No 886 “En mi
opinión” Marzo
8, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE
If Not Now…
When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything?
Heritage
Foundation President Jim DeMint rose from modest South Carolina roots and a
career in marketing to build and lead a resurgent conservative movement.
It is never the right time to do the
right thing in Washington, D.C.
The phrase I heard most often from
Republican leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not
the right time to have this fight.”
Whether the issue was balancing the
budget, school choice, patient-driven healthcare, eliminating earmarks, raising
the debt limit, ending big, crony handouts like the Export-Import Bank or any
stand against the continued growth, favoritism and intrusion of big government,
conservatives were always told to wait. Wait until conservatives have the
majority. Wait until we have the White House. Wait until we are
reelected.
We’re seeing that “wait” attitude in
practice today as the House votes on a “clean” Department of Homeland Security
funding bill. Despite the fact that Republicans have majorities in both the
House and the Senate that were elected on a pledge to fight against President
Obama’s executive amnesty, and despite forcing through a big spending bill at
the end of 2014 with the promise they would fight later on Homeland Security
appropriations, they are now punting the issue entirely.
The phrase I heard most often from Republican
leadership while serving in the House and Senate was, “This is not the right
time to have this fight.”
On the other side of the aisle, I
noticed a much different attitude, especially on big, liberal goals like
government-run healthcare. Despite being faced with strong public
opposition and the potential end to their political careers, the Democrats used
false promises and every imaginable procedural trick to pass the government
takeover of a sixth of America’s economy, along with one of the largest
tax increases in our history.
Every Democrat in the House and Senate
voted for Obamacare. And none of them even knew what was in it. Many have
since lost their bids for reelection, but for liberals, the ends justify the
means, and they are willing to accept huge political losses to advance
their ideology.
Yet on the other side of the
aisle—with the party that supposedly stands for individual freedom, limited
government, free markets, American values and a strong defense—tomorrow never
comes. Consider two major, pivotal issues in the future course of American
history: Obamacare and executive amnesty.
The Republican leadership in
Congress, K Street, Wall Street and all of their buddies in the media continue
to rail that the conservative stand to defund Obamacare in 2013 hurt the
party. But Republicans had one of their best elections in history in 2014,
and one of the deciding issues in the election was repealing Obamacare.
The only evidence Republicans in
Congress even had a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and
their overwhelming victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to
defund Obamacare. And the leadership only pretended because of the
pressure from conservatives who were demanding they follow through on their
campaign promises.
However, there were times when I saw
the Washington establishment will fight tooth and nail. They fight in
bipartisan harmony against conservatives who push to eliminate earmarks.
I have seen the Washington
establishment of Republicans and Democrats fight together
for expensive bailouts, trillions in new debt, unfair and
unaffordable amnesty, risky United Nations treaties, a misguided arms
reduction treaty with Russia, a costly Internet sales tax, a new government
travel promotion agency and more Washington control of education with No Child
Left Behind.
I now hear some Republicans accepting
and trying to “improve” Obamacare. And I see Republicans demanding
that Congress fund the president’s unconstitutional executive amnesty and “move
on to other things.”
What “other things” could possibly be
more important than blocking the president of the United States from shredding
our Constitution?
Some are saying we should leave it to
the courts to decide, but Congress is a co-equal branch of government, and
members all take oaths to defend the Constitution. If members believe these
actions are unconstitutional, how can they in good conscience fund them?
Once the president succeeds in giving
work permits, legal status, American jobs and public benefits to 5 million
illegal residents, the next obvious steps will be to legalize and give voting
rights to the more than 10 million illegal residents.
The only evidence Republicans in Congress even had
a pulse between the public lashing they received in 2012 and their overwhelming
victory in 2014 was the fight they waged for a few days to defund Obamacare.
Twenty-six states have taken a stand
against the president’s action, and one federal judge has temporarily
stopped the processing of work permits. But Obama’s Justice Department has
demanded an expedited appeals hearing.
Do Republicans not know that funding
the president’s unlawful actions now will allow the president to argue that
Congress has confirmed his actions? Federal courts don’t often rule
against the concerted action of the two other branches of government.
The absurdity of this situation is
that fighting the president’s executive amnesty through Department of
Homeland Security appropriations was the strategy created by Republican leaders. Now
that the time to fight has arrived, the generals are running from the
battlefield and blaming the infantry they told to lead the charge.
If the Republican majority in both
houses of Congress is not willing to take a stand and fight against the
government takeover of America’s healthcare system or the
president’s arrogant usurpation of the constitutional powers of
Congress, then what will they fight for? Who will stand with freedom-minded
Americans who sent this majority to Washington to fight for them? I hope my
former colleagues will ask themselves: “If not us, who? If not now, when?”
“EMO” What the hell happen with
the GOP. Are you gays, stupid, traitor or covard? If this is not the the
opportunity to do what you have to act.
Now is the time LRGM
Hey GOP you have to wake up DAM!
Look this… please does the
second step.
Egypt
To Shut Down 27,000 Mosques In Effort To Curb Radicalization
A court recently upheld the administration's position.
According
to recent reports, an Egyptian court sided with
President Abdel el-Sisi’s administration in its belief that mosques across the
nation must be closely monitored – or closed completely – in order to put a
stop to the extremist messages that have increased participation in Islamic
terrorism.
About
27,000 mosques will be shuttered in coordination with the 2013 order by the
Ministry of Religious Endowments recently upheld by the administrative court.
The move applies specifically to small gatherings, with the ministry citing
places of worship that occupy less than 861 square feet as its primary target.
These will include not only proper mosques, but informal gathering places, as
well.
Larger
mosques, ministry leaders reason, will not have the resources to take in the
hundreds of thousands of Muslims left without a place to worship following the
implementation of this ruling.
Other
mosques throughout the country must secure permits in order to keep their doors
open and any Muslim leader proven to deliver political messages will be
prohibited from preaching in Egypt.
A
number of new permits – approximately 400 – have since been distributed to
imams, though they will remain under close scrutiny as Egypt attempts to
address the violence often nurtured by radicalized leaders. These imams will be
subject to oversight by a Ministry of Religious Endowments committee and will
be forced to take an oath denouncing any such extremist messages.
Should
the ministry find a leader in violation of this agreement, its agents are
authorized to revoke his or her permit and potentially pursue legal action.
Is
Egypt’s effort to shut down potentially dangerous mosques warranted? Sound off
in the comments section below.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/egypt-shut-27000-mosques-effort-curb-radicalization/#WLYc2mhIJqOxBdpl.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/egypt-shut-27000-mosques-effort-curb-radicalization/#WLYc2mhIJqOxBdpl.99
AMENPER: SOLUCIONANDO EL PROBLEMA DEL ISLAM EXTREMISTA
Uno de los países que no ha sido afectada por el terrorismo musulmán es la
República Popular de China.
Así que deberíamos echar un vistazo a cómo el gobierno de China ha manejado
el peligro del terror del Islam extremista.
Según las estadísticas demográficas de 1936, el Kuomintang entonces
República de China tenía un estimado 48,104,240 musulmanes. Población antes de
la revolución comunista-
Bajo el pretexto de la unificación de la educación nacional, se cerraron
las escuelas islámicas y sus estudiantes transfirieron a otras escuelas que
impartían sólo el marxismo y el maoísmo. Otras medidas incluyeron el
cierre de más de 29.000 mezquitas, la tortura generalizada de los imanes y las
ejecuciones de más de 360.000 musulmanes. Aparte de la aniquilación física, los
musulmanes han sido sometidos a un constante ataque contra su identidad
islámica especialmente durante la llamada Revolución Cultural (1966-76). Por
ejemplo, carteles que aparecieron en Pekín (más adelante a llamarse Beijing) en
1966, llamando abiertamente por la abolición de las prácticas islámicas. Los
musulmanes también se les prohibieron aprender su idioma escrito que incorporan
la escritura árabe y que fue influenciado por el árabe, turco y persa. Este
cambio fue crítico porque había distanciado de los musulmanes la lengua árabe,
la lengua del Corán y sus aspiraciones islámicas y las enseñanzas del Corán.
Durante esta época se cerraron muchas mezquitas y obras pías propiedades de
musulmanes fueron confiscadas.
Desde que se declaró la libertad religiosa en 1978There son una 400
organizaciónes islámicas se han abierto en la República Popular de
China. A los musulmanes se les permite realizar el Hayy y el número del
peregrinaje de China es de unos 3000 por año. Pero como por
generaciones no habían leído el Corán ni practicado la religión los musulmanes
de hoy en día no son tan radicales en sus creencias.
En la actualidad, según las estadísticas oficiales hay 28 millones de
musulmanes en China
Así que podemos concluir que el total de la población musulmana ha
aumentado mínimo y la mayoría de los musulmanes chinos, por su educación
comunista también son miembros del partido que requieren lealtad en MAO no en
MAO-MA
Bueno, esto no es una opinión de cómo manejar el problema de los musulmanes
extremistas, sólo estoy dando una información de lo que pasó en
China. Al que le venga el sayo que se lo ponga.
HILLARY THE HAG: Clinton
Aides Were Running Interference During Benghazi Attack [VIDEO]
Why is this woman not in
jail?
Emails
obtained through a federal lawsuit show that two top aides to then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton were running interference internally during the 2012
Benghazi terror attack.
The
aides were Philippe Reines, widely described as Clinton’s principal
gate-keeper, and Cheryl Mills, who has been at Clinton’s side for decades.
The
emails show that while receiving updates about the assault as it happened,
Mills told then-State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to stop answering
reporter questions about the status of Ambassador Chris Stevens, who was
missing and later found dead.
Also
littered throughout the State Department emails, obtained by conservative
watchdog group Judicial Watch, are references to a so-called Benghazi Group. A
diplomatic source told Fox News that was code inside the department for the
so-called Cheryl Mills task force, whose job was damage control.
The
effort to stop Nuland from answering reporter questions also may have
contributed to confusion over the nature of the attack. Clinton that night had
put out the first statement wrongly linking the attack to a supposed protest
sparked by an obscure, anti-Islam YouTube video – but that was never updated
that night.
“Cheryl
Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there,” Judicial
Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Judicial
Watch obtained the State Department emails through legal action. “What’s
notable thus far is we received no emails from or to [Hillary Clinton],” he
said. “You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret
accounts to communicate with her about Benghazi attack.”
AMENPER:
Violencia y Muerte en Obama Express
Violencia y Muerte en Obama Express
St. Petersburg, Florida- La policía ha dicho que un guardia de seguridad
disparó y mató a un hombre en una tienda llamada por uno de esos accidentes
fortuitos del destino “Obama Express”. O quizás por un nivel de
cercanía semántica, también se hubiera podido llamar Eric Holder Express.
La víctima identificada como Jhai-quel Rai- de 23 años y por coincidencia
de tez negra.
Él y otro hombre también de tez negra entraron en el mercado de víveres
Obama Express, en el 1400 18th Ave S de St. Petersburg, Florida,
aproximadamente a las 3:30 P.M. y al parecer estaban discutiendo, detectives de
la policía, dijeron. Durante la disputa, la víctima de tez negra produjo una
pistola y la comenzó a agitar, dijo la policía.
Dos guardias de seguridad uniformados de tez blanca, armados, quiénes
habían estado patrullando el exterior de la tienda entraron y se enfrentaron al
pobre joven de tez negra y lo asesinaron disparando sus armas antes que el
joven de tez negra tuviera la oportunidad de matarlos. El joven de tez Negra y
nombre musulmán murió en el acto.
No hay cargos que se hayan se anticipados en este momento, dijo la
policía. La investigación en curso está tratando de determinar si
fue asesinado por su tez negra o por su persuasión islámica.
Entretanto, en MugshotSearch.org aparece que el joven de tez negra tiene
una larga lista de registros de arrestos- Que posiblemente se determinará que
fueron por perfil racista.
¿Cómo la policía debe manejar esta situación basada en la investigación del
Departamento de justicia de la policía de Ferguson?
Probablemente arrestando a los oficiales de seguridad y presentándolos al
Departamento de justicia para la investigación de un crimen de odio doble por
ser la víctima de tez negra y musulmán. No hay duda sobre esto.
Casi siete meses después de que un oficial de policía blanco disparó y mató
a un negro 18 años de edad en Ferguson, Mo., el oficial fue absuelto en un
Tribunal Penal, los tribunales civiles e investigación del FBI. Se
demostró por evidencia abrumante, que era completamente inocente.
Sólo actuó en defensa propia mientras que arrestaba a un criminal.
Pero el Departamento de justicia publicó esta semana los
resultados de una investigación sobre el departamento de la policía de
Ferguson. El informe fue "punzante", como el Procurador General Eric
H. Holder Jr. lo describió el miércoles, fue cargado con ejemplos de prejuicio
racial, descripciones de prácticas discriminatorias y denuncias de abuso
policial por testigos de la comunidad negra.
Sin embargo, en medio de la mirada metódica a las prácticas de policías y
funcionarios judiciales de Ferguson, también llega una pregunta lógica: ¿qué
viene después?
La policía de Ferguson está obligada a renovar completamente cómo se maneja
las detenciones, búsquedas y arrestos de ciudadanos de tez negra.
Los ciudadanos de tez negra representan el 94 por ciento de incumplimiento
todos los cargos en la ciudad, y el 92 por ciento de los cargos de arrestos con
resistencia, el 92 por ciento de molestias sexuales, y 89 por ciento de
incumplimiento de condenas.
¿Pero qué prueba eso?
¿Que los negros cometen más crímenes que los blancos? Podríamos haber
ahorrado a los contribuyentes el dinero de los gastos de la investigación, yo
podría haberle dicho el resultado sin tanto gasto. Cómo diría nuestra futura
comandante en jefe, Hillary, ¿Qué importancia tiene esto?
Pero la lógica de Eric Holder es que esto prueba flagrante
discriminación, y los policías tienen que ser condenados y después juzgados.
Mientras tanto, tres empleados del ayuntamiento de Ferguson que fueron
implicados en e-mails racistas ya fueron despedidos de sus empleos, dijo el
alcalde. Uno fue identificado como un secretario judicial de la ciudad. Dos
agentes de la policía han renunciado ya a raíz del problema de los E Mails.(no
el de Hillary pero el de los empleados del ayuntamiento).
¿Cuál era el contenido de los correos electrónicos? , estoy seguro que
conozco el contenido, que era comentar sobre el número de crímenes
cometidos por la comunidad negra.
Igual que estoy seguro que también conozco el contenido de los E Mails de
Hillary.
Así que perdieron su trabajo por decir la verdad. (Menos mal que
yo no trabajo para el gobierno)
¿No sería más racional si gastamos el dinero de los contribuyentes en
educar a la comunidad negra sobre cumpliendo con la ley y evitar delitos
violentos?
Revealed:
Company That Hosted Hillary Clinton’s Email Domain Hacked In 2010
The former first lady has received increased scrutiny in recent days.
The “consumer grade” company that hosted Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton’s email domain was hacked in 2010. Furthermore, its data was rerouted
to Ukraine, according to a report.
The Blaze reported Friday that Clintonemail.com,
the domain used by Clinton during her tenure at the State Department, was
registered with Network Solutions in 2009.
The
former first lady has received increased scrutiny in recent days after it was revealed she did not use
a government email, but rather private addresses via a personal server in
Chappaqua, New York, during her time at Foggy Bottom.
Clinton’s
problems have been compounded by the fact that Network Solutions was hacked in
2010, when Clinton was using its services. “We have received reports that
Network Solutions customers are seeing malicious code added to their websites,
and we are really sorry for this experience,” a company spokesperson said at
the time.
Canadian-based
domain registration expert Bill Sweetman told The Blaze it was a grave mistake
for Clinton to conduct her business in this matter. “If you’re someone that is
concerned about security of your data, you don’t go and register your domain
name with a consumer-oriented registrar like Network Solutions or GoDaddy,”
Sweetman said.
“You
would work either with a corporate domain registrar like MarkMonitor or CVSC,
or you would talk to your employer – in this case the government – about their
internal solutions that would protect the domain name and would protect the
data associated with it,” he added.
Benghazi
Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy R-S.C., has sharply criticized Clinton for not having a government email account and not preserving
documents
“Mrs.
Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at
the State Department,” Gowdy said. “Her aides took no actions to have her
personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the
Federal Records Act.”
Clinton tweeted Wednesday she wants her emails
to be revealed. The Benghazi Committee replied in a press release Thursday that
was not satisfactory:
The
former Secretary’s tweet does not answer questions about why this was not done
when she left office, the integrity of the emails while she controlled them,
the scheme to conceal them, or the failure to provide them in logical course.
The
Chairman has said the former secretary is welcome to and should release all of
her emails, but legitimate investigations do not consider partial records. And
that is the point of the subpoena issued yesterday by the Benghazi Committee.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-company-hosted-hillary-clintons-email-domain-hacked-2010/#DwYEuwSxymbkPujq.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/revealed-company-hosted-hillary-clintons-email-domain-hacked-2010/#DwYEuwSxymbkPujq.99
Saudis Honor
Televangelist Who Called US 'Terrorist'
Purported U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia has bestowed one of its highest honors on a Muslim
televangelist who expressed support for Osama bin Laden, called the United
States the "biggest terrorist," and claimed the 9/11 attacks were
ordered by President George W. Bush.
Dr. Zakir Naik
appeared at a ceremony at a luxury hotel in Saudi Arabia where the nation's new
monarch, King Salman, gave him the King Faisal International Prize for service
to Islam. The televangelist from India also received a gold medal and a cash
award of nearly $200,000.
The award
"highlighted the conflicted position of Saudi Arabia as an American ally
that continues to back Islamists who espouse hatred of the West," The New
York Times reported.
Naik was trained
as a physician but is now the founder and president of the Mumbai, India-based
Islamic Research Foundation and a televangelist on his TV channel, Peace TV.
His comments
have frequently targeted the West and voiced support for Islamic radicalism.
Years ago he
said he supported Osama bin Laden if he was fighting the United States:
"If he is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am
with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist. The thing is that if he is
terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam." He also referred to bin
Laden as a "soldier of Islam."
Naik asserted
that Muslims who convert from Islam and propagate another faith should be killed,
and claimed that Jews control the United States.
"The Jews
are less than 5 percent in America, but they are controlling the economy, they
are controlling America," he said, and declared that Jews are the
"strongest in enmity to Muslims."
During a lecture,
Naik discussed the 9/11 attacks and said that by "the amount of ample
evidence, a fool will know this is an inside job. It is a blatant, open secret
that this attack on the twin towers was done by George Bush himself."
He later claimed
he had been misquoted.
Naik has called
for the death penalty for homosexuals, said evolution is an "unproven
conjecture at best," called for Shariah law in India, and expressed
support for the Taliban's destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas.
Sadanand Dhume,
a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, argued in The Wall
Street Journal that Muslims drawn to Naik's message include Najibullah Zazi, an
Afghan-American arrested for planning suicide attacks on the New York City
subway, and Rahil Sheikh, accused of involvement in a series of train bombings
in India in 2006.
Police in Mumbai
have barred Naik from holding conferences in recent years and Indian satellite
providers have refused to broadcast his Peace TV. In 2010, Canada and Britain
denied him entry for speaking engagements.
But the Saudi
award is not the only honor Naik has received. In 2013, he was named the
Islamic Personality of the Year by a religious association in Dubai, an honor
bestowed by the prime minister of the United Arab Emirates.
Also in 2013, Naik
received a Distinguished Personality award from Malaysia's Department of
Islamic Development, presented by Malaysia's head of state.
Netanyahu’s
Speech Alerted Americans to Obama’s Risky Iran Deal
As a senior
fellow for National Security Affairs, Peter Brookes develops and communicates
The Heritage Foundation's stance on foreign policy and national security
affairs through media appearances, research, published articles, congressional
testimony and speaking engagements.
Putting
both countries’ politics aside (talk about heavy-lifting!), Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress was essential—if for no other
reason than it threw a spotlight on an issue hiding in diplomatic darkness.
Few
probably realized, especially outside Washington, D.C., that while Netanyahu
was speaking to Congress, Secretary of State John Kerry was in Montreux,
Switzerland, trying to cut a deal with Iran’s Foreign Minister Javad Zarif on
Tehran’s nuclear program.
Indeed,
Team Obama and Team Ayatollah had hoped to reach an agreement on nukes before
the end of the month possibly without the public, perhaps even
congressional, scrutiny that such an historic deal should unquestionably get.
Netanyahu
changed that—and we should be thankful he did.
It
might be said that if you weren’t paying attention to diplomatic developments
in the nuclear negotiations, which is clearly one of the most important
national security issues of our time, you are now.
The public/media attention the Iran
nuclear issue will receive going forward could help ensure—clearly no
guarantees, of course—that the administration gets America a better deal with
Iran and not just a deal.
In
fact, though President Obama criticized Netanyahu for saying “nothing new,”
it’s likely that a lot of the supposedly already public information on Team
Obama’s strategy was new to a lot of people—like the American public.
Perhaps
that’s not something the White House wanted.
Actually,
in his address, Bibi brought up a number of important points that we should be
taking into consideration in our talks with Tehran.
For
instance, the idea that a deal may allow Iran to keep a lot of its nuclear
infrastructure in place, which would let Tehran pick up where it left off
should it decide to depart an agreement.
More
specifically, what about the nuclear reactor at Arak, which gives Iran a second
pathway to the bomb using plutonium rather than uranium, Iran’s current choice?
Netanyahu
also talked about the problem of relying on International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), inspectors to prevent Iran from moving forward with its nuclear
program, citing North Korea’s nukes as proof of the folly of that course of
action.
In
fact, recent reports indicate that Tehran continues to fail to come clean on
its past bomb-building work with the IAEA, a request for information that goes
back years.
Not
surprisingly, Netanyahu also brought up the problem of “trust” or lack thereof
with Iran, a critical element for negotiations and for compliance afterwards
with any agreement.
To
that point, how can one get “warm-n-fuzzy” on nukes with Iran when it refuses
to discuss capping its ICBM program, a long-range ballistic missile designed to
carry the bomb?
Sure,
this is tough stuff; we’re dealing with a hard-line regime like Iran after
all—not exactly a Western-style democracy or a fan of the good ol’ U.S. of A.
for several decades now.
The
worry among many is that if you want it bad, which is where some believe Kerry
& Co. are regarding a deal with his Iranian interlocutors, sometimes you
get it bad.
Not
exactly ideal when talking about an atomic agreement that involves angry,
ambitious ayatollahs and the world’s most destructive weapons
Why is this woman not in
jail?
For the
First Time on Camera, Meet the Man Who Exposed the Gruber Videos
Rich Weinstein is the single person
considered most responsible for exposing one of the biggest blows to the
Affordable Care Act’s image: a series of videos in which a key Obamacare
architect discusses the “stupidity of the American people” and how that helped
get the bill passed.
Now, Weinstein is speaking on camera
for the first time in an exclusive interview with The Daily Signal.
An investment adviser from
Philadelphia, Weinstein says he began researching the Affordable Care Act when
his own health insurance was canceled in late 2013.
“When they said, ‘If you like your
plan, you can keep your plan,’ I believed that just like everybody else,” says
Weinstein.
Using nothing more complicated than
Google, Weinstein unearthed a treasure trove of publicly available information,
including embarrassing videos starring Jonathan Gruber.
Gruber is a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology economist described as a key architect of Obamacare. He reportedly
received $400,000 in federal consulting contracts to provide expertise on the
Affordable Care Act. He previously helped design the Massachusetts health care
law that is considered a model for Obamacare.
Jonathan Gruber (Photo: Newscom)
The ‘Stupidity’ Videos
In several videos unearthed by
Weinstein, Gruber refers to voters as “stupid.”
“And basically, call it the stupidity
of the American voter or whatever, but, basically, that was really, really
critical to getting the thing to pass,” Gruber says of the Affordable Care Act
in an academic lecture on Oct. 4, 2013.
In another, Gruber discusses how a
trick in wording hides a large tax that is passed onto consumers.
“Because the American voter is too
stupid to understand the difference,” Gruber says, prompting laughter from the
audience.
Weinstein says when he first heard the
comments on the video he’d found, “I just thought he was trying to put one over
on us. Not just on me or you, but on everybody.”
Transparency Comments
Weinstein also discovered videos in
which Gruber refers to the intentional lack of transparency in the Affordable
Care Act.
“I wish … we could make it all
transparent but I’d rather have this law than not,” Gruber says in one excerpt.
In another, he states, “If you had a
law in which it said healthy people are gonna pay in, you made [it] explicit
that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed.
Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”
Weinstein spent countless hours
scouring the Internet. As he found more videos and information, he became
disenchanted with the news media.
“It’s pretty disappointing,” he says.
“The media just has not had any, very little intellectual curiosity … all these
videos were out there in plain sight.”
The ‘Noblis’ Video
Weinstein considers what he calls the
“Noblis video” to be the most important of the bunch. It shows Gruber speaking
at a technical conference sponsored by a company called Noblis on Jan. 18, 2012.
The find is considered so significant,
it’s entered as evidence in the U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the Affordable
Care Act that justices will hear Wednesday.
In that case, King v. Burwell, the
administration argues the Affordable Care Act confers federal
assistance—subsidies—to qualified consumers in all 50 states.
Opponents, a majority of the states,
argue the law only applies to the 16 states that set up their own health care
exchanges to sell insurance under Obamacare.
Gruber has been quoted as calling the
challenger’s theory “nutty.” Yet, in the Noblis video, recorded nine months
before HealthCare.gov went live, he agrees with the opposing side. He clearly
states that tax subsidies were only meant for states that established
exchanges.
“What’s important to remember
politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange,
that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still
pay the taxes that support this bill,” says Gruber. “So you’re essentially
saying [to] your citizens ‘you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the
other states in the country.’”
If the Supreme Court believes what
Gruber said in the video is correct, Weinstein says it’s “obviously a big
wrench” in Obamacare. It’s estimated that more than 5 million people could
lose their subsidies.
“Millions of people would lose their
health insurance subsidies and therefore would no longer be able to afford
health insurance,” says Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews
Burwell.
‘Lack of Economic Understanding’
In still more videos excerpts, Gruber
talks about ways to mask a health care-related tax on the public by
“mislabeling it” as a tax on insurance companies.
“…Calling it a tax on insurance plans
rather than a tax on people, when we all know it’s a tax on people who hold
those insurance plans,” says Gruber.
Gruber also explains, “We tax the
insurance companies, they pass it on [in the form of] higher prices, that
offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very
clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of
the American voter.”
After Weinstein helped expose the
videos, Gruber apologized for his embarrassing remarks. He called them
“inexcusably arrogant” and says he was speaking “off the cuff.”
President Obama has said he does not
agree with Gruber’s assessment of the American public’s intellect, and that
the former adviser’s views do not reflect “the process.” The White House
did not respond to a request for further comment for this story.
The ‘Cadillac Tax’
Ask Weinstein what is the biggest shoe
yet to drop regarding the Affordable Care Act and he immediately points to the
so-called “Cadillac tax.”
“That Cadillac tax—it’s a whopper,”
says Weinstein. “That’s a real problem.”
The Cadillac tax is a huge tax that
will be levied on high-end insurance plans—the “Cadillacs” of health insurance.
Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes
the 40 percent tax on individual health plans costing more than $10,200
for an individual or $27,500 for a family. The idea is to press employers to
offer less generous plans.
Many people, including Weinstein,
believe it will prompt employers to cut out health insurance altogether,
forcing some of the 158 million people who are currently insured through work
onto the Obamacare exchanges for plans they don’t like as much, with limited
choices and higher deductibles.
“The employers are gonna get
frustrated, not offer employer-sponsored insurance anymore,” predicts
Weinstein. “I don’t think those people are expecting what’s going to hit them.”
Weinstein says thanks to Obamacare,
his insurance premiums have doubled. Today, he has connected with three other
“citizen journalists” who say they’re committed to doing the job that the news
media is not doing well: critically investigating the Affordable Care Act.
“One person can make a difference,”
says Weinstein. “I’m nobody special. I had a problem, I got onto Google … but
anybody can make a difference and if you don’t like what’s going on, you can
make a difference.”
Gruber Removed
Last week, Gruber was one of four
members removed from the Massachusetts’ Health Connector Board, which oversees
the state’s health care law.
In asking for the resignations,
Republican Gov. Charlie Baker said he’s establishing a new leadership team.
Emails Show Clinton's Aides Ran Interference During Benghazi
Two of Hillary Clinton's top aides ran interference while the 2012
Benghazi terrorism attacks were going on, the former secretary of state's
emails, obtained through a Judicial Watch federal lawsuit, reveal.
The aides named were Clinton's main gatekeeper, Philippe Reines, and Cheryl Mills, who has worked with Clinton for years, reports Fox News. They mainly show Mills' role in how the events rolled out publicly.
"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
While the assault was happening that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and several other embassy staff, Mills told then-State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to quit answering reporters' questions about Stevens' status, the emails show. Further, the emails contained references to a "Benghazi Group," which a diplomatic source told Fox News was a inside code name for Mills' task force, which handled damage control.
Judicial Watch has not received emails to or from Clinton herself from the night of the attack, Fitton said.
“You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about the Benghazi attack," he said.
The emails are emerging while Clinton, the frontrunner among potential 2016 Democratic nominee candidates, is being criticized over revelations that she used a personal email account through a private server during her entire tenure as secretary of state.
She has asked State to make thousands of emails she has turned over to the department public, reports Fox.
The State Department said Friday it will review the emails but denied being pressured to remove politically damaging revelations ahead of her likely presidential run.
The aides named were Clinton's main gatekeeper, Philippe Reines, and Cheryl Mills, who has worked with Clinton for years, reports Fox News. They mainly show Mills' role in how the events rolled out publicly.
"Cheryl Mills was instrumental in making sure the big lie was put out there," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
While the assault was happening that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and several other embassy staff, Mills told then-State Department Spokeswoman Victoria Nuland to quit answering reporters' questions about Stevens' status, the emails show. Further, the emails contained references to a "Benghazi Group," which a diplomatic source told Fox News was a inside code name for Mills' task force, which handled damage control.
Judicial Watch has not received emails to or from Clinton herself from the night of the attack, Fitton said.
“You have to wonder whether these aides went offline and were using secret accounts to communicate with her about the Benghazi attack," he said.
The emails are emerging while Clinton, the frontrunner among potential 2016 Democratic nominee candidates, is being criticized over revelations that she used a personal email account through a private server during her entire tenure as secretary of state.
She has asked State to make thousands of emails she has turned over to the department public, reports Fox.
The State Department said Friday it will review the emails but denied being pressured to remove politically damaging revelations ahead of her likely presidential run.
Clinton,
the presumed Democratic frontrunner for 2016, found herself in a political
furor this week when it was revealed she conducted her official email business
from a personal account on a private email server connected to her New York
home.
Pressure
has mounted, particularly from Republican adversaries, for Clinton to release
the entirety of her email correspondence.
Deputy
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf acknowledged the agency was reviewing
the emails "for public release," in accordance with the guidelines of
formal US Freedom of Information Act requests.
Harf
was vague about whether reviewers intended to report sensitive but unclassified
material in their findings should they come across such detail in the emails.
"I'm
not going to speculate on what might happen in that situation," she said.
"I'm
not going to prejudge the outcome of the review for release of the 55,000
pages."
Asked
whether there was political pressure from the White House, or those in
Clinton's orbit, to scrub information that could potentially damage a Clinton
campaign, Harf said: "No. No."
Team
Clinton has been barraged by Republican accusations that she set up the private
system to prevent politically sensitive material from going public.
Former
New York governor George Pataki, a potential 2016 Clinton rival, called it
"outrageous" behavior and poor judgment from a national figure.
"We
don't know what sort of classified information that Clinton may have... shared
with others," Pataki told CNN.
Harf
declined to provide details when pressed whether the State Department made
efforts to improve the security of Clinton's email server at her home, or
provided strict guidance to Clinton for keeping her emails secure.
On
Wednesday, the House of Representatives panel investigating the deadly attacks
in Benghazi announced it had issued subpoenas for Clinton's emails, prompting
accusations by Democrats that Republican leaders were "targeting secretary
Clinton for political reasons."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-emails-benghazi/2015/03/07/id/628813/#ixzz3TjhR4HJu
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-emails-benghazi/2015/03/07/id/628813/#ixzz3TjhR4HJu
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
The World Is Becoming More
Dangerous. So Why Are We Letting Our Military Power Decline?
The U.S. Navy's USS Essex conducts a live-fire
exercise. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sean P.
Gallagher/Released)
The world seems to be becoming more
dangerous these days. Not so coincidentally, America’s military power continues
to decline rapidly.
Before considering how and why, here’s
a snapshot of what’s happening around the globe:
·
Russia has annexed Crimea, is dismembering Ukraine, is
probing the defenses of Northern Europe, and is again casting a covetous eye on
the Baltic and South Caucasus states. Vladimir Putin is exploiting not only
Europe’s dependence on Russia’s energy resources and markets but also its
anemic military condition, getting all he can while the getting is good.
·
The Islamic State, homicidally focused on
dragging the world back to the seventh century, has carved a caliphate out of
the dysfunctional states of Syria and Iraq. It’s fomenting instability across
the region through its surrogates and franchises and other like-minded violent
Islamists in Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and Nigeria.
·
Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability, betting
on the desperation of the U.S. to secure a “deal” that would make it impossible
for us to stop them from succeeding.
·
China is entrenching itself in disputed waters,
fortifying atolls, muscling away the fishing and commercial fleets of
competitor claimants, and contesting international airspace. Meanwhile, it’s
exploiting vulnerabilities in America’s cyber shields to steal intellectual
property worth billions of dollars and millions of man-hours, penetrate
government and financial sector systems, and conduct deep cyber reconnaissance
of America’s national critical infrastructure.
In times past, the United States would
have risen to such challenges to its security interests and to the existing
global order, as it did when the Soviet Union or China sought to export their
brands of communism. America’s confident strength steadied friends and allies
and pushed back against belligerent opportunism.
But those days appear to be receding.
The U.S. has elevated other interests to higher priority (as a look at the
federal budget readily shows), and the U.S. military’s ability to protect
America’s global interests is in freefall.
In fact, the U.S. military now finds
itself in a state where it would be unable to successfully handle two major conflicts
in different parts of the world, a long-held objective of national security
policy.
America’s Navy, at 285 ships, is
approaching pre-World War I levels; its Air Force flies planes more than a
quarter-of-a-century old (some more than a half-century); the Army is
approaching half the size deemed necessary just a few years ago; and the
Marines, with demand for their shrinking force at record highs, have committed
indefinitely to near-continuous rotational deployments of their operating
forces.
This problem did not suddenly emerge.
It has slowly, but relentlessly evolved as funding for the base budget has
declined in constant dollars, and the cost for manpower, equipment, and weapons
has steadily risen. Extended production timelines for expensive, high-end
platforms, sustained use of the force for the past decade or more, and lack of
funding to replace items that are retired or lost in combat, have combined to
result in a force that is older, smaller and more worn out.
All the details can be found in The Heritage
Foundation’s inaugural Index of U.S. Military Strength, an annual publication
that assesses the condition of America’s military forces and their ability to
meet national security requirements. It also evaluates the condition of key
allies and their regions as they affect the ability of U.S. forces to conduct
operations abroad, as well as who poses direct, high-level challenges to U.S.
national security interests.
Some may suggest looking to America’s
allies. Though reasonably stable and steadfast, they are less capable due to
their own neglect of their military forces. We can’t assume they’ll be able to
contribute much. Further, competitors that pose serious challenges to America
are investing heavily in military capabilities carefully matched to their own
circumstances and objectives, increasing the challenges our forces would face.
These trends are ominous, to say the
least, especially because it’s far easier to decline still further than to make
rapid improvements that take substantial time, money and attention—all of which
seem to be in short supply.
The 2015 Index of U.S. Military
Strength makes it clear that unless we take a greater interest in the state of
our security—now—we may be in for some serious trouble.
'Our
March Is Not Yet Finished,' Obama Says on 50th Anniversary of Selma
Obama:
Selma 'Will Reverberate Through the Ages'
Americans must continue to embrace the
message of the civil rights movement, President Obama told a crowd of thousands
Saturday, speaking from a site he said symbolized "the daring of America's
character."
In a speech at the foot of the Edmund
Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, where 50 years ago, police beat and
tear-gassed protesters, Obama issued his call to action.
"Fifty years from Bloody Sunday,
our march is not yet finished. But we are getting closer," he said.
The March 7, 1965, violence against
the peaceful civil rights advocates making the 50-mile march from Selma to
Alabama's capital of Montgomery shocked the country and ramped up calls for
equal rights for black voters.
"The Americans who crossed this
bridge were not physically imposing. But they gave courage to millions. They
held no elected office. But they led a nation," Obama said.
That day, which came to be known as
"Bloody Sunday," led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
which guaranteed rights for millions of black voters across the South.
About 100 members of Congress, as well
as former President George W. Bush and former first lady Laura Bush, stood
under the sun at the bridge as Obama delivered his remarks.
Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., a civil rights
icon who partook in the historic march and was beaten so hard, he got a
fractured skull, spoke to the crowd before the president.
"This city, on the banks of the
Alabama River, gave birth to a movement that changed this nation forever. Our
country will never, ever be the same because of what happened on this
bridge," Lewis said.
Obama expressed solidarity with those
who marched alongside Lewis.
"We gather here to honor the
courage of ordinary Americans willing to endure billy clubs and the chastening
rod; tear gas and the trampling hoof; men and women who despite the gush of
blood and splintered bone would stay true to their North Star and keep marching
toward justice," he said.
The speech from the nation's first
black president comes at a time when racial discrimination in the U.S. still
makes regular headlines. This past week, a Justice Department investigation found patterns of racism from police
in Ferguson, Missouri, where an unarmed black teen was killed by a white
officer over the summer.
"What happened in Ferguson may
not be unique, but it's no longer endemic, or sanctioned by law and custom; and
before the Civil Rights Movement, it most surely was."
As he flew to Selma on Saturday, Obama
signed legislation recognizing those who marched 50 years ago with
Congressional Gold Medals - the highest honor given by Congress.
"What could be more American than
what happened in this place?" he asked the cheering crowd on Saturday.
Le sumba el mango:
|
Democrats Vow to Protect Boehner from GOP Coup
|
|
CAPITOL HILL - "Democrats from across an
ideological spectrum say they'd rather see Boehner remain atop the House than
replace him with a more conservative Speaker who would almost certainly be
less willing to reach across the aisle in search of compromise," reports The
Hillnewspaper.
"Any lawmaker can file
a motion to “vacate” a sitting Speaker, a move that would force a vote of the
full House. The effort would
almost certainly fail, as the conservatives would need the overwhelming
support of Democrats to win a majority…
‘I’d probably vote for Boehner [because] who the
hell is going to replace him?’, said Rep. Bill Pascrell
(Democrat-N.J.). ‘In terms of the institution, I would rather have John
Boehner as the Speaker than some of these characters who came here thinking
that they're going to change the world’.
Liberal Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Democrat-Ariz.) agreed
that, for Democrats, replacing Boehner could lead to a worse situation.
‘Then we would get Scalise or somebody? Geez, come
on,” said Grijalva, who referenced House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).
“We can be suicidal but not stupid."'
Grijalva is a radical supporter of 'open borders' and Obama's illegal executive amnesty.
“'I think it would pose a real existential dilemma
for us,' said Rep. Gerry Connolly (Democrat-Va.). 'I mean, on the one hand,
if you have a chance to take out a Republican Speaker, why wouldn't you do
that? On the other hand, if the obvious alternative is a Tea Party Speaker…'
‘Personally, I don't want to waste two years,’ Rep.
Jim McGovern (Democrat-Mass.) said Wednesday. ‘And I think that
the crazy Tea Party type would probably not be willing to work with us on
anything…’.”
Olga Grinan: UN CUENTO DE RELAJO DE LOS DÍAS
DE LA CREACIÓN
Transcurría la Semana de la Creación. Jehová, entusiasmadísimo miraba desde El Cielo hacia acá abajo. A su lado, un ángel, quien milenios después reencarnaría como San Pedro. “Hijo mío --dijo El Todopoderoso--, ¿ves ese recodo marino que alguna vez llamarán Mar Caribe o de las Antillas? Allí instalaré una tierra de ensueño. Tendrá unas playas donde la arena será talco. Y no tendrán volcanes, como algunos de sus vecinos. Allí no habrá víboras, sino jutías, muy buenas para la cocina, y que se aterrorizan ante la presencia humana. Y, además, allí nacerán las mujeres más lindas del mundo que estoy creando”. El ángel, muy inseguro, se atrevió a enmendarle la plana a El Todopoderoso: “Señor, ¿no piensa usted que se le está yendo la mano en cuanto a dones para esa islita?”. Y Jehová, con una sonrisita cínica, ripostó: “Ay, Perucho. ¡Tú no sabes los troncos de hijoeputas de políticos que les voy a mandar!”
Here are 8 flashbacks related to Hillary
Clinton about emails or transparency that make her current scandal
extremely ironic.
1. In a
2000 Video, Hillary Tells Donor That She Won’t “Do Email” Because of
Investigations
As reported by Andrew Kaczynski of Buzzfeed,
Hillary Clinton told one of her biggest campaign donors that she won’t
“do email.” She strikes a mortified tone about emails, just contemplating the
subject:
Senator CLINTON: (From home video) As much as I’ve
been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even
want—why would I ever want to do e-mail?
Mr. PAUL: (From home video) No, no.
Senator CLINTON: (From home video) Can you imagine?
2. In
2007, Hillary Clinton Complained About Bush Officials Using Secret Email
Accounts
In 2007, Hillary Clinton gave the following
stirring exhortation of needing to follow the Constitution:
“Our Constitution is being shredded. We know about
the secret wiretaps, the secret military tribunals, the secret White House
email accounts. It’s a stunning record of secrecy and corruption, of cronyism
run amok. It is everything our founders were afraid of, everything our
Constitution was designed to prevent.”
As noted by Gateway Pundit, Hillary
Clinton complained about the Bush administration having secret email accounts,
and then “Two years later, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton set up a secret email
account and secret
servers in her basement for all of her official business.”
3. In
2012, the State Department Under Hillary Clinton Ousted an Ambassador for
Using Private Email
The Weekly Standard reported that Scott Gration, the U.S. Ambassador to Kenya,
lost his post in part for using a private email account. According to a Foreign
Policy article by Josh Rogin:
Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May
2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management
staff. Because the information management office could not change the
Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he
assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered
a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so
he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system.
He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other
mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official
government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use
commercial email for official government business.
That… would be pretty much the same thing that
Hillary Clinton did.
4. In
2013, Hillary Clinton’s emails to adviser Sidney Blumenthal are hacked
by “Guccifer”
Image credit: Zero Hedge
Both Hillary Clinton and her adviser Sidney Blumenthal were
using private email addresses when their communications were hacked by
“Guccifer” – an infamous Romanian hacker.
As can be seen from the email sample image above via Zero Hedge, on
issues ranging from Libya security to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB),
not all of the correspondence was about well-wishes and Valentine’s Day
greetings.
5. In
2011, The White House Reassures the Public That All Government Emails are
Being Sent on “Work Email” Accounts
The Washington Free Beacon reports that former White House Press Secretary Jay Carney reassured the public that all government communications were being carried out on official emails:
“The administration policy that is effective
here is that we–all of our work is conducted on work email accounts; that’s
part of the Presidential Records Act.”
Apparently, some public officials are above the
Presidential Records Act.
6. In
2009, Hillary Clinton Team Warned About Private Email System, Ignored State
Department Technology Experts
In January 2009, when she was testifying to become
Secretary of State, that very week she registered her private clintonemail.com domain name. Hillary Clinton’s team was warned
by the State Department’s technology experts about using the private email
system, but her political advisers ignored them. As reportedby Al
Jazeera America:
State Department technology experts expressed security
concerns that then–Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was using a
private email service rather than the government’s fortified and monitored
system, but those fears fell on deaf ears, a current employee on the
department’s cybersecurity team told Al Jazeera America on Tuesday.
The employee, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity for fear of losing his job, said it was well known that Clinton’s
emails were at greater risk of being hacked, intercepted or monitored, but
the warnings were ignored.
“We tried,” the employee said. “We told people in
her office that it wasn’t a good idea. They were so uninterested that I doubt
the secretary was ever informed.”
That’s responsible and transparent?
7. In
2013, Hillary Clinton Touts Her Record of Transparency Before a Senate
Hearing on the Benghazi Terrorist Attack
On January 23, 2013, Hillary Clinton said the
following in testimony before the U.S. Senate on the terrorist attack on a
diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, on 9/11/2012: “We’ve been as transparent
as we can” and “I believe in transparency.”
A former State Department official claims that documents were “knowingly and willingly”
destroyed following the Benghazi, Libya, terrorist attack on
Hillary Clinton’s watch – which would be a felony offense.
8. In
2008, Hillary Clinton Boasted About Being One of the Most Transparent Public
Figures
After the release of the Clinton Papers from her
time as First Lady, Mrs. Clinton spoke at City Hall in Philadelphia in 2008.
“I think I’m probably the most transparent person in
public life,” she bragged. No
comment.
|
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment