No 940 “En mi opinión” Mayo 5, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR
“Remember Your Freedom is not free”
AMENPER: El Dilema de Raúl
Ahora que Carly Fiorina entra en la carrera por la candidatura Republicana, tenemos todavía más donde escoger, y esto es la democracia, hay de todos los colores, origen nacional con dos cubano-americanos, un afroamericano un americano aplatanado que habla español, un americano libertario, y desde esa gama podemos escoger a uno que se enfrente…. ¿a quién?
Bueno parecía que era a Hilary Clinton, pero ahora nos sale Bernie Sanders, que en cuanto al comunismo es igual que Hilary lo único que los diferencia es que Bernie no tiene vagina.
Aunque hay que reconocer que Bernie aunque sea reconoce que es comunista, Hilary es comunista y mentirosa, lo cual son dos cualidades que la beneficia a los ojos de los camaradas.
Sin mencionar que también tiene tetas, y así los recipientes de los beneficios agregados en la sociedad parasitaria pueden mamar leche de gobierno directamente de la madre. Algo que no puede ofrecer Bernie.
Pero Bernie puede quitarse la camisa como el camarada Putin aunque sea se puede hacer chicharrón con el pellejo, mientras tanto Hilary… bueno la verdad, nadie quiere ver eso.
Van a que tener un concurso en vez de un debate, porque no tienen nada que debatir, los dos piensan igual.
Pero como todos los socialistas creen en la producción de nada mientras toman el dinero de los que producen, digamos que van a producir un robo en lugar de un concurso. ¡Sí! Eso es todo! Pongan a los dos de ellos en un escenario y ver quién se le puede arrancar más dinero de sus millonarios bolsillos burgueses, al que más dinero se le robe, ese gana.
Pero todos los comunistas del mundo están preocupados, Obama está preocupado, nadie sabe a quién apoyar, dos comunistas para la presidencia de Estados Unidos, el sueño de Marx.
US Declaration of Independence: Unprecedented Change to the World
filed under: guest commentary & reflections tagged with: adams, declaration of independence, founding fathers,franklin, jefferson, richard henry leeOn June 7, 1776 Virginia’s Richard Henry Lee stood up in the Second Continental Congress in Philadelphia and offered a resolution that would forever change the course of American and world history.
“Resolved: that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be totally dissolved.”
The congressional response to the Lee resolution was to create three committees. The first was to draft a Declaration of Independence. The Second was to create an agreement for a government uniting the colonies. The third was to create a sample treaty for alliances and commerce with foreign countries.
The North American colonies of the British Empire were about to embark upon a journey that had never been taken before. There was little guidance from history.
Previous Declarations: Replacing One King with Another
456 years earlier in 1320, the noblemen of Scotland had (19 earls and 39 barons) sent a letter to Pope John XXII, asking for relief from the rule of England’s King Edward and recognition of Robert the Bruce as King of Scotland. The Declaration of Abroath asked to terminate allegiance to the British crown, and replace it with allegiance to a different king.
In 1581, the people of the Netherlands terminated their allegiance to Spain’s King Phillip. This was done with the Act of Abjuration. The argument was that Phillip had abandoned his kingly duties to the Netherlands and as a result he was owed no allegiance. The people of the Netherlands though, like the Scots 260 years earlier, were looking for a new king, and wound up with the Duke of Anjou, brother of the King of France.
In 1688, England itself declared the English throne had been vacated by King James II. James actually had been chased out of the country by the Dutch army lead by the man who would become King William III. The 1688 English Declaration of Rights was employed to change kings in England, but set no precedent for independence from the British Empire.
Richard Henry Lee’s June 7th resolution to the Continental Congress, proposed the American colonies do something that had never been done before in the history of the world. They would absolve themselves of allegiance to King George, but would not seek out a new king. They would govern themselves.
The Committee of Five to Draft the Declaration
While Congress continued to debate the resolution and colonial congressmen sought instructions regarding how to vote on Lee’s resolution a committee of five men set about preparing a congressional declaration in case the resolution were adopted. On June 11, 1776, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston were appointed to the committee.
The committee met regarding a general outline of the declaration and selected Jefferson to do a draft. Jefferson did the drafting and submitted his draft to other members for editing, particularly Adams and Franklin. On June 28, 1776, the committee sent its work to Congress. Congress deleted about a fourth of the content and edited more. Jefferson referred to Congress’ work as the “the emasculation and mutilation of my Declaration of Independence.”
Congress, on July 2, 1776, adopted the Declaration in support of Lee’s original resolution. It was the date that John Adams anticipated that: “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable … in the History of America … It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”
The final editing was completed on July 4, 1776, and that was the date on the copies printed by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap, the evening of July 4th. Ultimately that became recognized as the national birthday.
Over 100 Declarations Since 1776
“The American Declaration of 1776 was the first in world history to identify sovereignty with independence.” David Armitage
From the 1215 Magna Carta, the 1320 Declaration of Abroath, the 1581 Act of Abjuration, to the 1688 Declaration of Rights, when subjects were dissatisfied with their “sovereign” or royal ruler, the solution had been to make a deal with the current ruler or find a new one. The standard for a government was an empire principally controlled by a royal family. The American Declaration of Independence changed this, not just for America, but for the world.
There had never been a Declaration like that made in 1776. In 1790, the people of the province of Flanders declared they were independent of the Austrian Emperor Joseph II. The successful slave revolt in Haiti was accompanied by a Declaration of Independence from France on January 1, 1804. There are now 195 countries in the world. More than 100 of them came into being with the issuance of a document whose heritage can be traced to the Declaration of Independence.
There was no precedent for the action of Second Continental Congress. There was no precedent to begin a country based upon the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God. The successful revolution of the United States, announced by its Declaration of Independence, became a precedent for the world.
AMENPER: Obamacare, Intervencionismo de Estado
Hay una distinción importante que hacer.
Hay una diferencia entre la libre empresa y la empresa privada. Libre empresa es el ideal del libre mercado, con la interacción pacífica entre los individuos sin ser regulados o subvencionados por el gobierno.
Bajo la libre empresa, cualquiera puede negociar con otra persona en términos mutuamente acordados. Puesto que todas las interacciones son voluntarias, necesariamente beneficiarán a todos los comerciantes, y tanto la riqueza como el bienestar son libres aumentar sin la imposición de límites artificiales del gobierno.
Toda libre empresa es privada, pero no todas las empresas privadas son libres.
El fracaso de no llevar esta distinción en mente es lo que conduce al apoyo del público de programas indefendibles como el Obamacare.
Vemos empresas de seguros privadas vendiendo Obamacare, anunciando cómo las personas pueden calificar para no pagar nada. Claro que alguien tiene que pagar por el seguro de los que no pagan nada, y estos empresarios privados son cómplices del gobierno intervencionista en la economía…
El apoyo de la empresa privada a expensas de los mercados libres trae como resultado simplemente el corporativismo, donde el negocio se convierte en una extensión del gobierno en lugar de los agentes de la competencia y elección.
La base teórica de la política del gobierno hacia las empresas estadounidenses ha sido ejecutada por más de 200 años por “laissez-faire”. Laissez-faire, o “deja solo,” en una traducción del francés, es un concepto que permite a los intereses privados que tienen una virtual libertad tener rienda suelta en la operación de los negocios.
El economista escocés del siglo XVIII Adam Smith ha influenciado fuertemente el desarrollo de las ideas de laissez-faire, e indirectamente, influyó en el crecimiento del capitalismo en América.
Argumentó que las acciones de particulares, motivados por el interés propio, trabajan juntos para el bien de la sociedad mucho mejor si los mercados son competitivos
No hay un ejemplo mejor de intervencionismo del estado como el Obamacare, donde el gobierno utiliza a empresas privadas para establecer un sistema de seguro que limita la libre empresa, la libertad de las personas de escoger su propio seguro, su médico, su tratamiento a la vez que crea el monopolio estatal que significa un único proveedor del cuidado de la salud, sin competencia,
que es el objetivo final del Obamacare, como fue abiertamente el intento del Hillarycare durante la administración de los resbalosos Clintons.
Los enemigos de la libre empresa, presentan en su propaganda proponiendo el socialismo ciertos defectos aparentes de la libre empresa, pero cuando observamos detenidamente estos llamados defectos, vemos que son debido a la asociación de gobiernos intervencionistas con la complicidad de empresas privadas que se convierten en unas agencias del gobierno creando el capitalismo de estado, que no es propiamente la libre empresa.
Un conservador es generalmente definido como alguien que favorece la iniciativa privada y se opone a la intervención del gobierno; un liberal, un socialista del siglo XXI, como la presente administración, y sus cómplices en las empresas privadas son generalmente definidos como quienes usan la empresa privada, pero está más dispuesto a aceptar la intervención del gobierno y lo apoyan con entusiasmo.
¿Qué camino debemos de seguir? La mejor manera de vislumbrar el futuro es mirando al pasado.
Los Estados Unidos han crecido para ser la nación más rica de todos los tiempos con el capitalismo de libre mercado. Los lugares donde se ha implantado el capitalismo de estado, siempre han fracasado.
La diferencia entre el capitalismo de estado y el capitalismo de libre mercado es que el capitalismo de libre mercado es llegar a un voluntario y mutuo acuerdo, transacción o comercio,independiente y libre, mientras que el capitalismo estatal es el control de las corporaciones por el Gobierno; es una forma híbrida de empresas públicas y privadas. Capitalismo de estado significa la burocracia, la planificación central y las usurpaciones de nuestras libertades.
Aquellos que se interponen en contra el capitalismo de libre mercado, con capitalismo de estado, están oponiéndose al mayor motor de prosperidad material en la historia humana: el capitalismo real. Capitalismo de libre mercado es la fuente misma de civilización, progreso, paz y prosperidad.
AMENPER: ATAQUE UNA EXPOSICIÓN CONTROVERSIAL DE CARTONES DE MAHOMA
Este es el título de la prensa complaciente a un ataque a personas que estaban expresando pacíficamente su manera de pensar.
Implícitamente al llamar a un acto de libertad de expresión controversial, está justificando el ataque.
Vamos a ver, porque tengo este mojón atravesado en mi mente que no me deja razonar.
Así que la figura de Cristo crucificado en un recipiente de orine, no es controversial, la reunión de una convención de Musulmanes, algunos patrocinadores del Yihad, para atacar a los que les critican, no es controversial. Cuando se me traba el mojón es cuando me dicen que tocar a los creyentes del Islam si es controversial e insensato porque ponemos en peligro una comunidad tranquila como Garland, Texas.
Esta es la versión de MSNBC, así que los culpables son los atacados no los atacantes.
¿Qué podemos hacer para complacer a los Jirafistas y a MSNBC?, quizás podamos dar en donación nuestras hijas y nietas al harem de los jirafistas y así nos dejarán tranquilos, creo que eso es los que sugieren los liberales.
Porque ¿Qué otra cosa pudiéramos hacer? Entran en el país sin problema, hacen lo que quieran en sus barrios, en los que imponen su propia ley Sharía por arriba de la ley de la nación, no se puede hablar mal de ellos, no se les puede tocar ni con el pétalo de una rosa.
Mientras asesinan sin compasión a todos los que se le oponen en Holanda y Francia y ahora están tratando de hacerlo en territorio americano, pero no son culpables, los culpables son los que se le oponen, porque son controversiales, los que se les oponen son el problema, no los jirafistas.
Esta pendejería endémica que está invadiendo la mentalidad de este país va en contra de los principios de los padres de la patria que liberaron a los Estados de las injusticias de la corona Británica.
El Quijote de Cervantes dijo, “Cosas veredes Sancho que faran fablar las piedras” pero se equivocó el Cervantes, porque ahora ni las piedras pueden hablar, porque eso sería controversial.
We’re One Step Closer To Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama!
And now, it’s up to each and every one of us to separate the cowards and liars in Washington for those who truly value the Constitution. It’s time for each and every one of us to separate those who merely give lip-service to the notion that Barack Hussein Obama is LAWLESS from those who are willing to back up their words with action.
H. Res 198 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and it’s time for patriotic Americans to demand that EVERY Republican Member of Congress cosponsor this bill and move it to the floor of the House of Representatives for an up-or-down vote.
And we need to make it clear that co-sponsorship is a litmus test and that any Member of Congress who does not add their name as a cosponsor is telling the American people that they support the Obama Dictatorship.
But make no mistake, Yoho’s legislation simply doesn’t lay down a red line for Barack Hussein Obama. It lays down a red line for every future occupant of the Oval Office as well by specifically defining eleven separate violations that constitute “high crimes and misdemeanors” under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
H. Res 198 says to Barack Obama and every future occupant of the White House:If you cross the line… if you commit any of one of the eleven violations of the public trust enumerated in H. Res 198… expect to be IMPEACHED!
And Yoho knows that his resolution is going to cause a “firestorm.” According to Breitbart, Yoho “anticipates [that] liberal commentators and Democrats will accuse the GOP of racism” for even daring to raise the subject of Barack Obama’s impeachment in Congress. Yoho’s response? … Bring it on…
“If people want to play the race card, and they will, that’s their choice. If they want to play the political card – ‘it’s because he’s a Democrat and you don’t like him’ – that’s their choice. My job is to uphold the Constitution and I don’t care who the president is.”
Yoho went on to say that Mr. Obama’s Dictatorial Amnesty Decree was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Yoho calls it a “blatant, in-your-face ‘I’m above the law and I’m going to do what I want. I’m a dictator, I’m a king'” moment. and Yoho, for one, is no longer willing to simply sit back and accept Mr. Obama’s dictatorial rule.
And now, each and every patriot reading this appeal must make a choice. Yoho has bravely placed his neck on the chopping block. Will you back his move? Or will you show him — by your lack of action — that doing what the American people want constitutes political suicide?
Patriotic Americans Must Back Yoho’s Play. The Time To Jump On The Impeachment Train Is Upon Us… It Is Now.
Among those specific actions are “failing to take care that the laws be faithfully executed through signing statements or systematic policies of non-enforcement” and“substituting executive agreements for treaties.”
Quoting Yoho, Breitbart writes: “Other impeachable offenses would include initiating war without congressional authorization, spending funds in defiance of appropriations laws, and refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents of testimony ‘issued for a legitimate legislative purpose.'”
Yes, impeachment is a bold move, but Barack Obama has shown that he is not afraid to be bold. Congress must be just as bold and Yoho’s resolution will lay the groundwork for bold moves that will lead to the removal of Barack Hussein Obama from office.
In Washington these days, lies are called truth and the truth is called bigotry and racism. A Great Depression is called an economic recovery. We are told that the only means of saving the middle class is to tax it into non-existence. Illegal aliens now have more rights than American citizens and the great pretender, who has usurped the White House, kowtows to the very Islamic terrorists who have vowed to destroy us.
The insanity must stop and there is only one way to cure the disease that is eating away at our country. There is only one way to reverse the Constitutional crisis that presently plagues us.
Barack Obama must NOT be given two years of dictatorial rule to achieve his dream of fundamentally transforming this nation. Obama must be removed. At the very least, he must be put in check and an overwhelming show of grassroots support to Congressman Ted Yoho’s resolution is a way to make that happen.
The Western Center for Journalism is a 501©3 educational organization. Contributions are tax-deductible as allowed by IRS regulations. Personal and corporate contributions are allowed.
Jorge A Villalon: Scalia and Alito: Have You No Sense of Decency, Sirs?
In the 1940s and 1950s, countless people in the US were being bullied and brutalized by the anti-communist scare tactics and character assassinations of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The end of the McCarthy redbaiting era began when Joseph Welch stood up to McCarthy after he attacked a young lawyer on his staff. Welch was appalled by McCarthy’s callous disregard and despite McCarthy’s power, challenged him by stating: “Until this moment, Senator, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.” He concluded by saying, “You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
In the recent marriage equality case, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia argued that marriage equality opens the door to polygamy, underage sex, and incest between brothers and sisters. This is the modern equivalent of McCarthy redbaiting and deserves the same response.
The cruel, illogical, heartless, and hateful arguments of Alito and Scalia give considerable support and inspiration to right-wing groups who literally demonize our sisters and brothers and sons and daughters who seek only to marry their same sex partners just like the rest of us.
Alito and Scalia give comfort to the likes of Rush Limbaugh who stated marriage equality leads to incest. To Rick Santorum who compares same sex relationships to bestiality and pedophilia. To the head of ironically named American Decency Association who claimed that gay rights is a satanic attack on the US. And to legions of other people and groups who practice hostility and violence against our sisters and brothers.
It is one thing to have these fringe haters outside on the courthouse steps. We allow the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi parties to demonstrate out on the steps. It is another matter entirely when they are in the exalted position as members of the court and while there feeding the fires of hatred in their public arguments.
It is past time for family, friends, lawyers, legal associations and law schools to ask Alito and Scalia to halt and to answer the question “Have you no sense of decency, sirs?”
Alito, long criticized for being a cranky, malicious mouthpiece of the anti-gay movement, was at it again when the court heard the marriage equality case. Alito is already famous for visibly shaking his head and mouthing opposition to President Obama in his 2010 State of the Union address and for throwing a mini-tantrum when other justices dissent.
Alito argued that approving the right to marriage equality for gay and lesbian people would open the door for 12 year olds to marry, for brothers and sisters to marry, and make polygamy possible for four lawyers who all want to marry each other. Alito’s problems are so often raised and widely known that they are characterized as his “polygamy perplex” by The New Yorker.
Alito’s fallacious slippery slope arguments, transparently couched as questions, were so ridiculous that they prompted John Stewart to ask whether, in the case where women fought for the right to vote, Alito might have asked “What if one day a dog wants to vote? How about that ladies?”
Antonin Scalia, of course not to be outdone, argued that if marriage equality was recognized ministers would be forced to conduct such marriages even if their religious organizations opposed them. When Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that no ministers have ever been forced to conduct gay marriages Scalia would not hear of it. When the lawyer arguing the case and Justices Breyer and Kagan pointed out that the First Amendment already protected priests, rabbis, imams and ministers from conducting marriages inconsistent with their religions,Scalia refused to concede. Scalia, like Alito, also asked if marriage equality means polygamy would have to be recognized.
As one wise friend pointed out, our country still has the Ku Klux Klan but we do not take their arguments seriously. And there are no respected people openly espousing their arguments on the Supreme Court. No respected person openly argues that blacks and whites should not marry. Nor do any people argue openly that women do not deserve the right to vote. Yet, there are people on the Supreme Court who continue to openly repeat the brutally crude applause lines of right-wing anti-gay hate groups. It is time that stopped.
It is time all people of good will stand up to the haters, especially those on the Supreme Court, and say, “Until this moment, Justices, I think I have never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness… You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”
Marriage Equality Gay Marriage Antonin Scalia Samuel Alito Polygamy Pedophilia Ku Klux Klan First Amendment Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan Stephen Breyer Rush Limbaugh Rick Santorum Satan John Stewart Hate Groups The New Yorker Red Scare Joseph Welch Joseph McCarthy McCarthyism
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
Do-or-die time for Iran legislation
By Alexander Bolton –
Legislation granting Congress the power to review a nuclear deal with Iran is facing a life-or-death moment in the Senate.
Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) is seeking an agreement to allow votes on several controversial amendments backed by conservatives that supporters of the bill say would kill it.
To buy more time, McConnell pushed off a planned Monday night vote on a separate labor bill to consult with other Republicans. The full conference is expected to talk about the Iran bill at their Tuesday lunch.
The majority leader has preferred not to pick sides in fights that divide his conference, opting to let his colleagues hash things out and move toward consensus.
Yet on the dicey Iran issue, some Republicans predicted McConnell may have no choice but to file cloture to end debate on the Iran measure and avoid voting on amendments that could kill the bill.
While this could anger conservatives, it would also save a carefully crafted compromise drawn up by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and reluctantly endorsed by the White House.
“I think that’s his only option. I know he doesn’t want to do it. I don’t want him to do it, but it seems to me we could be dragging this out for days and weeks,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Monday evening.
McConnell was blindsided late last week when Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) set up a series of votes on controversial amendments to the Iran bill, including one that would require Iran to recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of any final nuclear deal.
Democrats have warned that if Rubio’s amendment comes up for a vote, it will likely pass — derailing the broader bill.
Senior Democratic aides say McConnell cannot expect Democrats to shoulder the dangerous burden of a killing a pro-Israel amendment.
Its passage could also endanger the nuclear talks, which are set to continue until a June 30 final deadline. The Obama administration says requiring Iran to recognize Israel would throw a monkey wrench in the negotiations.
The GOP leader on Monday night decided against filing cloture to end debate on the underlying Iran bill, which would have prevented a vote on Rubio’s measure.
Democrats had expected McConnell to move Monday to end debate. Instead, McConnell stuck to his pledge — at least for the time being — to allow robust debates on the Senate floor and plenty of votes on amendments.
Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) said McConnell is trying to reach an agreement on amendments with members of his own caucus as well as Democrats.
He said he cannot imagine Democrats agreeing to a vote on Rubio’s amendment.
Corker said Monday he expects McConnell to move to end debate and block the possibility of additional votes on amendments “fairly soon.”
Walking out of McConnell’s office Monday evening, Corker said he had a “very good meeting” and predicted “we’re going to finish the bill this week.”
Rubio said Monday that he did not speak with McConnell over the weekend and reiterated his desire to get a vote on his proposal while acknowledging that his leader may not have that flexibility.
“I want to get a vote on my amendment but I understand the process,” he said.
McConnell can’t delay a vote on Iran indefinitely given the crowded Senate schedule.
The Senate must pass legislation to extend the solvency of the Highway Trust Fund and surveillance authority for the National Security Agency by the end of the month.
McConnell also wants to pass fast-track trade authority before the Memorial Day recess.
“He doesn’t have the luxury of time on this one,” a senior Democratic aide said of the Iran bill.
McConnell reiterated his pledge to allow free-flowing floor debates just last week, when he said of the Iran bill, “we ought to have a full and open and robust amendment process, and I believe that’s what we’ll have.”
McConnell last month avoided a potential fight within his conference over whether to restore the 60-vote threshold to end debate on controversial nominees by helping to round up more than 60 votes to advance Loretta Lynch, who was nominated for attorney general, to a final vote.
Jordain Carney contributed.
TAGS: Mitch McConnell
If you think your money is safe in the bank, you need to think again
BANKS TURNING ACCOUNTS OVER TO POLICE FOR SEIZURE!!!!?????
Criminal banksters turning accounts over to criminal police????
Written by Damon Geller
Shocking new revelations demonstrate once again that, if you think your money is safe in the bank, you need to think again. Coming on the heels of a recent New York Times report that the nation’s biggest banks have willingly turned bank accounts over to the IRS for total confiscation, the Wall Street Journal now reports that banks are working with the Department of Justice to turn customer bank accounts over to the police for seizure! It’s all done in secrecy, often initiated by the bankers. Tragically, bank account holders don’t even know they’re being targeted until after the money is seized from their accounts. The banks’ deplorable actions have already resulted in millions of dollars stolen from U.S. citizens without a shred of due process. And in 80% of the cases, no criminal charges were ever filed. Even more alarming — in a matter of just a few years — these cases of unconstitutional bank account seizures have risen over 500%! Experts advise that you have only ONE choice if you want to protect your savings and retirement from the corrupt banks and government.
Banks Have Already Been Reporting You
Whenever a banker finds anything suspicious about the activity of a customer, they are required by the federal government to file a suspicious activity report, or SAR. What constitutes “suspicious activity” is at the judgment of the bank. According to the handbook for the Federal Financial Institution Examination Council, banks are required to file a SAR with respect to “Transactions conducted or attempted by, at, or through the bank (or an affiliate) and aggregating $5,000 or more” if the bank merely suspects unlawful activity, regardless of whether they have actual evidence.
Banks have minimum quotas of SARs they need to fill out and submit to the federal government. If they don’t file enough SARs, they can be fined or lose their banking charter, and bank executives and directors can even be imprisoned for noncompliance. Chances are, your banker has filled one out on you—they submitted 1.6 million SARs against loyal customers in 2013 alone!
Banks Rat out Loyal Customers to the Police
But now, the Department of Justice is urging banks to file additional reports with the police, and they’re giving the police the authority to seize bank accounts without due process, even if no crime has been committed! Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell proudly explained, “We encourage those institutions to consider whether to take more action: specifically, to alert law enforcement authorities about the problem, who may be able to seize the funds, initiate an investigation, or take other proactive steps.”
So whenever your bank suspects something ‘suspicious’ is going on, the federal government urges them to pick up the phone and rat you out to the cops! You might think this is no big deal, that you’ll just tell the police where the cash came from and how it’s being used. Or you might assume that you’ll have your day in court. Think again.
The IRS Already Seizes Accounts without Due Process
As recently reported by the New York Times, banks have already been reporting millions of cash deposits under $10,000 to the IRS. From there, the IRS is arbitrarily deeming these deposits suspicious and seizing all the money in these accounts — without any evidence of a crime, without filing criminal charges, and without allowing the account holder to fight the confiscation in court!
What’s more, the number of IRS seizures has increased over 500% in just a few years, and in 80% of the cases the IRS never files a criminal complaint against the individual being seized. The median amount seized by the IRS is $34,000, while legal costs can easily mount to $20,000 or more. Individuals who are the victims of seizure often cannot afford to fight. How big are the accounts the bankers turn over to the government for seizure? The following are just a few of the horrifying cases exposed by the New York Times:
- The government confiscated $447,000 from a family business in New York
- The government confiscated $33,000 from a small restaurant owner in Iowa
- The government confiscated $66,000 from an army sergeant in Virginia who was saving the money for his daughter’s college educationSo when the police now come walking into the bank to investigate your cash deposits or withdrawals, don’t just assume you will have your day in court. You may wake up tomorrow and find your bank account has been seized.
Government on the Brink of Disaster
So why are all these seizures of private savings happening? Because the U.S. government and the Fed pumped trillions of dollars of YOUR money into the banks and stock market over the last several years, catapulting the U.S. debt to $28 trillion by 2018. And now, the U.S. government and the Fed are completely out of ammo, with the Fed no longer able to buy U.S. treasuries. They desperately need money to maintain their own power, and taxes are not enough. So government officials are doing everything they can to keep the Ponzi scheme going, such as seizing the public’s money through inflation, deficits, and outright confiscation. And now they have enlisted their old pals — the bankers — to help them get unfettered access to YOUR money without due process.
Protect Yourself from Gov’t Confiscation Now
With our desperate government leaning on their banker friends to gain unprecedented access to your money everywhere in the world, you need to take action NOW to protect your savings & retirement. But when can’t trust your local bank, and when the government has its hands in your bank accounts, retirement accounts, brokerage accounts, and even the cash in your pocket – is any place safe?
Absolutely. There’s ONE asset class this sits outside the financial system and is completely secure from banker corruption, government confiscation and global economic collapse: Gold & Silver. Gold & Silver have been the best wealth protectors for over 5,000 years and have survived every government & currency collapse in history. And when you own PHYSICAL gold & silver, the banks and the government CANNOT seize your savings with a click of a button.
So with the government spending way beyond its limits and seizing control of your financial accounts, the time is now. Protect your savings & retirement with physical gold & silver before you have nothing left to protect. (Call 800-226-8106 to receive your free copy of Damon Geller’s popular book, “Defend Your Money against Gov’t Confiscation,” or see below)
In a new tell-all book, Fidel Castro’s former bodyguard, Juan Reinaldo Sanchez, exposes the drug dealing and deception of the former Cuban president. Photo: Alex Quesada ; Getty Images
For 17 years, Juan Reinaldo Sanchez served as a bodyguard to Fidel Castro. But when he became disillusioned with the Cuban dictator’s hypocrisy and tried to retire in 1994, Castro had him thrown in prison. Sanchez made 10 attempts to escape the island, finally making it to Mexico by boat, then across the Texas border in 2008. Now he reveals all in his new book, “The Double Life of Fidel Castro.” In this excerpt, Sanchez explains how he lost faith in the revolution — and “El Jefe.”
The end of 1988. A day like any other was coming to a close in Havana. In a few minutes, my life would be overturned.
Modal TriggerFidel had spent his afternoon reading and working in his office when he stuck his head through the door to the anteroom, where I was, to warn me that Abrantes was about to arrive.
Gen. José Abrantes, in his 50s, had been minister of the interior since 1985 after having been, notably, the commander in chief’s head of security for 20 years. Utterly loyal, he was one of the people who saw El Jefe daily.
While they met, I went to sit in my office, where the closed-circuit TV screens monitoring the garage, the elevator and the corridors were found, as well as the cupboard housing the three locks that turned on the recording mikes hidden in a false ceiling in Fidel’s office.
A moment later, the Comandante came back, opened the door again, and gave me this instruction: “Sánchez, ¡no grabes!” (“Sánchez, don’t record!”)
The interview seemed to go on forever . . . one hour went by, then two. And so, as much out of curiosity as to kill the time, I put on the listening headphones and turned Key No. 1 to hear what was being said on the other side of the wall.
Their conversation centered on a Cuban lanchero (someone who smuggles drugs by boat) living in the United States, apparently conducting business with the government.
And what business! Very simply, a huge drug-trafficking transaction was being carried out at the highest echelons of the state.
Abrantes asked for Fidel’s authorization to bring this trafficker temporarily to Cuba as he wanted to have a week’s vacation in his native land, accompanied by his parents, in Santa María del Mar — a beach situated about 12 miles east of Havana where the water is turquoise and the sand as fine as flour. For this trip, explained Abrantes, the lanchero would pay $75,000 — which, at a time of economic recession, wouldn’t go amiss . . . Fidel was all for it.
Juan Reinaldo SanchezPhoto: Alex Quesada
But he expressed a concern: How could they ensure that the parents of the lanchero would keep the secret and not go and blab everywhere that they had spent a week near Havana with their son, who was supposed to live in the United States?
The minister had the solution: All they had to do was make them believe their son was a Cuban intelligence officer who had infiltrated the United States and whose life would be gravely endangered if they did not keep his visit to Cuba absolutely secret. “Very well . . .” concluded Fidel, who gave his agreement.
It was as if the sky had fallen in on me.
I realized that the man for whom I had long sacrificed my life, the Líder whom I worshipped like a god and who counted more in my eyes than my own family, was caught up in cocaine trafficking to such an extent that he was directing illegal operations like a real godfather.
The Comandante, with his talent for dissimulation, went back to work as if nothing was amiss. One has to understand his logic. For him, drug trafficking was, above all, a weapon of revolutionary struggle more than a means of making money.
His reasoning was as follows: If the Yanks were stupid enough to use drugs that came from Colombia, not only was that not his problem — as long as it was not discovered, that is — but, in addition, it served his revolutionary objectives in the sense that it corrupted and destabilized American society. Icing on the cake: It was a means of bringing in cash to finance subversion.
And so, as cocaine trafficking increased in Latin America, the line between guerrilla war and trafficking drugs gradually blurred. What was true in Colombia was just as true in Cuba. For my part, I never managed to accept this twisted reasoning, in absolute contradiction to my revolutionary ethics.
Juan Reinaldo Sanchez shakes Fidel Castro’s hand after the former Cuban president had won a medal.Photo: Juan Reinaldo Sanchez
In 1986, when economic aid from Moscow was starting to dry up, Castro founded the MC Department (for moneda covertible, or “covertible currency”), which traded in goods — illegal and legal — for hard currency from third parties, principally Panama.
The MC Department soon acquired another nickname, the “Marijuana and Cocaine Department.”
But the Americans became suspicious of Cuba’s drug dealing, and scandal loomed. Fidel decided to take action to nip any possible suspicion about him in the bud. He used the official daily paper, Granma, to inform its readers that an inquiry had been opened.
Among the arrested were the respected revolutionary general Arnaldo Ochoa and the minister I had overheard talking to Castro, José Abrantes.
The Machiavellian Fidel, while declaring himself “appalled” by what he pretended to have discovered, claimed that “the most honest imaginable political and judicial process” was under way.
Obviously, the reality was completely different. Comfortably installed in his brother Raúl’s office, Fidel Castro and Raúl followed the live proceedings of Causa No. 1 and Causa No. 2 on the closed-circuit TV screens. Both trials were filmed — which is why one can today see large sections of it on YouTube — and broadcast to every Cuban home, though not live: The government wanted to be able to censor anything that might prove embarrassing.
Fidel even had the means to alert the president of the court discreetly, via a warning light, whenever he thought a session should be interrupted.
And during breaks, the president of the court, the public prosecutor and the jury members would swarm out onto the fourth floor of the ministry to take their instructions from Fidel, who, as usual, organized and ordered everything, absolutely everything.
Fidel Castro (right) and Revolutionary Gen. Arnaldo OchoaPhoto: AP
At the end of these parodies of justice, Gen. Ochoa was condemned to death. José Abrantes received a sentence of 20 years of imprisonment.
After just two years of detention in 1991, he would suffer a fatal heart attack, despite his perfect state of health, in circumstances that were, to say the least, suspicious.
There followed the most painful episode of my career. Fidel had asked that the execution of Ochoa and the three other condemned men be filmed.
And so, two days later, on a Saturday, a chauffeur arrived at the residence, where I was, to deliver a brown envelope containing a Betamax cassette video. Castro’s wife, Dalia, told Fidel’s men they should watch it.
The video had no sound, which made the scenes we began to watch even more unreal. First, we saw vehicles arriving in a quarry at night, lit by projectors.
I have often been asked how Ochoa faced death. The answer is clear and unambiguous: with exceptional dignity.
As he got out of the car, he walked straight. When one of his torturers proposed to put a band over his eyes, he shook his head in sign of refusal. And when he was facing the firing squad, he looked death square in the face.
Despite the absence of sound, the whole excerpt shows his courage.
To his executioners, who could not be seen in the footage, he said something that one could not hear but which one could guess. His chest pushed out and his chin raised, he probably shouted something like, “Go on, you don’t frighten me!” An instant later, he crumpled from beneath the bullets of seven gunmen.
Castro made us watch it. That’s what the Comandante was capable of to keep his power: not just of killing but also of humiliating and reducing to nothing men who had served him devotedly.
His Brother’s Keeper
After Ochoa’s death, Raúl Castro plunged into the worst bout of alcoholism of his life. He had taken part in the assassination of his friend.
He turned to vodka, which had long been his favorite drink.
There was doubtless another factor involved: having watched the elimination of his counterpart, Abrantes, Raúl could logically fear that he, too, would be hounded from his position of defense minister.
The government No. 2 was dead drunk so often that the ministers and the generals could not have failed to miss it. The Comandante decided to go and lecture his younger brother.
I heard Fidel admonishing his brother, launching into a long, moralistic tirade.
“How can you descend so low? You’re giving the worst possible example to your family and your escort,” began the Comandante. “If what’s worrying you is that what happened to Abrantes will happen to you, let me tell you that Abrantes no es mi hermano [is not my brother]! You and I have been united since we were children, for better and for worse. So, no, you are not going to experience Abrantes’ fate, unless . . . you persist with this deplorable behavior.
“Listen, I’m talking to you as a brother. Swear to me that you will come out of this lamentable state and I promise you nothing will happen to you.”
Sure enough, shortly afterward, Fidel spoke out in praise of Raúl, applauding his integrity and his devotion to the Revolution. Raúl, for his part, carried on drinking vodka, but in far more reasonable quantities.
From “The Double Life of Fidel Castro: My 17 Years as Personal Bodyguard to El Lider Maximo” by Juan Reinaldo Sanchez with Axel Gyldén.
Copyright © 2015 by the author and reprinted by permission of St. Martin’s Press, LLC.
Could America Withstand Another Morally Rudderless President? by Tad Cronn
The Democratic Party these days seems to just be tossing things at the wall to see if they stick as it works out its 2016 presidential strategy.
The party doesn’t seem to have a plan as its previous plan of “let Hillary crown herself queen” falls apart.
Between revelations of possibly helping Vladimir Putin gain control of America’s uranium production, disclosure of her foundation’s non-disclosure of foreign donations, stories about her brittle personality, and whatever else can be dragged up from her closet full of skeletons, it’s a wonder that she hasn’t dropped out of sight or been hauled off in chains.
Not a promising beginning for a long-awaited lady leader of the free world.
Complicating things is that most of the stories about Hillary are being spoonfed to the mainstream media by the segment of the Democratic Party allied with President Obama and his adviser Valerie Jarrett, who — surprise! — are backbiting the hand that has fed them lo these past six and a half years.
So what’s the Democrats’ solution?
Bernie Sanders, self-described socialist and technically Independent. (He caucuses with the Democrats.)
So, the party of closet socialists is having its annointed heir-apparent challenged by an open socialist who doesn’t even pay club dues.
I’m not sure that Obama has fundamentally changed the United States enough to expect voters to admit that they are socialists themselves by voting for Bernie, and his run for the Oval Office may turn out to be the definition of quixotic.
But something tells me he is just a tool in the Democratic toolbox, and his run is intended by the non-Obama crowd to pull Hillary’s fat out of the fire by making her look less radical … and less old.
I tossed in that one because I’ve been seeing headlines like “GOP subtly attacking Hillary’s age,” which is nonsense because a) only Democrats base political careers on physical characteristics like age, gender and skin color; and b) there is so much to criticize in Hillary’s career that age is among the last things the GOP would even acknowledge.
It sounds like a pincer maneuver in the Democrats’ perception war for the throne: Bernie is too old; the GOP is running a bunch of whippersnappers; Hillary is just right.
Of course, there is also the always-hopeful true radicals among the DP, who hope that Bernie’s presence will pull Hillary to the left, away from those “centrist” lies, er, policies she touts on the campaign trail. That, in some people’s minds, would make her the perfect candidate: corrupt and openly communist, a suitable replacement for Obama.
But at the moment, it looks like Hillary’s star may be about to leave a crater in the middle of New York, where she moved to run for Senate after Bill Clinton finished his presidency.
And that’s just fine with the White House Skunk Works, which would rather run Fauxcahontas, Elizabeth Warren, the whitest Native American ever, who only put forth her minority status when presented with the opportunity for a plum tenured professorship.
Except for the Native American claim, she’s basically Bernie Sanders in a dress.
So, in summation, the Democratic Party has the Heir to the Annointed One; who is being attacked by the Dogs of the Annointed One; while being challenged by Red Bernie; as Indian Princess Dances With Perjury waits in the wings like a giggly schoolgirl.
The real question for America is, can we survive yet another amoral, demagogic Democrat in the Oval Office. The current one has us on the ropes. Assuming we survive the remainder of Obama’s term, a One-World Socialist tag team could finish the job.
You can fool some of the people all of the time. That’s the Democrat base.
The question for Democrats is, can they quell their internal fighting in time to fool enough of the people one more time?
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/05/could-america-withstand-another-morally-rudderless-president/#pW5c10J8pH63xPWw.99
“Jose Valdesuso” <email@example.com>NEWS FROM THE YEAR: 2059
Ozone created by electric cars now killing millions in
the seventh largest Country in the world, Mexifornia,
formerly known as California.
White minorities still trying to have English
recognized as the third language.
Spotted Owl plague threatens Northwestern United States crops and livestock.
Baby conceived naturally! Scientists stumped.
Couple petitions court to reinstate heterosexual
Iran still closed off; physicists estimate it will take at least 10 more years before radioactivity decreases to safe levels.
France pleads for global help after being taken over by Jamaica. No other country comes forward to help the beleagered nation.
Last Castro finally dies at age 112; Cuban cigars can now be imported legally, but President Chelsea Clinton has banned all smoking.
George Z. Bush says he will run for President in 2060.
Postal Service raises price of first class stamp to $17.89 and reduces mail delivery to Wednesdays only.
Average weight of Americans drops to 250 lbs.
85-year $75.8 billion study: Diet and exercise is the key to weight loss.
Global cooling blamed for citrus crop failure for third consecutive year in Mexifornia and Floruba.
Japanese scientists have created a camera with such
a fast shutter speed they now can photograph a woman with her mouth shut.
Abortion clinics now available in every High School in United States.
Senate still blocking drilling in ANWR even though gas is selling for 4532 Pesos per liter and gas stations are only open on Tuesdays and Fridays.
Massachusetts executes last remaining conservative.
Supreme Court rules any punishment of criminals
violates their civil rights.
A Couple Finally Had Sexual Harmony . They had simultaneous Headaches.
Average height of NBA players is now nine feet seven inches with only 5 illegitimate children.
New federal law requires that all nail clippers, screwdrivers, fly swatters and rolled-up newspapers must be registered by January 2060.
IRS sets lowest tax rate at 75 percent.
Floruba voters still having trouble with voting machines.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”