No 843 “En mi
opinión”
Enero 8, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
“EMO” Creo que fue entre el 1986-1987
un senador que regularmente iva a las reunions del congreso a dormir, increpo
al presindente Geooge Bush (Padre) porque se había atrevido a llevar la deuda externa del país a los 6
trillones y medio. Este senador negro, musulman, fumador de mariguana y que
nunca había trabajado, le dijo en un discurso en el congreso a Bush 41 que ese
era un acto Antinorteamericano y Anti patriótico.
Hoy este mismo Senador que por la mala
suerte de este país es ahora el presidente y ha llevado la deuta externa de la
nación Americana a más de 18 trillones de dólares. 6 VECES MAS DE LO QUE EL
LE RECRIMINO AL PRESIDENTE BUSH.
¿Como calificaría ahora este
despilfarro irracional al que ese senador ahora devenido ahora el peor
presidente de la historia american presidente <<¿?>> obama de la
nación mas poderosa del mundo? LRGM
Deuda pública de Estados
Unidos llega a los 16 billones de dólares
La
deuda pública de Estados Unidos llegará en los próximos días a la cifra
escalofriante y sin precedentes de 16 billones de dólares, demostrando que ha alcanzado
una velocidad imparable e inmanejable. En menos de 10 meses pasó de 15 a 16
billones de dólares con una velocidad promedio de 3.550 millones de dólares al
día, o 148 millones por hora, o 2,46 millones de dólares por minuto.
De
acuerdo al reloj de la deuda de Estados
Unidos, estamos a solo 49 mil millones de dólares de este
nuevo hito que ocurrirá en los próximos días. Pero como este reloj no está
actualizado, puede ser que ese umbral se cruce durante este fin de semana. La
deuda es imparable e inmanejable porque sigue una tenencia exponencial producto
de la magia del interés compuesto, que tiene un
impacto poderosamente destructivo en la economía.
En
plena campaña eleccionaria en Estados Unidos, los republicanos culpan a Obama
del fuerte aumento de la deuda (superior al 100 por ciento del PIB), mientras
los demócratas culpan a los fuertes recortes de impuestos de la administración
Bush. Lo cierto es que todo esto solo tiene que ver con el colapso
de un sistema que ha resultado insostenible y que hace agua por los cuatro
costados. A este ritmo, de acuerdo a Zero Hedge los
próximos hitos de la deuda de Estados Unidos pueden ser:
– 17 billones de
dólares el 10 de junio de 2013
– 18 billones de dólares el 23 de marzo de 2014
– 19 billones de dólares el 3 de enero de 2015
– 20 billones de dólares el 16 de octubre de 2015
– 18 billones de dólares el 23 de marzo de 2014
– 19 billones de dólares el 3 de enero de 2015
– 20 billones de dólares el 16 de octubre de 2015
Si
bien la deuda pública no crece a un ritmo constante dado que cada día se
expande o contrae de acuerdo a las compras y ventas de los bonos del Tesoro, la
tendencia ha sido marcadamente a la venta o colocación de bonos dado la
velocidad de las compras ha sido notoriamente inferior. La gráfica muestra cómo
la deuda comenzó su expansión en 1981 con Ronald Reagan, cuando era de 909 mil
millones de dólares y comenzó su crecimiento exponencial.
Sin
embargo, pese a los temores que puede despertar en los mercados esta colosal
deuda pública, Estados Unidos sigue pidiendo dinero prestado a 10 años a una
tasa de 1,65%, mientras que España o Bélgica (con ratios de deuda inferiores al
100% del PIB)
pagan intereses mucho más altos y diferenciados: 2,75% los belgas y 6,55% los
españoles en intereses por los préstamos a 10 años.
Esto
demuestra el entorno caótico que vive el sistema financiero y que la situación
es crítica tanto en Europa como en Estados Unidos, con la salvedad de que Estados
Unidos tiene la gran ventaja de ser dueño de la divisa y que puede refinanciar su
deuda con sus socios comerciales asiáticos mediante la emisión de bonos. Aunque
esto no sea más que generación de más ganancias ficticias a una banca también
ficticia.
En
El Blog Salmón | La “magia” del interés compuesto y su impacto destructivo en la economía
mundial, La historia de la deuda pública global y sus consecuencias
“Ronald
Reagan”
Faro de
sabiduría, moral y patriotismo.
Una consulta obligatoria en medio de
las tormentas que crean los covardes esquierdizantes demócratas y los traidores
seudo republicanos traidores.
Reagan en sus dos periodos
presidenciales, saco del hueco a los Estados Unidos y creo años de crecimiento
económico y seguridad política y respeto internacional creando tiempos de paz, sin inflación.
Una vez elegido, a pesar de la fuerte
oposición de los demócratas en el Congreso, él cumplió su promesa.
Reagan heredó una profunda recesión.
Reagan no necesitaba excusas, porque sus políticas comenzaron a producir
resultados muy rápidamente.
Reagan había presionado para que un 30
por ciento fuese cortado en las tasas de impuesto sobre la renta marginal, pero
los demócratas en el Congreso obligaron a una reducción de 25 por ciento y el
retraso en su aplicación. Una vez que el proyecto de ley aprobado y los
resultados fueron dramáticos.
Junto con la política de Reagan de la
desregulación, sus recortes de impuestos produjeron un boom económico que se
prolongó durante casi ocho años completos - desde noviembre 1982 a julio 1990 -
sin un ápice de una recesión.
Las políticas de Reagan llevaron al
mayor período de crecimiento económico hasta la fecha en la historia de la
nación. La economía era casi un tercio más grande al final de los años de
Reagan que al comienzo. Ingreso familiar medio real aumentó en $4.000, en
comparación con un crecimiento casi nulo en los años Ford-Carter.
Al igual que el presidente John F.
Kennedy, Reagan demostró que la reducción de las tasas de impuesto sobre la
renta marginales podría aumentar los ingresos. Los ingresos casi se duplicaron
durante los años de Reagan, e incluso después de ajustar por la inflación, que
se incrementaron en un 28 por ciento. La Reaganomics también hizo añicos el
axioma de libros de texto económico establecido largo que existe un trade-off
entre el desempleo y la inflación. A pesar de casi 20 millones de nuevos
puestos de trabajo, apenas había ninguna presión al alza sobre los precios.
Aunque los demócratas predicaban que
bajo Reagan, los ricos se hicieron más ricos y los pobres más pobres - de
hecho, la situación de todos los grupos de ingresos mejoró. No sólo eso, sino
que la movilidad ascendente, que recibió sus últimos ritos bajo Carter, hizo
una remontada espectacular, como un estudio del Departamento de Hacienda reveló
que el 86 por ciento de las personas en el 20 por ciento más bajo de ingresos
en 1979 se graduó en categorías más altas durante la década de 1980. Más
personas en cada grupo de ingresos se movían más arriba que hacia abajo,
excepto - irónicamente - el 1 por ciento de los asalariados.
Por otra parte, el registro real de
Reagan pone la mentira al mantra liberal de que los ricos no pagan su parte
justa. En primer lugar, las tasas de impuesto sobre la renta media de efectivos
se redujeron más de los grupos de ingresos más bajos que en los grupos de
mayores ingresos. En 1991, después de los recortes de Reagan habían estado en
vigor durante casi una década, el 1 por ciento de los perceptores de la renta
pagado el 25 por ciento de los impuestos sobre la renta; el 5 por ciento pagó
el 43 por ciento; y la mitad inferior pagó sólo el 5 por ciento. ¿Cómo es eso
de la equidad?
Desafortunadamente, Reagan no alcanzó
las reducciones de gastos que había previsto, por ejemplo el gasto militar
constituyó gran parte del aumento - por diseño y por necesidad después de la
evisceración de Carter de nuestras defensas vitales. Pero la tasa de gasto
interno creció más lentamente bajo Reagan que bajo sus predecesores inmediatos
y se habría reducido mucho más.
El gasto militar, junto con la
política exterior de la paz a través de resistencia coherente de Reagan, rindió
dividendos incalculables, ya que la Unión Soviética se desintegró pronto.
El Presidente Reagan sigue siendo el
modelo para los aspirantes presidenciales conservadores.
Amenper: Protesta y medidas sobre los sucesos de
Paris.
Enérgica Respuesta de la ONU y el
Presidente Obama y el Alcalde de New York sobre los incidentes de Paris
En el día de hoy, las Naciones Unidas emitieron una declaración relativa a
los ataques terroristas de París, mejor dicho… los “Eventos de violencia
laboral” en París, en que indican que esto era de esperarse porque la
institución religiosa del Islam fue insultada, por lo que se denomina en la
declaración, como "unos ataques satíricos franceses insufribles".
En la declaración hace mención de la similitud de este caso con el de
Estados Unidos con el insultante video contra el Islamismo que provocó el
incidente de Bengasi y que sobre el cual en un discurso en la sede de la ONU,
el presidente Obama hubo de pedir excusas públicamente a esta pacífica
institución religiosa.
Además, señalaron que las acciones tomadas por los policías contra los
combatientes musulmanes, pueden muy bien haber cambiado este planeta a una
condición más cercana a su propia destrucción debido al hecho de que los
enormes gastos de pólvora y detonación de explosivos y rondas de disparos por
la policía francesa durante el hecho y después en la captura de los
combatientes, lo cual obviamente ha aumentado la huella de carbono de
Francia.
En respuesta, la ONU declaró que ha programado una reunión de emergencia
para determinar cuánto tendrá que pagar en la compra de créditos de carbono
para mitigar este desarrollo de cambio climático, el gobierno de Francia. –
El presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Hussein Obama también expresó sus
condolencias al pueblo de París y de Francia por el "terrible acto de
violencia laboral". Y prometió que Estados Unidos ayudará a evitar estos
actos en el futuro. Como una acción rápida Obama ha decidido que de
los 10 prisioneros de Guantánamo que se iban a liberar
esta semana, 5 quedarán prisioneros hasta el próximo mes, para de esta manera limitar
el número de combatientes de ISIS.
El alcalde de New York, Bill De Blasio también hubo de hacer declaraciones
sobre las medidas para evitar la vigilancia policiaca en las mezquitas, que
pudieran molestar a los feligreses durante sus oraciones-
Por órdenes del alcalde, el Departamento de policía de Nueva York ha
abandonado un programa secreto que despachó a detectives encubiertos en barrios
musulmanes para espiar las conversaciones y construir archivos
detallados sobre los feligreses.
La decisión de la fuerza policial más grande de la nación de obturador con
el programa polémico de vigilancia representa la señal de que el
alcalde, está alejándose de las prácticas ilegales de recopilación de
inteligencia post-9/11.
Estas tácticas de la policía, que han sido objeto de dos demandas federales,
generaron críticas de grupos de derechos civiles, y según ha declarado De
Blasio, ha producido un daño a la seguridad nacional sembrando
desconfianza por las fuerzas del orden en las comunidades musulmanas.
Protegiendo a la comunidad musulmana evitaremos que sucedan casos como del
de Francia en los Estados Unidos, dijo el alcalde.
Estas provocaciones de los agentes de la policía pudieran causar hechos
como los de Paris, tenemos que proteger a la comunidad musulmana de los excesos
policiacos.
¿SE RECUERDAN DE MICHAEL BROWN EL MUCHACHITO NEGRO DE FERGUSON?
By: Bob Kitsemetry
The gentle GIANT Yea?
A MUST VIEW
Attached is a video taken from a cell phone, showing how Michael Brown.....(yes, the one and the same)....treats a senior black male. This 300 lb. young boy (that's what media calls him) is the same Michael Brown that attempted to take a gun away from a police officer and paid with his life. Here is the fellow that all of the riots are about. Videos don't lie. You will not see this in the media. Pass this around so the truth can be known. It needs to be seen!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the Grand Jury got it
ALL WRONG.
The gentle GIANT Yea?
A MUST VIEW
Attached is a video taken from a cell phone, showing how Michael Brown.....(yes, the one and the same)....treats a senior black male. This 300 lb. young boy (that's what media calls him) is the same Michael Brown that attempted to take a gun away from a police officer and paid with his life. Here is the fellow that all of the riots are about. Videos don't lie. You will not see this in the media. Pass this around so the truth can be known. It needs to be seen!
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, the Grand Jury got it
ALL WRONG.
Enrique Enriquez: Subject: Hello 2015. Date: January 1, 2015 1:38:25 PM CST
So the next time you are asked
on screen if you would like to see the Obamacarerepealed,
maybe this will help you make up your mind on how to vote.
A reminder for those who
forgot or for many that didn't know.
Here is what will happen on
January 1, 2015 :
Top Medicare Tax went from
1.45% to 2.35%
Top Income Tax bracket went from
35% to 39.6%
Top Income Tax bracket went
from 35% to 39.6%
Top Income Payroll Tax went
from 37.4% to 52.2%
Capital Gains Tax went from 15% to 28%
Dividends Tax went from 15%
to 39.6%
Estate Tax went from 0%
to 55%
Remember these facts:
These Taxes were all passed only with democrat votes.
These Taxes were all passed only with democrat votes.
No republican voted for these
taxes.
These taxes were all passed
under the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare.
These taxes were all passed
under the Affordable Care Act, a/k/a Obamacare.
If you think that it is
important that everyone in the U.S. should know this, pass it on. If not, then
delete it.
Sabian ustedes que el presidente sabe escribir??? Obama: ‘The
Future Must Not Belong To Those Who Slander the Prophet of Islam’
You should remember Obama’s own words when you consider who is at fault for
today’s terrorist attack.
Check it out:
Check it out:
The future must not belong to
those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt – it must be claimed by those in
Tahrir Square who chanted “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must
not belong to those who bully women – it must be shaped by girls who go to
school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their
dreams just like our sons. The future must not belong to those corrupt few who
steal a country’s resources – it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs;
workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those
are the men and women that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will
support.
The future must not belong to
those who slander the prophet of Islam. Yet to be credible, those who
condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see when the image of Jesus
Christ is desecrated, churches are destroyed, or the Holocaust is denied. Let
us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims, and Shiite pilgrims. It is time to
heed the words of Gandhi: “Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an
obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit.” Together, we must work
towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined
by them. That is what America embodies, and that is the vision we will support.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/01/obama-future-must-not-belong-slander-prophet-islam/
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/01/obama-future-must-not-belong-slander-prophet-islam/
The Saudi
Role in Sept. 11 and the Hidden 9/11 Report Pages
U.S.
The Twin Towers rise above the cross on the St. Nicholas Orthodox
Church, formerly at Ground Zero. James Marshall / Corbis
Since the early days after the Sept. 11 attacks, when news emerged that
most of the airline hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, dark allegations have
lingered about official Saudi ties to the terrorists. Fueling the
suspicions: 28 still-classified pages in a congressional inquiry on 9/11 that
raise questions about Saudi financial support to the hijackers in the United
States prior to the attacks.
Both the administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have refused
to declassify the pages on grounds of national security. But critics, including
members of Congress who have read the pages in the tightly guarded, underground
room in the Capitol where they are held, say national security has nothing to
do with it. U.S. officials, they charge, are trying to hide the double game
that Saudi Arabia has long played with Washington, as both a close ally and
petri dish for the world’s most toxic brand of Islamic extremism.
One of the most prominent critics is former Florida Senator Bob Graham,
a Democrat who co-chaired the joint investigation of the House and Senate
intelligence committees into the Sept. 11 attacks. On Wednesday, in a press
conference with two current members of Congress and representatives of families
who lost loved ones in the attacks, he will once again urge the Obama
administration to declassify the pages—a move the White House has previously
rebuffed.
“There are a lot of rocks out there that have been purposefully tamped
down, that if were they turned over, would give us a more expansive view of the
Saudi role” in assisting the 9/11 hijackers, Graham said in an interview. He
maintains that nothing in them qualifies as a legitimate national security
secret.
Rep. Walter Jones, a North Carolina Republican who has also read the
pages, agrees. “There is no reason the 28 pages have not been made public,”
Jones told Newsweek. “It’s not a national security issue.” Parts of it,
however, Jones said, will be “somewhat embarrassing for the Bush
administration,” because of “certain relationships with the Saudis.”
In July, the two co-chairman of a separate inquiry, commonly known as
the 9/11 Commission, likewise urged the White House to declassify the 28 pages.
“I’m embarrassed that they’re not declassified,“ former Rep. Lee
Hamilton (D-Ind) said at a press conference with his co-chair Tom Kean, the
former Republican governor of New Jersey. “I assumed all along that our records
would be public—all of them, everything. And when I learned that a number of
documents were classified or were even redacted, I was surprised and
disappointed. I am embarrassed to be associated with a work product that is
secret.”
According to Graham, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence
Committee, the Saudi officials “knew that people who had a mission for Osama
bin Laden were in, or would soon be placed in, the United States. Whether they
knew what their assignments were takes the inference too far.”
The 2002 joint congressional committee probe he co-chaired reported only
that, “contacts in the United States helped hijackers find housing, open bank
accounts, obtain drivers licenses, locate flight schools, and facilitate transactions.”
But in an interview with Newsweek, Graham said “the contacts” were
Saudis with close connections to their government. “I think that in a very
tightly controlled institution like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, activities
that would be potentially negative to its relationship with its closest ally,
the United States, would not have been made at any but the highest levels,” he
said.
The Florida Democrat charged that there has been “an organized effort to
suppress information” about Saudi support for terrorism, which "started
long before 9/11 and continued to the period immediately after 9/11" and
continues today.
“I don't think that anyone in any agency, whether it was the CIA or FBI
or others, made the decision to do this,” Graham added, referring to the
decision to classify the pages. “I think it was a decision made at the White
House and the executive agencies that were responsible to the White House were
told to keep this under rocks.”
The Obama administration has also kept the 28 pages under lock and key.
President Obama ignored an April 14 letter from Jones and Rep. Stephen Lynch
(D-Ma), requesting that the documents be declassified. Two months later, they
received a response from the director of national intelligence’s legislative liaison
promising “a coordinated response on behalf of the President,” which never
came. A White House spokesperson told Newsweek on Monday it would have no further
comment.
Likewise, Philip D. Zelikow, who was executive director of the 9/11
Commission, and has read the pages, thinks they should remains secret. Now a
professor of history at the University of Virginia, Zelikow compared the 28
pages to grand jury testimony and raw police interviews—full of unproven facts,
rumors and innuendo. If the government did decide to make them public, he said,
“hundreds, if not thousands” of additional pages of interviews would also
likely need to be declassified.
In any event, he maintains, the Saudi connections were “a red herring.”
The roles of three Yemenis in the U.S. who supported the future hijackers, he
said, is the real untold story of the attacks.
“The more interesting story is where they”—the hijackers—“decided to
settle here, and why,” said Zelikow, whom Obama appointed to the President's
Intelligence Advisory Board in 2011.
On their part, the Saudis have also publicly called for the pages to be
declassified. “Saudi Arabia has nothing to hide,”Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former
Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has said. “We can deal with questions in public,
but we cannot respond to blank pages.”
With no co-sponsors, the congressional resolution Jones and Lynch plan
to introduce is not going anywhere.
Meanwhile, Washington and the Saudi royals still maintain their
decades-long, cozy relationship. This week Prince Khaled bin Bandar, chief of
Saudi intelligence, arrived in Washington for “discussions on joint efforts to
fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS),” according to the National
Council on U.S.-Arab Relations.
Which is all the more reason why Graham persists in his efforts, however
unlikely they may be to come to fruition.
“Saudi Arabia,” he said, “has not stopped its interest in spreading
extreme Wahhabism.”
And there’s a direct line, he maintained, running from the fostering of
that ideology to the creation of the Islamic State.
“ISIS...is a product of Saudi ideals, Saudi money and Saudi
organizational support, although now they are making a pretense of being very
anti-ISIS,” Graham added. “That’s like the parent turning on the wayward or
out-of-control child.”
‘More will follow': ISIS
fighter praises Paris massacre
By Reuters
January 7, 2015 | 1:28pm
Police officers and rescue workers gather at the scene after gunmen
stormed a French newspaper, killing at least 12 people, in Paris, France,
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015. Photo:
AP
A fighter for the Islamic State militant group praised Wednesday’s attack on a French satirical magazine that killed at least 12 people, telling Reuters the
raid was revenge for insults against Islam.
Hooded gunmen stormed the Paris offices of Charlie Hebdo in the worst
militant assault on French soil in recent decades. The dead included top
editors at Charlie Hebdo, a publication renowned for lampooning Islam, as well
as two police officers.
“The lions of Islam have avenged our Prophet,” said Abu Mussab, a Syrian
who fights with the Islamic State, which has captured broad swaths of Iraqi and
Syrian territory.
“These are our lions. It’s the first drops — more will follow,” he
said, speaking via an Internet connection from Syria. He added that he and his
fellow fighters were happy about the incident.
“Let these crusaders be scared because they should be.”
No group has so far claimed responsibility for the attack.
Growing network
Abu Mussab said he did not know the gunmen who carried out the attack,
but added “they are on the path of the emir …. and our Sheikh Osama (bin
Laden).”
His reference to the emir is to Islamic State leader Abu Bakr
al-Baghdadi, whose group is a powerful anti-government paramilitary force in
both Iraq and Syria and has a growing network of followers elsewhere in the
Middle East and Asia.
A woman holds up the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo during a gathering
at the Place de la Republique in Paris Wednesday.Photo: Getty Images
Al Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden was killed by US special forces in
Pakistan in 2011.
In 2013, the Yemen wing of al Qaeda published a notice called “Wanted
Dead or Alive for Crimes Against Islam” featuring several outspoken critics of
Islam, including Stephane Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo, who was
killed Wednesday.
On Twitter, militant sympathizers expressed profound satisfaction.
One wrote: “Oh dog of the Romans in France, by God, by God, by God, we
will not stop at targeting Charlie Hebdo magazine. What is coming is worse.”
The Arabic phrases #parisburns and #revengefortheprophet were among the
hashtags used by many admirers of the shooting.
One supporter tweeted, “The word of Allahu Akbar (God is Greatest)
shakes Paris.” Another wrote: “Bravo lone wolves.”
'More
will follow': ISIS fighter praises Paris massacre
Posted: January 7, 2015
People gathered all around France, including at the Place de la
Republique in Paris, after the shooting at Charlie Hebdo.
A Twitter account called al-Marsad, which says it tracks news in the
Islamic world, praised the attack: “Your planes strike Muslim children with
impunity … And our lions roam your streets.”
A more nuanced message came from prominent Saudi journalist Jamal
Khashoggi. He wrote: “Charlie Hebdo is a satirical journal, nothing is sacred
to it. It was abusive to Jesus Christ and the symbols of all religions and we
as Muslims reject that — but to them this is freedom of expression.”
Early reaction from governments in Muslim countries was unreservedly
critical.
Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu strongly condemned the
shooting and said that to associate Islam with terrorism would be a mistake. He
called for a fight against both extremism and Islamophobia.
“Our religion is a religion of peace … We are against all forms of
terrorism,” he told reporters in Ankara.
Condemnation also came from Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, the
Egyptian government and Egypt’s leading Islamic authority, Al-Azhar.
‘I
Still Think You’re An Evil SOB’: Hannity Clashes With Radical Imam
Sean Hannity tonight clashed with radical London imam Anjem Choudary
following a horrific attack on Charlie Hebdo’s offices that left 12 dead.
Choudary
tweeted today:
“You’re saying you do not believe in freedom of speech, you don’t believe in
freedom of expression, you believe in Islamic fascism, that people must abide
by your laws,” Hannity said.
“Actually,
as a Muslim, we believe that sovereignty and supremacy belongs to God and
therefore we believe in submitting to the commands of God,” Choudary said.
Hannity
asked him, “So you’re saying anything offensive about the prophet Muhammad
should be illegal and it should be worldwide?”
Choudary
told Hannity that in Islam, that carries capital punishment.
Hannity
pressed, “But every country should adopt that, and it’s convert or die? It’s
either you agree with us or we will go into your newspaper and we will
slaughter you, we will put a fatwa out on you?"
Choudary
reiterated that he wants Sharia Law everywhere. He said that all women should
“of course” cover up in public, and that both adultery and “sodomy” should be
punished by death.
“I still
think you’re an evil SOB, but I really want people to hear you,” Hannity said
as he ended the interview.
Watch the fiery
exchange above, plus take a look back at Sean's other memorable clashes with
the imam.
9 Top Targets ISIS Could Strike Next
Three terrorists murdered 10 magazine workers and two police officers in
Paris on Wednesday after the publication satirized Islam, prompting French
officials to raise the country's terror alert to the highest level.
Soon after, President Francois Hollande further confirmed that several planned terrorist attacks had been foiled by security forces in recent weeks.
With a manhunt underway to capture the terrorists, it remains unclear whether they acted alone — like Man Haron Monis, who killed two hostages in Sydney, Australia on Dec. 15 — or were carrying out the directives of a larger group such as ISIS or al-Qaida.
Days after the lone wolf attack in Sydney, the U.S. State Department issued a Worldwide Travel Alert that, in addition to describing potential safety threats for those abroad, listed potential terrorist targets within U.S. borders. It was the State Department’s second such statement in a three-month window.
Soon after, President Francois Hollande further confirmed that several planned terrorist attacks had been foiled by security forces in recent weeks.
With a manhunt underway to capture the terrorists, it remains unclear whether they acted alone — like Man Haron Monis, who killed two hostages in Sydney, Australia on Dec. 15 — or were carrying out the directives of a larger group such as ISIS or al-Qaida.
Days after the lone wolf attack in Sydney, the U.S. State Department issued a Worldwide Travel Alert that, in addition to describing potential safety threats for those abroad, listed potential terrorist targets within U.S. borders. It was the State Department’s second such statement in a three-month window.
The following is a list of the most likely terrorist targets gathered
from government intelligence and major news sources.
1. Americans Traveling Abroad
On Dec. 19, the State Department identified civilian travelers as one of the
most vulnerable targets, and encouraged them to enroll in its Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP), which "gives you the latest
security updates, and makes it easier for the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate
to contact you in an emergency."
Examples of American's traveling abroad who've lost their lives at the hands of
terrorists include the high-profile kidnapping and beheadings of several
American and British journalists by ISIS this fall.
2. American Troops
As the U.S. military continues to launch air strikes against ISIS targets in
both Syria and Iraq, Time magazine reported that "ISIS has been routinely lobbing 'completely ineffective'
rounds at the U.S. troops training Iraqi forces at the base north of Baghdad."
The publication went on to say that "With every incoming round, the
chances go up that someone on the base is going to be wounded, or worse."
3. Hotels
The State Department has warned that hotels abroad and other places where
Western travelers may be in higher-concentration are likely terrorist targets.
In 2008, the Taj Mahal Palace & Tower Hotel in Mumbai, India, was attacked
by members of the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba Islamic terrorist group with guns,
explosives, and firebombs. During a 3-day siege, dozens were killed, CNN reported.
4. New York City
Manhattan has long been a target for terrorists around the globe, most notably
the World Trade Center attack of 1993, followed by Sept. 11, 2001. Multiple
attacks have been thwarted since then.
5. Shopping Areas
The State Department has identified shopping areas as another target.
In early December, an American teacher was stabbed to death at a mall in Abu
Dhabi by a suspect wearing a burqa. On Dec. 8, police arrested suspect Dalal al
Hashemi, a 38-year-old Emirati citizen of Yemeni origin, in connection with the
murder. Authorities said she was inspired by jihadist websites to carry out a
"personal terrorist attack" on random victims, ABC reported.
6. Airplanes
Al-Qaida has issued warnings that it now has developed bombs that are
completely undetectable — that don’t use metal and have non-detectable
explosives — and likely can bypass airport security. It’s likely that if one
terrorist organization has access to such weapons, ISIS won’t be far behind.
7. Churches and Synagogues
On Nov. 18, 2014, two Muslim men attacked Jewish worshipers at the Kehilat Bnei
Torah synagogue in Jerusalem. Wielding axes and guns, they killed four. It was
one of many terror attacks on houses of worship through the years.
8. Schools
Terror groups regularly train to attack schools. In 2014, school children were
abducted by militant Islamist group Boko Haram in Nigeria, and 140 school
children were killed by terrorists in Peshawar in north-west
Pakistan.
On Tuesday, the BBC reported that, "Terror attacks on
schools and colleges around the world have risen to higher levels than at any
point in more than 40 years, according to a long-term analysis of global
terrorism."
9. London
In July of 2005, four British Muslim terrorists suicide bombed the London
subway system and a double-decker bus, killing 52 civilians. As one of the most
influential cities in the world, London will always be a prime terror
target.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/TheWire/top-targets-isis-terrorists/2015/01/07/id/617022/#ixzz3OErHsY4A
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Boehner Could Have Been Defeated if Georgia
Republicans Voted Right
I’m embarrassed that Georgia
Republicans voted for John Boehner for Speaker of the House of Representatives.
“New Republican Reps. Barry Loudermilk of Cassville and Jody Hice of Monroe
campaigned on bringing new leadership to the House and leveled voice votes
against Boehner in a closed-door November vote. But before a packed House chamber
crowd and CSPAN viewers, they voted for Boehner.”
The excuse these Republicans are
giving is that since their closed-door voice vote failed to oust Boehner, they
contend that the GOP now needs unity. But these guys weren’t in office in
November. They had no business committing themselves to a vote until they saw
how Boehner and Co. would deal with the budget issues and funding of Obamacare.
Loudermilk, who represents my district
in Georgia, said:
I did [vote against Boehner]. When the
vote counted which was in conference when we were electing who our nominee to
go to the floor was. That was the time for that to happen, not when the cameras
have to be out and everybody can make a show.
I disagree. The only vote that counted
was yesterday’s vote, otherwise why have it? It’s when the camera is on that’s
important because that’s when people who voted for these guys are
watching.
A few more votes and Boehner would
have been out. It would have meant a dramatic change in Washington. Those who
voted for Boehner when it counted blew a big opportunity.
A lot changed from the time when the
November conference vote was taken. The Republican leadership gave into Obama
and passed the $1.1 Trillion CRomnibus budget.
Jodie Hice, also a newly elected
Georgia congressman, issued a statement where he said that “he used the
leverage of his speaker vote to get ‘assurances’ for leadership to fight for
certain conservative priorities.”
Since when have assurances from
Boehner and Co. ever come to pass? Hice was given assurances just to get his
vote. Boehner has had four years to demonstrate his conservative bona
fides and failed.
And what’s Boehner’s plan for those
who did not vote for him? Payback and revenge:
Members are already making noises
about reversing any punitive action by Boehner and the leadership, although the
speaker’s allies warn that further retaliation could be on the way.
Boehner may have given his assurances,
but other House members didn’t. “We don’t need these fringe guys as much as we
did anymore,” said a GOP leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.
“We can let them walk on certain bills, and it just won’t matter. That gives us
breathing room.”
This guy wanted to remain anonymous
while the 25 courageous Republicans who voted against Boehner did it publicly
Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.), one of “the most vocal
thorns in Boehner’s side,” said “he was unhappy that ‘only three of the
freshmen class’ voted against Boehner.”
Here are the 25 GOP lawmakers who kept their campaign promises and did not vote for Boehner. They deserve your support now and your vote in 2016:
Here are the 25 GOP lawmakers who kept their campaign promises and did not vote for Boehner. They deserve your support now and your vote in 2016:
1.
Justin Amash,
Mich.
2.
Rod Blum, Iowa
3.
Dave Brat, Va.
4.
Jim
Bridenstine, Okla.
5.
Curt Clawson,
Fla.
6.
Scott
DesJarlais, Tenn.
7.
Jeff Duncan,
S.C.
8.
Scott Garrett,
N.J.
9.
Chris Gibson,
N.Y.
10.
Louie Gohmert,
Texas
11.
Paul Gosar,
Ariz.
12.
Tim Huelskamp,
Kan.
13.
Walter Jones,
N.C.
14.
Steve King,
Iowa
15.
Thoma Massie,
Ky.
16.
Mark Meadows,
N.C.
17.
Rich Nugent,
Fla.
18.
Gary Palmer,
Ala.
19.
Bill Posey,
Fla.
20.
Scott Rigell,
Va.
21.
Marlin
Stutzman, Ind.
22.
Randy Weber,
Texas
23.
Daniel
Webster, Fla.
24.
Ted Yoho, Fla.
25.
Brian Babin,
Texas
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/19621/boehner-defeated-georgia-republicans-voted-right/#pWdICXCqfolmiUg0.99
Amenper: Ni son todos
los que están, ni están todos los que son.
Hablamos de los políticos, pero los
políticos son electos por el pueblo. Hablamos de la corrupción de los políticos
que causan los problemas económicos de la nación pero también hay muchos del
pueblo que con su corrupción causan problemas económicos a la nación.
O sea que la responsabilidad está
repartida entre los políticos con su corrupción ya sea para sus bolsillos o
para dar beneficios inmerecidos para ganar votos, y los del pueblo que aceptan
y piden más beneficios y que cometen fraude para obtener esos privilegios, y
eligen a los candidatos que se los otorgan, perjudicando al resto del pueblo y
a la nación.
O sea que no solo son los políticos lo que
son, hay quienes no son políticos y están en la componenda.
Si no hubiera fraude del Medicare y el
Medicaid, no hubiera necesidad de una reforma del sistema de salud.
Si no hubiera un fraude masivo en el
programa de discapacidad (disability) el seguro social estaría en mejores
condiciones, si no hubiera fraude en las reclamaciones fraudulentas de daño
personal por uso de un producto, los seguros fueran más baratos y los
precios de los artículos de consumo no tendrían que sufrir los aumentos que
sufrimos, si no hubiera fraude en las reclamaciones de accidentes, los seguros
de automóviles serían más baratos. Si no hubiera fraude en las reclamaciones de
seguros de huracanes, estos seguros serían más baratos.
Porque en el sistema de libre comercio, el
comerciante por la competencia trata de bajar los precios para poder vender su
producto, pero si los impuestos y los seguros suben, no les queda más remedio
que subir los precios, causando una tendencia inflacionaria que perjudica a los
consumidores y a la nación.
Enterrado en nuevas normas que regirán la
casa para los próximos dos años hay una disposición que podría obligar a una
explosiva batalla sobre las finanzas del Seguro Social en la víspera de las
elecciones presidenciales de 2016.
El programa de discapacidad del seguro
social ha sido inundado por las reclamaciones fraudulentas, y a menos que
el Congreso actúe, el fondo fiduciario que la sustenta se proyecta que puede
dejar de funcionar a finales del año 2016.
En ese momento, el programa recogerá
solamente suficientes impuestos de nómina para pagar 81 por ciento de los
beneficios, según los administradores quienes supervisan la Seguridad Social.
Para apuntalar el programa de
discapacidad, el Congreso otra vez tendría que sacar de una teta que se está
secando, podría redirigir los impuestos sobre nóminas del fondo de
pensiones de la Seguridad Social - como lo ha hecho en el pasado poniendo en
peligro los fondos para los ingresos de los pensionados en un futuro que cada
día se acerca más.
Sin embargo, la casa adoptó una regla el
martes bloqueando esa medida, algo que vemos con buenos ojos los que recibimos
el seguro social al cual contribuimos y los que esperan recibirlo en el
futuro.
Pero esperamos que esto sea parte de un
plan mayor para mejorar las finanzas del Seguro Social, con corte de
beneficios no merecidos y un mejor sistema de vigilancia para evitar los
fraudes.
Con un congreso republicano el corte de
beneficios es más posible que la subida de impuestos, pero ante la
necesidad pudiéramos ver una combinación de ambos.
Si el Congreso no actúa, de una manera u
otra, los beneficios para los trabajadores con discapacidad que son 11
millones, con cónyuges e hijos, automáticamente reduciría en un 19 por ciento.
El pago mensual promedio de un trabajador discapacitado es $1.146, o un poco
menos de $14.000 al año.
O sea que los verdaderamente
discapacitados, que no reciben mucho realmente, verían su beneficio reducido
debido a los que fraudulentamente fingen una discapacidad.
En esto no podemos echar la culpa
solamente a los políticos aunque si al sistema político, al
socialismo, que incita al individuo de vivir de la teta del
gobierno.
Pero es que la teta del gobierno no
produce leche, la leche tiene que venir del contribuyente que paga los impuestos,
o como en este caso de víctimas inocentes de la corrupción y el fraude dentro
del sistema.
Alan Dershowitz: France Reaped What It Sowed in Paris Attack
While France is reeling from the terrorist massacre of
12 people at the Paris offices of a satirical magazine, the country is also
"one of the worst … when it comes to rewarding terrorism," lawyer and
author Alan Dershowitz told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner onNewsmax TV Wednesday.
"They play with everybody. They reward every terrorist," Dershowitz said of the French.
"They've never been part of the international campaign against terrorism. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
"They play with everybody. They reward every terrorist," Dershowitz said of the French.
"They've never been part of the international campaign against terrorism. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution."
"I hate to pile on when they're suffering like
this, but you have to understand how bad France has been historically in the
war against terrorism," he said.
France has endured a string of small-scale attacks since joining the military campaign against the Islamic State. But the violence level surged on Wednesday, when gunmen stormed the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo shortly after it tweeted a cartoonof Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The magazine, which was firebombed in 2011, has mocked radical Islamists in the past, but has also belittled some critics of Muslim religion and culture as Islamophobes and fearmongers.
Dershowitz said that the attack should come as no surprise, given Europe's history of tolerating Islamic terrorism.
"We have tolerated extreme Islamic terrorism from the very beginning," he said, describing the Palestinian state as "born in terrorism," with the assent of governments including France and Germany.
"When the Israeli athletes were murdered in Munich [in 1972], most European countries freed them when they came to their country," said Dershowitz. "Germany let them go, and most European countries have freed terrorists. It shouldn't surprise anybody. In Europe, they've never fought terror."
It is not clear what kind of attack or carnage it will take for Europe to say, in effect, this time is different, and commit fully to fighting violent Islamic extremism, said Dershowitz.
France has endured a string of small-scale attacks since joining the military campaign against the Islamic State. But the violence level surged on Wednesday, when gunmen stormed the Paris headquarters of Charlie Hebdo shortly after it tweeted a cartoonof Islamic State (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
The magazine, which was firebombed in 2011, has mocked radical Islamists in the past, but has also belittled some critics of Muslim religion and culture as Islamophobes and fearmongers.
Dershowitz said that the attack should come as no surprise, given Europe's history of tolerating Islamic terrorism.
"We have tolerated extreme Islamic terrorism from the very beginning," he said, describing the Palestinian state as "born in terrorism," with the assent of governments including France and Germany.
"When the Israeli athletes were murdered in Munich [in 1972], most European countries freed them when they came to their country," said Dershowitz. "Germany let them go, and most European countries have freed terrorists. It shouldn't surprise anybody. In Europe, they've never fought terror."
It is not clear what kind of attack or carnage it will take for Europe to say, in effect, this time is different, and commit fully to fighting violent Islamic extremism, said Dershowitz.
"We've said that every time there's been a
terrorist attack and it just doesn't happen," he said.
Dershowitz also said that radical Islam enjoys support from "millions of people" in the Muslim world "who support terrorism, who will be applauding what happened today."
"Not tens, hundreds or thousands," he said, "but millions will be supporting what happened today. It's very, very big problem. The reason it has so many supporters is because it works. Terrorism works. It achieves the goals and results. Palestinians would not be getting a state today if it wasn't for their terrorists."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-muslims/2015/01/07/id/617102/#ixzz3OEudcwnu
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Dershowitz also said that radical Islam enjoys support from "millions of people" in the Muslim world "who support terrorism, who will be applauding what happened today."
"Not tens, hundreds or thousands," he said, "but millions will be supporting what happened today. It's very, very big problem. The reason it has so many supporters is because it works. Terrorism works. It achieves the goals and results. Palestinians would not be getting a state today if it wasn't for their terrorists."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/paris-attack-charlie-hebdo-muslims/2015/01/07/id/617102/#ixzz3OEudcwnu
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Steve King: 'Myriad of Reasons' Conservatives Opposed Boehner
The 25 lawmakers who tried to oust House Speaker John Boehner from his
post on Tuesday were "conservatives asserting ourselves," Iowa Rep.
Steve King said Wednesday on "America’s Forum" on Newsmax TV.
The tea party-aligned members of the Republican conference are upset with Boehner for his perceived lack of commitment to conservative principles, according to King.
"This election was about repealing Obamacare, block the president's executive amnesty and put the president in a political straight jacket," he said.
The tea party-aligned members of the Republican conference are upset with Boehner for his perceived lack of commitment to conservative principles, according to King.
"This election was about repealing Obamacare, block the president's executive amnesty and put the president in a political straight jacket," he said.
The GOP leadership has continuously failed to stand up to the president and his liberal agenda,
charged King, who did not vote for Boehner on Tuesday.
"There are a whole myriad of things," King told host J.D. Hayworth about why the GOP’s most conservative members wanted to get rid of Boehner.
"We've watched as we had a wave election in 2010, and 87 new Republicans were elected and every one of them ran on the full repeal of Obamacare. We didn't do what we said we were going to do.
"We had a chance to cut off the funding and block the implementation and the enforcement of Obamacare. That got blocked by actions of the speaker. The executive amnesty was built on the DACA program.
"Time after time, when we've had the obligations to defend often our constitutional principles, and when Obama violated the constitution … we hardly had a peep out of leadership."
Some of those who didn’t support the speaker later learned they had been removed from committee positions, though King said Boehner may reverse course.
"The speaker's going to reconsider that action and we will see how that comes out," King said. "They'll take a few hours to get this resolved, I don't think they'll let it sit very long.
"I can understand why the speaker needs people that he can count on in the Rules Committee, we know how that system works, but you don't kick them off for voting their conscious on a constitutional vote on the floor."
Boehner’s actions as speaker have "taken the tools off the table that could have protected our constitutional obligations to be legislators … and the maneuverings of the speaker blocks our ability to keep our oath to defend the constitution," he said.
"There are a whole myriad of things," King told host J.D. Hayworth about why the GOP’s most conservative members wanted to get rid of Boehner.
"We've watched as we had a wave election in 2010, and 87 new Republicans were elected and every one of them ran on the full repeal of Obamacare. We didn't do what we said we were going to do.
"We had a chance to cut off the funding and block the implementation and the enforcement of Obamacare. That got blocked by actions of the speaker. The executive amnesty was built on the DACA program.
"Time after time, when we've had the obligations to defend often our constitutional principles, and when Obama violated the constitution … we hardly had a peep out of leadership."
Some of those who didn’t support the speaker later learned they had been removed from committee positions, though King said Boehner may reverse course.
"The speaker's going to reconsider that action and we will see how that comes out," King said. "They'll take a few hours to get this resolved, I don't think they'll let it sit very long.
"I can understand why the speaker needs people that he can count on in the Rules Committee, we know how that system works, but you don't kick them off for voting their conscious on a constitutional vote on the floor."
Boehner’s actions as speaker have "taken the tools off the table that could have protected our constitutional obligations to be legislators … and the maneuverings of the speaker blocks our ability to keep our oath to defend the constitution," he said.
"I could not reconcile voting for Speaker Boehner, whom I know.
I've seen the movie over and over again, they just changed the title, but it's
the same movie. The title now is executive amnesty. It looks to me it's on the
path and they got permanently funded. That's the stand that a lot of us took.
"We need to have a bottom-up organization, not a top-down. We've got to stop writing bills at the speaker's office and have members bring the bills from the good ideas of our constituents," King said. "That's where the pushbacks are coming from."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/boehner-tea-party-conservatives-speaker/2015/01/07/id/617024/#ixzz3OAXTPaTs
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
"We need to have a bottom-up organization, not a top-down. We've got to stop writing bills at the speaker's office and have members bring the bills from the good ideas of our constituents," King said. "That's where the pushbacks are coming from."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/boehner-tea-party-conservatives-speaker/2015/01/07/id/617024/#ixzz3OAXTPaTs
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Amenper: Candidatos Republicanos a la presidencia 2016…
Cuando oímos a los candidatos republicanos
y vemos la reacción de los votantes de a pie, nos preocupamos, porque caen en
el simplismo de los candidatos conservadores parciales por el discurso de
turno.
Parcial quiere decir que puede ser muy
intenso en su conservadurismo, pero solamente en una fracción.
Es mejor un conservador más moderado pero
que sea completo.
Los dos
ejemplos más marcados de conservadurismo parcial son Paul Rand y Mike Huckabee.
Ambos
tienen en común que están opuestos a los gastos excesivos del gobierno, pero
después son polos opuestos y son conservadores parciales.
Cuando
Paul Rand nos habla de la economía, “se nos cae la baba”, es tan completo en su
análisis tan militante en su posición conservadora fiscal, que tenemos deseos
de que llegue el 2016 para votar por él.
Pero
cuando analizamos que ese mismo Paul Rand aplaude las relaciones con Cuba,
quiere dejar que Irán fabrique armas nucleares, porque dice que es su derecho,
quiere que legalicen las drogas, y otras posiciones liberales sociales, como el
aborto, nos damos cuenta de que un conservador parcial es un peligro.
Lo
mismo a la inversa es Huckabee. Cuando nos habla de los valores
judeo-cristianos que compartimos, su oposición al aborto y al matrimonio
homosexual, y otras posiciones sociales, nos sentimos identificados con
él. Pero cuando habla de economía, nos suena como un liberal, con
los mismos principios de la re-distribución de la riqueza de Obama, y lo
presentó de una manera evidente durante su tenencia como gobernador de
Arkansas.
Jeb
Bush, quizás no nos parezca un conservador social como Huckabee, ni un
conservador económico como Rand, pero es conservador, y su moderación no lo
hace un liberal como nos lo quieren pintar.
Claro
que también tiene el problema de elegibilidad, para que un candidato sea
aceptable tiene que tener la condición de que pueda tener la oportunidad de
ganar.
En
el caso de Bush, por la destrucción de su nombre por la izquierda, y la
destrucción de su carácter por la derecha, se ha convertido por un candidato
con pocas posibilidades. Lo cual es una apreciación de la que me
alegraría de estar equivocado, porque sería el mejor presidente de los posibles
candidatos.
Mitt
Romney sería tan buen presidente como Bush, pero nunca segundas partes fueron
buenas, tuvo su oportunidad y no resultó, el partido debe de comenzar de nuevo,
Bush y Romney son el pasado y hay que pensar en el presente.
Chris
Christie después de los problemas que ha tenido y por su carácter volátil, no
lo hace un candidato con posibilidades.
Jindal
de New Orleans, Santorum, Paul Ryan y Perry, no tienen chance y serán una
distracción y pérdida de tiempo y credibilidad para los otros candidatos.
Ted
Cruz y Marco Rubio por su condición de cubanos tendrán la oposición de los que
consideran que ellos no son ciudadanos por nacimiento y no tienen elegibilidad
para ser presidente, -En el caso de Cruz por haber nacido en Canadá y Rubio por
ser su padre ciudadano cubano cuando él nació.
Son
tecnicismos estúpidos, pero traerían discusiones estériles dentro del partido y
no creo que esto sea algo que sea de algún valor, porque aparte del caso de la
ciudadanía, de cualquier manera las posibilidades de que fueran electos son
pocas.
Lo
cual me deja con Scott Walker, que creo que es el candidato
ideal. Es parecido a Bush en el sentido de que es un conservador
pragmático. Tiene un historial de luchador contra la izquierda que
le ha tirado con todo lo que tenían y no pudieron con él.
La
derecha lo ve como un conservador y le daría su voto sin reservas, y después de
la debacle de la administración de Obama, muchos demócratas moderados le darían
su voto, lo cual no sucedería ni con Romney ni Bush, tendría una
gran oportunidad de ser electo.
No
sé el por qué no se habla mucho de él cuando se refieren a los posibles
candidatos, pero me parece que si el partido quiere tener una oportunidad real
de cambiar el rumbo del país, debieran pensar un poco en Scott Walker.
Steve King: 'Myriad of Reasons' Conservatives Opposed Boehner
The 25 lawmakers who tried to oust House Speaker John
Boehner from his post on Tuesday were "conservatives asserting
ourselves," Iowa Rep. Steve King said Wednesday on "America’s
Forum" on Newsmax TV.
The tea party-aligned members of the Republican conference are upset with Boehner for his perceived lack of commitment to conservative principles, according to King.
"This election was about repealing Obamacare, block the president's executive amnesty and put the president in a political straight jacket," he said.
The tea party-aligned members of the Republican conference are upset with Boehner for his perceived lack of commitment to conservative principles, according to King.
"This election was about repealing Obamacare, block the president's executive amnesty and put the president in a political straight jacket," he said.
The GOP leadership has continuously failed to
stand up to the president and his liberal agenda, charged King, who did not
vote for Boehner on Tuesday.
"There are a whole myriad of things," King told host J.D. Hayworth about why the GOP’s most conservative members wanted to get rid of Boehner.
"We've watched as we had a wave election in 2010, and 87 new Republicans were elected and every one of them ran on the full repeal of Obamacare. We didn't do what we said we were going to do.
"We had a chance to cut off the funding and block the implementation and the enforcement of Obamacare. That got blocked by actions of the speaker. The executive amnesty was built on the DACA program.
"Time after time, when we've had the obligations to defend often our constitutional principles, and when Obama violated the constitution … we hardly had a peep out of leadership."
Some of those who didn’t support the speaker later learned they had been removed from committee positions, though King said Boehner may reverse course.
"The speaker's going to reconsider that action and we will see how that comes out," King said. "They'll take a few hours to get this resolved, I don't think they'll let it sit very long.
"I can understand why the speaker needs people that he can count on in the Rules Committee, we know how that system works, but you don't kick them off for voting their conscious on a constitutional vote on the floor."
Boehner’s actions as speaker have "taken the tools off the table that could have protected our constitutional obligations to be legislators … and the maneuverings of the speaker blocks our ability to keep our oath to defend the constitution," he said.
"There are a whole myriad of things," King told host J.D. Hayworth about why the GOP’s most conservative members wanted to get rid of Boehner.
"We've watched as we had a wave election in 2010, and 87 new Republicans were elected and every one of them ran on the full repeal of Obamacare. We didn't do what we said we were going to do.
"We had a chance to cut off the funding and block the implementation and the enforcement of Obamacare. That got blocked by actions of the speaker. The executive amnesty was built on the DACA program.
"Time after time, when we've had the obligations to defend often our constitutional principles, and when Obama violated the constitution … we hardly had a peep out of leadership."
Some of those who didn’t support the speaker later learned they had been removed from committee positions, though King said Boehner may reverse course.
"The speaker's going to reconsider that action and we will see how that comes out," King said. "They'll take a few hours to get this resolved, I don't think they'll let it sit very long.
"I can understand why the speaker needs people that he can count on in the Rules Committee, we know how that system works, but you don't kick them off for voting their conscious on a constitutional vote on the floor."
Boehner’s actions as speaker have "taken the tools off the table that could have protected our constitutional obligations to be legislators … and the maneuverings of the speaker blocks our ability to keep our oath to defend the constitution," he said.
"I could not reconcile voting for Speaker
Boehner, whom I know. I've seen the movie over and over again, they just
changed the title, but it's the same movie. The title now is executive amnesty.
It looks to me it's on the path and they got permanently funded. That's the
stand that a lot of us took.
"We need to have a bottom-up organization, not a top-down. We've got to stop writing bills at the speaker's office and have members bring the bills from the good ideas of our constituents," King said. "That's where the pushbacks are coming from."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/boehner-tea-party-conservatives-speaker/2015/01/07/id/617024/#ixzz3OAXTPaTs
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
"We need to have a bottom-up organization, not a top-down. We've got to stop writing bills at the speaker's office and have members bring the bills from the good ideas of our constituents," King said. "That's where the pushbacks are coming from."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/boehner-tea-party-conservatives-speaker/2015/01/07/id/617024/#ixzz3OAXTPaTs
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Amenper: LAS DOS IMPUGNACIONES EN LOS
ESTADOS UNIDOS
Ayer se cumplieron 16 años del 7 de enero de 1999, cuando por la segunda
vez en la historia de Estados Unidos, el Senado inició procedimientos de
destitución contra un Presidente en funciones: Bill Clinton. Fue un regalo de
reyes merecido del cual muchos fuimos testigos en aquella época.
La primera vez que se impugnó a un presidente fue en marzo de 1868 contra
Andrew Johnson, sucesor de Abraham Lincoln después de su muerte. No
fui testigo de ese juicio de impugnación era muy niño entonces, pero por lo que
he leído Johnson realmente era tan inocente como Clinton era culpable.
Johnson estaba en conflicto no sólo con el Congreso pero con miembros
de su gabinete.
Johnson simplemente siguió la política que se había trazado Lincoln, de
tratar de unir al país, no actuando como un gobierno de ocupación del Sur pero
en un gobierno transitorio de una reconstrucción, todos como americanos.
Los “duros” del partido que querían subyugar a los sureños, nunca
estuvieron de acuerdo con Lincoln, pero por la popularidad de este, no se
podían oponer. Con un presidente más débil como Johnson se trataron de
salir con la suya.
Cuando Johnson despidió al secretario de guerra Edwin Stanton, que
tambiíen habia tenido diferencias con Lincoln, y lo cual siempre ha sido
un derecho del presidente, el Congreso aprobó la ley de tenencia de oficina,
que restringía el Presidente de despedir a los miembros de su propio gabinete y
otros funcionarios nombrados sin el Consejo y consentimiento del Senado.
Johnson persistió, tratando de despedir a Edwin Stanton, y la cámara aprobó una
ley de destitución en su contra como resultado. En el Senado, sin embargo, no
lograron condenarlo y removerlo de su oficina, por un voto. Fue realmente un
juicio político dentro del partido.
En el caso de Clinton, la acusación fue de perjurio, y también fue un
juicio político el no condenarlo, porque era evidente su culpabilidad.
El drama comenzó cuando la joven de 21 años, Mónica Lewinsky, comenzó un
internado no remunerado en la casa blanca en junio de 1995.
En noviembre, Lewinsky y Clinton habían entrado en una relación sexual,
según grabaciones de audio de Linda Tripp, una secretaria de la casa blanca,
realizadas en secreto.
Linda según se dice, también había tenido relaciones con Bill Clinton, así
como otras participantes de la portañuela alegre de Slick Willy.
En la primavera de 1996, Clinton negó varias veces bajo juramento el haber
tenido relaciones sexuales con Mónica.
Pero esta presentó el famoso “vestido del lechazo” que tenía residuos de
semen que se comprobaron por análisis de DNA que eran de Clinton.
La única defensa que entonces Clinton pudo hacer era decir que no había
mentido, porque él no consideraba el sexo oral como relación sexual, o sea
acuñó la frase ahora famosa “Una mamada no es nada”.
Clinton no sólo debía de haber sido destituido por perjurio y obstrucción
de justicia, pero por haber relajeado la oficina de la presidencia.
Pero Clinton fue finalmente absuelto de los dos artículos de destitución.
El de perjurio y el de obstrucción a la justicia. El juicio de cinco semanas
terminó el 12 de febrero de 1999 cuando Clinton fue encontrado no culpable en
ambos cargos.
Así se suceden las cosas en la historia, y tenemos la posibilidad de que la
cómplice de la mentira, Hillary Clinton pueda ocupar a la relajeada oficina de
la presidencia.
Peter King: Allow Surveillance in US Mosques or Face Bloodbaths
The horrific slaughter of 12 people by masked Islamic extremists in
Paris should serve as a "wakeup call" to Americans that law
enforcement must be allowed to gather intelligence in mosques — or face similar
attacks, Rep. Peter King told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.
"The fact that we face an enemy that's going to be with us is as far as I can see. These are vicious, unprincipled animals, and they . . . try to find ways to attack Western civilizations, attack Judeo-Christian civilizations," King said on "The Steve Malzberg Show."
"What we saw in Paris is we have to be on guard completely. Two years ago, the president was telling us that al-Qaida was on the run and how strong of a position we were in. The fact is, in many ways, it's more dangerous than ever."
King's warning came hours after gunmen executed 11 people inside and one police officer outside the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which in the past had published controversial cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.
King, a New York Republican who is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, said the White House has sent mixed messages about the right to free speech versus judgment in publishing material that mocks religion.
"The fact that we face an enemy that's going to be with us is as far as I can see. These are vicious, unprincipled animals, and they . . . try to find ways to attack Western civilizations, attack Judeo-Christian civilizations," King said on "The Steve Malzberg Show."
"What we saw in Paris is we have to be on guard completely. Two years ago, the president was telling us that al-Qaida was on the run and how strong of a position we were in. The fact is, in many ways, it's more dangerous than ever."
King's warning came hours after gunmen executed 11 people inside and one police officer outside the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which in the past had published controversial cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad.
King, a New York Republican who is a member of the House Homeland Security Committee and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence, said the White House has sent mixed messages about the right to free speech versus judgment in publishing material that mocks religion.
"It sends a terrible message, especially when the party on the
other side is Islamic terrorism," he said.
"When you have Islamist terrorists threatening to kill people and threatening to take away free speech, you should say nothing critical of the media and the journalists who are writing, whether you agree with them or not.
"This president sends mixed signals. He takes one step forward and one step sideways, if not backwards, and it's a very mixed message, which confuses our allies and it emboldens our enemies."
King said that while Americans must be "legitimately concerned" by what happened in Paris, that concern can be channeled into action.
"I will use the New York City Police Department as an example. After 9/11, they put in the best counter-terrorism force possible in the world. They did, and yet they were criticized by the New York Times, the Associated Press, Bill de Blasio when he ran for election to mayor," King said.
"It was considered profiling and it was considered racism — the fact that we would actually be looking into the Muslim community to see whether or not there was any terrorists when we know that's where they're coming from.
"All the more reason why it's so important to have intelligence and surveillance . . . The only chance you have where the odds are with you to stop a terrorist attack is if you have prior intelligence."
"When you have Islamist terrorists threatening to kill people and threatening to take away free speech, you should say nothing critical of the media and the journalists who are writing, whether you agree with them or not.
"This president sends mixed signals. He takes one step forward and one step sideways, if not backwards, and it's a very mixed message, which confuses our allies and it emboldens our enemies."
King said that while Americans must be "legitimately concerned" by what happened in Paris, that concern can be channeled into action.
"I will use the New York City Police Department as an example. After 9/11, they put in the best counter-terrorism force possible in the world. They did, and yet they were criticized by the New York Times, the Associated Press, Bill de Blasio when he ran for election to mayor," King said.
"It was considered profiling and it was considered racism — the fact that we would actually be looking into the Muslim community to see whether or not there was any terrorists when we know that's where they're coming from.
"All the more reason why it's so important to have intelligence and surveillance . . . The only chance you have where the odds are with you to stop a terrorist attack is if you have prior intelligence."
That, King said, requires law enforcement's using informants and
undercover cops to go into mosques, coffee houses and other gathering places to
gather information.
"It has to be done in France and here, otherwise the same type of attack is going to happen, and yet we keep weakening the police," he said.
"It has to be done in France and here, otherwise the same type of attack is going to happen, and yet we keep weakening the police," he said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Peter-King-islamist-terrorists-strike/2015/01/07/id/617131/#ixzz3OEqNQy55
Holder doesn’t investigate crimes
against whites
What does it take for
Holder to investigate civil rights violations when they are committed by a
black cop?
The world will never know.
I am all about law and
order. For me there is no color. I further believe that the overwhelming
majority of cops are good people who want to do the right thing. But there are
bad ones, and they come in all colors.
My problem is that Holder
is color-sensitive when it comes to law enforcement. When a white cop
rightfully shoots a black person, Holder still uses taxpayer money to
investigate. However, when black cops do bad things, Holder is silent.
As the Washington
Times reported: A two-year-old case involving
the shooting death of an unarmed 18-year-old white man by a black police
officer is gaining attention on social media in the wake of this week’s
protests and rioting in Ferguson, Missouri.
Gilbert Collar, a white, unarmed 18-year-old
under the influence of drugs was shot and killed Oct. 6, 2012, by Officer Trevis Austin, who is black, in Mobile,
Alabama. Despite public pressure for an indictment, a Mobile County grand jury
refused to bring charges against Officer Austin, concluding that the officer
acted in self-defense.
The circumstances mirror those of the Aug. 9 shooting death of Michael Brown, a black unarmed 18-year-old
under the influence of drugs by Officer Darren Wilson, who is white, in Ferguson.
In this practically
identical case to Michael Brown, Holder has done nothing, and my bet is you
weren’t even aware of the story.
There are cases of black cops taking bribes from drug dealers. This rises to
the level of a federal investigation, one would think.
Or what about the officer in Cincinnati OH who had set up various building
to have sex with a teenager. This is potentially dangerous behavior that could
lead to prostitution at best and child-trafficking at worst.
And there are many others
cases that could be investigated if Holder weren’t so obsessed with helping
black teen thugs, and other black lawbreakers.
Justice is supposed to be
blind. I don’t care what color a bad cop is, as a bad cop is a bad cop. But if
I’m going to side one way or the other, cops will get the benefit of the doubt
over thugs.
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/01/holder-wont-investigate-crime-against-whites/
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/01/holder-wont-investigate-crime-against-whites/
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No 842 Enero 7, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
No comments:
Post a Comment