No 679 “En mi opinión”
Junio 6, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño
Editor
"America will never be
destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be
because we destroyed ourselves." ~Abraham
Lincoln
Estimados Amigos:
Con gran placer los invitamos a asistir a
otro evento, parte de nuestro ciclo de "Simposios por un mundo
libre", diseñado para promover una mayor concienciación política con
apego a la libertad y la democracia. Su presencia se le agradecerá.
Cordialmente,
Julio M. Shiling
Patria de Martí
Alianza Democrática
Se complacen en invitarlos al Simposio
Racismo sistémico en
Cuba comunista
Exponiendo el racismo práctico y
funcional en Cuba hoy
Jueves, 12 de Junio
2014, 7:00 pm
West Dade Regional
Library
9445 Coral Way, Miami
FL 33165
Ayúdanos a promover una cultura de libertad
Programación de Evento
Moderador
Julio
M. Shiling
Director
Patria de Martí
Panelistas
Darsi
Ferret
Médico y Ex Preso Político
Gilberto
Conill Godoy
Sociólogo e Investigador
Habrá una sesión de preguntas y respuestas en
un formato de conversatorio.
La entrada es gratis y abierta al público.
RONALD REAGAN: AN EXTRAORDINARY POLITICIAN
RONALD REAGAN: AN EXTRAORDINARY POLITICIAN
RONALD REAGAN: AN EXTRAORDINARY POLITICIAN
“RONALD REAGAN
EXTRAORDINARY POLITICIAN”
RONALD
REAGAN: AN EXTRAORDINARY POLITICIAN
Today marks the tenth
anniversary of the passing of President Ronald Reagan. As significant as this
anniversary is to America and the world, there is a more important Reagan
anniversary this year.
I am
referring to the 50th anniversary of actor Ronald Reagan’s speech, televised
nationwide, on October 27, 1964, on behalf of Barry Goldwater for President.
The speech eventually became known as, “A Time for Choosing.” Years later,
President Reagan wrote of it, “Of course, I didn’t know it then, but that
speech was one of the most important milestones in my life—another one of those
unexpected turns in the road that led me onto a path I never expected to take.”
What is
remarkable about that speech, yet seldom noted, is there was no chance of
Goldwater winning by the time Reagan delivered it. Barry Goldwater would lose
the election one week later carrying only six states and gathering only 38.5%
of the vote. Reagan used valuable national airtime to articulate conservative
principles rather than salvage the races of some Senate or House candidates who
might have benefited from blurring the differences between Goldwater and
Johnson.
Goldwater’s
loss was looming in late October 1964. One of his earliest and most prominent
backers, William F. Buckley, Jr., had already warned Goldwater’s most
enthusiastic supporters in Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) that the Senator
would lose. Buckley noted in his YAF speech, “I speak of course of the
impending defeat of Barry Goldwater!” Later Buckley suggested, “This is
probably Lyndon Johnson’s year, and the Archangel Gabriel running on the
Republican ticket probably couldn’t win.”
F. Clifton
White, another close Goldwater associate and the Conservative Movement’s
political guru of the 1960s, wrote, “Barry Goldwater’s defeat was the most
thorough-going rout ever suffered by any candidate of a major political
party…the awesome magnitude of the Goldwater defeat affected Republican
candidates at all levels.”
Theodore
White, the Establishment’s scribe of the time, noted of Goldwater, “Never in
any campaign had I seen a candidate so heckled, so provoked by the
opposition…so cruelly bill-boarded and tagged.”
Teddy
White knew it was not the Johnson forces alone who were vehemently anti-Goldwater.
Moderate Republican leaders including New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller and
Pennsylvania Governor William Scranton, “had drawn up the indictment. Lyndon
Johnson was the prosecutor. Goldwater was cast as defendant. He was like a dog
with a can tied to his tail—the faster he ran, the more the can clattered.”
It was in
this rigged courtroom of public opinion that Ronald Reagan offered himself up
to serve as the defense attorney for Goldwater and Goldwater’s principles.
Reagan
surely knew Goldwater was heading for a bruising defeat. How many of today’s
political “leaders” would be willing to risk their future to speak out on
behalf of a candidate who could not muster 40% of the vote and whose closest
allies had already conceded his defeat just because the candidate had the right
principles? Such a speaker would be trashed as “hopelessly, politically naïve,”
even dangerous, and accused of ignoring “reality” to tilt at windmills.
In fact,
there is no modern equivalent of an emerging or promising personality who has
proven willing to champion a losing candidate, one who made fatal mistakes or
“blunders” in his campaign, solely to make the case for limited government,
individual freedom, and a strong foreign policy.
What
Reagan demonstrated in the “A Time for Choosing” speech, and he would later
repeat in similar speeches as a recently inaugurated President at CPAC in March
1981 and at the Brandenburg Gate in June 1987, is unusual political courage.
Repeatedly, he was willing to ignore conventional political pundits, and staid
White House and State Department advisors, to boldly raise a banner for the
cause of freedom.
As actor
Reagan jokingly made clear in 1964, “[T]he performer hasn’t been provided with
a script…I have been permitted to use my own words and discuss my own ideas.”
Reagan’s
own ideas were clear: “I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the
freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers…Whether we believe
in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American
Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant
capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”
What were
the consequences of delivering such a courageous speech?
The
Washington Post’s David Broder and Stephen Hess referred to it as “the
most successful national political debut” in 70 years. The Washington Post
decades later admitted, “Reagan launched his political career…with a nationally
televised speech that immediately made him a top prospect for governor of
California.”
Reagan
biographer, Lou Cannon also caught its implications. “Believers who heard
Reagan felt they were being summoned to a vital battle that would surely end in
victory…” Cannon ultimately concluded, “It was indeed the right message at the
right time.”
A
half century later, we can see through his timeless speech how Reagan became a
leader the whole country would honor when he died.
Reagan
articulated freedom’s principles even in the face of certain near-term defeat
for his cause. Unlike many current public figures, he did not worry whether
championing an unpopular position would hurt his personal fortunes. In fact,
Reagan continued to speak his mind despite previous threats of losing his
television show, General Electric Theater. That is because, for Reagan,
principles came first. It was to advance those principles that he would even
consider a political career.
President
Reagan concluded, “[T]he speech changed my entire life.” Indeed, Reagan went on
to restore our prosperity from the debilitating Carter economy, and win the
Cold War. We now know that speech changed our nation and the world.
Perhaps it
is time once again to look closely for leaders who willingly advance “their own
ideas” without worrying about the reaction of professional political pundits.
Ronald
Reagan gave us an example of principled leadership, and that is why we honor
the anniversary of his passing.
Senator Graham Warns of Possible Obama Impeachment
Over Gitmo
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Wednesday
that Republican lawmakers would call for President Obama’s impeachment if he
released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional approval.
Republicans worry Obama may try to shut down the
prison camp unilaterally after congressional opposition has repeatedly stymied
efforts to pass legislation to close it.
“It’s going to be impossible for them to flow
prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” Graham said. “There will
be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”
Graham served as a House prosecutor during former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial.
Graham served as a House prosecutor during former President Clinton’s 1998 impeachment trial.
Congress tried to build in a safeguard against
Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including
language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration
to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.
Read more at http://visiontoamerica.com/17771/senator-graham-warns-of-possible-obama-impeachment-over-gitmo/#ZsdDVuU1fouYjeKl.99
AMENPER: Susana la Mucama
Todo el que tenga el más mínimo
sentido de racionalización tiene que saber que la política exterior del
gobierno de Obama ha sido un desastre completo.
El gobierno de Barack Hussein
Obama en el mundo se parece a Casper el fantasmita amistoso con el papel de
EE.UU. apareciendo y desapareciendo de la vista como es su
costumbre. Obama personalmente no es el responsable de ningún
fracaso, para explicar esto tiene a Susan Rice que se ha convertido en Susana
la Mucama que cubre las espaldas y arregla la cama de su empleador,
diciendo las mentiras más cómicas que uno pude imaginar. La corte
del emperador Obama tiene también a Hillary Clinton que viajó a miles de
kilómetros como Secretario de Estado sin un concepto claro de lo que estaba haciendo
y ahora a. John Kerry que se desliza sin cesar dentro y fuera de las capitales,
hablando y hablando sin decir nada concreto.
Esto, dicen que es
"poder inteligente".
Hoy es una semana en que
recordamos diferentes eventos que reflejan la lucha por la democracia en el
mundo..
En esta semana este jueves se
cumplen años de la protesta democrática de Tiananmen, el viernes es el 70 º
aniversario del Día-D, cuando 160.000 soldados aliados desembarcaron en las
playas de Normandía.
Un año después, los aliados encabezados
por Estados Unidos libertaron Europa y pararon la amenaza Nazi.
El jueves es también el 10 º
aniversario de la muerte de Ronald Reagan. Fue la decisión de Reagan, a
comienzos de su presidencia, la determinación de terminar la guerra
fría no capitulando pero ganándola. En noviembre de 1989, el Muro de Berlín
cayó y paramos de momento la amenaza comunista que avanzaba desbocadamente.
¿Que vemos hoy? La
frontera rusa revienta y se derrama, vemos avanzar el proyecto-bomba nuclear de
Irán, el de los gases sarín de Siria sarín, los ataques a sus vecinos Corea y
Japón por parte de China, las amenazas de Corea del Norte contra Corea del Sur
y Japón, la represión de sus manifestantes por la democracia de Venezuela con
el silencio cómplice del gobierno de Estados Unidos, y vemos a al Qaeda
subdividirse en varias celdas de Asia a África. El “fin” de la
guerra en Afganistán es sólo el principio de la guerra que se extenderá hasta
nuestras fronteras cuando los Talibanes tomen el poder total del país, con los
generales liberados y al-Qaeda al frente del gobierno.
Susana la Mucama, igual que en el
caso de Bengasi, nos dice con su cara linda de cemento, que este es “un gran
día para los Estados Unidos” refiriéndose al cambio de los talibanes, porque se
ha logrado la libertad de un soldado que “sirvió a Estados Unidos con honor y
distinción”.
Yo creía que la linda de cara de
Susana la Mucama había alcanzado su mayor dureza cuando dijo que lo que había
pasado en Bengasi había sido una manifestación protestando de un video ofensivo
que se había ido de las manos. Me equivoqué, parece que todavía la
cara de Susana tiene capacidad para aumentar su dureza.
No sólo es mentira el que el
soldado sirvió con honor, cuando es un desertor, pero la manera en que se hizo
el cambio es irregular.
El Presidente ignoró
una ley exigiendo que el Congreso deba de ser consultado con 30 días de
anticipación de cualquier liberación de prisioneros de Guantánamo. Pero el
senador demócrata Dianne Feinstein, que fue informado sobre el canje después de
los hechos, dice que ella "oyó ninguna evidencia de que el sargento.
Bergdahl estaba en peligro médico inmediato que obligó a actuar sin consultar
al Congreso." Sra. Feinstein, demócrata, judía, y liberal quien
dirige el Comité de Inteligencia del Senado, y el republicano de mayor rango
Saxby Chambliss dijo que no habían sido consultados sobre el canje durante
meses. "Sin duda era el momento de tomar el teléfono y llamar y decir 'yo
sé que todos hayan tenido preocupaciones acerca de esto, hemos consultado en el
pasado, queremos que sepas que hemos revisado estas negociaciones'", dijo
la Sra. Feinstein.
Obama abochorna hasta a sus más
cercanos seguidores. Los secretarios de prensa han renunciado llenos
de vergüenza porque se vieron abochornados de las cosas que tenían que
decir. El último Jay Carney renunció después que había declarado que
no se estaba negociando la liberación de Talibanes de Guantánamo, lo cual lo
hizo quedar en un ridículo monumental.
Jay Carney tiene alguna vergüenza
y renunció, no podemos decir lo mismo de Susan Rice. Susana la Mucama hace y
dice cualquier cosa por avanzar la agenda de su amo.
El problema más grande es que el
Sr. Obama trata a todo lo de la política exterior como si fuera simplemente
parte de su cálculo político interno, como parte de la campaña para declarar
una administración ejemplar del primer presidente negro, y la prensa le gusta
esta novela, y lo ayuda.
Es demasiado fácil
imaginarlo pensando que si él anunció la retirada de todas las tropas de
Afganistán en 2016 como lo hizo la semana pasada, él podría entonces vender más
fácilmente el intercambio de prisioneros, y luego ayudar a vaciar Guantánamo
para que pudiera cumplir esa promesa de campaña también y así mejorar su imagen
doméstica.
No importa que estas promesas
sean evidentemente contrarias a la seguridad de la nación, lo importante es
hacer lucir que su presidencia es efectiva.
¿Es demasiado pedir que, en sus
últimos dos años y medio en el cargo, el Presidente actuara como si hay más en
juego en la política exterior de su índice de aprobación en el hogar?
No creo que es demasiado pedir,
pero es demasiado ingenuo pensar que Obama abandone su eterna y continuada
campaña política.
After 50 Years,
Washington Has Lost the War on Poverty
Fifty years ago, LBJ’s speech writer, Richard Goodwin,
was asked to strip naked and swim with a naked Lyndon Johnson.
Press secretary Bill Moyers, the only LBJ senior
staffer who survived the administration with his reputation intact, also had to
jump in. He still regales us with his opinions on PBS — the last Wise Man of that era to do so. His
war on personal poverty was highly successful.
While swimming with Johnson, Goodwin gave him a tip.
Start something called “the war on poverty.” Johnson loved the phrase. He used
it, along with “the Great Society.”
That society was not great. That war was lost.
Johnson lost the war in Vietnam. So did Nixon.
Finally, Ford pulled out the troops.
No one in power in Washington suggests that the war on
poverty has been lost, and that we should pull out the troops.
AN
UPDATE AT HALF CENTURY
The Census has been tracking these data since 1959, when the percentage
of children under 18 living in poverty was 26.9%. In 1964, when then-President
Lyndon B. Johnson announced the War on Poverty, the percentage of children
living in poverty was 22.7%. Since then until now, the percentage has decreased
by only 6.2%.”In 2012, over one in five children (21.3%) in the United States,
some 15.4 million, were poor — both their poverty rate and estimated number
poor were statistically unchanged from 2011,” said the CRS report. “The lowest
recorded rate of child poverty was in 1969, when 13.8% of children were counted
as poor.”
So, after 50 years of welfare spending, the poverty
rate has not changed. A variation of 6% is basically statistical noise.
(For the rest of my articcle, click the link.)
Read more at
http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/06/05/50-years-washington-lost-war-poverty/#VkF3lokdYjWqgVD4.99
Lindsey Graham: Susan Rice Can't Be
Trusted, Should Be Replaced
Susan Rice should be replaced immediately
as national security adviser because she is untrustworthy and unreliable, Sen.
Lindsey Graham says.
"I have no confidence in her. When I hear her on television talking about a world event, I can't believe anything she tells me,'' Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"I mean," Graham said Wednesday, "do you trust that she's going to tell you accurately what happened?"
Rice has come under fire for her appearance on ABC's "This Week," in which she said of just-released Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, "He served the United States with honor and distinction."
But hours after Rice's statement about Bergdahl, who was swapped for five top-ranking Taliban terrorists, reports emerged that he had been captured after deserting his unit.
Graham said Rice's alleged misinformation came on the heels of her discredited statements about the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, blaming it on an anti-Islamic video when she was the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"Five days after the Benghazi attack, [she] told a story about a protest and a video that never happened, wrote this off to a violent protest caused by a hateful video, [and] ignored the fact that there was no protest,'' Graham said.
"[She] sold a lie to the American people about how secure the consulate was.''
Graham chalked up Rice's misstatements to "one of two things: She's completely detached from the reality of the situation and literally makes things up that sound good, or she's manipulating the information for political reasons."
"Either way, should she be the national security adviser? What led her to believe that [Bergdahl's] service could be characterized as honorable — 'honor and distinction'?''
Graham also has theories about what is ultimately behind Rice's remarks.
"I am convinced that the White House, [deputy national security adviser] Ben Rhodes, and others came up with a storyline of a protest and a video to get us away from terrorism [on Benghazi],'' he said.
"[And] I am now convinced that they expected the whole world — the public here in the U.S. — to stand up and cheer when [Obama] said the war is over in Afghanistan, we're going to have no troops, and by the way, I got Bergdahl home.''
Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judicial committees, doubts Obama has any intention of sacking Rice.
"I would have never hired her to begin with after Benghazi, but he's not going to replace her [just] because I say so,'' he said.
Graham also told host Steve Malzberg that the trading of Bergdahl for five top terrorists was "a big day" for the Taliban.
"You know, the only reason they're not dancing in the streets, they just don't believe in dancing,'' he said.
"Last week was a huge week for the Taliban. We're now saying we're going to withdraw completely by the end of 2016, which is a dumb idea because we should have some bases left in Afghanistan as lines of defenses between us, al-Qaida, and the Taliban. This is where 9/11 happened,'' Graham said.
"It's in our interest to have forward-operating locations over there to keep the enemy at bay. And it would've been good to have some support for the Afghan security forces so the Taliban could never come back.
"So, we withdraw and they get their dream team back on the field in a year. So, hell of a week for the Taliban.''
While the White House has issued apologies to some lawmakers for not informing them of the swap, Graham was not one of them.
"I think hell will freeze over before Obama apologizes to me on national security, and I'm not looking for an apology,'' he said.
"There's no reason this should be classified. I want to know, is it really honestly true that Bergdahl was near death and that's why we had to do it when we did?
"Could you have not gotten a better deal? Did you have to give all five back or did you want to give all five back?''
Graham said he believes the former Army buddies of Bergdahl who say he walked off the base as a deserter.
"The people who have appeared on television to talk about Bergdahl's actions and behavior are members of his unit. I don't think they're associated with any organized political group, I don't think they formed a pack, I don't think they have a political agenda,'' he said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lindsey-Graham-Susan-Rice-Bowe-Bergdahl-axed/2014/06/04/id/575173#ixzz33mF4A86O
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
"I have no confidence in her. When I hear her on television talking about a world event, I can't believe anything she tells me,'' Graham, a South Carolina Republican, told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
"I mean," Graham said Wednesday, "do you trust that she's going to tell you accurately what happened?"
Rice has come under fire for her appearance on ABC's "This Week," in which she said of just-released Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, "He served the United States with honor and distinction."
But hours after Rice's statement about Bergdahl, who was swapped for five top-ranking Taliban terrorists, reports emerged that he had been captured after deserting his unit.
Graham said Rice's alleged misinformation came on the heels of her discredited statements about the terror attack in Benghazi, Libya, blaming it on an anti-Islamic video when she was the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"Five days after the Benghazi attack, [she] told a story about a protest and a video that never happened, wrote this off to a violent protest caused by a hateful video, [and] ignored the fact that there was no protest,'' Graham said.
"[She] sold a lie to the American people about how secure the consulate was.''
Graham chalked up Rice's misstatements to "one of two things: She's completely detached from the reality of the situation and literally makes things up that sound good, or she's manipulating the information for political reasons."
"Either way, should she be the national security adviser? What led her to believe that [Bergdahl's] service could be characterized as honorable — 'honor and distinction'?''
Graham also has theories about what is ultimately behind Rice's remarks.
"I am convinced that the White House, [deputy national security adviser] Ben Rhodes, and others came up with a storyline of a protest and a video to get us away from terrorism [on Benghazi],'' he said.
"[And] I am now convinced that they expected the whole world — the public here in the U.S. — to stand up and cheer when [Obama] said the war is over in Afghanistan, we're going to have no troops, and by the way, I got Bergdahl home.''
Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Judicial committees, doubts Obama has any intention of sacking Rice.
"I would have never hired her to begin with after Benghazi, but he's not going to replace her [just] because I say so,'' he said.
Graham also told host Steve Malzberg that the trading of Bergdahl for five top terrorists was "a big day" for the Taliban.
"You know, the only reason they're not dancing in the streets, they just don't believe in dancing,'' he said.
"Last week was a huge week for the Taliban. We're now saying we're going to withdraw completely by the end of 2016, which is a dumb idea because we should have some bases left in Afghanistan as lines of defenses between us, al-Qaida, and the Taliban. This is where 9/11 happened,'' Graham said.
"It's in our interest to have forward-operating locations over there to keep the enemy at bay. And it would've been good to have some support for the Afghan security forces so the Taliban could never come back.
"So, we withdraw and they get their dream team back on the field in a year. So, hell of a week for the Taliban.''
While the White House has issued apologies to some lawmakers for not informing them of the swap, Graham was not one of them.
"I think hell will freeze over before Obama apologizes to me on national security, and I'm not looking for an apology,'' he said.
"There's no reason this should be classified. I want to know, is it really honestly true that Bergdahl was near death and that's why we had to do it when we did?
"Could you have not gotten a better deal? Did you have to give all five back or did you want to give all five back?''
Graham said he believes the former Army buddies of Bergdahl who say he walked off the base as a deserter.
"The people who have appeared on television to talk about Bergdahl's actions and behavior are members of his unit. I don't think they're associated with any organized political group, I don't think they formed a pack, I don't think they have a political agenda,'' he said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lindsey-Graham-Susan-Rice-Bowe-Bergdahl-axed/2014/06/04/id/575173#ixzz33mF4A86O
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
New WH Spin: Criticism of Taliban Swap is Really Obama
‘Hatred’
Town Hall has some interesting commentary today on a
story that was published in Politico. Of course, the fall back
defense for any criticism the White House (namely, the President) receives is typically, ‘if you don’t
like what Obama does, then you’re a racist.’
So, this
scrambling to refute the uproar of criticism over Obama’s “prisoner swap”
(letting five Taliban leaders out of Guantanamo Bay) comes as no
surprise. The White House response boils down to this: “You
just don’t like it because Obama did it, and you don’t like Obama….na na na na
boo boo.”
Town Hall – This Politico story is highly revealing, from top to bottom. It paints a portrait
of a White House reeling from a festering, self-inflicted political wound
that’s flailing frantically to regain some measure of control over the
narrative. It’s also a tad unnerving. This crew is so deep in the bunker that
they can’t see a major mistake for what it is, preferring to take the mental
exit ramp of chalking up the entire maelstrom to “hatred” of Obama — a claim
that requires acute cognitive dissonance, for reasons we’ll discuss in a
moment. A few choice excepts: President Barack Obama’s
Rose Garden appearance Saturday afternoon with Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s parents was
an attempt to humanize the prisoner swap to deflect potential criticism of
letting five Taliban leaders out of Guantanamo Bay, White House aides say. It
didn’t work. White House
aides were aware Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had been tagged a deserter, and that they would
be grilled over not keeping Congress in the loop. But they figured people would
be most outraged over the national security implications. The White House has been surprised by
how much attention has remained on the questions about Bergdahl, from the
circumstances of his disappearance to the wild beard his father grew while he
was being held that’s even led to Bergdahl’s hometown canceling a celebration. All this, Obama aides say, is in their minds a
proxy for the hatred toward the president. The new approach: Frame the
criticism as another example of Republicans complaining about something just
because Obama was the one to do it.White House aides and other
liberal outlets are highlighting what they see as Republican hypocrisy, citing
past quotes from GOP lawmakers calling for Bergdahl’s freedom.
Just a
few days ago, White House aides were whispering to Chuck Todd that they were
utterly shocked by the negative public reception to the Taliban swap; they had
been expecting widespread “euphoria.” With soldiers who served with Bergdahl
prior to his evident desertion coming out of the woodwork to douse the
attempted jubilant whitewash with cold water, administration officials shifted
to accusing them of “swift-boating” Bergdahl. Now Team Obama has moved on to
claiming that they expected some significant backlash all along, but failed to
anticipate the flash points and depth of the anger. Flummoxed, they’ve
discarded the entire episode into their catch-all “Obama haters” bin, and are
busily crafting a lefty media strategy to highlight Republican “hypocrisy.”
Their big smoking gun on this point is a series of past statements from
Republicans urging the safe return of Sgt. Bergdahl. See? They said they wanted
Bergdahl home, and now that Obama’s achieved that amazing feat, they’re mad
because he’s the one who did it.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/06/new-wh-spin-criticism-taliban-swap-really-just-obama-hatred/#DceGUhoV3vXHYbmg.99
Would-Be Intruders Get The
Surprise Of Their Life!
“I
just hope the boy is OK..."
One resident at
an East Point, Ga. apartment complex took decisive action to avoid becoming the
latest crime victim in the community. Local police say there have been six
break-ins at the complex within just the past week; and when a trio of young
men came knocking at one door late last week, the occupant was ready.
The individuals
claimed to be police. When the unidentified renter opened the door and they
tried to force their way in, however, it was clear she was skeptical from the
beginning.
At least one
subject pulled a handgun on the resident but quickly learned she had a firearm
of her own. The resident drew her handgun and fired three shots, reportedly
striking one of the suspects twice.
The woman spoke
to a local ABC affiliate on the condition
of anonymity, suggesting the attempted break-in could have been “retaliation.”
Two of the three
suspects got away and the third – with gunshot wounds to the head and backside
– caught by police a short time after the incident. Despite the obvious attempt
on her life, the renter’s thoughts remain with the juvenile suspect she shot.
“I just hope the
boy is OK,” she said.
As for resident
Ramona Ferrell, she is glad her neighbor is safe but is saddened by the impact
crime has had in the neighborhood.
She said she was
at home when the incident occurred, noting she “knew it was gunshots” and that
it “was very close.”
Ferrell noted
that such attempts have grown frustratingly common recently.
“I think it’s
ridiculous,” she explained. “Something should be done. There’s a lot going on
in this apartment complex.”
She concluded
that the result of this latest attempt highlights what has become of her
community.
“I’m glad she did
have something,” Ferrell said, though she noted that it is “sad that you have
to walk around as a female with a gun to protect yourself.”
Photo credit: The
Knowles Gallery (Creative Commons)
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/pistol-packing-renter-didnt-buy-intruders-story/#LjkSvMDoydVdadZh.99
UNBELIEVABLE: Obama Seizing Americans’ Bank Accounts!
Obama and right-hand man Eric Holder
couldn’t ban guns and ammunition outright—so they’re doing the next best thing.
Using an obscure section of the Financial Institutions
Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act, the Department of Justice is forcing
banks to cease doing business with so-called “high risk” gun and ammunition
dealers under a program called Operation Choke Point—in some
cases seizing their accounts!
Operation Choke Point is absolutely illegal according to a House of
Representatives report issued by Darrell Issa—but that doesn’t
seem to be stopping the rogue Obama administration.
Left without access to banking services, thousands of
gun and ammunition dealers across America are on verge of bankruptcy. Credit cards
cannot be processed. Cash deposits cannot be made. Checks cannot be written. A
business simply cannot function without banking services—exactly what the Obama
administration planned on.
Obama and right-hand man Eric Holder couldn’t ban guns
and ammunition outright—so they’re doing the next best thing: “choking off” the
supply of guns.
When Obama has seized all the guns from Americans,
what can we expect to happen? Well, when Hitler seized all the guns in Germany,
he went about killing all his political enemies, including six million Jews.
Was the de facto martial law declared by Obama after
the Boston Bombing a precursor of what is to come? Were the light-armored tanks
roaming the streets, illegal house-to-house searches, and suspension of habeas
corpus just a taste of nationwide martial law?
Let us hope Barack Hussein Obama is stopped before
that happens.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/shock-obama-seizing-americans-bank-accounts/#KQjPFm0zYq9oy7E2.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/shock-obama-seizing-americans-bank-accounts/#KQjPFm0zYq9oy7E2.99
Boom: It Took Morgan Freeman Just Seven Words To
Destroy This Common Idea About Race
Don Lemon of CNN didn't know what hit him...
Oscar-winning actor Morgan Freeman was interviewed
last night on CNN by Don Lemon. When asked if he thought race largely
determined how wealthy a person can become over the course of his life, Morgan,
without any hesitation, gave this great response. Hopefully, Mr. Lemon will not
be foolish enough to ask this question of any of his guests in the future.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/took-oscar-winning-actor-seven-words-slap-pervasive-liberal-myth/#wwxBsZHcuffyEIPD.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/took-oscar-winning-actor-seven-words-slap-pervasive-liberal-myth/#wwxBsZHcuffyEIPD.99
RICARDO SAMITIER: Los Turcos Buscan La Guerra Contra Siria.
Esta Vez,
Cortando El Agua Y La“Prensa Globalista”, No Se Entera.
Están
Provocando Otra Nueva Guerra, Aunque El Pueblo Americano
Este
Cansado, De Guerras Sin Victorias!:
A
new Turkish aggression against Syria:
Ankara
suspends pumping Euphrates’ water
See Why This Senator Believes Barack Obama Thinks He
Is An Emperor!
"This
is a pattern of behavior..."
Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says the President
broke the law for failing to notify Congress about the release of five Taliban
terrorists from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe
Bergdahl. Rubio was speaking with Fox News’ Gretchen Carlson on Tuesday
about the White House’s unilateral move to make the exchange deal, claiming the
president “believes somehow that he has become a monarch or an emperor.” Rubio
continued that Obama didn’t tell Diane Feinstein, the intelligence committee
chairwoman, about the deal.
The Senator asserted that “the president has violated
the law here,” which requires a 30 day notification before any individual
detained at Guantanamo can be transferred to his country of origin. See
NDAA H.R. 1960 Title X, Subtitle D, Section 1033 at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1960/text
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/marco-rubio-says-obama-believes-monarch-emperor/#7RoSxv856WZBOAjr.99
CONSEJOS Y CONOCIMIENTOS DE CLEMENTE SANCHES… OJO
Para aquellos que creían saberlo todo....
El líquido dentro de cocos jóvenes puede ser usado
como substituto del plasma
humano.
Ninguna pieza de papel puede ser doblada por la
mitad más de 7 (siete) veces. (a ver,
pruébalo...)
Los Burros matan anualmente más gente que los accidentes
aéreos o los ataques de tiburón
Uno quema más calorías durmiendo que mirando la
tele
El primer producto que llevó código de barras fue
el chicle Wrigley´s
Solamente el Rey de Corazones es el que no tiene
bigote.
American
Airlines ahorró $40,000 en 1987 eliminando 1(una) aceituna de cada ensalada
servida en Primera Clase
Venus es el
único planeta que gira en sentido de las agujas del reloj.
Dado que Venus
es asociado normalmente con las mujeres, ¿qué les dice ésto?
¿Que las
mujeres van en la "dirección correcta"?
Manzanas y NO
cafeína, son más eficientes para despertarte a la mañana.
La mayoría de
las partículas del polvo hogareño están hechas de ¡PIEL MUERTA!
(Puajjj......!!)
La (Puajjj......!!)
¡Las perlas se
derriten en VINAGRE!
Las marcas más
populares del planeta: Marlboro, Coca Cola y Budweiser, en este orden.
Es posible que
una vaca suba una escalera... pero NO que la baje.....
Un "quack" de pato no tiene o produce eco, y nadie sabe la causa.
Un "quack" de pato no tiene o produce eco, y nadie sabe la causa.
Dentistas
recomiendan colocar el cepillo dental a más de 2(dos) metros del inodoro, para
evitar partículas aeróbicas resultantes al apretar el botón.
(Desde ahora,
¡mi cepillo se queda en el living!
Y lo mejor para
el final....
Las tortugas
pueden respirar por su trasero.
Ahora sabes
algo más que antes....
Comparte el
conocimiento.
¡¡¡ Y no te
olvides de mover tu cepillo de dientes !!!.....
Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by the Bergdahl Backlash
The president and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class.
By Ralph Peters
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters
Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.
I have never witnessed such outrage from our troops.
Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.
But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she’s a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows. That bit about serving with “honor and distinction” is the sort of perfunctory catch-phrase politicians briefly don as electoral armor. (“At this point in your speech, ma’am, devote one sentence to how much you honor the troops.”)
I actually believe that Ms. Rice was kind of sincere, in her spectacularly oblivious way. In the bestManchurian Candidate manner, she said what she had been programmed to say by her political culture, then she was blindsided by the firestorm she ignited by scratching two flinty words together. At least she didn’t blame Bergdahl’s desertion on a video.
The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl’s release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden’s death was trumpeted.
Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.
But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”
Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.
This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World. (Military people don’t necessarily all like each other, but they know they can depend on each other in battle — the sacred trust Bergdahl violated.)
President Obama did this to himself (and to Bergdahl). This beautifully educated man, who never tires of letting us know how much smarter he is than the rest of us, never stopped to consider that our troops and their families might have been offended by their commander-in-chief staging a love-fest at the White House to celebrate trading five top terrorists for one deserter and featuring not the families of those soldiers (at least six of them) who died in the efforts to find and free Bergdahl, but, instead, giving a starring role on the international stage to Pa Taliban, parent of a deserter and a creature of dubious sympathies (that beard on pops ain’t a tribute to ZZ Top). How do you say “outrageous insult to our vets” in Pashto?
Nor, during the recent VA scandal, had the president troubled himself to host the families of survivors of those vets who died awaiting care. No, the warmest attention our president has ever paid to a “military family” was to Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl.
(I will refrain from criticism of the bumptious attempts to cool the flames of this political conflagration by Secretary Hagel: I never pick on the weak.)
What is to be done? Behind the outrage triggered by Team Obama’s combination of cynicism and obliviousness (Bergdahl was so ill we had to set those terrorists free immediately, without notifying Congress, but now he’s chugging power shakes in a military hospital . . . and all this just happened to come at the peak of the VA scandal . . . ), military members don’t really want to lynch Bergdahl. But they want justice.
Our military leaders need to rediscover their moral courage and honor our traditions, our regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We need a fresh, unprejudiced 15-6 investigation (the military equivalent of a grand jury). We already know, as the military has known since the first 24 hours after Bergdahl abandoned his post, that sufficient evidence exists for a court-martial, but it’s important to do this by the numbers.
It’s hard to believe that the resulting court-martial would not find Bergdahl guilty of desertion (although there will be heavy White House pressure to reduce the charge to Absent Without Leave, or AWOL, status, a lesser offense). If he is convicted, I for one do not want him to go to prison. I’m sure he’s paid and paid for betraying his comrades, quite possibly suffering brutal sexual violence. But if he is found guilty, he needs to be formally reduced to the rank of private, stripped of all privileges and entitlements (the taxpayer should not pay for a deserter’s lifelong health care — Bergdahl’s book and film deals can cover that), and he should be given the appropriate prison sentence, which would then be commuted by the president. Thereafter, let Mr. Bergdahl go home and live with himself.
As for President Obama, how about just one word of thanks to the families of those fallen soldiers you sent out to find Bowe Bergdahl?
— Fox News Strategic Analyst Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.
The president and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class.
By Ralph Peters
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters
Congratulations, Mr. President! And identical congrats to your sorcerer’s apprentice, National Security Adviser Susan Rice. By trying to sell him as an American hero, you’ve turned a deserter already despised by soldiers in the know into quite possibly the most-hated individual soldier in the history of our military.
I have never witnessed such outrage from our troops.
Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.
But pity Ms. Rice. Like the president she serves, she’s a victim of her class. Nobody in the inner circle of Team Obama has served in uniform. It shows. That bit about serving with “honor and distinction” is the sort of perfunctory catch-phrase politicians briefly don as electoral armor. (“At this point in your speech, ma’am, devote one sentence to how much you honor the troops.”)
I actually believe that Ms. Rice was kind of sincere, in her spectacularly oblivious way. In the bestManchurian Candidate manner, she said what she had been programmed to say by her political culture, then she was blindsided by the firestorm she ignited by scratching two flinty words together. At least she didn’t blame Bergdahl’s desertion on a video.
The president, too, appears stunned. He has so little understanding of (or interest in) the values and traditions of our troops that he and his advisers really believed that those in uniform would erupt into public joy at the news of Bergdahl’s release — as D.C. frat kids did when Osama bin Laden’s death was trumpeted.
Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.
But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”
Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.
This is a fundamental culture clash. Team Obama and its base cannot comprehend the values still cherished by those young Americans “so dumb” they joined the Army instead of going to prep school and then to Harvard. Values such as duty, honor, country, physical courage, and loyalty to your brothers and sisters in arms have no place in Obama World. (Military people don’t necessarily all like each other, but they know they can depend on each other in battle — the sacred trust Bergdahl violated.)
President Obama did this to himself (and to Bergdahl). This beautifully educated man, who never tires of letting us know how much smarter he is than the rest of us, never stopped to consider that our troops and their families might have been offended by their commander-in-chief staging a love-fest at the White House to celebrate trading five top terrorists for one deserter and featuring not the families of those soldiers (at least six of them) who died in the efforts to find and free Bergdahl, but, instead, giving a starring role on the international stage to Pa Taliban, parent of a deserter and a creature of dubious sympathies (that beard on pops ain’t a tribute to ZZ Top). How do you say “outrageous insult to our vets” in Pashto?
Nor, during the recent VA scandal, had the president troubled himself to host the families of survivors of those vets who died awaiting care. No, the warmest attention our president has ever paid to a “military family” was to Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl.
(I will refrain from criticism of the bumptious attempts to cool the flames of this political conflagration by Secretary Hagel: I never pick on the weak.)
What is to be done? Behind the outrage triggered by Team Obama’s combination of cynicism and obliviousness (Bergdahl was so ill we had to set those terrorists free immediately, without notifying Congress, but now he’s chugging power shakes in a military hospital . . . and all this just happened to come at the peak of the VA scandal . . . ), military members don’t really want to lynch Bergdahl. But they want justice.
Our military leaders need to rediscover their moral courage and honor our traditions, our regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. We need a fresh, unprejudiced 15-6 investigation (the military equivalent of a grand jury). We already know, as the military has known since the first 24 hours after Bergdahl abandoned his post, that sufficient evidence exists for a court-martial, but it’s important to do this by the numbers.
It’s hard to believe that the resulting court-martial would not find Bergdahl guilty of desertion (although there will be heavy White House pressure to reduce the charge to Absent Without Leave, or AWOL, status, a lesser offense). If he is convicted, I for one do not want him to go to prison. I’m sure he’s paid and paid for betraying his comrades, quite possibly suffering brutal sexual violence. But if he is found guilty, he needs to be formally reduced to the rank of private, stripped of all privileges and entitlements (the taxpayer should not pay for a deserter’s lifelong health care — Bergdahl’s book and film deals can cover that), and he should be given the appropriate prison sentence, which would then be commuted by the president. Thereafter, let Mr. Bergdahl go home and live with himself.
As for President Obama, how about just one word of thanks to the families of those fallen soldiers you sent out to find Bowe Bergdahl?
— Fox News Strategic Analyst Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and former enlisted man.
Watch Obama Smile As Soon As
Bergdahl’s Father Praises Allah
While the Obama administration is
proudly touting how it was able to free an American soldier who was captured by
the Taliban, what no one picked is the fact that Obama SMILED as soon as he
heard the most famous war cry of Islam, “bismillah al-rahman al-rahim,” Arabic
for “in the name of Allah the most gracious, the most merciful.”
Watch Obama smile as soon as
Bergdahl gives the most famous Muslim expression, the “Bismillah” or the
“Basmallah”:
The “basmallah” is the Islamic
expression for victory and only indicates that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s father is a
Muslim.
Think that the man is acting as
“Muslim” for a stealth operation to rescue his son who is already in good hands
in Germany? And what is with the long beard and trimmed mustache?
No this is not a bum, biker, or a
Santa Clause fan. When one gives the basmallah, trims his mustache and
elongates his beard, its the first sign of a convert to Islam, just as that an
ex-Muslim putting on a cross and saying, “In the name of the Father, and the
Son, and the Holy Spirit,” is evidence enough of conversion to Christianity.
But there is much more we obtained on this stealth jihadist.
But first, Obama’s smile says
much. Obama has never declared the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and
has no real testimony of converting to Christianity, as his pastor Jeremiah
Wright stated:
I made it easy for him to come to
an understanding of who Jesus Christ is and not feel that he was turning his
back on his Islamic friends and his Islamic traditions and his understanding of
Islam
EVIDENCE THAT BERGDAHL CONVERTED
TO JIHADI ISLAM
We were first hit with news from Brietbart that the Taliban said that Robert Bowe Bergdahl’s son, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, converted to Islam, changed his name to Abdullah, and even trained the Taliban in bomb making techniques.
We were first hit with news from Brietbart that the Taliban said that Robert Bowe Bergdahl’s son, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, converted to Islam, changed his name to Abdullah, and even trained the Taliban in bomb making techniques.
And like father like son, the
young Bergdahl, also trims his mustache and extends his beard.
But is it the speech with the Basmallah, the
beard and the trimmed mustache, the testimonies from his colleagues on his
desertion, that confirm our suspicion that these men are Jihadi converts?
Hardly.
What no one in the media captured was Robert
Bowe Bergdahl’s favorites on his Youtube account.
It reveals a dark mind, a collector of a litany
of ‘terrorist favorites’, videos from training on how to become Muslim Jihadist
to urging American troops to desert and even favorite speeches by confirmed
terrorists like Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaki, condemning America as a terrorist
state:
Bergdahl’s
Youtube account’s favorites list has an anti-American Anwar al-Awlaki video.
Notice Bergdahl’s name above the list, showing that it is indeed his account
On one of the videos Bergdahl
subscribes to a Jihadi message titled, “Duaa (prayer).”
But prayer for what? His son’s release only?
Hardly, its for the release of the terrorists in American captivity. The prayer
begins in Arabic, as Shoebat.com translates:
O Allah, release our prisoners, the Muslim
prisoners, and send them back to our families in peace!
One would think that Bergdahl does not understand
what is said in Arabic? Think again, he comments himself stating:
“Al-Hamdu Lillah, Ameen, Ameen May the duas of
the ummah be heard and may Allah free my son from captivity! بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ إِيَّاكَ نَعْبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسْتَعِينُ”
English:
Praise be to Allah, Amen, Amen, my prayers for
all the Muslim Nation (ummah) be heard and may Allah free my son from
captivity. In the name of Allah most merciful most beneficient, it is thee whom
I worship, it is thee whom I seek refuge.
He types perfect Arabic and announces he is
Muslim, “thee [Allah] I worship …”
Another favorite is a lecture from Mufti Ismail
Menk, who identifies himself as a Muslim scholar titled “Qualities Of A True
Worshipper”. Menk was also a favorite of Boston bombing suspect Dzhokar
Tsarnaev.
Another video favorited by Bergdahl, is a
Muslim jihadist terrorist video uploaded by th
- See more at: http://www.teaparty.org/see-obama-smile-soon-bergdahl-father-praises-allah-43802/#sthash.ieqJawjv.dpuf
Why
Reagan Lives on 10 Years After Death. http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/ReaganFeature.jpg Kelsey Harris / @KelsRenHar /
Photo: Newscom
COMMENTARY BY
Kelsey Harris the visual editor at The Daily Signal and digital media
associate at The Heritage Foundation.
On June 5, 2004, President Ronald Reagan died after
battling Alzheimer’s disease. Ten years later, his legacy lives on through the
conservative principles he espoused.
Reagan began his term in 1981, with the country in a
deep economic crisis. Americans faced high unemployment, fallout from an energy
crisis, stagnation, massive government spending, tax burden, a hollow military
and Soviet threats. But Reagan turned toward less government—not more.
President Reagan giving his first
Inaugural Address from the U.S. Capitol.
1.
Courage
Chaos outside the Washington Hilton
Hotel after the assassination attempt on President Reagan. James Brady and
police officer Thomas Delahanty lie wounded on the ground. (Photo: Ronald
Reagan Library)
When he was shot on Mar. 30, 1981, and the bullet
stopped one inch from his heart, Reagan spent much of his time in recovery
assuring everyone that he was just fine.
President Reagan with Nancy Reagan
inside George Washington Hospital four days after the shooting. (Photo: Ronald
Reagan Library)
Even liberal commentators applauded his courage:
“Everybody knows,” wrote James Reston of The New York
Times, “that people seldom act in the margin between life and death with such
light-hearted valor as they do in the movies. Yet Ronald Reagan did.”
2.
Prudence
Photo: Ronald Reagan Library
Reagan relied upon his “70 percent rule” — he knew
when to bend a little and when to stand firm.
“Die-hard
conservatives thought that if I couldn’t get everything I asked for, I should
jump off the cliff with the flag flying-go down in flames. No, if I can get 70
or 80 percent of what it is I’m trying to get … I’ll take that and then
continue to try to get the rest in the future.” — Ronald Reagan
3.
Justice
President Reagan and Nancy Reagan
sitting on the dock with their grandchildren Cameron Reagan and Ashley Marie
Reagan. (Photo: Ronald Reagan Library)
Reagan
stood firm in protecting the rights of every American—from the moment of
conception to that of natural death.
“For him the sanctity of life was not a slogan but a
fundamental principle to be honored,” Edwards said.
President Reagan salutes an Air Force
cadet at the United States Air Force Academy Commencement in Colorado Springs
Colorado. (Photo: Ronald Reagan Library)
He was the first sitting president to write a book
while in office when he wrote “Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation” in
1983.
Photo: Newscom
“I’ve
noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” – Ronald
Reagan
4.
Wisdom
Photo: Newscom
In late
1981 and all of 1982, when Reagan’s tax cuts had not yet kicked in and the U.S.
economy still lagged, people, including his staff, were worried. But he had
faith in the American people:
“[If
they] could be liberated from the restraints imposed on them by government,
they’d pull the country out of its tailspin.” – Ronald Reagan
At the end 1982, America began the longest peacetime
economic expansion in U.S. history up to that time, creating 17 million new
jobs during the Reagan years.
_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*__*_*_
Ya encontré a quien encargarle que termine con todos los problemas del mundo y de Los Estados Unidos. Es un hombre blanco, rubio, bueno, perfectamente instruido en las debilidades y los vicios de los hombres y su infinita maldad. Tiene mucha experiencia en esto porque hace algún tiempo, después que les enseño la verdad se aferraron a la mentira, como ahora, y lo traicionaron, encarcelaron y torturaron hasta asesinarlo clavándolo en un madero. Pero resucito y no se rindió tiene fe y yo también el regreso para completar la obra de redención. Regresa para que los hombres sean buenos y trabajen para hacer este mundo mejor. Tendremos ahora la oportunidad de demostrarle a ese hombre que ahora sí que no le fallaremos que ahora si sacaremos a los mercaderes, los fariseos y los falsos líderes de LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA y los enviaremos al infierno de donde nunca debieron ni volverán a salir y allí pagaran por todos sus pecados. AMEN. “En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño
Ya encontré a quien encargarle que termine con todos los problemas del mundo y de Los Estados Unidos. Es un hombre blanco, rubio, bueno, perfectamente instruido en las debilidades y los vicios de los hombres y su infinita maldad. Tiene mucha experiencia en esto porque hace algún tiempo, después que les enseño la verdad se aferraron a la mentira, como ahora, y lo traicionaron, encarcelaron y torturaron hasta asesinarlo clavándolo en un madero. Pero resucito y no se rindió tiene fe y yo también el regreso para completar la obra de redención. Regresa para que los hombres sean buenos y trabajen para hacer este mundo mejor. Tendremos ahora la oportunidad de demostrarle a ese hombre que ahora sí que no le fallaremos que ahora si sacaremos a los mercaderes, los fariseos y los falsos líderes de LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE AMERICA y los enviaremos al infierno de donde nunca debieron ni volverán a salir y allí pagaran por todos sus pecados. AMEN. “En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño
“FREEDOM
IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment