Editor Lázaro R González Miño “IN GOD WE TRUST”
Any Rand: UNA FRASE DEL AÑO 1950 DE PLENA ACTUALIDAD
"Cuando adviertas que para producir necesitas obtener autorización de quienes no producen nada; cuando compruebes que el dinero fluye hacia quienes no trafican con bienes sino con favores; cuando percibas que muchos se hacen ricos por el soborno y por influencias más que por su trabajo, y que las leyes no te protegen contra ellos sino, por el contrario, son ellos los que están protegidos contra tí; cuando descubras que la corrupción es recompensada y la honradez se convierte en un auto-sacrificio, entonces podrás afirmar, sin temor a equivocarte, que tu sociedad está condenada."
El 2 de febrero de 1905 nació en San Petersburgo la filósofa y escritora estadounidense (nacida rusa) Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum, más conocida en el mundo de las letras bajo el seudónimo de Any Rand, y fallecida en marzo de 1982 en New York. Enviado por R. Samitier.
amenper: Aviso su computadora puede estar en peligro...
El secretario de información de la Casa Blanca Jay Carney ha emitido el siguiente aviso:
ADVERTENCIA OFICIAL: Si usted ha sido capaz de completar en línea el formulario del Seguro de Salud, usted no se comunicóó con el sitio web legítimo del gobierno. Su computadora puede estar en peligro.
Usted debe denunciar el fraude en línea y cambiar todas sus contraseñas
Iran wants nuclear deal within months, says Rohani. © AFP "EMO" ...and obama spliping LRGM
Newly elected President Hassan Rohani said in a newspaper interview that he wanted to conclude a deal on Iran’s nuclear programme within three to six months. Iran is set to hold talks with the P5+1 group of world powers at the UN on Thursday.
Foreign ministers from the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany (P5 + 1) are set to sit down with their Iranian counterpart on Thursday for what could be the start of earnest talks about Tehran’s controversial nuclear programme, in the wake of Iran’s President Hassan Rohani stating that he wanted to reach a deal within three to six months.
“The only way forward is for a timeline to be inserted into the negotiations that is short. The shorter it is, the more beneficial it is to everyone,” Rohani said in an interview with the Washington Post newspaper published on Wednesday.
The comments come a day after he told the UN General Assembly that Iran presented no threat toworld peace and was ready to engage with the United States.
Rohani told the newspaper on the sidelines of the UN gathering in New York that, “If it’s three months that would be Iran’s choice, if it’s six months that’s still good. It’s a question of months not years.”
There was a real optimism at the UN over the possibility of a breakthrough in the stalled nuclear negotiations, according to FRANCE 24’s correspondent at the UN in New York Emmanuel Saint-Martin.
“It is a cautious optimism,” Saint-Martin noted. “One Western diplomat told me today that while we have seen a lot of gestures and a lot of good signals have been sent, so far there is nothing concrete. So people are very eager for this meeting.”
Rohani, described as a moderate cleric, won the presidential election in June on a platform of more openness with the West and progress on the nuclear issue. US President Barack Obama and French President François Hollande welcomed Rohani’s encouraging address in New York this week, but demanded more than rhetoric.
Ambitious timeline
“In the West, diplomats hope to find out what Iran’s real objectives are and how those objectives can be reached,” Saint-Martin said. “The goal of three to six months laid out by President Rohani is very ambitious given the history of negotiations between Iran and the West.”
Caution from Western powers were also spurred by concern that Rohani will not have the final say on any deal, since ultimate authority in Iran lies with the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Negotiations between the Islamic Republic and the so-called six powers were launched in 2006, but have so far faltered. Thursday’s meeting will mark the highest-level, direct contact between the US and Iran in six years as Secretary of State John Kerry comes face-to-face with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad-Javad Zarif.
The West suspects Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons and has imposed crippling sanctions on Tehran that have slashed its vital oil exports and severely restricted its international bank transfers. As a result, inflation has surged and the value of the local currency has plunged.
Tehran has repeatedly stated that its nuclear programme is strictly for energy needs and peaceful civilian purposes.
amenper: Obama declara que no sabe nada de los incidentes durante la inscripción en el programa de salud.
El presidente Barack Obama declaró a la prensa que no sabía que las personas tenían que inscribirse en el Obamacare. "Todo lo que sé lo leí en los periódicos igual que ustedes"
Obama dijo que no sabía nada de los problemas con el website de Obamacare, que ni siquiera sabía que existía este website. "No tengo ninguna responsabilidad en cuanto a esto" declaró el presidente..
El presidente dijo estar preocupado con esta noticia, y que la situación como en todas las situaciones de su administración se resolvería en un futuro de una determinación basada en la profundidad de los hechos y la base tecnológica.
Pero que se establecería un panel para investigar la responsabilidad y la causa de esta ocurrencia.
El pueblo americano puede estar seguro que los culpables de estos hechos en Benghazi....uh uh..., perdonen.... en el Website, serán encontrados y enfrentarán su responsabilidad como siempre ha ocurrido durante mi administración.
amenper: Irresponsabilidad de la Presidencia
A veces pienso que estoy exagerando y obsesionado al criticar a Obama.
Pero lo que realmente noto es que mirando detalladamente dentro de la madeja de complacencia de la opinión de los periódicos entre la prensa condescendiente, se encuentra el reconocimiento a la irresponsable gestión de gobierno por parte del presidente- Incluso en diarios de tendencia liberal se puede ver que realmente Obama es digno de crítica.
A continuación he recopilado algunas noticias de diferentes periódicos que salieron en el Wall Street Journal de hoy sobre la irresponsabilidad de esta Presidencia.
Bret Stephens: The Unbearable Lightness of Obama - WSJ.com
Biógrafo de Eisenhower Jim Newton, citado en el New York Times, 15 de julio de 2013
"La esencia de la mano oculta de Eisenhower,era su falta de comunicación mientras que por supuesto, estaba haciendo un verdadero trabajo. Haciendo cosas que la gente no sabía en ese momento.
Si eso fuera verdad ahora, entonces Obama realmente está emulando a Ike.
Si, por el contrario, simplemente está haciendo nada o muy poco, eso sería pasividad, no una oculta mano de liderazgo como en el caso de Ike."
— El Washington Post, 06 de septiembre de 2013
"En la camisa de polo, pantalones cortos y sandalias, Presidente Obama camina hacia el campo de golf la mañana del viernes con un par de viejos amigos, luego voló a Camp David para un largo fin de semana. El Secretario de estado John Kerry fue relajante en sus vacaciones en Nantucket.
"Asistentes dijeron que ambos hombres fueron informados de los incidentes cada vez más sangrientos en los enfrentamientos con decenas de muertos en Egipto, pero por las apariencias exteriores no parecieron dar mucha importancia de que la administración Obama ve la crisis más amplia en el Cairo con gran alarma
— New York Times, 05 de julio de 2013
"El Presidente tiene un hábito verdaderamente inquietante de canalizar grandes decisiones de política exterior a través de una pequeña camarilla de relativamente inexpertos asesores de la casa blanca cuyo campo es estrictamente la política. Su principal preocupación era cómo se reportaría en el noticiero cualquier acción en Afganistán o en el Medio Oriente, o que ventaja esto le daría a los republicanos".
Gregory Hicks, ex Subjefe de la misión en Libia, el "60 minutos", 27 de octubre de 2013
"La renuencia del Sr. Obama para poner las fuerzas estadounidenses en el suelo durante la lucha y su decisión de mantener América diplomática y la presencia mínima de la CIA en la embajada de Libia, pudo haber ayudado llevar a Estados Unidos a perder las señales y contribuir inconscientemente en el ataque a la misión norteamericana en Bengasi. Las fuerzas militares estaban demasiado lejos de las costas de Libia durante el ataque del 11 de septiembre para intervenir".
Gregory Hicks, ex Subjefe de la misión en Libia, el "60 minutos", 27 de octubre de 2013
"Para las personas que salen, fuera de nuestras fronteras, para representar a nuestro país, creemos que si nos metemos en problemas, y vienen a nosotros, para que le cubramos las espaldas, para que digamos lo que no es, , es una experiencia terrible".
Hay más, pero no quiero tomar más espacio, pueden leerlo en el Wall Street Journal de hoy bajo "The Unbearable Lightness of Obama" por Brett Stephens.Bret Stephens: The Unbearable Lightness of Obama - WSJ.com
No tenemos una persona con la responsabilidad que requiere la oficina de presidente de los Estados Unidos. Tenemos una persona en la presidencia cuya conducta es de una persona irresponsable en un estado de vacaciones permanente y una campaña política continuada atacando fuertemente al partido de oposición mientras se presenta débil con los enemigos de la nación.
Ataques terroristas y muertes alcanzan récord histórico, según informe.
(CNN) – A medida que el terrorismo es cada vez más una táctica de guerra, el número de ataques y muertes aumentaron a un máximo histórico en 2012, de acuerdo con un nuevo informe que CNN obtuvo en exclusiva.
El año pasado, más de 8.500 ataques terroristas mataron a casi 15.500 personas conforme la violencia devastó África, Asia y Oriente Medio, de acuerdo con el National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (Consorcio nacional para el estudio del terrorismo y las respuestas al terrorismo).
Esto representa un incremento del 69% en ataques y un aumento del 89% en decesos desde 2011, según START, uno de los rastreadores del terrorismo líderes en el mundo.
De acuerdo con el grupo, seis de los siete grupos más mortíferos están afiliados a al Qaeda, y la mayoría de la violencia se cometió en países con mayoría musulmana.
El registro anterior de los ataques se realizó en 2011 con más de 5.000 incidentes; en el caso de fatalidades, el año anterior con mayor número fue 2007, con más de 12.800 muertes.
Con sede central en la Universidad de Maryland, START mantiene la Base de datos global de terrorismo, la fuente más exhaustiva de información no clasificada sobre ataques terroristas, con estadísticas que datan de 1970.
START, uno de los 12 Centros para la excelencia financiados por el Departamento de seguridad nacional, planea dar a conocer toda su base de datos en diciembre pero compartió sus primeros hallazgos tras una petición hecha por CNN.
Se espera que este año supere incluso el mayor récord de 2012. Hubo 5.100 ataques en los primeros 6 meses de 2013, dijo Gary LaFree, director de START, y la ola de violencia muestra pocas señales de disminución.
En semanas recientes, Al-Shabaab, un grupo militante con base en Somalia, atacó un centro comercial en Nairobi, Kenia, dejando 67 muertos; terroristas suicidas mataron a 81 en una iglesia en Pakistán; y los talibanes se atribuyeron el credito de asesinar a dos oficiales de la policía con un coche bomba en Afganistán.
Para encontrar y cuadrar ataques como estos, los ordenadores de START rastrean 1,2 millones de artículos de 50.000 archivos multimedia cada mes con un algoritmo para ayudar a identificar y eliminar las redundancias. Su personal de 25 miembros luego estudia, categoriza y contabiliza cada ataque.
La definición de terrorismo de START refleja estrechamente la del Departamento de Estado y de otros expertos. Para que pueda ser contabilizado como un acto de terrorismo, un incidente tiene que ser un acto o una amenaza intencional realizada por un "agente que no pertenezca del estado" que cumpla con dos de estos tres criterios:
Fue dirigido a la consecución de una meta política, económica, religiosa o social.
Fue destinado para coaccionar, intimidar o transmitir un mensaje a un grupo mayor.
Violó el derecho internacional humanitario al ser dirigido a no combatientes.
Parte del incremento observado en 2012 podría ser debido al hecho de que START ha mejorado sus métodos de recolección de datos y es mejor que nunca en encontrar y categorizar al terrorismo, dijo LaFree. Sin embargo, dijo que el dramático incremento no se trata únicamente de tener mejor información.
"Estamos convencidos de que un gran trozo de todo esto es un cambio real en el mundo", dijo LaFree. "Hemos visto una trayectoria bastante ascendente en el total de ataques terroristas y muertes a nivel mundial".
Fuera de pequeños descensos en 2004 y 2009, el número de ataques se ha incrementado a un ritmo constante en la década pasada, según START. La tendencia creciente aumenta la posibilidad de que los números de 2012 no sean una aberración, dijo LaFree.
Los expertos en contraterrorismo no afiliados a START también dijeron que los ataques parecen estar ocurriendo con una creciente frecuencia.
"Ha habido un montón de matanzas que ocurren en las líneas sectarias y religiosas", dijo Daniel Benjamin, coordinador de contraterrorismo en el Departamento de Estado desde 2009 a 2012. "Y eso es algo preocupante".
Las razones detrás del incremento son complejas, dicen los expertos:
Estados débiles e inestables y gobiernos corruptos o ineficaces.
Pobreza y desempleo elevado, especialmente entre los hombres jóvenes.
El acceso a un armamento más letal y un incremento en el uso de tácticas como los atentados suicidas capaces de matar a decenas de transeúntes.
Un incremento en las tensiones sectarias entre musulmanes suníes y chiíes, donde antiguos rencores dan lugar a masacres modernas.
El creciente uso del terrorismo como una táctica de guerra.
"La distinción entre la línea frontal y la retaguardia ha sido borrada en gran medida conforme el terrorismo se ha convertido en una creciente característica de la guerra contemporánea", dijo Brian Michael Jenkins, asesor superior en la Corporación RAND y fundador de su programa anti-terrorismo.
Sin embargo Jenkins también advirtió que "el terrorismo" es notoriamente difícil de definir, y el incremento en los ataques no significa necesariamente que los Estados Unidos están "perdiendo la guerra contra el terrorismo". Dijo que podía tan sólo reflejar un cambio de estrategia entre los rebeldes sirios y los radicales afganos, por ejemplo.
Aún así, los expertos dicen que el aparente incremento en las bajas civiles es alarmante.
Se han ido los días en que los grupos terroristas como el Ejercito Republicano Irlandés o la Brigada Roja italiana intentarían mantener bajo el número de las víctimas al emitir advertencias, dijo LaFree.
"Si eres un grupo terrorista ahora y quieres que tu mensaje llegue", dijo, "entre más gente mates, más 'exitoso' serás".
Los ataques sectarios -tales como las batallas campales entre musulmanes suníes y chiíes en Irak, Siria y Pakistán- tienden a ser desproporcionadamente mortales, dijo Martha Crenshaw, una experta de la Universidad de Stanford y miembro del consejo de START.
"Tristemente, parece ser cada vez más aceptable en ciertos sistemas de creencias matar a tantos miembros de la otra comunidad religiosa como sea posible", dijo. "Las restricciones morales parecen estar erosionándose".
Los bombardeos y las explosiones fueron utilizados en un 58% de los ataques terroristas en 2012, pero no siempre fue así. De hecho, los datos de START también muestran un cambio dramático global en las tácticas terroristas y en los sitios estratégicos.
En la década de los años 70, la mayoría de los ataques se cometieron con armas de fuego y ocurrieron en Europa Occidental. En la década de los años 80, Latinoamérica vio la mayoría de los actos terroristas. A partir de la década de los 90, Asia del sur, África del norte y el Oriente Medio han visto un constante incremento en el número de ataques, una tendencia que se ha acelerado en años recientes.
Aunque el terrorismo golpeó a 85 países el último año, sólo tres -Pakistán, Irak y Afganistán- sufrieron más de la mitad de los ataques (55%) y muertes (62%) en 2012.
En enero, terroristas suicidas suníes atacaron a varios peregrinos chiíes en Irak, matando al menos a 73. En febrero, un coche bomba fuera de un café en Mogadiscio, Somalia, dejó 15 muertos. En marzo, un bombardeo en Tailandia mató a 14 y dejó heridos a 340 en un distrito comercial.
Tan sólo ocho ciudadanos estadounidenses murieron en ataques fuera de los Estados Unidos en 2012, todos ellos en Afganistán, según el Departamento de Estado. En los Estados Unidos, siete personas murieron en 11 ataques terroristas el último año, seis de ellos en un tiroteo en un Templo sij en Oak Creek, Wisconsin.
A pesar de la muerte de Osama Bin Laden y la captura de otros líderes clave de Al Qaeda, el grupo ha exportado su marca de terrorismo a otros musulmanes militantes, de acuerdo a START y a otros expertos en contraterrorismo.
"Hemos tenido éxito en detener la central de Al Qaeda", dijo LaFree. "Pero no hemos tenido éxito en detener el mensaje".
El Talibán de Afganistán fue por mucho el grupo más letal en 2012 cuando lanzó 525 ataques que mataron 1.842 personas.
El segundo grupo más letal fue Boko Haram de Nigeria, un grupo yihadista que orquestó 364 ataques el año pasado que mató a 1.132 personas.
Los siguientes más letales fueron Al Qaeda en Irak, el Partido Comunista de la India Maoísta, Al-Shabaab de Somalia, Al Qaeda en la Península Arábiga y la rama de los talibanes de Pakistán.
Rhonda Shore, una portavoz de la Oficina de Contraterrorismo del Departamento de Estado, dijo que no había visto las últimas cifras de START y no pudo comentar sobre el informe. Pero ofreció una defensa acérrima al enfoque de la administración Obama respecto a Al Qaeda.
"Hemos logrado un gran progreso en nuestros esfuerzos por interrumpir, desmantelar y derrotar a la mayor organización de Al Qaeda en los años recientes", dijo.
"Sin embargo", dijo, Al Qaeda y sus afiliados "continúan presentando una seria amenaza para los Estados Unidos y sus intereses y debemos permanecer atentos a medida que consideramos el alcance de herramientas y acciones disponibles para interrumpir esta amenaza".
En abril, START compiló un informe separado para el Departamento de Estado que contabiliza menos ataques (6.771) y muertes (11.098) en 2012 que en su propio informe, ya que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos utiliza criterios ligeramente diferentes para definir el terrorismo.
Esos números inferiores aún representan un máximo anual de todos los tiempos en el número de ataques, según la base de datos de START.
A pesar de la afiliación de los grupos terroristas principales -a veces endeble- con Al Qaeda, algunos no encajan en el molde creado por su anterior cabecilla, bin Laden, y su actual líder, Ayman al-Zawahri, dijo Benjamin, anterior coordinador de contraterrorismo del Departamento de Estado.
Bin Laden estaba motivado por una visión apocalíptica, dijo Benjamin, y quería desatar una guerra mundial entre cristianos y musulmanes.
La lucha por el poder en varios países musulmanes, por otro lado, está conducida tanto por intereses políticos como religiosos, según Benjamin y otros expertos en terrorismo.
"Al-Shabaab, por ejemplo, es un grupo rebelde y desorganizado", dijo, "y la abrumadora mayoría de su infantería no se preocupa por Al Qaeda. Sólo pelean para mantenerse vivos".
Y mientras la mayoría del terrorismo en 2012 se cometió en países mayormente musulmanes, LaFree y otros expertos advierten en contra de ver al Islam mismo como inherentemente violento.
"No hace mucho, el terrorismo estaba centrado en Europa Occidental y en América Latina", dijo LaFree. "Se mueve. Y, desafortunadamente, se ha movido al mundo islámico justo ahora".
Como Benjamin, Rizwan Jaka, un líder musulmán con sede en el norte de Virginia, dijo que detrás de muchos actos de terrorismo yacen las motivaciones políticas, no religiosas.
"No es como si despertaran y dijeran 'soy musulmán; voy a ir a matar a alguien en un centro comercial'", dijo Jaka. "En su mente retorcida, ésta es una represalia política".
Aún así, los musulmanes estadounidenses están trabajando para reducir las tensiones entre suníes y chiíes, dijo Jaka, un miembro del consejo de la Sociedad islámica de Norteamérica.
El consejo Fiqh de Norteamérica, un grupo influyente que emite fallos basados en la sharia, o ley islámica, publicó en 2005 un fatwa (edicto religioso) avalado por docenas de musulmanes en donde condenaba categóricamente al terrorismo.
Más recientemente, la Sociedad islámica de Norteamérica se ha reunido con líderes africanos y de Oriente Medio para instarles a proteger los derechos de minorías religiosas y a desalentar el terrorismo.
En septiembre, el encuentro de líderes suníes y chiíes en Washington anunciaron un acuerdo para dejar a un lado las diferencias y hacer frente a la "nefasta situación de inestabilidad, destrucción, genocidio y refugiados" en muchos países predominantemente musulmanes.
"Todos los musulmanes son una nación, incluso si las escuelas de pensamiento son diferentes", dijo la declaración de eruditos. "Tal diversidad es una fuerza de enriquecimiento intelectual y no debería de ser la causa.
Obama no sabía que EE.UU. espiaba a Merkel: Comité de Inteligencia del Senado
(CNN Español) – El presidente de Barack Obama y el Comité de Inteligencia del Senado no sabían que Estados Unidos estaba vigilando las comunicaciones de líderes aliados como la canciller alemana Angela Merkel, dijo la presidenta de ese panel del Congreso el lunes.
"La Casa Blanca me ha informado de que la vigilancia de nuestros aliados no va a continuar, una decisión que apoyo", dijo la senadora Dianne Feinstein de California en una declaración que confirma los recientes informes de noticias sobre la red de vigilancia revelada por las filtraciones de del excontratista de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA, por sus siglas en inglés) Edward Snowden.
Entretanto, el director de Inteligencia Nacional, James Clapper, dijo el lunes que autoriza la divulgación de más detalles sobre la recolección de los registros telefónicos bajo la Ley de Vigilancia de Inteligencia Extranjera, en un esfuerzo por mostrar que la extensión del programa de espionaje fue supervisada tanto por la corte federal como por el Congreso.
Clapper testifica este martes ante el Comité de Inteligencia de la Cámara sobre el programa.
Aunque el problema que amenaza con enturbiar las relaciones diplomáticas de EE.UU. en Europa, América del Sur y en otros lugares, la administración Obama ha mantenido su respuesta firme y consistente para todos los que buscan respuestas: no estamos admitiendo nada, pero vamos a cambiar para mejorar.
España se convirtió en el último para protestar, convocando al embajador estadounidense James Costos para una reunión en Madrid el lunes para discutir un informe del diario El País, que citó fuentes no identificadas diciendo que el NSA espiar a los funcionarios y los políticos españoles.
Revisión del programa de espionaje
La revisión de los programas de espionaje de la Agencia de Seguridad Nacional (NSA, por sus siglas en inglés) estará lista a fin de año, indicó este lunes la Casa Blanca, que no aclaró si es cierto un reporte del diario The Wall Street Journal que afirma que el presidente Barack Obama desconocía el seguimiento a líderes mundiales.
"La revisión completa (de esos programas), que está siendo liderada por la Casa Blanca, estará lista a finales de año", dijo en su rueda de prensa el portavoz de Obama, Jay Carney.
Carney recordó que Obama ordenó revisar esos programas el pasado verano, cuando salieron a la luz a través de los documentos filtrados a la prensa por el exanalista de la NSA, Edward Snowden, actualmente asilado en Rusia.
La Casa Blanca ordenó en verano de este año la suspensión de varios programas de espionaje de la NSA al conocer que incluían la intercepción de las comunicaciones de líderes europeos, como la canciller alemana, Angela Merkel, según informaron altos funcionarios citados por The Wall Street Journal.
Los funcionarios reconocieron que el presidente estadounidense debe dar su aprobación a una serie de "prioridades" de inteligencia general, pero las decisiones sobre objetivos específicos las decidían cargos subalternos.
Esto supondría que Obama pudo estar cerca de cinco años sin conocer los programas de espionaje de la NSA que incluían la intervención de teléfonos de numerosos líderes globales.
"No voy a entrar en detalles sobre discusiones internas", repitió Carney varias veces al negarse a confirmar la veracidad de la información del diario.
El portavoz se limitó a reiterar que Obama está tomándose "muy en serio" la revisión de los programas de espionaje de la NSA para asegurar que existe un equilibrio entre la seguridad y el respeto a las "reales preocupaciones" sobre la privacidad compartidas tanto dentro como fuera de Estados Unidos.
Asimismo, Carney negó que Estados Unidos use sus operaciones de inteligencia para "promover sus intereses económicos" en el extranjero y agregó que la única finalidad de esas actividades es velar por la seguridad del país y de sus aliados.
También sostuvo que Obama mantiene su "plena confianza" en el actual director de la NSA, el general Keith Alexander.
Con información de CNNMéxico.com y de Tom C
"EMO" Para que sirve este tipo, si no sabe ni decir mentiras. LRGM Editor.
Report: White House Knew Millions Could Not Keep Health Plans. Monday, 28 Oct 2013 06:42 PM By Cathy Burke
White House spokesman Jay Carney admitted Monday some Americans won't be able to hold onto their current healthcare plans under Obamacare — despite the president's 2009 emphatic promise "if you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan. Period."
"So it's true there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that do not meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act," Carney said in response to a question about an earlier remark by David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama during his first term, the Weekly Standard reported.
And NBC News, citing unnamed sources, reported that the administration knew that some 50 percent — or as many as 80 percent — of those with individual insurance policies could expect to be canceled largely because their policies don't meet Obamacare's minimum standards of coverage. NBC's experts say the costs of new policies will skyrocket.
Axelrod told MSNBC a "vast majority" of Americans can keep their health insurance plan if they like it.
"Most people are going to keep their plan," Axelrod said, according to a transcript of the remarks reported by Breitbart.
"The head of Blue Cross in Florida was on television yesterday and said there's a small number of people being transferred to plans that have a higher quality. Most of them will be subsidized and end up paying less for those plans."
When Sen. Tom Coburn added the switch would "double the deductibles," Axelrod added: "The majority of people in this country — the vast majority — are keeping their plan."
At the later White House press briefing, Carney explained:
"What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide, so that an individual shopping for insurance, you know, when he or she purchases that insurance, knows that maternity care is covered, that preventive services are covered, that mental health services are covered, that the insurance policy you buy doesn't have [an] annual limit or a lifetime limit, that there are out-of-pocket expenses capped at a maximum level, both annually and for a lifetime."
The new requirements have prompted some insurers to raise the premiums — dramatically in some cases, according to the The Washington Post — for people who bought bare-bones plans on the individual market.
But Carney noted a minority of consumers find themselves in this position, since "Eighty-plus percent of the American people already get insurance through their employer, through Medicare, or through Medicaid."
"It's correct that substandard plans ... are no longer allowed because the Affordable Care Act is built on the premise that health care is not a privilege, it's a right, and there should be minimum standards for the plans available to Americans across the country," he added.
In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said that "no matter how we reform healthcare, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's, R-Ky., questioned whether that promise had been kept.
"Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you can keep it," Stewart wrote, the Post reported. "He promised that if you like your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”
Yet the NBC report said the government knew that wasn't true, saying that buried in regulations from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy.
And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, told NBC.
He estimated 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, told NBC he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he got a letter saying his policy was no longer available.
The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible. And the best option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. It's unaffordable."
For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock -- and recently got his own notice that he and his wife can't keep their current policy, the so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. The best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase
“Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski told NBC. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-millions-lost-health/2013/10/28/id/533516?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1543554_10282013&promo_code=15546-1#ixzz2j7Djzzb0
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
amenper: Cuentecito de Obama
Como una alternativa al avión presidencial, la casa blanca compró uno de esos globos que trabajan de aire caliente para conservar combustible y proteger el medio ambiente.
Durante una prueba de vuelo de Obama y la tripulación se dieron cuenta de que habían flotado fuera de su esquema de vuelo y estaban perdidos.
Bajaron su altitud y vieron a un hombre en un bote más abajo. Obama le gritó al hombre,
"Disculpe, ¿puede ayudarme? No sé dónde estoy. Si nos ayuda lo recompensaremos"
El hombre consultó su GPS portátil y respondió: "estás en un globo de aire caliente, aproximadamente 30 pies sobre una elevación del terreno de 2.346 metros sobre el nivel del mar. Estás en 31 grados, 14,97 minutos de latitud norte y 100 grados, longitud oeste 49,09 minutos.
"Obama le dijo condescendientemente: “Usted debe ser un republicano".
"Yo soy", respondió el hombre. "¿Cómo lo supo?"
"Bueno", respondió Obama, "todo lo que me dijo es técnicamente correcto. Pero no tengo ni idea de qué hacer con su información y estoy aún perdido. Francamente, no me ha ayudado nada.”
El hombre sonrió y respondió: "Usted debe de ser el Presidente Obama"
"Yo soy", respondió Obama. "¿Cómo lo supo?"
"Bueno", dijo al hombre, "no sabes dónde estás o para dónde vas. Te has levantado a donde estás, debido a una gran cantidad de aire caliente. Has hecho una promesa que no tienes idea cómo cumplir y esperas que yo te solucione tu su problema. Estás exactamente en una posición peor que estabas en antes de que nos encontramos; Pero de alguna manera, ahora no es tu culpa, la culpa es mía.
Sen. Ron Johnson Prepared to Sue 'Lawless' Obama Administration
Sen. Ron Johnson tells Newsmax TV he is prepared to sue the "lawless" Obama administration over its decision to grant members of Congress and their staff special treatment under Obamacare.
The Wisconsin Republican said Monday he was "highly concerned" that President Obama delayed the employer mandate by a year, despite having no legal authority to change the law.
"Across the board, in so many instances, this is pretty much a lawless administration, [considering] the unconstitutional recess appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," he said.
"This president seems to have no restraint in terms of the Constitution or laws that even he enacts. So I'm highly concerned about that. It's one of the reasons that I really do intend to pursue a lawsuit to overturn another unlawful ruling that grants members of Congress and their staff special treatment under Obamacare."
Western Center for Journalism: We're Not Asking For Kathleen Sebelius To Resign... We're Demanding She Be Booted From Office In Disgrace.
It may sound like a cliché, but the plain and simple truth is that a dignified resignation is just too good for Obama apparatchik Kathleen Sebelius.
She must be given the boot and only Congress can exert the pressure necessary to make it happen.
The Obama Regime is out-of-control and accountability must be restored... an example must be set... the days of Obama apparatchiks getting away with their skullduggery must come to an unceremonious end.
A clear message must be sent to every Obama minion occupying a position of power... if you carry water for the renegade Obama Regime and betray the American people in the process... you will be PUNISHED... you will be HUMILIATED... and your career will beRUINED.
Use 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.
An Impeachable Offense...?
Several weeks ago, a group of brave Republicans asked Barack Obama to delay the implementation of ObamaCare; but Obama drew a line in the sand and shut down the government specifically because he did not want to delay the implementation of ObamaCare by one single, solitary day.
But now we know that Kathleen Sebelius KNEW (or should have known)... AT THAT TIME... that the ObamaCare website would not be ready on the launch date.
There is no denying the obvious, Barack Obama shut down the government rather than delay something that, by all rights, needed to be delayed.
We're not living in the United States anymore. We're living in 'surreal land.' Someone tell Dorothy that Kansas has gone bye-bye; but what has transpired raises some extremely disturbing questions. Did Sebelius inform Barack Obama that the ObamaCare website was not ready to launch? If not, then why not?
Here's another question: What did Barack Obama know and when did he know it?
What is clear is that Congressmen shouldn't be ASKING Barack Obama to accept Sebelius' dignified resignation. They should be pushing Barack Obama to fire her with pomp and circumstance.
And if Obama refuses or delays, they need to exert their Constitutional authority and take the decision out of his hands.
But Does Such Gross, Flagrant, Arrogant And Egotistical Incompetence Rise To The Level Of An Impeachable Offense?
Here's what the Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Does Sebelius' negligence and incompetence rise to the level of high Crimes and Misdemeanors? Here's a passage from Constitution.org that should clarify the issue. Read it carefully.
"It [high Crimes and Misdemeanors] refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons."
"Under the English common law tradition... [whether] an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
"Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as... refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform."
If you've been following along, the answer to the impeachment question should be apparent. Kathleen Sebelius MUST GO... and her ouster must not be dignified... it must bePUNITIVE.
She should be run out of town on a rail and if Barack Obama won't fire her, then Congress should save him the trouble.
Use 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.
Arrogance, Thy Name Is Sebelius.
But Sebelius isn't just negligent and incompetent... she's DEFIANT.
The liberal media for once did something right. With her incompetence fully exposed to the light of day, Sebelius was asked if she'd be resigning her post.
It was a legitimate question. Even a normal person, who doesn't walk on water, would contritely bow his or her head in shame. Issuing profound apologies, a normal person would beg forgiveness for such a massive faux-pas and immediately tender his or her resignation.
But not Sebelius. No shame... no contrition... no apology... she exposed her arrogance and scolded YOU that you're not HER boss... she's under the delusion that the American people don't pay her salary.
She even had the nerve to tell CNN's Dr. Sanjay Gupta that she wouldn't be signing up for ObamaCare. After all, it's good enough for you, but it's certainly not good enough for her. The pain she inflicts upon you is your problem... not hers....
And such a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence has become all too common in the Obama Regime. No one is ever held to account... not Eric Holder... not Lois Lerner... not Hillary Clinton... and that trend must end... it must end today.
It must end because each infraction against the American people becomes more egregious than the last; and, when caught, each perpetrator of injustice against the American people becomes more bold... more arrogant... more defiant... more lawless.
If nothing is done, the next transgression will be even more egregious and we'll be left to idly watch as our Constitutionally protected freedoms erode under the tyranny of an out-of-control Executive Branch.
The lack of accountability stops today. A line must be draw in the sand... an example must be set... bringing accountability back to the rogue Obama Regime starts today... and it starts with Kathleen Sebelius.
Use 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
Lindsey Graham: Block Nominations Over Benghazi
Monday, 28 Oct 2013 07:58 Pm By Wanda Carruthers
Sen. Lindsey Graham is threatening "to block every appointment" the administration makes until the survivors of the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, are allowed to testify before Congress.
"I'm going to block every appointment in the United States Senate until the survivors are being made available to the Congress. We need to get to the bottom of this," the South Carolina Republican said Monday on "Fox & Friends."
"Fourteen months later, the survivors of Benghazi have not been made available to the U.S. Congress for oversight purposes," Graham said, referring to the attack that took place on Sept. 11, 2012, that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
Editor’s Note: New Video: Obama Plans to Redistribute Seniors’ Wealth
Graham also said he was demanding to know what role former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton played in making decisions about security around the Benghazi complex. According to numerous reports, concerns had been raised repeatedly about the lack of sufficient security, especially after other nations had closed their consulates and left Benghazi.
In addition, he said he was still concerned with the administration's portrayal of the attack as being spontaneously inspired by an anti-Islam YouTube video, which was the explanation given by former United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, now the White House national security adviser, on television a few days after the attack.
"Where was Hillary Clinton during all these multiple requests for security? You could see this attack a long time in the making, according to the people on the ground in Libya. Why couldn't you see it in Washington?" Graham asked on Fox & Friends.
"Who ... told Susan Rice this story about a protest gone bad? And who told the president there was no evidence of a preplanned terrorist attack, in light of all this information?" Graham continued.
Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, was responding to a report on CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday, in which Greg Hicks, former deputy to Ambassador Stevens, complained that U.S. forces did not respond to the attack.
He called it a "terrible, terrible experience" when the Americans under siege in Benghazi by terrorists realized that help wasn't coming.
"The people that go out onto the edge to represent our country, we believe that if we get in trouble, they're coming to get us. Our back is covered. To hear that it's not, it's a terrible, terrible experience," Hicks said.
Graham pledged to the families of the Americans slain that Congress would continue to pursue answers about what took place in Benghazi and how the Obama administration handled it.
"We're just beginning on Benghazi. To the families, we're not going to let this go. Congress needs to up its game," he said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/graham-block-senate-nominations/2013/10/28/id/533439?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1543526_10282013&promo_code=15536-1#ixzz2j7ERg3rh
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Obama Honors Sexual Predator Harvey Milk with Postage Stamp. Posted 5 Hours Ago by J. Matt Barber
What would you call a 33-year-old man who both had and axiomatically acted upon a deviant sexual appetite for underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys? (No, not Jerry Sandusky.)
What would you call a man of whom, as regards sexual preference, his own friend and biographer confessed, “Harvey always had a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems”?
In a recent interview with OneNewsNow.com, I called this man “demonstrably, categorically an evil man based on his [statutory] rape of teenage boys.”
But you can call him Harvey Milk.
Harvey Milk’s only claim to fame is that he was the first openly homosexual candidate to be elected to public office (San Francisco city commissioner). His chief cause was to do away with the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic. In 1978 Milk was murdered over a non-related political dispute by fellow Democrat Dan White.
And a “progressive” martyr was born.
Merriam Webster defines “pederast” as “one who practices anal intercourse especially with a boy.” It defines “statutory rape” as “the crime of having sex with someone who is younger than an age that is specified by law.”
Harvey Milk was both a pederast and, by extension, a statutory rapist. After I publicly addressed this objective reality in the above-mentioned interview, the liberal blogosphere reacted in, shall we say, an informatively defensive manner.
A Huffington Post headline screamed: “Harvey Milk Was An ‘Evil Man’ Who Raped Teenage Boys, Unworthy of Postage Stamp: Matt Barber.”
The always-amusing Right Wing Watch blog breathlessly posted my comments with the header: “Barber: ‘Harvey Milk Was Demonstrably, Categorically an Evil Man.’”
And so on.
Here’s what’s especially telling about their reaction. Not one of the dozen-or-more publications that reported on my comments even challenged their veracity. Not one attempted to refute or deny that Harvey Milk was, in fact, a pederast and a sexual predator.
That’s because they can’t.
One of Milk’s victims was a 16-year-old runaway from Maryland named Jack Galen McKinley. As previously mentioned, Milk had a soft spot in his, um, heart for teenage runaways. Motivated by an apparent quid pro quo of prurience, Milk plucked McKinley from the street.
Randy Shilts was a San Francisco Chronicle reporter and close friend to Harvey Milk. Though Shilts died of AIDS in 1994, he remains, even today, one of the most beloved journalists in the “LGBT” community.
Shilts was also Harvey Milk’s biographer. In his glowing book “The Mayor of Castro Street,” he wrote of Milk’s “relationship” with the McKinley boy: “Sixteen-year-old McKinley was looking for some kind of father figure. … At 33, Milk was launching a new life, though he could hardly have imagined the unlikely direction toward which his new lover would pull him.”
In a sane world, of course, the only direction his “new lover” should have pulled him was toward San Quentin. But, alas, today’s America – a burgeoning relativist land of make-believe Randy Thomasson, child advocate and founder of SaveCalifornia.com, is one of the nation’s foremost experts on Harvey Milk. Of the Shilts biography, Thomasson notes, “Explaining Milk’s many flings and affairs with teenagers and young men, Randy Shilts writes how Milk told one ‘lover’ why it was OK for him to also have multiple relationships simultaneously: ‘As homosexuals, we can’t depend on the heterosexual model. … We grow up with the heterosexual model, but we don’t have to follow it. We should be developing our own lifestyle. There’s no reason why you can’t love more than one person at a time.’”
Whereas McKinley, a disturbed runaway boy, desperately sought a “father figure” to provide empathy, compassion, wisdom and direction, he instead found Harvey Milk: a promiscuous sexual predator who found, in McKinley, an opportunity to satisfy a perverse lust for underage flesh.
Years later McKinley committed suicide.
Another teen who crossed paths with Harvey Milk was Christian convert and former homosexual Gerard Dols. In a 2008 radio interview with Concerned Women for America, Dols shared how – as a physically disabled teen – the “very nice” Harvey Milk had encouraged him in 1977 to run away from his Minnesota home and come to San Francisco.
According to Dols, Milk told him, “Don’t tell your parents,” and later sent him a letter with instructions. Thankfully, the letter was intercepted by Dols’ parents who then filed a complaint with the Minnesota attorney general’s office.
The incident was evidently swept under the rug.
So what does a man like Harvey Milk get for his apparent crimes? While most sexual predators get time in prison and a dishonorable mention on the registry of sex offenders, Harvey Milk got his own California state holiday (“Harvey Milk Day”) and, more recently, his own commemorative postage stamp, awarded by the Obama administration’s USPS.
God bless America?
As troubling as the postage stamp may be, to me – the father of a soon-to-be-teenage boy – the specter of having a “Harvey Milk Day” forced upon millions of California children, parents and educators is even more troubling. Especially in light of Milk’s own sordid history with minors.
Even so, and quite obviously, not everyone agrees. Some have said that my reality-based assessment of Harvey Milk is “uncivil.” Our historical revisionist friends on the left tend to get a bit snooty when you publicly deconstruct one of their meticulously fabricated mythical martyrs.
I find that odd.
To me, even the mere notion of elevating, to hero status, a man who statutorily raped teenage boys, is what’s uncivil.
Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/13047/obama-honors-sexual-predator-harvey-milk-postage-stamp/#ixzz2j2dnKLfQ
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/13047/obama-honors-sexual-predator-harvey-milk-postage-stamp/#sFtzmHU2DWkV8zBx.99
Millions of Americans to lose their current health insurance
By United Press International October 29, 2013
The White House defended President Obama's repeated claim Americans can keep their current health insurance plans under Obamacare if they like them.
The backpedal defense followed an NBC News report more than 7 million Americans with health insurance plans that don't meet minimum standards under the new law would have to upgrade to the new, more expensive plans that meet the standards next year, which the network said meant those people would lose their current healthcare coverage.
The report alleged the Obama administration knew about this, despite Obama's continued assertions nothing in the Affordable Care Act required people to change what they had.
The network said the law's regulations in 2010 estimated 40 percent to 67 percent of customers would have to give up their existing policies because of the new minimum standards as well as normal insurance turnover.
Policies existing before 2010 are protected from this rule by a grandfather clause, but the clause applies only if the healthcare plan hasn't changed significantly since 2010, such as in the plan's deductible, co-pay or benefits.
"It's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters.
"There are some that can be grandfathered if people want to keep insurance that's substandard," he said.
"But what is also true is that Americans who have insurance on the existing individual market will now have numerous options available to them, and six out of 10 will pay less than $100 per month in premiums for better insurance," Carney said. "It's not even an apples-and-apples comparison."
Obama supported the health law Monday, citing a new report showing nearly half of uninsured single, young adults in the United States, or about 1.3 million people, could sign up for health insurance for $50 or less a month after tax credits.
Some 1.9 million could pay $100 or less a month, while 1 million more could qualify for Medicaid, the Department of Health and Human Services report said.
"Less than your cellphone bill, less than your cable bill," Obama told Fusion, a new cable channel from ABC News and Univision.
The questions about the plans' cost and coverage came as the first of two House hearings on Capitol Hill was to begin on the troubled start of the HealthCare.gov federal exchange plan enrollment website.
Medicare and Medicaid Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, who has overseen the health law's rollout, is to testify before the House Way and Means Committee starting at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
She is to be followed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is to testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee at 9 a.m. Wednesday.
As recently as late September, Tavenner predicted the Affordable Care Act website would have a smooth Oct. 1 start.
But the federal website -- for residents of the 36 states that chose not to create their own state healthcare exchanges -- has been marred by serious technological problems from its debut, making it difficult for individuals and small businesses to sign up for health insurance.
The Obama administration has promised the site will be fixed by the end of November.
"We will focus on oversight of why the testing did not occur, why the administration told this committee repeatedly that they were on track when they were not, the uncertainty this is causing for Americans trying to sign up, wondering if their doctor will still take their coverage, seeing cancellations of their current healthcare plan," a Ways and Means Committee spokeswoman told The Washington Post.
Sen. Ron Johnson Prepared to Sue 'Lawless' Obama Administration
Sen. Ron Johnson tells Newsmax TV he is prepared to sue the "lawless" Obama administration over its decision to grant members of Congress and their staff special treatment under Obamacare.
The Wisconsin Republican said Monday he was "highly concerned" that President Obama delayed the employer mandate by a year, despite having no legal authority to change the law.
"Across the board, in so many instances, this is pretty much a lawless administration, [considering] the unconstitutional recess appointments he made to the National Labor Relations Board and to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau," he said.
"This president seems to have no restraint in terms of the Constitution or laws that even he enacts. So I'm highly concerned about that. It's one of the reasons that I really do intend to pursue a lawsuit to overturn another unlawful ruling that grants members of Congress and their staff special treatment under Obamacare."
Mr. Lazaro R Gonzalez Mino.
"In my opinion"
Sixty-eight years ago a clandestine organization was born.
It was the birthdate of the United Nations.
And now, sixty-eight years later, our nation is in danger because of this very institution. The United Nations is threatening our everyday way of life, the freedoms and liberties we enjoy and the privacy our families deserve.
I want to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. That's why one of the first bills I introduced this year in Congress was HR 75 to end all US participation in the United Nations.
If you agree that our nation is better off alone then cohorting with this organization that allows dictators into this country, then add your name to my petition today.
As the United Nations grows in power and authority, the United States sovereignty dwindles with it. Our country, under the dismal direction of the Democrats, is spending millions of dollars supporting a organization that undoubtedly endangers our children and grandchildren's future.
Add your name by following this link.
We have an opportunity to change the future. A chance to make our nation a safer place, and a moment in time to make history.
Join in me stopping the United States' participation in the United Nations. Add your name by signing the petition, and afterwards make your most generous contribution so we can distribute this to every corner of our great country.
Please join me and add your name to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.
God Bless,
Congressman Paul Broun
Tengan todos muy buenos dias y buena suerte.
QUE DIOS LOS BENDIGA ABUNDANTEMENTE.
"EN MI OPINION" Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com, lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
No comments:
Post a Comment