No 794 “En mi opinión” Noviembre 13, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
<Freedom is not free> By Ronald Reagan
Amenper: La Acción Ejecutiva de Obama sobre inmigración
Hoy hay un artículo por Philip Klein en el Washington Examiner, sobre la acción ejecutiva que se ha filtrado que Obama aprobará en el mes de Diciembre o quizás antes-
En el escrito Klein analiza que en el momento en que Obama actúe unilateralmente sobre el tema (suponiendo que lo hace), esta dinámica cambiará.
Los republicanos de todas las tendencias se unirán en su oposición contra lo que ellos perciben ser otro acto de anarquía por Obama, especialmente algo atroz después de una elección en la que su partido sufrió una derrota histórica.
Obama puede pensar que puede ganar al público con el argumento de que los republicanos del congreso no pudieron resolver nada sobre la inmigración, así que se vio obligado a intervenir.
Pero no estoy tan seguro que este argumento convencerá al 80% de las personas que se oponen a una amnistía de casi 5 millones de inmigrantes ilegales.
Pero también existe otro factor a considerar — que dicha acción ejecutiva unificará los republicanos sobre una cuestión que suele ser la fuente de profunda división en el partido, y podría hacer más fácil para los republicanos para explicar a los votantes por qué no pasaron por una ley de inmigración que veían que era una amnistía sin reforzar las fronteras abiertas que existen en la actualidad.
A lo largo de la administración Obama, los liberales han sido enloquecidos por la narrativa siguiente: Los republicanos bloquean las políticas de Obama y entonces Obama obtiene percepción como ineficaz y poco cooperativo, y tan sólo fomenta más excusas para la oposición.
Sin embargo, en seis años de intentos, los liberales no han sido capaces de convencer al público en general que deberían dejar de premiar a los republicanos por ser intransigentes, perdieron las elecciones y más republicanos ganaron escaños en el Congreso. ¿Por qué los liberales creen que ganará este argumento ahora?
Cuando Obama actúa unilateralmente, republicanos estarán unidos en empujar el mensaje que es Obama el que sabotea cualquier esfuerzo de compromiso bipartidista, y es muy posible que este punto de vista llevará la nota de la discusión.
El público no puede estar completamente de repente de acuerdo con los republicanos, porque ahora pensarán que Obama debería de haber hecho un mejor trabajo de trabajar con el Congreso en lugar de actuar unilateralmente.
Una de las consecuencias detrás de la acción ejecutiva pudiera ser que obligaría a mano del Congreso, pero es más probable que el resultado es que los deje fuera del problema.
El Speaker del Congreso, John Boehner, republicano de Ohio y el líder de la mayoría del Senado, Mitch McConnell, R -KY., no serán tan opuestos entre las dos alas del partido como antes cuando los Demócratas tenían mayoría en el Senado.
La oposición de la creación de una vía legal para aquellos en el país ilegalmente será innecesaria por los conservadores, si se completara una legislación sobre inmigración moriría en el Congreso, todos los republicanos de todas las tendencias estarían de acuerdo y los republicanos pueden argumentar a los partidarios de una reforma que Obama “había envenenado el pozo” y había hecho imposible cualquier compromiso con su amenaza de la acción ejecutiva.
Obama le ha resuelto el problema de la discusión entre ellos, el partido estaría unido contra Obama.
Además, el problema migratorio no es una cuestión republicana, muchos demócratas, sinceramente no están de acuerdo con una amnistía, y otros no por sinceridad pero porque saben que los afectaría en las próximas elecciones.
Nosotros vemos las emisoras de televisión en español que hablan de la amnistía como algo bueno, pero hay que recordar que en esas emisoras lo que estamos viendo el punto de vista Mejicano.
La mayoría de los votantes, demócratas y republicanos, no ven una amnistía con buenos ojos.
WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM: Enough Is Enough… If Barack Obama Moves Forward With His Dictatorial Amnesty Decree, IMPEACH HIM!
Did you watch Barack Obama’s press conference the afternoon after the election? Did you hear him say, on one hand, that he wants to work with Congress and THEN DEMAND that Congress either send an amnesty bill that is acceptable to him to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree?
It’s clear that Barack Obama didn’t get the message the that the American people just sent to Washington. It’s clear that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world is behaving like a petulant child… sticking his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down and yelling loudly so he can’t hear what the American people are trying to say to him… and it’s clear that he will not change his ways.
Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the childishness… the American people are sick and tired of the dictatorial delusions of godhood… the American people are sick and tired of the lawlessness… and, most of all, the American people are sick and tired of Barack Obama.
And so, it’s time to send Congress an even stronger message. If Barack Obama moves forward with his dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT HIM IMPEACHED.
The American Sent You A Clear Message On November 4, 2014 And It Wasn’t: “Compromise With Barack Obama” Or “Work With Barack Obama To Get Stuff Done.” … The American People Sent You To Washington To Stop Barack Obama… PERIOD!
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said it best: “How can you govern with a president that disobeys the Constitution? How can you govern with a president that is demonstrably lawless when he thinks he has to be?”
The answer to Rush’s rhetorical question is, you can’t!
And at some point, our elected officials will also have to come to the inescapable conclusion thatBARACK OBAMA IS THE PROBLEM. He will not “work with Congress to get things done” … he will not “compromise” with Congress. With Barack Obama, it’s either his way or the highway and if our elected officials choose the former, only then will the liberal media hallelujah choir proclaim that they’re truly “compromising” and “working to get things done.”
And we’re not the only ones who have made that observation:
Erick Erickson with RedState observed: “As the reality of a Republican wave became imminent… a dangerous narrative began to take hold among the conservative talking heads on cable news and in the victory speeches of the victorious Republicans. The narrative was that now that the Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress, it is incumbent upon them to work with Obama and the other Democrats in the service of ‘getting things done’ and ‘fixing the broken system.'”
Rush Limbaugh said: “The Republican Party was not elected to fix a broken system or to make it work. The Republican Party was not elected to compromise. The Republican Party was not elected to sit down and work together with the Democrats. The Republican Party was not elected to slow down the speed the country is headed to the cliff and go over it slowly.”
Conservative icon Gary Bauer stated: “Likewise Republicans shouldn’t fall into the trap of trying to resuscitate so-called comprehensive immigration reform. … In the days ahead, there will be a lot of talk about compromise and cooperation in Washington. Let President Obama make the first move by dropping his plans for a mass executive amnesty.”
It’s clear. The liberal media and the Washington elites are trying to spin the message that the American people just sent to Washington beyond human comprehension, but patriotic Americans, like you, have the power to fight this phony narrative and the time to stop Obama is now, before he irrevocably changes America.
Obama Gave The American People The Bird.
Senator Ted Cruz called it right when he said that “the era of Obama lawlessness is over.” Make no mistake, that’s the message that the American people sent to Washington and, if you agree, then you’re not alone.
Erickson again: “If voters really wanted people who would work closely with Obama and other Democrats to ‘get things done,’ they would have just voted for more Democrats. … Say what you want about the information level of the average voter, but absolutely no one was confused into thinking that they were replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the hopes that the Republican would be more friendly to the Democrat agenda.”
Limbaugh essentially said the same thing: “If they [the American people] wanted you to work with the Democrats, you wouldn’t have won. If they wanted the Republicans to work with the Democrats and to help the Democrats accomplish more, they would have just elected the Democrats.”
Cruz went on to say: “It is incumbent on Republicans to stand up and lead. … You know, the fact that the people rose up and voted the Democrats out of power doesn’t necessarily mean they trust the Republicans. They’ve given us another chance. But we’ve got to earn that trust, and the way to earn that trust is to listen to the priorities of the people.”
It’s time for our elected officials to start earning some trust. Yes, impeachment is a bold move but Barack Obama is NOT afraid to be bold.
When he mounted the stage and proclaimed that Congress either send an acceptable amnesty bill to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, he wasn’t pushing half-measures or painting with pale pastels.
Even liberal media personalities couldn’t believe what they were hearing:
NBC’s Chuck Todd said that said that Obama must know that he “is going to know that if he does this, he is starting a political war…”
CNN’s Candy Crowley: “If he makes a major move along the lines of what we’ve been hearing… that would be like just popping a grenade and throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor.”
But The National Journal’s Ron Fournier said it best, “After this repudiation, acting on immigration by fiat would be the political equivalent of literally flipping the country the bird.”
Even liberals know that Obama is bold as brass. It’s time for Republicans to be just as bold. The House of Representatives has the votes necessary to advance Articles of Impeachment and if Barack Obama views himself as a dictator, then it’s time for Congress to show Mr. Obama what happens to dictators in the United States of America.
Dispelling The Media Myth That Impeachment Will Hurt Republicans…
The media has done an outstanding job of rewriting history and advancing the false narrative that impeaching Barack Obama will somehow hurt Republicans, so much so that even some conservatives believe it.
And if you believe the media narrative, then ask President Al Gore whether or not he believes that the impeachment of Bill Clinton kept him out of the White House. The historical record is very clear.
The liberal paper of record, The New York Times wrote: “Mr. Gore confronted Mr. Clinton in the Oval Office after Mr. Gore ran for president in 2000… In the course of a brutal one-hour exchange, aides to both men said, Mr. Gore blamed Mr. Clinton for his loss — suggesting that he had been dragged down by the burden of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings.”
Back in 1999, the Chicago Tribune wrote: “President Clinton conceded Thursday that his impeachment scandal may hurt Vice President Al Gore’s election hopes, acknowledging that ‘a lot of people who may not like me may hold it against him.'”
Back in 2001, The Telegraph wrote: “The two, whose relationship has been very difficult since the Lewinsky affair and the impeachment that followed it, had their showdown alone inside the White House and it lasted for more than an hour… Another source who knows both told the Washington Post that the tone of the conversation was ‘very, very blunt.’ The newspaper said that while the former vice-president’s friends called the meeting ‘very constructive,’ the Clinton side saw it as a much angrier event in which Mr. Gore laid bare a simmering resentment of his former boss.”
Don’t be fooled, the media narrative that impeachment hurts Republicans only gained a firm footing when the Pretender-in-Chief took the oath of office.
And when it comes to the theory that the impeachment of Bill Clinton hurt Republicans in Congress; another fact that is often ignored by the media is that even though Republicans lost a handful of seats in Congress, they actually maintained majority control in both House of Congress once the dust settled from the 2000 election.
But what is even more historic is that one year after impeaching Bill Clinton, Republicans gained control of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover occupied the Oval Office (until RINO Senator Jim Jeffords switched parties 5 months later and gave the Democrats marginal control of the Senate).
So exactly how did impeaching Bill Clinton hurt Republicans? … But dispelling false narratives aside, there is another reason why impeachment needs to be on the table:
Barack Obama’s ego is tremendous. He does not want to go down in history as one of three presidents ever impeached in the United States of America. Obama fears impeachment and if Congress sends him the message that he is subject to impeachment then he will either behave or he will be gone.
Amenper: “The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin
- “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.” — John Adams
- “Millions of individuals making their own decisions in the marketplace will always allocate resources better than any centralized government planning process.” — Ronald Reagan
Freedom, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness
Personal property is considered almost an extension of one’s person and does include property from which one has the right to exclude others.
Nature tells us that no power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.
Every body owns something, it could be a business, a profession, a simple object, or his own person, every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself-
But along came Marx and his followers, and then they came to power, and we saw how, where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property. Not only their possessions but their liberties, their faculties.
I have lived too long to cherish many illusions about the essential high-mindedness of men when brought into stark confrontation with the issue of private property.
I lived in Cuba during the transition to socialism, I saw how the evil sentiment of envy of men helped the socialist agenda.
Socialism has no moral justification whatsoever; poor people are not morally superior to rich people, nor are they owed anything by rich people simply because of their lack of success. It is a fact and a right that socialism utterly rejects.
But envy justifies any moral objection.
Cuba was the country that implemented socialism faster and in a more complete fashion in the history of the world, faster than in Soviet Union or China.
Complete abolition of private property, took less than two years. Nobody could own any kind of private property, even professionals were placed under government cooperatives and were not allowed to leave the country.
The beginning of the socialist reform is not so much to equalize property as to train the mind of the citizens about the evil of private property, even if they inevitable have to go back to certain kind of controlled private property once they have attained complete control of the society.
For what I have seen during my long life, the main purpose of socialism is the control of the society.
We see countries like China and Viet Nan, that are making the transition and becoming capitalists country, but they still use the communist model to suppress free speech rights and other liberties while allowing in a transitional fashion the property rights of the individuals.
On the other hand, we see the socialist model of the XXI century, where capitalism is not only allowed but is financially stimulated by the government if it fits the agenda of socialism. While during the transition they start suppressing little by little the speech rights and other liberties.
What socialism of the XXI century has in common with the old Marxist model that uses the class war, repeating constantly to certain classes that there is a conspiracy to oppress rob an degrade them, because of their economic status or because of their race.
Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced by dependence, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.
Look at today’s news, the property owners of Ferguson are securing their property because of fear of a racially provoked mob.
“In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned”.
These are words of Alexis de Tocqueville. I think that his words are true today as were when he visited us last century.
The midterm elections, the people I talked with every day, show me a value of respect for other people property.
Property is a right, and most of the Americans respect this right, it is encrusted in our beliefs and our constitution.
We can´t allow a minority with a foreign doctrine change our values and our nation.
Amenper: Lynch Mob Ready in Ferguson
The cop-hating radical lawyers of Eric Holder’s Justice Department are reportedly continuing to feed the passions of the lynch mob in Ferguson, Mo., that is screaming for the blood of the white cop who shot and killed a young black man earlier this month in what now almost certainly appears to be an act of self-defense.
A white police officer’s racism, an allegation for which there is no evidence whatsoever, supposedly caused the unfortunate incident. But the leftists who run the federal government need this. They want it badly. A police officer has to be sacrificed to appease Democrats’ political base and to let the people forget the Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate.
Federal civil rights charges may be in the works against Darren Wilson, the white police officer who shot Michael Brown after an intense physical altercation that left Wilson with severe head injuries.
The feds may simply ignore local authorities and go forward with a case against Wilson, but “Eric Holder has completely politicized the Justice Department
They probably will try to pursue a federal case even if there’s no evidence to justify it, because of the fact that they really see everything, including president Obama, through the prism of race even when race is not a factor in a case or an incident.”
Left-wing zealots who believe as an article of faith that America is racist insist, despite mounting exculpatory evidence, that Brown was murdered by a white policeman. They will not be dissuaded no matter how much proof accumulates that the officer fired on Brown because he believed his life was in danger.
It is clear that any violent mob actions in Ferguson won’t actually bother Holder, who it seems safe to say is only feigning disapproval of the rampant criminality there. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who understands the Left. Mob rule, that is Marxist mobocracy, is the model of governance preferred by Marxist community organizers like Barack Obama. Civil unrest is an opportunity, not a tragedy. The more bodies, the better.
It turned out that “Holder’s entire attorney has hired were leftists, some even with a history of anti-police activities,” said Adams, a Justice Department whistle-blower who chronicled the vicious racial politics of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division in his bestselling book, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.
“Why does it matter that the DOJ unit that will investigate the Ferguson police is stacked with leftists and ideologues?” Adams writes. “Because anti-police biases of lawyers in this unit have resulted in gross prosecutorial misconduct against police officers.”
Meanwhile, the so-called protesters that the media say have been peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights have been throwing bottles of urine, presumably from humans, at the police in Ferguson. It’s a biohazard, a biochemical weapons attack of sorts, given that cytomegalovirus (CMV, also known as herpes) can be transmitted through contact with urine, according to medical literature. At least they’re not hurling pathogen-rich fecal projectiles, as their Occupy Wall Street brethren did.
Regardless of who helped invent and cultivate the image of Michael Brown as a martyr, Holder is hoping his efforts regarding the case in Ferguson will harness all the negative energy generated by the Brown saga and channel it into producing change that no sane American would ever want.
You’re a terrible person if you don’t believe Wilson is a murderer, the Left says.
And he has to be found guilty or “else”.
But polls show that In fact Americans; including blacks, tend to believe that blacks are more racist than whites and Hispanics, according to polling. Blacks’ racial antagonism, which President Obama has deliberately exacerbated, is the elephant in the room.
So we have to wait for the courts, and if the verdict is not to indict, we will have to watch “else”-
FBI: Don’t Malign Our Assault on the Fourth Amendment
by Mark Horne —
The FBI Director has complained about the media commenting on their assault on the Fourth Amendment.
You may remember that I posted about a horrible action perpetrated by the FBI in vandalizing a suspects internet service so that they thought they needed a repair in their hotel rooms, posing as repairmen to get invited in, and then performing some warrantless searching.
Mike Massnick of TechDirt has written about how the FBI Director James Comey is responding to criticism of that and other cases of snooping. A large part of his argument is that warrantless searching must be good because it works.
Yeah. Does anyone doubt that the Feds could nab more “bad guys” if they were allowed to search all our homes at will without needing to show probably cause? I sure don’t.
I don’t know about you but the crimes our government commits against us do not terrify me nearly as much as the explanations and defenses they offer for those practices. When they open their mouths to press for their alleged righteousness, I wonder if I am dealing with space aliens or Manchurian puppets controlled by some totalitarian government overseas. Surely these people were not born and raised in the USA. (Ha! I didn’t mean to go there, but, when it comes down to it, I want to believe there are hundreds of thousands of forged birth certificates.)
Another amazing tactic of Comey is to complain that he is not allowed to comment on an ongoing case. So it is unfair for the media to make any comments on the story that they are now in court attempting to rip the Fourth Amendment from the Constitution. I’m sure Comey would prefer they shut up and wait until they have won their case and made the Fourth Amendment a dead letter.
Marcy Wheeler has the best response to that, highlighting how the FBI, in this very same case (but it’s also true in lots of high-profile FBI cases) put out press releases that only gave its side of the story, and claimed things as fact that were misleading and inaccurate — but didn’t seem to have any problem with the press taking its one side of the story without considering the response from the accused:
“Jim Comey thinks the press shouldn’t report on this until after the government has had its shot at rebuttal? Does he feel the same about the army of FBI leakers who pre-empt defense cases all the time? Does Comey think it improper for his FBI to have released this press release, upon defendant Wei Seng Phua’s arrest, asserting that he is a member of organized crime as a fact and mentioning a prior arrest (not a conviction) that may or may not be deemed admissible to this case?
“‘According to the criminal complaint, Wei Seng Phua, is known by law enforcement to be a high ranking member of the 14K Triad, an Asian organized crime group. On or about June 18, 2013, Phua was arrested in Macau, along with more than 20 other individuals, for operating an illegal sport book gambling business transacting illegal bets on the World Cup Soccer Tournament. Phua posted bail in Macau and was released.’
“I didn’t see the FBI Director complaining about press stories, written in response to the press release, reported before the defense had been able to present their side.”
And, so, apparently, not only does the FBI director think it’s proper to use deceptive practices if “it works,” he also thinks that the press should only report on the FBI’s side of the story, furthering the deceptive practices with what’s effectively propaganda. Seriously, where do these people come from?
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/11/fbi-dont-malign-assault-fourth-amendment/#cdAt8TmR7OKaoyVx.99
Keystone pipeline re-emerges as political football
by Cowboy Byte
The lame-duck Congress has been in session a matter of hours, and the Keystone pipeline already is a political football.
Check it out:
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., facing a tough runoff election next month, on Wednesday called for a vote on a bill approving the long-delayed project — in an apparent bid to flex her clout on Capitol Hill. The Senate approved her request and teed up a vote for next Tuesday.
Republicans responded swiftly to Landrieu’s maneuvering, scheduling a vote in the House on Thursday on an identical bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Cassidy.
KrisAnne Hall (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To: Lazaro R Gonzalez
8229 25th Drive
Wellborn FL 32094
FATHER ASKS OBAMA TO USE EXECUTIVE ORDER TO BRING SON SLAIN BY ILLEGAL ALIEN BACK TO LIFE
A grieving father is asking President Barack Obama to bring his son, who was killed by an illegal alien, back to life with an executive order on immigration.
“While your Executive Order pad is out, can you write one to bring my son and the tens of thousands (actually over 100,000) killed by illegal aliens back to life and to bring our destroyed families back together?” asks Don Rosenberg in a letter to Obama. His son Drew was killed by an illegal alien who ran over him in 2010.
In the letter, Rosenberg notes that President Obama’s administration refused to deport the illegal alien who killed his son.
“I know that shortly you will be issuing some sort of Executive Order protecting millions of lawbreakers, many of whom have killed people but all of whom share some responsibility for those killed,” Rosenberg wrote. “I know that you want to prevent their families from being separated. By the way, your administration refused to deport the man who killed my son. I was told, ‘He’s only committed one crime of moral turpitude.’”
Rosenberg’s letter to Obama was a follow-up from a previous letter he sent the President this summer, a letter to which Rosenberg has not received any reply:
On August 18, 2014 I sent you a letter through the office of DHS Deputy Secretary Mayorkas. I had met with Deputy Secretary Mayorkas in Los Angeles in July and asked him if he would deliver a letter to you. He agreed, so I sent it to his assistant Robert Silver. I also sent the letter to Secretary Johnson, whom I had met in May through Christian Marrone on August 20, 2014 and asked him to forward the letter to you. To date I have not even received the obligatory, “I’m sorry for your loss” letter, so I am sending you another copy. I do not know if you received the letter although I have no reason to believe that Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mayorkas or their staffs did not deliver it to you. Considering your lack of recognizing the true victims of illegal immigration (no, not those here illegally) I certainly would not be surprised if you or any of your [aides] just tossed it in the shredder.
In the initial letter, which was sent in August, Rosenberg asked Obama to visit his son’s grave, to convince his dead son Drew of the merits of his planned executive order for amnesty.
“Before you illegally say, ‘Welcome to America’ to those who have caused so much pain and suffering, on your next trip to California let me take you to Drew’s grave, and you tell him this is the right thing to do,” Rosenberg wrote back then, NewsMax reports. “My son and all of the others are considered collateral damage in the quest for votes and campaign contributions. Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime.”
Russian Bombers to Patrol Gulf of Mexico
Putin knows he needs to get this kind of thing done now while we still have a wimp for a President.
Check it out:
In a show of military muscle amid tensions with the West, Russia will send long-range strategic bombers on regular patrol missions across the globe, from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico, a top official said Wednesday.
The announcement by Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu came as NATO’s chief accused Russia of sending fresh troops and tanks into eastern Ukraine.
“Over the last few days, we have seen multiple reports of large convoys moving into Eastern Ukraine,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg. “We assess that this significant military buildup includes Russian artillery, tanks, air defence systems and troops. His statement called the situation a “severe threat to the cease-fire.”
Moscow denied the allegation as unfounded, but Shoigu also said the dispute with the West over Ukraine would require Russia to beef up its forces in the Crimea, the Black Sea Peninsula that Russia annexed in March.
Shoigu said Russian long-range bombers will conduct flights along Russian borders and over the Arctic Ocean. He said, “In the current situation we have to maintain military presence in the western Atlantic and eastern Pacific, as well as the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.”
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/11/russian-bombers-patrol-gulf-mexico/
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No 795 Noviembre 14, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR