HPIM0049

No 1015 “En mi opinión” Agosto 4, 2015

No 1015 “En mi opinión”  Agosto 4, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

Lázaro R González para Alcalde del Condado de Miami

“ME LA TIENEN PELADA CON DONALD TROMP”

¿En estados Unidos tenemos o no tenemos libertad de expresión?

  • “En mi opinión” YO creo que el Sr. Donald Tromp tiene el derecho a expresar su opinión, sea cual fuera.
  • “En mi opinión” Yo creo que lo que dice el Sr. Tromp es cierto.
  • Que no lo dice musicalmente, que lo dice “A Jaquimon Quitao”
  • Que duele a ciertos sectores de personas que violan la ley vulnerando las fronteras de forma ilegal y que ponen en peligro la estabilidad de la Nacion Americana, y que el gobierno descarado y traficante de drogas y que su policía asesina a sus estudiantes y además que se ponen de acuerdo con los presos para dejarlos ir de las cárceles con todo el “permiso de los carceleros y de los políticos”
  • Y que tienen a la población indígena del oprimida y los blancos (Supuestos) son los que gozan de todos los privilegios y los usan pisoteando a los pobres.
  • Y que el gobierno de Mejico cuando cogen a los cubanos en suelo Mejicano los apalean\, los meten en la cacel, los extorcionan y después los montan a patadas por el culo y se los envían a Raul Castro y al Coma-andante, y cuando llegan reciben otra tunda de patadas por el mismísimo culo.
  • Pues YO ESTOY DE ACUERDO CON LO QUE DICE DONAL TROMP. “SI” CREO QUE TIENE TODA LA RAZON Y CREO QUE ESO ES LO QUE HAY QUE HACER. Que no lo dice con palabras dulces… CLARO QUE NO. ES ASI COMO LO TENEMOS QUE DECIR, PA’ QUE DUELA Y LLEGUE.
  • DECIA JOSE MARTI QUE NO SON TIEMPOS DE ANDAR CON EL PANUELO, ES HORA DE LOS HORNOS Y SOLO SE HA DE VER LA LUZ.

EL QUE NO QUIERA OIR A DONAL TR0MP. QUE CAMBIE DE CANAL, QUE PARA ESO HAY CIENTOS Y MILES DE CANALES. SI USTED LO VE Y NO CAMBIA DE CANAL ES PORQUE ES MASOQUISTA, O ES QUE EN EL FONDO USTED SABE QUE LO QUE DICE ES CIERTO Y NECESARIO.

NO LE VOY A PEDIR A DONALD TROMP QUE MODERE SU LENGUAJE, PORQUE ENTONCES EL ME VA A PEDIR QUE MODERE EL MIO Y NO LO VOY A COMPLACER. Y ADEMAS ES QUE EL LENGUAJE ES COMO LA BUENA COMIDA: QUE SI NO ESTA BIEN SASONADO ES COMO LA COMIDA SOSA.         LAZARO R GONZALEZ MINO

 

 

 

AMENPER: ¿Por qué el afro-americano no emigra?

Vengo de unas vacaciones en Alaska, este es mi segundo viaje y encontré que el cambio social y demográfico había variado muy poco en relación al resto de los cambios ocurridos en el resto de los Estados Unidos. La caza y la pesca se mantienen populares en la industria y el deporte, no hay el problema de otros lugares para cazar venados y osos, no se considera a los cazadores “criminales” y se ven numerosas tiendas vendiendo prendas de piel de Oso.

La demográfica ha cambiado algo pero poco, vemos que ha habido una inmigración de mejicanos y filipinos, pero nada que haya causado un cambio mayor. Lo que se ha mantenido igual es la población Afro-americana que se mantiene en un 3.5%.

Hay diversas teorías del por qué en los últimos años los afroamericanos no han emigrado a ciertos estados.

Abajo pueden ver la población afro-americana en los estados en que es inferior al 4%

New Hampshire 26,883 2%, Colorado 201,737 4.28% , Alaska 23,263 3,.5%, Washington 240,042 3.74%

 West Virginia 63,124 3.58%, Hawaii 21,424 3.08% , New Mexico 42,550 2.97% Iowa 89,148 2.68%

 Oregon 69,206 2.01%, Wyoming 4,748 1.29%, Utah 29,287 1.27%, New Hampshire 15,035 1.22%

 South Dakota 10,207 1.14% , North Dakota 7,960 1.08%, Maine 15,707 1.03%, Idaho 9,810 0.95%

 Vermont 6,277 0.87%, Montana 4,027 0.67%

 

Realmente no hay una explicación clara del por qué los negros no han emigrado a esos lugares-.         

Una explicación racista es que son estados con bajo welfare y una ética de trabajo demandante.

Otros dicen que es porque son estados republicanos.  Pero Washington y Hawái son estados liberales y con una política de welfare generosa.

Creo que la razón tenemos que buscarla pensando en porqué los grupos emigran.

Los grupos emigran cuando son oprimidos social y económicamente en el lugar en que viven.

Los negros emigraron cuando eran oprimidos durante la esclavitud y la segregación en el sur.

Emigraron a las ciudades del norte y más tarde a la costa del oeste.

Es lo mismo que sucede con los mejicanos en la actualidad.

Pero mientras la emigración mejicana continúa de estado a estado buscando una vida mejor o huyendo de la “migra”, mientras los negros se mantienen en sus comunidades.

Es evidente que las protestas de opresión y discriminación que oímos de los nuevos mayorales, los líderes militantes negros, no son reales, si el negro se sintiera como en la época de la segregación, estaría emigrando a esos estados, donde la discriminación es desconocida porque y hay mejores oportunidades de trabajo.

 Sencillamente se sienten bien donde están y no quieren moverse.

 

 

NEWSMAX: 15 Things Trump and Reagan Have in Common.

 

Few people thought former Hollywood star Ronald Reagan could ever become president — until he was elected twice.

Few people thought business mogul Donald Trump could be a serious presidential candidate — until he shot to the top of most polls amid a crowded GOP field.

Here is a Newsmax look at 15 things The Donald has in common with The Gipper.

1. Like Reagan, Trump is a Washington outsider. Reagan was twice elected governor of California but never served in Congress. Trump has never held political office. And then as now, being an outsider is a virtue to voters who desperately want change.

2. Reagan was dismissed as a serious candidate, and so was Trump. “The establishment critics said the exact same things about Reagan,” Jeffrey Lord, a former Reagan aide who is close to the Trump campaign,told The Telegraph. “Reagan was ridiculed as ‘not serious’ and a B-movie actor, and they said over and over he could never win — until he did. It’s happening again. I really feel it.”

3. Trump and Reagan were both attacked by the establishment as being extreme and simplistic. Yet people were so fed up with the state of the country under Jimmy Carter that Reagan beat him in a landslide. As Trump’s showing in the polls demonstrates, people are once again fed up with establishment politics.

4. Trump shares Reagan’s “passion” for what he believes in. Reagan son’s Michael Reagan recently told Newsmax that Trump speaks with the kind of passion his father so brilliantly conveyed. “That’s why America right now has surrounded Trump, in this case, because he’s off the cuff and he speaks from his own passion.”

5. Trump espouses similar views as Reagan on illegal immigration. Trump created controversy — and won support from many — for his outspoken comments about illegal immigration and the lack of border security. Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, making it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit illegal immigrants and requiring employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.

6. Trump is a straight-talker, like Reagan. He doesn’t hide behind political correctness, as his comments about illegal immigration demonstrate. Reagan talked to people from the heart and was dubbed The Great Communicator.

7. Trump began as a Democrat before becoming a Republican. Reagan, too, was initially a liberal Democrat, but he backed Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon and went on to register as a Republican in 1964.

8. Trump, like Reagan, has been a TV star. Reagan hosted “General Electric Theater” in the 1950s and “Death Valley Days” in the 1960s. Trump found TV stardom with “The Apprentice” and “Celebrity Apprentice.”

Do You Still Support Trump? – Vote Here

9. Trump seeks to follow in Reagan’s footsteps and succeed a liberal, big-government Democratic president. And Barack Obama is even further to the left than Jimmy Carter was.

10. Trump and Reagan both opposed runaway public employees’ unions. Trump told Bill O’Reilly that he thought Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker is “doing what’s right for his state” by reining in public workers’ unions. Reagan in August 1981 fired more than 11,000 air traffic controllers after they went on strike in violation of a federal law barring government unions from striking.

11. Trump shares Reagan’s overall aim as president: to make America great again. Trump said he began the process of trademarking the slogan “Make America Great Again” and criticized some of his GOP opponents for using it. Reagan prominently featured the slogan on his campaign materials.

12. Trump favors tax reduction, as did Reagan. The reduction in tax rates championed by “Reaganomics” sought to spur economic growth. Trump has called for a repeal of the estate tax, the lowering of taxes on capital gains and dividends, and reducing the corporate tax rate to zero to spur job growth.

13. Trump, like Reagan, is pro-life. In 1982, Reagan stated: “Simple morality dictates that unless and until someone can prove the unborn human is not alive, we must give it the benefit of the doubt and assume it is (alive). And, thus, it should be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Trump said in April 2011 that he was pro-life after years of being pro-choice.

14. Trump and Reagan both have defended gun rights and the Second Amendment. Reagan in 1986 signed the Firearm Owners Protection Act, which among other things ended federal records-keeping on ammunition sales. He said if we give up “that part of the Constitution” that is the Second Amendment, “we give up part of our freedom and increase the chances that we will lose it all.” Trump told Breitbart News in April: “It is so important that we maintain the Second Amendment and that we maintain it strongly. And one of the main reasons is because the good people, the upstanding people, follow laws and norms, but the bad ones don’t.”

15. Reagan was the first president who had been divorced. President Trump would be the second. Reagan divorced Jane Wyman before marrying Nancy Davis in 1952. Donald and Ivana Trump divorced and he went on to wed Marla Maples in 1993 and Melania Knauss in 2004.

Special: Reverse Joint Pain in 5 Days or Less

Related Stories:

 

 

 

 

Quintin George: Things I trust more than Hillary Clinton;

Mexican tap water


A rattlesnake with a “pet me” sign


OJ Simpson showing me his knife collection


A fart when I have diarrhea


An elevator ride with Ray Rice


Taking pills offered by Bill Cosby


Michael Jackson’s Doctor


An Obama Nuclear deal with Iran


A Palestinian on a motorcycle


Gas station Sushi


A Jimmy Carter economic plan


Brian Williams news reports


Loch Ness monster sightings


Prayers for peace from Al Sharpton


Playing Russian Roulette with a semi-auto pistol


Emails from Nigerian princes


The Heimlich Maneuver from Barney Frank


A condom made in China


A prostate exam from Captain Hook


And finally….
Bill Clinton at a Girl Scout convention.

 

 

 

 

14 GOP Presidential Hopefuls to Face Off in Aug. 3 Forum on C-SPAN, Trump Not Attending

First Debate Today…Primer debate es hoy en C-SPAN

Miriam Dopico

Please check the following link, apparently C-SPAN is sponsoring a GOP debate today.

Sabian ustedes de este debate hoy?  El segundo debate es este proximo jueves en el Fox News Channel

Monday, 8/3/15, and will be televised on C-SPAN at 7 pm ET.

Here’s the story and the link to watch the debate.

http://truthinmedia.com/14-gop-presidential-hopefuls-to-face-off-in-aug-3-forum-on-c-span-trump-not-attending/

In response to complaints over Fox News’ exclusion of candidates with low poll numbers from its prime time August 6 televised Republican presidential primary debate, the New Hampshire Union Leader is sponsoring the Voters First Republican Presidential Forum on August 3, a C-SPAN-televised event that will feature 14 GOP presidential candidates. Donald Trump has reportedly refused to participate in the forum in protest over a critical article that recently ran in the publication.

By Barry Donegan –

The New Hampshire Union Leader has launched a C-SPAN-televised August 3 forum for 2016 Republican presidential candidates, and 14 candidates have confirmed their participation. The question-and-answer style event, which is not an official Republican National Committee-sanctioned presidential debate, will take place at the Dana Center at St. Anselm College in Manchester, N.H. at 7 p.m. EST and is scheduled to run for two hours.

The Voters First Republican Presidential Forum was launched by the New Hampshire Union Leader in response to a rising chorus of complaints over Fox News’ decision to excludecandidates with low poll numbers from its August 6 prime time debate at Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, Ohio.

Fox has said it will serve as the first primary and ‘winnow’ the field on Aug. 6. We and our partners think the voters of our states should continue to play that role. Our forum will give voters a chance to see the larger field of candidates and will give the voters a chance to have their issues addressed,” saidNew Hampshire Union Leader publisher Joseph W. McQuaid.

[RELATED: Fox News Moves Second-Tier GOP Presidential Debate to More Visible Time Slot]

The New Hampshire forum is currently set to feature all of the currently-announced prominent Republican candidates save for two, Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee. Huckabee’s absence from the list of participating candidates was not explained by the Union Leader, so it could be possible that he will confirm his participation at a later time. Candidates set to participate include Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Rick Perry, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, and George Pataki.

According to the Union Leader, “Candidate Trump bowed out because, an aide said, he was upset with a Union Leader editorial this week that mocked him for saying that U.S. Sen. John McCain was not a war hero. McCain, shot down by the North Vietnamese, suffered years of torture after refusing to be released early because his father was an admiral.

Like Truth In Media on Facebook

Last Tuesday, billionaire Donald Trump reportedly wrote a letter to McQuaid explaining his refusal to participate, which read, “…knowing you as I do, I feel it is unlikely I will be getting the endorsement from you and the Union Leader. I have made a great fortune based on instinct and that, unfortunately, is my view. Therefore, and for other reasons including the fact that I feel there are too many people onstage to have a proper forum, I will not be attending.

The forum will be moderated by WGIR radio personality Jack Heath. According to the Union Leader, “The Voters First Forum is being co-sponsored by the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Charleston, S.C., Post and Courier, and the Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Gazette. Broadcast co-sponsors are iHeart radio, KCRG-TV, Cedar Rapids; and WLTX-TV in Columbia, S.C. The forum will be broadcast nationally by C-SPAN. New England viewers will be able to watch on NECN. It will be broadcast locally by NH1/WBIN-TV in New Hampshire, as well as by the South Carolina and Iowa stations. It will also air live on NHPR.

 

 

M. Aleman:  We Can’t seem to Pin Point The Problem.

We can’t seem to pin point the problem?


The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
The U.S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Muslims
The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
The Kenyan U.S. Embassy Bombers were Muslims
The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims

Think of it:

 


Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
Confucians living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
Christians living with Jews = No Problem
Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem

Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
Muslims living with Christians = Problem
Muslims living with Jews = Problem
Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM

**********SO THIS LEADS TO *****************

They’re not happy in Gaza
They’re not happy in Egypt
They’re not happy in Libya
They’re not happy in Morocco
They’re not happy in Iran
They’re not happy in Iraq
They’re not happy in Yemen
They’re not happy in Afghanistan
They’re not happy in Pakistan
They’re not happy in Syria
They’re not happy in Lebanon
They’re not happy in Nigeria
They’re not happy in Kenya
They’re not happy in Sudan

******** So, where are they happy? **********

They’re happy in Australia
They’re happy in England
They’re happy in Belgium
They’re happy in France
They’re happy in Italy
They’re happy in Germany
They’re happy in Sweden
They’re happy in the USA & Canada
They’re happy in Norway & India
They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves, THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! 

 

And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy

Islamic Jihad:AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
ISIS : AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
AND A LOT MORE!

And We just can’t figure out who’s causing the problem.

 

 

 

 

 The horrors behind Planned Parenthood’s chatter | New York Post.  New York Post: OPINION.Quintin George:

The horrors behind Planned Parenthood’s chatter

By George F. Will

Modal Trigger

Opposing views of Planned Parenthood appear at a rally in Columbia, Mo.Photo: AP

Executives of Planned Parenthood’s federally subsidized meat markets — your tax dollars at work — lack the courage of their convictions. They should drop the pretense of conducting a complex moral calculus about the organs they harvest from the babies they kill.

First came the video showing a salad-nibbling, wine-sipping Planned Parenthood official explaining how “I’m going to basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above” whatever organ (“heart, lung, liver”) is being harvested. Then the president of a Planned Parenthood chapter explained the happy side of harvesting: “For a lot of the women participating in the fetal-tissue donation program, they’re having a procedure that may be a very difficult decision for them and this is a way for them to feel that something positive is coming from . . . a very difficult time.”

“Having a procedure” — stopping the beating of a human heart — can indeed be a difficult decision for the woman involved. But it never is difficult for Planned Parenthood’s abortionists administering the “procedure.” The abortion industry’s premise is: At no point in the gestation of a human infant does this living being have a trace of personhood that must be respected.

Never does it have a moral standing superior to a tumor or a hamburger in the mother’s stomach.

In 1973, the Supreme Court, simultaneously frivolous and arrogant, discovered constitutional significance in the fact that the number nine is divisible by three. It decreed that the status of pre-born human life changes with pregnancy’s trimesters. The court followed this preposterous assertion with faux humility, insisting it could not say when life begins. Then, swerving back to
breathtaking vanity, it declared when “meaningful” life begins — “viability,” when the fetus “is potentially able” to survive outside the womb.

When life begins is a scientific, not a philosophic or theological, question: Life begins when the chromosomes of the sperm fuse with those of the ovum, forming a distinctive DNA complex that controls the new organism’s growth. This growth process continues unless a natural accident interrupts it, or it is ended by the sort of deliberate violence Planned Parenthood sells.

Another video shows the craftsmanship of Planned Parenthood’s abortionists — tiny limbs and hands from dismembered babies. To the craftsmen, however, these fragments are considered mere organic stuff. People who proclaim themselves both pro-choice and appalled by the videos are flinching from the logic of their extremism.

Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood’s president, apologizes “for the tone” of her operatives’ chatter about crushing babies. But the tone flows from Planned Parenthood’s premise: Why be solemn about meat?

Even partial-birth abortion is — must be — a sacrament in the Church of “Choice.” This sect knows that its entire edifice depends on not yielding an inch on its insistence that what an abortion kills never possesses a scintilla of moral significance.

In partial-birth abortion, a near-term baby is pulled by the legs almost out of the birth canal, until the base of the skull is exposed so the abortionist can suck out its contents. During

Senate debates on this procedure, three Democrats were asked: Suppose a baby’s head slips out of the birth canal — the baby is born — before the abortionist can kill it. Does the baby then have a right to live? Two of the Democrats refused to answer. The third said the baby acquires a right to life when it leaves the hospital.

We are wallowing in this moral swamp because the Supreme Court accelerated the desensitization of the nation by using words and categories about abortion the way infants use knives and forks — with gusto, but sloppily. Because Planned Parenthood’s snout is deep in the federal trough, decent taxpayers find themselves complicit in the organization’s vileness. What kind of a government
disdains the deepest convictions of citizens by forcing them to finance what they see in videos — Planned Parenthood operatives chattering about bloody human fragments? “Taxes,” said Oliver

Wendell Holmes Jr., “are what we pay for civilized society.” Today they finance barbarism.

georgewill@washpost.com

Welcome to Debate Week. Let’s Get Ready to Rumble.

Inbox x

Quintin George

1:14 PM (20 hours ago)
to QGeorge, Laura, Bea, kathryn, Tats, Ben, roberto, Mario, Fral, Jorge, Manny, manolo, Miriam, Enrique, chmiyares, Denise, Julio, me

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Jim Geraghty, National Review <newsletter@e.nationalreview.com>.

If this email is difficult to read, view it on the web.
August 03, 2015
Morning Jolt
… with Jim Geraghty
Welcome to Debate Week. Let’s Get Ready to Rumble.

Welcome to Debate Week. (Cue “Sirius,” The Alan Parsons Project.)

Don’t like the fact that your favorite is stuck at the kiddie table debate/warm-up act? Blame Fox News . . . and yes, the Republican National Committee signed off on the idea.

The Aug. 6 debate is hosted by Fox News, in conjunction with Facebook and the Ohio Republican Party.

The 9 p.m. ET stage will be open to the top 10 candidates in recent national polls. With 17 total candidates now in the race — former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore was the latest, announcing his bid Thursday – not everyone will make the cut.

Those who don’t can qualify for an earlier debate, at 5 p.m. Fox News has eased the criteria for that debate, and candidates will no longer have to reach at least 1 percent in the polls to make the stage, though there are other criteria. 

Right now, it looks like the prime-time selection won’t include Carly Fiorina (groan) Bobby Jindal (double groan) or Rick Perry (triple groan).

Also, the guy who won the Iowa caucuses last time probably won’t be up there, either.

“National polls mean nothing,” Rick Santorum said. “It’s just an arbitrary figure. And unfortunately the networks and the RNC have gone along with this irrelevant legitimacy of candidacy and then have the ability to influence who is in the top ten by the amount of coverage they get and the amount of advertising dollars.”

If you’re not on the big stage, it makes sense to downplay it. But let’s face it — being in the top ten by early August shouldn’t be an impossible goal for most of these candidates. It was an early threshold they failed to reach.

“This is not a one-shot pony here,” Rick Perry said on Fox News Sunday. “We’ve got a full campaign in front of us.”

James Thurber, head of American University’s Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, said that while making the top tier obviously is preferred, “it guarantees nothing but some publicity for a day unless a candidate makes a major mistake or slip of tongue.”

But Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, asked: “Who would willingly trade a place at the adult debate for the kids table? Placement sends an unmistakable message about a candidate’s chances to win—and donors and activists will get it right away.”

I’m Sorry, I Can’t Get My Hopes Up about Chuck Schumer

I know I was Mr. Rah-Rah Cheerleader last week, but I don’t think there’s much chance the House and Senate override an Obama veto on legislation to scrap the Iran deal and keep sanctions in place.

When Obama wants to ignore public opinion, he just ignores public opinion:

American voters oppose 57 – 28 percent, with only lukewarm support from Democrats and overwhelming opposition for Republicans and independent voters, the nuclear pact negotiated with Iran, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today.

Voters say 58 – 30 percent the nuclear pact will make the world less safe, the independent Quinnipiac University Poll finds.

Opposing the Iran deal are Republicans 86 – 3 percent and independent voters 55 – 29 percent, while Democrats support it 52 – 32 percent.

If I end up being wrong, you can argue I’ve grown way too cynical in my (COUGHCOUGH) years of covering Washington. But I just don’t buy the idea that Chuck Schumer is going to abandon President Obama on the most important vote of Obama’s second term. Or more specifically, Schumer won’t kill the Iran deal. Maybe he’ll end up offering a quiet “no” vote once it’s clear that Senate Democrats have the 34 votes they need to save the deal.

People who have spoken with the senior New York senator believe the pressure campaign is having an effect: They say there is a growing sense inside and outside the Capitol that Schumer will vote against the deal when the Senate considers it in September. The bigger question many have now is this: How hard will he push against it?

Schumer is one of about 15 Democratic senators who will decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s Iran nuclear deal in Congress. The president can afford to lose no more than a dozen Democrats on the Senate floor, and as the next Democratic leader, Schumer may be the most critical of them all.

In an interview with POLITICO, Schumer insisted he’s still weighing his vote. He said he would decide based on the merits of the deal, not lobbying from either side.

“I haven’t made up my mind,” said Schumer, who is in line to be the first Jewish Senate leader next Congress. “There are expectations all over the lot. I’m doing what I’m always doing when I have a very difficult decision: Learning it carefully and giving it my best shot, doing what I think is right. I’m not going to let pressure or politics or party get in the way of that.”

If Schumer ends up opposing the deal — and I still see that as less likely than quiet support — it’s going to be quiet, reluctant, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger opposition.

In other news of the deal, a key Democrat in the House — Representative Adam Schiff — is signing on:

. . . The final deal has materialized, and Schiff, in a telephone call over the weekend, told me that, based on an “extensive review,” he has decided to come out in favor of the deal. He said he plans to formally announce his support later on Monday, but that he has already informed the White House of his intentions. His decision should carry some weight with national security-minded Democrats, and with still-undecided members of the House Jewish caucus.

In our conversation, Schiff told me wants to see Obama and Congress work together to strengthen key aspects of the deal—most notably, he wants the administration to promise Iran that the United States will have zero tolerance for any instances of Iranian cheating. But he said he believes the deal could serve its stated purpose: to keep Iran south of the nuclear threshold.

“At the end of the day, I could not find an alternative that would turn out in a better way than the deal,” he said. “Rejection of the deal would not lead to something credible. And I think that there are enough ways to mitigate the risks associated with the deal that it makes sense to me to move forward.” He went on, “The risks associated with rejection of the deal are quite a bit higher than the risks associated with going forward.”

Fast & Furious Gun Used in Garland Attempted Terror Attack?

As Instapundit likes to say, “We’re in the very best of hands.”

Five years before he was shot to death in the failed terrorist attack in Garland, Texas, Nadir Soofi walked into a suburban Phoenix gun shop to buy a 9-millimeter pistol.

At the time, Lone Wolf Trading Co. was known among gun smugglers for selling illegal firearms. And with Soofi’s history of misdemeanor drug and assault charges, there was a chance his purchase might raise red flags in the federal screening process.

Inside the store, he fudged some facts on the form required of would-be gun buyers.

What Soofi could not have known was that Lone Wolf was at the center of a federal sting operation known as Fast and Furious, targeting Mexican drug lords and traffickers. The idea of the secret program was to allow Lone Wolf to sell illegal weapons to criminals and straw purchasers, and track the guns back to large smuggling networks and drug cartels.

Instead, federal agents lost track of the weapons and the operation became a fiasco, particularly after several of the missing guns were linked to shootings in Mexico and the 2010 killing of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in Arizona.

Soofi’s attempt to buy a gun caught the attention of authorities, who slapped a seven-day hold on the transaction, according to his Feb. 24, 2010, firearms transaction record, which was reviewed by the Los Angeles Times. Then, for reasons that remain unclear, the hold was lifted after 24 hours, and Soofi got the 9-millimeter.

President Obama, March 23, 2011: ‘’There may be a situation here in which a serious mistake was made, and if that’s the case then we’ll find out and we’ll hold somebody accountable.’

One Department of Justice official resigned after the inspector general’s report came out, saying he “didn’t want to be a distraction.” He now works at the prestigious Washington firm Steptoe & Johnson.

ADDENDA: Ouch, Jay Nordlinger: “If the Norwegian Nobel Committee gives John Kerry the peace prize for the Iran deal, and Iran goes nuclear, will he throw away his Nobel medal?”

 

 

Trump’s Startling Announcement – He’s ‘Probably The First Candidate In The History Of Politics’ To Admit This

An unapologetic Trump says he fights hard to…

Norvell Rose 

Many people have suggested that Donald Trump’s big appeal — the reason for the candidate’s polling success — is that he says what so many frustrated Americans feel. He cuts loose with politically incorrect, unpolished, unfiltered comments that sound as though they come from fed-up folks who feel they just aren’t heard by the political class.

Now, despite his incredible wealth that clearly puts him in a different economic class than the vast majority of people who ardently support him, Trump has said he does something that again sounds like what most Americans try to do. He says he fights “like hell to pay as little as possible” in taxes.

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

·         Horrifying Danger Of Bounce Houses Revealed After Boy Gets Oozing Sores From Playing In One

·         Wow: Senator Catches Obama Red-Handed Violating The Law He JUST Signed

·         Dems Just Made This Huge Move Against The Effort To Defund Planned Parenthood

TheBlaze reports on The Donald’s Sunday phone interview on CBS News’ Face the Nation, in which the GOP front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination said he goes against the grain of many mainstream candidates in their politically correct practices.

According to the post on TheBlaze, “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said he is ‘probably the first candidate in the history of politics’ to admit he fights hard to ‘pay as little’ in taxes as possible.”

Trump was apparently referring to the fact that many politicians seeking high elective office appear to show off how much they pay in taxes, especially federal taxes. Those ritualistic revelations seem to be a kind of badge of honor in their show of support for government by dutifully turning over vast sums of money to the federal treasury.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

·         Darren Wilson Just Broke His Silence, Drops 13-Word Truth Bomb EVERYONE Should See

·         Traffic Stop Turns Horrifying For Officer. Police Chief Has One Perfect Word For Shooter…

·         Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Law Just Came Back To Bite Them In A Totally Unexpected Way

In typical Trump fashion, the billionaire businessman told Face the Nation moderator John Dickerson:

I fight like hell to pay as little as possible for two reasons. Number one, I’m a businessman. And that’s the way you’re supposed to do it… The other reason is that I hate the way our government spends our taxes. I hate the way they waste our money. Trillions and trillions of dollars of waste and abuse. And I hate it.

The discussion came as a result of Dickerson’s asking Trump whether he would do what Hillary Clinton just did — release tax returns showing how much he sent Uncle Sam. Trump indicated he hadn’t yet decided whether he would engage in what has become something of a political must-do for presidential hopefuls. He also said he may tie his decision to the release of what congressional investigators have been demanding from Mrs. Clinton.

“We’ll see what I’m going to do with tax returns. I have no major problem with it, but I may tie it to the release of Hillary’s emails,” TheBlaze quoted Trump as saying.

En espanol Google Translated:

Sorprendente anuncio de Trump – Él es “probablemente el primer candidato en la historia de la política ‘admitir esto

Imágenes WJ impuestos Trump

 

Un triunfo sin complejos, dice él lucha difícil …

 

Norvell Rose 03 de agosto 2015 a las 11:16 am

 

 Compartir en Facebook Tweet Email Print

Muchas personas han sugerido que el gran atractivo de Donald Trump – la razón del éxito de votación del candidato – es que él dice lo que muchos estadounidenses se sienten frustrados. Corta suelto con, sin pulir, comentarios sin filtro políticamente incorrectas que suenan como si provienen de personas alimentadas hasta que sienten que no son escuchados por la clase política.

 

Ahora, a pesar de su increíble riqueza que lo pone claramente en una clase económica diferente a la gran mayoría de las personas que lo apoyan ardientemente, Trump ha dicho que hace algo que de nuevo suena como lo que la mayoría de los estadounidenses tratan de hacer. Él dice que él lucha “como el infierno para pagar lo menos posible” en impuestos.

 

Anuncio

 

HISTORIAS RELACIONADAS

 

Peligro horripilantes de rebote Casas Revelado Después Boy Gets Rezumar Llagas De Jugando En Uno

Wow: Senador Obama capturas en flagrancia, violando la ley Él acaba de firmar

Dems acaba de hacer este gran movimiento contra el esfuerzo de Defund Planificación de la Familia

Theblaze informa el domingo entrevista telefónica del Donald en CBS News ‘Face the Nation, en la que el principal candidato del Partido Republicano para la nominación presidencial 2016 dijo que va en contra de muchos candidatos principales en sus prácticas políticamente correctos.

 

De acuerdo con el post en theblaze “, el candidato presidencial republicano Donald Trump dijo que es” probablemente el primer candidato en la historia de la política ‘a admitir que lucha duro para’ pagar tan poco ‘en los impuestos como sea posible. “

 

Aparentemente Trump se refería al hecho de que muchos políticos que buscan un alto cargo electivo parecen mostrar cuánto pagan en impuestos, los impuestos federales sobre todo. Esas revelaciones rituales parecen ser una especie de medalla de honor en su muestra de apoyo a gobierno por obedientemente entregando grandes sumas de dinero a la Tesorería de la Federación.

 

Anuncio

 

 

HISTORIAS trending

 

Darren Wilson acaba de romper su silencio, gotas 13-Word Verdad bomba el mundo debería ver

Pare el tráfico Activa horripilante Para Oficial. El jefe de policía Tiene Un perfecto palabra para el tirador …

$ 15 la Ley de Salario Mínimo de Seattle acaba de llegar de nuevo a la mordedura de una manera totalmente inesperada

En la moda típica Trump, el empresario multimillonario dijo Face the Nation moderador John Dickerson:

 

Lucho como el infierno para pagar lo menos posible por dos razones. Número uno, yo soy un hombre de negocios. Y esa es la forma en que se supone que debes hacerlo … La otra razón es que me gusta la forma en que nuestro gobierno gasta nuestros impuestos. No me gusta la forma en que perder nuestro dinero. Billones y billones de dólares de los residuos y el abuso. Y lo odio.

La discusión se produjo como resultado de preguntar Trump de Dickerson si iba a hacer lo que Hillary Clinton acaba de hacer – las declaraciones de impuestos de liberación que muestra lo mucho que le envió el Tío Sam. Trump indicó que aún no había decidido si iba a participar en lo que se ha convertido en algo que debe hacer política para los aspirantes presidenciales. También dijo que puede atar su decisión a la liberación de lo que los investigadores del Congreso han estado exigiendo a la señora Clinton.

 

“Vamos a ver lo que voy a hacer con las declaraciones de impuestos. No tengo ningún problema con él, pero puedo atarlo a la liberación de los correos electrónicos de Hillary “, theblaze citado Trump por el diario.

Lázaro R González para Alcalde del Condado de  Miami Elecciones de Noviembre 8 del 2016.  Use la boleta en blanco.

Por favor  infórmeselo a todos los familiares, vecinos y amigos, No aceptamos contribuciones monetarias Contacto: lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com

 “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