Editor Lázaro R González Miño “IN GOD WE TRUST”
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent [Plus 1 me LRGM] want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP -
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria
By Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, NBC News
Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll shows.
The nation loses a key ally in its consensus building efforts, as Britain's parliament votes against supporting any U.S. strikes in Syria. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.
Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.
Read the full poll here (.pdf)
The two-day survey was conducted as the Obama administration weighs launching strikes against Syria for the alleged use of chemicals weapons in its violent civil war, as well as amid growing demands by U.S. lawmakers that Congress should have a voice in any debate to authorize force.
On Thursday night, the Obama administration briefedcongressional leaders in its effort to make the case for military intervention.
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
Demonstrators march on Aug. 29 near the White House to protest possible U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Also on Thursday, Britain’s parliamentrejected a motion urging an international response to the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
In this new NBC poll, 50 percent of respondents oppose the United States taking military action in response to Syria’s suspected use of chemical weapons, compared with 42 percent who support it.
And 58 percent agree with the statement that the use of chemical weapons by anycountry violates a “red line” that requires a significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Still, a whopping 79 percent of respondents – including nearly seven-in-10 Democrats and 90 percent of Republicans – say the president should be required to receive congressional approval before taking any action.
The poll also finds that only 21 percent think taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States. By comparison, 33 percent disagree and 45 percent don’t know enough to have an opinion.
And just 27 percent say that U.S. military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, versus 41 percent who say it won’t.
Slideshow: Syria uprising
A look back at the conflict that has overtaken the country.
Launch slideshow
Obama’s job approval at 44 percent
The NBC poll also shows that President Obama’s overall job-approval rating has dropped one point since last month to 44 percent, which is tied for his lowest mark in past NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys.
He gets even lower marks on foreign policy: Just 41 percent approve of his handling of the issue – an all-time low.
And only 35 percent approve of his handling of the situation in Syria.
The NBC poll was conducted Aug. 28-29 of 700 adults (including 210 cell phone-only respondents), and it has a margin of plus-minus 3.7 percentage points.
RICARDO Samitier: Cagalera en grande en WASHINGTON
1. Como Todos Sabemos Los POLITIQUEROS Están De Vacaciones De Verano... El Capitolio de Washington esta VACIO...
2. Obama En Contra de la Constitución Desea ordenar Un Ataque A Siria...
3. ¿Qué Hacen Los Politiqueros Republicanos???...SEGUIR DE VACACIONES...
4. Debían estar TODOS en el CAPITOLIO de WASHINGTON para ABRIR
UN DEBATE acusando a Obama de “Planear Violar La Constitución”...
5. Pero NO... SIGUEN DE VACACIONES... cuando la patria está en PELIGRO...
6. VÁYANSE AL CARAJO... TODOS... incluyendo los 3 cubanos...
ESTADOS UNIDOS SIN CREDIBILIDAD EN EL MUNDO.
Los Politiqueros De Estados Unidos Destruyeron Toda La Credibilidad…
De Las Republicas Democráticas... Usa Es Considerado El País Más Hipócrita...
Obama Es Considerado Un Socialista... Que Fue Puesto En La Presidencia Para Realizar Una “Agenda Secreta” De Destruir Los EE.UU.
Ha Sido Una Meticulosa Obra De Los Comunistas De Los USA En Acuerdo Con Los De Fuera... Por Ejemplo: La “Misión Carter” De Supervisar Las Elecciones En Todos Los Países; Exige Que Los Carnets De Votantes Tengan Foto... Todo Lo Contrario en USA; El Gobierno Acusa A Los Estados Que Exigen Fotos...
Usa Ya No Tiene Ni Siguiera El Apoyo Incondicional De Inglaterra...
La ONU... Dentro De Poco Va A Poder Condenar A Estados Unidos... Como País Agresor...
Buchanan to Newsmax: Obama's Syrian Strike Would be Impeachable
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 02:39 PM
By Jim Meyers and Kathleen WalterAny attack on Syria without Congressional approval would be an impeachable act, political commentator Pat Buchanan has told Newsmax in an exclusive interview.
The former presidential candidate and best-selling author also says he prefers "the devil we know" in Syria — Bashar Assad — to the al-Qaida elements he asserts are leading the rebellion against his regime.
Buchanan has been a senior advisor to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000.
President Obama has signaled that he is considering a strike on Syria amid administration claims the Assad regime has used chemical weapons.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax TV on Thursday, Buchanan says his chief concern about a potential strike is that "the president of the United States is threatening a war and planning a war he has no right to wage. The Congress of the United States alone has the power to authorize war or declare war and it has not done so.
"President Obama is usurping the authority of the Congress first and foremost and he appears about to launch an unconstitutional and unnecessary war. So the President should be called to account by the Congress and told: no war without our approval. That's the way the Constitution works.
"The key figure is Speaker of the House John Boehner, who should call the House of Representatives back into session on Monday and instruct the president directly: Mr. President, you have no authority and no right to launch acts of war against Syria against whom we have not declared or authorized any war. We are calling on you not to engage in what would clearly be an impeachable act – starting a war against a country without the approval of the Congress when you are asked directly not to do so.
"If the president launched an unnecessary and unconstitutional war, striking a country against whom we have not declared war and has not attacked us, that is de facto an impeachable act that could lead to an open-ended war, the consequences of which we cannot even see."
The White House has talked about the moral justification for a strike. Asked if there is also a legal justification, Buchanan responds: "There's no constitutional justification right now in my judgment for a strike on Syria. The U.N. Security Council has not authorized a war, the Congress of the United States has not authorized a war.
"I do agree that the use of poison gas by the Syrian government — if it was President Assad who authorized it — is an obscene act which the international community and the Security Council should take up. But we don't know who ordered it; we don't know how it was delivered; we don't know if Assad knew about it; we don't know if Assad ordered it.
"But if he did, this is an issue that ought to be taken up by the international community and the Security Council, not the United States of America unilaterally and certainly not the president of the United States based on the flimsy evidence we have seen to date."
Obama declared unequivocally on Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attacks on. However, several U.S. officials are now using the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture.
Buchanan comments: "I would not understand or comprehend if Assad, no matter how bad a man he may be, would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country when the immediate consequence might be that he would be at war with the United States.
"But what the United States should do is quite clear: Gather all the evidence through the U.N., gather all the evidence through our intelligence, take this to the Security Council the same way President Kennedy through Adlai Stevenson took the [evidence] during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We had our photographs, we showed the world what we had, we proved the missiles were in Cuba.
"That is the constitutional and legal way to do this. It is not to act in panic because John Kerry is shocked at the pictures he saw on YouTube."
Buchanan said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should call the Senate into session and "if he believes we should go to war, authorize it."
"That is what George H. W. Bush did before he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait. That is what George W. Bush did. I was against that war on Iraq but the president won the authority from Congress so it was a constitutional and legitimate war no matter that I did not like it."
If Obama does attack Syria without approval, "it is a clear, unconstitutional, illegal act," Buchanan reiterated. "If the president did this, he would be a rogue president."
Buchanan says he disagrees with former ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton's assertion that we should seek to take out Assad.
"Look who is on the other side of this war," he tells Newsmax. "We have al-Qaida elements that are murderous, that have tortured people, that have killed Christians, and they're the leading force in the elements that are fighting against Assad.
"Behind Assad we have the Iranians and Hezbollah and the Russians. It is not our war. Quite frankly, I would prefer the devil we know, which is Assad, to the devil we don't know, which is that crowd in the rebels who are torturing and killing people and engaging in atrocities of their own."
Buchanan also says the Republicans have "the power of the purse" and should block spending by those agencies that would implement Obamacare.
And regarding immigration reform, Buchanan doubts that the GOP-controlled House will go along with the amnesty that President Obama wants and the Senate has approved.
He adds: "I believe and hope that the House of Representatives will deny amnesty, deny legal rights to people who've broken into our country and broken our laws."© 2013 Newsmax.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/buchanan-obama-syria-impeachable/2013/08/29/id/522972?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVS9ql7
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama: “Prez Can’t Deploy Military W/O Congress”. Obama: “I’m Deploying Military W/O Congress”
In a recent article by educator Thomas Sowell, he stated: “Like other truly talented phonies, Barack Obama concentrates his skills on the effect of his words on other people -- most of whom do not have the time to become knowledgeable about the things he is talking about. Whether what he says bears any relationship to the facts is politically irrelevant.” Talented phony is a gross understatement when speaking about Barack Hussein Obama. We still have no proof of his birth and citizenship, his Social Security Number is fraudulent along with his Selective Service registration form. There is strong reason to believe that he was enrolled as an Indonesian citizen who received federal aid while attending Occidental College. Everything about him reeks of being a phony, an imposter and a usurper. As Sowell stated, Obama concentrates on his skill of his words. So let’s look at his own words when it comes to the legal right of the President of the United States to take military action without the approval of Congress. In 2007, when Obama was launching his presidential campaign, he told the Boston Globe: “The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” “It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” He went on to say that the only legal way the president can take military action without the consent of Congress is in instances of self-defense when the US is being directly threatened. In 2011, Obama took military action in Libya without the consent of Congress and the US was not in any immediate threat of danger or attack. This is typical of someone who cares little about living up to their own words as only a phony would do. Obama’s side-kick, Joe Biden is just as bad. In 1998, then Sen. Joe Biden spoke on the Senate floor, stating: “Given this, the only logical conclusion is that the framers intended to grant to Congress the power to initiate all hostilities, even limited wars.” In 2007, Biden stated: “The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” In 2011, Biden supported Obama’s actions using our military in Libya without the consent of Congress. Now, Obama is contemplating using military force in Syria because of their civil war and use of chemical weapons. He does not have the approval of Congress, yet and I heard Biden on the news fully supporting Obama if he does get us involved without first going through Congress. How can a nation trust its leaders if they continually say one thing and do the opposite? It’s not just a one-time thing either, as it seems to be the norm with both Obama and Biden. I know that many politicians, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. make campaign promises that they never keep and probably never intended to keep, but next to Lyndon B. Johnson, Obama is the most lying and deceiving president in my life time. And like Johnson, Obama is guilty of high crimes against the US, however, like Johnson, he will never be held accountable for those crimes, while the American people and our military personnel pay the consequences and live with the aftermath.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12323/obama-prez-cant-deploy-military-wo-congress-obama-im-deploying-military-wo-congress/#zwr7uySs3SdpV7MM.99
If Attacking Iraq Was So Wrong, Why Is Attacking Syria Right? 29 August 2013 / Marilyn Assenheim Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, The Lyin’ King has waggled his flaccid fist at Syria. He is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The Lyin’ King’s Secretary of State declared that there is “undeniable evidence” that Bashar al-Assad used weapons of mass destruction on his own people. No evidence for this assertion has been offered by the regime. Weapons of mass destruction? Haven’t we been to this rodeo before? The left still flagellates Bush for alleging “non-existent” weapons of mass destruction as the basis for an “illegal” war. Except that it wasn’t illegal. Both houses of Congress and the U.N. passed resolutions in favor of the act. Aerial photographs of Soviet trucks shifting cargo from Iraq into Syria were widely circulated at that time. Could those deliveries to Syria have been the same weapons of mass destruction that John Kerry denied existence of back then? Yet insists on now? The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, The Lyin’ King is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama…This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it The Liar-In-Chief stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with The Lyin’ King to hold off on taking any action… for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize recipient–In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace…which is everywhere. The Lyin’ King’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, The Lyin’ King waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, The Lyin’ King is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. The Lyin’ King is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/08/attacking-iraq-wrong-attacking-syria-right/#7QzTwTu7uryrCS9Z.99
British Opposition Voting Against Cameron's Syria Strike Plan.
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 11:00 AM
LONDON — British Prime Minister David Cameron faced an uphill struggle on Thursday to secure parliament's approval for military intervention in Syria after the main opposition party said it would vote against the motion.
Opening the debate to lawmakers recalled from their summer recess, Cameron said what was at stake was "one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century."
He insisted that taking action against the Syrian regime's chemical weapons capability was "not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict."
But the outcome of the vote hung in the balance after a party source said the center-left opposition Labour Party had been having "increasing doubts about the opaque nature of the government's motion."
The motion that lawmakers are being asked to approve "does not mention anything about compelling evidence" that a suspected chemical attack last week outside the Syrian capital was launched by President Bashar al-Assad's forces, the source said.
The Syrian regime strongly denies it was responsible and blames opposition fighters for the attack.
Under growing pressure from Members of Parliament who feared Britain was rushing into action, the government was forced to agree late Wednesday that Britain would not take part in any military strikes before United Nations inspectors report back on the gas attacks believed to have killed hundreds near Damascus.
While the political temperature rose, Britain dispatched six Typhoon fighter jets to its Akrotiri base on Cyprus as a "protective measure," although the defense ministry said the planes will not take part in any direct military action.
Cameron's government was said to be outraged by the decision of Labour leader Ed Miliband to change his stance on Wednesday — having previously offered the government conditional backing for military action.
The government has been forced to dilute the vote to one on merely the principle of military action.
The motion to be debated says that a final vote should only take place after U.N. inspectors report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon said Thursday the investigators would leave Syria by Saturday and report to him immediately.
Cameron does not have a clear majority in parliament and his Conservative party is forced to rely on the far smaller Liberal Democrats to rule in a coalition.
With British lawmakers now facing the prospect of having to vote for a second time on a different day — possibly early next week — it raises the possibility that the United States will go it alone with missile strikes, without involvement from Britain, its main military ally.
Muddying the waters, the government also said it had received legal advice that under international law, Britain could still launch military action even without a mandate from the U.N. Security Council.
Miliband is pushing ahead with his own amendment that calls for a greater U.N. role before any military action is authorized, and has not said whether the party will support the government if that is rejected.
He said: "I'm clear that this is a very grave decision to take military action that the House of Commons would be making and I didn't think that that decision should be made on an artificial timetable when the House of Commons wouldn't even have seen the evidence today from the U.N. weapons inspectors.
"I'm determined to learn the lessons of the past, including Iraq, and we can't have the House of Commons being asked to write a blank check to the PM for military action."
Cameron will try to convince that targeted strikes would punish the Assad regime for its alleged use of chemical weapons and deter any further attacks.
He will also insist that any strikes would not drag Britain into a wider conflict.
Haunted by their experience of the war in Iraq, a growing number of MPs — including some within Cameron's own center-right Conservative Party — are reluctant to back British military involvement.
In 2003, parliament gave then Prime Minister Tony Blair a mandate to join the U.S.-led offensive in Iraq on the basis of allegations that dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
The weapons never materialized and Britain became embroiled in the war for years.
© AFP 2013
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmaxworld.com/GlobalTalk/syria-conflict-britain-debate/2013/08/29/id/522894?s=al&promo_code=14B1C-1#ixzz2dPVyZY2B
Alert: What Is Your Risk for a Heart Attack? Find Out Now
[?] JOE BIDEN THREATENS TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT [?]
By: John Hayward 8/28/2013 04:24 PM
It may seem shocking to hear Vice President Joe Biden threatening to begin impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama, but Biden is clearly a man of principle. As you’ll hear him explain about five and a half minutes into this clip, he assembled a team of Constitutional scholars to buttress his own experience with teaching classes about the separation of powers in the United States government. He knows the threat of impeachment is extremely serious, which is why he doesn’t make it lightly.
“The president has… no…. Constitutional… authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked, or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” Biden declared, loud and clear. ”And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House, obviously, has to do that. But I would lead an effort to impeach him.”
“This Administration has damaged us to a degree that no other Administration has in American history,” Biden declared. ”We have no credibility.” He called President Obama’s effort to unilaterally declare war on Syria without Congressional approval “unconscionable,” and stressed the importance of finding ways to “make it more difficult for these cowboys to go to war.”
The host of the segment, Chris Matthews, agreed with Biden’s attitude, expressing contempt for Obama’s loose talk about “weapons of mass destruction” and “regime change” as causes for military action.
This is an absolutely stunning development. I can only assume that Biden’s determination to enforce the lawful Constitutional separation of powers will give President Obama pause as he prepares to unilaterally…
Oh, wait, sorry. This clip’s from 2007, and two-fisted Constitutional scholar Joe Biden was talking about impeaching George Bush to stop him from attacking Iran to halt its nuclear program. Everything’s different now, because we have Barack Obama as President, some “red lines” are redder than others, and we don’t have a Constitution any more.
John Boehner Is Ordering Republicans To Fund ObamaCare! The Western Center for Journalism.
Boehner has thrown down the gauntlet and now that John Boehner has played his hand, we - the American people - must play ours.
Our elected officials must make a choice, and they need to make it now. Let them know that they can either do what Mr. Boehner wants, or they can do what the American people want and DEFUND OBAMACARE.
Is The Federal Government Really Hiring "An Army Of ObamaCare Detectives."
You've already heard the news that government agents will be given the authority under ObamaCare to barge into your home, and you already know about the "ObamaCare Navigators," ... the Obama-bots and so-called "Community Organizers" (and potentially even people with criminal records) who will be given access to your most private financial information.
But now the Daily Mail UK is reporting that the "Feds are building a detective squad to target consumers and companies that don't follow Obamacare's rules."
Their words, not ours...
The Daily Mail goes on to say: "More than 1,600 new employees hired by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources in the aftermath of ObamaCare's passage include just two described as 'consumer safety' officers, but 86 tasked with 'criminal investigating' – indicating that the agency is building an army of detectives to sleuth out violations of a law that many in Congress who supported it still find confusing."
John Boehner's political schemes be damned. If he believes that keeping ObamaCare around, so he can pretend to fight it, is "good politics," then our elected officials must be disabused of that idiotic notion here and now.
The insanity must end today. Simply put, unless we stop ObamaCare in the next 30 days, it will likely be here to stay and all of the nightmares that they told you could never happen will come true in short order.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
More Shoes Are Dropping. Medicaid For Everyone Is Just Around The Corner.
Not only have health insurance premiums risen, on average, by more than $3600.00 since 2008, but major employers like UPS, the University of Virginia, and a number of local governments have just announced that they'll be dropping coverage. They aren't the first, they won't be the last... and millions of people will be forced into the socialist single-payer pool.
Conservative icon Gary Bauer summed up what is going on: "This growing trend highlights another of the perverse incentives in ObamaCare: it encourages companies to end health care coverage entirely and dump entire families into ObamaCare's exchange programs. This shouldn't surprise anyone."
"Barack Obama has spoken openly about his support for a socialist single-payer system, adding, 'But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process.'"
"ObamaCare is that 'transition process' of 'eliminating employer coverage,' one giant step in the 'fundamental transformation' of America into a European-style, socialist welfare state."
But our fight to maintain the American way of live is winnable. Senator Ted Cruz recently said: "Republicans have the votes to make defunding possible," and he's right. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. If Republicans didn't have the votes, Boehner wouldn't be throwing down the gauntlet.
Boehner has made his move and now we must make ours. Win, lose or draw, we must make it clear to our elected officials that they must now make a choice. They can either side with John Boehner and Barack Obama, and fund ObamaCare, or they can side with the American people and defund it.
They have the votes... they can do it... it's that simple.
Use the button or the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.
If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.
Floyd Brown
Pentagon Classifies Evangelical Christians, Catholics as “Extremists” Aug 28, 2013 By Todd Starnes
The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty.FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK FOR CONSERVATIVE NEWS. CLICK HERE TO JOIN!The Pentagon also considered the Southern Poverty law Center’s “hate group” list a “reliable source” for determining extremism and labeled “Islamophobia” as a form of religious extremism.The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.PENTAGON CALLS FOUNDING FATHERS EXTREMISTSCHECK OUT THE ARMY’S LIST OF DOMESTIC HATE GROUPS“The materials we obtained establish that the U.S. military violated its appropriate apolitical stance and engaged in a dishonorable mischaracterization of multiple faith groups,” said Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, an organization that represents thousands of military chaplains.The documents show an unknown number of equal opportunity officers were trained at Fort Jackson, SC, using information obtained from the SPLC.The training material was made public after a soldier who attended the briefing alerted Chaplain Alliance.“He considers himself an Evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews said. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”The soldier “produced the slides based on EO Leader’s Course Program of Instruction obtained from the Soldier Support Institute at Fort Jackson, South Carolina,” the document reads.In addition to the slide presentation, the Reserve unit was also shown a video provided by the SPLC and Teaching Tolerance. The trainer told her superior officers she showed the video because it was part of the “EO Advisor course curriculum.”Crews is calling on the Pentagon to stop relying on the Southern Poverty Law Center or any other group that considers mainline religious organizations to be extremist or terrorist groups.“Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn’t be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States,” Crews said. “The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings.”The Pentagon did not return calls seeking comment. Last April, spokesman George Wright told Fox News the training briefing in Pennsylvania was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Department of the Army.”“This slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine,” he said. “It was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”The Army said the slide was removed, the presenter apologized and they considered the matter closed.“Mr. Wright’s response is accurate but incomplete,” Crews told Fox News. “Yes, the one offensive slide was deleted, but how many other EO officers continue to use the SPLC as a source for training materials?”SARAH PALIN SAYS YOU NEED TODD’S LATEST BOOK – DISPATCHES FROM BITTER AMERICA. CLICK HERE TO GET YOUR COPY! Related posts:
Pentagon Labels Founding Fathers, Conservatives as Extremists
Army Labeled Evangelicals as Religious Extremists
Pentagon Grilled About Christians in Military
Lawmakers Want Army to Apologize for Attacks on Christians
Pentagon Blocks, Says it Will Free Access to Southern Baptist Website
America Assists al-Qaeda in Removing Bashar al-Assad
Posted 2 Hours Ago by Marilyn Assenheim filed under Email Featured, Middle East, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, War5 New Rule in Florida: (AUG 2013): If You Pay For Car Insurance You Better Read This... 1 Strange Tip for White Teeth Miami: Mom Publishes Free Teeth Whitening Secret that Angers Dentists Banks Lower Refi Rate Fannie Mae Launches Refi Plus Program Refinance Rates From 2.50% APR. Share11 Tweet6 0 Share22 Remember the explosion of pitchforks and torches, brandished by an infuriated, leftist mob over George W. Bush’s handling of Iraq? The screeching from the lap-dog media and politicians that spun in the wind of public sentiment, as to whether they were for or against U.S. military action, was incessant. Now, Obama is in the process of committing the United States to unilateral military action. No consent from Congress. No U.N. authorization. Ah, how quickly libs forget. Or, rather, how quickly they expect the rest of us to. The U.K. Independent points out that by taking up the cudgel against Bashar al-Assad, Obama is joining forces with al-Qaeda against a common enemy: “The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama... This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House — nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida — though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates.” It won’t be trumpeted by the MSM either. The MSM won’t ask “if attacking Iraq was so wrong, why is attacking Syria right? What is it Obama stands to gain?” Instead of furious denouncements and insistence upon years more fact finding heaped upon George Bush by the U.N. they are now pleading with Obama to hold off on taking any action … for four more days. According to The Weekly Standard, the U.N. doesn’t know who-did-what-to-whom-with-what, and they are begging for a few more days to find out. Then, presumably, the Nobel Peace Prize Recipient-In-Chief will be free to inflict whatever damage he can with our truncated military might. If one has never considered the question before, now might be a really good time to ask “Why is America is still funding the United Nations?” They haven’t had a democratic majority in decades yet America is still the United Nations’ largest contributor. What the U.N. clearly expects from America is our real estate, money, acceptance of their abuse and for us to take over military activity anywhere they can’t keep the peace … which is everywhere. Obama’s Arab Spring has become the winter of the world’s discontent. As liberals always do, Obama waves a loaded gun around trying to look tough. Now he’s stuck with his “red-line” threat against the al-Assad regime in Syria. Despite a slavish media, frantically trying to extricate his feet from his mouth, Obama is on stage, front and center. And it isn’t just a PC-whipped America that is monitoring the action. Obama is being carefully observed on the world stage, by enemies and friends alike. And he is openly joining our enemy. The world’s onlookers don’t care about his historic presidency, his easily-bruised ego or what color he is. They just want to see how far The Great Satan can now be pushed. Right off the edge of the cliff, apparently. Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#ixzz2dNqgbabx
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/08/america-assists-al-qaeda-removing-bashar-al-assad/#lZJm1arA5U3DMv4b.99
Evangelical Christians Labeled as 'Extremists' by Pentagon By Bobby Eberle
The Pentagon is the nation's hub for military activity. One would think this nerve center would be hard at work training the next generation of leaders to fight terrorists and other extremist groups. They are... except you might be very surprised at what the Pentagon is classifying as an "extremist" group.
According to a report by Todd Starnes, "The Department of Defense classified Catholics and Evangelical Christians as religious extremists similar to Al-Qaeda, according to training materials obtained by the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty."
The revelations come just days after Judicial Watch discovered a separate Pentagon training document that depicted the Founding Fathers as extremists and conservative organizations as hate groups.
The Chaplain Alliance uncovered in more than 1,500 pages of documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request after a U.S. Army training instructor told a Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania that Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Sunni Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan were examples of extremism.
What is going on here? Why are these types of characterizations allowed in Barack Obama's Department of Defense?
In the training manual, which was obtained by Judicial Watch, it is noted that "many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states' rights, and how to make the world a better place." Wow... does that sound extremist to you? The manual actually states that "the colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule" are an example of "extremist ideologies and movements."
And here's one thing to note: The military training manuals use the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a reference! Are you kidding me? As Starnes reports in another column, the SPLC is "a leftwing organization that has a history of labeling conservative Christian organizations like the Family Research Council as 'hate groups.'"
"Men and women of faith who have served the military faithfully for centuries shouldn't be likened to those who have regularly threatened the peace and security of the United States," Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance, said. "The materials we have received verify that the military views the Southern Poverty Law Center as a reliable source for Equal Opportunity briefings."
With al Qaeda continuing to plan attacks against America, what in the world is the Pentagon doing focusing on Christians and using the SPLC as a reference? Something is definitely going wrong with our government, and I guess by saying that, I will now be labeled an extremist. Oh well.
FEMA Approves Russian Troops on US Soil? July 2, 2013 Oli Fischer
At a time when President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin appear to be clashing over the extradition of Edward Snowden, it’s hard to imagine signing an agreement that allows Russian troops to provide security at events on US soil… but that’s exactly what the Obama Administration did this week. According to an agreement signed in Washington, DC last week between FEMA and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry, Russian troops can now be deployed to provide security at so-called “National Special Security Events,” such as the Super Bowl and G8 summits.This is a perfect example of the smoke and mirrors tactic that the Obama ?Administration has been using throughout his presidency. Their motto is:?”Never let a crisis go to waste.”In this case, they’re simply using the NSA crisis to distract Americans as ?they adopt disastrous measures to weaken American sovereignty.?? How can this possibly be anything but a blatant effort to erode US ?sovereignty and move the nation further down the road toward global ?government?Read more from the Moscow Times:“Russian officials will provide security at mass events in the U.S. as part of a deal signed last week between the Emergency Situations Ministry and its U.S. equivalent, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.Representatives of both agencies arrived at an agreement during last week’s 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, but the move has been met with some concern from those wary of foreign troops operating on U.S. soil, Infowars.com reported Monday.“The parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation, which envisages the exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events,” the ministry said in a statement.Under the terms of the new deal, Russian troops could be deployed at ”National Special Security Events,” as determined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.Events that have been awarded this status in the past include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations.Russian troops trained on U.S. soil for the first time last year when 22 army paratroopers visited Colorado for a fortnight’s training with the 10th Special Forces Group at Fort Carson.”Exercise like this are supposedly aimed at improving emergency response capabilities. As an American, I can’t think of anything more disastrous than allowing foreign military troops to provide security in a disaster scenario. With the language barrier, unfamiliar customs, and differences in property rights, this isn’t disaster response… it’s a disaster.What do you think of this trans-national agreement? Should any military troops (foreign or domestic) be allowed to provide security at civilian events? Or does that violate the Posse Comitatus Act?https://patriotcaller.com/fema-approves-russian-troops-on-us-soil/
CLEMENTE SANCHEZ: LIMÓN CONGELADO
Un joven en la Universidad de Kirche tiene un tumor en el pulmón y su hermana, que es enfermera, le envió un e-mail acerca del limón. Empezó a beber limonada desde hace algún tiempo, y sus tumores eran más pequeños. Su oncólogo le dijo que continuara.
Creo que este sorprendente descubrimiento es muy útil para nuestra salud.
Todo lo que necesitamos es: un limón congelado.
Muchos profesionales de la hostelería, ya utilizan el limón entero, nada se descarta , las cáscaras de limón hasta el momento se han desechado y contiene de cinco a diez veces más vitaminas que el mismo jugo.
¿Cómo podemos utilizar el limón entero sin perder nada?
Simple, lava bien el limón y colocalo en el congelador.
Cuando se congela, utilice el rallador y rallarlo entero (con la cáscara), y espolvorear sobre los alimentos esta rayadura.
Rocíe sus bebidas, helados, sopas, cereales, pasta, salsas,
arroz, sushi, pescados, whisky ... la lista es interminable.
Esta es la Clave mágica para hacer su comida más sabrosa y saludable. Ud vivirá más tiempo.
Este es el secreto de limón, que ahora acaba de ser revelado, el cancer dificilmente se desarrolla en un ambiente alcalino
Usted puede ayudar a un amigo para hacerle saber que el jugo de limón es ventajoso en el tratamiento del cáncer.
COMPARTA ESTA INFORMACION, PUEDE SALVAR VIDAS.
También se considera un espectro de infecciones antimicrobianas
Bacterianas y hongos. Es eficaz contra los parásitos internos y los gusanos,
Regula la presión arterial cuando es demasiado alto, es un antidepresivo, combate el estrés y los trastornos nerviosos.
Is Obama Ready to Go It Alone on Syria?
Thursday, 29 Aug 2013 07:53 PM By Cathy Burke
The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama is ready to go it alone to strike Syria despite the British parliament's rejection of military action and the lack of a UN mandate.
Aides said Obama believes that Syria must pay a price for breaking taboos on the use of chemical weapons, action which he sees as posing a grave threat to US national security.
US plans to build an international coalition for a "limited" strike on Syria suffered a devastating blow when the House of Commons in London voted against the use of force to punish a chemical weapons attack last week outside Damascus.
US officials signaled earlier Thursday that Obama would take unilateral action if necessary, but the possibility became a reality with the vote, which reverberated immediately across the Atlantic.
"We have seen the result of the parliament vote in the UK tonight," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said. "The US will continue to consult with the UK government -- one of our closest allies and friends.
"As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.
"He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable."
Thursday's 272-285 nonbinding vote in the U.K. was a major blow to the president's efforts to build an international coalition in advance of a strike against the regime of President Bashar Assad afer its suspected use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack last week.
The vote was also a sharp rebuke to Prime Minister David Cameron.
“It's clear to me that the British parliament and the British people do not wish to see military action,” Cameron said in a statement.
Earlier Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said his country would remain on the sidelines of any military action as well.
“This is a very big risk and we do support our allies who are contemplating forceful action to deal with this,” Haper said, according to The Daily Star, in Toronto.
“That said, at the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own, to have a Canadian military mission.”
And Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino also said Thursday her country wouldn't join the military action without a United Nations mandate, The Hill reported.
Russia has said it'll block any attempt to secure a Security Council vote for intervention.
“We have been trying to get the U.N. Security Council to be more assertive on Syria even before this incident,” deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told The New York Times.“The problem is that the Russians won’t vote for any accountability.”
The Times reported the White House intelligence that will be presented to congressional leaders Thursday night doesn't tie Assad directly to the deadly attack outside Damascus.
But the administration believes the information is compelling enough to justify a limited strike, the newspaper said.
Only hours before the British Parliament's stunning rejection, White House spokesman Josh Earnest had thanks top politicians there for their “strong words” following the alleged chemical weapons attack, The Hill reported.
“You've heard both the prime minister and the foreign secretary articulate their strong objection and condemnation of the use of chemical weapons,” Earnest said. “We've heard them talk about their desire to see the Assad regime be held accountable for its actions in carrying out this chemical weapons attack.”
But British Foreign Secretary William Hague sounded a cautious note Wednesday, saying the U.Sl would "make their own decisions” about intervention, The Hill reported.
“We will remain closely coordinated with them and in close in touch with them, as we are every day,” Hague said. “I speak to my counterpart Secretary Kerry every day and have done so this evening.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Syria-conflict-US-intelligence/2013/08/29/id/523039?s=al&promo_code=14B3A-1#ixzz2dT5KJ4XU
LA INQUISICIÓN DE OBAMA. Por Alfredo M. Cepero
Director de www.lanuevanacion.com Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero
Allá por al año de 1482, un oscuro sacerdote devenido funcionario de la Corona de España creo la máquina de represión religiosa y política más eficaz de la historia: la Inquisición Española. Su legado de intolerancia y fanatismo ha llegado macabramente vivo hasta el siglo XXI. La prensa anticlerical y secularista que nos gastamos por estos días se ha encargado de mantener viva aquella barbaridad perpetrada por Fray Tomás de Torquemada contra 400,000 judíos que vivían en la España de los Reyes Católicos, la mitad de los cuales se convirtieron al catolicismo no por convicción sino por terror.
Andando el tiempo, Torquemada tendría imitadores en el fanatismo y la intolerancia. En este caso en el campo de la ideología política. Porque no hay nada que se parezca más a un fanático religioso que un ideólogo político. Ninguno ve el mundo que lo rodea en sus dimensiones reales sino según los parámetros dentro de los cuales quiere modificarlo. Están demasiado ocupados en cambiarlo según sus percepciones del bien y del mal como para perder tiempo en analizarlo. En 1971, el agitador comunitario, Saul D. Alinsky, publicó "Reglas para Radicales" un prontuario para agitadores disfrazados de organizadores comunitarios encaminado a unificar a ciudadanos de bajos recursos en una lucha contra los sistemas políticos y económicos predominantes en el Chicago de la década de 1970.
En el primer párrafo de su libro, Alinsky se dirigió a las juventudes que se proponía reclutar diciendo: "Lo que sigue es para aquellos que quieren cambiar el mundo de lo que es en la actualidad a lo que ellos consideran que debe ser". La perfecta definición de intransigencia incubada en la mente de un fanático ideológico. Como buen discípulo de Alinsky, Obama perfeccionó el dominio del arte de la intimidación y de la calumnia para neutralizar a sus adversarios. No está interesado en negociar sino en imponer su voluntad. Por eso les dijo a los republicanos después de su triunfo en el 2008: "yo gane y ustedes perdieron". Únicamente un hombre cegado por la ideología y dominado por la arrogancia ha podido cometer tantos errores e incurrido en tales barbaridades.
Esa total renuencia a reconocer la realidad e imponer su voluntad ha llevado a Obama a incurrir en extremos inauditos de hipocresía y mentira en su misión de transformar a los Estados Unidos de una nación de ciudadanos independientes en una nación de parásitos mantenidos y manipulados por el gobierno. De una republica constitucional en una falsa democracia manipulada utilizando métodos totalitarios por un ejecutivo que se arroga funciones del poder legislativo e intimida a los funcionarios del poder judicial. Desde un principio, Obama dijo que se proponía transformar radicalmente a la sociedad norteamericana, no solo a su gobierno. Como a todos los ideólogos de izquierda aspirantes a tiranos la constitución le molesta y, por lo tanto, la viola cada vez que sus clausulas constituyen obstáculos a sus designios de ampliar su poder.
Cuando el Presidente afirma con sarcasmo que los republicanos están inventando escándalos para obstaculizar su plan de gobierno está aplicando las enseñanzas de Alinsky sobre la destrucción despiadada de los adversarios. Pero el número extraordinario de escándalos que rodean a su administración, tales como corrupción y abuso de poder, sugiere que los mismos no son un invento de los republicanos sino las características que definen su desastroso desempeño en el cargo.
Una lista parcial de los más notorios escándalos tiene que incluir la persecución por el IRS de grupos conservadores y proisraelíes durante las elecciones del 2012, el encubrimiento del asesinato de cuatro norteamericanos en Benghazi con fines electoreros, la violación de la privacidad y las acusaciones contra periodistas que hacían su trabajo informando objetivamente y manteniendo a los gobernantes bajo el escrutinio de la prensa y la operación de venta de armas a traficantes de drogas mexicanos conocida como "Rápido y Furioso".
Y la lista sigue con los dos actos de perjurio del Procurador General, Eric Holder, ante el Congreso con motivo del espionaje de periodistas y la operación "Rápido y Furioso", la negativa de éste último a procesar a miembros de las Panteras Negras que intimidaron a votantes blancos en Filadelfia durante las elecciones del 2008 y las exigencias de la Secretaria de Salud, Kathleen Sebelius, a corporaciones reguladas por su secretaría para que donaran fondos con los cuales financiar las primas a ciudadanos de escasos recursos.
Al igual que su jefe, los funcionarios de la Administración Obama se consideran por encima de la ley. A principios de este año, James Clapper, Director de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional, una institución hasta ahora ajena a luchas partidistas, mintió al Congreso en un esfuerzo por proteger a su jefe. Cuando el senador demócrata por Oregón, Ron Wyden, le preguntó si su agencia recopilaba informaciones de inteligencia (espiaba) sobre millones de norteamericanos, Clapper contesto con un NO rotundo. Pero cuando fue presionado dijo: "No intencionalmente. Habrá casos en que se recopile, pero no intencionalmente". Cuando días más tarde lo agarraron en la mentira tuvo que pedir perdón.
Y cuando ya pensábamos haber tenido conocimiento de las más flagrantes violaciones de la ley por éste gobierno, el Centro Legal de Pobreza Sureña denunció la semana pasada las actividades subversivas del funcionario del Departamento de Seguridad Interna, Ayo Kimathi, apodado "el genio irritado". Este personaje, entre cuyas responsabilidades se encuentra la adquisición de armamentos y municiones para la Oficina de Inmigración y Aduanas (ICE), se pasa los fines de semanas promoviendo la supremacía negra y vomitando su odio contra los blancos. En su página digital, "Guerra en el Horizonte", Kimathi afirma: "La guerra es inminente y, si los negros queremos sobrevivir en el Siglo XXI, vamos a tener que matar a muchos blancos". Aún después de haber sido denunciado, esta repulsiva versión negra del Ku Klux Klan sigue devengando un sueldo pagado por los contribuyentes norteamericanos.
Regresando a Obama, el presidente no puede culpar a nadie más que a sí mismo del fracaso de su gestión de gobierno. Los gobernantes que ponen el servicio a sus gobernados por encima de su ideología como Johnson, Reagan y Clinton toman decisiones, aceptan responsabilidad y negocian con sus adversarios. Los fanáticos que ponen su ideología por encima del servicio a sus gobernados como Barack Obama se hacen las víctimas, culpan a los demás de sus fracasos y se niegan a negociar con sus adversarios.
Cuando Lyndon Johnson se dio a la tarea de hacer justicia a los americanos negros con la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y la Ley de Derechos Electorales de 1965 confrontó la hostilidad de miembros de su propio partido como el Senador Al Gore, padre del actual demagogo que se dice defensor del medio ambiente y les habla en jerigonza a los demócratas de piel negra cuando reclama su apoyo electoral. El demócrata Johnson recurrió entonces al senador republicano Everett Dirksen para lograr los votos republicanos que aseguraron la aprobación de ambas leyes.
Cuando Ronald Reagan, gobernando con un poder legislativo totalmente en manos del partido opositor, emprendió la tarea de poner en vigor la Ley de Reforma Tributaria de 1986 para salvar al país de la depresión económica desatada por la ineptitud de Jimmy Carter, no agredió a los demócratas sino negoció con ellos para obtener su apoyo. El republicano Reagan y el demócrata Tip O"Neill trabajaron juntos para echar los cimientos de una prosperidad económica que se prolongó por más de veinte años.
Y hasta el inmoral y perjuro de Bill Clinton tiene cualidades de gobernante que ya quisiera tener Barack Obama. Aprendió la lección de la derrota sufrida a manos de los republicanos en las parciales de 1994 y, en vez de denigrar a sus adversarios, opto por aliarse al recién electo Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, el republicano Newt Gingrich. Ambos cooperaron en la aprobación de la Ley de Reforma de Bienestar Social de 1996 que redujo el desempleo, balanceó el presupuesto y creo prosperidad económica.
Obama, la prensa complaciente que lo ensalza y sus defensores de la izquierda vitriólica podrán culpar a los republicanos hasta el cansancio por el nudo gordiano en que se ha convertido Washington. Pero cinco años de un desastre moral y económico que ya no puede seguir siendo atribuido a George W. Bush ni a los republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes, así como la historia previa de cooperación entre ambos partidos restan credibilidad a sus argumentos. Sobre todo, dejan al Mesías desnudo de excusas para explicar sus fracasos.
Envie sus Artículos, Criticas o Comentarios a lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’
No comments:
Post a Comment