En mi opinión No383 5/14/2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño

“En mi opinión”  ,  IN GOD WE TRUST.

.No 383 Mayo 14, 2013  Editor Lázaro R González Miño.  



“En mi opinión” Lo que hizo El presidente Richard Nixon fue un juego de bebitos comparado con lo que ha hecho barry Hussein Soetoro y Nixon tuvo la decencia de renunciar. Este individuo que funge o finge ser el presidente ha sido cómplice de los asesinatos de norteamericanos diplomáticos y combatientes defensores de los Estados Unidos. Él y sus secuaces han tratado por todos los medios de silenciar y tergiversar la verdad de los hechos de ese episodio sangriento de Benghazy donde criminalmente se permitió el asesinato de estos cuatro patriotas, por parte de asesinos musulmanes. Ahora se ha descubierto que el IRS ha estado atacando y creándole situaciones difíciles. Ilegalmente,  a los que trabajan legalmente por hacer prevalecer La Constitución Americana y los derechos de los ciudadanos. Ellos han tratado de silenciar Al “Tea Party” y a todas las personas que se empeñan en mantener los valores Americanos. Esta pandilla en el gobierno se ha lanzado en una campaña de espionaje telefónico y de amedrentarían a la prensa para que no diga la verdad, en una flagrante violación de los derechos de los ciudadanos. Que esperamos para designar una persona para que presente un proceso de destitución del presidente obama.

Lázaro R González Miño.


IRS tells pro-life ministry to promote abortion Evidence suggests problem of politicization of tax collector far bigger than admitted

The Internal Revenue Service already has confessed to targeting and trying to injure tea party, Constitution and patriot organizations, by demanding answers to arbitrary questions and delaying their applications for a tax status so they could operate.

Now WND has learned that the IRS also put an organization in its bull’s-eye that wanted to do nothing more than share its pro-life message with churches.


The Cherish Life organization was created to be a non-profit under the IRS 501(c)3 provision so that churches would feel comfortable working together.

Peter Shinn founded the group, because he already was working with ProlifeUnity.com, but as it did not carry the same tax code designation as a religious institution, some churches were reluctant to hear the message from its education materials.

And even more reluctant to participate, Shinn told WND.


The mission of the ProlifeUnity group is to “save the unborn and defend the defenseless, no exceptions, no compromise.”

It organizes pickets, works through email campaigns and takes “direct action” on the dispute.


So Shinn launched CherishLife, a separate organization, to offer help to a coalition of churches that supports mothers struggling with unexpected pregnancies, promotes abstinence and advocates for an end to abortion in the community, state and nation.


“Our goal is to assist churches, organize and support a life ministry in defense of life and help function as an outreach to people struggling with unwanted pregnancies in the local community,” the site states.

Education materials are offered.


But Shinn said the IRS contacted him regarding his application for nonprofit status, and was told he didn’t qualify.

“The representative was telling me I had to provide information on all aspects of abortion, I couldn’t just educate the church from the pro-life perspective,” he said. “Every time I pressed her on this issue and asked her to clarify her position, she would state that it wasn’t what she was saying, and then, she would repeat it almost the same way.”


The IRS agent did not respond to a WND request for comment on the ministry’s position.

But Shinn said he was accused of setting up a political organization.


“I asked her why she said we were political organization and she said it was because we had said in our application that we did less than 5 percent political activity. I explained to her that this was what was stated in the application and all we were doing was acknowledging that we were doing less than 5 percent political activity,” he said.


He said the woman then accused him of having links to political activity on his website, even though he said he did not.

“She told me … they were going to deny my application,” he told WND. “She did get nervous though in the end when I pressed her that I wanted specific information about why I had to educate from a pro-abortion perspective not just pro-life. I explained to her that the Pro-Life Action League even has pro-life in their title and they certainly don’t teach pro-abortion topics and they are still 501(c)(3). I also told her that Planned Parenthood does not teach about pro-life issues yet they are also still a 501(c)(3).”


He also told WND that the IRS had rewritten his proposed bylaws “to paint our organization as a political organization. I couldn’t believe they took it upon themselves to do that,” he told WND.


The result is that the IRS gave him 90 days “to prove that we are not involved in political issues at all.”


WND reported when the IRS story broke last week that Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., believes the IRS “confession” was made because Barack Obama wants to distract attention from the scandal of his administration’s behavior when Islamists attacked and killed four Americans in Benghazi, Libya.

Bachmann, a former tax attorney and a leader of the congressional tea party caucus, told WND, “There’s no doubt this was not a coincidence that they dumped this story today, a Friday dump day This is when they put their negative stories out.”


But she said the looming storm cloud called Benghazi is the “soft underbelly” of the Obama administration and likely will keep Hillary Clinton from fulfilling her dream of occupying the Oval Office.


That would make it logical to release an IRS story that, while embarrassing, also could be cubbyholed as another “conservative” dispute with the White House.

She was referring to the ongoing hearings on the administration’s handling of the Sept. 11, 2012, attack by al-Qaida-linked terrorists on a U.S. foreign service post in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the ambassador.


House Republicans allege the U.S. government knew of a terrorist threat but ignored it. After the attack, critics charge, the administration blamed the deaths on reaction to an obscure anti-Muslim video, despite evidence from the beginning that it was a premeditated terrorist attack.

Locked in a tight presidential race, a deliberate assault on American assets and the murder of Americans by al-Qaida on a date as significant as 9/11 would have damaged Obama’s campaign claim that his administration had al-Qaida under control.


Bachmann said the IRS announcement of misbehavior was intended to provoke conservatives and draw their anger and attention.

“I was in that Benghazi hearing,” she told WND. “I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t. I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.”

It won’t work, she insisted.


“Conservatives can handle two shocking stories at the same time,” she said. “Both are equally unconstitutional and call into question the very president.”

The IRS confirmed on Friday that it had been targeting groups with “patriot,” “Constitution” or “tea party” in their names for punishment through additional questioning and delays.


The American Center for Law and Justice under Jay Sekulow’s leadership already had been fighting the battle.

“We knew from the very start that this intimidation tactic was coordinated and focused directly on specific organizations,” said Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ.

“This admission by the IRS represents a significant victory for free speech and freedom of association. There was never any doubt that these organizations complied with the law and applied for tax exempt status for their activities as Americans have done for decades. And for the many tax-exempt groups we represent, this is an important day – and underscores the need to stand-up and defend your constitutional freedoms.”

The ACLJ has been representing nearly 30 tea party organizations that had been the target of intimidation tactics by the IRS under the Obama administration.

Among the details the IRS demanded:

  • “Have you attempted or will you attempt to influence the outcome of specific legislation? If so, provide the following … all communications, pamphlets, advertisements, and other materials.”
  • “Have you conducted or will you conduct candidate forums? If so, provide the following details… The issues that were discussed. Copies of all handouts provided.”
  • “The names of persons from your organization and the amount of time they will spend on the event. Indicate the name and amount of compensation that will be paid to each person.”
  • “All copies of your corporate minutes from inception.”
  • “Please identify your volunteers.”
  • “The names of donors, contributors, and grantors.”
  • “Do you encourage eligible voters to educate themselves, register to vote, and vote? Explain in detail how you do this.”
  • “You were formed 12/28/10. Provide actual financial information for 2010 & 2011, and a budget for 2012. Provide details regarding each item listed.”


Bachmann told WND it’s stunning that the Obama administration used “the federal agency feared most by Americans to intimidate conservative and tea party organizations during an election year.”


Since the IRS also is the chief enforcer of Obamacare requirements, she asked whether the IRS’s admission means it “will deny or delay access to health care” for conservatives.


At this point, she said, that “is a reasonable question to ask.”

Over the weekend, instead of dying, the IRS story turned white-hot.

Fox News reported the House Ways and Means Committee will be holding a hearing and the attacks began as early as 2010, only a little more than a year after Obama took office.


ABC’s Jonathan Karl reported officials high in the agency knew that was happening as early as 2011, and The Examiner said the IRS also singled out business owners who were critical of the Obama administration.

Politico noted some tea party organizations already have threatened to bring the misbehaving IRS officials into court.

“Given the sheer scope of malfeasance at the IRS, there may be a legal resource,” said Dan Backer, who represents conservative groups.



La verdad sobre Mejico. https://www.youtube.com/v/za_8TOQFA8o Border Security – do not shy away from this video please.

Powerful Video you should see produced by the NRA (National Rifle Association), but you need to be aware of this as a citizen of the U.S.A.

For those of you who may not know, Sheriff Larry Dever, white cowboy hat and
blue/white checkered shirt is the long time sheriff of Cochise County . Sierra Vista , where I live, is the largest town in Cochise County . Cochise County is huge and borders Sonora, Mexico .

The bald-headed guy is the Sheriff of Pinal County . North of Tucson , AZ.

This video doesn’t say so, but there are videos taken on Hwy 8, going from
I-10 north of Tucson, thru Gila Bed and on to CA has a sign warning drivers
not to stop or pick up hitchhikers because so many are illegals who have
illegally come across the border from Mexico.

They can be Mexican or of any other foreign country.

Powerful!! And absolutely factual!


Please take the time to view and pass it on as you see fit.

“IRS? Tea Party Intimidation? I Knew Nothing. Nothing.” — Obama Written by Gary North on May 14, 2013

NOTA: Si un presidente dice que no sabe lo que hacen las agencias de su gobierno. “En mi opinión” o está mintiendo o el ordeno lo que estas agencias hacen. LRGM.                            NOTE: If any president says he does not know what do their government agencies. “In my opinion” is either lying or he ordered what these agencies do. LRGM.

President Obama says that he only learned of the IRS’ persecution of Tea Party groups late last week.

For those of us who were big fans of the TV sitcom about a German POW camp, Hogan’s Heroes, this sounds strangely familiar. It sounds like Sergeant Schultz.

He says that the accusation, if true, is “outrageous.” The people who did it will be held accountable, he said.

You may remember Abu Ghraib. They got to the bottom of it in a hurry. They got to the top of the bottom of it. Several people went to prison, or at least the brig. The highest ranking ones were sergeants. Then there is personal responsibility.

“As I have said many times since September 11, I take responsibility. Nobody is more committed to getting this right. I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure.

“Taking responsibility meant moving quickly in those first uncertain hours and days to respond to the immediate crisis and further protect our people and posts in high-threat areas across the region and the world. It meant launching an independent investigation to determine exactly what happened in Benghazi and to recommend steps for improvement. And it meant intensifying our efforts to combat terrorism and support emerging democracies in North Africa and beyond.” — Hillary Clinton, Jan. 23, 2012

So, I have no doubt — none whatsoever — that those who were responsible for this IRS intimidation — if there really was intimidation — will be held fully accountable. And when I say fully accountable, I mean fully . . . accountable.

Fully. http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/05/14/irs-tea-party-intimidation-i-knew-nothing-nothing-obama/

AP acusa al gobierno de EE.UU. de grabar las llamadas de sus periodistas

(CNN) — El Departamento de Justicia recopiló en secreto durante dos meses los registros telefónicos de los periodistas y editores de The Associated Press, reveló este lunes el servicio de noticias, en una carta que envió el secretario de Justicia de Estados Unidos.

Los registros incluyen llamadas de varias oficinas de AP y las líneas telefónicas personales de varios integrantes del personal, escribió el presidente de AP, Gary Pruitt.

Pruitt consideró que el caso es una “intrusión masiva y sin precedentes”.

“Estos registros potencialmente revelan comunicaciones con fuentes confidenciales a través de todas las actividades de recopilación de noticias realizadas por la AP durante un periodo de dos meses, proporcionan una hoja de ruta para las operaciones de recopilación de noticias de AP y divulgan información acerca de las actividades y operaciones de AP que el gobierno no tiene derecho concebible a conocer”, escribió Pruitt, director general de la agencia de noticias.

AP informó que el gobierno no le había dicho por qué quería los registros, a los que tuvo acceso la agencia el viernes pasado, de acuerdo con Pruitt.

En total, los agentes federales recolectaron los registros de más de 20 líneas, incluyendo números de teléfono personales y teléfonos de AP en Nueva York, Hartford, Connecticut, y Washington, escribió.

“Consideramos esta acción del Departamento de Justicia como una grave violación de los derechos constitucionales de AP, para recopilar y reportar las noticias”, dijo el secretario de Justicia, Eric Holder.

Pruitt reclamó que el departamento devuelva todos los registros recabados y destruya todas las copias.

La oficina del secretario de Justicia en Washington respondió que los investigadores federales buscan los registros telefónicos de agencias de noticias solo después de realizar “todos los esfuerzos razonables para obtener información a través de medios alternativos”.

“Hay que notificar con antelación al medio de comunicación, a menos de que ello suponga una amenaza sustancial para la integridad de la investigación”, dijo.

“Porque valoramos la libertad de la prensa, somos siempre cuidadosos y deliberativos en la búsqueda de un equilibrio adecuado entre el interés público en el libre flujo de información y el interés público en la administración justa y eficaz de nuestras leyes penales”.

Los agentes federales han puesto en marcha varias investigaciones sobre las filtraciones de información clasificada en los últimos años.

Holder anunció en junio de 2012 que había asignado dos abogados estadounidenses para dirigir las investigaciones sobre la posible filtración de secretos de Estado, e integrantes del Congreso se han quejado de la divulgación de información sobre campañas de guerra electrónica contra Irán, y ataques de drones de Estados Unidos en el extranjero.

Pero Pruitt escribió que la mayor parte de los registros de la AP “no pueden tener conexión plausible con cualquier investigación en curso”. La Unión Estadounidense de Libertades Civiles (ACLU, por sus siglas en inglés) pidió al Departamento de Justicia que explique sus acciones.

“La obtención de una amplia gama de grabaciones telefónicas con el fin de descubrir a un filtrador gobierno es un abuso inaceptable de poder”, expresó Ben Wizner, de la ACLU.

“La libertad de prensa es uno de los pilares de nuestra democracia, y esa libertad depende con frecuencia de las comunicaciones confidenciales entre los periodistas y sus fuentes”.

Archivado en: Estados Unidos • Medios de comunicación

Watch out for Petraeus in Benghazi scandal

By Washington Times May 14, 2013 6:50 am

Call it “Oval Office Couch Syndrome.”

By their second term “inside the bubble,” presidents have completely lost touch with reality: Aides and confidants conspire to keep the chief executive insulated from the real world – the bad news, the worse press coverage. They think it’s their job, and lounging on the Oval Office couches, they nod along with the president’s every musing.

But this presidency has taken OOCS to new heights. Mr. Obama has only a few trusted aides, and occasional leaks from the West Wing show a paranoid president suspicious of nearly everyone around him. Supremely confident, convinced by the fawning minions at his feet that he is untouchable, the president dismisses all controversy as partisan attacks by an overzealous opposition. A pliant press corps of stenographers follows in lockstep.

Not surprisingly, every president in the past 60 years has had a major scandal in Term 2: Dwight Eisenhower had the U-2 “incident”; Richard Nixon had Watergate; Ronald Reagan had Iran-Contra; Bill Clinton had Monica (literally); George W. Bush had Katrina (and let’s not forget those WMDs that never turned up); and now, this president has Benghazi.

Make no mistake: Benghazi is a major scandal. Benghazi is a scandal before, during and after the terrorist attack that left four Americas dead, including an ambassador.

For months before, there were warnings about weak security at the U.S. Consulate in Libya; no one paid attention. During the attack, when Americans were begging for help, the White House ignored their pleas, sent no help.

And after? That’s when the Obama scandal falls into the predictable second-term pattern his predecessors all learned the very hard way. Faced with a crisis, the Obama White House panicked. “We can’t have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day, so … let’s not have a terrorist strike two months before Election Day.” Cue the Cover-Up.

So little is known about what happened in Benghazi: Where was the commander in chief that night? No pictures from the Situation Room this time. Why didn’t the Pentagon authorize a quick-response team to swoop in? Members of the military say they were ready – burning – to go. The call came in: Stand down. Let them die. There were dozens of witnesses to the attack that night: Where are they? What do they know? What really happened that night?

And who forced the heavy-handed redactions of those infamous “talking points,” the ones that sent Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations onto the Sunday talk shows to declare that the attack was just the culmination of a spontaneous protest over an anti- Islam video posted on YouTube?

Carnival barker Jay Carney looked almost ashen Friday as he took the podium to face a suddenly invigorated press corps. Of course, the public briefing came after a private session with “reporters who matter,” a sure sign the White House is in full hunker-down mode – and, more precisely, terrified.

“Again,” one newly curious reporter asked, “what role did the White House play, not just in making but in directing changes that took place to these?”

“Well,” the carney said, “thank you for that question. The way to look at this, I think, is to start from that week and understand that in the wake of the attacks in Benghazi, an effort was underway to find out what happened, who was responsible. In response to a request from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence to the CIA, the CIA began a process of developing points that could be used in public by members of Congress, by members of that committee. And that process, as is always the case – again, led by the CIA – involved input from a variety of …”

Enough. You get the point: Full Spin Cycle.

Speaking for the White House, the flack said the CIA was fully to blame for the talking points. Fully. “That is what was generated by the intelligence community, by the CIA,” he said.

For the record, this is what the CIA “generated”:

“Since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants.” That line was stricken: Everything was fine there – fine fine fine.

And: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda participated in the attack.” That line, too, was deleted by … someone. Instead, this was inserted: “There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations.”

Despite protestations by the White House, this scandal is just beginning. And the White House has picked a very bad scapegoat: the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA follows RFK’s edict: “Don’t get mad, get even.” And when the CIA gets even, it isn’t pretty.

With the White House putting all blame on the agency, expect push back this week – nuclear push back. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the former director forced to resign after a sex scandal, is a dangerous man to the Obama administration. Mad and intent on getting even, he’s already talking, telling one reporter the talking points were “useless” and that he preferred not to use them at all. The floodgates will open this week, and by the end of business Friday, the scandal will be full blown.

A warning to those West Wing sycophants suffering from acute OOCS: Don’t walk down any dark alleys.

Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times and is now editor of the Drudge Report. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and @josephcurl.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.


Lawmaker proposes bill sending IRS employees to prison for political targeting

By GJWHG / 13 May 2013 / 0 comments

Responding to the revelation that the Internal Revenue Service has been targeting certain conservative organizations because of their political views, a Republican lawmaker on Capitol Hill introduced a bill Monday declaring such activities a felony for IRS employees.


“The fact that this could occur with little to no corrective action against those who seek to silence their fellow citizens is unacceptable,” Ohio Rep. Mike Turner said in a statement.

Turner’s bill, which he is calling the Taxpayer Nondiscrimination & Protection Act of 2013, would make IRS employees who …




It’s time to appoint special counsel, to explore the impeachment of President Obama

Monday, May 13, 2013 at 2:33 PM EDT

Get Glenn live THE BLAZE TV.


Two big scandals dominated the mainstream media on Friday. First, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings that shed more light on the fact that the truth on Benghazi was obscured by the State Department and that senior officials knew the attacks were not motivated by a YouTube video. Second, the IRA apologized after admitting that they targeted conservative organizations. In response to both stories, Glenn said that it was time to appoint a special counsel to explore impeachment of President Obama.

On radio, Glenn played just a few of the statements from members of the administration where they tried to pin the attacks on the Libyan embassy in Benghazi on a YouTube video:

HILLARY CLINTON: We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with.

SUSAN RICE: Based on the best information we have to date, what our assessment is as of the present is, in fact, what it began spontaneously in Benghazi as a reaction to what had transpired some hours earlier in Cairo where, of course, as you know, there was a violent protest outside of our embassy, sparked by this hateful video.

CARNEY: This is a fairly volatile situation and it is in response not to United States policy, not to obviously the administration, not to the American people. It is in response to a video.

“The press will tell you at this point they were only covering for an election. I contend that is absolutely untrue. I contend, as I have from the beginning, this is about weapons smuggling to Syria. That is quite a serious charge. That is what I have said from the beginning. Geraldo now has come out with a statement on Friday saying he has top level sources that say this is about gun‑running to Syria. Fox News should either deny and distance themselves from that statement or they should confirm and run with that story because that is, I believe, what this story is about,” Glenn said.

“They lied about it at the White House, they lied about it at the State Department,” Glenn said. “They said that an American, who now sits in prison, they said that an American was responsible for this on this videotape, making some videotape, when they knew that was absolutely false. There was no, zero, no indication that it was a videotape at all. They left people to die. They left people to die.”

Gregory Hicks, a senior diplomat at The State Department, has come out and testified that U.S. Special Forces were prepared to come to the aid of the Libyan embassy from Tripoli, but were given the order to stand down.

Amidst the Benghazi hearing, news broke that the IRS had in fact targeted conservative groups.

“Now The Washington Post is saying that it is high level, high level sources at the IRS. They targeted the 9/12 project. They targeted the TEA Party Patriots. They targeted Jewish organizations. They asked them for their donor list. They asked them for things they had no right to ask them for and then threatened them. They asked the Jewish organization to explain their religious belief concerning Israel. They targeted those who were teaching constitutional principles,” Glenn said.

“I believe it is time for the American people to demand that a special counsel is appointed, but I believe for the first time in American history we should also demand that there is citizen oversight, that there is somebody not connected to either of the two parties,” Glenn said. “It is time to appoint a special council to explore impeachment of this president.”

Obama is an Aberation, Not the New Face of American Politics

Written on Monday, May 13, 2013 by David L. Goetsch

Losing two presidential elections in a row has put leaders of the mainstream Republican Party in panic mode. As a result, they are rushing ahead in an attempt to re-define themselves. The strategy being debated among party professionals for 2016 involves becoming a kinder, gentler party that adopts Democrat principles in an attempt to win back the White House. Republican Party professionals remind me of a tennis player who focuses on the scoreboard instead of the ball, a strategy for certain failure. Before diluting their conservative principles and changing the party’s name to Dempublicans, leaders of the Republican Party should investigate the causes of their losses to Barack Obama a little closer.

A careful examination of the presidential campaigns of 2007 and 2011 will reveal that Barack Obama is an aberration. He is not the new face of American politics the mainstream media portrays him to be. In 2007 Barack Obama had history and racial atonement on his side. Many white Americans were so determined to hammer one last nail in Jim Crow’s coffin that they were willing to vote for Barack Obama regardless of the considerations that usually guide voting behavior. Further, many black Americans approached the election of 2007 harboring pent-up resentment that could be traced all the way back to bad old days of slavery, and understandably so. For those people—black and white—who felt the scars of slavery and Jim Crow would never heal until a black man was elected President of the United States, voting for Barack Obama was about something bigger than his policies and promises. This is why conservative blacks who disagreed with everything Barack Obama stood for would look you in the eye and say, “Of course I am going to vote for him.” In other words, Barack Obama was probably going to win the election regardless of who the Republicans ran against him. The historical and cultural significance of his candidacy coupled with the fact that John McCain has the public appeal of day-old oatmeal practically ensured an election failure for Republicans in 2007.
Barack Obama’s first election victory was the result of appealing promises of hope and change, the historical significance of his candidacy, and his charismatic personality, coupled with John McCain’s ineptitude and lack of public appeal. But his re-election victory was an aberration. In essence, Barack Obama won re-election—in spite of his dismal record–because of the historical significance of being America’s first black president; that and the ineptitude and lack of public appeal of Mitt Romney.

Republicans are well advised to avoid making any major policy shifts on the basis of Barack Obama’s re-election. The truth is his candidacy for America’s highest office had socio-cultural and historical ramifications that transcended politics. Barack Obama might have won his first election in 2007 even without the help of historical significance, but with his record of failure, Obama would have lost his re-election bid. Barack Obama was re-elected for two reasons. The first was that black Americans voted for him—even if they disagreed with his policies, which many did—because Obama represented their long-awaited and historical arrival in America. In a sense, all of the civil right victories of the past 60 years were just the build up to this ultimate symbol of full participation in American society. In the final analysis, Barack Obama’s record of failed policies did not matter because for black Americans his presence in the White House transcended all other considerations. The second reason represented something even more important to black Americans: true equality. It is one thing to claim, at least theoretically, that any American can grow up to become president. It is quite another to believe this maxim when no black person has ever held the office.

To many black Americans—liberal and conservative—Barack Obama’s arrival in the White House signaled their long-awaited arrival as full-fledged Americans. Consequently, voting behavior in 2007 and 2011 were an aberration, not a trend. Barack Obama is the first black American to become president. There will be others, but there will never be another first. This is why Republicans should be cautious of diluting their conservative principles and watering down their beliefs on the basis of two losses to Barack Obama. In fact, because of Obama’s failed record as president, the next black American to be elected to our nation’s highest office will probably be a conservative. He might even be a Republican, provided that Republicans don’t go wobbly on conservative principles.

Read more:

Justice Department secretly obtained AP phone records. “YOU HAVE TO HAD GUTS” -ENOUGH IS ENOUGH-

Published May 13, 2013 Associated Press

The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.

The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.

In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.

In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.

“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know,” Pruitt said.

The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.

In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an “unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.”

Prosecutors have sought phone records from reporters before, but the seizure of records from such a wide array of AP offices, including general AP switchboards numbers and an office-wide shared fax line, is unusual and largely unprecedented.

In the letter notifying the AP received Friday, the Justice Department offered no explanation for the seizure, according to Pruitt’s letter and attorneys for the AP. The records were presumably obtained from phone companies earlier this year although the government letter did not explain that. None of the information provided by the government to the AP suggested the actual phone conversations were monitored.

Among those whose phone numbers were obtained were five reporters and an editor who were involved in the May 7, 2012 story.

The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of leaking classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.

Justice Department published rules require that subpoenas of records from news organizations must be personally approved by the attorney general but it was not known if that happened in this case. The letter notifying AP that its phone records had been obtained though subpoenas was sent Friday by Ronald Machen, the U.S. attorney in Washington.

Spokesmen in Machen’s office and at the Justice Department had no immediate comment on Monday.

The Justice Department lays out strict rules for efforts to get phone records from news organizations. A subpoena can only be considered after “all reasonable attempts” have been made to get the same information from other sources, the rules say. It was unclear what other steps, in total, the Justice Department has taken to get information in the case.

A subpoena to the media must be “as narrowly drawn as possible” and “should be directed at relevant information regarding a limited subject matter and should cover a reasonably limited time period,” according to the rules.

The reason for these constraints, the department says, is to avoid actions that “might impair the news gathering function” because the government recognizes that “freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news.”

News organizations normally are notified in advance that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the desired information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might “pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.”

It is unknown whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

The May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of the CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bomb plot occurred around the one-year anniversary of the May 2, 2011, killing of Usama bin Laden.

The plot was significant because the White House had told the public it had “no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.”

The AP delayed reporting the story at the request of government officials who said it would jeopardize national security. Once government officials said those concerns were allayed, the AP disclosed the plot because officials said it no longer endangered national security. The Obama administration, however, continued to request that the story be held until the administration could make an official announcement.

The May 7 story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. They and their editor, Ted Bridis, were among the journalists whose April-May 2012 phone records were seized by the government.

Brennan talked about the AP story and leaks investigation in written testimony to the Senate. “The irresponsible and damaging leak of classified information was made … when someone informed the Associated Press that the U.S. Government had intercepted an IED (improvised explosive device) that was supposed to be used in an attack and that the U.S. Government currently had that IED in its possession and was analyzing it,” he said.

He also defended the White House’s plan to discuss the plot immediately afterward. “Once someone leaked information about interdiction of the IED and that the IED was actually in our possession, it was imperative to inform the American people consistent with Government policy that there was never any danger to the American people associated with this al-Qa’ida plot,” Brennan told senators.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/13/justice-department-secretly-obtains-ap-phone-records/#ixzz2TD7aP9aW



Internal Revenue Service Alberto L Perez, amenper.


Nunca me gusta hablar mucho del Internal Revenue Service, tengo muchas razones aparte del dolor en la boca del estómago cuando menciono el nombre.

Primero creo que muchas personas no se identifican con mi dolor, la mitad de los ciudadanos no pagan impuestos.  Otros reciben un cheque del  Internal Revenue Service que los pone contentos, aunque realmente no es más que el dinero que le han retenido por casi un año.

Así que se ponen contentos cuando le devuelvan sin intereses lo que es de ellos y el IRS lo ha estado utilizando durante un año.

Pero ahora está de moda hablar mal del Internal Revenue Service así que puedo darme un poco de gusto entrando en la moda.

Se ha hecho público lo que muchos ya sabíamos.  Esta agencia es el centro de delincuencia mayor del gobierno de los Estados Unidos, no importa quien fuera el presidente.  Siempre usan sus amenazas para amedrentar al ciudadano.  La diferencia es que ahora esta administración está usando esta oficina para amedrentar a los opositores del partido de gobierno.

Como las leyes de los impuestos son por diseño, difíciles de entender y varían cada año, siempre tienen dónde encontrar algo para castigar a la víctima escogida.

El caso que está de moda son las instituciones  benéficas  y que no reciben utilidades, como son las asociaciones políticas.  Ya en este gobierno antes estaban atacando selectivamente a las instituciones religiosas que se oponían al aborto y decían a los feligreses que votaran por ciertos candidatos  “pro-vida”.   Trataron de quitarle la excepción de impuestos porque según ellos estaban haciendo campaña política.

Claro que no hablaron de quitarle la excepción de impuesto a esos “pastores” de las “iglesias” negras que son centros de campañas de Obama.

Ahora ha saltado que estaban acosando a instituciones y personas conservadoras que hablaban contra Obama, como Glenn Beck.  Este es un caso muy significativo, Beck tenía un programa muy visto en Fox, y lo quitaron.  A pesar de que Fox es una estación conservadora, el rigor de los tentáculos del IRS, hace ceder a cualquiera.

El usar una agencia del gobierno para usos políticos del partido del gobierno, es causa de impugnación, es un delito mayor, y esto tiene que traer consecuencias.

Sin lugar a dudas, esto se pudiera evitar, la agencia del Internal Revenue Service que cuesta millones de pesos a los contribuyentes para obligarlos a pagar, pudiera ser eliminada con el Fair Tax.  Si cada persona pagara simplemente por los que compra, no hace falta los miles de chulos que trabajan para el IRS.  Pero lo que pasa es que cuando alguien como George W.Bush sugirió el Fair Tax, por poco lo matan.  Con el Fair Tax, todos pagan de acuerdo con los que consumen, es Fair, es justo, pero como es claro, no le gusta a los que no pagan nada ahora, que son la mayoría.

Esto es una prueba más por lo que tiene que pasar la democracia americana.  Tanto el ocultamiento de Benghazi como el uso del IRS para amedrentar a los enemigos de Obama, son hechos evidentes y probados.  Si con la complicidad de los medios tramitados por el gobierno, esto se barre debajo de la alfombra, estarán barriendo el sistema democrático de los Estados Unidos como ha existido hasta ahora. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/05/13/obama-calls-gop-talk-on-benghazi-a-sideshow/?subscriber=1

Obama calls GOP talk on Benghazi a sideshow

By Associated Press May 13, 2013 12:32 pm

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is dismissing Republican criticism of his administration’s handling of the attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya, calling the criticism a political sideshow.

In his words, “there is no there there,” Obama told a news conference Monday.

He was asked about recent disclosures that talking points on the attack produced by the intelligence community were later watered down to delete references to suspected ties between last September’s assault and Islamic militants.

Obama, who spoke during a news conference with visiting British Prime Minister David Cameron, said it was not clear in the aftermath of the attack who was responsible and what their motives were.

He again defended his administration’s actions.



Obama’s media can’t ignore brand-new scandal AP: Feds tapped reporters’ phone records before 2012 election


While embroiled in two major investigations related to the Benghazi attack and the IRS’ admission that it has been targeting conservatives, the Obama administration is now facing a third scandalous accusation: It reportedly spied on Associated Press reporters just months before the 2012 presidential election.


The AP said the Justice Department secretly seized two months of reporters’ and editors’ telephone records without explanation in April and May 2012. In the AP’s report on the scandal, President and CEO Gary Pruitt called the Justice Department’s move “a massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.


Pruitt wrote a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding the records and all copies be returned. According to the AP, “News organizations normally are notified ahead of time that the government wants phone records and enter into negotiations over the requested information. In this case, however, the government, in its letter to the AP, cited an exemption to those rules that holds that prior notification can be waived if such notice, in the exemption’s wording, might ‘pose a substantial threat to the integrity of the investigation.’”


More than 100 journalists who report on government and other matters work in offices the administration targeted. While Justice Department rules call for subpoenas of news records to be approved by Holder, it’s unclear whether he ordered the action.


“There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters,” Pruitt told Holder. “These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP’s newsgathering operations and disclose information about AP’s activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know.”


According to reports, the Obama administration still hasn’t provided a reason for the seizure or revealed whether a judge or a grand jury signed off on the subpoenas.

“Officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have provided information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot,” the AP reported. “The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qaida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.


“In testimony in February, CIA Director John Brennan noted that the FBI had questioned him about whether he was AP’s source, which he denied. He called the release of the information to the media about the terror plot an ‘unauthorized and dangerous disclosure of classified information.’”


The AP said the 2012 terror plot  was “significant both because of its seriousness and also because the White House previously had told the public it had ‘no credible information that terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida, are plotting attacks in the U.S. to coincide with the (May 2) anniversary of bin Laden’s death.’”


According to the news organization, the story was written by reporters Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman with contributions from reporters Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Alan Fram. Those reporters, along with editor Ted Bridis, had their phone records seized.


It is believed the government obtained the records from phone companies, and it’s still unclear whether the actual phone calls were monitored.


The AP noted, “The Obama administration has aggressively investigated disclosures of classified information to the media and has brought six cases against people suspected of providing classified information, more than under all previous presidents combined.”


Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the investigative House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, told CNN, “They had an obligation to look for every other way to get it before they intruded on the freedom of the press.”


The House Ways and Means Committee said it will hold a hearing on the IRS matter Friday.


News of the phone records seizure comes amid reports of numerous scandals plaguing the Obama administration, including an investigation into its response to the Benghazi terror attack and the Internal Revenue Service’s Friday admission that it had targeted conservative groups with descriptions including “tea party” and “patriots”  with increased scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.


“I’ve got no patience with it. I will not tolerate it,” Obama said Monday, referring to the IRS’ actions while he made a White House appearance with British Prime Minister David Cameron. “And we will make sure that we find out exactly what happened on this.”


Obama said he first learned about the issue Friday. The Treasury Department’s inspector general for tax administration is expected to issue an audit report this week.

According to NBC News, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS division on tax-exempt organizations, claimed the IRS’ actions were “inappropriate” but “absolutely not” influenced by the White House.


The News Tribune reported that acting IRS Commissioner Steven T. Miller – who had been informed of the issue on May 3, 2012 – “repeatedly failed to tell Congress that tea-party groups were being inappropriately targeted, even after he had been briefed on the matter.”


In June 2011, members of Congress sent letters to former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman inquiring about its targeting of conservatives. NBC News noted, “The IRS responded at least six times but made no mention of targeting conservatives.”

Meanwhile, the simultaneous investigations have put Obama on the defensive.


In his Friday appearance on “The Rusty Humphries Show,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., suggested Obama’s role in the Benghazi cover-up could lead to the president’s impeachment.


Inhofe said, “People may be starting to use the I-word before too long.”



Dinesh D’Souza on Why Obama Wants to Destroy America (excepcional!!!)

Video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu7f16vhmBU

Published on Sep 9, 2012

“If you look at Obama’s domestic and foreign policies, they are linked. Domestically, he is expanding the power of the state at home, and internationally he is shrinking the power of the United States. So it’s a scissors motion in which he is expanding state power locally and reducing America’s power in the world. Why would Obama support oil drilling abroad, but not here?… What he’s attempting is global energy redistribution. He’s trying to make sure that the previously colonized countries have more energy so they can grow faster, at the expense of what he sees as the colonizer, which is the U.S. Why is Obama promiscuously spending money as if the deficit didn’t matter? It’s very obvious that if the Republicans didn’t have Congress he would have spent even more. He’s using debt as a way of settling America’s colonial debt. In other words, the idea here is that America owes the world trillions of dollars. Now, Obama knows that he couldn’t possibly propose such a foreign aid program – even Democrats wouldn’t vote for that much giveaway. But think about how debt achieves the same result. If our children and grandchildren are saddled with trillions of dollars of debt, they’ll have to pay it back, and to whom? Well, a good deal of that debt is owned by the Kuwaitis, the Saudis, and the Chinese. Debt becomes a form of global wealth redistribution…. He’s trying to restore the world before colonialism. In the year 1500 there were many great powers: China, India, the Arab-Islamic world, the civilizations of the Americas. It was a multi-polar world without any one superpower like America. I believe Obama wants us to go back to that world…. Does America want to go this way? Obama is not a traditional Democrat. If you asked Bill Clinton or John Kerry or Al Gore if they think it’s a good thing for America to be number one in the world, they would say ‘Sure, of course it is!’ I think for Obama, it would be perfectly okay for America to be number eighteen, or sixty-four, in the world. Just one normal country like Finland or Greece or Somalia at the great table of nations. That is Obama’s goal. It isn’t just that he hates America. He is looking at America through global eyes. What he’s trying to do is right the ship of the world that he thinks has been upside down for five hundred years, ever since Columbus set out. This age of European superiority and now American superiority – Obama would like to see that end. Imagine if one man could do that in eight years. At the end of eight years of President Obama, America would be a lot poorer, America would be a lot weaker, America would cease to be a special country, the American passport would have no greater worth around the world than any other passport, American currency wouldn’t be anything special, and probably a lot of Americans would despise Obama. But at that point, he wouldn’t really care…. Obama’s strategy is the opposite of Reagan’s. Reagan believed in ‘peace through strength.’ Obama believes in ‘peace through weakness.'”

Is Obama Covering Up Benghazi Truth? Let Congress Know, Vote Here

Home | Newsfront

Tags: Newt Gingrich | gingrich | irs | obamacare | tea | party | conservatives


IRS officials in Washington were involved in targeting of conservative groups

Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.

IRS officials at the agency’s Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea party-affiliated groups.

Read more at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-denounces-reported-irs-targeting-of-conservative-groups/2013/05/13/a0185644-bbdf-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html Gingrich: IRS Targeting Scandal Raises Issues About Obamacare


Monday, 13 May 2013 10:57 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups raises serious questions about how it plans to handle the taxes and penalties associated with Obamacare, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says, and he thinks the president owes apologies for the agency’s conduct.

Editor’s Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared?

“[President Barack Obama] has a huge problem, because Obamacare relies very heavily on the IRS,” Gingrich said Monday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Why would you trust the bureaucracy with your health if you can’t trust the bureaucracy with your politics?” he added a moment later.

Gingrich raised the issue because the IRS will be responsible for administering the mandate on health insurance by tracking taxes and fees associated with the law and levying penalties on Americans who don’t purchase coverage.

Last week, the IRS admitted some mid-level agents targeted conservative groups for additional scrutiny, especially ones with the words “tea party” or “patriot” in their names. The agency has issued an apology, claiming the decisions were not official policy.

On Sunday, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post reported that the key-word searches went even further, targeting conservative groups with “constitution” or “deficit reduction” in their profiles. On Monday, a prominent pro-Israel group suggested that it had been targeted.

“The effort now, of course, is to say it was low-level employees. Yet those low-level employees apparently saw public reports that they weren’t doing what they were doing, and nobody informed anyone at the IRS, let alone the Treasury,” Gingrich said.

Gingrich joined with other conservative voices in demanding those responsible be fired.

“I think the president needs to say he’s going to open it up totally; he’s going to demand everybody meet with Congress, go to the hearings; he’s going to fire everybody he can legally fire who’s been involved in this, and they’ve got to look at changes,” he said.

The former speaker, who ran for president last year, insisted it would be “almost madness” to put the responsibility for enforcing the requirements of Obamacare under the IRS, given the circumstances now.

“How can you put Obamacare under an Internal Revenue Service? Remember, this is an administration which will not profile terrorists, but [will] profile patriots, profile constitutional groups,” he said.

Republicans, including Gingrich, want a full-blown investigation and an apology from Obama.

“He also owes every tea party [group] in America, every group called ‘patriot,’ every group that wants to study the constitution, an apology,” Gingrich said, adding: “There’s something culturally sick if the American government says, ‘Boy, you put that word constitution in your name, we’re going to come after you.'”

Gingrich said that one of the most disturbing aspects of the IRS scandal is that agency heads apparently knew about the targeting of conservative groups in 2011 and lied about it during testimony to Congress in March 2012.

“There are bureaucrats in the IRS who are capable of ruining your life while lying about it, and that’s what we’re up against,” he stressed.

“Again this is an administration that is shocked at profiling against terrorism, but apparently had an entire part of the IRS that was profiling for patriotism,” he said, essentially placing the blame for the scandal in Obama’s lap. “I find that to be very, very chilling in terms of our political liberty.”

Gingrich also sought to compare the IRS scandal with developments in recent days concerning changes that were made in administration talking points about the terrorist attack in September 2012 on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

“The parallel between Benghazi and the IRS story is amazing,” he said. “Lying, then lying about lying, and then hiding from the fact that they’re lying. Then seeking to apologize for the lies they claim they didn’t tell.”

Latest: Is Obama in Cover-Up on Benghazi? Vote Here

“I mean, this pattern is a culture of big government that thinks it’s more important than the people,” Gingrich added.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gingrich-irs-obamacare-tea/2013/05/13/id/504157?s=al&promo_code=13791-1##ixzz2TD2EbuE1
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!





Luchas despiadadas, intrigas y turbias facciones en el seno de la curia de Roma enemistados por razón del poder fue a lo que Benedicto XVI trató de responder con valentía y decisión. Sus intentos fracasaron… la cultura y la inteligencia no son suficientes para enfrentar el maquiavelismo de los intereses creados y poderes fácticos en el seno de la Iglesia. Benedicto XVI fue “un pastor rodeado por lobos”.

– Empieza a circular la transcripción de una entrevista que le hicieran al entonces cardenal Bergoglio en Argentina. Pero en realidad era una emboscada ejecutada por el periodista Chris Mathews. Sin embargo, Bregoglio termina acribillando a Mathews de tal forma que MSNBC nunca la pasó al aire. Mathews, al darse cuenta que su plan fallaba, archivó el video.  Pero un estudiante de Notre Dame que cumplía su servicio social en MSNBC, lasustrajo para entregárselo a su profesor.

El plato fuerte de la entrevista sería su debate acerca de la pobreza. El intercambio se inicia cuando el periodista trata de emboscar al cardenal.
El Cardenal responde:

“Primero en Europa y ahora en América, algunos políticos se han dedicado a endeudar a la gente creando un ambiente de dependencia. ¿Para qué?  Para incrementar su poder. Son grandes expertos creando pobreza y nadie los cuestiona. Yo lucho por combatir esa pobreza.

La pobreza se ha convertido en una condición natural y ello es suficientemente malo. Mi tarea es evitar el agravamiento de tal condición. Las ideologías que fabrican pobreza deben ser denunciadas.  La educación es la gran solución al problema. Debemos enseñar a la gente como salvar su alma, pero enseñando a evitar la pobreza y no permitir que el gobierno los conduzca a ese penoso estado”

Mathews ofendido pregunta…  ¿Usted culpa al gobierno?
“Culpo a los políticos que buscan sus propios intereses.  Tu eres socialista y tus amigos también lo son.  Ustedes y sus políticas son la razón de los 70 años de miseria, y eso tiene a muchos países a punto del colapso.  Creen en la redistribución que es una de las razones de la pobreza.  Ustedes quieren nacionalizar el universo para controlar todas las actividades humanas. Ustedes destruyen el incentivo del hombre para, inclusive, hacerse cargo de su familia, un crimen contra la naturaleza y contra Dios.  Estas ideologías crean más pobres que todas las corporaciones que ustedes etiquetan como diabólicas.”

Replica Mathews: Nunca había escuchado algo así de un cardenal.

“La gente dominada por socialistas necesita saber que no tenemos que ser pobres”

Ataca Mathews…  ¿Y América Latina?  ¿Quiere borrar ese progreso logrado?

“El imperio de la dependencia creado por Hugo Chávez, con falsas promesas, mintiendo para que lleguen a arrodillarse ante el gobierno y ante él.  Dándoles peces pero sin permitirles pescar.  Si en América Latina alguien aprende a pescar, es castigado y sus peces confiscados por los socialistas.  La libertad es castigada.  Tú hablas de progreso y yo de pobreza.  Temo por América Latina.  Toda la región está controlada por un bloque de regímenes socialistas como Cuba, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua.  ¿Quién los salvará de esa tiranía?”
Acusa Mathews: Usted es capitalista


“Sí pensar que el capital es necesario para construir fabricas, escuelas, hospitales, iglesias tal vez lo sea.  ¿Tú te opones a este proceso?”

– Por supuesto que no, pero ¿no piensa que el capital es arrebatado de la gente por corporaciones abusivas? –


“No, yo pienso que la gente, a través de sus opciones económicas, decide que parte de su capital irá para esos proyectos. La utilización del capital debe ser voluntaria. Solo cuando los políticos confiscan ese capital para construir obras del gobierno, alimentar la burocracia, surge un grave problema. El capital invertido de forma voluntaria es legitimo, pero el que se invierte a base de coerción, es ilegitimo.”


Sus ideas son radicales, afirma el periodista.


“No, hace años Khrushchev hizo una advertencia: ‘No debemos esperar que los americanos abracen el comunismo, pero podemos asistir a sus líderes electos con inyecciones de socialismo hasta que, al despertar, se den cuenta que se embarcaron en el comunismo’ Esto es lo que sucede en estos momentos en al antiguo bastión de la libertad. ¿Cómo los EU puede salvar a América Latina si ellos se han convertido en esclavos de su gobierno?”


Mathews afirma: Yo no puedo digerir todo esto.


El Cardenal responde:
“Te ves muy enojado pero la verdad puede ser dolorosa. Ustedes han creado el estado de bienestar y ha sido solo respuesta a las necesidades de los pobres creados por la política.  El estado interventor absuelve a la sociedad de su responsabilidad. Las familias escapan de su responsabilidad con el falso estado de bienestar e inclusive, las iglesias. La gente ya no practica la caridad pues ve a los pobres como problema del gobierno. Para la iglesia ya no hay pobres que ayudar, los han empobrecido permanentemente y son ahora propiedad de los políticos. Y algo que me irrita profundamente, es la inhabilidad de los medios para observar el problema sin analizar cuál es la causa. A la gente la empobrecen para que luego vote por quienes los hundieron en la pobreza.”





Para comentarios, sugerencias, aportes, artículos, noticias, opiniones, ideas, o sugerencias enviarlos a los e-mails:



Para leer o revisar publicaciones anteriores ir a los Blogs:




Para ver nuestros Flash en Facebook:



“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”  Editor Lázaro R González Miño.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s