HPIM0049

No 901 “En mi opinion” Marzo 13, 2015

No 901 “En mi opinión”  Marzo 13, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

En la iglesia, el domingo pasado, escuché una dulce anciana en el banco, detrás de mí, diciendo una oración. Era tan inocente y sincera, que sólo quiero compartirlo con ustedes.                            

“Querido señor. Los últimos cuatro o cinco años han sido muy duros. Te has llevado mi actor favorito, Paul Newman, mi actriz favorita, Elizabeth Taylor. Mi cantante favorito, Andy Williams,… mis comediantes favoritos, Robin Williams y Joan Rivers. – Sólo quería que supieras que mis políticos favoritos son: Putin, Maduro, Santos, Correa, Evo, Cristina, Raúl y Fidel”….. Amén.  Perdon Señor  Se me olvidaba Obama! 

 

AMENPER:  “Pensar y no trabajar, poco has de ganar”

 

“Las personas que obtienen éxito mantienen un enfoque positivo en la vida sin importar lo que está pasando a su alrededor. Permanecen enfocados en sus éxitos del pasado en lugar de sus fracasos pasados y sobre los próximos pasos de acción necesitan llegarlos acerca al cumplimiento de sus metas en lugar de todas las distracciones que la vida presenta a ellos”.

― Jack Canfield

 

Jack Canfield es un escritor motivacional, autor de un libro que por el título deben de haber oído hablar de él, titulado “Sopa de Pollo para el Alma”. 

He oído mucho del libro y he leído partes del libro porque la esposa de mi hijo lo tiene y lo he hojeado en mis visitas a su casa, también he oído y leído programas de televisión  y otros comentarios que han salido en artículos sobre el libro, pero nunca he leído totalmente el libro en sí

Pero el libro que me intrigó más de Canfield, es “El Secreto”, por un programa de televisión sobre el libro que se describe como un método  de autoayuda, el programa era  en un formato de documental que duraba como una hora. 

El libro se basa en algo que Jack Canfield presenta como la “ley de la atracción”. 

Lo que llamó mi atención es que no es un libro simplemente motivacional como “Sopa de Pollo para el alma”, pero tiene sesgos místicos y misteriosos, y esta curiosidad me llevó a comprar el libro. 

Como se describe en el libro, la hipótesis de la “Ley de la atracción”  postula que los sentimientos y pensamientos pueden atraer eventos y experiencias, desde el funcionamiento del cosmos a las interacciones entre los individuos en sus asuntos físicos, emocionales y profesionales.

 La película también sugiere que ha habido una fuerte tendencia por aquellos en posiciones de poder para mantener este principio central ocultado al público.  Se nos presenta como que hay una conspiración para que no sepamos esto.

Para ser sencillo en el resumen de la idea, Canfield dice que hay algo en el universo, que si tenemos una idea fija, y creemos en ella y que se llevará a cabo, y mantenemos un estado positivo emocional sobre esto “atraemos” el resultado de nuestros deseos.

También dice que lo mismo sucede cuando tenemos pensamientos negativos.

Realmente, ¿no les resulta familiar la teoría de Jack Canfield? Piensen bien, recuerden, ¿no les recuerda esto a otra persona que les dio el mismo discurso de motivación? ¿No les recuerda a sus abuelitas?

Creo que Canfield usa también la influencia intelectual y gastronómica de su abuelita.  El título de “Sopa de pollo para el Alma” trae también el recuerdo de nuestras abuelitas de las extraordinarias y místicas propiedades curativas de la sopa de pollo.  Además todos tienen que recordar cómo nuestras abuelitas cuando teníamos un pensamiento negativo nos decía “Alabado sea Dios muchacho no hables así, estás atrayendo lo malo”.

O sea que mi abuelita hubiera podido ganar millones de pesos como escritora y disertadora motivacional, todo es cuestión de tiempo y lugar.

Pero, bueno, esto me trae una motivación para tener una idea fija durante las próximas elecciones presidenciales, y los billetes de lotería que voy a comprar para hacerlos el centro de mi fijación.

El único problema es que con el éxito del libro, muchos ya saben “El secreto” y posiblemente los demócratas y otros que han comprado billetes con otro número, también están fijando su mente en el objetivo en que estoy fijando mi mente.

La verdad es que en “Sopa de Pollo para el Alma” Canfield fue más serio a pesar del título.

En “El secreto” creo que Canfield no es tan serio.  No sé si el realmente cree en lo que escribió o si lo utiliza para motivar a las personas a tener pensamientos positivos, lo cual si es conveniente.  Pero usar una mística espiritual y darle un valor cósmico a los pensamientos, por favor, no trabajes con ingenio y persistencia, que por muchos que te pongas a fijar la mente, poco vas a resolver.

Creo que si observan el pensamiento que puse arriba de Canfield, esa es la realidad, en este caso tiene razón, aprender de los fracasos y triunfos del pasado para trabajando diligentemente no repetir los errores.  Entonces “atraes” el triunfo, pero realmente si no trabajas en ellos de poco valen los pensamientos.

Creo que lo que Canfield predica es “Wishful Thinking” que son sueños de nuestros pensamientos deseando que se realicen y esto es tan viejo como nuestras abuelitas, esto es el deseo de tener suerte.

Sobre esto los filósofos gallegos con sus dichos, tenían más lógica cuando nos dicen “Pensar y no trabajar, poco has de ganar” o cuando dicen “A la suerte, hay que ayudarla”: Dicho que nos invita a trabajar con esfuerzo para obtener logros en la vida, sin esperar que la buena suerte nos acompañe. La acción de la buena fortuna es siempre bien recibida, pero no debemos recostarnos solamente en ella.

Creo que los  gallegos que inventaron este dicho tiene más lógica que “El Secreto” de Canfield.

El trabajo y la economía son la mayor Lotería

 

BOOM! Watch Megyn Kelly Expose The ‘Dangerous’ Lie Of Ferguson In Less Than 90 Seconds

“Rushing to judgment is…deeply problematic and dangerous.”

NORVELL ROSE  

The intense manhunt continues for suspects in the ambush shootings of two police officers in Ferguson, Mo., during protests Wednesday night. Both wounded lawmen have been discharged from the hospital and are recovering from the gunshots they suffered.

While people turned out on the streets of Ferguson Thursday night to continue their demonstrations, authorities say the crowd was behaved and there was no violence.

According to a report from St. Louis TV station KPLR, investigators say they may be on the trail of the shooter or shooters.

“Investigators believe they have identified two people they want to question in the shooting, and one of them might be the shooter, a law enforcement official said. Police are also trying to find anyone who may have helped the shooter get away.”

On the Fox News show The Kelly File Thursday night, host Megyn Kelly went after the people — government officials, politicians, pundits and protestors — she said have been fanning the flames of violence in Ferguson.

Kelly slammed the “myth” that spawned the Ferguson protest movement which, she firmly asserted, was “based on a lie.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-watch-megyn-kelly-expose-the-dangerous-lie-of-ferguson-in-less-than-90-seconds/#UKYXxWA1ZYL8QXxx.99

http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-watch-megyn-kelly-expose-the-dangerous-lie-of-ferguson-in-less-than-90-seconds/#270BJaevCu3OsMiR.97

 

 

AMENPER: Consumismo

El consumismo es el pecado que atribuyen los socialistas a los males del capitalismo.

Pero los que vivimos en el capitalismo, nos damos cuentas de los beneficios del consumismo, reconocemos que el consumismo es bueno y necesario.

La salud económica del país depende del consumismo.  El índice del consumismo, esto es, la confianza del consumidor, es uno de los factores determinantes en el alza en el mercado de valores.

El consumismo es bueno para el País porque el consumo sea de los productos que sea, lo que gestiona es que se recauden impuestos y se mueva el dinero de esta manera fomentando  la creación de puestos de trabajo y la construcción del producto bruto que produce la riqueza de la nación y el bienestasr de todas las secciones de la sociedad-

Es algo bueno el consumismo, pero las críticas de los socialistas al consumismo, es parecido a las críticas de los ateos a la existencia de Dios.

Nos dicen ´ ¿Cómo puede existir un Dios que permita las destructoras y sangrientas guerras y el hambre en el mundo?  No quieren reconocer que existe un Dios que creó al hombre con libre albedrío. 

La realidad evidente es que no es Dios, son los hombres los que hacen las guerras, son los hombres los que crean el hambre.

 Vemos países como Haití que por mucho dinero que se les dé, siempre hay hambre y miseria por los políticos corruptos que impiden con su corrupción la educación del ciudadano y el desarrollo de la economía.  Vemos países como Venezuela que debiera de ser uno de los más ricos de América sumido en la miseria por los políticos socialistas.

No es culpa de Dios es culpa de la conducta de los hombres.

Lo mismo pasa con el consumismo, el problema no es el consumismo,  si las personas en el afán consumista, abusan y gastan más que sus ingresos, el consumismo desde ese punto individual es malo.  Hay personas con un ingreso mayor que el índice de riquezas, que no les alcanza para pagar sus cuentas, pero también hay personas que tienen un ingreso menor que consumen con un presupuesto adaptado a sus ingresos.  Esos son los beneficiarios del consumismo, porque viviendo en un país donde los bienes de consumo son accesibles, toman ventaja de ellos, y viven una vida acomodada y feliz de acuerdo con sus ingresos.

Lo curioso de los socialistas que critican al consumismo, es que ellos son los peores consumistas cuando toman el poder. 

Tenemos a los Estados Unidos, el país más rico del mundo, según  su producto interno bruto, nadie lo supera.

Estamos con una deuda en los trillones aumentando todavía a un ritmo mayor con una administración de corte socialista.  Como en las personas, si gastas más que tus ingresos terminas endeudándote.

El techo de la deuda americana se ha convertido en algo simbólico.

Cada año se aumenta el techo de la deuda. Los políticos de todas las vertientes son cómplices de esto.  Los conservadores hablan de impedir el crecimiento del techo de la deuda, pero al final aprueban el aumento.  Lo hacen por razones políticas, no quieren que les digan que son insensibles a las necesidades de los beneficios de ayuda social..

Pero la ayuda social no sería un problema, es imprescindible para los necesitados, el problema es que se está otorgando ayuda a los que no la necesitan, pero la dependencia de la ayuda del gobierno es buena para los políticos que reciben el voto de los que reciben esa ayuda como privilegios que no necesitan realmente. 

De nuevo, esto no es culpa del sistema capitalista, esto es culpa de los hombres que mal manejan el sistema. 

Como no se le puede echar la culpa a Dios de las guerras y el hambre, no se le puede echar la culpa al consumismo y al capitalismo de la conducta de los hombres.  En ambos casos la culpa de los hombres.

En el capitalismo los fabricantes se esfuerzan por hacer que su producto sea el mejor. Y al mismo tiempo liberan su enorme aparato publicitario para decirnos lo bueno que es el producto, ofrecen aquello que nos volverá personas con un estilo de vida mejor. Ese consumismo puede llevarnos a querer tener más para “sentirnos mejor”, a llevarnos a gastar más, con todo aquello que nos ofrecen. Sin embargo nadie está obligado a comprar este producto si sus medios no se los permiten, nadie debe de gastar lo que no tiene. No tenemos que cambiar el carro cada año, no tenemos que vivir en una casa mejor si donde vivimos llena nuestras necesidades. 

Por otro lado, muchas de las cosas modernas son útiles y se han producido por la economía causada por el consumismo.  ¿Podrían vivir sin su teléfono celular o su computadora? Claro que sí, pero si su economía se los permite, su vida es mucho mejor con estas maravillas modernas. 

Como las naciones, las personas tienen que tener un presupuesto de acuerdo con sus ingresos para tener la verdadera riqueza, que es el vivir por debajo de sus ingresos

Lo bueno es lo útil y eso nos lleva a la felicidad  con los intereses que el hombre le da a lo material, donde está postura no lo ve en un sentido egoísta ni altruista, más bien la felicidad dependerá del mayor número de personas que se beneficien de dicha acción.

En un país capitalista donde abundan los bienes de consumo, hay opciones para todos los ingresos.

Tenemos todo tipo de artículos de consumo, tanto baratos cómo de un precio exorbitante, el saber escoger el artículo de acuerdo con nuestros ingresos, no es la labor del fabricante es labor del individuo.

Responsabilidad en los gastos es lo que destruye a la economía de la nación y del individuo.

Esto no debiera de ser tan difícil de entender.

 

 

AMENPER: “El mayor enemigo del lenguaje claro es falta de sinceridad”. ― George Orwell

 

George Orwell con su sabiduría que nos dio “la Rebelión en la Granja” y “1984, da en el clavo en esta frase que se puede aplicar al fenómeno de el lenguaje políticamente correcto.

Se ha vuelto común escuchar el término “políticamente correcto” arrojado alrededor en todas las clases de círculos.

Como lo veo yo, hablar políticamente correcto no  soluciona ningún problema. De hecho, eliminando la realidad, se crea un problema mayor.

Aplicar la corrección política, es censura, obligando, a la gente a usar terminología específica o a evitar ciertos temas de conversación, con eso no vamos a resolver ningún problema.

Ser “políticamente correcto” no es la medicina para los problemas que existen — es una curita para cubrir las heridas cosméticamente. Además, sus objetivos son todos malinterpretados.

Se supone que enseña a evitar “ofender a la gente”.

Pudiéramos decir ¿Qué tiene esto de malo? ¿No es noble evitar ofender a la gente? ¿No es este el punto? ¡No!… No es el punto. La palabra “ofendido” en la definición de la corrección política es utilizada de manera más abstracta de lo que la gente cree.

Hay varios problemas con la noción de la corrección política, en la cual palabras  eufemísticas son usadas para comunicar significados con que la gente considera condiciones que son incómodas, pero lo que esto logra es crear la percepción en el que la recibe como que su condición es denigrante.

Por ejemplo un enano, un ciego, un cojo, un viejo, un gordo, un flaco un inválido. 

Si lo llamamos diferente no dejan de tener sus condiciones y se sienten más incomodos cuando ven que estamos tan conscientes de su problema que hemos inventado eufemismos para su condición.

Por ejemplo, todos estamos familiarizados con la evolución de los sellos colocados en personas inválidas  como “minusválidos”, la teoría detrás de este vocablo políticamente correcto es que inválido implica in-validez que no tiene valor y puede ser ofensivo.

El principal problema con la idea de que no es políticamente correcto para llamar a alguien “inválido” es según dice  la clara implicación que ser inválido no es respetable, que exige disculpas o disfraz.

Esto implica que los inválidos no merecen respeto debido a su invalidez.

Pero, y esto es lo que no entiendo, minusválido implica que todavía es de menos valor, menos válidos.

Pero sabemos que el ser inválido es una condición de alguien que por desgracia es simplemente..bueno.. “inválido”, y que esto no es intrínsecamente degradante.

En consecuencia no es denigrante el  para llamar a una persona invalida simplemente invalido, como lo hemos hecho toda la vida y desgraciadamente no podemos mejorar su condición cambiando la palabra como lo llamamos.

Así hay que hay dos problemas con la corrección política: es poco atractiva e impopular y por lo tanto, rara vez la usamos en la vida diaria, y cuando se usa, no logra los objetivos adecuados

Pero hay otra categoría de palabra que si son dañinas y destructivas, o es lo que yo llamaría “Políticamente Correcto a la Inversa”, porque son nombres que usan los mismos que inventaron el lenguaje políticamente correcto para sus enemigos políticos.  Nombres que son ofensivos y se repiten en la arena política indiscriminadamente: nombres tales como “racista”, “machista”, “homofóbico”, “antisemita”, “fanático” y similares.  Muchos lanzan estas etiquetas indiscriminadamente y sin una consideración a la realidad del vocablo.  No entiende que las etiquetas significan, sin mencionar el daño infligido por acusar a alguien de racismo, sexismo, etc.

La acusación sola–incluso sin mérito–puede ser suficiente para manchar la reputación, matar a una carrera, o  al utilizarse invalidan la vida entera de una persona.

Me pregunto, ¿Entienden los liberales la verdadera definición de las etiquetas que lanzan a figuras públicas: “racista”, “machista”, “intolerante”, casi siempre por motivos políticos solamente, basado en nada más que en un comentario fuera de contexto, alguien con un torpe intento de humor, o una foto o imagen que es la expresión artística de una persona creativa?

¿Entienden ellos las consecuencias de estas definiciones cuando llaman a alguien un imbécil racista o sexista? Tal vez… tal vez no. ¿Realmente entienden la gravedad de esas etiquetas? ¿O simplemente están disfrutando de insultos destructivos basados en intereses de la política?

Creo que el lenguaje que se debe controlar es el  “Político Correcto a la Inversa”, este necesita una explicación del motivo de la etiqueta y los motivos generalmente no son sinceros pero politizados.

El lenguaje a que nos referimos cotidianamente con relación a las personas con impedimentos o problemas físicos, no necesitan ni explicación ni control ni cambio. Los modernos cambios cosméticos no resuelven nada con el nuevo lenguaje de “corrección política”..

Si nosotros debemos constantemente de autocensurarnos durante cualquier conversación referente a características físicas, edad, o género, entonces estamos condenados a perpetuar un lenguaje oscuro, ridículo e hipócrita.

Seremos víctimas de un totalitarismo “a la vaselina”. 

Y como dijo Orwell

“El mayor enemigo del lenguaje claro es falta de sinceridad”,

Watch: Michelle O Just Reached Out To Islamic Iran With A Big White House Party…And Said THIS!

First lady claims this Iranian holiday is part of the American tradition…

NORVELL ROSE 

On more than one occasion, President Obama has praised Muslim immigrants for their contributions to American history, though the extent and significance of those contributions have been questioned by many.

The Washington Examiner reminds us of Obama’s effusive shout-out to Muslim Americans: “Throughout our history, Islam has contributed to the character of our country, and Muslim Americans, and their good works, have helped to build our nation.”

Now, as the president reaches out to the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, intent on making a controversial deal on their nuclear weapons development — a deal that would admittedly not be legally binding — his wife is also doing her part to make nice with the dictatorial regime.

First Lady Michelle Obama hosted a “Nowruz” celebration of the Iranian New Year, throwing open the doors of the White House earlier this week to mark the official start of the Persian holiday that’s been celebrated for thousands of years.

Nowruz means “The New Day” and is the name of the Iranian New Year, marking the beginning of the year in the Persian calendar.

As a post on Downtrend notes of the White House event: “For the optics-conscious Obamas, the timing couldn’t be more perfect with the Republicans’ letter to Iran and Netanyahu’s speech still ruffling administration feathers.”

In keeping with President Obama’s public praise for Islam and the supposedly noteworthy threads of Muslim Americans woven through the fabric of the nation’s history, the first lady suggested to the Nowruz gathering something that could be considered rather curious…if not absolutely stunning.

Mrs. Obama said that a celebration like the one marking the Iranian New Year is part of the “traditions that make us who we are as a country.”

In other words, it certainly sounds as though Michelle Obama wants us to believe that Nowruz is much like Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July or Presidents’ Day.

By clicking on the video above, you can watch Mrs. Obama’s address to the Nowruz gathering at the White House — a short speech that some might consider history-warping.
Read more at
http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-michelle-o-just-reached-out-to-islamic-iran-with-a-big-white-house-party-and-said-this/#mF65GklJImPz9lvZ.99

Gary North

The Tea Party Economist

Washington’s $210 Trillion Deficit

Written by Gary North 

You read that right: $210 trillion.

A trillion here, a trillion there: pretty soon, we’re talking big money.

Professor Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University testified before the Senate Budget Committee. As usual, his testimony is shocking

The U.S. has a $210 trillion “fiscal gap” and “may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff told members of the Senate Budget Committee in written and oral testimony on Feb. 25.

“The first point I want to get across is that our nation is broke,” Kotlikoff testified. “Our nation’s broke, and it’s not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It’s broke today.

“Indeed, it may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” he said.

Kotlikoff has become skilled at producing sound bites. The media are always after sound bites.

He is always focusing on the key statistic, which is not the on-budget annual deficit. He focuses on the unfunded liabilities of the federal government.

“This declaration of national insolvency will, no doubt, shock those of you who use the officially reported federal debt as the measuring stick for what our country owes,” Kotlikoff told committee members who are considering President Obama’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2016.

“After all, federal debt in the hands of the public is only 74 percent of GDP. Yes, this is double the debt-to-GDP ratio recorded a decade ago. But it’s still a far cry from Italy’s 135 debt-to-GDP ratio or Greece’s 175 percent ratio.”

However, using the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 75-year Alternate Fiscal Scenario projection, Kotlikoff calculated that the U.S.’ “fiscal gap” –which he defines as “the difference between our government’s projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future tax and other receipts” – is actually much higher than those of either Italy or Greece.

“We have a $210 trillion fiscal gap at this point,” Kotlikoff told the senators, which amounts to 211 percent of the U.S.’ $18.2 trillion GDP, making it higher than Greece’s 175 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

The fiscal gap is “16 times larger than official U.S. debt, which indicates precisely how useless official debt is for understanding our nation’s true fiscal position,” said Kotlikoff, a former senior economist on President Ronald Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.

This number is astronomical. It should be obvious that there is no way, politically speaking, that this deficit is ever going to be dealt with, other than by default. We need to be reminded of this every year, because the media only talk about it once a year, and that is just after Kotlikoff testifies. He reminds us, and then the media go back to sleep. It happens every year.

“By way of comparison, the Social Security system, taken by itself, is 33 percent underfinanced.” Last year, Kotlikoff testified on Capitol Hill that the Social Security system was in “significantly worse financial shape than Detroit’s two pension funds taken together.”

Kotlikoff said that not counting “off book” liabilities like Social Security give lawmakers and the public a false sense of the nation’s true fiscal condition.

“What economics tells us is that we can’t choose what to put on the books. All government obligations and all government receipts, no matter what they are called, need to be properly valued in the present taking into account their likelihood of payment by and to the government,” Kotlikoff testified.

“Successive Congresses, whether dominated by Republicans or Democrats, have spent the postwar accumulating massive net fiscal obligations, virtually all of which have been kept off the books,” he noted.

We know what is going to happen. If there is anyone in Congress who is not aware of this, he is living in a fantasy world. But, I suspect, most Congressmen really don’t understand it. They have been able to kick the can, decade after decade, and they assume that they will be able to do this in the future. Nothing bad has happened so far, so they assume that nothing bad will ever happen.

The American people know nothing of this, but if they did know anything about it, they would side with Congress. They would assume that kicking the can is an effective way to deal with unfunded liabilities
Read more at
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/03/12/washingtons-210-trillion-deficit/#E5tbE17hrOUI6Lz5.99

 

HILLARY SE AFERRA A SU CORONA.

Por Alfredo M. Cepero

Director de www.lanuevanacion.com

Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero

 

Los demócratas tienen, por lo tanto, que tomar una decisión terminante: Hundirse con los Clinton o arrancar la corona de las manos de Hillary. Y eso, como ya sabemos, no será una tarea fácil.

Cualquier político con un adarme de honor que confrontara una crisis de credibilidad buscaría alguna salida elegante y dejaría el camino abierto para que otro abanderado de su partido aspirara a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos. Pero esos no son ni Bill ni Hillary Clinton. Ellos parecen sentirse una aristocracia política a la cual no se le aplican las mismas reglas que a los demás mortales. Tampoco caben dudas de que son expertos en capear temporales y en superar escándalos que a otros políticos los habrían enviado al baúl del olvido.

Su arma más eficaz ha consistido en vituperar a sus adversarios hasta pulverizarlos y su escudo ha sido una absoluta falta de principios morales. Que se lo pregunten a Gennifer Flowers, Mónica Lewisnky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey y a otra media docena de mujeres a quienes Hillary, auto proclamada defensora de los derechos femeninos, les hizo la vida un infierno.

Desde el episodio turbio de Whitewaters hasta nuestros días, estos personajes, unidos más por la avaricia y la obsesión de poder que por lazos de fidelidad conyugal, han dado muestras de ser un par de sinvergüenzas. Ella ha aguantado “cuernos con publicidad” sin inmutarse por la humillación y él ha cometido perjurio para esconder las violaciones y ataques a mujeres que han sido víctimas de su incontrolable lujuria. Su meta común ha sido y sigue siendo la acumulación de poder y dinero sin ningún tipo de inhibición o pizca de remordimiento.

Ante los recientes escándalos, los demócratas tiemblan pero a los Clinton les importa un bledo porque ellos se sienten más importantes que su partido. Un partido que cometió el error de poner todos los huevos en una canasta perforada por la corrupción y ahora no cuenta con una alternativa viable para enfrentar el tsunami de una sólida bancada republicana en las presidenciales del 2016. En estos momentos la coronación de Hillary y el descarrilamiento del partido demócrata parecen dos hechos interconectados e inevitables.

Los dos episodios más recientes de la turbulenta novela política protagonizada por esta pareja amenazan con descarrilar las aspiraciones presidenciales de la multifacética Hillary. Primero la revelación de cuantiosas sumas donadas por gobernantes extranjeros a la “Fundación Clinton” mientras Hillary desempeñaba el cargo de Secretaria de Estado. Segundo el descubrimiento de decenas de miles de correos electrónicos desde un correo electrónico privado de la Secretaria en flagrante violación de diversas legislaciones que se remontan a 1950.

El primero denota una obvia compra de influencia a unos personajes que, en su desbocada carrera hacia el enriquecimiento ilícito, han llegado al extremo de robar fondos donados a su fundación para ayudar a los míseros haitianos. El segundo es otra muestra de la obsesión de los Clinton por el secreto y por el uso de la mentira para encubrir la verdad, las dos herramientas favoritas de estos dos delincuentes. Cosas que una prensa alineada con los demócratas y complaciente con los Clinton nunca se ha ocupado de revelar.

Cito, sin embargo, una honrosa excepción. El periodista William Safire, asesor de presidentes y brillante articulista del rotativo The Washington Post, en un ensayo publicado el 8 de enero de 1996, cuando Hillary era primera dama, escribió: “Hillary Clinton es una mentirosa congénita”. Y agregó: “Ella tiene el hábito inveterado de mentir y nunca se ha visto obligada a reconocer sus mentiras o las mentiras que ha hecho decir a sus subordinados”.

Irónicamente, estos dos escándalos han sido descubiertos en el proceso de desenredar la madeja con la que Obama y Hillary trataron de eludir responsabilidades en los brutales asesinatos de cuatro diplomáticos norteamericanos en Benghazi, Libia, en la noche del 11 de septiembre de 2012. El joven y tenaz congresista por Carolina del Sur, Trey Gowdy, quien preside el Comité de la Cámara que investiga los hechos, descubrió la existencia de los correos electrónicos enviados desde la cuenta personal de Hillary.

Una cuenta abierta por Hillary aún antes de tomar posesión de su cargo, cuando su nombramiento era considerado por un Comité del Senado y era operada desde un servidor privado ubicado en el sótano de su residencia particular. Ella controla esos correos y es una hipocresía característica de esta mujer sin escrúpulos que haya enviado un tweet donde dice que “quiero que el público lea mis correos y he pedido al Departamento de Estado que los de a la publicidad”. Ella es quien los controla y quien tiene la obligación de proporcionárselos al Congreso. Pero si alguien creyera en esta posibilidad, tengo una finca en Cuba que puedo venderle.

Dichos correos revelaron que fueron subalternos de Hillary en el Departamento de Estado quienes echaron a rodar la bola de que los actos terroristas habían sido motivados por un video editado en Estados Unidos donde se atacaba al Profeta Mahoma. El mismo video que Hillary mencionó a los familiares de las víctimas cuando los cadáveres fueron recibidos en la Base Aérea de Andrews y al que hizo referencia Obama durante un discurso ante las Naciones Unidas. Con el transcurso del tiempo ha quedado demostrado que todo fue otra mentira de estos dos mentirosos incurables.

Ahora, Benghazi regresa a los primeros planos, esta vez acompañado de otros escándalos potencialmente dañinos para la ambiciosa ex Primera Dama. Esta turbulencia política ha desatado una plétora de retos a la coronación de Hillary como candidata del Partido Demócrata a las próximas elecciones presidenciales. Desde hace unos meses se notaba un cierto cansancio entre los demócratas por el secuestro de su partido por los Clinton. Una puerta que estaba entreabierta se ha abierto de par con estas últimas revelaciones de los procedimientos torcidos de los Clinton.

Se escuchan los nombres de figuras respetables y populares dentro de las bases del partido como el ex Gobernador de Maryland, Martin O’Malley y el ex Senador por el Estado de Virginia Jim Webb. Pero, según experimentados analistas políticos, la peor amenaza para Hillary es la niña mimada de la izquierda, la Senadora por Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. Esta mujer podría obligar a Hillary a moverse en dirección izquierda para salvar su precaria postulación por el Partido Demócrata, al mismo tiempo que prolongaría el proceso y le sacaría sus trapos sucios. Se especula que hasta el bufón de Joe Biden podría sumarse al elenco, aunque sólo sea para disfrutar el circo.

Si estuviéramos hablando de gente honorable existiría la posibilidad de que Bill y Hillary se hicieran a un lado para dejar camino abierto a otro candidato por el bien de su partido y el bien del país. Yo vaticino que, por el contrario, se mantendrán en la trinchera y utilizarán los fondos acumulados con promesas de favoritismo a donantes nacionales y extranjeros para destruir a sus enemigos políticos. Los Clinton han demostrado que, como el Don Corleone del Padrino, para ellos todo es “cuestión de negocios”. Los demócratas tienen, por lo tanto, que tomar una decisión terminante: Hundirse con los Clinton o arrancar la corona de las manos de Hillary. Y eso, como ya sabemos, no será una tarea fácil.

12 de marzo de 2015.

La Nueva Nación es una publicación independiente cuyas metas son la defensa de la libertad, la preservación de la democracia y la promoción de la libre empresa. Visítenos en : http://www.lanuevanacion.com

Islamist ‘Martyr’ Slams Car into Miami Airport -Threatens Bomb

Mainstream media coverage is avoiding what some websites have pointed out: there is strong evidence she was motivated by jihad.

BY RYAN MAURO

A Muslim convert was arrested last week after crashing her car into Miami International Airport while yelling in Arabic. Afterwards, she told the police she had a bomb (which proved to be a lie). This is likely the first act of Islamist terrorism on U.S. soil this year.

Julissa Magdalena Maradiaga-Iscoa is an illegal immigrant from Honduras who has been deported from the U.S. before. She was even arrested for battery in 2013. Mainstream media coverage is avoiding saying what some Internet websites have pointed out: She is a Muslim and there is strong evidence she was motivated by jihad.

Law enforcement says this was no accident. A detective said she was “making an intentional attempt to breach airport security by attempting to drive her vehicle through the airport entrance.”

Images from the scene show she is wearing the hijab, a head covering that many devout Muslims believe women are required to wear. Her sister says she converted to Islam about four years ago and has become pregnant by an Arab man.

Most significantly, Maradiaga-Iscoa describes herself as a “shaheeda” (martyr) in English on her Facebook page. She also “likes” foreign Islamists on her page that are unknown to many Muslim-Americans, for example, Zakir Naik, a radical cleric from India.

Her sister says she is mentally ill but there is no connection between mental illness and Islamic terrorism, although homegrown terrorists with little connection to formed groups have a higher chance of being mentally unstable. It is important to observe that not all mentally ill people aspire to commit terrorism. Islamist extremism is that special ingredient that can take someone—mentally ill or not—to that level.

FBI Special Agent Michael Leverock stated, ”There appears to be no nexus to terrorism,” perhaps downplaying the significance of the incident by using terminology referring to organizational connections to foreign jihadists.

Her apparent act of violent jihad shows yet again the dangerous consequences that arise from non-violent Islamist extremism.

Zakir Naik was recently honored by the Wahhabist government of Saudi Arabia with a gold medal and $2,000 for “services to Islam.”  Naik is known for touting anti-Semitic, anti-Western conspiracy theories, for example, saying that 9/11 was an “inside job” committed as a pretext for a war on Muslims. He supports suicide bombings as a “last resort” in “self-defense,” citing jihad against Israel as a situation where this is permissible. 

“If he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorizing America—the terrorist, the biggest terrorist—I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist,” Naik said in one sermon.

In 2006, he said on the Internet, “Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden is right or wrong. I reject them…we don’t know…But if you ask my view, if given the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don’t know what he’s doing. I’m not in touch with him.”

Another cleric Maradiaga-Iscoa “likes” on Facebook is a cleric in Zimbabwe named Mufti Ismail Menk, who got his Islamic education in Saudi Arabia. He was scheduled to do a speaking tour at six British universities in 2013, but it was cancelled after attention was brought to his anti-gay preaching. One inflammatory quote of his was, “With all due respects to the animals, [homosexuals] are worse than those animals.”

Maradiaga-Iscoa “likes” the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an Islamist group linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and a Pakistani Islamist group named Jamaat-e-Islami. Its events feature extremist speakers and one of its teaching guides displays the group’s subversive, anti-American, pro-jihad agenda.

She also “likes” the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which the Justice Department has labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI acknowledges there is evidence linking the group to Hamas. The Florida chapter is one of the more incendiary ones. Executive-Director Hassan Shibly railed against nationalism last year as an anti-Muslim plot.

The media has a responsibility to report these facts and ask law enforcement about their relevancy to the case. The evidence strongly points towards jihadist motivations. The American people deserve to know that.

 Ryan Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security. Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a speaking engagement.

 

Adviser to Rouhani: Iran is an Empire & Our Capital is Baghdad

Adviser to President Rouhani made the remarks at a talk for the Forum of Iranian Identity in Tehran on Sunday.

An adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said that Iran’s historic empire has been restored with Baghdad as the capital, according to Saudi owned regional Arabic daily Al-Arabiya.

Ali Younesi, an adviser to President Rouhani said that “Iran today has become an empire like it used to be throughout its history and its capital now is Baghdad and it is the center of our civilization, culture and identity, today as it was in the past.” This was a reference to the Persian Sassanid Empire that ruled before Islam emerged and which conquered Iraq. The capital of the empire was Baghdad.

The news agency of ISNA (Iranian Students News Agency) quoted Younsi during a talk in the Forum of Iranian Identity in Tehran on Sunday. In his speech he said that “the geography of Iran and Iraq is not to be divided and our culture is not to be separated. That’s why either we fight together or become united” referring to the massive Iranian military presence in Iraq lately.

Iran has sent Major General Qassem Suleimani, commander of the elite Quds Force, to lead the battle for the key Iraqi town of Tikrit.

Younesi who served as Minister of Intelligence in the government of President Mohammed Khatami, attacked all those who opposed the Iranian influence in the area. He said “all of the area of the Middle East is Iran, we shall protect all of the nationalities in the area because we consider them to be a part of Iran and we shall stand against Islamic extremism, takfirism, atheism, neo-Ottomans, the Wahhabis, the West and Zionism.”

He emphasized the continuing support of Tehran to Iraq’s Shiite government and he attacked indirectly saying “our historic rivals which include the successors of the eastern Byzantines and the Ottomans are not satisfied with our support to Iraq,” referring to the dissatisfaction of Turkey with Iran’s expansionism.

He said that his country intends to form an Iranian union in the region saying “we don’t mean by this union to remove the borders, but all of the countries which are neighboring the Iranian plateau must come closer to one another because their security and their interests are connected one to another.”           

He added “I don’t mean that we want to rule the world again, but we must get back our standing and our historical status, which means that we will think globally for Iran and her people.”

Younesi is not the first Iranian politician to boast of Iran’s renewed regional influence. Last september Ali Reza Zakani, a member of the Iranian parliament, boasted that Iran now rules four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.

 

UNBELIEVABLE: NAACP President Compares #Ferguson Cops to ‘Roaches’

This was stated the night before the two #Ferguson cops were shot.

Shortly after Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson announced his resignation on Wednesday, NAACP President Cornell William Brooks said he viewed it as “a validation, certainly not a victory.”

“The fact is that the Department of Justice uncovered an unholy trinity between the Ferguson Police Department, the municipal court and city hall. And the fact you have these resignations indicates that these public officials are reacting to the Department of Justice report the way roaches react to light.

“That is to say, they are running for cover. And that’s a good thing, because that department needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. We need to create a culture of accountability,” Brooks told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

The interview took place after Jackson resigned but before two Ferguson police officers were shot and seriously wounded at the end of a Wednesday night protest outside the Ferguson Police Department.

Although the U.S. Justice Department found no “prosecutable conduct on the part of Darren Wilson” in connection with Michael Brown’s death, it did find “a pattern or practice of racial bias” in both the Ferguson Police Department and the municipal court.

Among other problems, the Justice Department said Ferguson’s law enforcement practices “are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs.” Writing tickets for “minor offenses” to generate revenue imposes “particular hardship on Ferguson’s most vulnerable residents,” the report said.

On Wednesday evening, Blitzer noted that five people have now resigned or been forced out of public jobs in Ferguson — the police chief, two police officers, the court clerk and the city manager:

“Is that enough, or do you want more?” Blitzer asked Brooks.

“The mayor needs to resign,” Brooks responded.

“The fact of the matter is, the city manager worked pretty closely with the municipal court judge to impose these fines and in collusion and in collaboration with the police department, all under his watch. The fact of the matter is, we have a municipality that was acting in a rogue fashion.

“The Justice Department report demonstrates pretty clearly that this unholy trinity violated the Constitution, federal statutes, undoubtedly state laws, and preyed upon the citizenry through municipal fines that were confiscatory and discriminatory. We have a police department that engaged in excessive use of force in a racialized way.

 

 

Rep. Trey Gowdy to Newsmax: Issuing Subpoena for Hillary Is an Option

By Melissa Clyne

If former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to voluntarily comply with requests from the Select Committee on Benghazi, committee chair Trey Gowdy will have no choice but to subpoena her, he said Thursday on Newsmax TV’s “America’s Forum.”

“You hate that it gets to that point,” said Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is a former district attorney. “You ought to be able to make a request of a former cabinet level official. You shouldn’t have to resort to legal process. But certainly, the committee can subpoena people and subpoena documents. Our committee cannot subpoena personal property like cars and boats and servers.”

“But yes, we need to talk to her. And I plan on talking to her, and I hope it’s something that we can work out with her lawyer,” he said. “I cannot do the job that I was asked to do with respect to Benghazi in Libya without talking to the secretary of state.”

Revelations that Clinton exclusively used her personal email account to conduct State Department business has added yet another hurdle to clear in the ongoing investigation into exactly what Clinton knew, and when, as it relates to the killing of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012.

“I cannot ask her about Benghazi until there is a level of assurance that we have everything that we are legitimately entitled to with respect to Benghazi,” Gowdy said.

But Clinton, insisting that she has turned over all correspondence that she is legally required to, has said she will not allow an independent third party to review some 30,000 emails contained on her home server because they are “personal.”

“What really caught my attention is when she said, ‘we,'” he said. “‘We’ went through the documents and sorted out what was public and private. Who is ‘we?’

“If you’re talking about your lawyer doing it, how can we have any assurance that your lawyer negotiated or resolved or reconciled any close questions in favor of the public as opposed to his client, which would be you?”

Gowdy acknowledged that Clinton is “a very distinguished person with a very distinguished career,” but said that she is not an expert on the Federal Records Act.

“So someone had to be involved in the conversation to determine, you know, this is more public than personal,” he said. “And I’ll give you an example: let’s assume that you emailed Secretary Clinton and said, ‘Looking so forward to going to Chelsea’s wedding, thank you for the invitation. If I catch you at the reception, I’d like to ask you about Paraguay and what’s happening there.’ Is that personal or is that public? Or is it a mixture? And if it’s a mixture, how do you resolve that?”

Her explanation for having a private server in lieu of using the government’s is also curious, he said.

“The whole notion that it was done for convenience  I’m not an expert on cellphone technology, but I can tell you in 2010 I was able to put two email accounts on one Blackberry. And the president, who’s a really, really busy guy, manages to comply with the records act using a Blackberry,” said Gowdy.

“To me, what is inconvenient is setting up your own server. It’d be much easier to carry another phone or, heaven forbid, have two email addresses on one.”

Gowdy reiterated that he and the committee have no interest in emails about Clinton’s “yoga practice schedule or the color of the bridesmaids’ dress,” a reference to Chelsea Clinton’s wedding, but maintained that he does want everything he’s legitimately entitled to with respect to Libya and Benghazi.

“And the media has requests that were outstanding and there are other committees, so it’s bigger than just our committee and what we want to ask her,” he said. “I can’t ask her about Benghazi until I satisfy myself that we are in a position to have access to every document we’re entitled to.”

The State Department has also not been forthcoming, according to Gowdy, who said that “they never once told us that [Clinton] only used a personal email account.”

The committee, he said, was not notified until the Friday before The New York Timesbroke the story the following Monday that they didn’t have Clinton’s email records.

In August, the State Department turned over to the select committee eight emails, all of which came from Clinton’s private email address. That address was something committee members made note of during their pursuit of other things with the State Department, such as access to witnesses and other issues relating to Benghazi, Gowdy said.

He has since learned that in October, the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state asking them to produce emails for archiving.

“So fast forward to February and, oh by the way, in December, we wrote her personal attorney, David Kendall, and said, look, can you help us with this personal email address? And he referred us back to this State Department,” Gowdy said.

“So we’re thinking the whole time, well, State Department has all these emails, we just got to hurry them up.

“They gave us another production in February,” he said. “It was about 800 pages but 300 emails, all of them were personal accounts, no official account.

“When The New York Times broke their story is the first time that I learned that the only reason we’re getting a personal account is that’s all she has and, oh by the way, she kept her records when she left the State Department. That never was shared with us by the State Department, despite multiple opportunities for them to do so.”

Gowdy said he and his committee have been diligent about keeping all information gleaned during the investigation confidential in order to keep from the appearance that it’s “a political exercise and not a serious investigation.”

“I did not sign up for a political exercise,” he said. “I signed up to try to bring some comfort and some justice to my fellow citizens and four people who were murdered. So I take this very seriously and I don’t like leaks and I don’t like selective releases, and The New York Times knows full well no one on our committee was the source of that information.

“I learned it when I read the story. Did I know she had a personal email account? Absolutely,” he said. “Did I know that’s all she had? Did I know that the State Department didn’t have all of her records until she gave them back?

“Not until I read Mr. Schmidt’s article,” Gowdy said. “He’s got better sources at the State Department than I do.”

The lawmaker hopes Clinton will reconsider what he characterizes as a “very reasonable request.”

“Turn the server over to an independent, neutral, detached third party. Let that person determine what’s personal, what’s public — let that person determine what’s related to Benghazi and Libya. You keep all the rest of it, Mr. Neutral Referee or Mrs. Neutral Referee. Just give me what I’m entitled to,” Gowdy said.

“I do need to talk to her about how she handled records before I talk to her about Benghazi. But as soon as those conversations can take place, I would be thrilled to have her before the committee.

“We can ask her the questions we have, and we will continue interviewing eyewitnesses and we will continue interviewing other principles and witnesses with respect to Libya,” he said. “We’re going to write a really good report at the end of our investigation. How quickly she comes and goes from Capitol Hill is, frankly, solely in her power.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Trey-Gowdy-Hillary-Clinton-Email-subpoena/2015/03/12/id/629756/#ixzz3UCSjt5Bd 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

Lawyer: Hillary Committed Felony if She Signed Disclosure Form

By Greg Richter

Hillary Clinton said in a press conference on Tuesday that, “I fully complied with every rule that I was governed by” when serving as secretary of state.
But a Washington lawyer says that’s not true if she signed the OF-109 form required of every State Department official, including the secretary, upon leaving office.
The form states that the signer has “surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the government acquired while in the employ of the federal government.”

Signing and not complying constitutes a false statement and is a felony, punishable by fines and/or prison time, said Shannen Coffin, a former assistant deputy U.S. attorney general, on Fox News Channel’s “The Kelly File.” 
Clinton did not surrender her emails until two years after she left office.
“She didn’t comply with the Federal Records Act,” Coffin said. “And she clearly did not comply with her own records management handbook for the Department of State, which sets out a very specific process about how you remove records from the department’s control.”

Those rules require an exiting employee to “prepare an inventory of personal papers and nonrecord materials that you are proposing for removal” and then “request a review of those materials that you’ve proposed for removal.”
A records official then sorts through through all records, including emails, at the time of departure to determine what is public and what is private, Coffin said.
The form itself warns that making a false statement is prosecutable, he said.
“Making a false statement in this context knowingly and willfully – which I can’t imagine anything more knowing and willful than knowing you have 55,000 records sitting in your home – if you do that, it is a felony punishable under 18 U.S.C 1001,” Coffin said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-disclosing-records-form/2015/03/11/id/629656/#ixzz3UCTXdVcU 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

Giuliani: To Redeem His Legacy, Obama Should Channel Cosby, Nixon

By Melissa Clyne

Just weeks after coming under fire for saying he didn’t think President Barack Obama loved America, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is making headlines again for remarks he made Thursday on a Big Apple radio talk show.

Offering advice on how Obama could redeem his legacy, tarnished in part by the anti-police “tone” he has set — resulting in police being shot, according to Giuliani, the president should take a page from comedian Bill Cosby’s book and censure black men “about the large incidence of crime” they commit, the Washington Post reports.

“If an African-American president stood up and said — I hate to mention it because of what happened afterwards — the kind of stuff that Bill Cosby used to say, the first guy to applaud him would be me,” Giuliani told AM 970 host John Gambling. “If he does that, I’m telling you, whatever he does right or wrong he gets a place in history.”

Cosby was once considered entertainment royalty, but has been accused by dozens of women of drugging and sexually assaulting them over his decades-long career.

“It is the obligation of the President to explain . . . that our police are the best in the world,” Giuliani continued, The New York Daily News reports.

Giuliani compared Obama’s opportunity to President Richard Nixon’s decision to normalize relations with China in the 1970s.

“I explained it this way to a person very close” to the president, Giuliani said Thursday, the Post reports. “I said this is like Nixon going to China. Nixon could go to China because Nixon was a strong anti-communist going back to the McCarthy era…. Well this guy has credentials as an African-American. If he stands up and says, ‘You see my family, my daughters, my wife, the way we’re together.’ This is the model. This is the model we need.”
“… This president has a chance to leave a legacy that no other president will have a chance to leave until we get another African-American president and who knows when that’s gonna be, right.”
Giuliani acknowledged that while he disagrees with the president “on almost everything,” he admires the husband and father that he is.
“I think he’s a good family man and a good man,” he said. Newsmax.com 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rudy-Giuliani-Bill-Cosby-Richard-Nixon/2015/03/13/id/629931/#ixzz3UIP6gsV3 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

Poe: Obama Will Lose Appeal Over Executive Order

By Melissa Clyne

There is no question that the Obama administration will lose its appeal on a ruling by a Texas judge imposing an injunction blocking the president’s executive order granting de facto amnesty to some 5 million illegal immigrants, Texas Rep. Ted Poe said Friday on “America’s Forum” on Newsmax TV.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen “said that the administration’s action of legalizing basically 5 million people was so egregious that he had to order an injunction to prevent that executive action from taking place because it violated the law and technically he didn’t get to the issue of constitutionality,” explained Poe, a former judge. 

“The judge said that the administration did not open up this order for public comment.”
President Barack Obama, who Poe said “thinks it’s Burger King, he can always have his way,” has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, where Poe predicts “he’s going to lose again.”
“The best thing so far is the injunction has been implemented and the process, the court process, as everybody in the country knows, takes a long time. So we’re talking about months from now before any ruling by a higher court. ”
He doesn’t think an appeals court will be swayed by the administration’s argument that the judge’s edict could apply just to the 25 states that field the lawsuit.
“Our defense, the state of Texas and the 25 states’ defense … is hey that’s ridiculous because people move across state lines and so if you allow it for the people in these other states, those people will end up coming to the 25 states that have sued the president.”
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ted-Poe-appeal-executive-order-immigrants/2015/03/13/id/629996/#ixzz3UIPu9T8g 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance.
 Vote Here Now!

 

Our desgovernment at work this cost Billions of $$$$

Audit: 6.5 Million on Social Security Are Over 112 Years Old

(Lane Erickson/Dreamstime)

Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015 09:09 AM

By Drew MacKenzie

An audit of the Social Security Administration shows some 6.5 million people on the agency’s rolls are 112 or older, raising the ire of Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson.
The SSA’s inspector general says that in all these cases the dates of death have not been registered in the main electronic file, called Numident, while thousands of dead people are having their identity stolen by illegal immigrants to apply for jobs, according to CNS News.

The audit by the Inspector General released this month revealed that the agency does not have the technical ability to record death information on “numberholders” who exceed “maximum reasonable life expectancies,” including people who were born before the Civil War.
“We obtained Numident data that identified approximately 6.5 million numberholders born before June 16, 1901 who did not have a date of death on their record,” the report says.
The inspector general says that the numbers given to long-dead people were used fraudulently to open bank accounts and that thousands of those numbers were also used by illegal immigrants to obtain work, according to CNS.
“It is incredible that the Social Security Administration in 2015 does not have the technical sophistication to ensure that people they know to be deceased are actually noted as dead,” said Sen. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican.  “Tens of thousands of these numbers are currently being used to report wages to the Social Security Administration and to the IRS.

 

 

“People are fraudulently, but successfully, applying for jobs and benefits with these numbers. Making sure Social Security cleans up its death master file to prevent future errors and fraud is a good government reform we can all agree to.”
Calling it “a major problem,” Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the Homeland Security Committee’s ranking Democrat, said that the scandal exposes Americans to identity theft and is throwing taxpayers’ money down the drain.
“It is simply unacceptable that our nation’s database of Social Security numbers of supposedly living people includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age, with a few thousand having birth dates from before the Civil War,” said Carper.

“Preventing agency errors by keeping track of who has died is a relatively simple problem that the government should pursue as a high priority.”
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

 

 

DAILY EVENTS

Operation Choke Point is government run amuck

Matt Schuck | 

Liberal economist and health care advisor Jonathan Gruber was forced to testify before a House committee months ago to explain and apologize for his now infamous comments about the “stupidity of the American voter.”

While Gruber was scolded by members of both parties for callously dismissing the actions of millions of Americans, his comments represent a feeling all too common among the Beltway establishment. They will not admit it, but they really believe that voters are dumb and consumers need government to protect them from themselves.

A new program from the Obama Administration operates under the same idea as Gruber, and I bet you haven’t even heard about it…until now.

Operation Choke point is an Obama Administration Justice Department program created in 2013 to intimidate banks into not loaning money to businesses that they simply do not like. This means that gun shop owners, tobacco retailers, and other companies like this are going to be feeling the stranglehold of government.

Already, they have used the program to block credit being issued to small business owners and have put gun dealers out of business. They have targeted companies that sell fireworks. They targeted online gaming companies.  They went after tobacco sellers and dating services. They have even targeted loan companies if they don’t favor the rates and the recipients, such as “payday” loan companies.

Federal officials are operating under the paternalistic premise that millions of consumers who use short-term credit – and payday loans, in particular – are simply irrational, and that government must therefore “nudge” them toward “better” choices. Which essentially means that they’re acting as an overbearing father.

A House Oversight Committee investigation has revealed that officials running the program are motivated by personal ideology. In fact, one senior bank examiner wrote to another FDIC official, “I literally cannot stand pay day (sic) lending” and that such lenders “do not deserve to be in any way associated with banking.”

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) Director Richard Cordray testified that the “very sophisticated” members of the House Financial Services Committee should “think about [their] mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” and how to “protect” them from small dollar loans.

And while these regulators try to limit private enterprise, others are busy creating taxpayer backed alternatives to fill the gap. The United States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General (USPS OIG) recommended earlier this year that the agency offer financial services, effectively wanting to create a government run payday loan company

Which they’ve already vilified, yet they want to set up their own payday loans? Makes no sense.

In an attempt to force people into behaving as they want, regulators are increasingly pushing short-term credit out of reach for millions of consumers. The champions of such over-regulation will not admit this, just as they will not admit that short-term credit plays an important role in our economy.

Advocates of the Choke Point program claim that if products like payday loans are eliminated, consumers will simply save more and spend less. Which anyone who has taken economics 101, will tell you is flat-out wrong.

Increased savings and more borrowing options are noble goals. But they will not be achieved by taking away popular and practical financial management tools.

Such thinking on the part of bureaucrats and activists ignores reality for the 76% of Americans who live paycheck to paycheck, with little in the way of savings and who need reliable credit, not scolding or hypothetical solutions, or worse, another government program.

When these hard-working Americans face an unexpected financial shortfall, millions make the perfectly rational decision to use short-term loans to help cover costs associated with all of life’s last minute disasters such as a car breaking down, emergency repairs, etc.

Columbia Professor Ronald Mann wrote, while these products are not inexpensive, the decision to use them is rational because the costs of borrowing are “dwarfed by the opportunity costs of what they would lose if they did not borrow.”

Sounds logical right?

Well, despite this rationality, federal regulators proclaimed that for those borrowing short-term loans from banks – called deposit advances – financial challenges can only last a single pay period; these punitive regulations have resulted in banks discontinuing the service. Similarly, the CFPB has signaled a desire to implement additional rules governing state-regulated payday loans. How does this help consumers struggling to make ends meet? It doesn’t.

Restricting access to short-term loans will not alleviate the urgent financial challenges facing many who struggle to keep the lights on and to pay the bills. I just wish their energy would be put to better use, like growing the economy, instead of a bullish government.

 

 

 

‘Bam! In just two sentences, Walker shoved Obama’s phony concern for workers back at him…’Can’t see email? click here.                                   Unsubscribe? Go here

 

‘Scott Walker Punches Back Twice as Hard at Obama’
Let’s Bring Bold, Conservative Leadership to America — Scott Walker for President
Dear Lazaro R,
I’d like to share with you an editorial on Gov. Scott Walker fromInvestor’s Business Daily.  

 

It praises Scott Walker for how he “responded to Obama’s tantrum” after the Governor signed Right-to-Work into law.

 

More importantly, the editorial is a reminder

of what President Ronald Reagan said when he told Republicans in 1975 to ‘Raise a Banner of Bold Colors, Not Pale Pastels’.

 

Here are a few of the highlights form the Investor’s editorial:
“If Republicans want to know how to respond to President Obama’s barbs and attacks, they should pay close attention to what Gov. Scott Walker said after Obama smacked him for signing a right-to-work bill.

 

Obama, who believes that he should comment on anything and everything under the sun, issued a written statement condemning the law.

 

‘I’m deeply disappointed,’ he said, “that a new anti-worker law in Wisconsin will weaken, rather than strengthen, workers in the new economy’…

 

Rather than meekly taking Obama’s blows, as most Republicans seem wont to do, Walker punched back — hard.

 

‘On the heels of vetoing Keystone pipeline legislation, which would have paved the way to create thousands of quality, middle-class jobs, the president should be looking to states, like Wisconsin, as an example for how to grow our economy,’ Walker told National Review Online.

 

‘Despite a stagnant national economy and a lack of leadership in Washington, since we took office, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is down to 5%, and more than 100,000 jobs and 30,000 businesses have been created.’

 

Bam! In just two sentences, Walker shoved Obama’s phony concern for workers back at him…

 

The problem is that Republicans too often pull their punches or just run away from the fight….  When the GOP resolutely defends free-market principles as Walker has done, it wins. When they’re defensive and apologetic, they lose. (Investor’s Business Daily, 3/10)

 

———-

Meanwhile, back in Washington, Congressional Leaders are squeamish about canceling what’s become known as the ‘Amnesty Bonus’— which retroactively gives illegal immigrants as much as $18,000 in quick-cash tax credits.

 

Scott Walker has a proven track record of bold, conservative leadership as Wisconsin’s Governor.

 

He knows how to stop out-of-control, imperial Democrats like Obama. 

 

A genuine conservative, with big, bold conservative ideas — he has the leadership qualities so urgently needed in Washington today.

 

As you know, Scott Walker is considering a run for President.
Conservatives must urgently rally behind Scott Walker, encouraging him in the strongest of terms to take the next immediate step.

 

Isn’t it time for conservatives to support someone for president who’s tough as nails and knows how to win? 

 

YES, it is time for Scott Walker! 

 

Go Here RIGHT NOW to pledge your support.  

 

Let’s bring bold, conservative leadership to America — Scott Walker for President!

 

Go Scott, Go!

 

Bob Adams

Treasurer

Go Big, Go Bold PAC

 

 

P.S. — Conservatives must unite behind Scott Walker.  With your pledge of any amount, we’d be happy to send you this awesome ‘Go Big, Go Bold!’ bumpersticker! 

 

 “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