HPIM0049

No 910 “En mi opinion” Marzo 24, 2015

No 910 “En mi opinión”  Marzo 24, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

As Iran Chants ‘Death to America’, Obama Is Saying This
What are we as Americans supposed to make of this?

I’d like to share with our readers — even those detractors who struggle with truth and reading comprehension — a simple lesson in lexicon.

I’ve had enough of this incessant talk about getting a “deal” with Iran. This is not that Seventies game show “Let’s Make a Deal” and Monty Hall is not emceeing this exchange — although he may be able to do a better job.

America must not, should not, be making “deals” with the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism in the world. Then again, it was just a week ago that Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, dropped Iran and Hezbollah from the terrorist list — how accommodating and convenient.

But consider this recent “message to the Iranian people” from President Obama as reported by CNSnews.com, “To everyone celebrating Nowruz—across the United States and in countries around the world—Nowruz Mubarak. For thousands of years, this has been a time to gather with family and friends and welcome a new spring and a new year. Last week, my wife Michelle helped mark Nowruz here at the White House.”

Obama called on the Iranians to help him overcome people in the United States and elsewhere who oppose the nuclear deal he is trying to negotiate with Iran. “Our negotiations have made progress, but gaps remain,” he said. “And there are people, in both our countries and beyond, who oppose a diplomatic resolution. My message to you—the people of Iran—is that, together, we have to speak up for the future we seek.”

“As I have said many times before, I believe our countries should be able to resolve this issue peacefully, with diplomacy,” Obama said. “Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has issued a fatwa against the development of nuclear weapons, and President Rouhani has said that Iran would never develop a nuclear weapon.” The video was posted on the White House website with Farsi subtitles — how diverse and inclusive.

Someone obviously forgot to remind President Obama that Iran has state-run media and chances are the Iranian people didn’t get to see his and first lady Michelle’s glad tidings. Furthermore, at a time when you should be attempting to stand strong against the Iranian regime of mad mullahs ,why is it necessary to deliver a happy New Year greeting — which will only be seen by the clerics and the ruling theocrats?

Now, I find it hard to believe the Supreme Leader Khamenei would issue a fatwa against nuclear development after the revelation of his most recent comments.

After all, Khamenei has so publicly displayed his affection for our Constitutional Republic. “Last month, in a speech to his air force commanders, the ayatollah boasted of Iran’s achievement in enriching uranium to the 20-percent level. Twice during the speech, according a transcript made by the BBC, the air force commanders chanted: “Death to America.”

 

 

 

“EMO” Este problema es mucho mas grande de lo que todos se imagina, esto hay que cortarlo de raiz desde ahora mismo. Esta gente si quieren implantar el sistema que tenían en sus pueblos donde se morían de hambre y opresión. NOSOTROS NO VAMOS A PERMITIR QUE ELLOS IMPLANTEN AQUÍ UN SISTEMA DESPOTICO, QUE ELLOS

NO PUDIERON AGUANTAR.

“NO”

FEMALE MAYOR OF IRVING: Tells Islam & Their Sharia Law To Kiss Texas’ Ass (So to speak)

http://clashdaily.com/2015/03/female-mayor-of-irving-tells-islam-their-sharia-law-to-kiss-texas-ass-so-to-speak/

 

 

AMENPER: Nuestros padres fundadores musulmanes.

Escuchamos mucho sobre la herencia Judeo-cristiana de los Estados Unidos, pero según el Presidente Obama, “el Islam ha sido insertado en el tejido de nuestro país desde su fundación.”

Eso es lo que el Presidente dijo en una conferencia de la casa blanca en la “lucha contra el extremismo violento”.

Obama ha dicho cosas similares en el pasado: “Yo también sé que el Islam siempre ha sido una parte de la historia de América”, dijo Obama en un discurso de junio de 2009 en el Cairo, Egipto.

“El Islam siempre ha sido parte de América,” dijo en una declaración de 2010 el día que marcaba el comienzo del Ramadán.

 Y en una declaración de 2014, Obama dijo que la fiesta “recuerda también de los muchos logros y contribuciones de los musulmanes estadounidenses para construir a la estructura de nuestra nación y fortalecer la base de nuestra democracia.”

En su discurso en la Casa Blanca, Obama estaba haciendo el punto de que las naciones occidentales deben mostrar que “reciben a personas de todas las religiones,” en un momento cuando “los extremistas” en las naciones occidentales son “hostiles a los musulmanes”.

“Aquí en Estados Unidos, el Islam ha sido tejido en el tejido de nuestro país desde su fundación. por generaciones–(Aplausos entusiastas de los musulmanes presentes)–generaciones de musulmanes inmigrantes vinieron y fueron a trabajar como agricultores y comerciantes y trabajadores de fábricas,  y ayudaron a establecer los ferrocarriles y construir América.

Buscando en la internet para verificar lo dicho por Obama, tengo que reconocer que en un sitio encontré que Washington y los otros padres de la patria eran musulmanes, la foto de arriba lo comprueba, aunque cuando me fijé mejor pude observar que la página estaba creada por Eric Holder.

Cuando busqué en la página del “Fundación Heritage” lo que encontré es lo siguiente:

“El primer centro islámico en la ciudad de Nueva York fue fundado en la década de 1890.  La primera mezquita de Estados Unidos, esto es un hecho interesante, en Dakota del norte. “(Fue establecido en 1929).

Dos de esos hitos pasaron bien después de la Fundación de los Estados Unidos, sin embargo

la primera relación de la nueva nación con el Islam fue tenso y desagradable.

Según el documento de la Fundación Heritage, poco después de la fundación de América, los Estados Unidos “fue arrastrado en los asuntos del mundo islámico por una creciente serie de ataques sin provocación a estadounidenses por piratas musulmanes, los terroristas de la época,” que saquearon naves americanas y capturaron marineros americanos, sujetándolas por un rescate o vendiéndolos como esclavos.

En su discurso el Presidente Obama también dijo que los musulmanes estadounidenses ahora sirven como agentes de la de inteligencia  de seguridad nacional y soldados. Esto si se lo creo, por eso estamos tan jodidos.

En su discurso en la misma Cumbre, Obama señaló que muchos estadounidenses no conocen a un solo musulmán, y forman una impresión distorsionada acerca del Islam por lo que oyen en las noticias.

Aquí si está completamente equivocado, todos los americanos conocen a un musulmán que vive en la Casa Blanca, y la impresión aunque está distorsionada por su discurso y las noticias que oímos, no por eso no lo conocemos.

 

 

AMENPER: Nueva estrategia de Guerra

La Casa Blanca anunció hoy que está adoptando una política exterior totalmente nueva, basada en el movimiento “Manos-para arriba-no-disparen” que está cobrando impulso con las organizaciones comunitarias en los Estados Unidos

“Si funciona en las calles de Estados Unidos, si es efectivo como nuestra estrategia doméstica, puede funcionar como doctrina de política exterior también”, dijo el Presidente Obama, hoy lunes en una conferencia de prensa.

“Esto puede sonar como una medida dura, pero no dudaremos en usarlo cuando la seguridad de los estadounidenses está en juego”, agregó.

“Esta es una estrategia que ha sido usada por diferentes países como Italia y Francia y que ha evitado un gran número de bajas en sus encuentros con el enemigo”.

Se entiende que el secretario de estado estadounidense John Kerry inmediatamente comenzará a implementar esta estrategia en el extranjero donde Irán e ISIS están presentes, así como con Rusia, Corea del norte y otros matones internacionales que están tomando ventaja de  los Estados Unidos.

Nancy Pelosi expresó su aprobación afirmando que con tal opción sobre la mesa seguramente aliviará todas las amenazas terroristas extranjeras y nacionales, permitiendo al Homeland Security pasar más tiempo en importantes proyectos como el monitoreo de libertad de expresión en Fox News, y las violaciones contra las minorías en panaderías heterosexuales que niegan servicio a los ciudadanos gays.

Preguntado por la nueva estrategia de la administración de Obama, el primer ministro de Israel hizo las siguientes declaraciones, a las cuales nos unimos aunque no sabemos lo que quiso decir, pero me lo imagino….האנשים האלה כמה בני זונות, לא צריך אמא

 

 

 

 

AMENPER: Me mandan esta oración, pero cómo esto no es lo que yo le quisiera decir a mi Señor, he agregado en letras rojas mi pensamiento y mi oración en cuanto a cómo envejecer. 

SENOR ,     ENSENAME A  ENVEJECER 

iSenor! iEnsename a envejecer! Hazme comprender que la Comunidad no tiene la culpa si ya no me encomienda

responsabilidades ni pide mi opinion y ha llamado a otros para  que ocupen mi lugar.  Aleja de mi el orgullo de la experiencia vivida y la convicciones de que soy necesario.

Señor ¡No permitas que envejezca en mi interior! Haz comprender a los otros que yo todavía sirvo y que puedo ser útil, que los años sirven de experiencia, que la experiencia vivida es conocimiento, no orgullo, y que puedo ser necesario en mi trabajo, que esto puede ser una realidad no una convicción vana.

Que no me aferre unicamente a la ley del tiempo mientras poco a poco me voy desprendiendo de las cosas y me de cuenta de que en este turnarse de tareas, descubro una de las experiencias mas interesantes dela vida que se renueva bajo el impulso de tu Providencia.

Que me aferre a mi condición sin pensar en la ley del tiempo, que me dé cuenta que la vida no ha terminado y que me queda por hacer en este mundo mientras tú decidas que debo de permanecer aquí.  Porque tu Providencia es tu voluntad y por algo me dejas aquí.

Haz, oh Senor, que yo pueda ser util todavfa, contribuyendo con el optimismo y la oracion a la alegrfa y al entusiasmo de quienes estan de turno en las responsabilidades, viviendo un estilo de vida humilde y Sereno en contacto con el mundo encontinua renovaci6n, sin quejas sabre el pasado, conviertiendo mis sufrimientos humanos en un don de reparaci6n social.

Haz, oh señor que trate y pueda ser útil todavía, contribuyendo no sólo con el optimismo pero con mi trabajo que sea parte de las responsabilidades no un simple espectador, que la mejor manera de cooperar con la reparación social, sea con el producto de mi trabajo.

Que mi retire de la vida activa se cumpla de una manera simple y natural como un f eliz ocaso del sol.

Que cuando me retire de la vida activa sea por tu voluntad, no la mía ni de otros, que cada día de los que decidas que me quede en este mundo no sea un feliz ocaso de sol, porque los ocasos son tristes no felices, que cada día sea como un feliz nuevo amanecer.

Perdona si solamente hoy, en la tranquilidad, logro comprender todo lo que Tu me has amado y socorrido. Que al menos ahora yotenga viva y penetrante la percepci6n del destino de gozo que me has preparado y hacia el cual me has encaminado desde  el primer dfa de  mi vida.

Que no sea hoy pero cada día que me quede logre comprender todo lo que TU me has amado y socorrido, del destino del gozo que me has preparado, manteniéndome saludable y capaz para que desde el primer día de mi vida hasta mi 81th. Cumpleaños haya podido mantenerme activo y útil

Senor I  iensename a envejecer así! AMEN

Señor !enseñane a envejecer como sea tú voluntad no la de los que escriben oraciones para que yo las repita sin sentirlas! porque tu dijistes que no te hablara con vanas repeticiones sino como a mi Señor que estas en los cielos.

Señor, ¡enséñame a envejecer con dignidad y utilidad no como dice el almanaque de los hombres, pero como dice el almanaque de tu voluntad!

Que otros se den cuenta que la edad no nos hace estúpidos, que todavía podemos escribir mejor que los más jóvenes que mandan oraciones sin saber poner la “ñ” y los acentos y lleno de errores. Que Dios me ayude y los ayude a ellos.  AMEN

 

 

 

Estamos buscando un candidato decente para alcalde que no sea un metiroso o un ladron, ni un descarado para Miami Dade:

  • Que no haya sido ni sea político profesional nunca.
  • Que no se robe los dineros de los contribuyentes.
  • Que se someta a un tribunal de cuentas al final de su mandato para que testifique que sus propiedades y peculio no sea mayor de los que represento su sueldo de alcalde u otras fuentes legales y agenas a su posición de alcalde.
  • Que al final de su mandato se someta a una inspección de la diferencia de su dinero y sus propiedades.
  • Que se comprometa a eliminar el MDX “Miami Dade XpresWay” (Departamento que ha puesto todos los peajes en las carreteras) Y a eliminar todos los Peajes.
  • Que no engañe a los contribuyentes tratando de robarse dineros públicos diciendo que va a reparar el edificio de la corte.
  • Que no engañe al contribuyente diciendo que el inversionista no van a pedir dineros públicos y luego le dan dineros públicos.
  • Que no tenga ni hijos ni amigos “Cabilderos”
  • Que no traiga amigos de el para que sean “Vice-Alcaldes” (Cargo que ni existía) Y luego les pague $100,000 o más mas gastos.
  • Que se comprometa que al final de cada trimestre se reúna con los ciudadanos del condado a responder las preguntas de los ciudadanos sobre su gestión durante este trimestre.
  • Que la deuda y los movimientos económicos, compras, gastos, del condado sean expuestos en un sitio público para que los electores puedan tener control de su administración.
  • Que sea juzgado por los tribunales si favorece de forma económica a sus amigos o familiares.
  • Que no le tenga miedo a los gánsteres que hasta hora han desgobernado y desguazado el condado Miami Dade y casi todas las alcaldía de las ciudades.

 

“EMO” Por favor envíenme todas las características que considera debe tener el alcalde que usted quiere que administre, fiscalice  y controle al Condado Miami Dade.

Envienme ambien los nombres de las personas que ustedes consideren que sea la persona que se puede enfrentar con esta difícil tarea.        

Lázaro R González Miño

 

 

 

AMENPER: EL LIBRE MERCADO.

Algunos me dicen que estoy obsesionado con la importancia de libre mercado por mis intereses particulares.

Quizás esto sea en parte verdad, y no lo considero como un mal, la legítima ambición personal es el motor del libre mercado que genera la riqueza no sólo del individuo pero de la nación.

Con la creación de la riqueza viene la creación de nuevos empleos y el pago de mayores impuestos para lo que debiera ser el mantenimiento de los servicios públicos necesarios y ayuda con beneficios a los que lo necesiten.

 Pero ni siquiera cuando no estaba envuelto en el libre mercado, siempre consideré el sistema como algo natural, algo inherente en el ser humano, un sistema que no es creado por el hombre pero que es establecido para el hombre por Dios, la naturaleza o como quieran llamarlo.

El libre mercado es el más transformador de los sistemas económicos. Promueve innovación e invención, deja al hombre en libertad para que desarrolle sus capacidades sin limitaciones.

Produce nuevas industrias, productos y servicios y mejora los existentes.

Piensen en millones de individuos comprometidos libremente en una infinita variedad de acciones cada día, es imposible concebir todos los beneficios que se producen en nuestra economía en un momento dado- ¿Puede un gobierno burocrático centralizado manejar esta economía?, Marx decía que si, la historia ha demostrado que no.  Lo vimos en nuestra Cuba, y vemos en cada repetición del ensayo marxista.

El libre mercado crea más riqueza y más oportunidades para más personas que cualquier otro modelo económico. Esto es exactamente por qué la izquierda–sean ellos socialistas, marxistas o izquierdista demócratas—lo atacan sin tregua.

En el libre mercado uno mismo promueve libertad , autosuficiencia, valores compartidos y tratos honestos y la persona crea la propiedad, ya sea material o intelectual que es la legítima ambición que motiva al individuo.

Eso no quiere decir que no haya ladrones en el libre mercado: existen en cada esfuerzo, especialmente en el gobierno, por eso la corrupción es mayor, mientras mayor y más poderoso es el gobierno como en los sistemas socialistas. Pero cuando consideras los billones de dólares de las transacciones que componen el mercado libre, el número de delincuentes es relativamente pequeño.

En el entorno social, el individuo se siente satisfecho cuando ve el fruto de su trabajo, mejora su autoestima cuando ve los beneficios de acuerdo con el esfuerzo.

El mercado libre mejora del individuo, la familia y la comunidad. Y no discrimina contra ninguna raza, religión o género. Adam Smith nos lo explica en sus libros- Cuando una persona crea un servicio o un producto, no lo hace pensando que el que va a comprar su producto es blanco, negro, chino o mujer u hombre, católico o protestante, ni siquiera si es musulmán o inmigrante ilegal, no le importa.

El libre mercado es un intrincado sistema de interacción voluntaria, económico, social y cultural que están motivados por los deseos y necesidades del individuo y la comunidad.

La clave para entender el libre mercado es propiedad privada, por eso la izquierda no cree en ella.

Porque la izquierda es colectivista, la justa repartición de la riquezas, lo que realmente es la injusta repartición de los logros de los individuos, y destruye a los que producen privándolos de su propiedad.

Como Marx les enseñó, en un sistema de libre mercado, el primer paso para el socialismo es la creación de impuestos para incursionar en la propiedad de los que producen las riquezas de la nación.

Impuestos opresivos y regulación de la propiedad privada pueden convertirse en una forma de servidumbre, especialmente si dicha confiscación ocurre debido a decisiones arbitrarias e ilegítimas por parte de una burocracia gubernamental. Es decir: las decisiones que no son constitucionales.

Lo que pensamos los conservadores, y esto es el primer principio de gobierno conservador, es que el gobierno federal sólo debe de tratar de aumentar el producto bruto, ayudando a las personas que producen este producto, este es el principio del pastel, no es dividir el pastel para que todos tengan un pedazo pequeño, pero hacer un pastel más grande para que todos tengan un pedazo mayor.

La izquierda crea una ilusión de lucha de clases a través de una variedad de inventos como el impuesto sobre la renta.  Pero el 40% de los asalariados no pagan ningún impuesto a la renta son los productores lo que pagan los impuestos

Cuando los impuestos se convierten en la manera intervencionista del estado para incautarse de la propiedad privada que es el dinero creado por los productores, este es el principio del socialismo.

En esta administración vemos la creación de impuestos basados en la mala ciencia o no ciencia, del cambio climático basado en ideas creadas por un emocionalismo que será pasajero, pero que lo mantienen vigente, sin importarle que el tiempo les quite la razón.

Los impuestos para los beneficios sociales son otro método socialista para fomentar la lucha de clases.

Los beneficios sociales como los impuestos son una necesidad en la sociedad, pero el incrementar artificialmente estos beneficios a personas que no lo necesitan con motivos políticos, es el método de la llamada repartición de la igualdad económica.

Pero “Igualdad económica” es inalcanzable, incluso en los Estados socialistas más brutales y opresivos

Pero sirve a propósito de la izquierda para crear un sistema de clases: artificialmente creado categorías económicas. De esta manera, la izquierda despierta envidia de clase. El mercado libre, por lo tanto, se dice que es incapaz de servir al interés público porque produce “resultados injustos”. Esto requiere mayor intervención del gobierno.

Mayor intervención del gobierno significa menor libertad para el individuo.

Y por esta razón, los conservadores creemos que el libre mercado es un baluarte fundamental contra el totalitarismo. Y parece que la izquierda está de acuerdo porque es implacable en su asalto en el mercado libre.

 

 

 

 

 

Here’s the Sad Democrat Party Response to Ted Cruz Running for President

Liberals don’t have an answer for the conservative message.
Check it out:

Within minutes of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announcing that he’s running for president in 2016, the official Democratic Party Twitter account took a swing at the conservative candidate.

The Democrats immediately accused Cruz of costing the U.S. economy $24 billion as the “architect of the disastrous 2013 government shutdown.”

This will surely not surprise Cruz or his campaign team. As the first Republican to announce his candidacy, Cruz will undoubtedly become an even bigger target for the left than he was before.

Post Continues on www.theblaze.com      

3Share 4TweetRead more at http://patriotupdate.com/2015/03/heres-the-sad-democrat-party-response-to-ted-cruz-running-for-president/

 

 

 

 

Scott Walker a ‘Scrappy Republican’ on Road to the GOP Nomination.
Isn’t it time for Republicans to nominate a WINNER — a genuine conservative for President — who’s got the ‘guts’ to fight the Democrats?
Dear Lazaro R,

I would like to share with you abit of the enthusiasm from conservatives out on the campaign trail who met and heard Gov. Scott Walker in South Carolina last week.  Go, Scott, Go!

“When Jim Ulmer came to see Scott Walker here last week, he was transfixed.‘He’s the little engine that could,’ Ulmer said, describing the Wisconsin governor who successfully battled labor unions and has rocketed to the front of the Republican presidential race.

‘He has guts,’ said Ulmer, 52, Republican Party chairman in rural Orangeburg County. ‘The people of America are looking for another Ronald Reagan, someone we can believe in, someone who will keep freedom safe. Walker could be it’…

‘He represents everything I want in a president,’ Joan Boyce, 61, a school cafeteria worker, said after seeing him speak at a barbecue dinner in Greenville. ‘He’s refreshing for a change. He feels honest to me — he really does. He doesn’t talk like a politician. He talks like a regular guy’…

‘Look,’ said Wilma Storey, 65, an accountant. ‘He won three elections. You’ve got to give it to the man. He’s a fighter. And that’s what we’ve been lacking — a fighter’…  ‘It was wham, bam, right on point,’ she said, pounding her right first into the palm of her left hand. ‘Decisiveness — that’s what I want. He’s a president in waiting’…

‘He said everything I wanted to hear and I just said, “Preach it, brother!”’ said Mary Mills, 66, who works in the food stamp program’s fraud department, after seeing Walker in Columbia…

“He looks like a working man to me,” said Martin, 60, the party chair in remote Williamsburg County. “He gets us. We need him — he’s fresh, young, has hope and energy and will get out there and work.He’s our kind of candidate. He’ll beat Hillary — I know he will.”(Republicans rally to Scott Walker’s call, believing he’s a scrappy survivor,Washington Post, 3/22)

Isn’t it time for Republicans to nominate a WINNER — a genuine conservative for President — who’s got the ‘guts’ to fight the Democrats?

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

Scott Walker is strongly considering a run for President.

As he tours early primary states like South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire, it is critical for conservatives to rally their support behind Scott Walker.  

We need to encourage him in the strongest of terms to take the next immediate step — Go, Scott, Go!  Scott Walker 2016!

YES! It’s time for Scott Walker!

Go Here RIGHT NOW to Pledge Your Support for Scott Walker.Any contribution — whether it’s $10, $50, $100, $250 or even $2,500 — would be incredibly helpful.

Let send a BIGBOLD message to Scott Walker — take the next immediate step, champion our conservative American values, and ‘we’ve got your back’!

‘Go Big, Go Bold’ — Conservative leadership for America — Scott Walker 2016!

Go Scott, Go!

Bob Adams

Treasurer

Go Big, Go Bold PAC
P.S. — As Scott Walker tours early primary states like South Carolina, Iowa, and New Hampshire, it is critical for conservatives to rally their support behind Scott Walker.

P.P.S. — Now is the time for conservatives to rally behind Scott Walker.  With your pledge of any amount, we’d be happy to send you this awesome ‘Go Big, Go Bold!’ bumpersticker!   It’s our way of saying thank you — while helping to build support for Scott Walker.

OTRO NUEVO ESCANDALO DE LOS CLINTON. Y NADIE INVESTIGA DE DONDE SALE EL DINERO???

THIS IS WHAT “BROKE” LOOKS LIKE !  

Amazing isn’t It ?

Welcome to the Clintons ‘ $11 Million Dollar

Mansion ,–  New York state

 

Hillary
Rodham Clinton, as a New York State Senator now comes under this fancy “congressional retirement staffing plan” which means that if she never gets re-elected, she STILL receives her
Congressional salary until she dies.
If Bill out-lives her, he then inherits HER salary until he dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary ($20,000 a month) until he dies. If Hillary out-lives Bill, she also gets HIS salary until she dies,
Guess   who pays for that? WE DO!

Clinton’s 20 Acre –   $11 million mansion   is common knowledge. For her to establish NY residency, they purchased this mansion in
upscale Chappaqua , New York ….makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense.

Here is where it becomes interesting. Their mortgage payments are around $10,000/month. But an extra residence had to be built by the government on the acreage to house the Secret Service Agents. Any
improvement to the property is owned by the property owners…the Clinton ‘s.
So….the Clinton’s charge the federal government $10,000 monthly rent for the use of the extra residence to house the Secret Service staff which is just about equal to their mortgage payment.
He is the ONLY ex-president to use this loophole, thus earning the name ‘Slick Willie’.

This means that we, the taxpayers, pay the Clinton’s, salary, mortgage,  transportation, safety and security as well as the salaries for their 12 man staff and it is all perfectly legal.

AND DON’T FORGET HIS GOVERNOR’S PENSION AND HER SECRETARY OF STATE PENSION…..  

When She runs for President, will you vote for her ?
How many people will YOU send this to?

 

 

 

GLEN Beck Slams Obama! Obama Is A Special Kind Of Liar

http://conservative50plus.com/blog/beck-slams-obama-obama-is-a-special-kind-of-liar/

 

 

 

 

Illinois State Employees Sue Over Mandatory Union Dues

In a lawsuit filed Monday, three state employees in Illinois challenged a law which forces them to pay union dues even when they aren’t in a union.

“Illinois law forces most employees of state government to pay money to a union as a condition of keeping their job,” Diana Rickert, the director of media relations for the Illinois Policy Institute, noted in a statement to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

In many states workers who decide not to be in a union still have to pay a fee. The fee, known as fair share dues, is meant to only cover the cost of representation as opposed to political contributions or other financial transactions taken by unions. While supporters of the idea argue unions have to represent nonmembers anyways so they might as well pay something, opponents believe nonmembers should have the right to not pay anything at all.

“The legal action being filed today argues that state workers have a First Amendment right not to pay for speech they disagree with by an organization they don’t want to support,” Rickert continued. The three state workers are being represented by Liberty Justice Center, the legal arm of IPI.

“Every time a new government worker is hired, the union gets a cut,” Rickert continued. “Even if the worker doesn’t want to be in a union, pay money to a union or be covered by the union contract, the worker has no choice.”

Warning: Don’t Ignore These Signs of Opioid DependenceDGIwire.com

6 Reasons You’ll Love Gainesville Even if You’re Not a Gator FanDream Plan Go

Dirty Jokes in Cartoons You Didn’t Understand as a KidRanker.com

by Taboola

Sponsored Links

Recent court cases are giving hope to groups like IPI and others opposed to mandatory union dues. Most notably, last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Harris v. Quinn that home health workers could not be forced to belong to a union or pay fees to a union. If the Illinois case goes to the Supreme Court, which Rickert is optimistic it will, a favorable ruling could mean the end of mandatory dues for government workers.

“We believe the court will outlaw the practice of forcing government workers to pay money to a union if they don’t want to be a part of the union,” Rickert also noted. “This would deliver a devastating blow to government unions across the entire country.”

Local lawmakers have also gone after mandatory union dues. In February Gov. Bruce Rauner ordered state agencies to stop collecting fair share dues while also filing a federal lawsuit to end the state law that requires them. Democrat lawmakers and unions in the state were quick to condemn the governor’s actions.

 

 

 

 

Increíble que en pleno siglo XXI esté sucediendo esto y los poderosos de la tierra se queden callados ……..
                   ESTE CORREO ES OBLIGACIÓN MORAL REMITIRLO A TODO EL MUNDO!!!!!.
Este correo tiene una imagen muy fuerte, pero muy fuerte; pero lo más FUERTE, el que nadie lo haya publicado e incluso que prohíban publicarlo¿Hasta dónde  puede llegar el cinismo que tenemos en este país  que  estén pasando estas cosas, y que no se diga nada de esto  y que  tengamos todos los días  polémicas; por ejemplo:que cómo tiene que ir la hija del Rey hasta la puerta  del juzgado con coche o andando?.

… ¿Hasta cuándo EUROPA y AMÉRICA  debenpermanecer calladas ? ¿ Dónde se encuentran esoshipócritas Políticos de pacotilla , que ante esta masacre miran hacia otro lado ? …
¿DÓNDE ESTÁN LOS ORGANISMOS DEFENSORES DE LOS DERECHOS HUMANOS? ¿dónde? ¿dónde están o es que estos no son seres humanos por ser sólo cristianos o es que no es creíble porque lo denuncia un misionero?????,
Cristianos quemados vivos en Nigeria: un holocausto monstruoso, ante la indiferencia internacional!!!!.
DENUNCIA DEL PADRE Juan Carlos Martos cmf
Segretariato di PV Missionari Clarettiani

Al publicar este impresionante documento gráfico en Facebook, he pretendido denunciar ante la opinión pública internacional unos hechos monstruosos, absolutamente silenciados por los medios de comunicación de masas; un auténtico genocidio tan monstruoso y bestial como los episodios más abyectos de los campos de exterminio nazis.
Para mi sorpresa, facebook me ha recriminado por publicar este documento gráfico, como denuncia del holocausto que sufren los cristianos en Nigeria desde hace más de 10 años. Conforme a la política de seguridad de esta red “social”, la fotografía se ha clasificado como material “pornográfico”, “violento” o “inapropiado” y, por ello, me castiga prohibiéndome subir durante una semana cualquier otra fotografía. Y me amenaza con actuaciones “drásticas” si prosigo en mi intento de denunciar documentalmente la terrorífica conculcación de los derechos humanos en Nigeria.
Este proceder de los responsables, (facebook-España) supongo, es un atentado a la libertad de expresión y un insulto desvergonzado a las 500 víctimas (sólo en este episodio brutal) masacradas por el terror islámico por el simple hecho de ser cristianos.
Yo creía que esta red social,
 Facebook, nacida en USA, no hincaba la rodilla ante el terror. Sobre todo tras sufrir en sus propias carnes el espeluznante atentado del 11-S, como nosotros el 11-M, víctimas de la furia enloquecida y salvaje del terror islámico.
Me parece increíble que en España, un estado democrático y de derecho -donde constitucionalmente se garantiza la libertad de culto, expresión y pensamiento (Art.16 y 20 CE)- se intente amordazar a los ciudadanos mediante amenazas y coacciones, vulnerando su libertad de expresión, por considerar “inapropiado” un documento gráfico (no un montaje fotográfico) que refleja en toda su crudeza una realidad bestial.
Por el contrario, los directivos de facebook España, deberían felicitarse de esta denuncia pública -hecha con el ánimo de que esta barbarie jamás se repita, y que se castigue a los culpables- pues es un derecho y un deber ciudadano: un servicio a la sociedad, último objetivo, supongo, de toda red “social” que se precie.
De hecho, si las matanzas continúan, es en buena medida porque se sigue ocultando la verdad al pueblo soberano, no vaya a ser que la sepa y “se indigne”: el silencio cómplice de la mayoría de los medios de comunicación propicia la indiferencia de la comunidad política internacional ante este holocausto monstruoso.
Eso sin olvidar la cobardía instalada en el mundo occidental frente al terrorismo islamista. Entre nosotros, una consecuencia más de la estúpida “Alianza de civilizaciones”.
 ¿Se imaginan la reacción del terrorismo islámico en el caso de una matanza de musulmanes a manos de cristianos en una mezquita? ¿Cómo -y cuánto- de beligerantes serían las portadas de nuestros medios de comunicación condenando los hechos?
Por todo ello, desde este humilde blog, pido a quienes me lean un favor: que difundan por todos los medios a su alcance esta fotografía. Al menos para que sirva de homenaje a estos mártires, ya que, desgraciadamente, facebook parece que ha tomado partido por los verdugos, queriendo ocultar la difusión de tan trágicos acontecimientos.

 

Senators Call For Defunding The United Nations If Obama Goes To The UN Against Israel

“Here’s what the president needs to understand.”

  1. TODD WOOD

The Obama administration made a lot of noise over the weekend about its displeasure at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments over the future of Palestinian statehood. Even though Netanyahu walked back his comments in an olive branch to the administration, the White House’s negative, threatening rhetoric towards the Jewish State has not diminished; in fact, it has increased.

What concerns many lawmakers in the House and the Senate are the administration’s threats to possibly change the level of support that America gives Israel in the United Nations. Historically, the United States has been the nation that prevents adverse action against Israel such as the United Nations proclaiming Palestinian statehood. Some senators over the weekend fired a shot across the administration’s bow on this issue.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

Advertisement-content continues below

The US Congress should reconsider funding for the United Nations if the Security Council approves a resolution on Palestinian statehood, Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday.

McCain, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, said President Barack Obama should not even be considering such a resolution.

Breitbart also reported:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to cut off funding to the United Nations if President Obama uses it to bypass Congress on Iran sanctions on Thursday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.

“Here’s what the president needs to understand. If you go to the UN Security Council and you try to bypass the Congress to get this deal approved by the UN Security Council, but not come to your own Congress, then you’re going to risk Congress cutting off money to the United Nations” he stated.

The rubber is hitting the road here at the tail end of the disastrous Obama presidency. This is a very dangerous time for our nation. Our Congressional leaders are going to have to step up and defend the American way of life and our allies in the face of threats to injure them from our treasonous White House.

This may be the last opportunity for an old warrior like John McCain to rise to the occasion when his country needs him.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#8LTWpwfXSyUdfST3.99

Hillary email recipients might consider witness protection

The thing about emails, is that there is a “sender” and a “recipient”, so Hillary’s problems just got exponentially way worse.

Hillary may have dumped her emails, but now the hunt begin for those on the receiving end. And if Hillary’s history of cover-ups is any indication, there could be a few bodies in her wake.

Hillary’s problem is, as the number of Democrats abandoning her grows, so does her gaunlet of protection.

As Trey Gowdy expands the search for real truth, Hillary’s chances to be the first white female president have diminished to, “good luck with that.”

Fox News

Representative Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee, told Reuters these included aides to Clinton and perhaps “aides to aides.”

“We sent a subpoena to the State Department for emails from a number of individuals within the State Department, other than Secretary Clinton,” Gowdy, a Republican, said in a phone interview.

A New York Times report this month that Clinton had used a personal email account for government business while the chief U.S. diplomat from 2009 to 2013 has reinvigorated the committee’s investigation into the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks that killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

I sure would love to be fly on the wall at the Clinton’s, but what I wouldn’t want to be is anybody on the receiving end of her emails.

It’s FINALLY HERE!
Kevin Jackson’s hilarious take on 
Race-Pimping: The Multi-Trillion Dollar Business of Liberalism!

Enjoy this excerpt from the book:

“The money in diversity is enormous, even bigger than former sportscaster turned political pundit turned sportscaster Keith Olbermann’s ego. Wouldn’t you like to be a “reverend” and father children out of wedlock without repercussions? If you study hard, this book will teach you how to have your non-profit organization pay your mistress and your child support – all at the same time. You must be so black that if you eat sushi, watch reruns of Dawson’s Creek and Friends, or enjoy the ballet, you will hang yourself.”

PRE-ORDER NOW!
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/hillary-email-recipients-witness-protection/

Senators Call For Defunding The United Nations If Obama Goes To The UN Against Israel

“Here’s what the president needs to understand.”

The Obama administration made a lot of noise over the weekend about its displeasure at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments over the future of Palestinian statehood. Even though Netanyahu walked back his comments in an olive branch to the administration, the White House’s negative, threatening rhetoric towards the Jewish State has not diminished; in fact, it has increased.

What concerns many lawmakers in the House and the Senate are the administration’s threats to possibly change the level of support that America gives Israel in the United Nations. Historically, the United States has been the nation that prevents adverse action against Israel such as the United Nations proclaiming Palestinian statehood. Some senators over the weekend fired a shot across the administration’s bow on this issue.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

The US Congress should reconsider funding for the United Nations if the Security Council approves a resolution on Palestinian statehood, Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday.

McCain, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, said President Barack Obama should not even be considering such a resolution.

Breitbart also reported:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to cut off funding to the United Nations if President Obama uses it to bypass Congress on Iran sanctions on Thursday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.

“Here’s what the president needs to understand. If you go to the UN Security Council and you try to bypass the Congress to get this deal approved by the UN Security Council, but not come to your own Congress, then you’re going to risk Congress cutting off money to the United Nations” he stated.

The rubber is hitting the road here at the tail end of the disastrous Obama presidency. This is a very dangerous time for our nation. Our Congressional leaders are going to have to step up and defend the American way of life and our allies in the face of threats to injure them from our treasonous White House.

This may be the last opportunity for an old warrior like John McCain to rise to the occasion when his country needs him.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/senators-call-defunding-united-nations-obama-goes-un-israel/#zKWvXv07BZKHw1la.99

 

A merced de los asalariados de la política.

El tema es tan incómodo como políticamente incorrecto para la inmensa mayoría. La política está hoy en manos de demasiados inescrupulosos, personajes de escasa formación y dudosa moral, individuos con más aptitudes para la ingeniería electoral que para gobernar eficazmente. Claro que existen excepciones a la regla, lo que solo confirma la norma general.

En ciertos países, los políticos son personas que han triunfado previamente en sus profesiones, que han logrado ser exitosos en lo suyo, que han construido un capital intelectual y económico significativo digno de ser elogiado y aplaudido. Ellos llegan a la política solo para completar el círculo, por prestigio o bien para aportar algo a su comunidad, pero ya no para enriquecerse o conseguirse una remuneración que les permita sobrevivir.

Eso no los hace intrínsecamente mejores que el resto. No es que esa circunstancia garantice que harán lo óptimo, pero se constituye en una diferencia vital para poder comprender el mecanismo que regirá las decisiones que impactarán en todos. Cuando la política está plagada de personas que buscan en esa actividad una compensación económica, se tomarán determinaciones que no priorizarán sus consecuencias en los ciudadanos, sino en como afectará sobre su propia “continuidad laboral”.

Los que llegan a la política con ese propósito, el que consigue un cargo para acceder a una retribución, sabe que cuando culmine su ciclo deberá buscar en otro lugar esos ingresos que le permitan ganarse la vida y sustentar a los propios. Si ese sujeto depende de ese sueldo para mantener su estándar de vida, si obtiene más renta en la función pública que fuera de ella, sus decisiones estarán siempre condicionadas por su situación personal.

El no pretenderá favorecer a la gente, sino conservar su puesto, sostenerse en el poder para asegurar su espacio y por lo tanto sus beneficios. Su futuro personal y el de su familia dependen de ese esfuerzo, por lo tanto, siempre se concentrará en asegurar votos. El mejor modo de lograrlo  será apelar a la interminable demagogia populista. No vino a esa función para pasar a la historia ni para generar los cambios que la sociedad necesita. Está ahí solo para subsistir por todo el tiempo que le sea posible.

La cuestión va más allá. Su dependencia salarial lo subordina tanto que ni siquiera siente la libertad de renunciar cuando así lo desee y volver a lo de siempre con dignidad. Eso lo condena a asumir con mucha cobardía las órdenes que emanan de su jefe político, a riesgo de quedarse en la calle.

Cuando se seleccionan dirigentes, resulta primordial conocer sus logros en la labor profesional. Si esas personas no han alcanzado la excelencia en lo elegido, si en el pasado no han realizado lo suficiente para mantenerse por sus propios medios, sin favores estatales, prebendas o privilegios, pues difícilmente hagan lo correcto cuando les toque en suerte gobernar.

Ellos solo esperan llegar al poder para cobrar una mensualidad. Eso podría empeorar si su objetivo incluye premeditadamente alcanzar compensaciones “adicionales” de la mano de la omnipresente corrupción estructural, esa que le ofrecerá inconfesables ganancias desproporcionadas.

Muchos sostienen que la política es para cualquiera y que todos deben tener esa posibilidad. En realidad, lo saludable sería que los mejores en los negocios, en sus actividades, en cualquier profesión, pudieran estar dispuestos a contribuir en la búsqueda de las soluciones necesarias.

Si el que ingresa a la política lo hace solo para “ganar” más, para construirse un salario, para progresar individualmente, pues entonces la que está en problemas es la sociedad toda. Cuando los que gobiernan son los que solo saben vivir del Estado, y sus posibilidades fuera de ese ámbito son escasas, pues se corre un enorme peligro y el resultado es predecible.

Ese funcionario, solo espera estar cerca del “tesoro”, ese que sueña con administrar discrecionalmente y que pretende depredar sin piedad. Si su meta es esa, si espera cobrar más allí que fuera de la política, pues entonces la sociedad será su próxima víctima por demasiado tiempo.

Lamentablemente, los que son un ejemplo en lo suyo, los que aprendieron a generar ingresos genuinamente, demostrando ser útiles a sus comunidades, no desean ser parte de la política. Al menos no en una cantidad suficiente como para evitar que la política haya sido cooptada por los energúmenos que ingresan a ella para saquear sin miramientos a los contribuyentes.

Los votantes tienen una gran responsabilidad en esto que no sucede por casualidad. Si los exitosos, se sintieran respaldados, si se estimulara a los más capaces a comprometerse con las soluciones, otra sería la historia. La visión infantil de suponer que la “política grande” es territorio de todos y que cualquiera puede conducir el barco, es tremendamente nefasta.

Como en todos los ámbitos de la vida, como en casi cualquier actividad, algunos han demostrado una habilidad superior al resto. Los mejores son los que deben estar en el juego y ser protagonistas, lo que debe poder verificarse de antemano, con credenciales y evidencias demostrables.

El aterrizaje, en el mundo de la política, de los improvisados, de los amigos del poderoso de turno, de los que solo buscan un empleo para salir del paso y ganarse algo de dinero, no conseguirá que esta sea una sociedad mejor. Creer en eso, no solo es ingenuo, sino también, un verdadero despropósito.

Más grave es rechazar públicamente esas premisas, para luego validarlas con actitudes personales cotidianas. Eso tampoco ayuda. Es imprescindible mejorar la política. Pero para eso hay que ocuparse, como sociedad, de alentar a diario, sin mezquindad, a los sobresalientes, a los que pueden exhibir con orgullo sus victorias y estimularlos para que reemplacen pronto a los parásitos de siempre, esos que pululan en el Estado. Si se esperan resultados superlativos, es indispensable extirpar a los mediocres, para que los ciudadanos no queden a merced de los asalariados de la política.

Alberto Medina Méndez
albertomedinamendez@gmail.com

WND ANALYSIS

TED CRUZ DEPLOYS RONALD REAGAN SECRET TO VICTORY

Republican even borrows tactic from Obama

 GARTH KANT About | Email | Archive

WASHINGTON – Ted Cruz is counting on the help of Barack Obama to win the White House.

That is, the senator intends to learn from the lessons of Obama’s 2008 “grassroots guerrilla campaign” for president, which the Texan often has spoken of admiringly.

But, while Cruz will borrow tactics from arguably the right’s greatest archenemy, he will follow the playbook of the right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan.

Grassroots support was the key to general election victories for both Obama and Reagan, but, like the Gipper, Cruz must first conquer his own party’s establishment.

He intends to do that not by appealing to the center, but by being his own man, an unapologetic conservative, and expanding the appeal of the Republican Party, just like Reagan.

And, just like Reagan, he intends to wage an insurgent campaign.

Merriam Webster defines “insurgent” as “one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party.”

And that defines the Cruz strategy: He will not try to win over the GOP establishment; he will bypass Washington and go straight to the voters.

It is a simple but detailed plan. And it is based on a simple premise: A moderate approach will lead to certain defeat; only a conservative approach can lead to victory.

Cruz shared the outline of his strategy at a recent gathering of a few conservative journalists, attended by WND:

  • Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington.
  • Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats and FDR Democrats.
  • Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core beliefs.
  • Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support from libertarians.
  • Energize and mobilize evangelical voters.

Most of those details are taken straight from the Reagan playbook. So, what advice would a former Reagan aide have for Cruz?

“Ted Cruz needs no advice,” Jeffrey Lord told WND.

An associate political director in the Reagan White House, Lord wrote an in-depth comparison of the Gipper and Cruz published in the American Spectator on Monday called, “The Texas Reagan announces for president.”

In that article, Cruz explicitly told Lord he intends to pursue a 21st-century version of the insurgency strategy pioneered by the late Ronald Reagan.

Lord told WND that Cruz’s speech Monday morning announcing his candidacy for president was “truly amazing” and “right on the mark.”

The former Reagan aide also explained why Cruz appears to have the right stuff to be the right’s first successful insurgent presidential candidate since the Gipper.

Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington

Cruz’s speech was not meant to win over the Washington establishment. It was aimed at Americans in the heartland who, he believes, yearn for a leader who speaks with conviction, rather than a candidate who will try to appeal to the center.

“He was bold, positive, and forthright,” Lord told WND. “Like Reagan, he was totally unapologetic about his conservatism – and the Cruz idea of ‘courageous conservatism’ was a way of answering the old Bush line about ‘compassionate conservatism,’ which by definition was apologizing for being conservative.”

Cruz’s speech showed what he believes is the lesson of Reagan’s success: The way to win is not to try to please as many voters as possible, but to convince voters of the quality of his convictions and that he is a man who will stick to his principles.

“That was the key to Reagan,” said Lord. “Reagan was not only unapologetic about being a conservative, he was proud to be one. Ted Cruz believes exactly the same thing – and it shows.”

See the campaign video: “Ted Cruz for President”

A few weeks ago, WND quoted Cruz describing how establishment Washington hated Reagan as a candidate and how he went over the heads of GOP elite to take his case straight to the people, from whom his real power came.

After Monday’s speech, reporters questioned Cruz’s mettle and ability to win an arduous campaign, but the candidate said it wasn’t about him, responding, “That’s where you’re lacking the faith in what’s happening across this country.”

He explained, “It’s coming from the people. Washington won’t turn us around, but what will turn us around is millions of courageous conservatives who are inspired to reignite the promise of America.”

That echoed a line in Cruz’s speech in which he asked people to “Imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives across America rising up together to say, in unison, we demand our liberty.”

That message struck the right chord with Amy Kremer, the former head of the Tea Party Express, who said the Cruz candidacy “will excite the base in a way we haven’t seen in years.”

Watch Cruz’s announcement!

Lord’s article noted, “Cruz has run aggressively against the Beltway culture since the moment he arrived in town. He’s a proud outsider even within the institution of the Senate, accentuated by his favorite hashtag: #MakeDCListen.”

“Cruz likes to say the biggest divide in American politics isn’t between Republicans and Democrats; it’s between ‘the people and the entrenched politicians in Washington, D.C.’”

That approach has earned Cruz the wrath of the Washington elite, even in his own party.

Lord wrote, that just makes the senator even more Reaganesque: “It is safe to say that as with Reagan, Ted Cruz’s adversaries can’t stand him, which, in the eyes of his admirers, is more than enough to see the newly declared candidate as the Texas Reagan.”

That has cost Cruz the financial support of  GOP king-makers, but it is making him a hero to the Republican’s grassroots base.

“Thus it is that like Reagan, Ted Cruz has become highly unpopular with Establishment Republicans. Not to mention the foaming furies he ignites from liberals who, in the day, hated Reagan in precisely the same way,” wrote Lord.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

But Cruz’s grassroots support comes from his willingness to “draw a line in the sand” and hold steadfast for causes and principles he believes are worthwhile, such as the government shutdown over defunding Obamacare in 2013, which, Lord, wrote, “was furiously assaulted by many of Cruz’s Republican Senate colleagues and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular mandatory health program.”

However, with conservative luminaries such as talk-radio host Mark Levin raving about Monday’s speech, key endorsements seem likely, as Cruz’s grassroots campaign appears to have begun with immediate momentum.

Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats and FDR Democrats

It was no coincidence that, in his speech Monday, Cruz quoted Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s immortal words, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” then immediately spoke of Reagan’s boldness in cutting taxes, demanding the release of the American hostages in Iran and his determination to win the Cold War.

Cruz is courting admirers of both presidents and considers that a key to winning the White House.

WND reported how Cruz had recently told a small group of reporters that the reason GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election was because two groups of voters had stayed home: evangelicals and blue-collar Reagan Democrats.

Cruz insisted the only way to get crossover voters was to do what candidate Reagan had done: Stick to principles and frame the election as a fundamental choice between liberal and conservative governing philosophies.

The senator noted how Reagan was so successful with that strategy that he was the only president to ever have a type of crossover voter named after him, Reagan Democrats.

And, Cruz maintained, in sticking to his core beliefs rather than pandering to as many voters as possible, Reagan had given “FDR Democrats a reason to cross over” and support a candidate who would be a consistent man of his convictions, even if they might disagree with him on some issues.

It was notable that Cruz ended his speech with a nod to one of Reagan’s most inspirational beliefs, declaring, “We will restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America.”

Cruz knows the GOP brand is in need of some image repair, after years of Democrats hammering the GOP as stupid, evil, crazy and, especially, greedy.

But he also sees that as an opportunity to flip the script on the mainstream narrative of the GOP as party of the rich and Democrats as party of the poor.

As WND reported, Cruz intends to run a populist campaign aimed at explaining to working Americans the benefits of conservatism to everyone.

He sees that as an opportunity to expand his appeal beyond his conservative base, because, as he told the American Spectator, “The image created in the mainstream media does not comply with the facts.”

Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core beliefs

“Show me where you stood up and fought,” Cruz challenged potential candidates in a speech given in Iowa in January.

Cruz has said the GOP presidential candidate must be someone who has, time and again, chosen principle over politics – a candidate willing to take an unpopular stance if it is based on solid principle.

The feisty Texan, of course, has earned a reputation as someone willing to repeatedly and tirelessly go against both Democrats and establishment GOP leaders in his efforts to repeal Obamacare and stop amnesty.

Lord noted that keeping principles in practice, as well as in theory, reflected Reagan’s view, “that the GOP should move the center to the right – not, as the GOP establishment believes, move the right to the center.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Cruz has said the critical mistake that could cost the GOP another presidential election would be playing it safe by running another moderate candidate too “squishy” on the issues.

The real litmus test for the best candidate, insisted Cruz, was whether he or she had “stood up to fight on principle” on the most critical issues, such as amnesty, Obamacare, the runaway national debt, Second Amendment rights and the struggle to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Emphasizing reporters should watch what candidates have done more than what they promise, and that actions should speak louder than words, the senator turned to scripture as the best guide of all, noting, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

Sticking to principles does not come without considerable risk in Washington.

Lord noted how when Cruz drew a “line in the sand” in the fight against Obamacare in 2013, he “was furiously assaulted” by many of his “Republican Senate colleagues and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular mandatory health program.”

“Cruz was also opposed at the time by other potential GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, as well as the losing 2012 party nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Insisting Cruz was badly damaging the party’s 2014 chances was former Bush 43 top White House aide Karl Rove.

“In February 2014, when Cruz, in another line-in-the-sand moment insisted on holding Senate Republicans accountable in a vote to raise the debt limit, the Establishment GOP turned on him again. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Cruz was ‘The Minority Maker.’”

However, as Lord also observed, “the 2014 elections brought a tidal wave of support for the Republican Party, giving it the best showing since 1928 with a take-over of the Senate and more seats in its House majority.”

Sticking to his guns has given Cruz another, perhaps surprising, dividend: what may be the growing respect of his peers and former antagonists.

When Cruz joined Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in filibustering the nomination of eventual CIA Director John Brennan over drone policy, Sen. John McCain referred to the duo as “wacko birds.”

Cruz never responded with a personal attack, instead, characteristically adhering to Reagan’s “11th commandment” of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans in public.

Over the weekend, just before Cruz announced his candidacy, CNN quoted McCain as saying of Cruz: “He is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He and I are friendly, and I think he is a very viable candidate.”

McCain also suggested Cruz could beat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency in 2016.

Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support from libertarians

Cruz aides have told reporters he sees as the GOP as composed of four branches: establishment, libertarian, social conservative and tea party.

His strategy in the GOP primary races is to win tea-party and conservative votes and peel off support from libertarians, as well as energize and mobilize evangelical voters among the social conservatives.

A Cruz aide used a March Madness metaphor to described the strategy to National Review, equating the four GOP branches to four brackets.

“We’re the number one seed in the tea-party bracket,” he said, adding, “I think this makes us the number one seed in the evangelical bracket.”

Cruz told the American Spectator he intended to pursue “a 21st-century version of the insurgency strategy” pioneered by Reagan, and bringing together “national security, social, pro-growth, and libertarian conservatives.”

See Ted Cruz’s speech announcing his candidacy for president:

Lord recounted how the “Reagan coalition broadened the base of the party to bring in everyone from evangelicals to women to union workers to Latinos.”

Cruz sees the key to victory in expanding the base by attracting voters with conservative principles and re-creating what Lord described as Reagan’s “virtual army of supporters who had previously never spent a day in politics.”

The Texan’s hope is that will also offset the GOP establishment’s advantage in fundraising, where Bush is expected to raise $100 million, while Cruz hopes to raise $40 to $50 million.

And, as Lord also noted, Cruz is counting on his base-broadening strategy to overcome a severe deficit in the polls, where CNN recently had him at just 4 percent support.

Energize and mobilize evangelical voters

It is no accident that Cruz announced his candidacy for president at Liberty University, which advertises itself as the largest Christian university in the world.

He maintains low voter turnout among evangelicals and blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” cost the GOP the election in 2012.

“Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting; they’re staying home,” said Cruz in his speech Monday. “Imagine, instead, millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.”

Focusing on religious conservatives could help provide Cruz a jump start in two early primaries.

An entrance poll in 2012 found 57 percent of voters in the Iowa Republican caucuses described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.

An exit poll found 65 percent of South Carolina voters were born again or evangelical.

Cruz often reminds audiences his father is a pastor.

In his announcement speech, Cruz credited Christian faith with saving his family in the 1970s.

He described how his parents lived a “fast life,” both “drinking far too much,” neither with a “personal relationship with Jesus” and separating when he was three.

But his father converted to Christianity, “And God transformed his heart and he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.”

“Were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would not have been saved, and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.”

Will history repeat?

Why does Cruz appear so confident and enthusiastic when he is beginning a race for the White House with 4 percent support?

Probably because he has beaten long odds before, and handily, by sticking to the Reagan formula and running to the right, not the center.

As Lord wrote, “In early 2011, he was still the little-known, Harvard-educated, Cuban-American former Texas solicitor general considering a long-shot run against wealthy Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Cruz essentially did not register in the polls when he launched his Senate run.”

But, defying the pundits, his insurgent campaign based on conservative principles forced Dewhurst into a runoff, even though he finished 10 points behind.

“Two months later, Cruz erased that deficit and walloped Dewhurst – who by then had spent $25 million of his own fortune trying to salvage his campaign – by 14 points in the runoff,” recounted Lord.

He concluded, “A conservative star had been born.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/ted-cruz-deploys-ronald-reagan-secret-to-victory/#UuT2JxrXpJVrDXPQ.99

Ted Cruz Is Running For President! Watch His NH Speech!

Finally We Get Bold Colors Not Pale Pastels. Cruz Is A True Conservative! Join The Cruz Brigade. Text The Word: Constitution To The Number 33733
New Hampshire 3-15-15 Speech Plus Questions, And Answers. http://conservative50plus.com/blog/ted-cruz-is-running-for-president-listen-to-his-nh-speech/

 

Did Anthony Kennedy Just Show His Hand On The Obamacare Subsidies Case?

Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments in a run-of-the-mill budget meeting Monday may have signaled how he intends to vote in this year’s biggest Obamacare lawsuit over the legality of federal premium subsidies.

In a Monday budget request before the House Appropriations Committee, Justice Anthony Kennedy, typically the swing vote on the Court, made comments that could suggest he’s leaning in favor of the plaintiffs in King v. Burwell. The question in the pivotal case is whether the text of Obamacare restricts the law’s popular premium subsidies to state-run exchanges, of which there are only 14, and bans them from the vast majority of states that use the federally-run exchange, HealthCare.gov.

The battle over the lawsuit about Obamacare subsidies currently before the Supreme Court has focused on whether anyone’s got a solution if the Court’s decision ends up skyrocketing HealthCare.gov premiums.

The administration is arguing that the language in the bill doesn’t exclude federal marketplace customers from the subsidies and seems to be trying to convince the Court that ruling otherwise would be catastrophic for the health-care law, and therefore for the Court’s image. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Sylvia Burwell has repeatedly sworn that the administration will not even have a back-up plan prepared in case they lose the case — although anonymous officials have said elsewhere that there is a contingency plan in place. (RELATED: Report: Obamacare Backup Plan Is To ‘Declare’ HealthCare.gov A Contractor For States) 

Congressional Republicans, who typically support the plaintiffs’ interpretation that subsidies are for state exchanges only, have countered that tactic by releasing their own plans in the case of a decision eliminating the federal exchange subsidies.

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

20 Pics That Prove Jennifer Aniston is Better than Angelina JolieRant Chic

The Navy’s Massive, High-Tech Destroyer Is HereCNET

by Taboola

Sponsored Links

But it may turn out that the Court may choose to not consider the likelihood of Congress restoring the subsidies at all. While he wasn’t overtly discussing King v. Burwell, Kennedy’s comments on Monday certainly suggested that it isn’t the Court’s role to predict what a certain Congress would do in response to their cases.

“We routinely decide cases involving federal statutes and we say, ‘Well, if this is wrong, the Congress will fix it.’ But then we hear that Congress can’t pass a bill one way or the other. That there is gridlock. Some people say that should affect the way we interpret the statutes,” Kennedy said Monday. ”That seems to me a wrong proposition. We have to assume that we have three fully functioning branches of the government, government that are committed to proceed in good faith and with good will toward one another to resolve the problems of this republic.”

Court experts immediately grabbed onto the comments, which were in response to a question from Florida GOP Rep. Ander Crenshaw about “politically-charged issues” before the Court, as a likely reference to the furor over King v. Burwell.

Josh Blackman, an assistant professor of law at the South Texas College of Law who specializes in the Supreme Court, points out that strategy to put pressure on the Court due to Congress’s reaction even made its way into the courtroom — much to the chagrin of at least one justice. During oral arguments in the case earlier this month, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli suggested to Justice Antonin Scalia that the current Republican-controlled Congress wouldn’t come up with a fix.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Congress adjusts, enacts a statute that — that takes care of the problem.  It happens all the time. Why is that not going to happen here?

GENERAL VERRILLI:  Well, this Congress, Your Honor, I –­­ I –­­ (Laughter.)

 

GENERAL VERRILLI:  You know, I mean, of course, theoretically — of course, theoretically they could.

JUSTICE SCALIA:  I ­­– I don’t care what Congress you’re talking about.  If the consequences are as disastrous as you say, so many million people without — without insurance and whatnot, yes, I think this Congress would act.

“It was said in a very snarky or sarcastic way,” Blackman told TheDC about Verrilli’s comments. “I was sitting in the Court and I thought that was inappropriate. I think that’s what Kennedy was referring to here.”

Kennedy made no reference to the case, and Blackman stressed that it’s impossible to know exactly what the justice was thinking. But “he seemed very much directed with how he wanted to handle that question,” Blackman said. “The fact that he said this makes me think this issue is on his mind.”

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case is expected in June.

Follow Sarah on Twitter

Tags: Anthony KennedyKing v. BurwellObamacareSupreme Court

 

 

 

¿Cuales son los sistemas socioeconómicos que existen actualmente?

Ponchar aqui

http://www.youtube.com/user/TVparaCUBA

INVITADO

Julio M.Shiling,

El politólogo y escritor Julio Shiling explicó la diferencia entre el sistema socioeconómico existente en los países democráticos y el sistema socioeconómico que existe en China conocido como capitalismo de estado.

Saludos,
Jesús Angulo
Periodista , Presentador del programa ENTÉRESE,
WLRN TV 17, domingo 6:00 PM y
Productor y Director de TV PARA CUBA 

www.jesusanguloguines.com

Mi video preferido:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgy9inZ4MOk&list=LL7Kn9dtC-XN95yk8jcTNInQ

 

 

 

 

BREAKING: Netanyahu Makes His Move to DESTROY Obama’s Entire Agenda

Now that Barack Obama’s attempt to torpedo Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party at the Israeli polls has failed, the president is about to learn just how unpleasant payback can be.

Sources have indicated the recently-reelected Israeli prime minister has dispatched diplomats to France in order to destroy Obama’s negotiations on Iran’s nuclear capability.

  

France is one of the P5+1 powers conducting the negotiations in Switzerland, as well as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. As such, it can realistically veto any agreement Obama and Kerry decide to cook up.

 

In addition, France has also been the power most skeptical of the negotiation process. They’ve expressed grave reservations about the March 31 deadline to reach a tentative framework for a deal, as well as the proposed deal’s ability to effectively limit Iran’s production of nuclear material.

 

Israel’s Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz is flying to Paris to meet with French officials, as Prime Minister Netanyahu apparently believes them to be the most likely to reject such a deal.

 

“This is an effort to prevent a (nuclear) deal that is bad and full of loopholes, or at least … to succeed in closing or amending some of these loopholes,” Steinitz told Israel Radio (H/T Pat Dollard).

 

In the past, Steinitz said, France has “helped us a great deal,” noting that the French were the driving force behind the Iranians being limited to 20 percent fissile material purity during the preliminary November deal.

 

Volumes are spoken by the fact that a French socialist regime under Francois Hollande has been of more assistance to Israel in its time of need than America.

 

It’s becoming painfully obvious that Obama’s direction in the P5+1 negotiations isn’t driven by political reality, but by personal animus. He’s willing to let a pariah state retain the ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon partially out of spite for Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

That street goes two ways, though, and Benjamin Netanyahu has driven down it many, many times. If he has his say, Barack Obama will be left empty-handed, with little more than his misplaced anger and general humiliation


http://conservativetribune.com/netanyahu-makes-move-obama/

 

“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