HPIM0049

No 882 “En mi opinion” Marzo 4, 2015

No 882 “En mi opinión”  Marzo 4, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

AMENPER: La traición de Obama a Israel

El discurso de Netanyahu  al Congreso es un suceso que quedará en la historia de Estados Unidos, de cualquier manera de que se desarrollen los acontecimientos en el futuro. 

Si es la destrucción de Israel, porque el primer ministro advirtió del peligro, si se puede en el futuro con un nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos cambiar el gobierno de Irán y tener más tranquilidad en el Medio Oriente, porque este discurso fue un factor en la pérdida de la Casa Blanca del partido Demócrata.  Si se ve obligado a actuar unilateralmente el discurso fue un aviso y una explicación de su posible acción.

 Pero el discurso no es nada que haya sido algo que sucedió inesperadamente.  Desde que Obama tomó el poder comenzó la traición de Israel y la complicidad de Obama con el Islam.

Rubén Kaplan es un periodista español que tiene un blog, Alerta Digital, y es un estudioso desde Europa de la situación en el Medio Oriente desde que Obama tomó el poder.entre otras cosas Kaplan ha dicho, “Cuando cuando Barak Hussein Obama asumió la presidencia en el 1009, la educación musulmana en su niñez, de la que intentó desligarse sin convencer a vastos sectores, suscitó en mucha gente sospecha y recelo. Transcurridos más de seis años, su defectuosa política exterior, que apoya a la Hermandad Musulmana y los movimientos integristas islámicos de Medio Oriente, es condescendiente con los palestinos, especialmente pusilánime con Irán y desdeñosa con Israel, confirma que esa aprensión, lejos de ser infundada, tenía asidero y era absolutamente razonable”.

Aunque oficialmente EE.UU. e Israel sostienen que la relación entre ambos es óptima. Según voceros de la administración de Obama “nuestra relación nunca ha sido mejor”, pero la realidad es que los aliados atraviesan la peor crisis en las relaciones bilaterales de los últimos años-.

Dos años después de ocupar la presidencia, el 19 de mayo de 2011, en Washington, el presidente norteamericano Obama, en el marco de un oprobioso discurso político sobre Medio Oriente, previo al arribo del Primer Ministro de Israel, Benjamín “Bibi” Netanyahu para reunirse con él en la Casa Blanca el viernes 22, expresó que Israel debería retirarse a las líneas anteriores a las de de la Guerra de los Seis días de 1967 – Obama -el primer mandatario estadounidense que exigió una retirada de Israel sin las mínimas medidas de seguridad indispensables y no tener en consideración los innumerables ataques terroristas contra el Estado judío por parte de palestinos-, olvidó la garantía dada por el presidente George Bush en 2004 al ex Primer Ministro Ariel Sharon, por la cual se comprometía a no forzar a Israel a retornar a las fronteras de 1967.

En su cuestionada alocución, Obama no hizo referencia al pretendido “derecho al retorno” núcleo central de cualquier negociación, por el que bregan por igual la ANP y el Hamas, que pretenden que los expulsados en la Guerra de la Independencia de Israel en 1948, -originada cuando siete países árabes de la región atacaron al flamante Estado judío, rechazando la partición de la ONU- millones de familiares o descendientes de aquéllos, incluidos los que huyeron voluntariamente a instancias de sus dirigentes, regresen como refugiados para reducir a los judíos a una minoría en su propio país.

Al respecto opinó Bret Stephens, editor de la sección Relaciones Exteriores y Director Adjunto de la página editorial de The Wall St Journal, en un escrito que hube yo de pasarles en el que dijo que Obama trató con desdén un día antes de su visita a Netanyahu y calificó al plan de paz pergeñado por el presidente Obama, entre Israel y los palestinos, como una “fórmula de guerra”. Stephens acusó a Obama, quien dijo en su discurso “es tiempo de decir la verdad”, de componer el lenguaje que sirvió como un “tejido fino de falsedades, prestidigitación retórica, omisiones y auto-contradicciones”.

Es recordado por todos nosotros el hecho que como una humillación última, Obama hizo salir al primer ministro de Israel por la puerta de atrás de la Casa Blanca

Si realmente el Presidente Obama, fuera pro-Israel “él debería decirle a los palestinos que no existe ningún derecho de retorno” y debe esbozar las consecuencias específicas y duras que debe enfrentar por unirse Hamas al Gobierno.” El Presidente elucubró y desestimó las cuestiones de la situación de Jerusalén y de los refugiados, sugiriendo que la Autoridad Palestina e Israel deben discutir, después de un acuerdo sobre un Estado palestino la contradicción inherente.

A propósito de Jerusalén, se puede comprobar la mendacidad y duplicidad de Obama.

Durante su campaña para presidente, Obama aseguró que Jerusalén seguiría siendo la “indivisible” capital de Israel. Su postura desde entonces ha cambiado de manera significativa. “Permítanme ser claro, la seguridad de Israel es sacrosanta. Esto no es negociable”.

“Los palestinos necesitan un Estado que sea contiguo y coherente y que les permita prosperar. Sin embargo, cualquier acuerdo con el pueblo palestino debe preservar la identidad de Israel como un Estado judío con fronteras seguras y reconocidas y defendibles. Jerusalén seguirá siendo la capital de Israel, y debe permanecer indivisa”. Casi lo mismo expresaba la plataforma del Partido Demócrata de 2008, que decía: “Jerusalén es y seguirá siendo la capital de Israel. Las partes han acordado que Jerusalén es una cuestión de negociaciones sobre el estatuto final. Debe seguir siendo una ciudad indivisa accesible a personas de todas las religiones”.

Según informó Stephen en el escrito del The Wall Street Journal, la plataforma de 70 páginas del 2012, en la sección titulada “Medio Oriente” dijo que “El presidente Obama y el Partido Demócrata mantienen un compromiso inquebrantable con la seguridad de Israel, pero no dice que Jerusalén es la capital de Israel. El candidato presidencial republicano Mitt Romney durante su campaña criticó a los demócratas por la deliberada omisión. “Es una lástima que todo el Partido Demócrata haya abrazado la vergonzosa negativa del presidente Obama a reconocer que Jerusalén es la capital de Israel “. Romney añadió: “Cuatro años de repetidos intentos del presidente Obama de crear distancia entre Estados Unidos y nuestro aliado preciado ha llevado al Partido Demócrata a eliminar de su plataforma un reconocimiento inequívoco de una realidad simple. En su campaña Romney dijo, si soy electo presidente, voy a restaurar nuestra relación con Israel y estar hombro con hombro con nuestro aliado”. En contraposición con la de los Demócratas, la plataforma del Partido Republicano en 2012, dice: “Apoyamos el derecho de Israel a existir como Estado judío con fronteras seguras y defendibles, y prevemos dos estados democráticos: “Israel, con Jerusalén como su capital y Palestina para que vivan en paz y seguridad”. Pero desafortunadamente Obama fue re-electo presidente.

Todo esto es lo que ha desembocado en la actual situación en el Medio Oriente con Obama tratando de hacer un arreglo con Irán, como una curita hasta que cumpla su mandato, dejando la papa caliente al próximo presidente.

La mayor fisura y divergencia entre EE.UU. e Israel, históricamente coligados de forma monolítica, se ha  producido por la disímil posición que asumen ante la amenaza que representa para el Estado judío, la República Islámica de Irán como una potencia nuclear.

Obama es partidario de la diplomacia y arreglos basados en las palabras de los dirigentes de Irán, sin una supervisión.  Obama dice creer que una supresión de las sanciones económicas con un documento de un convenio  para disuadir al régimen del ayatolá Jamenei, de obtener armamento atómico, es suficiente, y que Irán pudiera ser un aliado para la guerra contra ISIS.

 Israel convencido de la inutilidad de esa medida, y si el convenio se produce

 

 

 

AMENPER: Clamor en el Congreso

 “Nunca es fácil defender la libertad”

 

Este fue el grito en justa ira del Primer Ministro de Israel, por un arreglo en ciernes con Irán que pondrá en peligro la existencia de la nación de Israel.

Este también fue el grito de justa ira del representante de Matt Salmon, republicano de Arizona, que dijo durante el debate del piso. “Si no vamos a pelear ahora, cuando vamos a pelear?” Nunca es fácil defender la libertad.

El Salto del Salmon no fue escuchado, y se consumó  la entrega por los líderes republicanos del congreso con el paso de una “limpia ley de seguridad” que los demócratas exigieron y que incluía conceder estatus de residente legal, trabajo permisos y números de Seguridad Social a más de 4 millones de inmigrantes ilegales

Y conociendo a la administración que nos gobierna, el grito del Bibi, tampoco se escuchará.

¿Habrá alguien que pierda el miedo para defender la libertad?

 

 

AMENPER: Esopo vs Marx

Esopo vivió entre los años 570 y 526 A. C. es el fabulista más famoso que ha existido en la historia del mundo.

Las fábulas de Esopo pertenecen a lo que se denominó la época arcaica, éstas toman su fuente en los relatos populares y es considerada por algunos autores como una sátira con un mensaje moral.

La fábula, un tipo de relato breve protagonizado por objetos, plantas o  animales,  personificados, cuya finalidad didáctica se explicita en una moraleja final.

La fábula esópica tiene como tema predominante las relaciones e interacciones sociales entre los seres humanos, que son descritas desde una visión irónica del mundo y de las estructuras de poder

Lo que ha traído un sentido místico a las fábulas de Esopo es que en ellas se puede vislumbrar sucesos y situaciones sociales y políticas que sucedieron en épocas posteriores.

Hay que situarse en la época, en los años 500 antes del nacimiento de Cristo. En una fábula como “La Pelea del Cuerpo” la moraleja trae una crítica implícita y una premonición de la revolución comunista de Marx y la dictadura del proletariado contra la clase empresarial.(en este caso el estómago).

 

Fábula de Esopo.-La Pelea del Cuerpo  (La Revolución del Cuerpo)

Un día la mano izquierda le dijo confidencialmente a la mano derecha:

– Mira, nosotras trabajamos todo el día, mientras el estómago no hace nada.

Las piernas escucharon y dijeron:

– Tienes razón, nosotras también estamos cansadas caminando todo el día para comprarle alimentos al estómago y él sólo come sin hacer nada para conseguirlo.

La mano derecha gritó:

– Hagamos huelga, no le demos ya comida al estómago. Que él se las arregle si quiere.

Entonces habló el estómago:

– Amigos, vosotros estáis pensando mal. Nuestro trabajos y aptitudes son muy diferentes, pero la verdad es que dependemos muchísimo los unos de los otros.

Los brazos le gritaron:

– Cállate. Esos son los argumentos de un vago. Desde ahora no vas a comer nada, absolutamente nada.

Pasaron unos días.

– ¡Ay qué débil me siento! –se quejó un brazo al otro.

– Yo también, no sabes lo cansado que me siento…

Las piernas se quejaron:

– Nosotras apenas nos podemos mover.

Y todas las partes del cuerpo decían lo mismo. Todos se sentían desfallecer. Entonces el estómago habló:

– Yo también me siento débil. Si me alimentáis podré trabajar de nuevo y vosotros y yo nos sentiremos mejor.

– Bueno, vale la pena probarlo –dijo la mano derecha. 

Y las piernas con mucha dificultad llevaron el cuerpo a la mesa, las manos cooperaron y metieron la comida en la boca.

Al poco rato las manos exclamaron:

– Ya nos sentimos mejor.

Todos los miembros del cuerpo decían lo mismo.

Moraleja: Entonces comprendieron que todos los miembros del cuerpo o de una sociedad deben cooperar porque todos dependen uno del otro, y que el resultado del bienestar total no depende de la percepción de uno sobre el trabajo y las aptitudes de otro, y que si eliminan una parte de la sociedad por razones de envidia la sociedad entera sufrirá las consecuencias.

 

Sólo hay que mirar una sociedad como la nuestra en Cuba bajo la economía de mercado. Antes de que unos pensaran que eliminando a los “vagos” empresarios que no consideraban que cumplían con una función en la sociedad que no fuera como abusar del resto de los miembros, tendrían una sociedad más justa y próspera.

El resultado lo hemos visto a través de los años, pero no existe en cuba una “mano derecha” como en la fábula de Esopo que reflexione y restituya la economía de mercado para que todos los miembros como en la fábula puedan decir “ya nos sentimos mejor”

Lo irónico es que en el país que ha sido la vitrina de la eficiencia del sistema de libre mercado, vemos repetirse la fábula de Esopo, y ya este país tiene dolor de estómago

Fábula de Esopo.-La Pelea del Cuerpo  (La Revolución del Cuerpo)

Un día la mano izquierda le dijo confidencialmente a la mano derecha:

– Mira, nosotras trabajamos todo el día, mientras el estómago no hace nada.

Las piernas escucharon y dijeron:

– Tienes razón, nosotras también estamos cansadas caminando todo el día para comprarle alimentos al estómago y él sólo come sin hacer nada para conseguirlo.

La mano derecha gritó:

– Hagamos huelga, no le demos ya comida al estómago. Que él se las arregle si quiere.

Entonces habló el estómago:

– Amigos, vosotros estáis pensando mal. Nuestro trabajos y aptitudes son muy diferentes, pero la verdad es que dependemos muchísimo los unos de los otros.

Los brazos le gritaron:

– Cállate. Esos son los argumentos de un vago. Desde ahora no vas a comer nada, absolutamente nada.

Pasaron unos días.

– ¡Ay qué débil me siento! –se quejó un brazo al otro.

– Yo también, no sabes lo cansado que me siento…

Las piernas se quejaron:

– Nosotras apenas nos podemos mover.

Y todas las partes del cuerpo decían lo mismo. Todos se sentían desfallecer. Entonces el estómago habló:

– Yo también me siento débil. Si me alimentáis podré trabajar de nuevo y vosotros y yo nos sentiremos mejor.

– Bueno, vale la pena probarlo –dijo la mano derecha. 

Y las piernas con mucha dificultad llevaron el cuerpo a la mesa, las manos cooperaron y metieron la comida en la boca.

Al poco rato las manos exclamaron:

– Ya nos sentimos mejor.

Todos los miembros del cuerpo decían lo mismo.

Moraleja: Entonces comprendieron que todos los miembros del cuerpo o de una sociedad deben cooperar porque todos dependen uno del otro, y que el resultado del bienestar total no depende de la percepción de uno sobre el trabajo y las aptitudes de otro, y que si eliminan una parte de la sociedad por razones de envidia la sociedad entera sufrirá las consecuencias.

 

Sólo hay que mirar una sociedad como la nuestra en Cuba bajo la economía de mercado. Antes de que unos pensaran que eliminando a los “vagos” empresarios que no consideraban que cumplían con una función en la sociedad que no fuera como abusar del resto de los miembros, tendrían una sociedad más justa y próspera.

<clip_image004.jpg>El resultado lo hemos visto a través de los años, pero no existe en cuba una “mano derecha” como en la fábula de Esopo que reflexione y restituya la economía de mercado para que todos los miembros como en la fábula puedan decir “ya nos sentimos mejor”

Lo irónico es que en el país que ha sido la vitrina de la eficiencia del sistema de libre mercado, vemos repetirse la fábula de Esopo, y ya este país tiene dolor de estómago.

AMENPER: Uno de ustedes me envió la continuación y el final de la fábula de Esopo, pero no me puso la moraleja, asi que le paso el final de la fábula y la nueva moraleja.

Pero ahí no termina la historia…se dice que una vez que el estomago volvió a comer y las piernas y los brazos recobraron su energia, entonces el culo se puso celoso, quiso ser el verdadero jefe, y dejo de cagar y el cuerpo se intoxicó y de nuevo perdió la fuerza…y entonces todos se rindieron a la autoridad y los mandatos del culo, que se convirtió en el jefe supremo…

Moraleja: Cuando dejas que el culo se convierta en el presidente o el máximo líder, todo se llena de mierda

Esopo vs Marx

<clip_image002.jpg>Esopo vivió entre los años 570 y 526 A. C. es el fabulista más famoso que ha existido en la historia del mundo.

Las fábulas de Esopo pertenecen a lo que se denominó la época arcaica, éstas toman su fuente en los relatos populares y es considerada por algunos autores como una sátira con un mensaje moral.

La fábula, un tipo de relato breve protagonizado por objetos, plantas o  animales,  personificados, cuya finalidad didáctica se explicita en una moraleja final.

La fábula esópica tiene como tema predominante las relaciones e interacciones sociales entre los seres humanos, que son descritas desde una visión irónica del mundo y de las estructuras de poder

Lo que ha traído un sentido místico a las fábulas de Esopo es que en ellas se puede vislumbrar sucesos y situaciones sociales y políticas que sucedieron en épocas posteriores.

Hay que situarse en la época, en los años 500 antes del nacimiento de Cristo. En una fábula como “La Pelea del Cuerpo” la moraleja trae una crítica implícita y una premonición de la revolución comunista de Marx y la dictadura del proletariado contra la clase empresarial.(en este caso el estómago). 

 

 

 

Rush Limbaugh: Netanyahu Everything Obama Is Not

By Greg Richter

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh contrasted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress Tuesday to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union addresses, and concluded that Netanyahu came out on top.

“Benjamin Netanyahu today was everything Barack Obama is not. Everything,”Limbaugh said as he opened his program  moments after Netanyahu’s speech concluded. 

He noted that Netanyahu even pointed to a person in the gallery, as presidents have done for years. In Netanyahu’s case, it was Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.

Netanyahu made his remarks in the House Chamber before a joint session of Congress, just as presidents do.

The speech drew controversy after Republican House Speaker John Boehner invited him to talk about Iran’s nuclear ambitions without consulting Democratic leadership or the White House.

About 50 Democrats skipped the speech in protest, and Obama didn’t meet with the prime minister, saying he didn’t want to appear to be influencing Israeli elections in two weeks.

Limbaugh called Netanyahu’s speech “historically important” and filled with “moral, ethical and legal clarity.”

“Nothing like that combination to focus the mind,” Limbaugh said. “And this speech was all about rallying and saving Western civilization, which is what is under assault.”

Netanyahu said he believes the current deal being negotiated by the P5+1 group, led by the United States, actually increases rather than decreases the chance of a nuclear-armed Iran.

Netanyahu has long maintained a nuclear Iran could wipe Israel off the map and attack the United States and Europe as well.

“Even though Obama only has two more years in office, he still believes that the power of his personality and his community organizer skills or whatever, that he can persuade Iran after they get the nuke not to use it,” Limbaugh said. “The Israeli approach is prevention. Do not let them get the bomb. Don’t take the risk.” Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Rush-Limbaugh-Benjamin-Netanyahu-Barack-Obama-Iran/2015/03/03/id/628039/#ixzz3TQRZYMAZ 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

 

Netanyahu: Iran A Threat to Israel, the World

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday against accepting a nuclear deal with Iran that would be a “countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare” by a country that “will always be an enemy of America”.

“If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons – it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons, lots of them,” the Israeli leader said in a 39-minute speech to the U.S. Congress that offered a point-by-point critique of Obama’s Iran diplomacy.

In an appearance that strained U.S.-Israeli relations and was boycotted by dozens of Obama’s fellow Democrats, Netanyahu said Iran’s leadership was “as radical as ever,” could not be trusted and the deal being worked out with world powers would not block Iran’s way to a bomb “but paves its way to a bomb.”

“This deal won’t be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control … a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare,” Netanyahu told lawmakers and visitors in the House of Representatives. His speech drew 26 standing ovations.

Netanyahu both inveighed against the emerging terms of a deal and suggested broadening the scope of negotiations to require a change to Iran’s regional posture – an idea swiftly rejected by the Obama administration as de facto “regime change” in Tehran. But Netanyahu also avoided any call for new U.S. sanctions now or for a total rollback of Iranian nuclear technologies – a signal that Israel might be able to resign itself to less.

Netanyahu’s speech culminated a diplomatic storm triggered by his acceptance in January of a Republican invitation that bypassed the White House and Obama’s fellow Democrats, many of whom considered it an affront to the president.

Obama refused to meet Netanyahu, saying that doing so just ahead of Israel’s March 17 general election would be seen as interference. Aides to Obama said he would not be watching the speech, broadcast live on U.S. television.

Underscoring the partisan divide over Netanyahu’s address, House of Representatives Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said afterwards that as a friend of Israel, she was near tears during his speech, calling it “an insult to the intelligence of the United States.” She said she was “saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”

Netanyahu entered the chamber to a cacophony of cheers and applause, shaking hands with dozens of lawmakers, including House Speaker John Boehner, before taking a podium and telling lawmakers he was deeply humbled.

At the start of the speech, he sought to defuse the intense politicization of his appearance, which has hardened divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the White House’s approach to stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

He said he was grateful to Obama for his public and private support of Israel, including U.S. military assistance and contributions to Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system.

“I regret that some see my appearance here as political,” he said. “I know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit on, you stand with Israel.”

Although given the cold shoulder by the U.S. administration, Netanyahu on Monday offered an olive branch, saying he meant no disrespect to Obama by accepting an invitation to speak to U.S. lawmakers that was orchestrated by the president’s rival Republicans.

On Tuesday, Netanyahu appeared to offer another possible avenue for an Iran deal but put very strict conditions on it.

Having previously demanded a total elimination of Iranian nuclear projects with bomb-making potential, he said the United States should not ease its restrictions until Iran improves its overall conduct, a comment that could stiffen support among Republicans to maintain U.S. sanctions on Iran or seek to escalate them.

But the Israeli leader did not specifically call for new penalties, something Obama has said would undermine ongoing talks and would prompt a veto if passed by Congress.

“If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed they should at the very least be prepared to insist that Iran changes its behavior before the deal expires,” Netanyahu said. The terms under consideration a suspension of restrictions on Iran’s sensitive nuclear activities in as little as 10 years.

He added that while Israel and similarly minded Arab states might not like such a deal, “we could live with it”.

He added that the drop in oil prices put the United States and other countries in a stronger position to negotiate with Iran.

“Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse of the price of oil.”

As many as 60 of the 232 members of Congress from Obama’s Democratic Party sat out the address to protest what they see as a politicization of Israeli security, an issue on which Congress is usually united.

The absence of so many lawmakers could raise political heat on Netanyahu at home. Many Israelis are wary of estrangement from a U.S. ally that provides their country with wide-ranging military and diplomatic support.

On Monday, Obama appeared to wave off any prospect that the bedrock U.S. alliance with Israel might be ruined by the rancor.

Netanyahu, a right-wing politician who has played up his security credentials, had denied his speech would have any design other than national survival.

He introduced Nobel peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, 86, to prolonged applause and said: “Elie, your life and work inspires and gives meaning to the words ‘Never Again.’ I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.” Wiesel sat in the gallery next to Netanyahu’s wife Sara.

Netanyahu wants the Iranians stripped of nuclear projects that might be used to get a bomb – something Tehran insists it does not want. Washington deems the Israeli demand unrealistic.

Netanyahu, who has hinted at the prospect of unilateral strikes as a last resort on Iranian nuclear sites, told lawmakers Israel would stand alone if needed but he made no threat of military action.

Speaking just before Netanyahu’s address, Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, in Switzerland for talks with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, said the Israel leader was “trying to create tension” in the negotiations, which face an end-of-March deadline to reach a framework accord.

Under a 2013 interim deal, the United States and five other powers agreed in principle to let Iran maintain limited uranium enrichment technologies. U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice argued on Monday that this commitment could not be undone.

A deal with Iran is far from guaranteed, given U.S. assessments that more than a decade of carrot-and-stick diplomacy with Iran might again fail to clinch a final accord.

The United States and some of its allies, notably Israel, suspect Iran of using its civil nuclear program as a cover to develop a nuclear weapons capability. Iran denies this, saying it is for peaceful purposes such as generating electricity.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Netanyahu-Congress-Israel-Iran/2015/03/03/id/627960/#ixzz3TQSjfU9r
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 

 

Benghazi Committee Uncovers Shocking Hillary Clinton E-Mail Scandal

How did she get away with it all those years? Unbelievable.

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.

“It is very difficult to conceive of a scenario — short of nuclear winter — where an agency would be justified in allowing its cabinet-level head officer to solely use a private email communications channel for the conduct of government business,” said Jason R. Baron, a lawyer at Drinker Biddle & Reath who is a former director of litigation at the National Archives and Records Administration.

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Nick Merrill, defended her use of the personal email account and said she has been complying with the “letter and spirit of the rules.”

Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials.

Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business. But her exclusive use of her private email, for all of her work, appears unusual, Mr. Baron said. The use of private email accounts is supposed to be limited to emergencies, experts said, such as when an agency’s computer server is not working.

“I can recall no instance in my time at the National Archives when a high-ranking official at an executive branch agency solely used a personal email account for the transaction of government business,” said Mr. Baron, who worked at the agency from 2000 to 2013.

Regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration at the time required that any emails sent or received from personal accounts be preserved as part of the agency’s records.

But Mrs. Clinton and her aides failed to do so.

How many emails were in Mrs. Clinton’s account is not clear, and neither is the process her advisers used to determine which ones related to her work at the State Department before turning them over.

“It’s a shame it didn’t take place automatically when she was secretary of state as it should have,” said Thomas S. Blanton, the director of the National Security Archive, a group based at George Washington University that advocates government transparency. “Someone in the State Department deserves credit for taking the initiative to ask for the records back. Most of the time it takes the threat of litigation and embarrassment.”

Mr. Blanton said high-level officials should operate as President Obama does, emailing from a secure government account, with every record preserved for historical purposes.

“Personal emails are not secure,” he said. “Senior officials should not be using them.”

 

 

Netanyahu’s ‘Fateful Crossroads’ Speech Destroys Obama’s ‘Very Bad Deal’ With Iran

A speech for the ages warning of a potential “nuclear nightmare…”

NORVELL ROSE  

For close to forty minutes in an electrifying appearance before Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu eloquently and expertly laid waste to the Obama administration’s developing nuclear agreement with Iran.

Forcefully declaring that the agreement President Obama is pursuing with Iran’s “dark and brutal dictatorship of religious zealots” is not just a bad deal, but “a very bad deal,” Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress: “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

Opening his controversial address with a few minutes of thanks to President Obama for his past help for and support of Israel, Netanyahu then proceeded to eviscerate the administration’s deal with Iran. He methodically made his case that Obama is making a dangerous deal with a regime that “will always be the enemy of America” as well as of Israel.

Piling point upon point and example upon example, the Israeli leader argued that the deal now in the works will have the opposite effect of what President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry claim:

“The deal will not prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons; it will all but guarantee it gets nuclear weapons — lots of them.”

Obama’s proposed arrangement with an Iranian regime that “poses a grave threat to the peace of the entire world,” said Netanyahu, relies on the integrity of a nation that cannot be trusted. Already, he observed, nuclear inspectors have been thwarted and deceived by Iranian officials.

It’s a faulty deal, said the prime minister, that would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure available for a quick breakout to build numerous weapons capable of plunging the planet into a prolonged “nuclear nightmare.”

Dozens of times during Netanyahu’s third address to Congress, lawmakers interrupted the speech with applause — occasionally thunderous, sustained applause. Even Democrats — those who had not boycotted the appearance — often showed their approval of what the Israeli leader had to say.

Democrats applauded, for instance, when Netanyahu told the gathering there are three specific actions that Iran must take if it wants “to be treated like a normal country” in the community of nations:

– stop their aggression in the Middle East,
– stop their support of terrorism, and
– stop threatening to annihilate Israel.

However, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and their Democrat colleagues were not so enthusiastic when Netanyahu proclaimed that Obama’s negotiations with Iran are leading to “a bad deal, a very deal deal…we’re better off without it.”

The prime minister warned the lawmakers and others attending the speech under the Capitol dome that allowing Iran a path to the bomb would “spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet” as other countries in the Middle East would surely launch their own weapons development programs.

In a firm and formidable tone, Netanyahu assured the gathering Israel would not let that happen. “The days when the Jewish people remain passive in the face of genocidal enemies — those days are over.”

As he wrapped up the address which he noted came at a time when “history has placed us at a fateful crossroads,” Netanyahu acknowledged that the process of achieving a better deal with Iran would be difficult but must be undertaken. He urged world leaders not to repeat mistakes of the past that have led to such atrocities as the Holocaust.

After concluding his historic speech, which no high-ranking member of the Obama administration attended, Benjamin Netanyahu left the House chamber the same way he had entered — to several minutes of loud and appreciative applause.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/netanyahus-fateful-crossroads-speech-destroys-obamas-bad-deal-iran/#4r3KL4cXL7rW09OR.99

 

 

DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION

Israelis And Iranians Keenly Watch Bibi In DC

IVAN  PLIS

While most members of Congress applauded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address on Tuesday, his words met very different reactions in the two other countries paying close attention: Israel and Iran.

In the speech, Netanyahu warned that “a much better deal” was crucial to preventing Iranian access to a nuclear bomb, and that the current “bad deal” on the table was worse than no deal at all.

Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Marzieh Afkham,went so far as to call it “boring,” though also referring to Israel as a “child-slaughtering regime” for good measure. And an Iranian news report on the speech countered Netanyahu’s claims that the current American terms for the deal would pave the way to a nuclear weapons, by rejecting the “unfounded accusation that Tehran is pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear program.”

In Israel, where Netanyahu faces electoral pressure in two short weeks, his potential rivals were all quick to issue criticism. Labor party leader Isaac Herzogdismissed the potential impact of the speech, saying that “after the applause, Netanyahu was left alone” and that “Israel was left isolated.” Centrist candidate Yair Lapid warned on Monday night that the speech would “cause damage to the security interests of the state of Israel” and alienate American policymakers from seeking Israeli input on the final terms of a deal.

Lapid and Tzipi Livni, Herzog’s high-profile campaign partner, were both ministers in Netanyahu’s coalition government before they were dramatically fired in December, triggering the election season. (RELATED: Will Netanyahu Remain Israel’s Prime Minister?)

The Cast of Spaceballs – Where Are They Now?Rant Movies

The 16 Cancer Causing Foods You Shouldn’t EatNaturalon

How to Prepare for Obama’s October Money MandateStansberry Research

by Taboola

Sponsored Links

With Netanyahu neck-and-neck against his rivals in the polls, Israeli voters mostly seemed glad to see their prime minister addressing the United States in English and receiving a standing ovation in return. As the Brookings Institute’s Natan Sachs pointed out on Tuesday, Netanyahu benefits from moving the political discussion toward national security and away from his opponents’ mainstays of economic well-being.

But the Israelis with perhaps the most personally at stake, Jews with family ties to Iran, were nonplussed. According to BuzzFeed News, a Persian-Israeli restaurant owner sneered that Netanyahu is “more popular in D.C. than he is in Jerusalem these day,” she said. “It’s been 10 years that he tells us he will stop Iran and he’s still saying it.”

 

 

 

One in four Americans want their state to secede from the U.S., but why?

By Jim Gaines

Click on the image to explore the the complete poll results.

For the past few weeks, as Scotland debated the wisdom of independence, Reuters has been asking Americans how they would feel about declaring independence today, not from the United Kingdom, but from the mother country they left England to create. The exact wording of the question was, “Do you support or oppose the idea of your state peacefully withdrawing from the United States of America and the federal government?”

 

It was hard to imagine many people would support secession. Forget the fact that the cautionary lesson of the Civil War is top of mind for many people as we commemorate its 150th anniversary; just in terms of dollars and cents, who in their right minds would give up all the money they’ve already paid into the Social Security and Medicare systems? Besides, most states get more back from the federal government than they put in.

Then the results came in. You can see them for yourself here, and you can filter them any way you want—by age, region, income, party affiliation, etc. Any way you slice it, the data are startlingly clear: Almost a quarter (23.9 percent) of those surveyed said they were strongly or provisionally inclined to leave the United States, and take their states with them. Given the polling sample — about 9,000 people so far—the online survey’s credibility interval (which is digital for “margin of error”) was only 1.2 percentage points, so there is no question that that is what they said.

Secession got more support from Republicans than Democrats, more from right- than left-leaning independents, more from younger than older people, more from lower- than higher-income brackets, more from high school than college grads. But there was a surprising amount of support in every group and region, especially the Rocky Mountain states, the Southwest and the old Confederacy, but also in places like Illinois and Kansas. And of the people who said they identified with the Tea Party, supporters of secession were actually in the majority, with 53 percent.

The question is, what do results like this mean for the country?

First, it should be acknowledged that intramural conflict has been in character for Americans since the earliest settlements, when Puritan New England faced off against Royalist Virginia in the English Civil War. More than a century later, the Revolutionary War was barely won when the states, never quite friendly, were at each other’s throats, and the infant nation came close to being strangled in its crib.

It was in part to avoid the danger that the colonies would break into competing regional confederacies that the founders plotted to hold the Constitutional Convention of 1787. But even when the new Constitution made secession illegal, the impulse to break up stayed strong. Serious state and regional threats of secession flared up in 1799, 1814 and 1828. Fifteen years before 11 Southern states did secede in 1860, sparking the Civil War, William Lloyd Garrison called for the North to secede under the banner of “No Union With Slaveholders.”

All told, secessionist feints and follies have produced notional movements for more than a hundred new states and nations in North America, from Absaroka to Yazoo. A book about such causes, Lost States, manages to be quite amusing.

Followup phone calls with a small, random sample of pro-secession respondents to the Reuters poll, however, suggest that while their wish to leave the union may not be quite what it appears, it is not amusing at all.

Those we spoke to seemed to have answered as they did as a form of protest that was neither red nor blue but a polychromatic riot — against a recovery that has yet to produce jobs, against jobs that don’t pay, against mistreatment of veterans, against war, against deficits, against hyper-partisanship, against political corruption, against illegal immigration, against the assault on marriage, against the assault on same-sex marriage, against government in the bedroom, against government in general — the president, Congress, the courts and both political parties.

By the evidence of the poll data as well as these anecdotal conversations, the sense of aggrievement is comprehensive, bipartisan, somewhat incoherent, but deeply felt.

This should be more than disconcerting; it’s a situation that could get dangerous. As the Princeton political scientist Mark Beissinger has shown, separatist movements can take hold around contempt for incumbents and the status quo even when protesters have no ideology in common.

The United States hardly seems to be on the verge of fracture, and the small secession movements in a handful of American states today represent a tiny percentage of those polled by Reuters. But any country where 60 million people declare themselves to be sincerely aggrieved — especially one that is fractious by nature — is a country inviting either the sophistry of a demagogue or a serious movement for reform.

I welcome your comments, reactions, amplifications, relevant links and ideas for future columns. You can reach me at jimgaines.reuters@gmail.com

http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

 

 

 

“President Obama, you don’t love America…”

Elena Enriquez

WATCH: This Young YouTube Star Who Spoke Up For Rudy Just Stood Up Tall For Free Speech
image: 
http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/8414e18d1452977cda856cfc5abe66ea?s=48&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournalism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fpresso-child%2Fimages%2Fgravatar.png%3Fs%3D48&r=PG
Norvell Rose
March 2, 2015 It’s been viewed more that 1.4 million times the video by a 12-year-old Georgia boy who posted an incredibly eloquent defense of Rudy Giuliani after the former mayor was slammed for saying President Obama doesn’t love America.
Western Journalism told you about 6th grader CJ Pearson and his remarkable rant that’s gone viral. Now, it appears that Facebook has blocked the young conservative from posting on his own public figure page after so much attention was focused on the hugely popular video in which Pearson was highly critical of Obama.
In an appearance on Fox and Friends Weekend, CJ proved that his poised presentation on the video he posted on February 21st was no fluke. He once again vigorously defended Rudy Giuliani’s right to express his opinion and sharply criticized those who would try to stifle free speech in America.
Advertisement-content continues below
“I think the point is this: When a person decides to speak up, their voice shouldn’t be hindered because of someone disagreeing.”
You can watch CJ Pearson’s impressive appearance on the Fox News show by clicking on the video above.

Read more at 
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-this-young-youtube-star-who-spoke-up-for-rudy-just-stood-up-tall-for-free-speech/#356CKDgPEd35C5Cl.99

  • Socialist Party of America Releases The Names of 70 Democrat Members Of Congress Who Are Members Of Their Caucus

Enrique Artalejo <artalejoenrique@gmail.com>

A Time For Choosing

 

 Gallup: American’s Confidence in Newspapers, TV News Hits Rock Bottom

Ronald Reagan: Those Voices Don’t Speak For Us 

BY GARY P JACKSON |

 A socialist is someone who has read Lenin and Marx. An anti-socialist is someone who understands Lenin and Marx.

~ Ronald Reagan

By Gary P Jackson

This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. The radical Marxist-progressives (communists) took control of the democrat party some time ago. They’ve only become more emboldened with the election of Barack Obama, who was raised as a communist from birth.

With their new found leader, Barack Obama, the Socialist Party of America felt secure enough to announce the names of 70 democrats in Congress that belong to their caucus. This was recently posted on Scribd.com:

American Socialist Voter–

Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also members of the DSA?

A: Seventy

Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary Committee?

A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen, Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23 Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?

A: See the listing below

Co-Chairs

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)

Vice Chairs

Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)

Senate Members

Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)

House Members

Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)

Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)

Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)

Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)

Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)

Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)

Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)

Hon. André Carson (IN-07)

Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)

Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)

Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)

Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)

Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)

Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)

Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)

Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)

Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)

Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)

Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)

Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)

Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)

Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)

Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)

Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)

Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)

Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)

Hon. John Hall (NY-19)

Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)

Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)

Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)

Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)

Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)

Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)

Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)

Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)

Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)

Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)

Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)

Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)

Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)

Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)

Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)

Hon. George Miller (CA-07)

Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)

Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)

Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)

Hon. John Olver (MA-01)

Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)

Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)

Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)

Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)

Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)

Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)

Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)

Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)

Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)

Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)

Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)

Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)

Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)

Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)

Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)

Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)

Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)

Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)

Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)

En mi opinión”

 “FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

Blooger:  https://www.blogger.com/home

https://enmiopinionlrgm.wordpress.com/

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