No 692 “En mi opinión” Junio 19, 2014

Image

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

<o> NELSON HORTA REPORTA:Barack Obama está incapacitado para dirigir el país, dice el 54 por ciento de los americanos.

June 19th, 2014

• Hoy se dará a conocer la encuesta realizada por NBC NEWS y Wall Street Journal

MIAMI 19 DE JUNIO DE 2014, nhr.com—El porcentaje de americanos que aprueban la gestión del Presidente Barack Obama en cuestiones de política exterior así como ha enfrentado los múltiples desafíos en otros países, incluyendo Irak, ha caído al nivel más bajo de su presidencia, según demuestra una nueva encuesta que se dará a conocer hoy y realizada por NBC News y el Wall Street Journal.

Además el pueblo americano está dividido equitativamente sobre si Obama es un administrador competente de la burocracia federal, la mayoría de los encuestados –54%– creen que el termino limitado que le queda al presidente ya no es capaz de dirigir al país.

“Esta es una encuesta pésima para el Presidente Obama, y no una buena encuesta para nadie”, señaló el encuestador republicano Bill McInturff, quien realizó la encuesta con los demócratas Peter Hart y Fred Yang.

El caso con Vladimir Putin, Ucrania, El de los Hospitales de Veteranos, el caso de Bowe Bergdahl, todos esos acontecimientos han controlado a Obama, en lugar de Obama haber controlado los acontecimientos”, dijo el demócrata Peter Hart, y añadió, “puede ganar el debate de algunas cuestiones, pero está perdiendo el debate político, porque el pueblo no lo esta percibiendo como un líder”.

La encuesta fue realizada ante de la inestabilidad en Irak y que ha alcanzado los titulares de todos los importantes periódicos, por eso no contiene preguntas sobre ese tema, También se realizo antes de que Estados Unidos arrestara a un sospechoso de los atentados del 2012 contra la embajada estadounidense en Bengasi, Libia.

Pero la encuesta demuestra a un pueblo que ha crecido insatisfecho con el Presidente Obama tanto en política exterior como en las decisiones de seguridad nacional.

Solo un 37 % aprueba su manejo de la política exterior, que es el peor en la encuesta, mientras que un 57% desaprueba, siendo esto calificado como “un récord histórico”. Además por un margen de un 44 por ciento a 30 %, los estadounidenses están en desacuerdo con la decisión de la administración Obama para lograr la liberación del sargento del ejército  que deserto Bowe Bergdahl a cambio de 5 talibanes que estaban presos en Guantánamo.

El índice de aprobación general del Presidente Obama en la encuesta es de un 41 por ciento, tres puntos menos que el pasado mes de abril y es el nivel más bajo en la historia de su presidencia.

Lo más preocupante para el presidente es que el 54 por ciento de los estadounidenses piensan que Obama es incapaz de dirigir el país y hacer el trabajo, en comparación con el 42 por ciento que cree que puede.

 

 

Cheneys: Rarely Has a President Been So Wrong About So Much

By Drew MacKenzie

America’s enemies have been “emboldened” by President Barack Obama’s decision to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and are now a major threat to U.S. citizens, says former Vice President Dick Cheney and his attorney daughter Liz Cheney. 

“Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” they wrote in a commentary for The Wall Street Journal, while saying that Obama should have left a contingent of U.S. forces in Iraq to prevent terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida from gaining a stronghold in the region again.

Vote Now: Should the U.S. Strike Iraq Insurgents? Vote Now 

“Too many times to count, Mr. Obama has told us he is ‘ending’ the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — as though wishing made it so. His rhetoric has now come crashing into reality. 

“Watching the black-clad [Islamic State of Iraq and Syria] jihadists take territory once secured by American blood is final proof, if any were needed, that America’s enemies are not ‘decimated.’ They are emboldened and on the march.”

Dick Cheney, who was vice president in the George W. Bush administration, and his daughter, the former deputy assistant secretary of state for near eastern affairs, said that the fall of Iraqi cities Fallujah, Mosul, and Tikrit and the establishment of terrorist safe havens across the Arab world present “a strategic threat” to the security of the United States.

“Iraq is at risk of falling to a radical Islamic terror group, and Mr. Obama is talking climate change. Terrorists take control of more territory and resources than ever before in history, and he goes golfing. He seems blithely unaware, or indifferent, to the fact that a resurgent al-Qaida presents a clear and present danger to America.”

The Cheneys said that when Obama and his team came into office in 2009, al-Qaida in Iraq had been largely defeated, and that the president only had to leave some American forces behind to help secure the peace. 

“Instead, he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory. The tragedy unfolding in Iraq today is only part of the story. Al-Qaida and its affiliates are resurgent across the globe.

“Now, in a move that defies credulity, he toys with the idea of ushering Iran into Iraq. Only a fool would believe American policy in Iraq should be ceded to Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terror.” 

The Cheneys wrote in the Journal that the president is “willfully blind” to the impact of his policies. “Despite the threat to America unfolding across the Middle East, aided by his abandonment of Iraq, he has announced he intends to follow the same policy in Afghanistan.

“Despite clear evidence of the dire need for American leadership around the world, the desperation of our allies and the glee of our enemies, President Obama seems determined to leave office ensuring he has taken America down a notch,” the Cheneys wrote. “Indeed, the speed of the terrorists’ takeover of territory in Iraq has been matched only by the speed of American decline on his watch.”

The Cheneys drew on a speech from former President Ronald Reagan to illustrate the problems that Obama will leave America when he departs the White House. 

“In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, ‘If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.’ President Obama is on track to securing his legacy as the man who betrayed our past and squandered our freedom.”

Dick Cheney, as vice president, was a proponent of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, saying the country had developed weapons of mass destruction. Such weapons were not found.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Cheney-Iraq-Obama-terrorism/2014/06/18/id/577732#ixzz35609vIUA 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

 

 

RICARDO SAMITIER: “EL LATIGO”Solamente Los Que Se Niegan A Ver La Verdad…

Pueden Negar El Apoyo Economico Y Psicologico De Obama A Santos… Para Entregar Colombia Tambien A Los Terroristas “Derrotados” 

  Con El Tratado De Paz Negociado En Cuba

http://www.atlas.com.co/sia/public/index.php/noticias-en-ingles/nation-conflict-armed-world-figures-give-backing-to-colombia-s-peace-process

“EMO” LO QUE SON ES UNOS HIJOS DE LA OBRERITAS DE LA NOCHE… LRGM.

 

 

ALBERTO PEREZ “AMENPER”: OPERACIONES TRANSGENICAS.

Ya hay anuncios en la televisión de médicos que ofrecen sus servicios rápidos y efectivos para operaciones transgénicas.  Con la misma facilidad que Melquiades Martinez el veterinario de mi pueblo capaba a los cerdos a los guajiros para que pudieran cebarlos mejor.

El Dr. Paul HcHugh es un distingido cirujano y profesor que trabajó como director de las cirujías de transgénico en el hospital de John Hopkins University.   Desde entonces siempre tuvo como su posición que se estaba abusando y politizando el problema de transgénico.  Lo decía exponiendo hechos durante su experiencia en la profesión y sus conocimientos de su especialidad.

Scribe recientemente un artículo en el Wall Street Journal sobre esto.

Lo que recibió fue una serie de cartas clasificandolo como “ignorante cavernícola.  Me pregunto ¿Que autoridad científica superior a la del Dr. McHugh tienen los que escribieron esta carta?.  Pero reflexiono y me doy cuenta que sí, tienen una gran autoridad, la autoridad de ser Maricones. 

El ambiente político de la izquierda le ha dado a la homosexualidad una autoridad superior a cualquier persona heterosexual, su palabra, su opinión es incontestable.

Conozco varios amigos médicos que coinciden con McHugh, pero no tienen el valor de expresarlo públicamente por miedo al ridículo que asecha al que exprese esta opinión.

Este terrorismo ideológico no se limita a este particular, pero a todo los que se oponga a la nueva filosofía “progresista”

Si les interesa copio abajo el escrito de McHugh

Why we stopped doing sex Surgery

By Dr. Paul Mc Hugh

When the practice of sex-change surgery first emerged back in the early 1970s, I would often remind its advocating psychiatrists that with other patients, alcoholics in particular, they would quote the Serenity Prayer, “God, give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Where did they get the idea that our sexual identity (“gender” was the term they preferred) as men or women was in the category of things that could be changed?

Their regular response was to show me their patients. Men (and until recently they were all men) with whom I spoke before their surgery would tell me that their bodies and sexual identities were at variance. Those I met after surgery would tell me that the surgery and hormone treatments that had made them “women” had also made them happy and contented. None of these encounters were persuasive, however. The post-surgical subjects struck me as caricatures of women. They wore high heels, copious makeup, and flamboyant clothing; they spoke about how they found themselves able to give vent to their natural inclinations for peace, domesticity, and gentleness—but their large hands, prominent Adam’s apples, and thick facial features were incongruous (and would become more so as they aged). Women psychiatrists whom I sent to talk with them would intuitively see through the disguise and the exaggerated postures. “Gals know gals,” one said to me, “and that’s a guy.”

The subjects before the surgery struck me as even more strange, as they struggled to convince anyone who might influence the decision for their surgery. First, they spent an unusual amount of time thinking and talking about sex and their sexual experiences; their sexual hungers and adventures seemed to preoccupy them. Second, discussion of babies or children provoked little interest from them; indeed, they seemed indifferent to children. But third, and most remarkable, many of these men-who-claimed-to-be-women reported that they found women sexually attractive and that they saw themselves as “lesbians.” When I noted to their champions that their psychological leanings seemed more like those of men than of women, I would get various replies, mostly to the effect that in making such judgments I was drawing on sexual stereotypes.

Until 1975, when I became psychiatrist-in-chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, I could usually keep my own counsel on these matters. But once I was given authority over all the practices in the psychiatry department I realized that if I were passive I would be tacitly co-opted in encouraging sex-change surgery in the very department that had originally proposed and still defended it. I decided to challenge what I considered to be a misdirection of psychiatry and to demand more information both before and after their operations.

Two issues presented themselves as targets for study. First, I wanted to test the claim that men who had undergone sex-change surgery found resolution for their many general psychological problems. Second (and this was more ambitious), I wanted to see whether male infants with ambiguous genitalia who were being surgically transformed into females and raised as girls did, as the theory (again from Hopkins) claimed, settle easily into the sexual identity that was chosen for them. These claims had generated the opinion in psychiatric circles that one’s “sex” and one’s “gender” were distinct matters, sex being genetically and hormonally determined from conception, while gender was culturally shaped by the actions of family and others during childhood.

The first issue was easier and required only that I encourage the ongoing research of a member of the faculty who was an accomplished student of human sexual behavior. The psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Jon Meyer was already developing a means of following up with adults who received sex-change operations at Hopkins in order to see how much the surgery had helped them. He found that most of the patients he tracked down some years after their surgery were contented with what they had done and that only a few regretted it. But in every other respect, they were little changed in their psychological condition. They had much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before. The hope that they would emerge now from their emotional difficulties to flourish psychologically had not been fulfilled.

We saw the results as demonstrating that just as these men enjoyed cross-dressing as women before the operation so they enjoyed cross-living after it. But they were no better in their psychological integration or any easier to live with. With these facts in hand I concluded that Hopkins was fundamentally cooperating with a mental illness. We psychiatrists, I thought, would do better to concentrate on trying to fix their minds and not their genitalia.

Thanks to this research, Dr. Meyer was able to make some sense of the mental disorders that were driving this request for unusual and radical treatment. Most of the cases fell into one of two quite different groups. One group consisted of conflicted and guilt-ridden homosexual men who saw a sex-change as a way to resolve their conflicts over homosexuality by allowing them to behave sexually as females with men. The other group, mostly older men, consisted of heterosexual (and some bisexual) males who found intense sexual arousal in cross-dressing as females. As they had grown older, they had become eager to add more verisimilitude to their costumes and either sought or had suggested to them a surgical transformation that would include breast implants, penile amputation, and pelvic reconstruction to resemble a woman.

Further study of similar subjects in the psychiatric services of the Clark Institute in Toronto identified these men by the auto-arousal they experienced in imitating sexually seductive females. Many of them imagined that their displays might be sexually arousing to onlookers, especially to females. This idea, a form of “sex in the head” (D. H. Lawrence), was what provoked their first adventure in dressing up in women’s undergarments and had eventually led them toward the surgical option. Because most of them found women to be the objects of their interest they identified themselves to the psychiatrists as lesbians. The name eventually coined in Toronto to describe this form of sexual misdirection was “autogynephilia.” Once again I concluded that to provide a surgical alteration to the body of these unfortunate people was to collaborate with a mental disorder rather than to treat it.

This information and the improved understanding of what we had been doing led us to stop prescribing sex-change operations for adults at Hopkins—much, I’m glad to say, to the relief of several of our plastic surgeons who had previously been commandeered to carry out the procedures. And with this solution to the first issue I could turn to the second—namely, the practice of surgically assigning femaleness to male newborns who at birth had malformed, sexually ambiguous genitalia and severe phallic defects. This practice, more the province of the pediatric department than of my own, was nonetheless of concern to psychiatrists because the opinions generated around these cases helped to form the view that sexual identity was a matter of cultural conditioning rather than something fundamental to the human constitution.

Several conditions, fortunately rare, can lead to the misconstruction of the genito-urinary tract during embryonic life. When such a condition occurs in a male, the easiest form of plastic surgery by far, with a view to correcting the abnormality and gaining a cosmetically satisfactory appearance, is to remove all the male parts, including the testes, and to construct from the tissues available a labial and vaginal configuration. This action provides these malformed babies with female-looking genital anatomy regardless of their genetic sex. Given the claim that the sexual identity of the child would easily follow the genital appearance if backed up by familial and cultural support, the pediatric surgeons took to constructing female-like genitalia for both females with an XX chromosome constitution and males with an XY so as to make them all look like little girls, and they were to be raised as girls by their parents.

All this was done of course with consent of the parents who, distressed by these grievous malformations in their newborns, were persuaded by the pediatric endocrinologists and consulting psychologists to accept transformational surgery for their sons. They were told that their child’s sexual identity (again his “gender”) would simply conform to environmental conditioning. If the parents consistently responded to the child as a girl now that his genital structure resembled a girl’s, he would accept that role without much travail.

This proposal presented the parents with a critical decision. The doctors increased the pressure behind the proposal by noting to the parents that a decision had to be made promptly because a child’s sexual identity settles in by about age two or three. The process of inducing the child into the female role should start immediately, with name, birth certificate, baby paraphernalia, etc. With the surgeons ready and the physicians confident, the parents were faced with an offer difficult to refuse (although, interestingly, a few parents did refuse this advice and decided to let nature take its course).

I thought these professional opinions and the choices being pressed on the parents rested upon anecdotal evidence that was hard to verify and even harder to replicate. Despite the confidence of their advocates, they lacked substantial empirical support. I encouraged one of our resident psychiatrists, William G. Reiner (already interested in the subject because prior to his psychiatric training he had been a pediatric urologist and had witnessed the problem from the other side), to set about doing a systematic follow-up of these children—particularly the males transformed into females in infancy—so as to determine just how sexually integrated they became as adults.

The results here were even more startling than in Meyer’s work. Reiner picked out for intensive study cloacal exstrophy, because it would best test the idea that cultural influence plays the foremost role in producing sexual identity. Cloacal exstrophy is an embryonic misdirection that produces a gross abnormality of pelvic anatomy such that the bladder and the genitalia are badly deformed at birth. The male penis fails to form and the bladder and urinary tract are not separated distinctly from the gastrointestinal tract. But crucial to Reiner’s study is the fact that the embryonic development of these unfortunate males is not hormonally different from that of normal males. They develop within a male-typical prenatal hormonal milieu provided by their Y chromosome and by their normal testicular function. This exposes these growing embryos/fetuses to the male hormone testosterone—just like all males in their mother’s womb.

Although animal research had long since shown that male sexual behavior was directly derived from this exposure to testosterone during embryonic life, this fact did not deter the pediatric practice of surgically treating male infants with this grievous anomaly by castration (amputating their testes and any vestigial male genital structures) and vaginal construction, so that they could be raised as girls. This practice had become almost universal by the mid-1970s. Such cases offered Reiner the best test of the two aspects of the doctrine underlying such treatment: (1) that humans at birth are neutral as to their sexual identity, and (2) that for humans it is the postnatal, cultural, nonhormonal influences, especially those of early childhood, that most influence their ultimate sexual identity. Males with cloacal exstrophy were regularly altered surgically to resemble females, and their parents were instructed to raise them as girls. But would the fact that they had had the full testosterone exposure in utero defeat the attempt to raise them as girls? Answers might become evident with the careful follow-up that Reiner was launching.

Before describing his results, I should note that the doctors proposing this treatment for the males with cloacal exstrophy understood and acknowledged that they were introducing a number of new and severe physical problems for these males. These infants, of course, had no ovaries, and their testes were surgically amputated, which meant that they had to receive exogenous hormones for life. They would also be denied by the same surgery any opportunity for fertility later on. One could not ask the little patient about his willingness to pay this price. These were considered by the physicians advising the parents to be acceptable burdens to bear in order to avoid distress in childhood about malformed genital structures, and it was hoped that they could follow a conflict-free direction in their maturation as girls and women.

Reiner, however, discovered that such re-engineered males were almost never comfortable as females once they became aware of themselves and the world. From the start of their active play life, they behaved spontaneously like boys and were obviously different from their sisters and other girls, enjoying rough-and-tumble games but not dolls and “playing house.” Later on, most of those individuals who learned that they were actually genetic males wished to reconstitute their lives as males (some even asked for surgical reconstruction and male hormone replacement)—and all this despite the earnest efforts by their parents to treat them as girls.

Reiner’s results, reported in the January 22, 2004, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, are worth recounting. He followed up sixteen genetic males with cloacal exstrophy seen at Hopkins, of whom fourteen underwent neonatal assignment to femaleness socially, legally, and surgically. The other two parents refused the advice of the pediatricians and raised their sons as boys. Eight of the fourteen subjects assigned to be females had since declared themselves to be male. Five were living as females, and one lived with unclear sexual identity. The two raised as males had remained male. All sixteen of these people had interests that were typical of males, such as hunting, ice hockey, karate, and bobsledding. Reiner concluded from this work that the sexual identity followed the genetic constitution. Male-type tendencies (vigorous play, sexual arousal by females, and physical aggressiveness) followed the testosterone-rich intrauterine fetal development of the people he studied, regardless of efforts to socialize them as females after birth. Having looked at the Reiner and Meyer studies, we in the Johns Hopkins Psychiatry Department eventually concluded that human sexual identity is mostly built into our constitution by the genes we inherit and the embryogenesis we undergo. Male hormones sexualize the brain and the mind. Sexual dysphoria—a sense of disquiet in one’s sexual role—naturally occurs amongst those rare males who are raised as females in an effort to correct an infantile genital structural problem. A seemingly similar disquiet can be socially induced in apparently constitutionally normal males, in association with (and presumably prompted by) serious behavioral aberrations, amongst which are conflicted homosexual orientations and the remarkable male deviation now called autogynephilia.

Quite clearly, then, we psychiatrists should work to discourage those adults who seek surgical sex reassignment. When Hopkins announced that it would stop doing these procedures in adults with sexual dysphoria, many other hospitals followed suit, but some medical centers still carry out this surgery. Thailand has several centers that do the surgery “no questions asked” for anyone with the money to pay for it and the means to travel to Thailand. I am disappointed but not surprised by this, given that some surgeons and medical centers can be persuaded to carry out almost any kind of surgery when pressed by patients with sexual deviations, especially if those patients find a psychiatrist to vouch for them. The most astonishing example is the surgeon in England who is prepared to amputate the legs of patients who claim to find sexual excitement in gazing at and exhibiting stumps of amputated legs. At any rate, we at Hopkins hold that official psychiatry has good evidence to argue against this kind of treatment and should begin to close down the practice everywhere.

For children with birth defects the most rational approach at this moment is to correct promptly any of the major urological defects they face, but to postpone any decision about sexual identity until much later, while raising the child according to its genetic sex. Medical caretakers and parents can strive to make the child aware that aspects of sexual identity will emerge as he or she grows. Settling on what to do about it should await maturation and the child’s appreciation of his or her own identity.

Proper care, including good parenting, means helping the child through the medical and social difficulties presented by the genital anatomy but in the process protecting what tissues can be retained, in particular the gonads. This effort must continue to the point where the child can see the problem of a life role more clearly as a sexually differentiated individual emerges from within. Then as the young person gains a sense of responsibility for the result, he or she can be helped through any surgical constructions that are desired. Genuine informed consent derives only from the person who is going to live with the outcome and cannot rest upon the decisions of others who believe they “know best.”

How are these ideas now being received? I think tolerably well. The “transgender” activists (now often allied with gay liberation movements) still argue that their members are entitled to whatever surgery they want, and they still claim that their sexual dysphoria represents a true conception of their sexual identity. They have made some protests against the diagnosis of autogynephilia as a mechanism to generate demands for sex-change operations, but they have offered little evidence to refute the diagnosis. Psychiatrists are taking better sexual histories from those requesting sex-change and are discovering more examples of this strange male exhibitionist proclivity.

Much of the enthusiasm for the quick-fix approach to birth defects expired when the anecdotal evidence about the much-publicized case of a male twin raised as a girl proved to be bogus. The psychologist in charge hid, by actually misreporting, the news that the boy, despite the efforts of his parents to treat him and raise him as a girl, had constantly challenged their treatment of him, ultimately found out about the deception, and restored himself as a male. Sadly, he carried an additional diagnosis of major depression and ultimately committed suicide.

Ithink the issue of sex-change for males is no longer one in which much can be said for the other side. But I have learned from the experience that the toughest challenge is trying to gain agreement to seek empirical evidence for opinions about sex and sexual behavior, even when the opinions seem on their face unreasonable. One might expect that those who claim that sexual identity has no biological or physical basis would bring forth more evidence to persuade others. But as I’ve learned, there is a deep prejudice in favor of the idea that nature is totally malleable.

Without any fixed position on what is given in human nature, any manipulation of it can be defended as legitimate. A practice that appears to give people what they want—and what some of them are prepared to clamor for—turns out to be difficult to combat with ordinary professional experience and wisdom. Even controlled trials or careful follow-up studies to ensure that the practice itself is not damaging are often resisted and the results rejected.

I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes. Their parents usually lived with guilt over their decisions—second-guessing themselves and somewhat ashamed of the fabrication, both surgical and social, they had imposed on their sons. As for the adults who came to us claiming to have discovered their “true” sexual identity and to have heard about sex-change operations, we psychiatrists have been distracted from studying the causes and natures of their mental misdirections by preparing them for surgery and for a life in the other sex. We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. 

DR. CASTRO OPERACIONES TRANSGENICA…

“EMO” PARA LOS QUENO CONOCEN ESTE TIPO DE OPERACIÓN; ESTA CONSISTE EN ESTIRPAR LOS DOS TESTICULOS DE “SUPUESTOS VARONES” Y REALIZAR UNA CIRUGIA PLASTICA EN EL SUPUESTO ORGANO MASCULINO CONOCIDO CULTAMENTE COMO”PENE” [QUE NO ES LA COMIDA ITALIANA, MUY SABROSA POR CIERTO] Y ENTONCES ESE PENE SE CONVIERTE EN MANOS DE UN CIRUJANO EN UNA COSA PARECIDA VAGINA, PERO QUE NO SIRVE PARA UN CARAJO… LRGM.

NB: RECUERDENSE QUE YO SOY QUIMICO Y NO MEDICO. PARA MEJOR INFORMACION DIRIJANSE A LA ENCICLOPEDIA DE MEDICINA Y DISPARATES Y LOCURAS.

 

 

 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Reveals A Surprising Reason Why He Thinks Border Guards Aren’t Doing Their Job. Arpaio revisited the issue Monday evening during an interview on the Fox News Channel.

B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE — 

 

As the Obama administration’s lax attitude toward America’s immigration laws has led to a marked increase in illegal border crossings, critics – especially throughout the southwest – have expressed their outrage. Few have been as outspoken as the man often billed as America’s toughest sheriff, Maricopa County, Ariz., lawman Joe Arpaio.

He recently weighed in on the influx of unaccompanied minors and other illegals being transported to his state under the direction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Not only did Arpaio chastise government officials whose policies encourage repeat offenders, he called to task those illegals with the audacity to complain about their treatment upon arriving in the U.S. as criminals.

Arpaio revisited the issue Monday evening during an interview on the Fox News Channel. He explained that, with the sharp rise in children crossing the border, agents assigned to protecting America are suffering from misplaced priorities.

“The Border Patrol is too busy changing diapers and not going after dope peddlers and illegal immigrants,” he said.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerikowske seemed to bolster Arpaio’s position with a recent statement regarding the border situation.

“I have been watching them do absolutely heroic efforts,” he said of border agents. “Not only rescuing children but taking care of them, way beyond some of the skill sets. They are doing everything from making formula to bringing in their own children’s clothing to taking care of these kids in a multitude of ways.”

With nearly 50,000 minors having illegally crossed the border without adult supervision in just the past eight months, authorities are scrambling to find temporary housing for them. In Arpaio’s estimation, this result was all part of Barack Obama’s ultimate goal of achieving amnesty.

“I think the president knew this was going to happen,” he said, “so it’s going to help him on his executive orders if Congress doesn’t take this mission up.”

Judging from reports of overcrowding and generally inhospitable environments within these housing facilities, however, Arpaio concluded the scheme could likely backfire.

He said that, if they were inclined to do so, U.S. authorities could put a stop to the relentless assault on our immigration laws.

“This is a great country,” he said. “You’re trying to tell me we can’t keep people from coming into our country if we really had the desire to do it? I don’t buy it.”

Tom Horne, Arizona’s attorney general, has also gotten involved in the controversy by sending the Border Patrol official notice that they are violating federal law. Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-sheriff-joe-thinks-border-guards-arent-job/#bePPQsz0CPhLRKXL.99

 

Watch The Obama Analogy Made By Dinesh D’Souza That Made This Fox Reporter Laugh Uncomfortably

America is a What?

TOM HINCHEY — 

 

Filmmaker and activist Dinesh D’Souza was on Monday’s Kelly File on Fox News offering up his explanation of why Obama has been transforming the Untied States.

He said, “In order to remake America, you have to take down the America that’s here now.”

As the filmmaker sees it, Obama came out of the 1960′s that had a different view than previous generations.  “Its view is that America is globally a force for evil.”  This generation believes that instead of America being exceptionally good, we are exceptionally evil.  D’Souza continued, “[Obama] in a sense views his job as one of containing or curtailing the power of his own country.”

“It sounds like you’re accusing him of being almost anti-American, “Kelly said to her guest.  “If he were anti-American, if he didn’t love his country, why would he want to be president of it?”

That’s when the conversation went off the deep end:  “If I was in a family and I believed my dad was some kind of a serial killer or a child molester, I would still love him.  He would be part of my family, but I’d do everything I could to prevent him from doing evil actions.  I would think that would be good for the world and for my dad.  So with Obama, he thinks he’s doing the world a favor by controlling this rogue elephant that is the United States.”

“So America is the child molester in this scenario?” Kelly started to laugh along with some laughter off camera. “I think we may of jumped off the deep end.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/dinesh-dsouza-goes-deep-end-bizarre-analogy-america/#Fi6PwqikyeqswmwW.99

 

Will Liberals Disown Hillary After Her Unexpected Comment About Illegal Immigrant Children?

Shocking for a liberal, anyway…

TOM HINCHEY — 

Hillary Clinton was at a townhall event that was televised on CNN.  She was asked by host Christiane Amanpour about what the United States should do with the surge of unaccompanied minors crossing the border everyday.  The former Secretary of State tried to dodge the question by blaming the immigration on increased violence in Central America, but Amanpour was persistent in eliciting a direct response about sending these kids back to their country of origin.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/hillary-illegal-immigrant-children-sent-back/#WhGLQXVGRphWS0Hg.99

 

Does This New WSJ Poll Declare Obama’s Presidency Over?

These numbers could hinder his leverage with Congress

TOM HINCHEY — 

 

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that President Obama’s job approval rating at just 41%.

The foreign crises in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine, as well as the Taliban prisoner exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, have weighed down his approval on foreign policy to a new low of 37%.

The poll of 1,000 adults, conducted last week by telephone, shows that Americans seem to be losing faith in the president’s ability to accomplish his goals, with 54% saying they are no longer confident that “he is able to lead the country and get the job done”–while 42% of the respondents said he could.

These numbers could hinder his leverage with Congress.  With the mid-term elections less than 5 months away, it is possible that the GOP could take the Senate and keep the House majority; and then the likelihood of his getting any big things done will be drastically reduced.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-wsj-poll-declare-obamas-presidency/#5yTAp2hg3zg6px8p.99

 

When Asked If Congress Could Impeach Obama, Here’s How This Congressman Responded…

Could articles of impeachment pass?

TOM HINCHEY — 

Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA) said in a radio interview that he thinks that a vote to impeach President Obama “probably could” pass in the House of Representatives.

Rep. Barletta was on the Gary Sutton radio show on Monday when he said of Obama: “He’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution and ignoring the laws and ignoring the checks and balances.  The problem is, you know, what do you do?  For those that say impeach him for breaking the laws of bypassing the laws, you know, could that pass in the House?  It probably, it probably could. Is the majority of the American people in favor of impeaching the president?  I’m not sure.”

Gary Sutton replied, “I don’t think so.”  The radio host added that it puts representatives into political purgatory, so it’s important for Republicans to be heard with plain talk so that people get the message.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/gop-rep-says-articles-impeachment-probably-pass-house/#wzPMGQOodFU24keJ.99

 

 

Senator: Every Reason To Believe Obama ‘Supporting The Enemy’

Is Obama’s legacy to have Gitmo closed down? JUSTIN KOSKI —

In an interview with the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch, Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma speaks about the worsening condition of Iraq as well as the Bergdahl exchange.

According to Inhofe, “President Obama’s legacy is to have Gitmo closed down.”

“I’m not defending Bergdahl, but that’s not the real crime.  The real crime is Obama’s actions,” said Inhofe.

It will be interesting to see where exactly Obama’s allegiance truly lies.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senator-every-reason-believe-obama-supporting-enemy/#2BpwiDAAbrTY3ioh.99

 

 

This Popular Comedian Just Ripped Apart Environmental Extremism…And Obama!

“I believe human life is more precious…”

B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE — 

 

While he might not disagree with its goal in theory, comedian Paul Rodriguez has some harsh words for environmentalists who place a higher premium on their pet cause than on the well-being of fellow humans. In a recent podcast appearance, the entertainer explained how this ideology has negatively affected his mother, who operates a small farm in California.

Due to water restrictions, he said, she needs to construct a dam in order to maintain her crops. Environmentalists, however, are concerned about the possible impact such a project could have on regional fish – and not about the ability of local farmers to support their families and provide food to the community and beyond.

He said these extremists “have gone too far,” declaring that they are “not living in the real world” by embracing such misplaced priorities.

“I believe human life is more precious than these fish,” he said.

Though he said those on his mother’s side of the debate are willing to compromise, the environmentalists involved in the disagreement are not.

According to Rodriguez, those being targeted are “mom and pop” farmers who are just looking for a way to maintain their operation during the drought.

“It’s an honorable thing to do,” he said. “Why cut them off?”

Rodriguez levied some even more serious complaints against the environmental activists from the Earth First! organization. He said the group threatened to kill him over his outspoken disagreement with its radical mission.

His criticism goes beyond this particular movement to include the left’s assertion that anyone who opposes the current administration does so out of some inherent intolerance.

“Mr. Obama is difficult to criticize without being accused of being some kind of bigot,” he asserted.

Of course, that did not dissuade Rodriguez from criticizing him anyway.

“He’s not prepared for the job,” he concluded.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/popular-comedian-just-ripped-apart-environmental-extremism/#H7zmdWC62MwrP6kS.99

 

 

 

By Signing This One Law, Obama Could Have Very Well Decapitated The U.S Dollar

Obama’s attempt to bring in more money to the government coffers will likely have unintended consequences…

L. TODD WOOD  

 

Living in Moscow, I’ve seen first-hand the seething anger over punitive economic sanctions and the American use of its current financial hegemony to make life tough for money-in-motion in the former Soviet Union. The Russians have a love-hate relationship with the dollar. Historically, they have seen the currency as a safe haven of value and hoarded dollars every chance they could in an attempt to maintain their wealth. Now with everything American being thrown under the bus, the dollar is out of favor.

The threats of further sector-wide sanctions, which would have devastating, short-term effects on the Russian economy, will only hasten the fall of the dollar as a vehicle for trade settlement and a store of value in non-Western countries. The Russians are a clever people; and over time, they will figure out a way to get out from under American financial pressure.

However, there is another issue lurking in the shadows that could cause an even faster decline of the US Dollar as a reserve currency across the globe. The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act or FACTA is scheduled to go into effect on the first of July this year. This overreaching piece of legislation is a direct result of the out-of-control spending and inability of the American government to responsibly manage its own finances. To put it simply, because we can’t stop spending money, we are going to look for it under every rock all over the globe–and damage our currency in the meantime.

FACTA will require any foreign-based bank that deals with American citizens to report to the IRS. Yep, you heard it right; they will have to provide data to the IRS or face dollar-based penalties that would make it harder for the bank to deal in dollar-based transactions. Right now, these penalties are a real problem for any bank, as most global trade is based in dollars. Just ask the Iranians how they are hurting under their current regime.

So what’s the obvious answer to this arrogant and burdensome projection of American economic power? You guessed it! Banks will simply stop using the dollar and look for other ways to settle trade accounts and store economic assets. What most American politicians and bureaucrats don’t realize, as they pile-on more and more silly legislation, regulation, and monetary policy, is that the USD has a reserve currency bid, or demand across the world. It’s a special privilege we have, and we enjoy plenty of economic benefit from it.

As the bid goes away, and as the anti-USD forces gather steam, we will suffer the consequences. Or better yet, our children will. Vince Miller, senior market strategist with the Birch Gold Group, puts it simply: “Over the years, the dollar has increasingly becoming an albatross around the neck of foreign financial institutions. They were already getting tired of having to play our games, and now FATCA may very well be the last straw that pushes them to throw up their hands in disgust and walk away from our imposed headaches.”

So if you look at what is going on from a thirty thousand foot level, you have a multitude of factors pressuring the reserve currency status of the USD. The Russians and the Chinese are leading the BRIC countries to dump the dollar as a trade settlement vehicle. FACTA will push countries all over the world to stop dealing with American clients and to stop using the dollar altogether.

Our national debt is approaching twenty trillion dollars, and the world wonders if we have the political will or economic ability to make good on our financial obligations. And to top it all off, the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is printing money so fast that they can’t build the printing presses fast enough. The Fed’s balance sheet has ballooned to over four trillion dollars!

Birch Gold’s Vince Miller adds, “The writing has been on the wall for quite some time now: The dollar is a fiat currency that has been losing value since the very first day it went into circulation. It will continue to lose value over time, and eventually it will likely be replaced as the global reserve currency. With the implementation of FATCA, that ‘eventually’ may be a lot sooner than we had ever thought.”

To put it bluntly, this story doesn’t have a good ending. Throughout history, this has all happened before; it’s true that history repeats itself. The Romans, the Spanish, and the English all devalued their currencies and faced the consequences. It’s no different this time.

This article is brought to you by Birch Gold Group which helps Americans protect their hard-earned savings from the dollar’s ongoing loss in value with investments in physical gold and silver. To learn how precious metals can help to safeguard your future from inflation and geopolitical instability, visit www.birchgold.com.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/facta-will-hasten-usd-downfall/#Xt33A4DtAzjEswWJ.99

 

 

FEC to Seize Control of the Internet

Human Events Spotlight <news@humaneventsmail.com> 

 

EEUU niega la nacionalidad a un cubano que lleva 50 años en el país y sirvió en el Ejército 

Georgina López

 

http://www.diariodecuba.com/cuba/1400060891_8570.html

 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE

Sources: Benghazi attack suspect captured, en route to US

 

By Justin Fishel

FoxNews.com

31

DEVELOPING … 

EXCLUSIVE: A suspected terrorist linked to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack that killed four Americans has been captured inside Libya by U.S. forces and currently is en route to the United States, Fox News has learned exclusively. ADVERTISEMENT:

Sources tell Fox News that the suspect, who was captured during a joint U.S. military and law enforcement operation, will face prosecution in the United States. on BREITBART TV 16 Jun 201

On Monday’s broadcast of “The O’Reilly Factor,” host Bill O’Reilly used his opening “Talking Points Memo” segment to urge President Barack Obama to take a more hawkish approach in dealing with the unfolding situation in Iraq. According to O’Reilly, it is necessary take military against the al Qaeda affiliated ISIS because of the cost already incurred for the United States in Iraq and it will a message to ISIS that the United States is a force with which to be reckoned. 

“We are not going to be be able to solve the internal problems of the Iraqis,” O’Reilly said. “That being said, I fully expect President Obama to begin bombing the al Qaeda army very soon. If he does not do that, it would be an enormous dereliction of duty. He is the commander-in-chief. Al Qaeda wants to kill us, so he must send a message to them and to the largely cowardly world. We will not allow savages to disseminate the world. That is the message that must be sent.” 

AMENPER: ¿Que importancia tiene eso?

 

Hillary “¿que importancia tiene eso?” Clinton, agrega una nueva frase a su perfil personal.

Ahora podemos llamarla Hillary “no puedo comentar sobre eso” Clinton.

Esta frase es la que usó cuando los periodistas le preguntaron lo que pensaba sobre el oleoducto de Keystone.   Hillary parece que está siendo asesorada por su consorte “El resbaloso Willy”,  y está dando las mismas respuestas resbalosas de Willy.   Las respuestas de Clinton cuando era presidente pasarán como un legado de resbalones.  Dijo “oigan bien, nunca he tenido sexo con esa mujer”,  después con esa cara no tan dura como lubricada, dijo que lo que lo que él quiso decir era que no consideraba el sexo oral como sexo. 

Como diría Cantinflas, “si estás bien achaparrado no cuenta lo mamado”

Volviendo a Hillary, ella no es secretaria de estado más, es simplemente una ciudadana que tiene la libertad para expresar su opinión.  Pudiera ser aceptado con respecto a alguna información que hubiera adquirido durante su mandato sobre algo de seguridad nacional.   ¿Pero qué carajo tiene que ver lo que ella piensa sobre el oleoducto con la seguridad nacional? ¿Cual es el secreto que no se puede comentar?

Yo creo que yo sé el secreto, y es que ella todavía no ha decidido qué posición tomar en este caso durante la próxima campaña presidencial. Tampoco quiere hablar sobre Bengazi porque “¿que importancia tiene eso?” Creo que Hillary no volverá a Canadá por el momento, ella prefiere las preguntas de los periodistas de la prensa tramitada, las entrevistas con montaje agradable, todo lo que le pavimente su camino a la presidencia que ella considera que le pertenece.

 

This Is Why Judge Jeanine Is Worried (And Thinks You Should Be Afraid)

If you don’t think that what happens there matters to you, you’re wrong!

TOM HINCHEY  

Judge Jeanine Pirro warned Americans that we should be worried over the crisis in the Middle East, regardless where you live.  “You know me, I’m fearless.” said the Judge in her opening statement. “I’ve spent my life fighting, investigating, prosecuting, and sentencing the worst of the worst. But tonight, I’m worried. If you don’t think that what happens there matters to you, you’re wrong! You need to be afraid.” Judge Pirro went on to blame Obama’s lack of foreign policy andpolitical decisions for minimizing our nation on the world stage to the point of being “neither respected nor feared.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-jeanine-america-need-worried/#xi6C6FwuqmAJV6AY.99

 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio Reveals A Surprising Reason Why He Thinks Border Guards Aren’t Doing Their Job

Arpaio revisited the issue Monday evening during an interview on the Fox News Channel.

B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE — JUNE 17, 2014

 

As the Obama administration’s lax attitude toward America’s immigration laws has led to a marked increase in illegal border crossings, critics – especially throughout the southwest – have expressed their outrage. Few have been as outspoken as the man often billed as America’s toughest sheriff, Maricopa County, Ariz., lawman Joe Arpaio.

He recently weighed in on the influx of unaccompanied minors and other illegals being transported to his state under the direction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Not only did Arpaio chastise government officials whose policies encourage repeat offenders, he called to task those illegals with the audacity to complain about their treatment upon arriving in the U.S. as criminals.

Arpaio revisited the issue Monday evening during an interview on the Fox News Channel. He explained that, with the sharp rise in children crossing the border, agents assigned to protecting America are suffering from misplaced priorities.

“The Border Patrol is too busy changing diapers and not going after dope peddlers and illegal immigrants,” he said.

Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Gil Kerikowske seemed to bolster Arpaio’s position with a recent statement regarding the border situation.

“I have been watching them do absolutely heroic efforts,” he said of border agents. “Not only rescuing children but taking care of them, way beyond some of the skill sets. They are doing everything from making formula to bringing in their own children’s clothing to taking care of these kids in a multitude of ways.”

With nearly 50,000 minors having illegally crossed the border without adult supervision in just the past eight months, authorities are scrambling to find temporary housing for them. In Arpaio’s estimation, this result was all part of Barack Obama’s ultimate goal of achieving amnesty.

“I think the president knew this was going to happen,” he said, “so it’s going to help him on his executive orders if Congress doesn’t take this mission up.”

Judging from reports of overcrowding and generally inhospitable environments within these housing facilities, however, Arpaio concluded the scheme could likely backfire.

He said that, if they were inclined to do so, U.S. authorities could put a stop to the relentless assault on our immigration laws.

“This is a great country,” he said. “You’re trying to tell me we can’t keep people from coming into our country if we really had the desire to do it? I don’t buy it.”

Tom Horne, Arizona’s attorney general, has also gotten involved in the controversy by sending the Border Patrol official notice that they are violating federal law.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-sheriff-joe-thinks-border-guards-arent-job/#HRyBpQ2KWysyPep7.99

 

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s