAQUES... enviando cohetes que matan inocentes...
Entre ellos a NIÑOS...
Creerán Obama, Kerry y los carneros que los siguen... que todos los
Ciudadanos somos IMBÉCILES... Han llegado al poder con los mismos
Engaños que llegó Fidel Castro... Y TAL PARECE QUE EL REFRÁN
TIENE RAZÓN... “La Historia Se Repite”
Los “PACIFISTAS”… Desenfrenados
Tratando De Iniciar Una Guerra…
Obama, “Premio Noble De La Paz” Por sus Buenas Intenciones
Y Kerry “Pacifista Contra Todas Las Guerras” hasta que logró
Ser MINISTRO DE ESTADO... Alegan... que se mataron niños con
Gases tóxicos... y que es obligatorio PROTEGER A TODOS CONTRA
FUTUROS ATAQUES... enviando cohetes que matan inocentes...
Entre ellos a NIÑOS...
Creerán Obama, Kerry y los carneros que los siguen... que todos los
Ciudadanos somos IMBÉCILES... Han llegado al poder con los mismos
Engaños que llegó Fidel Castro... Y TAL PARECE QUE EL REFRÁN
TIENE RAZÓN... “La Historia Se Repite”
Los “PACIFISTAS”… Desenfrenados
Tratando De Iniciar Una Guerra… Obama, “Premio Noble De La Paz” Por sus Buenas Intenciones
Y Kerry “Pacifista Contra Todas Las Guerras” hasta que logró
Ser MINISTRO DE ESTADO... Alegan... que se mataron niños con
Gases tóxicos... y que es obligatorio PROTEGER A TODOS CONTRA
FUTUROS ATAQUES... enviando cohetes que matan inocentes...
Entre ellos a NIÑOS...
Creerán Obama, Kerry y los carneros que los siguen... que todos los
Ciudadanos somos IMBÉCILES... Han llegado al poder con los mismos
Engaños que llegó Fidel Castro... Y TAL PARECE QUE EL REFRÁN
TIENE RAZÓN... “La Historia Se Repite”
¿Quien ha utilizado las armas químicas en Siria?: Los islamistas que apoya Obama
Como venimos avisando, parece evidente a cualquier observador imparcial que el ataque químico en Siria lo han realizado los terroristasislamistas y no su gobierno. Y no sería el primero:
Hace meses (en mayo de este año), la policía turca ya detuvo a 12 islamistas del “ejército rebelde sirio” que llevaban gas sarín y confesaron que era para utilizar en Siria. Esta noticia se intentó ocultar y los medios generalistas de todo el mundo la silenciaron tanto como pudieron, siguiendo los dictados del Nuevo Orden Mundial ¿Por qué? Porque apuntaba claramente a la autoría de las fuerzas islamistas,contrarias a Damasco.
El Gobierno Turco es Sunita y Siria es aliada de los chiitas, sus enemigos ancestrales con los que se disputan el dominio del Islam. Además, mientras el Gobierno islamista de Turquía (vinculado a los radicales Hermanos Musulmanes de Egipto) ha estado acusan do al Gobierno de Siria (socialista y relativamente laico) de haber utilizado gas sarín contra la población civil y por ello exige que se bombardee Siria, la propia oposición democrática turca lleva meses insistiendo en que el Gobierno Turco esta entrenando a los asesinos islamistas que pretender derrocar al Gobierno Sirio… incluso utilizando gas sarín.
Evidentemente, Obama , Cámeron, Hollandee, Israel y las dictaduras mahometanas que apoyan el derrocamiento del Gobierno de Siria, sabían perfectamente que los rebeldes tenían gas sarín, pero TODOS deseaban y siguen deseando ocultarlo a la opinión pública, para culpar de cualquier ataque químico al Gobierno de Siria y que Siria terminase cayendo y siendo un nuevo estado islamista sunita, porque lo que no soportan es que sea, como hasta ahora, un estado aliado de Iran (debo recordarles que Irán es el único gran estado chiita del mundo, enemigo a muerte de todos los estados musulmanes Sunitas que, encabezados por Arabia Saudita, son aliados de EUA y principal fuente del petróleo que consumimos en Europa).
De momento y gracias especialmente a la posición contraria al ataque a Siria sostenida por la Iglesia y por el Santo Padre, Obama está retrasando el ataque ha que se conozcan los resultados de la investigación realizada por los agentes de la ONU. ¿Y qué dicen los observadores?
Aun no se conoce el informe, que parece sesgado dado que no se ha querido estudiar el uso de armas químicas acaecido anteriormente en Aleppo y que una de las altas funcionarias de la ONU ya señaló a las fuerzas islamistas contrarias al Gobierno Sirio y aliadas de Obama como autoras.
En esa línea el Washington Times aseguraba que uno de los funcionrios de la ONU desplazados a Siria, acusa a los rebeldes de ser los causantes del ataque con armas químicas.
Aun así, visto que hasta medios supuestamente católicos en España se permiten contradecir la opinión del Santo Padre y se pliegan a los intereses del Nuevo Orden Mundial, parece que la suerte está echada: Se atacará a Siria. Contra ello solo podemos difundir la verdad y rezar por Siria.
En Cristo Rey
Efrén Pablos
Presidente de la asociación Cruz de San Andrés
Reagan Y lo que pensaba de Martin Luther King
Esta INFORMACIÓN la envió Para: Los “HABITANTES” Los Que Viven
Pues Respiran... Pero Desinformados… Regan Era Presidente Cuando El Congreso Estableció El “Día De Martin Luther King”
Gobernar es DIFÍCIL Cuando El Presidente lo hace con un Congreso En que ambos partidos Están INFILTRADOS POR ENEMIGOS... Del Sistema Republicano...
Ronald Reagan, dejó pasar la ley estableciendo el día de Martin Luther King SIN SU FIRMA... Decidió NO VETAR LA LEY, para no lastimar las relaciones con Los republicanos socialistas del congreso, a los que él consideraba Sin valor y sin valores...
GUINES EMERGENCIA = COLERA = GRAVE
En 1897 Durante La Concentración De Weyler Fue la Última Vez Que Hubo Cólera En Cuba... Ahora Después de 54 Años De Estar Aplaudiendo Al TIRANO COMUNISTA... Apoyando todo tipo de INJUSTICIAS Y Directamente
Contribuyendo a La Destrucción De Cuba... Les llegó “El Cólera”
“El Cólera Es: Resultado Directo De las Marchas Del Pueblo pidiendo
PAREDÓN Para el VECINO... y aplaudiendo o quedándose CALLADOS
Antes Las injusticias... En estos 54 años el pueblo aprendió a cagar
en Cartuchos y tirarlos los excrementos a la calle... a NO LAVARSE
LAS MANOS... pues para aplaudir no se necesitan manos limpias...
El viejo REFRÁN DICE: “Uno Recibe Lo Que SIEMBRA”...
De todas maneras les paso esta petición de los Guineros...
quienes no saben quién fue el “PIPERO” Guinero que fue fusilado
por estar contra el régimen...
Tenemos que orar por nuestro pueblo de Güines, ya que hay un número elevado de casos de cólera y alarma, comenzó al parecer por el pozo de la Alejandría, pero ya también hay casos en otras partes del pueblo. Allá están circulando ambulancias que dicen ''emergencia nacional'', parece que los casos de pacientes adultos se van a quedar en Güines, los niños los están remitiendo para La Habana, están habilitando la sala de fisioterapia en la calle Alvarez entre calle Habana y calle Trujillo para los adultos. Lo más importante de todo es evitar que los pacientes se deshidraten, parece que el medicamento de elección es la Doxiciclina (un tipo de Tetraciclina). Hay una cola afuera del hospital para que los clasifiquen, por la parte que era de ortopedia antes, la gente con fatiga…es deprimente. Vamos a pedirle a Dios que se logre controlar el brote. Para poder entrar al hospital el que lo necesite tiene que pasar los zapatos por unas cajas que tienen dentro una sustancia (debe ser cloro), lavarse las manos con jabón, enjuagarse y les echan agua con cloro. Está movilizado el Nivel Central de Salud Pública en el hospital por la preocupación de esta situación de salud que se ha presentado. Todos están muy preocupados y tomando las medidas de prevención lo mejor que se pueda, sobre todo hirviendo el agua y echándole Hipoclorito de Sodio. Aunque se tratara de agua purificada, para más seguridad la deben hervir y echarle el Hipoclorito.
Los “Guerreristas De Hoy” antiguos“PACIFISTAS”
Condenaban Que USA Fuera El Policía Del Mundo...
Ahora...
Se han preparando para UNA ACCIÓN POLICIACA en un país, que no nos ha atacado y no nos amenaza!
¿Cómo es posible que el ganador del PREMIO NOBEL DE LA PAZ, POR SUS BUENAS INTENCIONES, tenga el poder para hacer una guerra? De Contra... DICEN QUE NO ES GUERRA... pues no van a usar soldados...
Es SIMPLEMENTE UN PRÉSTAMO DE LA ARTILLERÍA DE USA...
a la HERMANDAD MUSULMANA... Para beneficiar el triunfo de los enemigos de OCCIDENTE y el mundo CRISTIANO...
Pero ¿Qué Hacen Los POLITIQUEROS Electos A Washington?
Están De Vacaciones de Verano...
Acaso no han leído la Constitución?
Acaso no han visto el video del ACTUAL VICE-PRESIDENTE... pidiendo la DESTITUCIÓN DE BUSH... por las misma razones de atacar un país sin la aprobación del congreso????
Aquí TIENEN EL VIDEO POLITIQUEROS QUE ESTÁN DE VACACIONES... EN VEZ DE ESTAR EN WASHINGTON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dRFJ6CF2Mw
Obama ni ninguno de los ANTIGUOS PACIFISTAS... pueden ordenar ese ataque...sin la aprobación del congreso... y si votan a FAVOR DEL ATAQUE les vamos a pasar la cuenta...
Estos Tres Mapas Muestran ¿Cuánta Potencia Occidental Rodean Siria Ahora
No puedo creer que esto fue publicado en el New York Times
El Fracaso Económico De La India...
Es Similar A Los Planes De Obama
El actual gobierno, que asumió el cargo en 2004, ha hecho dos errores fundamentales.En primer lugar, supuso que el crecimiento económico es manejado por un piloto automático y no se ocupó de los problemas estructurales graves. En segundo lugar, a pesar de tener menores ingresos, inició importantes programas de redistribución,desatendiendo sus consecuencias: MAYOR DÉFICIT FISCAL Y COMERCIAL.
La reacción en la India ha sido igual que en USA... Para protegerse de la inflación y la incertidumbre general, los consumidores con capital disponible...han adquirido furiosamente oro, haciendo que el país depende del capital extranjero para financiar su déficit comercial.
La India como USA están siempre en CAMPAÑA PRE-ELECTORAL hasta el próximo año. Las elecciones aumentan las presiones DE LOS SOCIALISTAS para gastar y retrasar la reforma necesaria... para salir electos y mantenerse en el PODER...
Las similitudes son tan grandes que sigo ANONADADO... que el periódico “Vocero del Comunismo y el OBAMISMO” En USA lo publicara...
Así que la debilidad y la turbulencia de la India y de USA pueden persistir hasta después de las elecciones... PARA ENTONCES LOS DAÑOS VAN A SER ENORMES...
Para los que quieran leer todo el artículo:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/why-indias-economy-is-stumbling.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130831&_r=1&
August 30th, 2013
MICHAEL KELLEY, GEOFFREY INGERSOLL AND MIKE NUDELMAN
businessinsider.com
The U.S., despite lack of U.N. approval and growing demands for legal justifications, is determined to strike Syria in response to an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack attributed to the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Earlier we posted a Reuters map that listed the U.S., British, and French forces and bases that are positioned near Syria. But that doesn’t tell the whole story, since it does not illustrate what those assets are threatening.
So we added to it with information from maps created by Foreign Policy, Agence France-Presse, the Institute for the Study of War, The Telegraph and two via BBC in addition to highlighting U.S. military bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
Here’s what the Western assets in the arena currently look like:
Europa Esta en PICADA...
El Desplome Inmobiliario, Sigue Sin Tocar Fondo En Europa...
Éstos son algunos aspectos destacados de una traducción de los artículos sobre lasHipotecas de La Vanguardia:
1. El número de hipotecas para la compra de vivienda en junio cayó un 42,2%respecto a junio de 2012
2. Las nuevas hipotecas se han reducido cada mes durante los últimos 38 meses. Junio ??firmó sólo 14.053 hipotecas de viviendas, la cifra mensual más baja de los últimos diez años.
3. El total de seis meses a partir de enero-junio, 2013 era 115.895 hipotecas firmadas. Eso es menos que el total de un mes de mayo de 2007, que tuvo 118.669 hipotecas firmadas.
4. El importe medio de las hipotecas se redujo, un 9% más que hace un año a € 97.495.
5. Este fue el peor semestre desde que comenzó la serie de datos para este indicador, en 2003.
Cuando Veas Las Barbas De Tu Vecino Arder... Pon Las Tuyas En Remojo...
Ayer el Miami Herald Anuncio Que el 38% De Las Casas De Miami... Están “Bajo el Agua” Es decir que pagan hipotecas más altas que el “Valor Que Tiene La Casa” y los propietarios siguen pagándolas como verdaderos
“Carneros”
Otro bochorno de la justicia de USA y la Florida
Como Se llega A Juez... La Gran Mayoría... Son Nombrados Por El Gobernador Para Llenar El Puesto Vacante Por Lo Regular La Persona Es
“Un Activo Miembro” Del Partido Del Gobernador... Después La Persona Se Postula Para Retener el Puesto... La Elección De Los Jueces Los Convierte En Politiqueros... Estamos acostumbrados a leer y oír la noticia que la FISCALÍA HIZO UN ACUERDO CON EL ACUSADO... es decir; SE NEGOCIO LA CONDENA... El 90% de los casos criminales son NEGOCIADOS y los que tienenPADRINO CONSIGUEN CONDENAS LIGERAS... de la misma forma los que tienen neighs Son FUERTEMENTE CONDENADOS...
Hoy el Caso de Zimmeman es la mejor prueba de cómo la JUSTICIA es
Manejada por los POLITIQUEROS... Comenzando por OBAMA... que no DEBE ni TIENE DERECHO A METERSE EN CASOS JUDICIALES...
Hoy Se Anunciaron DOS Noticias Sobre Zimmeman:
1. No habrá juicio por perjurio de Shellie Zimmerman. El cargo de perjurio CRIMEN ATROZ se convierte en un DELITO MENOR, que se borrado de su registro después de un año. Esta fue otra acusación política que nunca debió haber sido hecha... El acusado aunque INOCENTE... PREFIERE UN ARREGLO... PUES NUNCA se SABE que puede determinar un jurado de imberbes...
2. La Esposa después de todos los sufrimientos pasados desde que Zimmerman en DEFENSA PROPIA mató a Trevon Martin... ahora se está pensando DIVORCIAR...
Ese matrimonio en CRISIS... es consecuencia directa de Obama y todos los politiqueros...y de la falta de carácter del gobernador de la Florida... que para complacer a Obama y a los NEGROS... nombró un fiscal especial para enjuiciar a Zimmerman...
Me llegó del Nuevo Patria dirigido por Eladio Armesto...
Lo paso pues establece la verdad...
OBAMA VIOLA LA CONSTITUCIÓN Y
LAS LEYES INTERNACIONALES SI ATACA A SIRIA
El Nuevo Patria dirigido por Eladio Armesto...
Un ataque contra el pueblo y la nación de Siria por parte del gobierno de Barack Obama fuera una violación criminal de la Constitución de Estados Unidos y una agresión clara al Estado de Derecho y las leyes internacionales, señalan expertos.
El gobierno de Obama estará actuando completamente fuera de la ley y exponiendo a los ciudadanos norteamericanos en peligro de cualquier respuesta justa por parte de Siria o cualquier país del mundo civilizado.
Esta mas que comprobado que los mercenarios anti-sirios armados y apoyados por el gobierno de Barack Obama son los responsables de uso de armas químicas en Siria.
Obama y sus aliados sinvergüenzas en el Partido Republicano vienen apoyando a los terroristas de la Hermandad Musulmana y al Qaeda en Siria, tal como se los ha pedido el gobierno de Israel.
El senador John McCain apoya histéricamente a su amigo Obama, mostrando nuevamente que los conservadores que lo rechazaron como candidato republicano a la presidencia tenían toda la razón en hacerlo. Con republicanos tramitados como McCain, ¿quien necesita a demócratas liberales?
Vea este mensaje revelador en inglés:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvmXbFxdaAc
El gobierno de Obama y sus aliados sinvergüenzas en el Partido Republicano están destruyendo todo respeto a la Constitución y la Ley en Estados Unidos. ¿Qué quedará de Estados Unidos?
Sólo Rusia bajo el liderazgo del presidente Vladimir Putin está defendiendo a Siria y el honor de la comunidad internacional contra el criminal apoyo de Barack Obama al terrorismo islámico.
Otros videos super informativos en ingles:
¿Cual es la diferencia entre Vladimir Putin y Barack Obama?
What's the Difference Between Putin and Obama?
http://youtu.be/Vs6Prp6Q0_k
¿Quienes son los verdaderos amos de Estados Unidos?
Who Are the Real Rulers of America?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jaUZCks7CA&list=PL57CF031B7D887289
¿Como es mofado Jesucristo?
How Jesus Christ is Mocked?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yle_qeeOIMA&list=TL4EPUToMgP0o
¿Existe un conflicto entre Dostoevsky y los judíos?
Is There a Conflict Between Dostoevsky and the Jews?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=030_rR1JN9I
MARZO FERNANDEZ: EL TIEMPO ES CORTO
No hay que ser un especialista en el tema cubano, para saber que estamos en la etapa TERMINAL l de la dictadura castrista.
No es un secreto, que los comunistas se vienen preparando de forma acelerada. Ya tienen de forma oficial, nombrado al sucesor, Miguel Diaz Canel. Todas las actividades rentables y que producen divisas ""ya tienen dueno"" los cros del II Frente, han ido asumiendo la direccion de las principales actividades economicas del pais. En mi opinion, la Transicion Economica, ya esta muy adelantada.
practicamente terminada.
Se ha venido siguiendo con bastante rigor y de forma muy ordenada, los modelos de transicion Rusos, Chinos e incluso Vietnamitas; de cada uno se han tomado especificaciones muy precisas, para garantizar una permanencia economica, para cuando se empiece a aplicar la Transicion Politica. Tienen previsto, permanecer en el pais. El exilio o la fuga , no esta en sus planes. Acuerdense de la pinata Sandinista y la vuelta al poder de Daniel Ortega.
Una de las acciones que mejor se ha preparado, por parte de los que detentan el poder real -economico y politico- es la de garantizar que no haya sustitutos u opisicion capaz de tomar el poder por medios propios. Si analizamos a cada uno de los opositores, que realmente se han tolerado y que son autorizados a viajar al extranjero, vemos que son personas de extrema calidad moral y realmente comprometidos con la lucha en contra de la dictadura. De eso no hay dudas, pero en realidad "no son residenciables"
Si a mi me preguntan, quienes realmente son presidenciales, diria sin titubeos, OSCAR ELIAS BISCET, ademas de ser un profesional ha pagado un precio muy alto por sus ideas politicas. Merece un apoyo icondicional. Pero tambien viraria la vista , para este paisdonde hay cubanos verdaderamente extraordinarios,que han dedicadosu vida, a luchar por la libertad de la Patria, sin ningun tipo deaspiracion personal. Son nuestros mambises del exilio.
Aqui hay hombres de la talla como JORGE SANGUINETTI, de un altisimo
nivel profesional, cultural y politico, que ha dedicado toda su existencia, su bienestar personal, a la lucha por la patria. Para mi seria un candidato excepcionaL, y que el pueblo cubano tiene que conocer.
Tambien hay figuras de la talla de Carlos Alberto Montaner, Lincon Diaz Balart, Alfredo Cepero, Lazaro R Gonzalez, que no hay minuto del dia, que no esten luchando por nuestra verdadera independencia. Y nuestra dama de hierro Remedio Diaz Oliver una luchadora a tiempo completo. Son verdaderos heroes de la patria. Quizas haya mas, y seria muy bueno. Pero estos son los que conozco.
Traigo a colacion estas notas, como ya mencione, EL TIEMPO ES CORTO
y tenemos que prepararnos, tenemos que pasar de la DEFENSIVA A LA
OFENSIVA. Conozco muy bien a estos personajes y de su infinita
modestia, siempre han trabajado incansablemente, sin esperar mimgun tipo de recompesa. Senores no podemos esperar y soportar que los dictadores nos impongan una nueva generacion para continuar esclavizando la Patria. Asumimos el reto o nos resignamos.Es hora de organizarnos y pasar a la accion para evitar que nos impongan el continuismo, que nuestros enemigos han planificado. Hay que luchar para garantizar unas elecciones verdaderamente "libres"de que los derrotamos, de eso no hay dudas, tenemos que erradicar el comunismo de nuestra Patria. No hay derecho ni justificacion para continuar esperando "el milagro" que nos de la LIBERTAD.
Patton: Middle East Mess May Be Exactly What Obama Wants By Doug P August 30, 2013 6:55 am
Barack Hussein Obama is either the most inept president ever to sit in the White House or he is an enemy of the Republic. He could be both, but I defy anyone to suggest a logical third alternative.
For the last ten years, I have watched this man’s uncanny rise to the pinnacle of power and vacillated between those two choices. His inexperience suggested the former, but his ideology made me wonder what he would do when the international chips were down. I have come to the conclusion that ideology trumps inexperience. His ego is so massive, and his leftist beliefs and Muslim upbringing are so strong, that he is willing to throw our country as we have known it — not to mention any inconvenient allies — under the big international bus.
Let’s review our Middle East policy since Obama took office in January 2009. He made it his top priority to go to the region and prostrate himself before the Islamic world, bowing before Saudi sheiks and telling outrageous lies about the great and glorious history of a religion rooted in 7th Century barbarism in his now-infamous speech in Cairo.
Since then, he has unilaterally withdrawn from Iraq while perpetuating a semi-war in Afghanistan that is doing nothing but getting our troops killed a few at a time.
And, of course, he has proceeded to do everything in his power to place as many crazy Muslim zealots in power as he possible can.
So now what do we have? We have Egypt, formerly a solid U.S. ally whose leader kept the peace with Israel for thirty years, in flames and in danger of becoming a Russian ally, at best, or imploding into Islamist chaos, at worst.
Next door, in Libya, where every terrorist in the area is still laughing at us after the fiasco in Benghazi, we have replaced a tinhorn tyrant with a truly dangerous al-Qaida-run government, a scenario we are about to repeat in Syria.
Meanwhile, the calculating Shiite Ayatollahs in Iran are watching our every move and threatening to “rain down missiles on Israel” if we attack the government of their friend in Damascus, Bashar al-Assad.
Hard as it may be, try to look at the Middle East through Obama’s eyes. He thinks the United States is the problem in the region. He has stated so repeatedly, beginning with that speech in Cairo. He obviously believes the same canard George Bush kept repeating about the “religion of peace.” The difference is that Obama cannot or will not differentiate between so-called moderate Muslims and radical Islamists. Bush at least knew that when people attack us, they probably are not our friends. He also was willing retaliate against them when they proved themselves hostile.
Obama hates Israel, and he no longer has any need for the naïve liberal Jewish vote that helped put him in office — twice — so he feels emboldened to do what he wants to the tiny Jewish state. If Iran attacks Israel in promised retaliation for a U.S. strike on Syria, Israel will be forced to defend itself, possibly with nuclear weapons. Given Obama’s willingness to twiddle his thumbs and pretend to agonize over his decision to make any moves against the Syrian regime, thereby giving every terrorist mullah in the Middle East time to plot revenge, one has to wonder, will he do anything to defend Israel?
And if you think that lofty entity known as “The World Community” gets up in arms over the use of a few canisters of chemical or biological weapons, wait until you see the ginned-up outrage that will arise against Israel when they defend themselves with nukes. After all, America is still getting flak from the Left for using them on Japan 68 years ago. Such a scenario would provide Obama — not to mention a lot of cowards in Congress on both sides of the aisle — with the excuse he has long sought to abandon our only real ally in the Middle East.
Add to that the fact that the chaos this president has encouraged all across the region could drive the cost of gasoline in the United States to double digits — another Obama dream come true — and one more piece in his radical environmental puzzle slides into place.
If I could name more than a handful of statesmen in Congress, I would begin to wonder when the word “impeachment” might seriously be spoken there.
Obama vs. House Republicans: “Nuclear War” Written by Gary North on August 30, 2013 Sometimes,
I get excited. What if this plays out? The House of Representatives may decide to let Obama’s immigration reform bill die. The House doesn’t kill it. It just lets it sit. This caught my attention: an article with the catchy title, “Obama’s Immigration Nuclear Option: Stopping Deportations Unilaterally.” When it comes to the idea of a political nuclear war between the President and the House of Representatives, I get all tingly. If that happens, advocates of immigration reform have another idea: They’ll push Obama to press the button on the immigration-reform nuclear option. The option commonly referred to by immigration reformers as “Plan B” would see the president take executive action to prevent undocumented immigrants from being deported — along the lines of the deferred-action program the administration created for “Dreamers” last year. It wouldn’t be a panacea, and it wouldn’t give them citizenship. But such an action could at least spare some from the constant threat of deportation. And perhaps just as important, it could exact major political revenge on Republicans, galvanizing the Hispanic electorate against them and further hurting their image with the fastest-growing segment of voters. By now, you know the phrase “undocumented immigrants” is MediaSpeak for “illegal aliens.” Obama does not have to enforce the deportation law. He can just sort of forget to enforce it. That would be round one of the “nuclear option.” But that might not end it. Spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives, according to the U.S. Constitution. (You remember the Constitution, don’t you? That’s the document that says that Congress must declare all wars.) The House might sort of forget to provide any funding for the laws that President Obama decides to enforce. What would be President Obama’s nuclear response? How could he force the House to provide the funding? He could get out his teleprompter and deliver a speech against the House for not funding the laws of the land. Then Boehner could do a YouTube video on enforcing the laws against illegal aliens. Then Obama could threaten to tell the Secretary of the Treasury to stop cooking the books and admit that the debt ceiling was breached on June 1 — something the President has refused to do. Then the federal government would shut down. That’s why I get all tingly. I don’t think it will come to nuclear war. One side or the other will surrender. Obama and Boehner are both very good at strategic capitulations. It’s President Sequester vs. Congressman TARP. Both of them are willing to eat a mud sandwich or two.
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/08/30/obama-vs-house-republicans-nuclear-war/#rpurPQhovryfKOtM.99
Obama Wants Your Children’s Data:
August 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm / by Macey France
President Obama is very interested in your kids. He wants to know virtually everything about them. We found this out while researching the Common Core Standards. We saw that in order for states to apply for the Race to the Top grants; a “competition” of sorts for states to put on their best faces and vow to do anything and everything, including giving up their children for a little extra money, they had to beef up their data collections systems on the children in school. The assurance that states would indeed set these State Longitudinal Data Systems for collecting data in place allowed them to be able to qualify for federal funds. The other requirement for the grant was to adopt the Common Core Standards. As soon as a kid hits Kindergarten everything about their life will be tracked. Data will be collected on every aspect of their learning abilities, their families, their health and many other factors and then stored in this massive SLDS that will then share the information with just about anyone who “needs” to see it. Any information gathered before was protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, where parents had to give signed permission for their child’s information to be shared. Obama gutted the FERPA in December of 2011 essentially stripping parents’ rights to guard their children’s information. But, wait, apparently Kindergarten is not early enough to get to know every move your child makes. Let’s roll that back a couple years…in fact, we’ll go to pre-natal, shall we? States are receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in discretionary spending, to fund universal preschool through Race to the Top early learning grants and the biggest boondoggle in American history; the Affordable Care Act. In case you’re wondering, this is how Obama got by the Congress; he didn’t need to ask for the money that would likely not be forthcoming. This allows states to be able to carry out their plans to their Pre-K and early childcare plans. It sounds good, right? We can really make sure to get data and information on small children and be able to “intervene” with health problems, socioeconomic problems, and educational problems before they actually have a problem. We just love kids and we want to be able to see everything that affects them and step in and take the place of their parents. That’s not so bad, right? It’s for the children! Recently my colleagues and I began searching through the Oregon Department of Education to see just what the early learning initiative would involve. First, we found that Oregon passed SB909 in 2011 which would allow the governor to implement early childhood education programs and make sure to get the departments providing help to all families and children in Oregon to be more “streamlined.” Upon passage we found was an 80 page document outlining how the system for keeping track of children, especially children in low income, minority, or “high risk” situations was not adequate. As it is Oregon has all kinds of government programs in place to monitor early childhood care and education. Also included in this document are all programs in place that currently keep records on children and families. The organizations include, but may not be limited to: Oregon Health Authority Oregon Department of Education Oregon Commission on Children and Families Oregon Department of Human Services Oregon Employment Department Federal Agencies Most of these agencies have at least one office in each county. In a section marked State Alignment Recommendations it reads in part: “Oregon has a wide range of programs, services, and organizations focused on early childhood care and education. In addition mental health, healthcare, and addiction services overlap the work of early learning. Although some of these programs and services are delivering what we believe to be good results, Oregon does not consistently track results or make investment decisions based on results. In addition, these systems do not work in concert, and are largely disconnected from the K-12 education system. We need an integrated system to ensure results for children and families and for the citizens of Oregon. All systems and services should share the goals of getting children ready for school at kindergarten and reading by the end of first grade…” In a separate but related Oregon document under the section entitled: Vision for the Early Childhood Integrated Data System the goal is stated as: “An integrated data system that brings together data from early learning, health, and human services at the level of the child (0-5), provider, and community to improve coordination and streamlining of services, guide resource allocation, and provide accountability for early childhood investments. The data system will interface with the Oregon Department of Education Longitudinal Data System, thus providing data on children from birth through higher education. As the early learning data system evolves it will integrate with the applicable health and human service data systems.” This is what I see here. A massive effort to connect all of these governmental agencies, county by county, state by state and then linked to the federal government. Any and all of these things will be in the system, where any government agency in the state will have access to and the data from all other state agencies. And let us not forget that the data can be sold to a third party. It will be funneled to the federal government. Although Arne Duncan has said that any state data will not be connected to and collected by the federal government, it appears as though this is a flat out lie. Here is what Duncan stated earlier this summer about the data collection that will take place: “Critics…make even more outlandish claims. They say that the Common Core calls for federal collection of student data. For the record, we are not allowed to, and we won’t.” Pardon me while I scroll back up and re-read a paragraph…yes, here it is: The data system will interface with the Oregon Department of Education Longitudinal Data System, thus providing data on children from birth through higher education. As the early learning data system evolves it will integrate with the applicable health and human service data systems.” And above that we name all the agencies we are collating…the last one mentioned is…Federal Agencies. Now indulge me as I see a child who is a little behind his peers in reading and math but not exceptionally far behind. What about a kid whose parents have been in the military? How about the kid whflu a couple times this year. And Lord, please protect any child who might live with a smoker! What’s going to happen to them? “Well meaning” government bureaucrats, under this nightmarish Big Brother scenario, who work for Health and Human Services, can do invasive “home health visits” for those in “high risk” categories. Those categories include: Families where mom is not yet 21; Families where someone is a tobacco user; Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. HHS says that the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans. In the above linked article, Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown says that even though the government claims it is voluntary, it is not. Here are 2 scenarios he outlines: “The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.” “Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the o has had the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.” So we have massive amounts of information that will be collected under the new early learning initiative. Virtually everything about your child, and yourself, will be included. It all funnels through the myriad governmental agencies and goes straight to the fed. They will even collect information on all of your sources of income and where it comes from. In case we need further proof that all of this is coming down through the early learning debacle read this last little bit of information: One very important area that is emphasized by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.” Add that with the P-20 system that collects data on kids from Pre-K through college and you have, literally, cradle to career nanny over site on a child’s life. In fact, it’s before cradle. It’s pre-natal. All in the name of helping children? I think not. All in the name of power and control. The federal government wants to know everything about you and your child. And this is how they’re doing it. A sneaky, underhanded, backdoor way of starting an “educational reform” program that when broken down and looked at from all sides, is a way of implementing the federal government into your everyday life. Even if the Common Core were the best education standards ever implemented and was proven to be the best standards on the planet, we would still have to reject it and all of its data tracking nightmares. Because just like the Patriot Act that gave the government permission to monitor phones in the United States, where people said, “Just because they CAN spy doesn’t mean they WILL,” well…we all know how that turned out. We can all recall the governmental giant, the IRS, who used and abused their power to threaten and break down conservative groups. That is a scary thought…what happens to the child whose parents are Republicans? Or, under a different regime, Democrats? You open that door and someone, some administration; some force will go through it. You know that old saying that “You can’t un-ring a bell?” This leaves me to wonder exactly when they will start requiring stool samples. I know quite a large handful of people who would be more than happy to oblige.
Read more at http://politichicks.tv/column/obama-wants-childrens-data-common-core-early-learning-initiative/#prIQh761YrzKYwzt.99
Newsmax.com : New top secret information Leaked: How will the president react?
Fellow Patriot,
There's a huge (and hushed-up) conspiracy going on, that's about to turn your lives upside down in the coming few months.
Unbelievably, even the media are keeping quiet about this. I'm sure they know it, but they probably understood that revealing it on TV will generate mass hysteria and chaos.
But I believe you should be informed about it, because when the sinister agenda is finally accomplished and everything unravels...only those who know this secret information will survive and thrive. It has already given me nightmares for 4 days straight...and it’s something "top secret"…..
>>Click here to get the inside scoop on this conspiracy<<
It also connects the dots on the "terrible incidents" that happened just when Obama is after the biggest gun-control push in decades.
This has nothing to do with just mass murders, or preparing for war......or merely attempting to "dry up the market" for gun-owning citizens, depriving them their right to keep and bear arms.
Their real agenda is something much more sinister than that. It's something that will make even the most tough-minded patriot's blood curl.
The truth is fast unraveling, and you can get the full scoop below:
>>Click here to get the REAL truth about the gun-grabbing
conspiracy<<
P.S. More than 325,123 people watched the video, and some are now screaming on Facebook that it's THE "Conspiracy of the Century".
Tras las armas químicas en Siria, ¿qué quieren los países involucrados?
(CNN) - El efecto dominó después del supuesto ataque con armas químicas en Siria se siente en el mundo: La retórica se agrava con la propuesta de castigar a Siria, aunque el régimen ha negado el uso de armas químicas, y mientras los aliados del presidente Bachar al Asad acusan a las fuerzas rebeldes del ataque químico.
Entre tanto, las fuerzas rebeldes —que también niegan responsabilidad por el ataque—- informaron que 1.300 personas murieron en los ataques a las afueras de Damasco.
Los corresponsables de CNN y los expertos explican las diferentes posiciones de algunas naciones clave involucradas, algunas preparándose o advirtiendo en contra de los ataques militares internacionales en Siria.
Estados Unidos
EE.UU. tiene que hacer algo después del uso prolongado de armas químicas, después de haber reconocido que el régimen de al Asad es responsable de los ataques.
Pero también se enfrenta a un dilema: Lanzar el tipo de campaña de gran escala necesaria para derrocar el régimen sirio sería prolongado, y el remplazo de Bachar al Asad podría ser incluso peor debido a que los grupos más exitoso de la oposición están alineados con al Qaeda.
Así que la intervención militar tiene que ser lo suficiente grande para castigar a Asad pero no tanto como para derrocarlo. Para los expertos, esta es la decisión menos mala que se puede tomar.
China
Es un aliado antiguo de Siria y quiere mantener su influencia. China ha dicho que se opone firmemente al uso de armas químicas y apoya a los inspectores de armas de la ONU; quiere que sean capaces de hacer su trabajo y ha advertido sobre el posible prejuicio en los resultados.
También ha dicho que quiere la paz y ha sugerido continuar con la Segunda Conferencia de Ginebra en Siria, una iniciativa que actualmente se encuentra en duda.
“Una solución política siempre es la única manera real de resolver el tema de Siria”, dijo el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Wang Yi.
Rusia
No quiere repetir Libia o Iraq. Mucho se ha dicho acerca de Rusia tratando de proteger al gobierno de Siria por su interés militar y económico en el país, pero el objetivo principal de la política rusa es bloquear los esfuerzos de EU para darle forma a la región.
El gobierno ruso no cree que las revoluciones, guerras y cambios de régimen puedan llevar a la estabilidad y la democracia. Casi siempre apunta a la Primavera Árabe y a la guerra que condujo Estados Unidos en Iraq como la evidencia.
Rusia tampoco confía en las intenciones de EE.UU. en la región, sino que las preocupaciones humanitarias son casi siempre usadas como una excusa para perseguir los intereses políticos y económicos de Estados Unidos.
Ha mantenido su influencia a través del conflicto usando su veto en el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas para blindar a Siria de la presión internacional. Pero no está claro si EE.UU. y sus aliados se apoyarán en un mandato de la ONU para lanzar un ataque militar.
Irán
Para Irán, Siria es un aliado estratégico. Su postura, como lo dibujó el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Javad Zarif, y el nuevo presidente, Hassan Rouhani, es que el gobierno de Siria es víctima de complots internacionales.
El gobierno iraní cree que el Occidente y casi todos los países árabes están confabulados en un intento para implementar un cambio de régimen en Siria. Ha dicho que el objetivo principal de este complot es convertir a la región en un lugar más seguro para Israel.
Siria también fue el único aliado arábigo de Irán durante su guerra de ocho años contra Iraq y Siria junto con las áreas controladas por Hezbollah de Líbano están consideradas la primera línea de defensa de Teherán en caso de un ataque en Irán por Israel o el Occidente.
Así que el interés de Irán en Siria está motivado por su larga amistad, así como la importancia estratégica de Teherán.
Gran Bretaña
El primer ministro David Cameron está empujando un voto en el Parlamento para fomar parte de la acción militar en respuesta a los ataques de Siria. El político ha dicho que cualquier respuesta necesita ser proporcionada, legal y dirigida a disuadir el uso de armas químicas.
Gran Bretaña también ha tomado un rol prominente en los esfuerzos para asegurar una resolución de Naciones Unidas en el asunto.
“Es tiempo de que el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas asuma sus responsabilidades en Siria, que por más de dos años y medio ha fallado en hacer”, dijo el secretario de relaciones exteriores, William Hague.
Hague ha advertido, sin embargo, que incluso si China y Rusia bloquean una resolución del consejo de seguridad, Gran Bretaña y otras naciones "de cualquier manera tiene una responsabilidad" para actuar.
Jordania
Quiere mantenerse lejos de problemas. Jordania quiere una solución diplomática pero también quiere llevar a cabo un encuentro militar que involucre a Estados Unidos, las naciones europeas, Arabia Saudita, Turquía y Qatar.
A pesar de este encuentro, Jordania no quiere verse como el país que sea anfitrión de un encuentro en el que se decida que habrá una intervención en Siria.
El gobierno jordano ha manifestado que esto los pondría en una situación peligrosa con posibles ataques de misiles de Siria y ataques de terror precipitados del régimen sirio.
Es un secreto a voces que Arabia Saudita está usando a Jordania para contrabandear armas a Siria para los rebeldes. Jordania ha dicho que está haciendo todo lo posible para prevenirlo.
Jordania está vulnerable, zarandeada por la Primavera Árabe y las tensiones internacionales como las acusaciones de corrupción de las autoridades y un rey poco popular... solo quiere mantenerse lejos de problemas.
Francia
El president Francois Hollande ha dicho que Francia tiene un deber de proteger a los civiles en Siria y quiere incrementar la ayuda militar a los grupos de la oposición. El político también ha dicho que Francia está “listo para castigar a aquellos que han tomado la decisión de lanzar gas a esta gente inocente”.
Pero el viernes, el presidente de Francia Francois Hollande le dijo al periódico francés Le Monde que la intervención debería ser limitada y no debería de incluir el derrocamiento de al Asad.
Israel
El Primer Ministro Benjamin Netanyahu ha dicho que está listo para cualquier escenario y está advirtiendo a Siria que responderá con fuerza si Israel es atacado.
Arabia Saudita
El Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Arabia Saudita Al Faisal dijo que el gobierno sirio ha perdido la identidad arábiga y ha llamado a tomar "acción firme y seria".
IRS continues to hound Tea Party Patriots
By Washington Times (DC) August 30, 2013 12:25
The initial firestorm surrounding the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of conservative groups may have subsided, but tea party leaders say the situation has only become worse and may lead to more lawsuits against the embattled agency.
New documents show the depth of information the IRS is seeking from Tea Party Patriots, a leading conservative group that first applied for 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status in late 2010 and one of many organizations singled out for extra scrutiny by the Obama administration.
An IRS letter sent to the group last week and obtained by The Washington Times contains a laundry list of requests related to virtually all the group's activities, including its involvement in the 2012 election cycle and its get-out-the-vote efforts, fundraising activities, all radio and TV advertising, and other information.
The IRS also is asking for detailed financial records, including "the amounts and percentages of your total expenses that were for fundraising activities in the tax year 2011, 2012 and 2013."
The Aug. 20 request came as a shock to Tea Party Patriots, which said it already has provided to the IRS extensive information on all of its activities and thinks it is long past time to receive a "yes" or "no" answer.situation as a "phony scandal," conservative organizations still are targets, said Cleta Mitchell, a Washington, D.C., lawyer representing the Tea Party Patriots and several other conservative groups.
"This is tantamount to an audit. This is the continuation of the same thing they've been doing for four years. They have not stopped," she said Thursday. "Tea Party Patriots has responded to all of the requests of the IRS to date, but that has gotten us nowhere. They just keep asking more questions. We are now looking at potential legal remedies, but that's not easy. Congress has made it quite difficult to sue the IRS."
The letter, according to the IRS, is simply an attempt to gather information necessary for the agency to determine whether the Tea Party Patriots is eligible for tax-exempt status under current law. Meeting the tax-exempt criteria requires that a group's "primary" function and activities not be political in nature.
Since news of the IRS targeting scandal broke this spring, the agency also argues that it has made significant progress in sifting through a backlog of groups -- including the Tea Party Patriots -- that have been waiting years for a decision.
As of last week, the IRS said, it has closed 64 percent of outstanding cases and approved 65 of 85 organizations for 501(c)(4) status.
But for the groups still awaiting approval, last week's letter represents nothing more than a delaying tactic, said Jenny Beth Martin, president and co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots.
Reviewing information on the group's activities in the 2012 election cycle pushes an IRS decision even farther down the road. It also raises the possibility that the organization's future efforts, including in the upcoming 2014 political contests, also will be subject to detailed review as part of a never-ending approval process.
"What that letter said to me is, 'We got away with discriminating against you and we're not stopping.' [The letter] comes as a complete surprise," Ms. Martin said.
On Thursday, the IRS said it couldn't comment specifically on the Tea Party Patriots case, but did defend its information-gathering efforts and argued that it has made great strides in its tax-exempt approval process.
The letter also is proof that, while President Obama and other liberals have referred to the
"There are instances when IRS must seek more information before we can determine if an organization's application for tax-exempt status meets the necessary legal requirements," the agency said in a statement. "Effort and care has been taken to limit the number and nature of these follow-up questions to focus only on the information that we need in order to properly evaluate the application."
The agency also referred back to an Aug. 9 statement from acting IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who said that political campaign intervention will be reviewed without regard to specific "labels," indicating that tea party or other conservative groups no longer will face extra scrutiny.
In its attempts to clear the backlog of agencies awaiting tax-exempt status, the IRS in June -- after news of its political targeting had come to light -- offered a deal to organizations such as the Tea Party Patriots.
In exchange for agreeing that no more than 40 percent of its "spending and time" would be related to political campaigns, a group's tax-exempt application would be expedited.
The Tea Party Patriots has yet to accept that deal, and Ms. Martin said it has no intention of doing so.
"I'm being punished because I didn't take them up on their made-up expedited process," she said.
Twenty-nine applicants have taken part in that process in recent months, according to the IRS
KRAUTHAMMER: IS ‘HUMILIATED’ OBAMA BEING ‘SHAMED’ INTO WAR? Fred Lucas
Britain’s rejection of taking action against the Syrian regime is a “complete humiliation” for President Barack Obama, syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer said Thursday.
Obama has been in consultation with several heads of state, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, about a military strike against Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the government believes to have been behind the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus last week. A United Nations investigation has not made a determination.
“It is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration,” Krauthammer said on Fox News. “Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do which I think it’s a bad idea. But let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.
“So who’s the main ally in the world who’s been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us,” Krauthammer continued. “The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the U.N. inspectors which will be early next week.”
He pointed out that Democrats, including Obama, previously ridiculed the Bush administration for supposedly taking unilateral action in Iraq.
“So here is Obama and the Democrats who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground, a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing.”
In his Washington Post column published earlier Thursday, Krauthammer said the Obama administration was being “shamed into action.”
“Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose,” Krauthammer said, later adding, “Moreover, a mere punitive pinprick after which Assad emerges from the smoke intact and emboldened would demonstrate nothing but U.S. weakness and ineffectiveness.”
Watch Krauthammer on Fox News, via NewsBusters:
In his column, Krauthammer explained what in his view would be a better solution.
“Depriving Assad of his total control of the air and making resupply from Iran and Russia far more difficult would alter the course of the war. That is a serious purpose,” he wrote.
The White House has consulted Congress on the matter, including in a conference call between key administration officials such as Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and National Security Adviser Susan Rice, with 15 members of the House and Senate, including leaders, chairs and ranking members of the germane committees.
Houser Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) this week sent a letter to Obama that was widely viewed as implied consent for action, while also a request that the administration provide more information to Congress. However, other members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have said the administration must have congressional authorization before taking action.
Krauthammer thought there should be a greater role from Congress.
“It’s rather shameful that while the British prime minister recalled Parliament to debate possible airstrikes — late Thursday, Parliament actually voted down British participation — Obama has made not a gesture in that direction,” Krauthammer wrote. “If you are going to do this, Mr. President, do it constitutionally. And seriously. This is not about you and your conscience. It’s about applying American power to do precisely what you now deny this is about — helping Assad go, as you told the world he must. Otherwise, just send Assad a text message. You might incur a roaming charge, but it’s still cheaper than a three-day, highly telegraphed, perfectly useless demonstration strike.”
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Friday, August 30, 2013
No 471 "En mi opinion" Agosto 30, 2013
No 471 “En mi opinión” Agosto 30, 2013.
Editor Lázaro R González Miño “IN GOD WE TRUST”
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent [Plus 1 me LRGM] want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP -
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
Slideshow: Syria uprising
A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.
Launch slideshow
Obama’s job approval at 44 percent
The NBC poll also shows that President Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped one point since last month to 44 percent, which is tied for his lowest mark in past NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys.
He gets even lower marks on foreign policy: Just 41 percent approve of his handling of the issue – an all-time low.
And only 35 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Syria.
The NBC poll was conducted Aug. 28-29 of 700 adults (including 210 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of plus-minus 3.7 percentage points.
RICARDO Samitier: Cagalera en grande en WASHINGTON
1. Como Todos Sabemos Los POLITIQUEROS Están De Vacaciones De Verano... El Capitolio de Washington esta VACIO...
2. Obama En Contra de la Constitución Desea ordenar Un Ataque A Siria...
3. ¿Qué Hacen Los Politiqueros Republicanos???...SEGUIR DE VACACIONES...
4. Debían estar TODOS en el CAPITOLIO de WASHINGTON para ABRIR
UN DEBATE acusando a Obama de “Planear Violar La Constitución”...
5. Pero NO... SIGUEN DE VACACIONES... cuando la patria está en PELIGRO...
6. VÁYANSE AL CARAJO... TODOS... incluyendo los 3 cubanos...
ESTADOS UNIDOS SIN CREDIBILIDAD EN EL MUNDO.
Los Politiqueros De Estados Unidos Destruyeron Toda La Credibilidad…
De Las Republicas Democráticas... Usa Es Considerado El País Más Hipócrita...
Obama Es Considerado Un Socialista... Que Fue Puesto En La Presidencia Para Realizar Una “Agenda Secreta” De Destruir Los EE.UU.
Ha Sido Una Meticulosa Obra De Los Comunistas De Los USA En Acuerdo Con Los De Fuera... Por Ejemplo: La “Misión Carter” De Supervisar Las Elecciones En Todos Los Países; Exige Que Los Carnets De Votantes Tengan Foto... Todo Lo Contrario en USA; El Gobierno Acusa A Los Estados Que Exigen Fotos...
Usa Ya No Tiene Ni Siguiera El Apoyo Incondicional De Inglaterra...
La ONU... Dentro De Poco Va A Poder Condenar A Estados Unidos... Como País Agresor...
Buchanan to Newsmax: Obama's Syrian Strike Would be Impeachable
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 02:39 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen WalterAny attack on Syria without Congressional approval would be an impeachable act, political commentator Pat Buchanan has told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
The former presidential candidate and best-selling author also says he prefers "the devil we know" in Syria — Bashar Assad — to the al-Qaida elements he asserts are leading the rebellion against his regime.
Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
President Obama has signaled that he is considering a strike on Syria amid administration claims the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday, Buchanan says his chief concern about a potential strike is that "the president of the United States is threatening a war and planning a war he has no right to wage. The Congress of the United States alone has the power to authorize war or declare war and it has not done so.
"President Obama is usurping the authority of the Congress first and foremost and he appears about to launch an unconstitutional and unnecessary war. So the President should be called to account by the Congress and told: no war without our approval. That's the way the Constitution works.
"The key figure is Speaker of the House John Boehner, who should call the House of Representatives back into session on Monday and instruct the president directly: Mr. President, you have no authority and no right to launch acts of war against Syria against whom we have not declared or authorized any war. We are calling on you not to engage in what would clearly be an impeachable act – starting a war against a country without the approval of the Congress when you are asked directly not to do so.
"If the president launched an unnecessary and unconstitutional war, striking a country against whom we have not declared war and has not attacked us, that is de facto an impeachable act that could lead to an open-ended war, the consequences of which we cannot even see."
The White House has talked about the moral justification for a strike. Asked if there is also a legal justification, Buchanan responds: "There's no constitutional justification right now in my judgment for a strike on Syria. The U.N. Security Council has not authorized a war, the Congress of the United States has not authorized a war.
"I do agree that the use of poison gas by the Syrian government — if it was President Assad who authorized it — is an obscene act which the international community and the Security Council should take up. But we don't know who ordered it; we don't know how it was delivered; we don't know if Assad knew about it; we don't know if Assad ordered it.
"But if he did, this is an issue that ought to be taken up by the international community and the Security Council, not the United States of America unilaterally and certainly not the president of the United States based on the flimsy evidence we have seen to date."
Obama declared unequivocally on Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks on. However, several U.S. officials are now using the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture.
Buchanan comments: "I would not understand or comprehend if Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence might be that he would be at war with the United States.
"But what the United States should do is quite clear: Gather all the evidence through the U.N., gather all the evidence through our intelligence, take this to the Security Council the same way President Kennedy through Adlai Stevenson took the [evidence] during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had our photographs, we showed the world what we had, we proved the missiles were in Cuba.
"That is the constitutional and legal way to do this. It is not to act in panic because John Kerry is shocked at the pictures he saw on YouTube."
Buchanan said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should call the Senate into session and "if he believes we should go to war, authorize it."
"That is what George H. W. Bush did before he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That is what George W. Bush did. I was against that war on Iraq but the president won the authority from Congress so it was a constitutional and legitimate war no matter that I did not like it."
If Obama does attack Syria without approval, "it is a clear, unconstitutional, illegal act," Buchanan reiterated. "If the president did this, he would be a rogue president."
Buchanan says he disagrees with former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton's assertion that we should seek to take out Assad.
"Look who is on the other side of this war," he tells Newsmax. "We have al-Qaida elements that are murderous, that have tortured people, that have killed Christians, and they're the leading force in the elements that are fighting against Assad.
"Behind Assad we have the Iranians and Hezbollah and the Russians. It is not our war. Quite frankly, I would prefer the devil we know, which is Assad, to the devil we don't know, which is that crowd in the rebels who are torturing and killing people and engaging in atrocities of their own."
Buchanan also says the Republicans have "the power of the purse" and should block spending by those agencies that would implement Obamacare.
And regarding immigration reform, Buchanan doubts that the GOP-controlled House will go along with the amnesty that President Obama wants and the Senate has approved.
He adds: "I believe and hope that the House of Representatives will deny amnesty, deny legal rights to people who've broken into our country and broken our laws."© 2013 Newsmax.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/buchanan-obama-syria-impeachable/2013/08/29/id/522972?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVS9ql7
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama: “Prez Can’t Deploy Military W/O Congress”. Obama: “I’m Deploying Military W/O Congress”
In a recent article by educator Thomas Sowell, he stated: “Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.” Talented phony is a gross understatement when speaking about Barack Hussein Obama. We still have no proof of his birth and citizenship, his Social Security Number is fraudulent along with his Selective Service registration form. There is strong reason to believe that he was enrolled as an Indonesian citizen who received federal aid while attending Occidental College. Everything about him reeks of being a phony, an imposter and a usurper. As Sowell stated, Obama concentrates on his skill of his words. So let’s look at his own words when it comes to the legal right of the President of the United States to take military action without the approval of Congress. In 2007, when Obama was launching his presidential campaign, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” He went on to say that the only legal way the president can take military action without the consent of Congress is in instances of self-defense when the US is being directly threatened. In 2011, Obama took military action in Libya without the consent of Congress and the US was not in any immediate threat of danger or attack. This is typical of someone who cares little about living up to their own words as only a phony would do. Obama’s side-kick, Joe Biden is just as bad. In 1998, then Sen. Joe Biden spoke on the Senate floor, stating: “Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” In 2007, Biden stated: “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” In 2011, Biden supported Obama’s actions using our military in Libya without the consent of Congress. Now, Obama is contemplating using military force in Syria because of their civil war and use of chemical weapons. He does not have the approval of Congress, yet and I heard Biden on the news fully supporting Obama if he does get us involved without first going through Congress. How can a nation trust its leaders if they continually say one thing and do the opposite? It’s not just a one-time thing either, as it seems to be the norm with both Obama and Biden. I know that many politicians, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. make campaign promises that they never keep and probably never intended to keep, but next to Lyndon B. Johnson, Obama is the most lying and deceiving president in my life time. And like Johnson, Obama is guilty of high crimes against the US, however, like Johnson, he will never be held accountable for those crimes, while the American people and our military personnel pay the consequences and live with the aftermath.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12323/obama-prez-cant-deploy-military-wo-congress-obama-im-deploying-military-wo-congress/#zwr7uySs3SdpV7MM.99
If Attacking Iraq Was So Wrong, Why Is Attacking Syria Right? 29 August 2013 / Marilyn Assenheim Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, The Lyin’ King has waggled his flaccid fist at Syria. He is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The Lyin’ King’s Secretary of State declared that there is “undeniable evidence” that Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. No evidence for this assertion has been offered by the regime. Weapons of mass destruction? Haven’t we been to this rodeo before? The left still flagellates Bush for alleging “non-existent” weapons of mass destruction as the basis for an “illegal” war. Except that it wasn’t illegal. Both houses of Congress and the U.N. passed resolutions in favor of the act. Aerial photographs of Soviet trucks shifting cargo from Iraq into Syria were widely circulated at that time. Could those deliveries to Syria have been the same weapons of mass destruction that John Kerry denied existence of back then? Yet insists on now? The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, The Lyin’ King is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama…This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it The Liar-In-Chief stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with The Lyin’ King to hold off on taking any action… for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient–In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace…which is everywhere. The Lyin’ King’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, The Lyin’ King waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, The Lyin’ King is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. The Lyin’ King is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/08/attacking-iraq-wrong-attacking-syria-right/#7QzTwTu7uryrCS9Z.99
British Opposition Voting Against Cameron's Syria Strike Plan.
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 11:00 AM
LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron faced an uphill struggle on Thursday to secure parliament's approval for military intervention in Syria after the main opposition party said it would vote against the motion.
Opening the debate to lawmakers recalled from their summer recess, Cameron said what was at stake was "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century."
He insisted that taking action against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability was "not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict."
But the outcome of the vote hung in the balance after a party source said the center-left opposition Labour Party had been having "increasing doubts about the opaque nature of the government's motion."
The motion that lawmakers are being asked to approve "does not mention anything about compelling evidence" that a suspected chemical attack last week outside the Syrian capital was launched by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the source said.
The Syrian regime strongly denies it was responsible and blames opposition fighters for the attack.
Under growing pressure from Members of Parliament who feared Britain was rushing into action, the government was forced to agree late Wednesday that Britain would not take part in any military strikes before United Nations inspectors report back on the gas attacks believed to have killed hundreds near Damascus.
While the political temperature rose, Britain dispatched six Typhoon fighter jets to its Akrotiri base on Cyprus as a "protective measure," although the defense ministry said the planes will not take part in any direct military action.
Cameron's government was said to be outraged by the decision of Labour leader Ed Miliband to change his stance on Wednesday — having previously offered the government conditional backing for military action.
The government has been forced to dilute the vote to one on merely the principle of military action.
The motion to be debated says that a final vote should only take place after U.N. inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Thursday the investigators would leave Syria by Saturday and report to him immediately.
Cameron does not have a clear majority in parliament and his Conservative party is forced to rely on the far smaller Liberal Democrats to rule in a coalition.
With British lawmakers now facing the prospect of having to vote for a second time on a different day — possibly early next week — it raises the possibility that the United States will go it alone with missile strikes, without involvement from Britain, its main military ally.
Muddying the waters, the government also said it had received legal advice that under international law, Britain could still launch military action even without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
Miliband is pushing ahead with his own amendment that calls for a greater U.N. role before any military action is authorized, and has not said whether the party will support the government if that is rejected.
He said: "I'm clear that this is a very grave decision to take military action that the House of Commons would be making and I didn't think that that decision should be made on an artificial timetable when the House of Commons wouldn't even have seen the evidence today from the U.N. weapons inspectors.
"I'm determined to learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq, and we can't have the House of Commons being asked to write a blank check to the PM for military action."
Cameron will try to convince that targeted strikes would punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter any further attacks.
He will also insist that any strikes would not drag Britain into a wider conflict.
Haunted by their experience of the war in Iraq, a growing number of MPs — including some within Cameron's own center-right Conservative Party — are reluctant to back British military involvement.
In 2003, parliament gave then Prime Minister Tony Blair a mandate to join the U.S.-led offensive in Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons never materialized and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.
© AFP 2013
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/syria-conflict-britain-debate/2013/08/29/id/522894?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVyZY2B
Alert: What Is Your Risk for a Heart Attack? Find Out Now
[?] JOE BIDEN THREATENS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT [?]
By: John Hayward 8/28/2013 04:24 PM
It may seem shocking to hear Vice President Joe Biden threatening to begin impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, but Biden is clearly a man of principle. As you’ll hear him explain about five and a half minutes into this clip, he assembled a team of Constitutional scholars to buttress his own experience with teaching classes about the separation of powers in the United States government. He knows the threat of impeachment is extremely serious, which is why he doesn’t make it lightly.
“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear. ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House, obviously, has to do that. But I would lead an effort to impeach him.”
“This Administration has damaged us to a degree that no other Administration has in American history,” Biden declared. ”We have no credibility.” He called President Obama’s effort to unilaterally declare war on Syria without Congressional approval “unconscionable,” and stressed the importance of finding ways to “make it more difficult for these cowboys to go to war.”
The host of the segment, Chris Matthews, agreed with Biden’s attitude, expressing contempt for Obama’s loose talk about “weapons of mass destruction” and “regime change” as causes for military action.
This is an absolutely stunning development. I can only assume that Biden’s determination to enforce the lawful Constitutional separation of powers will give President Obama pause as he prepares to unilaterally…
Oh, wait, sorry. This clip’s from 2007, and two-fisted Constitutional scholar Joe Biden was talking about impeaching George Bush to stop him from attacking Iran to halt its nuclear program. Everything’s different now, because we have Barack Obama as President, some “red lines” are redder than others, and we don’t have a Constitution any more.
John Boehner Is Ordering Republicans To Fund ObamaCare! The Western Center for Journalism.
Boehner has thrown down the gauntlet and now that John Boehner has played his hand, we - the American people - must play ours.
Our elected officials must make a choice, and they need to make it now. Let them know that they can either do what Mr. Boehner wants, or they can do what the American people want and DEFUND OBAMACARE.
Is The Federal Government Really Hiring "An Army Of ObamaCare Detectives."
You've already heard the news that government agents will be given the authority under ObamaCare to barge into your home, and you already know about the "ObamaCare Navigators," ... the Obama-bots and so-called "Community Organizers" (and potentially even people with criminal records) who will be given access to your most private financial information.
But now the Daily Mail UK is reporting that the "Feds are building a detective squad to target consumers and companies that don't follow Obamacare's rules."
Their words, not ours...
The Daily Mail goes on to say: "More than 1,600 new employees hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in the aftermath of ObamaCare's passage include just two described as 'consumer safety' officers, but 86 tasked with 'criminal investigating' – indicating that the agency is building an army of detectives to sleuth out violations of a law that many in Congress who supported it still find confusing."
John Boehner's political schemes be damned. If he believes that keeping ObamaCare around, so he can pretend to fight it, is "good politics," then our elected officials must be disabused of that idiotic notion here and now.
The insanity must end today. Simply put, unless we stop ObamaCare in the next 30 days, it will likely be here to stay and all of the nightmares that they told you could never happen will come true in short order.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
More Shoes Are Dropping. Medicaid For Everyone Is Just Around The Corner.
Not only have health insurance premiums risen, on average, by more than $3600.00 since 2008, but major employers like UPS, the University of Virginia, and a number of local governments have just announced that they'll be dropping coverage. They aren't the first, they won't be the last... and millions of people will be forced into the socialist single-payer pool.
Conservative icon Gary Bauer summed up what is going on: "This growing trend highlights another of the perverse incentives in ObamaCare: it encourages companies to end health care coverage entirely and dump entire families into ObamaCare's exchange programs. This shouldn't surprise anyone."
"Barack Obama has spoken openly about his support for a socialist single-payer system, adding, 'But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process.'"
"ObamaCare is that 'transition process' of 'eliminating employer coverage,' one giant step in the 'fundamental transformation' of America into a European-style, socialist welfare state."
But our fight to maintain the American way of live is winnable. Senator Ted Cruz recently said: "Republicans have the votes to make defunding possible," and he's right. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If Republicans didn't have the votes, Boehner wouldn't be throwing down the gauntlet.
Boehner has made his move and now we must make ours. Win, lose or draw, we must make it clear to our elected officials that they must now make a choice. They can either side with John Boehner and Barack Obama, and fund ObamaCare, or they can side with the American people and defund it.
They have the votes... they can do it... it's that simple.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
Floyd Brown
Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as “Extremists” Aug 28, 2013 By Todd Starnes
The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!The Pentagon also considered the Southern Poverty law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for determining extremism and labeled “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.PENTAGON CALLS FOUNDING FATHERS EXTREMISTSCHECK OUT THE ARMY’S LIST OF DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS“The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, an organization that represents thousands of military chaplains.The documents show an unknown number of equal opportunity officers were trained at Fort Jackson, SC, using information obtained from the SPLC.The training material was made public after a soldier who attended the briefing alerted Chaplain Alliance.“He considers himself an Evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews said. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”The soldier “produced the slides based on EO Leader’s Course Program of Instruction obtained from the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,” the document reads.In addition to the slide presentation, the Reserve unit was also shown a video provided by the SPLC and Teaching Tolerance. The trainer told her superior officers she showed the video because it was part of the “EO Advisor course curriculum.”Crews is calling on the Pentagon to stop relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center or any other group that considers mainline religious organizations to be extremist or terrorist groups.“Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” Crews said. “The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings.”The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment. Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.“Mr. Wright’s response is accurate but incomplete,” Crews told Fox News. “Yes, the one offensive slide was deleted, but how many other EO officers continue to use the SPLC as a source for training materials?”SARAH PALIN SAYS YOU NEED TODD’S LATEST BOOK – DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA. CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR COPY! Related posts:
Pentagon Labels Founding Fathers, Conservatives as Extremists
Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists
Pentagon Grilled About Christians in Military
Lawmakers Want Army to Apologize for Attacks on Christians
Pentagon Blocks, Says it Will Free Access to Southern Baptist Website
America Assists al-Qaeda in Removing Bashar al-Assad
Posted 2 Hours Ago by Marilyn Assenheim filed under Email Featured, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, War5 New Rule in Florida: (AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... 1 Strange Tip for White Teeth Miami: Mom Publishes Free Teeth Whitening Secret that Angers Dentists Banks Lower Refi Rate Fannie Mae Launches Refi Plus Program Refinance Rates From 2.50% APR. Share11 Tweet6 0 Share22 Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, Obama is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, Obama is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama... This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House — nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida — though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it Obama stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action … for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what, and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize Recipient-In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “Why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace … which is everywhere. Obama’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, Obama waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, Obama is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. Obama is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently. Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#ixzz2dNqgbabx
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#lZJm1arA5U3DMv4b.99
Evangelical Christians Labeled as 'Extremists' by Pentagon By Bobby Eberle
The Pentagon is the nation's hub for military activity. One would think this nerve center would be hard at work training the next generation of leaders to fight terrorists and other extremist groups. They are... except you might be very surprised at what the Pentagon is classifying as an "extremist" group.
According to a report by Todd Starnes, "The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty."
The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.
The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.
What is going on here? Why are these types of characterizations allowed in Barack Obama's Department of Defense?
In the training manual, which was obtained by Judicial Watch, it is noted that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." Wow... does that sound extremist to you? The manual actually states that "the colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule" are an example of "extremist ideologies and movements."
And here's one thing to note: The military training manuals use the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a reference! Are you kidding me? As Starnes reports in another column, the SPLC is "a leftwing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council as 'hate groups.'"
"Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States," Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, said. "The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings."
With al Qaeda continuing to plan attacks against America, what in the world is the Pentagon doing focusing on Christians and using the SPLC as a reference? Something is definitely going wrong with our government, and I guess by saying that, I will now be labeled an extremist. Oh well.
FEMA Approves Russian Troops on US Soil? July 2, 2013 Oli Fischer
At a time when President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be clashing over the extradition of Edward Snowden, it’s hard to imagine signing an agreement that allows Russian troops to provide security at events on US soil… but that’s exactly what the Obama Administration did this week. According to an agreement signed in Washington, DC last week between FEMA and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, Russian troops can now be deployed to provide security at so-called “National Special Security Events,” such as the Super Bowl and G8 summits.This is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors tactic that the Obama ?Administration has been using throughout his presidency. Their motto is:?”Never let a crisis go to waste.”In this case, they’re simply using the NSA crisis to distract Americans as ?they adopt disastrous measures to weaken American sovereignty.?? How can this possibly be anything but a blatant effort to erode US ?sovereignty and move the nation further down the road toward global ?government?Read more from the Moscow Times:“Russian officials will provide security at mass events in the U.S. as part of a deal signed last week between the Emergency Situations Ministry and its U.S. equivalent, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Representatives of both agencies arrived at an agreement during last week’s 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, but the move has been met with some concern from those wary of foreign troops operating on U.S. soil, Infowars.com reported Monday.“The parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation, which envisages the exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events,” the ministry said in a statement.Under the terms of the new deal, Russian troops could be deployed at ”National Special Security Events,” as determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Events that have been awarded this status in the past include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations.Russian troops trained on U.S. soil for the first time last year when 22 army paratroopers visited Colorado for a fortnight’s training with the 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson.”Exercise like this are supposedly aimed at improving emergency response capabilities. As an American, I can’t think of anything more disastrous than allowing foreign military troops to provide security in a disaster scenario. With the language barrier, unfamiliar customs, and differences in property rights, this isn’t disaster response… it’s a disaster.What do you think of this trans-national agreement? Should any military troops (foreign or domestic) be allowed to provide security at civilian events? Or does that violate the Posse Comitatus Act?https://patriotcaller.com/fema-approves-russian-troops-on-us-soil/
CLEMENTE SANCHEZ: LIMÓN CONGELADO
Un joven en la Universidad de Kirche tiene un tumor en el pulmón y su hermana, que es enfermera, le envió un e-mail acerca del limón. Empezó a beber limonada desde hace algún tiempo, y sus tumores eran más pequeños. Su oncólogo le dijo que continuara.
Creo que este sorprendente descubrimiento es muy útil para nuestra salud.
Todo lo que necesitamos es: un limón congelado.
Muchos profesionales de la hostelería, ya utilizan el limón entero, nada se descarta , las cáscaras de limón hasta el momento se han desechado y contiene de cinco a diez veces más vitaminas que el mismo jugo.
¿Cómo podemos utilizar el limón entero sin perder nada?
Simple, lava bien el limón y colocalo en el congelador.
Cuando se congela, utilice el rallador y rallarlo entero (con la cáscara), y espolvorear sobre los alimentos esta rayadura.
Rocíe sus bebidas, helados, sopas, cereales, pasta, salsas,
arroz, sushi, pescados, whisky ... la lista es interminable.
Esta es la Clave mágica para hacer su comida más sabrosa y saludable. Ud vivirá más tiempo.
Este es el secreto de limón, que ahora acaba de ser revelado, el cancer dificilmente se desarrolla en un ambiente alcalino
Usted puede ayudar a un amigo para hacerle saber que el jugo de limón es ventajoso en el tratamiento del cáncer.
COMPARTA ESTA INFORMACION, PUEDE SALVAR VIDAS.
También se considera un espectro de infecciones antimicrobianas
Bacterianas y hongos. Es eficaz contra los parásitos internos y los gusanos,
Regula la presión arterial cuando es demasiado alto, es un antidepresivo, combate el estrés y los trastornos nerviosos.
Is Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria?
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM By Cathy Burke
The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama is ready to go it alone to strike Syria despite the British parliament's rejection of military action and the lack of a UN mandate.
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.
US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.
"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.
The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.
“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.
Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.
“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.
“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”
And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.
Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”
The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.
But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.
Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.
“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.
“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Syria-conflict-US-intelligence/2013/08/29/id/523039?s=al&promo_code=14B3A-1#ixzz2dT5KJ4XU
LA INQUISICIÓN DE OBAMA. Por Alfredo M. Cepero
Director de www.lanuevanacion.com Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero
Allá por al año de 1482, un oscuro sacerdote devenido funcionario de la Corona de España creo la máquina de represión religiosa y política más eficaz de la historia: la Inquisición Española. Su legado de intolerancia y fanatismo ha llegado macabramente vivo hasta el siglo XXI. La prensa anticlerical y secularista que nos gastamos por estos días se ha encargado de mantener viva aquella barbaridad perpetrada por Fray Tomás de Torquemada contra 400,000 judíos que vivían en la España de los Reyes Católicos, la mitad de los cuales se convirtieron al catolicismo no por convicción sino por terror.
Andando el tiempo, Torquemada tendría imitadores en el fanatismo y la intolerancia. En este caso en el campo de la ideología política. Porque no hay nada que se parezca más a un fanático religioso que un ideólogo político. Ninguno ve el mundo que lo rodea en sus dimensiones reales sino según los parámetros dentro de los cuales quiere modificarlo. Están demasiado ocupados en cambiarlo según sus percepciones del bien y del mal como para perder tiempo en analizarlo. En 1971, el agitador comunitario, Saul D. Alinsky, publicó "Reglas para Radicales" un prontuario para agitadores disfrazados de organizadores comunitarios encaminado a unificar a ciudadanos de bajos recursos en una lucha contra los sistemas políticos y económicos predominantes en el Chicago de la década de 1970.
En el primer párrafo de su libro, Alinsky se dirigió a las juventudes que se proponía reclutar diciendo: "Lo que sigue es para aquellos que quieren cambiar el mundo de lo que es en la actualidad a lo que ellos consideran que debe ser". La perfecta definición de intransigencia incubada en la mente de un fanático ideológico. Como buen discípulo de Alinsky, Obama perfeccionó el dominio del arte de la intimidación y de la calumnia para neutralizar a sus adversarios. No está interesado en negociar sino en imponer su voluntad. Por eso les dijo a los republicanos después de su triunfo en el 2008: "yo gane y ustedes perdieron". Únicamente un hombre cegado por la ideología y dominado por la arrogancia ha podido cometer tantos errores e incurrido en tales barbaridades.
Esa total renuencia a reconocer la realidad e imponer su voluntad ha llevado a Obama a incurrir en extremos inauditos de hipocresía y mentira en su misión de transformar a los Estados Unidos de una nación de ciudadanos independientes en una nación de parásitos mantenidos y manipulados por el gobierno. De una republica constitucional en una falsa democracia manipulada utilizando métodos totalitarios por un ejecutivo que se arroga funciones del poder legislativo e intimida a los funcionarios del poder judicial. Desde un principio, Obama dijo que se proponía transformar radicalmente a la sociedad norteamericana, no solo a su gobierno. Como a todos los ideólogos de izquierda aspirantes a tiranos la constitución le molesta y, por lo tanto, la viola cada vez que sus clausulas constituyen obstáculos a sus designios de ampliar su poder.
Cuando el Presidente afirma con sarcasmo que los republicanos están inventando escándalos para obstaculizar su plan de gobierno está aplicando las enseñanzas de Alinsky sobre la destrucción despiadada de los adversarios. Pero el número extraordinario de escándalos que rodean a su administración, tales como corrupción y abuso de poder, sugiere que los mismos no son un invento de los republicanos sino las características que definen su desastroso desempeño en el cargo.
Una lista parcial de los más notorios escándalos tiene que incluir la persecución por el IRS de grupos conservadores y proisraelíes durante las elecciones del 2012, el encubrimiento del asesinato de cuatro norteamericanos en Benghazi con fines electoreros, la violación de la privacidad y las acusaciones contra periodistas que hacían su trabajo informando objetivamente y manteniendo a los gobernantes bajo el escrutinio de la prensa y la operación de venta de armas a traficantes de drogas mexicanos conocida como "Rápido y Furioso".
Y la lista sigue con los dos actos de perjurio del Procurador General, Eric Holder, ante el Congreso con motivo del espionaje de periodistas y la operación "Rápido y Furioso", la negativa de éste último a procesar a miembros de las Panteras Negras que intimidaron a votantes blancos en Filadelfia durante las elecciones del 2008 y las exigencias de la Secretaria de Salud, Kathleen Sebelius, a corporaciones reguladas por su secretaría para que donaran fondos con los cuales financiar las primas a ciudadanos de escasos recursos.
Al igual que su jefe, los funcionarios de la Administración Obama se consideran por encima de la ley. A principios de este año, James Clapper, Director de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, una institución hasta ahora ajena a luchas partidistas, mintió al Congreso en un esfuerzo por proteger a su jefe. Cuando el senador demócrata por Oregón, Ron Wyden, le preguntó si su agencia recopilaba informaciones de inteligencia (espiaba) sobre millones de norteamericanos, Clapper contesto con un NO rotundo. Pero cuando fue presionado dijo: "No intencionalmente. Habrá casos en que se recopile, pero no intencionalmente". Cuando días más tarde lo agarraron en la mentira tuvo que pedir perdón.
Y cuando ya pensábamos haber tenido conocimiento de las más flagrantes violaciones de la ley por éste gobierno, el Centro Legal de Pobreza Sureña denunció la semana pasada las actividades subversivas del funcionario del Departamento de Seguridad Interna, Ayo Kimathi, apodado "el genio irritado". Este personaje, entre cuyas responsabilidades se encuentra la adquisición de armamentos y municiones para la Oficina de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE), se pasa los fines de semanas promoviendo la supremacía negra y vomitando su odio contra los blancos. En su página digital, "Guerra en el Horizonte", Kimathi afirma: "La guerra es inminente y, si los negros queremos sobrevivir en el Siglo XXI, vamos a tener que matar a muchos blancos". Aún después de haber sido denunciado, esta repulsiva versión negra del Ku Klux Klan sigue devengando un sueldo pagado por los contribuyentes norteamericanos.
Regresando a Obama, el presidente no puede culpar a nadie más que a sí mismo del fracaso de su gestión de gobierno. Los gobernantes que ponen el servicio a sus gobernados por encima de su ideología como Johnson, Reagan y Clinton toman decisiones, aceptan responsabilidad y negocian con sus adversarios. Los fanáticos que ponen su ideología por encima del servicio a sus gobernados como Barack Obama se hacen las víctimas, culpan a los demás de sus fracasos y se niegan a negociar con sus adversarios.
Cuando Lyndon Johnson se dio a la tarea de hacer justicia a los americanos negros con la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y la Ley de Derechos Electorales de 1965 confrontó la hostilidad de miembros de su propio partido como el Senador Al Gore, padre del actual demagogo que se dice defensor del medio ambiente y les habla en jerigonza a los demócratas de piel negra cuando reclama su apoyo electoral. El demócrata Johnson recurrió entonces al senador republicano Everett Dirksen para lograr los votos republicanos que aseguraron la aprobación de ambas leyes.
Cuando Ronald Reagan, gobernando con un poder legislativo totalmente en manos del partido opositor, emprendió la tarea de poner en vigor la Ley de Reforma Tributaria de 1986 para salvar al país de la depresión económica desatada por la ineptitud de Jimmy Carter, no agredió a los demócratas sino negoció con ellos para obtener su apoyo. El republicano Reagan y el demócrata Tip O"Neill trabajaron juntos para echar los cimientos de una prosperidad económica que se prolongó por más de veinte años.
Y hasta el inmoral y perjuro de Bill Clinton tiene cualidades de gobernante que ya quisiera tener Barack Obama. Aprendió la lección de la derrota sufrida a manos de los republicanos en las parciales de 1994 y, en vez de denigrar a sus adversarios, opto por aliarse al recién electo Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, el republicano Newt Gingrich. Ambos cooperaron en la aprobación de la Ley de Reforma de Bienestar Social de 1996 que redujo el desempleo, balanceó el presupuesto y creo prosperidad económica.
Obama, la prensa complaciente que lo ensalza y sus defensores de la izquierda vitriólica podrán culpar a los republicanos hasta el cansancio por el nudo gordiano en que se ha convertido Washington. Pero cinco años de un desastre moral y económico que ya no puede seguir siendo atribuido a George W. Bush ni a los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes, así como la historia previa de cooperación entre ambos partidos restan credibilidad a sus argumentos. Sobre todo, dejan al Mesías desnudo de excusas para explicar sus fracasos.
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
Editor Lázaro R González Miño “IN GOD WE TRUST”
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent [Plus 1 me LRGM] want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP -
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
Slideshow: Syria uprising
A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.
Launch slideshow
Obama’s job approval at 44 percent
The NBC poll also shows that President Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped one point since last month to 44 percent, which is tied for his lowest mark in past NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys.
He gets even lower marks on foreign policy: Just 41 percent approve of his handling of the issue – an all-time low.
And only 35 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Syria.
The NBC poll was conducted Aug. 28-29 of 700 adults (including 210 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of plus-minus 3.7 percentage points.
RICARDO Samitier: Cagalera en grande en WASHINGTON
1. Como Todos Sabemos Los POLITIQUEROS Están De Vacaciones De Verano... El Capitolio de Washington esta VACIO...
2. Obama En Contra de la Constitución Desea ordenar Un Ataque A Siria...
3. ¿Qué Hacen Los Politiqueros Republicanos???...SEGUIR DE VACACIONES...
4. Debían estar TODOS en el CAPITOLIO de WASHINGTON para ABRIR
UN DEBATE acusando a Obama de “Planear Violar La Constitución”...
5. Pero NO... SIGUEN DE VACACIONES... cuando la patria está en PELIGRO...
6. VÁYANSE AL CARAJO... TODOS... incluyendo los 3 cubanos...
ESTADOS UNIDOS SIN CREDIBILIDAD EN EL MUNDO.
Los Politiqueros De Estados Unidos Destruyeron Toda La Credibilidad…
De Las Republicas Democráticas... Usa Es Considerado El País Más Hipócrita...
Obama Es Considerado Un Socialista... Que Fue Puesto En La Presidencia Para Realizar Una “Agenda Secreta” De Destruir Los EE.UU.
Ha Sido Una Meticulosa Obra De Los Comunistas De Los USA En Acuerdo Con Los De Fuera... Por Ejemplo: La “Misión Carter” De Supervisar Las Elecciones En Todos Los Países; Exige Que Los Carnets De Votantes Tengan Foto... Todo Lo Contrario en USA; El Gobierno Acusa A Los Estados Que Exigen Fotos...
Usa Ya No Tiene Ni Siguiera El Apoyo Incondicional De Inglaterra...
La ONU... Dentro De Poco Va A Poder Condenar A Estados Unidos... Como País Agresor...
Buchanan to Newsmax: Obama's Syrian Strike Would be Impeachable
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 02:39 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen WalterAny attack on Syria without Congressional approval would be an impeachable act, political commentator Pat Buchanan has told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
The former presidential candidate and best-selling author also says he prefers "the devil we know" in Syria — Bashar Assad — to the al-Qaida elements he asserts are leading the rebellion against his regime.
Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
President Obama has signaled that he is considering a strike on Syria amid administration claims the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday, Buchanan says his chief concern about a potential strike is that "the president of the United States is threatening a war and planning a war he has no right to wage. The Congress of the United States alone has the power to authorize war or declare war and it has not done so.
"President Obama is usurping the authority of the Congress first and foremost and he appears about to launch an unconstitutional and unnecessary war. So the President should be called to account by the Congress and told: no war without our approval. That's the way the Constitution works.
"The key figure is Speaker of the House John Boehner, who should call the House of Representatives back into session on Monday and instruct the president directly: Mr. President, you have no authority and no right to launch acts of war against Syria against whom we have not declared or authorized any war. We are calling on you not to engage in what would clearly be an impeachable act – starting a war against a country without the approval of the Congress when you are asked directly not to do so.
"If the president launched an unnecessary and unconstitutional war, striking a country against whom we have not declared war and has not attacked us, that is de facto an impeachable act that could lead to an open-ended war, the consequences of which we cannot even see."
The White House has talked about the moral justification for a strike. Asked if there is also a legal justification, Buchanan responds: "There's no constitutional justification right now in my judgment for a strike on Syria. The U.N. Security Council has not authorized a war, the Congress of the United States has not authorized a war.
"I do agree that the use of poison gas by the Syrian government — if it was President Assad who authorized it — is an obscene act which the international community and the Security Council should take up. But we don't know who ordered it; we don't know how it was delivered; we don't know if Assad knew about it; we don't know if Assad ordered it.
"But if he did, this is an issue that ought to be taken up by the international community and the Security Council, not the United States of America unilaterally and certainly not the president of the United States based on the flimsy evidence we have seen to date."
Obama declared unequivocally on Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks on. However, several U.S. officials are now using the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture.
Buchanan comments: "I would not understand or comprehend if Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence might be that he would be at war with the United States.
"But what the United States should do is quite clear: Gather all the evidence through the U.N., gather all the evidence through our intelligence, take this to the Security Council the same way President Kennedy through Adlai Stevenson took the [evidence] during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had our photographs, we showed the world what we had, we proved the missiles were in Cuba.
"That is the constitutional and legal way to do this. It is not to act in panic because John Kerry is shocked at the pictures he saw on YouTube."
Buchanan said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should call the Senate into session and "if he believes we should go to war, authorize it."
"That is what George H. W. Bush did before he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That is what George W. Bush did. I was against that war on Iraq but the president won the authority from Congress so it was a constitutional and legitimate war no matter that I did not like it."
If Obama does attack Syria without approval, "it is a clear, unconstitutional, illegal act," Buchanan reiterated. "If the president did this, he would be a rogue president."
Buchanan says he disagrees with former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton's assertion that we should seek to take out Assad.
"Look who is on the other side of this war," he tells Newsmax. "We have al-Qaida elements that are murderous, that have tortured people, that have killed Christians, and they're the leading force in the elements that are fighting against Assad.
"Behind Assad we have the Iranians and Hezbollah and the Russians. It is not our war. Quite frankly, I would prefer the devil we know, which is Assad, to the devil we don't know, which is that crowd in the rebels who are torturing and killing people and engaging in atrocities of their own."
Buchanan also says the Republicans have "the power of the purse" and should block spending by those agencies that would implement Obamacare.
And regarding immigration reform, Buchanan doubts that the GOP-controlled House will go along with the amnesty that President Obama wants and the Senate has approved.
He adds: "I believe and hope that the House of Representatives will deny amnesty, deny legal rights to people who've broken into our country and broken our laws."© 2013 Newsmax.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/buchanan-obama-syria-impeachable/2013/08/29/id/522972?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVS9ql7
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama: “Prez Can’t Deploy Military W/O Congress”. Obama: “I’m Deploying Military W/O Congress”
In a recent article by educator Thomas Sowell, he stated: “Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.” Talented phony is a gross understatement when speaking about Barack Hussein Obama. We still have no proof of his birth and citizenship, his Social Security Number is fraudulent along with his Selective Service registration form. There is strong reason to believe that he was enrolled as an Indonesian citizen who received federal aid while attending Occidental College. Everything about him reeks of being a phony, an imposter and a usurper. As Sowell stated, Obama concentrates on his skill of his words. So let’s look at his own words when it comes to the legal right of the President of the United States to take military action without the approval of Congress. In 2007, when Obama was launching his presidential campaign, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” He went on to say that the only legal way the president can take military action without the consent of Congress is in instances of self-defense when the US is being directly threatened. In 2011, Obama took military action in Libya without the consent of Congress and the US was not in any immediate threat of danger or attack. This is typical of someone who cares little about living up to their own words as only a phony would do. Obama’s side-kick, Joe Biden is just as bad. In 1998, then Sen. Joe Biden spoke on the Senate floor, stating: “Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” In 2007, Biden stated: “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” In 2011, Biden supported Obama’s actions using our military in Libya without the consent of Congress. Now, Obama is contemplating using military force in Syria because of their civil war and use of chemical weapons. He does not have the approval of Congress, yet and I heard Biden on the news fully supporting Obama if he does get us involved without first going through Congress. How can a nation trust its leaders if they continually say one thing and do the opposite? It’s not just a one-time thing either, as it seems to be the norm with both Obama and Biden. I know that many politicians, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. make campaign promises that they never keep and probably never intended to keep, but next to Lyndon B. Johnson, Obama is the most lying and deceiving president in my life time. And like Johnson, Obama is guilty of high crimes against the US, however, like Johnson, he will never be held accountable for those crimes, while the American people and our military personnel pay the consequences and live with the aftermath.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12323/obama-prez-cant-deploy-military-wo-congress-obama-im-deploying-military-wo-congress/#zwr7uySs3SdpV7MM.99
If Attacking Iraq Was So Wrong, Why Is Attacking Syria Right? 29 August 2013 / Marilyn Assenheim Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, The Lyin’ King has waggled his flaccid fist at Syria. He is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The Lyin’ King’s Secretary of State declared that there is “undeniable evidence” that Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. No evidence for this assertion has been offered by the regime. Weapons of mass destruction? Haven’t we been to this rodeo before? The left still flagellates Bush for alleging “non-existent” weapons of mass destruction as the basis for an “illegal” war. Except that it wasn’t illegal. Both houses of Congress and the U.N. passed resolutions in favor of the act. Aerial photographs of Soviet trucks shifting cargo from Iraq into Syria were widely circulated at that time. Could those deliveries to Syria have been the same weapons of mass destruction that John Kerry denied existence of back then? Yet insists on now? The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, The Lyin’ King is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama…This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it The Liar-In-Chief stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with The Lyin’ King to hold off on taking any action… for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient–In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace…which is everywhere. The Lyin’ King’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, The Lyin’ King waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, The Lyin’ King is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. The Lyin’ King is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/08/attacking-iraq-wrong-attacking-syria-right/#7QzTwTu7uryrCS9Z.99
British Opposition Voting Against Cameron's Syria Strike Plan.
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 11:00 AM
LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron faced an uphill struggle on Thursday to secure parliament's approval for military intervention in Syria after the main opposition party said it would vote against the motion.
Opening the debate to lawmakers recalled from their summer recess, Cameron said what was at stake was "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century."
He insisted that taking action against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability was "not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict."
But the outcome of the vote hung in the balance after a party source said the center-left opposition Labour Party had been having "increasing doubts about the opaque nature of the government's motion."
The motion that lawmakers are being asked to approve "does not mention anything about compelling evidence" that a suspected chemical attack last week outside the Syrian capital was launched by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the source said.
The Syrian regime strongly denies it was responsible and blames opposition fighters for the attack.
Under growing pressure from Members of Parliament who feared Britain was rushing into action, the government was forced to agree late Wednesday that Britain would not take part in any military strikes before United Nations inspectors report back on the gas attacks believed to have killed hundreds near Damascus.
While the political temperature rose, Britain dispatched six Typhoon fighter jets to its Akrotiri base on Cyprus as a "protective measure," although the defense ministry said the planes will not take part in any direct military action.
Cameron's government was said to be outraged by the decision of Labour leader Ed Miliband to change his stance on Wednesday — having previously offered the government conditional backing for military action.
The government has been forced to dilute the vote to one on merely the principle of military action.
The motion to be debated says that a final vote should only take place after U.N. inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Thursday the investigators would leave Syria by Saturday and report to him immediately.
Cameron does not have a clear majority in parliament and his Conservative party is forced to rely on the far smaller Liberal Democrats to rule in a coalition.
With British lawmakers now facing the prospect of having to vote for a second time on a different day — possibly early next week — it raises the possibility that the United States will go it alone with missile strikes, without involvement from Britain, its main military ally.
Muddying the waters, the government also said it had received legal advice that under international law, Britain could still launch military action even without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
Miliband is pushing ahead with his own amendment that calls for a greater U.N. role before any military action is authorized, and has not said whether the party will support the government if that is rejected.
He said: "I'm clear that this is a very grave decision to take military action that the House of Commons would be making and I didn't think that that decision should be made on an artificial timetable when the House of Commons wouldn't even have seen the evidence today from the U.N. weapons inspectors.
"I'm determined to learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq, and we can't have the House of Commons being asked to write a blank check to the PM for military action."
Cameron will try to convince that targeted strikes would punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter any further attacks.
He will also insist that any strikes would not drag Britain into a wider conflict.
Haunted by their experience of the war in Iraq, a growing number of MPs — including some within Cameron's own center-right Conservative Party — are reluctant to back British military involvement.
In 2003, parliament gave then Prime Minister Tony Blair a mandate to join the U.S.-led offensive in Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons never materialized and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.
© AFP 2013
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/syria-conflict-britain-debate/2013/08/29/id/522894?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVyZY2B
Alert: What Is Your Risk for a Heart Attack? Find Out Now
[?] JOE BIDEN THREATENS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT [?]
By: John Hayward 8/28/2013 04:24 PM
It may seem shocking to hear Vice President Joe Biden threatening to begin impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, but Biden is clearly a man of principle. As you’ll hear him explain about five and a half minutes into this clip, he assembled a team of Constitutional scholars to buttress his own experience with teaching classes about the separation of powers in the United States government. He knows the threat of impeachment is extremely serious, which is why he doesn’t make it lightly.
“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear. ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House, obviously, has to do that. But I would lead an effort to impeach him.”
“This Administration has damaged us to a degree that no other Administration has in American history,” Biden declared. ”We have no credibility.” He called President Obama’s effort to unilaterally declare war on Syria without Congressional approval “unconscionable,” and stressed the importance of finding ways to “make it more difficult for these cowboys to go to war.”
The host of the segment, Chris Matthews, agreed with Biden’s attitude, expressing contempt for Obama’s loose talk about “weapons of mass destruction” and “regime change” as causes for military action.
This is an absolutely stunning development. I can only assume that Biden’s determination to enforce the lawful Constitutional separation of powers will give President Obama pause as he prepares to unilaterally…
Oh, wait, sorry. This clip’s from 2007, and two-fisted Constitutional scholar Joe Biden was talking about impeaching George Bush to stop him from attacking Iran to halt its nuclear program. Everything’s different now, because we have Barack Obama as President, some “red lines” are redder than others, and we don’t have a Constitution any more.
John Boehner Is Ordering Republicans To Fund ObamaCare! The Western Center for Journalism.
Boehner has thrown down the gauntlet and now that John Boehner has played his hand, we - the American people - must play ours.
Our elected officials must make a choice, and they need to make it now. Let them know that they can either do what Mr. Boehner wants, or they can do what the American people want and DEFUND OBAMACARE.
Is The Federal Government Really Hiring "An Army Of ObamaCare Detectives."
You've already heard the news that government agents will be given the authority under ObamaCare to barge into your home, and you already know about the "ObamaCare Navigators," ... the Obama-bots and so-called "Community Organizers" (and potentially even people with criminal records) who will be given access to your most private financial information.
But now the Daily Mail UK is reporting that the "Feds are building a detective squad to target consumers and companies that don't follow Obamacare's rules."
Their words, not ours...
The Daily Mail goes on to say: "More than 1,600 new employees hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in the aftermath of ObamaCare's passage include just two described as 'consumer safety' officers, but 86 tasked with 'criminal investigating' – indicating that the agency is building an army of detectives to sleuth out violations of a law that many in Congress who supported it still find confusing."
John Boehner's political schemes be damned. If he believes that keeping ObamaCare around, so he can pretend to fight it, is "good politics," then our elected officials must be disabused of that idiotic notion here and now.
The insanity must end today. Simply put, unless we stop ObamaCare in the next 30 days, it will likely be here to stay and all of the nightmares that they told you could never happen will come true in short order.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
More Shoes Are Dropping. Medicaid For Everyone Is Just Around The Corner.
Not only have health insurance premiums risen, on average, by more than $3600.00 since 2008, but major employers like UPS, the University of Virginia, and a number of local governments have just announced that they'll be dropping coverage. They aren't the first, they won't be the last... and millions of people will be forced into the socialist single-payer pool.
Conservative icon Gary Bauer summed up what is going on: "This growing trend highlights another of the perverse incentives in ObamaCare: it encourages companies to end health care coverage entirely and dump entire families into ObamaCare's exchange programs. This shouldn't surprise anyone."
"Barack Obama has spoken openly about his support for a socialist single-payer system, adding, 'But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process.'"
"ObamaCare is that 'transition process' of 'eliminating employer coverage,' one giant step in the 'fundamental transformation' of America into a European-style, socialist welfare state."
But our fight to maintain the American way of live is winnable. Senator Ted Cruz recently said: "Republicans have the votes to make defunding possible," and he's right. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If Republicans didn't have the votes, Boehner wouldn't be throwing down the gauntlet.
Boehner has made his move and now we must make ours. Win, lose or draw, we must make it clear to our elected officials that they must now make a choice. They can either side with John Boehner and Barack Obama, and fund ObamaCare, or they can side with the American people and defund it.
They have the votes... they can do it... it's that simple.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
Floyd Brown
Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as “Extremists” Aug 28, 2013 By Todd Starnes
The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!The Pentagon also considered the Southern Poverty law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for determining extremism and labeled “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.PENTAGON CALLS FOUNDING FATHERS EXTREMISTSCHECK OUT THE ARMY’S LIST OF DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS“The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, an organization that represents thousands of military chaplains.The documents show an unknown number of equal opportunity officers were trained at Fort Jackson, SC, using information obtained from the SPLC.The training material was made public after a soldier who attended the briefing alerted Chaplain Alliance.“He considers himself an Evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews said. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”The soldier “produced the slides based on EO Leader’s Course Program of Instruction obtained from the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,” the document reads.In addition to the slide presentation, the Reserve unit was also shown a video provided by the SPLC and Teaching Tolerance. The trainer told her superior officers she showed the video because it was part of the “EO Advisor course curriculum.”Crews is calling on the Pentagon to stop relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center or any other group that considers mainline religious organizations to be extremist or terrorist groups.“Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” Crews said. “The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings.”The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment. Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.“Mr. Wright’s response is accurate but incomplete,” Crews told Fox News. “Yes, the one offensive slide was deleted, but how many other EO officers continue to use the SPLC as a source for training materials?”SARAH PALIN SAYS YOU NEED TODD’S LATEST BOOK – DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA. CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR COPY! Related posts:
Pentagon Labels Founding Fathers, Conservatives as Extremists
Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists
Pentagon Grilled About Christians in Military
Lawmakers Want Army to Apologize for Attacks on Christians
Pentagon Blocks, Says it Will Free Access to Southern Baptist Website
America Assists al-Qaeda in Removing Bashar al-Assad
Posted 2 Hours Ago by Marilyn Assenheim filed under Email Featured, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, War5 New Rule in Florida: (AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... 1 Strange Tip for White Teeth Miami: Mom Publishes Free Teeth Whitening Secret that Angers Dentists Banks Lower Refi Rate Fannie Mae Launches Refi Plus Program Refinance Rates From 2.50% APR. Share11 Tweet6 0 Share22 Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, Obama is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, Obama is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama... This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House — nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida — though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it Obama stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action … for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what, and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize Recipient-In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “Why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace … which is everywhere. Obama’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, Obama waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, Obama is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. Obama is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently. Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#ixzz2dNqgbabx
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#lZJm1arA5U3DMv4b.99
Evangelical Christians Labeled as 'Extremists' by Pentagon By Bobby Eberle
The Pentagon is the nation's hub for military activity. One would think this nerve center would be hard at work training the next generation of leaders to fight terrorists and other extremist groups. They are... except you might be very surprised at what the Pentagon is classifying as an "extremist" group.
According to a report by Todd Starnes, "The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty."
The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.
The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.
What is going on here? Why are these types of characterizations allowed in Barack Obama's Department of Defense?
In the training manual, which was obtained by Judicial Watch, it is noted that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." Wow... does that sound extremist to you? The manual actually states that "the colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule" are an example of "extremist ideologies and movements."
And here's one thing to note: The military training manuals use the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a reference! Are you kidding me? As Starnes reports in another column, the SPLC is "a leftwing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council as 'hate groups.'"
"Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States," Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, said. "The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings."
With al Qaeda continuing to plan attacks against America, what in the world is the Pentagon doing focusing on Christians and using the SPLC as a reference? Something is definitely going wrong with our government, and I guess by saying that, I will now be labeled an extremist. Oh well.
FEMA Approves Russian Troops on US Soil? July 2, 2013 Oli Fischer
At a time when President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be clashing over the extradition of Edward Snowden, it’s hard to imagine signing an agreement that allows Russian troops to provide security at events on US soil… but that’s exactly what the Obama Administration did this week. According to an agreement signed in Washington, DC last week between FEMA and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, Russian troops can now be deployed to provide security at so-called “National Special Security Events,” such as the Super Bowl and G8 summits.This is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors tactic that the Obama ?Administration has been using throughout his presidency. Their motto is:?”Never let a crisis go to waste.”In this case, they’re simply using the NSA crisis to distract Americans as ?they adopt disastrous measures to weaken American sovereignty.?? How can this possibly be anything but a blatant effort to erode US ?sovereignty and move the nation further down the road toward global ?government?Read more from the Moscow Times:“Russian officials will provide security at mass events in the U.S. as part of a deal signed last week between the Emergency Situations Ministry and its U.S. equivalent, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Representatives of both agencies arrived at an agreement during last week’s 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, but the move has been met with some concern from those wary of foreign troops operating on U.S. soil, Infowars.com reported Monday.“The parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation, which envisages the exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events,” the ministry said in a statement.Under the terms of the new deal, Russian troops could be deployed at ”National Special Security Events,” as determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Events that have been awarded this status in the past include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations.Russian troops trained on U.S. soil for the first time last year when 22 army paratroopers visited Colorado for a fortnight’s training with the 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson.”Exercise like this are supposedly aimed at improving emergency response capabilities. As an American, I can’t think of anything more disastrous than allowing foreign military troops to provide security in a disaster scenario. With the language barrier, unfamiliar customs, and differences in property rights, this isn’t disaster response… it’s a disaster.What do you think of this trans-national agreement? Should any military troops (foreign or domestic) be allowed to provide security at civilian events? Or does that violate the Posse Comitatus Act?https://patriotcaller.com/fema-approves-russian-troops-on-us-soil/
CLEMENTE SANCHEZ: LIMÓN CONGELADO
Un joven en la Universidad de Kirche tiene un tumor en el pulmón y su hermana, que es enfermera, le envió un e-mail acerca del limón. Empezó a beber limonada desde hace algún tiempo, y sus tumores eran más pequeños. Su oncólogo le dijo que continuara.
Creo que este sorprendente descubrimiento es muy útil para nuestra salud.
Todo lo que necesitamos es: un limón congelado.
Muchos profesionales de la hostelería, ya utilizan el limón entero, nada se descarta , las cáscaras de limón hasta el momento se han desechado y contiene de cinco a diez veces más vitaminas que el mismo jugo.
¿Cómo podemos utilizar el limón entero sin perder nada?
Simple, lava bien el limón y colocalo en el congelador.
Cuando se congela, utilice el rallador y rallarlo entero (con la cáscara), y espolvorear sobre los alimentos esta rayadura.
Rocíe sus bebidas, helados, sopas, cereales, pasta, salsas,
arroz, sushi, pescados, whisky ... la lista es interminable.
Esta es la Clave mágica para hacer su comida más sabrosa y saludable. Ud vivirá más tiempo.
Este es el secreto de limón, que ahora acaba de ser revelado, el cancer dificilmente se desarrolla en un ambiente alcalino
Usted puede ayudar a un amigo para hacerle saber que el jugo de limón es ventajoso en el tratamiento del cáncer.
COMPARTA ESTA INFORMACION, PUEDE SALVAR VIDAS.
También se considera un espectro de infecciones antimicrobianas
Bacterianas y hongos. Es eficaz contra los parásitos internos y los gusanos,
Regula la presión arterial cuando es demasiado alto, es un antidepresivo, combate el estrés y los trastornos nerviosos.
Is Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria?
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM By Cathy Burke
The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama is ready to go it alone to strike Syria despite the British parliament's rejection of military action and the lack of a UN mandate.
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.
US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.
"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.
The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.
“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.
Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.
“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.
“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”
And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.
Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”
The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.
But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.
Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.
“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.
“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Syria-conflict-US-intelligence/2013/08/29/id/523039?s=al&promo_code=14B3A-1#ixzz2dT5KJ4XU
LA INQUISICIÓN DE OBAMA. Por Alfredo M. Cepero
Director de www.lanuevanacion.com Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero
Allá por al año de 1482, un oscuro sacerdote devenido funcionario de la Corona de España creo la máquina de represión religiosa y política más eficaz de la historia: la Inquisición Española. Su legado de intolerancia y fanatismo ha llegado macabramente vivo hasta el siglo XXI. La prensa anticlerical y secularista que nos gastamos por estos días se ha encargado de mantener viva aquella barbaridad perpetrada por Fray Tomás de Torquemada contra 400,000 judíos que vivían en la España de los Reyes Católicos, la mitad de los cuales se convirtieron al catolicismo no por convicción sino por terror.
Andando el tiempo, Torquemada tendría imitadores en el fanatismo y la intolerancia. En este caso en el campo de la ideología política. Porque no hay nada que se parezca más a un fanático religioso que un ideólogo político. Ninguno ve el mundo que lo rodea en sus dimensiones reales sino según los parámetros dentro de los cuales quiere modificarlo. Están demasiado ocupados en cambiarlo según sus percepciones del bien y del mal como para perder tiempo en analizarlo. En 1971, el agitador comunitario, Saul D. Alinsky, publicó "Reglas para Radicales" un prontuario para agitadores disfrazados de organizadores comunitarios encaminado a unificar a ciudadanos de bajos recursos en una lucha contra los sistemas políticos y económicos predominantes en el Chicago de la década de 1970.
En el primer párrafo de su libro, Alinsky se dirigió a las juventudes que se proponía reclutar diciendo: "Lo que sigue es para aquellos que quieren cambiar el mundo de lo que es en la actualidad a lo que ellos consideran que debe ser". La perfecta definición de intransigencia incubada en la mente de un fanático ideológico. Como buen discípulo de Alinsky, Obama perfeccionó el dominio del arte de la intimidación y de la calumnia para neutralizar a sus adversarios. No está interesado en negociar sino en imponer su voluntad. Por eso les dijo a los republicanos después de su triunfo en el 2008: "yo gane y ustedes perdieron". Únicamente un hombre cegado por la ideología y dominado por la arrogancia ha podido cometer tantos errores e incurrido en tales barbaridades.
Esa total renuencia a reconocer la realidad e imponer su voluntad ha llevado a Obama a incurrir en extremos inauditos de hipocresía y mentira en su misión de transformar a los Estados Unidos de una nación de ciudadanos independientes en una nación de parásitos mantenidos y manipulados por el gobierno. De una republica constitucional en una falsa democracia manipulada utilizando métodos totalitarios por un ejecutivo que se arroga funciones del poder legislativo e intimida a los funcionarios del poder judicial. Desde un principio, Obama dijo que se proponía transformar radicalmente a la sociedad norteamericana, no solo a su gobierno. Como a todos los ideólogos de izquierda aspirantes a tiranos la constitución le molesta y, por lo tanto, la viola cada vez que sus clausulas constituyen obstáculos a sus designios de ampliar su poder.
Cuando el Presidente afirma con sarcasmo que los republicanos están inventando escándalos para obstaculizar su plan de gobierno está aplicando las enseñanzas de Alinsky sobre la destrucción despiadada de los adversarios. Pero el número extraordinario de escándalos que rodean a su administración, tales como corrupción y abuso de poder, sugiere que los mismos no son un invento de los republicanos sino las características que definen su desastroso desempeño en el cargo.
Una lista parcial de los más notorios escándalos tiene que incluir la persecución por el IRS de grupos conservadores y proisraelíes durante las elecciones del 2012, el encubrimiento del asesinato de cuatro norteamericanos en Benghazi con fines electoreros, la violación de la privacidad y las acusaciones contra periodistas que hacían su trabajo informando objetivamente y manteniendo a los gobernantes bajo el escrutinio de la prensa y la operación de venta de armas a traficantes de drogas mexicanos conocida como "Rápido y Furioso".
Y la lista sigue con los dos actos de perjurio del Procurador General, Eric Holder, ante el Congreso con motivo del espionaje de periodistas y la operación "Rápido y Furioso", la negativa de éste último a procesar a miembros de las Panteras Negras que intimidaron a votantes blancos en Filadelfia durante las elecciones del 2008 y las exigencias de la Secretaria de Salud, Kathleen Sebelius, a corporaciones reguladas por su secretaría para que donaran fondos con los cuales financiar las primas a ciudadanos de escasos recursos.
Al igual que su jefe, los funcionarios de la Administración Obama se consideran por encima de la ley. A principios de este año, James Clapper, Director de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, una institución hasta ahora ajena a luchas partidistas, mintió al Congreso en un esfuerzo por proteger a su jefe. Cuando el senador demócrata por Oregón, Ron Wyden, le preguntó si su agencia recopilaba informaciones de inteligencia (espiaba) sobre millones de norteamericanos, Clapper contesto con un NO rotundo. Pero cuando fue presionado dijo: "No intencionalmente. Habrá casos en que se recopile, pero no intencionalmente". Cuando días más tarde lo agarraron en la mentira tuvo que pedir perdón.
Y cuando ya pensábamos haber tenido conocimiento de las más flagrantes violaciones de la ley por éste gobierno, el Centro Legal de Pobreza Sureña denunció la semana pasada las actividades subversivas del funcionario del Departamento de Seguridad Interna, Ayo Kimathi, apodado "el genio irritado". Este personaje, entre cuyas responsabilidades se encuentra la adquisición de armamentos y municiones para la Oficina de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE), se pasa los fines de semanas promoviendo la supremacía negra y vomitando su odio contra los blancos. En su página digital, "Guerra en el Horizonte", Kimathi afirma: "La guerra es inminente y, si los negros queremos sobrevivir en el Siglo XXI, vamos a tener que matar a muchos blancos". Aún después de haber sido denunciado, esta repulsiva versión negra del Ku Klux Klan sigue devengando un sueldo pagado por los contribuyentes norteamericanos.
Regresando a Obama, el presidente no puede culpar a nadie más que a sí mismo del fracaso de su gestión de gobierno. Los gobernantes que ponen el servicio a sus gobernados por encima de su ideología como Johnson, Reagan y Clinton toman decisiones, aceptan responsabilidad y negocian con sus adversarios. Los fanáticos que ponen su ideología por encima del servicio a sus gobernados como Barack Obama se hacen las víctimas, culpan a los demás de sus fracasos y se niegan a negociar con sus adversarios.
Cuando Lyndon Johnson se dio a la tarea de hacer justicia a los americanos negros con la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y la Ley de Derechos Electorales de 1965 confrontó la hostilidad de miembros de su propio partido como el Senador Al Gore, padre del actual demagogo que se dice defensor del medio ambiente y les habla en jerigonza a los demócratas de piel negra cuando reclama su apoyo electoral. El demócrata Johnson recurrió entonces al senador republicano Everett Dirksen para lograr los votos republicanos que aseguraron la aprobación de ambas leyes.
Cuando Ronald Reagan, gobernando con un poder legislativo totalmente en manos del partido opositor, emprendió la tarea de poner en vigor la Ley de Reforma Tributaria de 1986 para salvar al país de la depresión económica desatada por la ineptitud de Jimmy Carter, no agredió a los demócratas sino negoció con ellos para obtener su apoyo. El republicano Reagan y el demócrata Tip O"Neill trabajaron juntos para echar los cimientos de una prosperidad económica que se prolongó por más de veinte años.
Y hasta el inmoral y perjuro de Bill Clinton tiene cualidades de gobernante que ya quisiera tener Barack Obama. Aprendió la lección de la derrota sufrida a manos de los republicanos en las parciales de 1994 y, en vez de denigrar a sus adversarios, opto por aliarse al recién electo Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, el republicano Newt Gingrich. Ambos cooperaron en la aprobación de la Ley de Reforma de Bienestar Social de 1996 que redujo el desempleo, balanceó el presupuesto y creo prosperidad económica.
Obama, la prensa complaciente que lo ensalza y sus defensores de la izquierda vitriólica podrán culpar a los republicanos hasta el cansancio por el nudo gordiano en que se ha convertido Washington. Pero cinco años de un desastre moral y económico que ya no puede seguir siendo atribuido a George W. Bush ni a los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes, así como la historia previa de cooperación entre ambos partidos restan credibilidad a sus argumentos. Sobre todo, dejan al Mesías desnudo de excusas para explicar sus fracasos.
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)