HPIM0049

No 916 “En mi opinion” Abril 1, 2015

No 916 “En mi opinión”  Abril 1, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

AMENPER: Una pequeña encuesta, con la respuesta abajo… (no hagan trampa) ¿Quién hizo estas observaciones?

Bill O´Reilly

Ted Cruz

Bill Clinton

Reverend Al Sharpton

Cardinal Seán Patrick O’Malley, Archbishop of Boston

 

El libre ejercicio de la religión ha sido llamado la primera libertad, que originalmente fue la que provocó el desarrollo de la gama completa de la declaración de derechos. Nuestros fundadores se preocuparon mucho por la religión. Y esta fue una de las razones por las que trabajaron tan duro para incluirla en la primera enmienda de la carta de derechos a la cabeza del documento.  Es que entendían bien lo que podría pasar a este país, cómo podrían ser pervertidos tanto la religión y el gobierno si no había un espacio creado y cierta protección proporcionada. Ellos sabían que la religión ayuda a darle a nuestro pueblo una presencia sin la que una democracia no puede sobrevivir. Sabían que debía haber un espacio de libertad entre el gobierno y el pueblo de fe que de lo contrario lo podría usurpar el gobierno.

Hemos visto ahora, todos nosotros, que la religión y las instituciones religiosas trajeron fe y disciplina, comunidad y responsabilidad por más de dos siglos por nosotros mismos y permitió que viviéramos juntos de una manera que creo que no hubiera sido posible. Después de todo, somos la democracia más antigua de la historia y probablemente la mayoría sociedad verdaderamente multiétnica en la faz de la tierra. Y estoy convencido que ni una de esas cosas sería cierto hoy no hubiera sido por la importancia de la primera enmienda y el hecho de que la hemos mantenido con la fe  durante 200 años.

Lo que básicamente dice la ley de restauración religiosa  es que el gobierno se presenta ante un nivel de prueba muy alto antes  que interferir con el libre ejercicio de la religión de una persona. Este criterio es compartido por el pueblo de los Estados Unidos, así como por el Congreso. Creemos firmemente que no podemos, no podemos dejar de ser muy vigilantes en este trabajo.

OOOK……….

Vamos a ver quién adivinó sin hacer trampa

¡

¡

Estas fueron palabras del Presidente Bill Clinton durante la firma de la ley de restauración de libertad religiosa en el jardín sur de la casa blanca el 16 de noviembre de 1993

Sencillamente, lo que nos dice esto es que ellos saben la verdad, pero no la ejecutan porque ponen sus intereses sectarios por arriba de la verdad.

This is the end? Pope gives up cryptic hint
Comments on short papacy show possible awareness of ancient forecast
An author who successfully predicted Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation now is suggesting Pope Francis may be a believer in an ancient prophecy that foretells disaster for the Roman Catholic Church.

The pope unleashed an international frenzy of speculation when he recently commented, “I have a feeling my pontificate will be brief. … It is a vague feeling I have that the Lord chose me for a short mission.”

Bestselling author Tom Horn, featured on the blockbuster movie, “The Last Pope?,” told WND in an exclusive interview that the statements imply the man once known as Jorge Mario Bergoglio sees himself as part of a prophecy.

Horn stated, “The comments by Pope Francis regarding possible assassination or retirement and that he may not be the pontiff much longer make me wonder if he is a believer in his role as the last pope (pope No. 112 in the ‘Prophecy of the Popes’), which speaks of the destruction of Rome.” 

Enviado por Gatria: Saludos a todos y les recomiendo ver y escuchar esto

Si no entiendes el inglés, busca quien te lo traduzca y préstale mucha atención. Cada palabra cuenta.

Debe importarte lo que estamos viviendo, y lo que vendrá.

Y por último, solo son tres minutos para actualizarte.

Es necesario escucharlo después puedes hacer lo que consideres apropiado debe importarte el futuro nuestro y el de nuestros hijos escucharlo hasta el final y toma las decisiones que tu consideres apropiadas.

http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=51fe948515b4  

Carlos Luis

 “EMO” Yo me he tomado la libertad de cambiar algunos términos de este escrito, con la finalidad de que sea más entendible. LRGM.

Amenper: .Abril 1ro. Un día Especial

Como usted debe de haber oído, hoy (1 de abril) es ser el primer año en que se celebra el día internacional de hablar como un “PROG” (un progresista)!

Hoy es el día en que todos tenemos que hablar la charla de la revolución popular y la derrota de la libertad individual, el triunfo del gobierno paternalista y el logro de la igualdad.

(Bueno, no la igualdad para los enemigos del pueblo como los conservadores religiosos, esos no merecen igualdad)

Lo básico:

Por supuesto se dirige a todo el mundo por el saludo/denominación: “Camarada”, no compañero o compañera, porque esto es sexista, hay que volver al nombre de camarada, porque este nombre denota la igualdad de género, ya sea hombre, mujer, maricón, lesbiana o transexual.

Actitud: Cuando hablando como un Prog  debemos mostrar la arrogancia de que absolutamente saben que tiene razón y que cualquiera que se le oponga es escoria o  loco.

Y asegúrese de rociar su vocabulario con palabras como ‘Igualdad’ y la ‘Justicia’ pero no vayan a  empantanarse en la definición de estas palabras – esto sería la sentencia de muerte de su argumento.

Mantente en contacto con tus sentimientos dogmáticos en lugar de pensamientos y harás bien – sentimientos dogmáticos triunfan sobre hechos y la lógica

Recuerda decir que se siente ofendido o discriminado, esto automáticamente le otorga más derechos y privilegios como el derecho a gritar a quien te ofende y recibir un cheque del gobierno.

Algunas otras frases claves a tener en cuenta:

Enemigos del pueblo

La justa contribución con los impuestos.

No construyes!

Distribución de la riqueza

Abordar la desigualdad de la riqueza

Los conservadores son sembradores de odio

 

Si has vivido en Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela u otro país en que ha triunfado el socialismo, tendrás la ventaja sobre los nuevos progs, aprovecha esta ventaja para recibir más beneficios.

Recuerda este día glorioso como el Día de hablar “Prog”, no permitas que traten de imponer el arcaico concepto capitalista que hoy es “april fools day” el día de los tontos, porque esto es una campaña imperialista para recordarnos lo que somos.

 

Expert Says: “Look who’s going bankrupt next in America”

03.12.2015     BY MIKE PALMER, STANSBERRY RESEARCH

No one believed Porter Stansberry six years ago.

As head of one of America’s largest independent financial research firms, Mr. Stansberry’s work back in 2008 led him to a bold, but worrisome, conclusion:

That the world’s largest mortgage bankers–Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which at the time were responsible for nearly 50% of all the mortgages in America–would soon go bankrupt.

RELATED: Multi-millionaire shares his blueprint for surviving the coming currency collapse.

In fact, in June of 2008, while their stock prices were still trading at well over $20 per share, Stansberry published a report to his customers titled: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Are Going to Zero.”

Inside this report, Stansberry explained:

“For those of you who don’t work in the financial industry, it might be hard for you to immediately grasp what’s so dangerous about the extreme amount of leverage employed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Let me explain exactly what Fannie and Freddie do and why they’re in so much jeopardy…”

We all know what happened next.

Both agencies went bust—and if not for a bailout from the Federal Government, both would have declared bankruptcy.

Barron’s—America’s second biggest financial newspaper—even wrote a story about Mr. Stansberry’s accurate prediction short, and called it “remarkably prescient.”

Over the years, Mr. Stansberry has made a name for himself by accurately predicting the biggest and most important collapses in America.

A few of the others he’s accurately identified well in advance include: General Motors, General Growth Property (America’s biggest mall owner), D.R. Horton (a homebuilder), and Gannett newspapers, to name just a few.

Stansberry also predicted the recent collapse of oil and natural gas prices as early as 2010, when he wrote a report titled: “Peak Oil is a Flat Lie.”

Well, now Mr. Stansberry has issued another fascinating warning, about a new and looming bankruptcy.

RECOMMENDED: Next white house scandal? Looming financial scandal could send stocks tumbling

As Mr. Stansberry writes:

“No one believed me years ago when I said the world’s largest mortgage bankers would soon go bankrupt.

And no one believed me when I said GM would fall apart… or that the same would happen to General Growth Properties.

But that’s exactly what happened.”

And, he says, that brings us today…

Stansberry says the next big bankruptcy in America will be even bigger than those he’s identified in the past. In fact, he says this looming bankruptcy will threaten your way of life, whether you own any investments related to it or not.

This collapse, says Stansberry, will change everything about our normal way of life: where you vacation… where you send your kids or grandkids to school… how and where you shop… the way you protect your family and home.

I strongly encourage you to check out Mr. Stansberry’s recent write-up on this situation.

You can access his full analysis, free of charge, on his company’s website, right here…

 

National Guardsman Plotted Mass Murder of 150 Soldiers in USA

Cousins Hasan Edmonds and Jonas Edmonds were arrested for plotting to attack a national guard training facility in Illinois where Hasan had served.

A National Guardsman and his cousin have been arrested for plotting to attack US soldiers on a base in Illinois. If it had gone according to plan, up to 150 people could have been killed.

Hasan Edmonds, 22, was an Illinois National Guardsman serving with the 634th Brigade Support Battalion as a supply specialist. Jonas Edmonds, 29, planned to use Hasan’s uniform to enter the Joliet Armory, where Hasan’s National Guard unit was based. There he would attack using grenades and AK-47s.

For his part, Hasan intended to fly out to Cairo and from there attempt to join the Islamic State, where he intended to use his military training to assist the Islamist terror group.

Originally both men had intended to fly out to Syria, but Jonas has a previous conviction for armed robbery and therefore doubted he would be able to leave the country.

Hasan was arrested on Wednesday night while trying to board a plane at Chicago Midway International Airport. Jonas was arrested two hours later at his home in Aurora, Illinois.

Both men have been charged with conspiring to provide material support and resources to a foreign terrorist organization. They face up to 15 years imprisonment each.

Hasan joined the National Guard in August 2011, according to Lt. Col. Brad Leighton, an Illinois National Guard spokesman. He was responsible for ordering uniforms and other equipment.

The FBI coordinated with the National Guard on the case, leading to Hasan’s work being altered to deny him access to any sensitive information or potentially dangerous equipment.

The FBI became aware of the plot after Hasan communicated with an undercover agent posing as an Islamic extremist via Facebook. They discussed Hasan’s plan to travel to Syria and carry out attacks there.

Documents submitted to court by the prosecution record Hasan as saying: “With the U.S., no matter how many you kill they will keep coming unless the soldiers and the American public no longer have the will to fight. If we can break their spirits we will win.”

He went on to express admiration for the attack on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in January which killed 12 people and then five others in a related attack.

Hasan is allegedly recorded saying “Honestly we would love to do something like the brother in Paris did.”

Jonas Edmonds went on to contact another undercover operative last month, also on Facebook, with whom he discussed plans to attack the Joliet military facility.

The pair met with that informant last Monday, leading to their arrest. 

 

AMENPER: PAN CON LECHÓN

¿Es mi ejemplo del Pan con Lechón en relación con la controversia religiosa algo hipotético?

No lo creo, según el diccionario, hipotético es algo que se considera posible sin tener pruebas que lo confirmen, el ejemplo del Pan con Lechón puede ser fácilmente comprobado, simplemente pidiendo un pan con lechón en un delicatesen kosher.

Podemos ir a cualquier restaurant de la pequeña Habana y comernos un pan con lechón con mariquitas o chicharritas como le decíamos en mi pueblo, o tajadas como le dicen los nicaragüenses.

Pero si vamos a un Delicatesen Kosher y pedimos un pan con lechón nos van a decir que no nos lo pueden servir, que ellos no venden pan con lechón.  Si preguntamos el por qué, nos dicen que su religión considera el lechón inmundo. 

Esto se debe a un consejo de Dios a una tribu nómada en el desierto, cuando el cerdo tenía contaminación de Septicemia hemorrágica y Carbunco Sintomático, condiciones que han desaparecido por las vacunas y los cuidados veterinarios.

“Lo que Dios limpió no lo puedes llamar inmundo”, esto fue lo que Dios le dijo a San Pedro hace ya más de dos mil años, y todavía el judaísmo sigue diciendo que el cerdo es inmundo.

Pero tenemos que respetar esa creencia que consideramos irracional, los judíos tienen el derecho de no servir lechón en sus delicatesen, tienen el derecho por la libertad de religión.

Si los judíos tratan de evitar que el Versalles nos sirva a nosotros pan con lechón entonces los judíos estarían violando nuestros derechos, nosotros tenemos derechos a comer pan con lechón en el Versalles y nadie puede oponerse a eso, y los judíos tienen el derecho a no servir pan con lechón en sus establecimientos.  Así trabaja la libertad de religión.

Los homosexuales tienen el derecho a comprar un cake en cualquier lugar, hay muchos lugares que se los venderían, pero si alguien por su convicción no quiere vender un cake con una parejas homosexual en el cake, o si un fotógrafo no quiere prestar sus servicios en una boda homosexual, o una sala de recepción no quiere alquilar su establecimiento para una boda homosexual, ellos tienen el derecho a negarse porque va en contra de su convicción religiosa, los homosexuales pueden casarse en cientos de salas iguales con fotógrafos y reposterías que están dispuestas a venderles sus servicios como el Versalles nos vende el pan con lechón. El tratar de imponer que un delicatesen kosher nos venda pan con lechón, y decir que nos está discriminando porque no nos lo quiere servir es una aberración de la interpretación de lo que es discriminación.

Es tan sencillo como se expone, uno tiene el derecho hasta que ese derecho llega a violar el derecho de los demás.  Los homosexuales pueden hacer lo que mucho de nosotros consideramos como una parodia del matrimonio, no podemos impedirlo, estaríamos violando sus derechos y la ley donde sea ley, pero no pueden imponer que alguien sea parte de esa ceremonia, porque estarían violando el derecho de la otra persona cuya convicción religiosa lo considera como los judíos al lechón, un acto “inmundo”..

Es tan sencillo que no creo que no lo entiendan, lo que creo es que es la agenda imponer su estilo de vida en los demás.

Y si creen que mi ejemplo del pan con lechón es hipotético, vayan a un delicatesen y pidan un pan con lechón.

AMENPER: ¿Cómo podemos encontrar la Libertad y la Felicidad?

¿Conservadores o Liberales?

 

Que todos los hombres son creados iguales; que son dotados por su Creador de ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre éstos están la vida, la libertad y la búsqueda de la felicidad

Dentro del paradigma liberal-conservador,  ha habido un debate acerca de qué lado, si cualquiera, es más dogmático.  Dogmatismo es la afirmación arrogante de las opiniones como hechos y la superioridad de la creencia, sosteniendo que las opiniones específicas son superiores a los demás.

Parece ser un patrón en los estudios recientes que los liberales tienden a ser más dogmáticos y autoritarios, y la presente administración ha demostrado la realidad de los estudios.

 Después de todo, la doctrina comunista, la base del pensamiento liberal, que creó los regímenes totalitarios que mataron a millones de personas.

Los conservadores con la preferencia a la libertad individual no se adaptan a dogmas institucionales, quizás por eso están más divididos, es el pago que tienen que sufrir por su libertad individual de opinión.

Los conservadores no representan los regímenes nazis o fascistas, por el contrario, estos regímenes son todo lo contrario de las creencias de los conservadores.

La ideología conservadora generalizada es tratar de conservar el sistema de lo creado desde el principio de la civilización. El mercado libre comenzó cuando los agricultores comercian con los cazadores, fue una reacción natural a las necesidades de los individuos, y la libertad era el objetivo y el deseo natural de los hombres que siempre se rebelaron contra los gobernantes autoritarios.

Contrario a la heterogenia composición de los conservadores donde diferentes individuos tienen diferentes opiniones en cada caso, los demócratas y liberales se presentan como una masa homogénea como sufriendo de una gran cantidad de estados mentales igualmente malévolos: falta de brújula moral que lleva a una incapacidad para tomar decisiones éticas claras, una excesiva falta de certeza acerca de los problemas sociales, un miedo patológico de la claridad que los lleva a la indecisión, la ingenua creencia que todas las personas son igualmente talentosas y una adhesión ciega en la evidencia contradictoria si no conviene a su agenda  (Ferguson) y a la noción de que la cultura y el medio ambiente solamente es lo que determina la sociedad y por lo tanto el control de estos factores depende del gobierno que también es el único responsable  para corregir todas las injusticias sociales

Nuestro presidente Barack Obama en 2008 etiquetó a los votantes conservadores “amargos”, como “aferrándose a las armas o la religión.”

Obviamente, si fuera así los conservadores debieran ser amargados y los liberales deben de ser más felices, ¿verdad?

Noo. Los eruditos a la izquierda y la derecha han estudiado extensamente esta cuestión y han llegado a un consenso que son los conservadores quienes más se acercan a  la felicidad. Por ejemplo, el Pew Research Center en 2006 reportó que los republicanos conservadores eran más proclives que los demócratas liberales para decir que eran “muy felices” el 68 por ciento de sus vidas. Este patrón se ha mantenido durante décadas. La pregunta no es si esto es cierto, pero ¿por qué?

Muchos conservadores explican esto centrándose en las diferencias de estilo de vida, como el matrimonio y la fe. Se notó que la mayoría de los conservadores están casados. Matrimonio y felicidad van juntos. Si dos personas son demográficamente la misma, pero uno está casado y el otro no lo es, la persona casada será 18 puntos porcentuales más propensos a decir que él o ella son muy felices que la persona soltera.

La historia de la religión es lo mismo. Según la encuesta, los conservadores que practican una fe superan a religiosos liberales en América casi cuatro a uno. ¿Y el enlace a la felicidad? Adivinaron. Los participantes religiosos son casi dos veces más propensos a decir que son muy felices sobre sus vidas  (43 por ciento a 23 por ciento). Las diferencias no dependen de la educación, raza, sexo o edad; la diferencia de felicidad existe incluso cuando cuenta de pocos ingresos.

Si la religión y el matrimonio deben hacer que la gente feliz es una cuestión que cada uno tiene que responder por sí mismo. Pero consideren esto: cincuenta y dos por ciento de las personas casadas, religioso, político conservador (con niños) están muy contentos, frente a sólo el 14 por ciento de personas individuales, secular, liberal sin niños.

Los datos muestran que los conservadores sin duda ven el sistema de libre empresa en una luz más lógica que  los liberales, creen en la capacidad de cada americano para salir adelante en base a logros. Los liberales son más propensos a ver gente como víctimas de las circunstancias y opresión y dudan de que las personas puedan subir sin ayuda gubernamental.

Los liberales nos dicen, ustedes los conservadores son ignorantes, y la ignorancia es felicidad, ¿no? No tan rápido, el problema es que los dogmáticos liberales anuncian su miseria con estridentes pegatinas que dicen cosas como: “Si no está indignado, no están prestando atención”.

Hay que tener una perreta eterna, siempre protestando siempre indignados.

El resultado de este estado emocional hace que quieran destruir el sistema que hace felices a los conservadores, por eso vemos los ataques a las religiones y a la empresa privada, quieren que todos seamos tan amargados como ellos, y acusan a los que no están amargados de ignorantes.

Entonces, ¿Por qué no oímos esto más a menudo?  La evidencia está precisamente en lo que vimos arriba, los liberales son mucho más dogmáticos por lo tanto mucho más militantes y más activos que los conservadores.  A través de los años en este país de raíces conservadoras, los liberales han ido tomando posiciones, no sólo políticas pero un control casi total de los medios de comunicación que predican los dogmas socialistas en sus noticias y sus películas de Hollywood.  Por eso lo que es, no es lo que vemos

Retired U.S. Admiral Says Iran Deal Is A Sham, Calls For Obama’s Impeachment

Critics continue to pounce on Obama’s efforts to rid Iran of a nuclear weapon.

YOCHANAN VISSER  

On Sunday, media reported that six world powers reached a provisional agreement on key parts of a deal that is meant to curtail Iran’s nuclear program.

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu reported at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting that he had spoken to US Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and with Democratic leader Harry Reid. He heard strong and continuing bipartisan support for Israel from both of them, and the two expressed their deep concern over the agreement being formulated with Iran. Netanyahu said: “The agreement, as it appears, confirms all of our concerns and even more so.”

“While [world powers] convene to sign this deal, Iran’s proxies in Yemen are conquering large swaths of land in an effort to overtake the Bab al-Mandeb Straits, so that they can change the balance of power in shipping oil,” Netanyahu said, referring to recent unrest in Yemen.

“The Iran-Lausanne-Yemen axis is very dangerous to humanity, and must be stopped,” he added.

Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon also called the emerging deal with Iran “a very bad deal.” Turning Iran into a nuclear threshold state, he said Sunday, “would be nothing less than a tragedy for the moderate regimes in the Middle East and the entire Western world.”

“You don’t need to be an intelligence officer to see Iran is lying barefacedly, and is today the greatest danger to the stability of the Middle East,” he said.

Earlier last week, news broke that the U.S. negotiation team had retreated from the demand that the underground uranium enrichment plant Fordow be closed under the agreement.

The Associated Press reported last Thursday that the United States was considering letting Tehran run hundreds of centrifuges at the once-secret, fortified underground bunker in Fordow in exchange for limits on centrifuge work and research and development at other sites.

“The trade-off would allow Iran to run several hundred of the devices at its Fordo facility, although the Iranians would not be allowed to do work that could lead to an atomic bomb and the site would be subject to international inspections, according to Western officials familiar with details of negotiations now underway. In return, Iran would be required to scale back the number of centrifuges it runs at its Natanz facility and accept other restrictions on nuclear-related work.

“Instead of uranium, which can be enriched to be the fissile core of a nuclear weapon, any centrifuges permitted at Fordo would be fed elements such as zinc, xenon or germanium for separating out isotopes used in medicine, industry or science, the officials said. The number of centrifuges would not be enough to produce the amount of uranium needed to produce a weapon within a year — the minimum time-frame that Washington and its negotiating partners demand,” the AP reported.

At the start of the negotiation process with Iran, the White House promised that Fordow would be shuttered. Later, Obama’s team agreed that Fordow would be converted into a research and development plant where no enrichment would take place.

Allowing the Iranians to enrich at Fordow means they could kick out inspectors at any time and have a fully-functioning enrichment facility hardened against military intervention. Since sanctions will be unraveled by design at the beginning of a deal, that means the West would have literally zero options to stop a breakout.

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner immediately reacted to the AP report and tweeted: “Not a good deal.”

Earlier last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IEAE) confirmed that Iran has yet to comply with the demand to hand over to the UN Security Council and the IEAE crucial information about the possible military dimensions of its nuclear program.

In an address to the 2015 Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, Director General Yukiya Amano of the IEAE urged Iran to implement the Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement. This is a step that gives IAEA inspectors greater access to sites and more information about a country’s nuclear program so that the Agency can provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities.

In November 2011, Amano stated in a report to the IAEA Board of Governors that credible information obtained by the Agency indicated that Iran had carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. The information also indicated that, before the end of 2003, these activities took place under a structured program, and that some might still be ongoing. The report identified 12 areas of concern.

The U.S. Senate reacted to the emerging deal and voted unanimously (100-0) for Senator Kirk’s proposal that would enable Congress to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran if it cheats on a nuclear agreement with the West. The move came just a few days after media reports that Democrats would block the proposal.

On Saturday, a journalist who defected from the Iranian team in Switzerland issued a damning indictment of America’s role in the negotiations with Iran.

“The U.S. negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” Amir Hossein Motaghi told a TV station just after defecting from the Iranian delegation while abroad for the nuclear talks.

Retired US Adm. James A. Lyons, writing for Accuracy in Media, agrees with Motaghi. He wrote that the negotiations regarding a nuclear agreement with Iran are “a sham” and that its outcome was pre-ordained by Obama in secret communications with the Iranian leaders in 2008. Lyons based his conclusions on a report by Iran expert Michael Ledeen and called for Obama’s impeachment.

Michael Ledeen wrote in August last year that Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran during his first presidential campaign in 2008. He did this to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic and that they would be very happy with his policies.

The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

Ever since, President Obama’s quest for an alliance with Iran has been conducted through at least four channels:  Iraq, Switzerland (the official U.S. representative to Tehran), Oman, and a variety of American intermediaries, the most notable of whom is probably Valerie Jarrett, his closest adviser. In recent months, Middle Eastern leaders reported personal visits from Ms. Jarrett, who briefed them on her efforts to manage the Iranian relationship. This was confirmed to me by a former high-ranking American official who says he was so informed by several Middle Eastern leaders”.

Ledeen’s story is consistent with what Michael Doran wrote in his essay “Obama’s secret Iran Strategy.”

Here is what Doran wrote:

(Obama’s Iran policy was shaped by) the final report of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan congressional commission whose co-chairs, former secretary of state James Baker and former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, interpreted their mission broadly, offering advice on all key aspects of Middle East policy.

The report, published in December 2006, urged then-President Bush to take four major steps: withdraw American troops from Iraq; surge American troops in Afghanistan; reinvigorate the Arab-Israeli “peace process”; and, last but far from least, launch a diplomatic engagement of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its junior partner, the Assad regime in Syria. Baker and Hamilton believed that Bush stood in thrall to Israel and was therefore insufficiently alive to the benefits of cooperating with Iran and Syria. Those two regimes, supposedly, shared with Washington the twin goals of stabilizing Iraq and defeating al-Qaeda and other Sunni jihadi groups. In turn, this shared interest would provide a foundation for building a concert system of states—a club of stable powers that could work together to contain the worst pathologies of the Middle East and lead the way to a sunnier future.”

Doran also wrote that a deal with Iran is like nationalized healthcare to Obama and that the President planned to keep Congress in the dark and out of the picture from the outset because Congress is ‘hostile and suspicious’ toward Iran.

Omri Ceren contributed to this report from Lausanne.

The truth about what’s in Clinton’s deleted emails

One of the responsibilities of public service is to be open and transparent to the people whom you serve. It appears this is not a code by which some wish to live — instead believing they are beholden to a different standard. However, at a time when lives have been lost, it does indeed make a difference.

As reported by Politico, “Hillary Clinton wiped “clean” the private server housing emails from her tenure as secretary of state, the chairman of the House committee investigating the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi said Friday. “While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, said in a statement.”

“Clinton was under a subpoena order from the panel for all documents related to the 2012 attacks on the American compound there. But David Kendall, an attorney for Clinton, said the 900 pages of emails previously provided to the panel cover its request. Kendall also informed the committee that Clinton’s emails from her time at the State Department have been permanently erased.”

And so it goes, as with the emails of another government servant, Lois Lerner of the IRS. When in question, it seems official government correspondence just sort of vanishes.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2015/03/the-truth-about-whats-in-clintons-deleted-emails/

 

 

Western Center for Journalism newsletter@wcjournalism.org via mail99.atl31.mcdlv.net

 

UPDATE: Republican Elites Are Plotting To Enshrine Barack Obama’s Dictatorial Takeover Of The Internet Into Law!


No… your eyes are not playing tricks on you. In typical fashion, RINO elites are floating what they’re calling a “compromise” to Barack Obama’s dictatorial takeover of the Internet, but they’re only calling it a compromise because they believe they can pull the wool over your eyes… and when they’re done, they’ll actually wind up enshrining Barack Obama’s takeover of the Internet into law.

And while we can only speculate over what is fueling this attempt to betray you,The Atlantic, when they reported what is going on right now… behind the scenes, probably said it best:

“The GOP is ready to compromise on the basic principle of net neutrality… indeed, a big part of the GOP shift on net neutrality is a response to pressure from the powerful interests…

TRANSLATION: If there is money to be made from campaign donations from powerful special interests, RINO’s will use every deception conceivable to enable Barack Obama’s tyranny, but they’re only attempting to betray you because they’re under the idiotic impression that they can deceive you; and that means that we can bust their idiotic “compromise” trial balloon right here and right now if our elected officials hear from you TODAY! 


Barack Obama Just Did “Something That All Of The Despots In The World Have Tried To Do But Failed To Do.” -Dick Morris”


But please… keep reading… because what you’re about to see may be the most shocking thing that you’ve read in years.

Almost two weeks after voting on secret regulations to facilitate Barack Hussein Obama’s takeover of the Internet, Barack Obama’s FCC finally released 400 pages of these so-called Net Neutrality regulations to the public and it’s far worse than we could have ever imagined.

Based on references in the regulations alone, it is clear that Barack Obama’s takeover of the Internet was actually written — in large part — by radical Marxist-leaning organizations; and it has also come to light that radical socialist-leaning organizations funded by Billionaire Socialist George Soros and others have spent approximately 200 MILLION DOLLARS ($200,000,000.00) to make Barack Obama’s tyrannical and dictatorial takeover of the Internet a reality.

But there is hope when it comes to stopping this master plan to transform the United States into a socialist utopia.

As of this writing, Representative Marsha Blackburn and 43 other Republicans have signed onto legislation (H.R. 1212: The Internet Freedom Act) that will totally reverse this dictatorial Obama-FCC dictate… but this legislation is stalled in committee because John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are in no rush to bring it to the floor of the House and the Senate for a vote… and that needs to change right now. 

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. 

Send My Faxes

It’s No Conspiracy Theory. The Socialists Are At The Gates And So-Called Net Neutrality Is Part Of A Master Plan To Transform The United States Into A Socialist Country.


Millions of dollars of funding from Socialist Billionaire George Soros? … Neo-Marxists calling the shots? … While it may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is all, unfortunately, true… As a matter of fact, it’s actually much worse than you may think.

The organization whose net neutrality arguments are cited at least 46 times in the Obama-FCC dictatorial regulations is ironically named Free Press. Free Press is funded by George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and other left-wing groups like the Ford Foundation; and it was founded by Robert McChesney, an avowed Socialist who is presently a communications professor at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

And to McChesney so-called Net Neutrality is simply a means to an end. Specifically, it’s the first step to be taken to fundamentally transform the United States into a socialist tyranny. 

       Don’t take our word for it. Read what McChesney says about it for yourself:

 According to DiscovertheNetworks.org, McChesney “told the website SocialistProject that ‘unless you make significant changes in the media, it will be vastly more difficult to have a revolution.'”

 Back in 2009, McChesney wrote that “any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself… to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles… We need to do whatever we can to limit capitalist propaganda, regulate it, minimize it, and perhaps even eliminate it.”

 DiscovertheNetworks.org again: “In a November 2000 Monthly Review article titled ‘Journalism, Democracy, and Class Struggle,’ he [McChesney] wrote: ‘Our job is to make media reform part of our broader struggle for democracy, social justice, and, dare we say it, socialism.'”

 Phil Kerpen, president of the free-market group American Commitment says that Chesney’s goal is “to empower the federal government to ration and apportion Internet bandwidth as it sees fit, and to thereby control the Internet’s content.”

 And McChesney said, back in 2009, when the concept of Net Neutrality was focused on more traditional means of communication: “At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Make no mistake, so-called Net Neutrality was always about giving the government total control over the media and there’s only one way to stop it now that Barack Obama’s FCC has essentially decreed it — by dictatorial fiat — to be the law of the land.The Republican-controlled Congress must bring H.R. 1212 to the floor of the House of the Senate and pass it TODAY. 

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Republican Member of the Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. 

Send My Faxes

What Would You Say If The Government Had The Authority To Order Your Local AM Radio Station To Stop Broadcasting The Rush Limbaugh Show?


If everything we have said thus far sounds far-fetched, consider just one example of what is in these 400 pages of Obama-FCC regulations.

Here’s what the FCC says about First Amendment rights in Section 544:

“The rules we adopt today do not curtail broadband providers’ free speech rights. When engaged in broadband Internet access services, broadband providers are not speakers, but rather serve as conduits for the speech of others.”

Here’s a question: Do local AM radio stations not “serve as conduits for the speech of others.” Come to think of it, is your radio not a “conduit” for the speech of others?

Now, let’s be clear. These 400 pages of Obama-FCC regulations only apply to the Internet (at least for now), but the analogy should serve to illustrate EXACTLY what Barack Obama, George Soros and the FCC are thinking when it comes to your First Amendment rights. 

If you’re not a “speaker,” the First Amendments doesn’t apply to you. And who determines whether or not you’re a “speaker” Why… none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

The thinking is straight out of George Orwell’s Animal FarmBarack Obama doesn’t need to control your speech if he can control the “conduits” of your speech.

And that’s exactly what he intends to do. If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet and if you like your First Amendment rights, you can keep your First Amendment rights… You can say whatever you want but lots of luck when it comes to anyone actually hearing what you have to say or you hearing what others have to say to you because Barack Obama will control the “conduits” of speech.

Rush Limbaugh perhaps said it best: “[D]o you want the people who gave you ObamaCare running your Internet service? Do you want them in charge of what you can get and when you can get it and how much it’s gonna cost you?”

If you want the United States to remain a free country, the time to take action is now. 

Floyd Brown 

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

“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