HPIM0049

No 931 “En mi opinión” Abril 25, 2015

No 931   “En mi opinión”  Abril 25, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR

obama put America en un toilet.

Vote for hilary and she’ll pull the handle…

AMENPER: El Problema de Inmigración…

Inmigración es el movimiento de una persona o grupo de personas a través de fronteras administrativas y políticas, que desean establecerse definitiva o temporalmente en un lugar distinto a su lugar de origen.

La literatura sobre migración contiene afirmaciones generales, incluyendo: “La migración es una

de las fuerzas históricas que han moldeado el mundo”; “La migración siempre ha sido parte de la conducta humana”; “la migración es un fenómeno natural tan viejo como la historia misma”. Estas amplias generalidades tienen alguna validez, pero no están basadas en una definición clara de la migración y no explican las causas y efectos del fenómeno de la migración.

Aunque no hay duda de que las personas siempre han “migrado”, en el más amplio sentido de la palabra, de un asentamiento a otro, de caserío a caserío, y de pueblo a pueblo, sería un error asumir que la migración, tal como se practica o experimenta actualmente, es la misma que en el pasado. La palabra “migración” podría incluir muchas sombras y complejidades de significado.

El término genérico “migración” cubre un amplio rango de conductas que pueden o no ser

relevantes al concepto de migración tal como es comprendido actualmente por muchas personas o tal como está definido en el derecho internacional y otras regulaciones

Si vemos la historia de la inmigración moderna en los Estados podemos ser testigos de los diferentes tipos de inmigración a través de los tiempos.

Los Estados Unidos son un país de inmigrantes desde su fundación con la llegada de los primeros inmigrantes en el Mayflower.  Los primeros inmigrantes en la continuación de la historia fueron europeos. 

Después vinieron los otros inmigrantes de Europa de la inmigración en el siglo XIX, y los del siglo XX.

Vinieron por la legítima motivación personal de buscar un mejor medio de vida.

También vimos los inmigrantes que vinieron escapando por motivos políticos en su país de origen y las personas que entran al país invitados por su capacidad en profesiones técnicas y científicas.

El alemán y el italiano fue parte de las lenguas de los primeros inmigrantes como lo fue el inglés y después lo fue el español de los inmigrantes de latinoamérica.  

Toda esta inmigración estaba regida por las restricciones definidas en el derecho internacional y las regulaciones migratorias en el país. Esta es la inmigración que se fundió en el crisol americano para constituir la nación que es los Estados Unidos.

El fenómeno de la actual inmigración es que se trata de una inmigración impuesta sin regulaciones ni restricciones, que cruzan las fronteras sin permiso ni orden, son personas que entran violando los derechos establecidos universalmente para una inmigración ordenada.

La situación es clara y fácil de apreciar, la diferencia de la actual inmigración de la ordenada inmigración del pasado es evidente, y necesita una reforma de acuerdo con los hechos.

Si bien es verdad que no se puede deportar a todos los que han entrado ilegalmente en el país, por su número, una reforma que incluya antes que nada el control a las fronteras es necesaria.

Después es ejercer el derecho nacional de seleccionar quienes tienen el derecho por su conducta durante su estancia para ser deportados o admitidos como residentes legales.

Esta es la única solución pragmática, sería fácil con una administración que quisiera resolver el problema sin agendas políticas.

El problema inmigratorio no es un problema de inmigración, es un problema socio-político de fácil solución si se siguen los parámetros de un sistema migratorio como siempre ha existido en todos los países del mundo desde el principio de la civilización en Grecia y el imperio Romano.

 

 

.

Look What Happens When You Close A ‘Good Nuclear Deal’ With A Rogue State

We all know what happened with Bill Clinton’s “good” deal.

Yochanan Visser 

More than 20 years ago, on October 21, 1994, President Bill Clinton announced that the United States had reached a Framework Agreement with North Korea on its nuclear program. Clinton assured the American public that it was a “good deal.”

You can watch Clinton’s statement here:

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

“This agreement is good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global community,” Clinton said.

Sound familiar? Obama used similar language when he announced the Framework Agreement with Iran earlier this month.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

We all know what happened with Clinton’s “good” deal. On April 23-25, 2003, during trilateral talks in Beijing, North Korea told the U.S. delegation that it possessed nuclear weapons. This constituted the first time that Pyongyang made such an admission. More than two years later, on October 9, 2006, North Koreaconducted an underground nuclear test near the village of P’unggye.

Last night, news broke that Chinese nuclear experts have informed their American counterparts they have increased their estimates of North Korea’s nuclear weapons production well beyond most previous U.S. figures. They now suggest Pyongyang can make enough warheads to threaten regional security for the U.S. and its allies.

Wall Street Journal reporters Jeremy Page and Jay Solomon reported that China had informed U.S. nuclear specialists that North Korea will have 40 nuclear warheads by the end of 2016 and potentially over 75 by the end of the decade. North Korean engineers have apparently miniaturized them and can mount them on their KN-08 long-range missiles, which can reach California.

The news has alarmed U.S. lawmakers, who say that it must have implications for the current talks with Iran about its nuclear program. Republican lawmakers said the pending deal with Iran could mirror the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea.

“We saw how North Korea was able to game this whole process,” Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview. “I wouldn’t be surprised if Iran had its hands on the same playbook.”

In fact, it goes further than Iran having its hands on the same playbook.

In every meaningful sense, the North Korean nuclear program is an Iranian nuclear program, albeit beyond Iran’s territorial borders. The Iranians pay for the program. The Iranians receive knowledge and technology from the program. The Iranians are on hand to observe every major nuclear and missile test.

But there is more.

Take, for example, the parallels between the deal with North Korea and the current negotiations with Iran. The Agreed Framework with North Korea was negotiated by Wendy Sherman, and the Iran deal is being negotiated by the same Wendy Sherman. The Agreed Framework lasted a decade, and the Iran deal is slated to last a decade. The agreement with North Korea relied on IAEA verification, and the Iran deal relies on IAEA verification.

But now, the North Koreans have a full-blown nuclear arsenal that the Americans didn’t even know about. U.S. officials reportedly expressed surprise when they were briefed on the Chinese information.

Defiant Iranian Statements

Meanwhile, Iran continues to issue defiant statements about the Framework Agreement with the six world powers and the current negotiations about a final agreement.

A top Iranian commander said Iran will never permit inspection of its military sites.

“Not only will we not grant foreigners the permission to inspect our military sites, we will not even give them permission to think about such a subject,” the Fars News Agency quoted Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the second-in-command of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), as saying on a live television broadcast last Saturday.

“They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams,” he added.

He also said that a harsh response awaits anyone who talks about such inspections.

“Visiting a military base by a foreign inspector would mean the occupation of our land because all our defense secrets are there. Even talking about the subject means national humiliation,” he added.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that U.S. officials should “stop their silly demands from Iran.”

Fars News reported that Khamenei blasted the US and Europeans and their “puppet regimes’” media hype and allegations that Iran had sought to acquire nuclear weapons, and said: “Today, the most vital threat posed to the world and the region is the US and the Zionist regime which meddle (with other nations’ affairs) and kill people anywhere they deem to be necessary without any control or commitment to conscience or religious principles.”

Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s top adviser for international affairs, demanded again that sanctions imposed on Iran should be immediately lifted when an agreement is signed, not when Iran’s compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) demands is certified.

The IAEA reported earlier that no significant progress had been made in the talks with Iran about access for inspectors to military sites.

During a military parade on Army Day in Iran last Saturday, a truck carrying a massive banner reading “Death to Israel.” was seen. A televised broadcast of the parade was punctuated by repeated cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”

Warnings to Obama

Dr. Mahmoud Moradkhani, an Iranian expat and a nephew of Ayatollah Khamenei, wrote an open letter to President Obama in which he warned not to trust the Iranian regime. He told Obama that Khamenei is lying in negotiations, practicing the Shia doctrine of taqiyya in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to the infidel for the advancement of Islam, and asked the President not to pursue his nuclear deal with the regime but to focus on Iran’s expansion policies and abysmal human rights record. Moradkhani is the son of Sheikh Ali Teherani, who married Khamenei’s sister.

Former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker joined George Schultz and Henry Kissinger in demanding a much better deal with Iran. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that the current Framework Agreement “needs lots of work.”

“Our P5+1 partners should understand that if we can’t trust Iran to stick to its promises during negotiations, we cannot trust that it won’t resume its nuclear-weapons program after a final deal is reached.

“Only after we have the necessary support from the P5+1 should we resume our discussions with Iran. And then, only after the Iranians have been told in no uncertain terms that we have reasonable specific demands they must meet. Let Iran and the world know what those demands are. If Iran balks at such an arrangement, then it will be that country’s fault that the talks broke down,” Baker wrote.

 

 

AMENPER: Los Clinton, Héroes de los Dixiecrat

Es una idea generalizada que los Dixiecrat no existen, que son cosa del pasado, pero mi experiencia personal es que todavía existen, si no los originales, aunque michos todavía viven, al menos sus descendientes. 

Creo que esta es la razón del que Hillary Clinton a pesar de que tiene una trayectoria de corrupción política y económica, todavía está por arriba en las encuestas.

Tengo amigos Dixiecrat de mis años de estudios en Virginia, y en Miami por tener un hijo casado con una nuera de una familia de Dixiecrats.

El Dixiecrat no votó por Obama porque era negro, pero todavía tiene el odio al partido Republicano por los años de la reconstrucción que todavía vive en su cultura.  Cuando votan republicano en muchas ocasiones lo hacen con renuencia y todavía idealizan a los Clinton porque lo recuerdan con su administración que tuvo una política doméstica moderada con una política de compromiso con los republicanos y Gingrich cuando el “Contrato con América” republicano que fue aceptado por Clinton..

Lo ven como que no es un liberal intransigente, pero como un Demócrata más tradicional.

Pero Clinton hizo esto porque no le quedaba más remedio por tener los republicanos la mayoría en aquel entonces, y sin lugar a dudas, el resbaloso Willy, es un político más taimado que Obama.

Sin lugar a dudas, Obama hubiera vetado con su pluma alegre el “Contrato con América”.

Pero lo que no quiere reconocer es que a pesar de su moderación política doméstica Clinton ha sido unos de los políticos más corruptos de los últimos tiempos y que su política internacional y su conducta moral, no fue de las mejores durante su administración.  Hay que recordar que Clinton pudo haber eliminado a Osama Bin Laden que no hubiera hecho el daño que hizo después, y no lo hizo, y nosotros somos testigos y víctimas de su débil reacción al ataque de los Aviones de Hermanos al Rescate. Y si no hubiera sido por ese ataque hubiera reanudado las relaciones con Cuba que ya estaban en proceso.

Clinton fue el segundo presidente en toda la historia de Estados Unidos como nación en ser sometido a juicio de impugnación por mentir bajo juramento al congreso.  Fue realmente el único presidente de la historia fue juzgado con motivos reales, ya que el otro, Andrew Jackson, fue simplemente una víctima política de los Republicanos radicales y de Stanton, (el Ministro de Guerra, Edwin Stanton, no Giancarlo el pelotero), que querían una política para el sur como nación ocupada, lo cual lograron más tarde de hecho con la llamada “reconstrucción”.

Anoche ví un programa en Fox News sobre el libro “Clinton Cash” con la participación del autor, Peter Schweizer.

Empezaron con Haití donde la “reconstrucción” de Haití que nunca se ha realizado, que ha sido un fracaso, fue un negocio de Clinton con los privilegios otorgado a compañías de amigotes de los Clinton que han hecho millones en Haití.  Esto recuerda a la “reconstrucción” del Sur con los carpetbaggers.

Después nos habla el libro del escándalo en “Cash para Clinton de Colombia”— el que involucra un partidario de la Fundación Clinton Frank Giustra y sus intereses en Colombia: Este fue el primer caso divulgado y que sirve de prototipo a los posteriores con los países de Medio Oriente.

Piensen los siguientes hechos, que han sido públicamente presentado y cuya verdad no se puede disputar: (1) como candidato a la Presidencia Hillary Clinton se opuso a un acuerdo de libre comercio con Colombia, (2) como Secretario de estado también lo apoyó (3) en el ínterin, Frank Giustra hizo grandes contribuciones a la Fundación Clinton y sus intereses de (4) Giustra se benefició cuando Hillary cambió su posición y  apoyó el acuerdo. Todo esto es algo público y verdadero, no hay discución posible, no se puede negar.

Después vienen los acuerdos más recientes con los países árabes, los que enumera en el libro, con más de 10 casos en el medio oriente, que como en el caso de Giustra cambió su posición para apoyar a contribuyentes y a los que le pagaron por sus discursos. Todo esto también es público y comprobable.

A todo esto además tenemos que añadirle los escándalos de los E Mails y Bengasi.

Si la evidencia apoya cada una de estas proposiciones, entonces esto es evidencia que Clinton cambió su posición como recompensa por las donaciones a la Fundación o por pago a discursos por los que cobra de $500,000 a $750,000 para no decir nada de importancia, y que destruyó evidencia potencial y que no admite verificación de la que pudiera existir..  Y muchos de esto mientras ocupaba la Secretaría de Estado.

Sin duda, la evidencia es circunstancial, no directa. Pero tanto es decir circunstancial, como inferencial,  que es prueba común en los litigios civiles.

No he leído el libro pero estoy esperando que lo pongan a la venta porque parece que desnuda la reputación de los Clinton.  Aún no hay evidencia directa los hechos son palpables por inferencia, por lo menos lo que he visto en el programa.

Cualquiera en un caso similar estuviera, al menos, como mínimo,  bajo investigación del departamento de Justicia, pero no creo que con la nueva secretaria de Justicia la veremos esto. Aquí no ha pasado nada.

No puedo pensar que los Dixiecrat que todavía se aferran a su amor y lealtad al partido demócrata, y su odio al partido republicano y los independientes, ambas fracciones que son partidarios de los principios políticos y morales tradicionales de los Estados Unidos, puedan aceptar el votar por presidente por una persona que sería el presidente más corrupto en la historia de Estados Unidos.

Creo que las encuestas variarán con el tiempo, creo que los Republicanos tienen la mejor oportunidad de recuperar la Casa Blanca que han tenido en los últimos años.

 

 

AMENPER: ¿Cuál es el futuro del conservadurismo?

Este artículo es de nuestra edición simposio enero, en el que 53 principales escritores y pensadores responden a la pregunta: “¿Cuál es el futuro del conservadurismo a raíz de las elecciones de 2012?” Haga clic aquí para leer todo el simposio. PETER WEHNER

El futuro del conservadurismo en Estados Unidos es brillante, ya que ofrece las mejores perspectivas sobre la naturaleza humana, la relación entre el ciudadano y el Estado, y la forma de lograr un orden social más justo.

Los que viajan bajo la bandera del conservadurismo necesitan hacer algunos trabajos de reparación y abrazar una verdadera actitud conservadora. Lo que esto significa es apreciar la complejidad de la sociedad humana y la importancia de la experiencia humana en la conformación de nuestro acercamiento a los desafíos contemporáneos, y reconociendo que la política implica juicios prudenciales e imperfectos. Lo que quiere decir que el conservadurismo es herido cuando sus adherentes lo tratan como una ideología diamantina, que es bastante diferente de la puesta a tierra en principios duraderos.

Un ejemplo: durante una 2012 GOP debate de las primarias, de Fox News Bret Baier hizo una pregunta a los ocho candidatos en el escenario. “Supongamos que tenía un acuerdo, un acuerdo real de gasto cortes, cortes de 10 a 1 de gasto a la subida de impuestos.?.?.?.? ¿Quién en esta etapa sería alejarse de ese acuerdo? ¿Puedes levantar la mano si usted se siente tan fuertemente acerca de no aumentar los impuestos, usted camina lejos en el acuerdo de 10 a 1? “

Cada uno de los ocho candidatos levantó su mano.

Este fue, para mí, una señal de peligro. No lo digo porque estoy a favor de impuestos más altos (yo no). Pero habíamos llegado a un punto en el que ninguno de los candidatos a presidente en una plataforma conservadora podría admitir a cualquier escenario en el que él, o ella, aumentaría los impuestos, incluso si como resultado hacerlo podría hacer retroceder el estado del bienestar moderno.

“No hay nuevos impuestos” está bien como una meta. Sin duda, es un punto de partida razonable en las negociaciones. Incluso puede ser el punto extremo derecho. Sin embargo, para elevarlo a un principio inviolable-e insistir en que los políticos toman promesas opuestas aumentos de impuestos en virtud de cualquier y todas las circunstancias me-golpea como equivocada. La fiscalidad es siempre un proceso de equilibrio, una que tiene que ser visto en el contexto de las condiciones económicas específicas y otras ganancias posibles. Por ejemplo, ningún conservador responsable sería renunciar a la reforma de Medicare (que es el principal motor de nuestra crisis fiscal) mediante la inyección de competencia y la elección en el sistema a cambio de impuestos ligeramente más altas en las personas con ingresos superiores en América.

Cada movimiento político, incluyendo el conservadurismo, se enfrenta al peligro de elevar ciertas políticas en catecismos y no tener en cuenta las nuevas circunstancias. Cuando eso ocurre, se pierde la capacidad de corregirnos. Conservadurismo, al menos como yo lo entiendo, debe ser caracterizado por la apertura a las pruebas y la búsqueda de la verdad, no el apego a una ortodoxia rígida. “Si hay algún punto de vista político en este mundo que está libre de adhesión servil a la abstracción”, dijo Ronald Reagan en 1977, “es el conservadurismo americano.”

Lo que estoy hablando, entonces, es un temperamento conservador, que afecta a todo, desde el tono de la investigación intelectual para el compromiso. Que defiende los principios de manera razonablemente flexibles que incluyen una evaluación directa de los hechos.

Para poner las cosas en una forma ligeramente diferente: Los conservadores necesitan reencontrarse a sí mismos con el verdadero espíritu del conservadurismo, que es reformista, empírica, anti-utópico, y algo modesto en sus expectativas. No tiene el perfecto enemigo de lo bueno. No se trata opositores políticos como enemigos. Y no es en un estado de agitación constante. Winsomeness va un largo camino en la política.

Desde 1965, sin duda el político conservador más importante después de que Ronald Reagan es Newt Gingrich. Logró algunos notables, cosas impresionantes. Pero él practica un estilo de hacer política que era muy diferente de la de Reagan. Se caracterizó por la retórica apocalíptica e incendiario, la ira, la impaciencia, y el celo revolucionario. Mientras que sus posiciones sobre temas eran a menudo conservador, el temperamento y el enfoque de Gingrich no lo eran. Sin embargo, es la Gingrich, no la de Reagan, el estilo que caracteriza a gran parte del conservadurismo hoy. Sería mejor para el conservadurismo, y mejor para Estados Unidos, para recuperar parte de la gracia, generosidad de espíritu, y de la política de principio del presidente número 40 de Estados Unidos.

Peter Wehner es un alto miembro del Centro de Ética y Política Pública que sirvió siete años en el W. Bush de la Casa Blanca de George. Tiene un blog diario para Comentario.

 

English:

AMENPER:What Is the Future of Conservatism?

This article is from our January symposium issue, in which 53 leading writers and thinkers answer the question: “What is the future of conservatism in the wake of the 2012 election?” Click here to read the entire symposium. PETER WEHNER

The future of conservatism in America is bright, since it offers the best insights into human nature, the relationship between the citizen and the state, and how to achieve a more just social order.

Those who travel under the banner of conservatism need to do some repair work and embrace a genuine conservative disposition. What that means is appreciating the complexity of human society and the importance of human experience in shaping our approach to contemporary challenges, and recognizing that politics involves prudential and imperfect judgments. Which is to say that conservatism is hurt when its adherents treat it as an adamantine ideology, which is quite different from grounding it in enduring principles.

An example: During a 2012 GOP primary debate, Fox News’s Bret Baier posed a question to the eight candidates on the stage. “Say you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1 spending cuts to tax increases.?.?.?.?Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away on the 10-to-1 deal?”

Each of the eight candidates raised his or her hand.

This was, to me, a danger sign. I say that not because I favor higher taxes (I don’t). But we had reached a point where none of those running for president on a conservative platform could admit to any scenario in which he, or she, would raise taxes, even if as a result doing so might roll back the modern welfare state.

“No new taxes” is fine as a goal. It is certainly a reasonable starting point in negotiations. It may even be the right end point. But to elevate it to an inviolate principle–and to insist that politicians take pledges opposing tax increases under any and all circumstances–strikes me as misguided. Taxation is always a balancing process, one that needs to be seen in the context of specific economic conditions and other possible gains. For example, no responsible conservative would forgo reforming Medicare (which is the main driver of our fiscal crisis) by injecting competition and choice into the system in exchange for slightly higher taxes on the top income earners in America.

Every political movement, including conservatism, faces the danger of elevating certain policies into catechisms and failing to take into account new circumstances. When that occurs, we lose the capacity to correct ourselves. Conservatism, at least as I understand it, ought to be characterized by openness to evidence and a search for truth, not attachment to a rigid orthodoxy. “If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is free from slavish adherence to abstraction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1977, “it is American conservatism.”

What I’m talking about, then, is a conservative temperament, which affects everything from tone to intellectual inquiry to compromise. It champions principles in reasonably flexible ways that include a straightforward evaluation of facts.

To put things in a slightly different way: Conservatives need to reacquaint themselves with the true spirit of conservatism, which is reform-minded, empirical, anti-utopian, and somewhat modest in its expectations. It doesn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. It doesn’t treat political opponents as enemies. And it isn’t in a state of constant agitation. Winsomeness goes a long way in politics.

Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable, impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not. Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled politics of America’s 40th president.

Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who served seven years in the George W. Bush White House. He blogs daily for Commentary.

 

 

Gatria: NO CULPEMOS A OBAMA DE TODO, OBAMA SOLO NADA PODRIA HACER,  CULPA ES TAMBIEN DE LOS QUE LO RESPALDAN, AQUI VERAN LOS NOMBRES DE 10 SENADORES REPUBLICANOS QUE BRINCARON LA LINEA PARA UNIRSE A OBAMA Y A ERIC HOLDER.

RELATED STORIES

Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.

As Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky…      “EMO” Entre ellos tambien salto la cerca Jeb Bush… LRGM.

 

Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama.

Gatria@aol.com

Wall Street Journal Names Barack Obama As The Most Unprepared Man of the…

This is not a ‘hate piece’, but it IS a brutally frank article from the Wall Street Journal.

Please read and share.  It looks longer than it is.  It’s a quick read.

Wall Street


A “deadly” article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America.

Article from the Wall Street Journal – by Alan Caruba: 

“I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he’s led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros, maybe? or Frank Marshall Davis??) took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? “Dreams of My Father” was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The “Audacity of Hope” followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a “communist with a small ‘c’ was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois House to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley’s formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed “cool” in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance. 

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984’s Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, 6 full years into his presidency, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to “wish away” some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign “world tour” were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions. Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party’s hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an “obstreperous” Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against “jumping to conclusions” about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted “Allahu Akbar.” The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber “an isolated extremist” only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame. 

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual’s life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

Even his wife has mentioned they visited the country of his birth, Kenya. You did note she did not accompany him on the trip to Saudi Arabia on which he actually bowed to the king. Being a muslim required him to do so and that same faith prevented him from taking her with him . “

We laugh at the ventriloquist’s dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States.

We the people are coming!

Only 86% will send this on. Should be a 100%.  

Please send it on if only to one person.

 

 

 

ALLEN WEST: Obama’s Shocking Admission of US Hostage Killed in Pakistan Reveals Far Greater Scandal

Run, Obama. Allen West is coming after you!

Back during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was directing bombing strikes from the White House. For those who understand the three levels of warfare — strategic, operational, and tactical — you realize this is a complete violation of principles of warfare. Now, I have no issue with the utilization of drones as a means to attack Islamic terrorists.

However, this is a weapon system best employed by the theater operational commander who has intelligence cognizance — not approved at the strategic level, especially as directed from the White House. What could be the unintended consequences of such action?

Deadly.

As reported by USA Today, “President Obama expressed “grief and condolences” Thursday for a January drone strike against suspected terrorists in Pakistan that accidentally killed two hostages, including an American aid worker. Obama said he took full responsibility for the operation and apologized to the families of the hostages. “I profoundly regret what happened,” he said. The two Western hostages — one American, one Italian — were killed during a drone strike that targeted members of al-Qaida, the White House said. They were Warren Weinstein, 73, an aid worker from Maryland who was a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International Development, and Giovanni Lo Porto, 39, an Italian citizen working for a German aid agency. Both were kidnapped by al-Qaida in Pakistan — Weinstein in 2011 and Lo Porto in 2012. The White House said the counterterrorism operation, and another this year in the same region, also killed two other Americans believed to be working with al-Qaida. In an extraordinary eight-minute statement to reporters, a solemn Obama halted at points during his brief remarks, looking down at notes. “I cannot begin to imagine the anguish that the Weinstein and Lo Porto families are enduring today,” he said.”

by RevContent

The first issue has to be, why is the family just now finding out about this fratricide by drone strike, which occurred in January? I thought this was supposed to be the most transparent administration in American history.

Of course there will be those who challenge the use of drones to target Americans – a la Anwar al-Awlaki who was killed along with his son in Yemen. It is imperative that we establish a policy addressing Americans who depart these shores and take up arms or propagandize against America supporting Islamic terrorists and jihadists. I assert that any American who leaves this country to do such and is engaged in operations against America on this battlefield, abdicates his citizenship and should be seen as an enemy. But, without a clear designation of this current conflagration — war on terror is a horrific misnomer — we are operating in murky waters. We need a definitive rule of engagement for these circumstances.

The two Americans killed supporting al-Qaida were Ahmed Farouq, an American who was an al-Qaida leader, and Adam Gadahn, who was also killed in a separate operation in January. Earnest said Gadahn was not the specific target of that strike.

President Obama stated, “It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally, and our fight against terrorism specifically, that mistakes, and sometimes deadly mistakes, can occur”.

I understand Clausewitz’s “Fog of War” but I also realize that something went terribly wrong in the decision-making authorizing this strike.

“The site of the attack had been under surveillance for hundreds of hours, and that surveillance was “near-continuous” in the days just before the attack, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. The spying used a variety of methods, including drone imagery, and discovered a known al-Qaida operative driving into the compound, said U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity. Based on that intelligence, Earnest said, intelligence analysts concluded with “near certainty” that al-Qaida leaders were present and that civilians were not.”

 

 

 

ARMANDO LOPEZ-CALLEJAS”  EXPULSADA POR ESPIA Y AHORA BIENVENIDA.

POCA MADRE TIENEN LOS QUE AUTORIZAN.

“CACHITA  O  FINITA”

JOSEFINA DE LA CARIDAD VIDAL FERREIRO:

PROXIMA EMBAJADORA DE CUBA EN LOS EEUU.

Recuerden bien, en Cuba Comunista todo se planifica, absolutamente todo.  Todo esta sujeto a un plan.  Fuimos testigos de la infamia, de honrar y glorificar a los asesinos recien liberados,  el mismo dia del crimen imperdonable, del asesinato de nuestros “Hermanos al  Rescate” un 24 de Febrero.  Dia inolvidable para los cubanos. No hay casualidades  asi actuan.

Pronto veremos, la designacion de Josefina Vidal Ferreiro como Embajadora en EEUU, donde  mismo fue “expulsada”  por actividades ajenas [“espionaje”] a sus actividades como  1er Secretaria de la Seccion de Intereses de Cuba en EEUU.   

LA REVANCHA

Solo falta por ver si el Departamento de Estado DE LOS EE.UU le da el “agreement” a esta connotada y reconocida espia cubana. 

Y mas aun, la violenta represion desatada el 24 de febrero [en toda Cuba]  a pacificos disidentes, como mensaje  de que todo sigue igual. Dicen que esta orden vino directa del Infierno, donde se encuentra de visita el Tirano Mayor preparando su pronta estancia por esos lares. 

Y RECUERDEN BIEN: LA MUERTE DEL TIRANO MAYOR, TAMBIEN ESTA

PLANIFICADA. NO TENGAN DUDAS.

PERO… QUIEN ES REALMENTE JOSEFINA VIDAL FERREIRO?  

Brevemente:

  • Josefina nació el 18 de febrero de 1961. 
  • Tiene 54 anos. 
  • Domina perfectamente el Español, Ruso, Francés y por supuesto el Inglés. 
  • ¡Una obra de los comunistas!
  • En su juventud era “Cachita”, cuadro de la Juventud Comunista, muy activa.
  • En 1979: con solo 18 años, (gracias a su padre, viejo cuadro del Partido Socialista Popular), fue fue enviada a Moscú a estudiar al Instituto de Relaciones Exteriores de la KGB. 
  • En 1984: se graduó con honores. 
  • Aprendio el Francés y fue entrenada para luchar contra Francia.  
  • Durante su estancia en Moscú, presto servicio como “pirobochi”[traductora] de las delegaciones de alto nivel de Cuba que visitaban oficialmente Moscú. 
  • Ademas era “informante”para la Inteligencia cubana. 
  • Aquí dejo de ser “Cachita” y se convirtió en “Finita”.  
  • En 1984: es designada Funcionaria de Inteligencia de la Embajada de Cuba en Francia.
  • Se casa con Anselmito, un funcionario de bajo perfil en la Inteligencia. 
  • Cuando los sucesos del narcotrafico, el fusilamiento de Ochoa y Tony la Guardia, se produce una “limpieza total”en la Dirección General de Inteligencia (DGI).  
  • De 1,800 Agentes que son “botados”,cerca de 600 (incluso el Coronel Funes, Jefe de Finita) es expulsado.
  • La mayor limpieza se realiza en la dirección de Norte America, 
  • Su jefe un exprimentado oficial, Homero Saker Shaffic  [Rolo], es sustituido y enviado como Custodio a la TV del programa “La Mesa Redonda”.
  • Finita es reasignada a la Dirección Norteamerica. 
  • Comienza una meteorica carrera como Analista Senior.  
  • En 1999: es designada 1er Secretaria de la Sección de Intereses de Cuba en Washington, D.C., hasta 2003 que fue expulsada. 
  • Ya tiene acceso directo a Fidel Castro.
  • En el 2011: alcanza su consagración cuando es electa miembro del Comite Central del Partido Comunista.  
  • Ya es un cuadro del primer nivel de dirección del gobierno.
  • Goza de todos los privelegios de la Nomenclatura.
  • Sólo nos falta ver como sigue la película.
  • Cachita, o Finita, como quieran llamarle… es una fiera, ¡corta con la respiracion! 
  • ¡Ya sabe Roberta Jacobson con quien tiene que batirse!

 

 

 

Could MSNBC Bite The Dust Because Of The Proposed Big-Money Mega-Merger That Just Collapsed?

Is it sign-off time for Sharpton, Maddow, Matthews, and Schultz?

Norvell Rose 

With its ratings in a virtual death spiral and its position among cable news networks diminishing by the day, MSNBC could be facing a very bleak future, if not an outright existential crisis. That’s because its parent, Comcast, just pulled the plug on a proposed merger with Time Warner Cable. So says the digital managing editor for the Washington Free Beacon, Andrew Stiles, in his analysis of the proposed big-money media marriage that never made it to the altar.

In an editor’s blog entitled “MSNBC’s Future In Doubt After Failed Comcast Merger,” Stiles notes that “the network’s future was in doubt long before the merger fell apart.” However, now that the telecom giants have abandoned their expensive effort to grease the Washington skids to try to win official approval of their plan to combine forces, Comcast may be compelled to take a long, hard look at the viability of the far-left news net that viewers are abandoning in droves.

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

Politico reports that Time Warner Cable and Comcast — which not long ago bought a controlling interest in NBCUniversal from General Electric — pumped tens of millions of dollars, reportedly more than $32 million, into lobbying firms and other means of regulatory influence to persuade the powers that be to bless the $45 billion merger. It was, as Politico notes, a strategy that had worked in the past.

“Comcast and its Washington chief, David Cohen, followed the company’s tried-and-true playbook, hoping free-flowing campaign donations and a ground assault could quiet congressional critics and win over the Federal Communications Commission and Justice Department — much as it had in 2011, when it bought NBCUniversal. Instead, opponents are hailing Comcast’s failed strategy as a welcome sign that money can’t buy everything in Washington.”

Regarding that Comcast acquisition of control in NBCUniversal, Western Journalism published a post in December of last year detailing how Al Sharpton got his show on MSNBC after he helped to promote the deal among his political connections, including some in the White House. With virtually no professional TV broadcast experience, but with links to power and a no-holds-barred loyalty to Barack Obama and the Democrats, Sharpton was chosen to anchor Politics Nation. And despite a well publicized string of goofs and gaffes and controversies over his outside activism, Reverend Al survives in the anchor chair.

 

 

Clinton Foundation Caught Straight-Up Lying To New York Times Reporter

Seems that everything they say is a lie. How does one keep all the lies straight?
Check it out:

In a preview of Fox News’ upcoming special on the allegations that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton traded political favors for donations to the Clinton Foundation, The New York Times reporter Jo Becker revealed that the Clintons straight-up lied to her about whether Bill Clinton had attended a key meeting.

One of the revelations in the Times piece is that Bill Clinton played a key role in the insuring acquisition of key uranium mines from the Kazakh state-owned uranium mining company Kazatomprom to Canadian millionaire Frank Giustra. After the transaction, Giustra gave over $30 million to the Clinton Foundation.

But when Becker asked for details about a meeting between the three men, the Clintons denied it ever happened. “When I first contacted both the Clinton Foundation, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman and Mr. Giustra they denied any such meeting ever took place,” she told Fox News.


Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-caught-straight-up-lying-to-new-york-times-reporter/

 

 

 

 

Michelle Obama Freezes When Asked A Question Every Married Woman Should Be Able To Answer

She stammered before asking her aides for the answer.

  1. Christopher AgeeApril 24, 2015 at 11:21am

Addressing a group of parents and children at the White House Wednesday, Michelle Obama discussed a number of issues central to her ideology. She talked about the importance of eating vegetables and assured kids in the audience that the government is “taking care” of their parents.

Though her remarks might have otherwise been considered inconsequential, it was during a question-and-answer period that the first lady’s gaffes began.

 

Fox’s Hannity Expertly Shuts Down Muslim Guest Trying To Control The Conversation

“I’m allowed to ask any questions I want.”

  1. Christopher Agee

In a recent on-air conversation with Islamic leader Hassan Shibly, Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity sought details about the case of a young American woman, Hoda Muthana, who left her family last year to join forces with ISIS. Shibly, who heads the Council on American Islamic Relations in Florida, explained that his organization is advocating on behalf of Muthana’s family and shared his thoughts on the story.

“Words can’t describe the utter shock and trauma and horror that the family is facing,” he said, “and the pain and anguish they’re facing at having lost their daughter to brainwashing and recruitment by this terrible extremist violent gang of monsters, really.”

RELATED STORIES

Hannity wondered why CAIR, which he described as a “controversial group,” would be involved. This prompted Shibly to accuse the host of changing the subject.

“I’ll ask any question I want,” Hannity shot back, “this is my show. But you are a controversial group.”

Shibly ultimately answered the question.                                                                         “The reason we’re involved is because we have been working in that community for a long time; and her father actually attended a lecture I gave to counter extremists and to delegitimize ISIS,” he stated. “So, when he heard I gave a lecture at his mosque delegitimizing ISIS and condemning that terrorist organization, he reached out to me when Hoda first left; and the first thing I told him is, ‘We have to contact authorities and we have to do the best we can to make sure no other child is lost in the way your daughter was lost.’”

Hannity then pivoted to another topic, asking Shibly if he believes Hamas is a terrorist organization. After some back-and-forth between the two men, the guest ultimately conceded that the group is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department.

He then attempted to castigate Hannity, though, for daring to ask such a question.

“Shame on you for asking every Muslim what he thinks of terrorist organizations,” he responded.

“No shame on me,” Hannity said. “I’m allowed to ask any questions I want.”

Though it was fairly clear Shibly had more he wanted to say, Hannity opted to move on, cutting that interview off and introducing his next guest.

 

 

Conozcamos los Republicanos por Obama.

Gatria@aol.com

NO CULPEMOS A OBAMA DE TODO, OBAMA SOLO NADA PODRIA HACER,  CULPA ES TAMBIEN DE LOS QUE LO RESPALDAN, AQUI VERAN LOS NOMBRES DE 10 SENADORES REPUBLICANOS QUE BRINCARON LA LINEA PARA UNIRSE A OBAMA Y A ERIC HOLDER.

RELATED STORIES

Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.

As Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky

 

 

 

“FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

“En mi opinión”

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