HPIM0049

No 886 “En mi opinion” Marzo 8, 2015

No 886 “En mi opinión”  Marzo 8, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

If Not Now… When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything?

Jim DeMint @JimDeMint /

Jim DeMint@JimDeMint

Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint rose from modest South Carolina roots and a career in marketing to build and lead a resurgent conservative movement.

It is never the right time to do the right thing in Washington, D.C.

The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”

Whether the issue was balancing the budget, school choice, patient-driven healthcare, eliminating earmarks, raising the debt limit, ending big, crony handouts like the Export-Import Bank or any stand against the continued growth, favoritism and intrusion of big government, conservatives were always told to wait. Wait until conservatives have the majority. Wait until we have the White House. Wait until we are reelected.

We’re seeing that “wait” attitude in practice today as the House votes on a “clean” Department of Homeland Security funding bill. Despite the fact that Republicans have majorities in both the House and the Senate that were elected on a pledge to fight against President Obama’s executive amnesty, and despite forcing through a big spending bill at the end of 2014 with the promise they would fight later on Homeland Security appropriations, they are now punting the issue entirely.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

The phrase I heard most often from Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right time to have this fight.”

On the other side of the aisle, I noticed a much different attitude, especially on big, liberal goals like government-run healthcare. Despite being faced with strong public opposition and the potential end to their political careers, the Democrats used false promises and every imaginable procedural trick to pass the government takeover of a sixth of America’s economy, along with one of the largest tax increases in our history.

Every Democrat in the House and Senate voted for Obamacare. And none of them even knew what was in it. Many have since lost their bids for reelection, but for liberals, the ends justify the means, and they are willing to accept huge political losses to advance their ideology.

Yet on the other side of the aisle—with the party that supposedly stands for individual freedom, limited government, free markets, American values and a strong defense—tomorrow never comes. Consider two major, pivotal issues in the future course of American history: Obamacare and executive amnesty.

The Republican leadership in Congress, K Street, Wall Street and all of their buddies in the media continue to rail that the conservative stand to defund Obamacare in 2013 hurt the party. But Republicans had one of their best elections in history in 2014, and one of the deciding issues in the election was repealing Obamacare.

The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare. And the leadership only pretended because of the pressure from conservatives who were demanding they follow through on their campaign promises.

However, there were times when I saw the Washington establishment will fight tooth and nail. They fight in bipartisan harmony against conservatives who push to eliminate earmarks.

I have seen the Washington establishment of Republicans and Democrats fight together for expensive bailouts, trillions in new debt, unfair and unaffordable amnesty, risky United Nations treaties, a misguided arms reduction treaty with Russia, a costly Internet sales tax, a new government travel promotion agency and more Washington control of education with No Child Left Behind.

I now hear some Republicans accepting and trying to “improve” Obamacare. And I see Republicans demanding that Congress fund the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty and “move on to other things.”

What “other things” could possibly be more important than blocking the president of the United States from shredding our Constitution?

Some are saying we should leave it to the courts to decide, but Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and members all take oaths to defend the Constitution. If members believe these actions are unconstitutional, how can they in good conscience fund them?

Once the president succeeds in giving work permits, legal status, American jobs and public benefits to 5 million illegal residents, the next obvious steps will be to legalize and give voting rights to the more than 10 million illegal residents.

The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare.

Twenty-six states have taken a stand against the president’s action, and one federal judge has temporarily stopped the processing of work permits. But Obama’s Justice Department has demanded an expedited appeals hearing.

Do Republicans not know that funding the president’s unlawful actions now will allow the president to argue that Congress has confirmed his actions? Federal courts don’t often rule against the concerted action of the two other branches of government.

The absurdity of this situation is that fighting the president’s executive amnesty through Department of Homeland Security appropriations was the strategy created by Republican leaders.  Now that the time to fight has arrived, the generals are running from the battlefield and blaming the infantry they told to lead the charge.

If the Republican majority in both houses of Congress is not willing to take a stand and fight against the government takeover of America’s healthcare system or the president’s arrogant usurpation of the constitutional powers of Congress, then what will they fight for? Who will stand with freedom-minded Americans who sent this majority to Washington to fight for them? I hope my former colleagues will ask themselves: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”

“EMO” What the hell happen with the GOP. Are you gays, stupid, traitor or covard? If this is not the the opportunity to do what you have to act.  Now is the time LRGM

Hey GOP you have to wake up DAM!

Look this… please does the second step.

Egypt To Shut Down 27,000 Mosques In Effort To Curb Radicalization

A court recently upheld the administration’s position.

  1. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

According to recent reports, an Egyptian court sided with President Abdel el-Sisi’s administration in its belief that mosques across the nation must be closely monitored – or closed completely – in order to put a stop to the extremist messages that have increased participation in Islamic terrorism.

About 27,000 mosques will be shuttered in coordination with the 2013 order by the Ministry of Religious Endowments recently upheld by the administrative court. The move applies specifically to small gatherings, with the ministry citing places of worship that occupy less than 861 square feet as its primary target. These will include not only proper mosques, but informal gathering places, as well.

Larger mosques, ministry leaders reason, will not have the resources to take in the hundreds of thousands of Muslims left without a place to worship following the implementation of this ruling.

Other mosques throughout the country must secure permits in order to keep their doors open and any Muslim leader proven to deliver political messages will be prohibited from preaching in Egypt.

A number of new permits – approximately 400 – have since been distributed to imams, though they will remain under close scrutiny as Egypt attempts to address the violence often nurtured by radicalized leaders. These imams will be subject to oversight by a Ministry of Religious Endowments committee and will be forced to take an oath denouncing any such extremist messages.

Should the ministry find a leader in violation of this agreement, its agents are authorized to revoke his or her permit and potentially pursue legal action.

h/t: Mad World News

Is Egypt’s effort to shut down potentially dangerous mosques warranted? Sound off in the comments section below.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/egypt-shut-27000-mosques-effort-curb-radicalization/#WLYc2mhIJqOxBdpl.99

 

 

AMENPER: SOLUCIONANDO EL PROBLEMA DEL ISLAM EXTREMISTA

Uno de los países que no ha sido afectada por el terrorismo musulmán es la República Popular de China.

Así que deberíamos echar un vistazo a cómo el gobierno de China ha manejado el peligro del terror del Islam extremista.

Según las estadísticas demográficas de 1936, el Kuomintang entonces República de China tenía un estimado 48,104,240 musulmanes. Población antes de la revolución comunista-

Bajo el pretexto de la unificación de la educación nacional, se cerraron las escuelas islámicas y sus estudiantes transfirieron a otras escuelas que impartían sólo el marxismo y el maoísmo. Otras medidas  incluyeron el cierre de más de 29.000 mezquitas, la tortura generalizada de los imanes y las ejecuciones de más de 360.000 musulmanes. Aparte de la aniquilación física, los musulmanes han sido sometidos a un constante ataque contra su identidad islámica especialmente durante la llamada Revolución Cultural (1966-76). Por ejemplo, carteles que aparecieron en Pekín (más adelante a llamarse Beijing) en 1966, llamando abiertamente por la abolición de las prácticas islámicas. Los musulmanes también se les prohibieron aprender su idioma escrito que incorporan la escritura árabe y que fue influenciado por el árabe, turco y persa. Este cambio fue crítico porque había distanciado de los musulmanes la lengua árabe, la lengua del Corán y sus aspiraciones islámicas y las enseñanzas del Corán. Durante esta época se cerraron muchas mezquitas y obras pías propiedades de musulmanes fueron confiscadas.

Desde que se declaró la libertad religiosa en 1978There son una 400 organizaciónes islámicas se han abierto en la República Popular de China. A los musulmanes se les permite realizar el Hayy y el número del peregrinaje de China es de unos 3000 por año.  Pero como por generaciones no habían leído el Corán ni practicado la religión los musulmanes de hoy en día no son tan radicales en sus creencias.

En la actualidad, según las estadísticas oficiales hay 28 millones de musulmanes en China

Así que podemos concluir que el total de la población musulmana ha aumentado mínimo y la mayoría de los musulmanes chinos, por su educación comunista también son miembros del partido que requieren lealtad en MAO no en MAO-MA

Bueno, esto no es una opinión de cómo manejar el problema de los musulmanes extremistas, sólo estoy dando una información de lo que pasó en China.  Al que le venga el sayo que se lo ponga.

 

 

HILLARY THE HAG: Clinton Aides Were Running Interference During Benghazi Attack [VIDEO]

Why is this woman not in jail?

Emails obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012 Benghazi terror attack.

The aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton’s side for decades.

The emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened, Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was missing and later found dead.

Also littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.

The effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated that night.

“Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

Judicial Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. “What’s notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack.”

 

 

AMENPER:
Violencia y Muerte en Obama Express

 

St. Petersburg, Florida- La policía ha dicho que un guardia de seguridad disparó y mató a un hombre en una tienda llamada por uno de esos accidentes fortuitos del destino “Obama Express”.  O quizás por un nivel de cercanía semántica, también se hubiera podido llamar Eric Holder Express.

La víctima identificada como Jhai-quel Rai- de 23 años y por coincidencia de tez negra.

Él y otro hombre también de tez negra entraron en el mercado de víveres Obama Express, en el 1400 18th Ave S de St. Petersburg, Florida, aproximadamente a las 3:30 P.M. y al parecer estaban discutiendo, detectives de la policía, dijeron. Durante la disputa, la víctima de tez negra produjo una pistola y la comenzó a agitar, dijo la policía.

Dos guardias de seguridad uniformados de tez blanca, armados, quiénes habían estado patrullando el exterior de la tienda entraron y se enfrentaron al pobre joven de tez negra y lo asesinaron disparando sus armas antes que el joven de tez negra tuviera la oportunidad de matarlos. El joven de tez Negra y nombre musulmán murió en el acto.

No hay cargos que se hayan se anticipados en este momento, dijo la policía. La investigación  en curso está tratando de determinar si fue asesinado por su tez negra o por su persuasión islámica.

Entretanto, en MugshotSearch.org aparece que el joven de tez negra tiene una larga lista de registros de arrestos- Que posiblemente se determinará que fueron por perfil racista.

¿Cómo la policía debe manejar esta situación basada en la investigación del Departamento de justicia de la policía de Ferguson?

Probablemente arrestando a los oficiales de seguridad y presentándolos al Departamento de justicia para la investigación de un crimen de odio doble por ser la víctima de tez negra y musulmán. No hay duda sobre esto.

Casi siete meses después de que un oficial de policía blanco disparó y mató a un negro 18 años de edad en Ferguson, Mo., el oficial fue absuelto en un Tribunal Penal, los tribunales civiles e investigación del FBI.  Se demostró por evidencia abrumante, que era completamente inocente. Sólo actuó en defensa propia mientras que arrestaba a un criminal.

Pero el Departamento de justicia  publicó esta semana los resultados de una investigación sobre el departamento de la policía de Ferguson. El informe fue “punzante”, como el Procurador General Eric H. Holder Jr. lo describió el miércoles, fue cargado con ejemplos de prejuicio racial, descripciones de prácticas discriminatorias y denuncias de abuso policial por testigos de la comunidad negra.

Sin embargo, en medio de la mirada metódica a las prácticas de policías y funcionarios judiciales de Ferguson, también llega una pregunta lógica: ¿qué viene después?

La policía de Ferguson está obligada a renovar completamente cómo se maneja las detenciones, búsquedas y arrestos de ciudadanos de tez negra.

Los ciudadanos de tez negra representan el 94 por ciento de incumplimiento todos los cargos en la ciudad, y el 92 por ciento de los cargos de arrestos con resistencia, el 92 por ciento de molestias sexuales, y 89 por ciento de incumplimiento de condenas.

¿Pero qué prueba eso?

¿Que los negros cometen más crímenes que los blancos? Podríamos haber ahorrado a los contribuyentes el dinero de los gastos de la investigación, yo podría haberle dicho el resultado sin tanto gasto. Cómo diría nuestra futura comandante en jefe, Hillary, ¿Qué importancia tiene esto?

Pero la lógica de  Eric Holder es que esto prueba flagrante discriminación, y los policías tienen que ser condenados y después juzgados.

Mientras tanto, tres empleados del ayuntamiento de Ferguson que fueron implicados en e-mails racistas ya fueron despedidos de sus empleos, dijo el alcalde. Uno fue identificado como un secretario judicial de la ciudad. Dos agentes de la policía han renunciado ya a raíz del problema de los E Mails.(no el de Hillary pero el de los empleados del ayuntamiento).

¿Cuál era el contenido de los correos electrónicos? , estoy seguro que conozco el contenido, que era  comentar sobre el número de crímenes cometidos por la comunidad negra.

Igual que estoy seguro que también conozco el contenido de los E Mails de Hillary. 

Así que perdieron su trabajo por decir la verdad.    (Menos mal que yo no trabajo para el gobierno)

¿No sería más racional si gastamos el dinero de los contribuyentes en educar a la comunidad negra sobre cumpliendo con la ley y evitar delitos violentos?

 

Revealed: Company That Hosted Hillary Clinton’s Email Domain Hacked In 2010

The former first lady has received increased scrutiny in recent days.

JAMES BEATTIE  MARCH 6, 2015

The “consumer grade” company that hosted Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email domain was hacked in 2010. Furthermore, its data was rerouted to Ukraine, according to a report.

The Blaze reported Friday that Clintonemail.com, the domain used by Clinton during her tenure at the State Department, was registered with Network Solutions in 2009.

The former first lady has received increased scrutiny in recent days after it was revealed she did not use a government email, but rather private addresses via a personal server in Chappaqua, New York, during her time at Foggy Bottom.

Clinton’s problems have been compounded by the fact that Network Solutions was hacked in 2010, when Clinton was using its services. “We have received reports that Network Solutions customers are seeing malicious code added to their websites, and we are really sorry for this experience,” a company spokesperson said at the time.

Canadian-based domain registration expert Bill Sweetman told The Blaze it was a grave mistake for Clinton to conduct her business in this matter. “If you’re someone that is concerned about security of your data, you don’t go and register your domain name with a consumer-oriented registrar like Network Solutions or GoDaddy,” Sweetman said.

“You would work either with a corporate domain registrar like MarkMonitor or CVSC, or you would talk to your employer – in this case the government – about their internal solutions that would protect the domain name and would protect the data associated with it,” he added.

Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy R-S.C., has sharply criticized Clinton for not having a government email account and not preserving documents

SEND AN EMAIL TO TREY GOWDY

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

Clinton tweeted Wednesday she wants her emails to be revealed. The Benghazi Committee replied in a press release Thursday that was not satisfactory:

The former Secretary’s tweet does not answer questions about why this was not done when she left office, the integrity of the emails while she controlled them, the scheme to conceal them, or the failure to provide them in logical course.

The Chairman has said the former secretary is welcome to and should release all of her emails, but legitimate investigations do not consider partial records. And that is the point of the subpoena issued yesterday by the Benghazi Committee.
Read more at
http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-company-hosted-hillary-clintons-email-domain-hacked-2010/#DwYEuwSxymbkPujq.99

 

 

 

Saudis Honor Televangelist Who Called US ‘Terrorist’

Purported U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has bestowed one of its highest honors on a Muslim televangelist who expressed support for Osama bin Laden, called the United States the “biggest terrorist,” and claimed the 9/11 attacks were ordered by President George W. Bush.

Dr. Zakir Naik appeared at a ceremony at a luxury hotel in Saudi Arabia where the nation’s new monarch, King Salman, gave him the King Faisal International Prize for service to Islam. The televangelist from India also received a gold medal and a cash award of nearly $200,000.

The award “highlighted the conflicted position of Saudi Arabia as an American ally that continues to back Islamists who espouse hatred of the West,” The New York Times reported.

Naik was trained as a physician but is now the founder and president of the Mumbai, India-based Islamic Research Foundation and a televangelist on his TV channel, Peace TV.

His comments have frequently targeted the West and voiced support for Islamic radicalism.

Years ago he said he supported Osama bin Laden if he was fighting the United States: “If he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam.” He also referred to bin Laden as a “soldier of Islam.”

Naik asserted that Muslims who convert from Islam and propagate another faith should be killed, and claimed that Jews control the United States.

“The Jews are less than 5 percent in America, but they are controlling the economy, they are controlling America,” he said, and declared that Jews are the “strongest in enmity to Muslims.”

During a lecture, Naik discussed the 9/11 attacks and said that by “the amount of ample evidence, a fool will know this is an inside job. It is a blatant, open secret that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself.”

He later claimed he had been misquoted.

Naik has called for the death penalty for homosexuals, said evolution is an “unproven conjecture at best,” called for Shariah law in India, and expressed support for the Taliban’s destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.

Sadanand Dhume, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argued in The Wall Street Journal that Muslims drawn to Naik’s message include Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American arrested for planning suicide attacks on the New York City subway, and Rahil Sheikh, accused of involvement in a series of train bombings in India in 2006.

Police in Mumbai have barred Naik from holding conferences in recent years and Indian satellite providers have refused to broadcast his Peace TV. In 2010, Canada and Britain denied him entry for speaking engagements.

But the Saudi award is not the only honor Naik has received. In 2013, he was named the Islamic Personality of the Year by a religious association in Dubai, an honor bestowed by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.

Also in 2013, Naik received a Distinguished Personality award from Malaysia’s Department of Islamic Development, presented by Malaysia’s head of state.

 

Netanyahu’s Speech Alerted Americans to Obama’s Risky Iran Deal

Peter Brookes

As a senior fellow for National Security Affairs, Peter Brookes develops and communicates The Heritage Foundation’s stance on foreign policy and national security affairs through media appearances, research, published articles, congressional testimony and speaking engagements.

Putting both countries’ politics aside (talk about heavy-lifting!), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress was essential—if for no other reason than it threw a spotlight on an issue hiding in diplomatic darkness.

Few probably realized, especially outside Washington, D.C., that while Netanyahu was speaking to Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Montreux, Switzerland, trying to cut a deal with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on Tehran’s nuclear program.

Indeed, Team Obama and Team Ayatollah had hoped to reach an agreement on nukes before the end of the month possibly without the public, perhaps even congressional, scrutiny that such an historic deal should unquestionably get.

Netanyahu changed that—and we should be thankful he did.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

It might be said that if you weren’t paying attention to diplomatic developments in the nuclear negotiations, which is clearly one of the most important national security issues of our time, you are now.

The public/media attention the Iran nuclear issue will receive going forward could help ensure—clearly no guarantees, of course—that the administration gets America a better deal with Iran and not just a deal.

In fact, though President Obama criticized Netanyahu for saying “nothing new,” it’s likely that a lot of the supposedly already public information on Team Obama’s strategy was new to a lot of people—like the American public.

Perhaps that’s not something the White House wanted.

Actually, in his address, Bibi brought up a number of important points that we should be taking into consideration in our talks with Tehran.

For instance, the idea that a deal may allow Iran to keep a lot of its nuclear infrastructure in place, which would let Tehran pick up where it left off should it decide to depart an agreement.

More specifically, what about the nuclear reactor at Arak, which gives Iran a second pathway to the bomb using plutonium rather than uranium, Iran’s current choice?

Netanyahu also talked about the problem of relying on International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), inspectors to prevent Iran from moving forward with its nuclear program, citing North Korea’s nukes as proof of the folly of that course of action.

In fact, recent reports indicate that Tehran continues to fail to come clean on its past bomb-building work with the IAEA, a request for information that goes back years.

Not surprisingly, Netanyahu also brought up the problem of “trust” or lack thereof with Iran, a critical element for negotiations and for compliance afterwards with any agreement.

To that point, how can one get “warm-n-fuzzy” on nukes with Iran when it refuses to discuss capping its ICBM program, a long-range ballistic missile designed to carry the bomb?

Sure, this is tough stuff; we’re dealing with a hard-line regime like Iran after all—not exactly a Western-style democracy or a fan of the good ol’ U.S. of A. for several decades now.

The worry among many is that if you want it bad, which is where some believe Kerry & Co. are regarding a deal with his Iranian interlocutors, sometimes you get it bad.

Not exactly ideal when talking about an atomic agreement that involves angry, ambitious ayatollahs and the world’s most destructive weapons

Why is this woman not in jail?

For the First Time on Camera, Meet the Man Who Exposed the Gruber Videos

Sharyl Attkisson / @SharylAttkisson / 

Rich Weinstein is the single person considered most responsible for exposing one of the biggest blows to the Affordable Care Act’s image: a series of videos in which a key Obamacare architect discusses the “stupidity of the American people” and how that helped get the bill passed.

Now, Weinstein is speaking on camera for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal.

An investment adviser from Philadelphia, Weinstein says he began researching the Affordable Care Act when his own health insurance was canceled in late 2013.

“When they said, ‘If you like your plan, you can keep your plan,’ I believed that just like everybody else,” says Weinstein.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

Using nothing more complicated than Google, Weinstein unearthed a treasure trove of publicly available information, including embarrassing videos starring Jonathan Gruber.

Gruber is a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist described as a key architect of Obamacare. He reportedly received $400,000 in federal consulting contracts to provide expertise on the Affordable Care Act. He previously helped design the Massachusetts health care law that is considered a model for Obamacare.

Jonathan Gruber (Photo: Newscom)

The ‘Stupidity’ Videos

In several videos unearthed by Weinstein, Gruber refers to voters as “stupid.”

“And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but, basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass,” Gruber says of the Affordable Care Act in an academic lecture on Oct. 4, 2013.

In another, Gruber discusses how a trick in wording hides a large tax that is passed onto consumers.

“Because the American voter is too stupid to understand the difference,” Gruber says, prompting laughter from the audience.

Weinstein says when he first heard the comments on the video he’d found, “I just thought he was trying to put one over on us. Not just on me or you, but on everybody.”

Transparency Comments

Weinstein also discovered videos in which Gruber refers to the intentional lack of transparency in the Affordable Care Act.

“I wish … we could make it all transparent but I’d rather have this law than not,” Gruber says in one excerpt.

In another, he states, “If you had a law in which it said healthy people are gonna pay in, you made [it] explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

Weinstein spent countless hours scouring the Internet. As he found more videos and information, he became disenchanted with the news media.

“It’s pretty disappointing,” he says. “The media just has not had any, very little intellectual curiosity … all these videos were out there in plain sight.”

The ‘Noblis’ Video

Weinstein considers what he calls the “Noblis video” to be the most important of the bunch. It shows Gruber speaking at a technical conference sponsored by a company called Noblis on Jan. 18, 2012.

The find is considered so significant, it’s entered as evidence in the U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable Care Act that justices will hear Wednesday.

In that case, King v. Burwell, the administration argues the Affordable Care Act confers federal assistance—subsidies—to qualified consumers in all 50 states.

Opponents, a majority of the states, argue the law only applies to the 16 states that set up their own health care exchanges to sell insurance under Obamacare.

Gruber has been quoted as calling the challenger’s theory “nutty.” Yet, in the Noblis video, recorded nine months before HealthCare.gov went live, he agrees with the opposing side. He clearly states that tax subsidies were only meant for states that established exchanges.

“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” says Gruber. “So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens ‘you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country.’”

If the Supreme Court believes what Gruber said in the video is correct, Weinstein says it’s “obviously a big wrench” in Obamacare. It’s estimated that more than 5 million people could lose their subsidies.

“Millions of people would lose their health insurance subsidies and therefore would no longer be able to afford health insurance,” says Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell.

‘Lack of Economic Understanding’

In still more videos excerpts, Gruber talks about ways to mask a health care-related tax on the public by “mislabeling it” as a tax on insurance companies.

“…Calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold those insurance plans,” says Gruber.

Gruber also explains, “We tax the insurance companies, they pass it on [in the form of] higher prices, that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

After Weinstein helped expose the videos, Gruber apologized for his embarrassing remarks. He called them “inexcusably arrogant” and says he was speaking “off the cuff.”

President Obama has said he does not agree with Gruber’s assessment of the American public’s intellect, and that the former adviser’s views do not reflect “the process.” The White House did not respond to a request for further comment for this story.

The ‘Cadillac Tax’

Ask Weinstein what is the biggest shoe yet to drop regarding the Affordable Care Act and he immediately points to the so-called “Cadillac tax.”

“That Cadillac tax—it’s a whopper,” says Weinstein. “That’s a real problem.”

The Cadillac tax is a huge tax that will be levied on high-end insurance plans—the “Cadillacs” of health insurance.

Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes the 40 percent tax on individual health plans costing more than $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for a family. The idea is to press employers to offer less generous plans.

Many people, including Weinstein, believe it will prompt employers to cut out health insurance altogether, forcing some of the 158 million people who are currently insured through work onto the Obamacare exchanges for plans they don’t like as much, with limited choices and higher deductibles.

“The employers are gonna get frustrated, not offer employer-sponsored insurance anymore,” predicts Weinstein. “I don’t think those people are expecting what’s going to hit them.”

Weinstein says thanks to Obamacare, his insurance premiums have doubled. Today, he has connected with three other “citizen journalists” who say they’re committed to doing the job that the news media is not doing well: critically investigating the Affordable Care Act.

“One person can make a difference,” says Weinstein. “I’m nobody special. I had a problem, I got onto Google … but anybody can make a difference and if you don’t like what’s going on, you can make a difference.”

Gruber Removed

Last week, Gruber was one of four members removed from the Massachusetts’ Health Connector Board, which oversees the state’s health care law.

In asking for the resignations, Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said he’s establishing a new leadership team.

 

 

Emails Show Clinton’s Aides Ran Interference During Benghazi

By Newsmax Wires

Two of Hillary Clinton’s top aides ran interference while the 2012 Benghazi terrorism attacks were going on, the former secretary of state’s emails, obtained through a Judicial Watch federal lawsuit, reveal.

The aides named were Clinton’s main gatekeeper, Philippe Reines, and Cheryl Mills, who has worked with Clinton for years, reports Fox News. They mainly show Mills’ role in how the events rolled out publicly.

“Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.

While the assault was happening that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and several other embassy staff, Mills told then-State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to quit answering reporters’ questions about Stevens’ status, the emails show.                             Further, the emails contained references to a “Benghazi Group,” which a diplomatic source told Fox News was a inside code name for Mills’ task force, which handled damage control.

Judicial Watch has not received emails to or from Clinton herself from the night of the attack, Fitton said.

“You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about the Benghazi attack,” he said.

The emails are emerging while Clinton, the frontrunner among potential 2016 Democratic nominee candidates, is being criticized over revelations that she used a personal email account through a private server during her entire tenure as secretary of state.

She has asked State to make thousands of emails she has turned over to the department public, reports Fox.

The State Department said Friday it will review the emails but denied being pressured to remove politically damaging revelations ahead of her likely presidential run.

Clinton, the presumed Democratic frontrunner for 2016, found herself in a political furor this week when it was revealed she conducted her official email business from a personal account on a private email server connected to her New York home.

Pressure has mounted, particularly from Republican adversaries, for Clinton to release the entirety of her email correspondence.

Deputy State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf acknowledged the agency was reviewing the emails “for public release,” in accordance with the guidelines of formal US Freedom of Information Act requests.

Harf was vague about whether reviewers intended to report sensitive but unclassified material in their findings should they come across such detail in the emails.

“I’m not going to speculate on what might happen in that situation,” she said.

“I’m not going to prejudge the outcome of the review for release of the 55,000 pages.”

Asked whether there was political pressure from the White House, or those in Clinton’s orbit, to scrub information that could potentially damage a Clinton campaign, Harf said: “No. No.”

Team Clinton has been barraged by Republican accusations that she set up the private system to prevent politically sensitive material from going public.

Former New York governor George Pataki, a potential 2016 Clinton rival, called it “outrageous” behavior and poor judgment from a national figure.

“We don’t know what sort of classified information that Clinton may have… shared with others,” Pataki told CNN.

Harf declined to provide details when pressed whether the State Department made efforts to improve the security of Clinton’s email server at her home, or provided strict guidance to Clinton for keeping her emails secure.

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives panel investigating the deadly attacks in Benghazi announced it had issued subpoenas for Clinton’s emails, prompting accusations by Democrats that Republican leaders were “targeting secretary Clinton for political reasons.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-emails-benghazi/2015/03/07/id/628813/#ixzz3TjhR4HJu 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

SECURITYANALYSIS

The World Is Becoming More Dangerous. So Why Are We Letting Our Military Power Decline?

Dakota Wood

The U.S. Navy’s USS Essex conducts a live-fire exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sean P. Gallagher/Released)

The world seems to be becoming more dangerous these days. Not so coincidentally, America’s military power continues to decline rapidly.

Before considering how and why, here’s a snapshot of what’s happening around the globe:

  • Russia has annexed Crimea, is dismembering Ukraine, is probing the defenses of Northern Europe, and is again casting a covetous eye on the Baltic and South Caucasus states. Vladimir Putin is exploiting not only Europe’s dependence on Russia’s energy resources and markets but also its anemic military condition, getting all he can while the getting is good.
  • The Islamic State, homicidally focused on dragging the world back to the seventh century, has carved a caliphate out of the dysfunctional states of Syria and Iraq. It’s fomenting instability across the region through its surrogates and franchises and other like-minded violent Islamists in Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Nigeria.
  • Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, betting on the desperation of the U.S. to secure a “deal” that would make it impossible for us to stop them from succeeding.
  • China is entrenching itself in disputed waters, fortifying atolls, muscling away the fishing and commercial fleets of competitor claimants, and contesting international airspace. Meanwhile, it’s exploiting vulnerabilities in America’s cyber shields to steal intellectual property worth billions of dollars and millions of man-hours, penetrate government and financial sector systems, and conduct deep cyber reconnaissance of America’s national critical infrastructure.

In times past, the United States would have risen to such challenges to its security interests and to the existing global order, as it did when the Soviet Union or China sought to export their brands of communism. America’s confident strength steadied friends and allies and pushed back against belligerent opportunism.

But those days appear to be receding. The U.S. has elevated other interests to higher priority (as a look at the federal budget readily shows), and the U.S. military’s ability to protect America’s global interests is in freefall.

Don’t have time to read the Washington Post or New York Times?Then get The Morning Bell, an early morning edition of the day’s most important political news, conservative commentary and original reporting from a team committed to following the truth no matter where it leads.

In fact, the U.S. military now finds itself in a state where it would be unable to successfully handle two major conflicts in different parts of the world, a long-held objective of national security policy.

America’s Navy, at 285 ships, is approaching pre-World War I levels; its Air Force flies planes more than a quarter-of-a-century old (some more than a half-century); the Army is approaching half the size deemed necessary just a few years ago; and the Marines, with demand for their shrinking force at record highs, have committed indefinitely to near-continuous rotational deployments of their operating forces.

This problem did not suddenly emerge. It has slowly, but relentlessly evolved as funding for the base budget has declined in constant dollars, and the cost for manpower, equipment, and weapons has steadily risen. Extended production timelines for expensive, high-end platforms, sustained use of the force for the past decade or more, and lack of funding to replace items that are retired or lost in combat, have combined to result in a force that is older, smaller and more worn out.

All the details can be found in The Heritage Foundation’s inaugural Index of U.S. Military Strength, an annual publication that assesses the condition of America’s military forces and their ability to meet national security requirements. It also evaluates the condition of key allies and their regions as they affect the ability of U.S. forces to conduct operations abroad, as well as who poses direct, high-level challenges to U.S. national security interests.

Some may suggest looking to America’s allies. Though reasonably stable and steadfast, they are less capable due to their own neglect of their military forces. We can’t assume they’ll be able to contribute much. Further, competitors that pose serious challenges to America are investing heavily in military capabilities carefully matched to their own circumstances and objectives, increasing the challenges our forces would face.

These trends are ominous, to say the least, especially because it’s far easier to decline still further than to make rapid improvements that take substantial time, money and attention—all of which seem to be in short supply.

The 2015 Index of U.S. Military Strength makes it clear that unless we take a greater interest in the state of our security—now—we may be in for some serious trouble.

 

 

‘Our March Is Not Yet Finished,’ Obama Says on 50th Anniversary of Selma

Obama: Selma ‘Will Reverberate Through the Ages’

Americans must continue to embrace the message of the civil rights movement, President Obama told a crowd of thousands Saturday, speaking from a site he said symbolized “the daring of America’s character.”

In a speech at the foot of the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where 50 years ago, police beat and tear-gassed protesters, Obama issued his call to action.

“Fifty years from Bloody Sunday, our march is not yet finished. But we are getting closer,” he said.

The March 7, 1965, violence against the peaceful civil rights advocates making the 50-mile march from Selma to Alabama’s capital of Montgomery shocked the country and ramped up calls for equal rights for black voters.

“The Americans who crossed this bridge were not physically imposing. But they gave courage to millions. They held no elected office. But they led a nation,” Obama said.

That day, which came to be known as “Bloody Sunday,” led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which guaranteed rights for millions of black voters across the South.

About 100 members of Congress, as well as former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, stood under the sun at the bridge as Obama delivered his remarks.

Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights icon who partook in the historic march and was beaten so hard, he got a fractured skull, spoke to the crowd before the president.

“This city, on the banks of the Alabama River, gave birth to a movement that changed this nation forever. Our country will never, ever be the same because of what happened on this bridge,” Lewis said.

Obama expressed solidarity with those who marched alongside Lewis.

“We gather here to honor the courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching toward justice,” he said.

The speech from the nation’s first black president comes at a time when racial discrimination in the U.S. still makes regular headlines. This past week, a Justice Department investigation found patterns of racism from police in Ferguson, Missouri, where an unarmed black teen was killed by a white officer over the summer.

“What happened in Ferguson may not be unique, but it’s no longer endemic, or sanctioned by law and custom; and before the Civil Rights Movement, it most surely was.”

As he flew to Selma on Saturday, Obama signed legislation recognizing those who marched 50 years ago with Congressional Gold Medals – the highest honor given by Congress.

“What could be more American than what happened in this place?” he asked the cheering crowd on Saturday.

 

Le sumba el mango:

Democrats Vow to Protect Boehner from GOP Coup
CAPITOL HILL – “Democrats from across an ideological spectrum say they’d rather see Boehner remain atop the House than replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise,” reports The Hillnewspaper.

 

“Any lawmaker can file a motion to “vacate” a sitting Speaker, a move that would force a vote of the full House. The effort would almost certainly fail, as the conservatives would need the overwhelming support of Democrats to win a majority…

 

‘I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the hell is going to replace him?’, said Rep. Bill Pascrell (Democrat-N.J.).  ‘In terms of the institution, I would rather have John Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking that they’re going to change the world’.

 

Liberal Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Democrat-Ariz.) agreed that, for Democrats, replacing Boehner could lead to a worse situation.

 

‘Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come on,” said Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.). “We can be suicidal but not stupid.”‘

Grijalva is a radical supporter of ‘open borders’ and Obama’s illegal executive amnesty.

 

“’I think it would pose a real existential dilemma for us,’ said Rep. Gerry Connolly (Democrat-Va.). ‘I mean, on the one hand, if you have a chance to take out a Republican Speaker, why wouldn’t you do that? On the other hand, if the obvious alternative is a Tea Party Speaker…’

 

‘Personally, I don’t want to waste two years,’ Rep. Jim McGovern (Democrat-Mass.) said Wednesday. ‘And I think that the crazy Tea Party type would probably not be willing to work with us on anything…’.”

 

 

Olga Grinan: UN CUENTO DE RELAJO DE LOS DÍAS DE LA CREACIÓN

Transcurría la Semana de la Creación.
Jehová, entusiasmadísimo miraba desde El Cielo hacia acá abajo. A su lado, un ángel, quien milenios después reencarnaría como San Pedro.
“Hijo mío –dijo El Todopoderoso–, ¿ves ese recodo marino que alguna vez llamarán Mar Caribe o de las Antillas? Allí instalaré una tierra de ensueño. Tendrá unas playas donde la arena será talco. Y no tendrán volcanes, como algunos de sus vecinos. Allí no habrá víboras, sino jutías, muy buenas para la cocina, y que se  aterrorizan ante la presencia humana. Y, además, allí nacerán las mujeres más lindas del mundo que estoy creando”.
El ángel, muy inseguro, se atrevió a enmendarle la plana a  El Todopoderoso:
“Señor, ¿no piensa usted que se le está yendo la mano en cuanto a dones para esa islita?”.
Y Jehová, con una sonrisita cínica, ripostó:
“Ay, Perucho. ¡Tú no sabes los troncos de hijoeputas de políticos que les voy a mandar!”

 

 

 

Here are 8 flashbacks related to Hillary Clinton about emails or transparency that make her current scandal extremely ironic.

1. In a 2000 Video, Hillary Tells Donor That She Won’t “Do Email” Because of Investigations

As reported by Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed, Hillary Clinton told one of her biggest campaign donors that she won’t “do email.” She strikes a mortified tone about emails, just contemplating the subject:

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail?

Mr. PAUL: (From home video) No, no.

Senator CLINTON: (From home video) Can you imagine?

Yes, we can imagine. Transparency is part of being a public figure. Like, for example, a president.

2. In 2007, Hillary Clinton Complained About Bush Officials Using Secret Email Accounts

In 2007, Hillary Clinton gave the following stirring exhortation of needing to follow the Constitution:

“Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our Constitution was designed to prevent.”

As noted by Gateway Pundit, Hillary Clinton complained about the Bush administration having secret email accounts, and then “Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton set up a secret email account and secret servers in her basement for all of her official business.”

3. In 2012, the State Department Under Hillary Clinton Ousted an Ambassador for Using Private Email

The Weekly Standard reported that Scott Gration, the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya, lost his post in part for using a private email account. According to a Foreign Policy article by Josh Rogin:

Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business.

That… would be pretty much the same thing that Hillary Clinton did.

4. In 2013, Hillary Clinton’s emails to adviser Sidney Blumenthal are hacked by “Guccifer”

Image credit: Zero Hedge

Both Hillary Clinton and her adviser Sidney Blumenthal were using private email addresses when their communications were hacked by “Guccifer” – an infamous Romanian hacker.

As can be seen from the email sample image above via Zero Hedge, on issues ranging from Libya security to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), not all of the correspondence was about well-wishes and Valentine’s Day greetings.

5. In 2011, The White House Reassures the Public That All Government Emails are Being  Sent on “Work Email” Accounts


The Washington Free Beacon 
reports that former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reassured the public that all government communications were being carried out on official emails:

 “The administration policy that is effective here is that we–all of our work is conducted on work email accounts; that’s part of the Presidential Records Act.”

Apparently, some public officials are above the Presidential Records Act.

6. In 2009, Hillary Clinton Team Warned About Private Email System, Ignored State Department Technology Experts

In January 2009, when she was testifying to become Secretary of State, that very week she registered her private clintonemail.com domain name. Hillary Clinton’s team was warned by the State Department’s technology experts about using the private email system, but her political advisers ignored them. As reportedby Al Jazeera America:

State Department technology experts expressed security concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.

The employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but the warnings were ignored.

“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt the secretary was ever informed.”

That’s responsible and transparent?

7. In 2013, Hillary Clinton Touts Her Record of Transparency Before a Senate Hearing on the Benghazi Terrorist Attack

On January 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton said the following in testimony before the U.S. Senate on the terrorist attack on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, on 9/11/2012: “We’ve been as transparent as we can” and “I believe in transparency.”

A former State Department official claims that documents were “knowingly and willingly” destroyed following the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on Hillary Clinton’s watch – which would be a felony offense.

8. In 2008, Hillary Clinton Boasted About Being One of the Most Transparent Public Figures

After the release of the Clinton Papers from her time as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton spoke at City Hall in Philadelphia in 2008.

“I think I’m probably the most transparent person in public life,” she bragged. No comment. 

https://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/264485-2-8-flashbacks-hillary-clintons-emails/

 

 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