No 871 "En mi opinion" Febrero 19, 2015

No 871 “En mi opinión”  Febrero 19, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

Amenper: Las Primarias Republicanas

Comienzan  las primarias, y ya veo las disputas entre los simpatizantes de los aspirantes a la candidatura para presidente del partido republicano.

Toda mi vida he sido conservador, puede ser porque mi familia era conservadora, pero me parece que es por razonamiento, nunca me pareció que el comunismo fuera lógico ni sus alegaciones contra el libre mercado fueran naturales.  Siempre fue mi pensar que la condición natural der ser humano es el respeto a la propiedad privada y al fruto de su trabajo, no la repartición igualitaria de la riqueza, que acaba con el estímulo de la productividad de los que crean las riquezas de las naciones.

He sido conservador, pero por eso mismo, por la libertad que es base del pensamiento conservador me hace rechazar el dogmatismo.

El conservadurismo no es rígido, simplemente estudiando a los padres del conservadurismo se puede ver las diferencias secundarias entre ellos y en su misma persona durante su vida.

El dogmatismo tiene que ser reservado para las ideologías rígidas por pensamientos para establecer dictaduras ya sean tanto comunistas como fascistas.

Conservadores como Reagan violaron los dogmas de los conservadores de café con leche, vi como en las primarias Gerald Ford nos aseguraba que Ronald Reagan no era un verdadero conservador, y le ganó, y nos demoramos en tenerlo de presidente por cuatro años más. Vi cómo porque Reagan cometió un error de cálculo cuando otorgó amnistía a los inmigrantes ilegales, muchos dijeron que no era un verdadero conservador.  Pero señores Reagan era un señor conservador y lo demostró con el resultado de sus acciones.

Pero paradójicamente, o quizás realmente por costumbre, muchos de los rígidos conservadores dogmáticos que veo, fueron simpatizantes del  dogmático socialismo en otra etapa de su vida.

Tenemos que apoyar el candidato que más nos guste, pero en las primarias tenemos que hacerlo desde un punto de vista positivo. 

Tenemos que hablar de los candidatos por sus virtudes, no podemos atacar a los otros conservadores porque no se ajustas a todas los dogmas que uno puede considerar incluidos en el pensamiento conservador.   

Si una persona es  un conservador social y económico pero cree que se debe de haber un control de armas rígido, ¿Por qué por un punto se va a negar todo su conservadurismo? 

No tenemos un libro como el Capital de Marx o el Manifiesto comunista que determine una serie exacta de dogmas que determine lo que es la filosofía conservadora. Hay conservadores que han escrito libros sobre el conservadurismo, pero no hay un padre único del conservadurismo, como lo es Marx del comunismo.  Esto es porque el conservadurismo no es dogmático porque se basa en la libertad del pensamiento y acción del individuo por lo que el dogmatismo que es la esclavitud del pensamiento, sería un contrasentido.

Si se le da municiones al candidato demócrata en las elecciones generales, acusando desmedidamente de posiciones que realmente son desviaciones relativas de una posición dogmática, pasará lo mismo que pasó con Romney en las pasadas elecciones.  Nos encontraremos con un candidato dañado por nuestros propios golpes, le daríamos la victoria al candidato socialista demócrata.

Mi candidato es Scott Walker, es conservador, pero creo que la filosofía de los otros candidatos, con la excepción de Rand Paul que es libertario, también es el conservadurismo, aunque se desvíen de los ciertos dogmas establecidos por la corriente conservadora del momento.

No hay que hablar mal ni siquiera de Rand Paul, ya sabemos lo que honradamente piensa, no es conservador es libertario, lo cual lo hace un conservador fiscal pero un liberal en ciertos libertinajes sociales y en su oposición a la confrontación con nuestros enemigos,  y no lo oculta, no nos engaña, hay que darle el mérito de la honradez, y me encantaría verlo como Secretario del Tesoro bajo la administración del presidente Scott Walker.  Nuestras diferencias de pensamiento las podemos resolver en las urnas a la hora de votar en las primarias y por lo que veremos en cada candidato  durante las campañas de las primarias, pero por lo que nos ofrecen no por lo que nos digan contra los demás.

Amenper: Llegaron los Sarracenos y nos molieron a palos…

No estamos en Guerra con el Islam

Barack Hussein Obama

Sobres las Escrituras del Islam

 (C. 5, 51). “¡Creyentes! ¡No toméis como amigos a los judíos y a los cristianos! Son amigos unos de otros. Quien de vosotros trabe amistad con ellos, se hace uno de ellos. Dios no guía al pueblo impío”.

(C. 9, 29).Combatid contra quienes habiendo recibido la Escritura no creen en Dios ni en el último día, ni prohíben lo que Dios y Su enviado han prohibido, ni practican la religión verdadera, hasta que humillados, paguen el tributo directamente!” .

2:191 Matadles donde deis con ellos, y expulsadles de donde os hayan expulsado. Tentar es más grave que matar. No combatáis contra ellos junto a la Mezquita Sagrada, a no ser que os ataquen allí. Así que, si combaten contra vosotros, matadles: ésa es la retribución de los infieles.

2:217 Si pudieran, no cesarían de combatir contra vosotros hasta conseguir apartaros de vuestra fe. Las obras de aquéllos de vosotros que apostaten de su fe y mueran como infieles serán vanas en la vida de acá y en la otra. Ésos morarán en el Fuego eternamente.

4:84 ¡Combate, pues, por Alá! Sólo de ti eres responsable. ¡Anima a los creyentes! Puede que Alá contenga el ímpetu de los infieles. Alá dispone de más violencia y es más terrible en castigar.

No estamos en guerra con el Islam, el islam está en guerra contra nosotros

Cuando el presidente de Estados Unidos, motivado por razones políticas entre otras razones, se atreve a decir que “El Islam verdadero es una religión pacífica”; como que quiere dejar entender que hay dos Islam uno verdadero y otro falso. Pues, Señor Obama, el Islam es uno, el del Corán, usted  lo ha leído  y  conoce bien 

Con el aumento del fanatismo islámico en la actualidad, con todo lo que está pasando en Oriente Medio, la persecución y el genocidio que viven los cristianos en todos los países árabes musulmanes, nos quiere decir  lo contrario.

Un análisis objetivo de los comienzos del Islam y del Corán revela claramente el espíritu violento que caracteriza el Islam

Si como dice Obama, la mayoría de los musulmanes son pacíficos, entonces no han leído el Corán.

Si como dice Obama los que estamos combatiendo no representan el Islam, ¿Cómo es que se basan en los versículos del Corán que hemos copiado arriba? ¿Qué podemos decirles a los que son creyentes del Islam que podamos persuadirlos si el libro de su religión está más de acuerdo con lo que le dicen ellos que lo que le podemos decir nosotros?

La verdad, que es desagradable es que el Corán exhorta a violencia contra "los incrédulos" y les ordena combatir hasta que el islam sea la única religión

Podemos gastarnos miles de dólares en propaganda, pero no podemos convencerlos de que los terroristas no son islámicos si el Corán justifica sus actos.

Ellos tienen miles de madrazas donde educan a sus niños, hasta en los Estados Unidos, enseñan la historia de Mahoma del Hadith.

Nos dicen que los que enseñan en esas escuelas no son radicales, son pacíficos mahometanos que sólo enseñan el Corán y la vida del profeta.

Es verdad enseñan historias como esta:

El apóstol de Alá fue preguntado, "Qué es el mejor cosa que uno puede hacer?" Él contestó, "Creer en Alá y en su Apóstol." el preguntador después preguntó, "Qué es el segundo?" El contesto, "Participar en Jihad por causa de Alá." (Hadith vol. 1, no. 25). El Hadith también dice que los musulmanes pueden tomar la propiedad de la gente que matan durante un Jihad (hay muchos tipos de Jihad). Además de matar infieles como cristianos y judíos, musulmanes también son ordenados a matar cualquier quien deja Islam (Hadith vol. 4, no. 260). El Hadith nos cuenta también como Mahoma quemó ojos con hierro caliente (Hadith vol. 1, no. 234) y mantenía personas abajo de agua hasta que murieron (vol. 8, no. 796).

El islam no puede reformarse porque es intrínsecamente guerrerista, el cristiano y el judío son los enemigos porque está claramente explícito en el Corán

Sin lugar a dudas Obama tiene razón, no estamos en guerra con el Islam, pero ese es el problema, porque el Islam si está en guerra contra nosotros y no lo reconocemos.

Los terroristas no son extremistas en la franja del Islam, sino musulmanes verdaderos y fieles.

Realmente, Jihad y el objetivo de la conversión de toda la gente al Islam y la dominación del mundo son fundamentos centrales del Islam- .

Las organizaciones terroristas como Al-Qaeda, Hamas y Hizbollah tienen gran apoyo entre la gente musulmanes

Hay 1.6 Billones de musulmanes en el mundo, algunas investigaciones demuestran, que solamente en Francia viven hoy en día siete millones de musulmanes. Se ha pronosticado, que hasta el año 2040 más de 55% de la población de Europa serán islamistas (y si continúa esta tendencia, hasta el año 2055 la cantidad será 75%). También en Estados Unidos los musulmanes aumentan cada vez más y el islam es ya oficialmente la religión segunda más grande del país.

Entonces solo es cuestión del tiempo cuando los musulmanes van a tomar el poder en Europa, Norte América y en todo el mundo

Serán más que nosotros, y tenemos que recordar el verso español  «Llegaron los sarracenos / y nos molieron a palos; / que siempre ayuda Dios a los malos / cuando son más que los buenos»

Este verso fue escrito en el año 711, ¿Saben quiénes eran los Sarracenos?,  pues fue el apelativo con el que los primeros cristianos denominaron  a los árabes instalados, en los comienzos, en las regiones que actualmente ocupan desde Siria hasta Arabia Saudí.

Este verso representa lo que pasaba en el primer siglo y la conducta de los Sarracenos no ha cambiado en el siglo XXI, ni hay ninguna cosa para pensar que cambiará en el futuro. 
¿Nos molerán a palos otra vez? 

Vivan las ARMAS PARA LA PROTECCION PERSONAL y LA DEFENSA DEL PUEBLO CONTRA UN GOBIERNO TIRANICO....

luis guzman

La verdadera RAZON de la 2da enmienda es la parte final... que dice que es para que el pueblo se pueda proteger contra un GOBIERNO TIRANICO..y no el cuento que era porque antes  las gentes vivian lejos unos de otros o no habia cuerpos policiales o porque habian OSOS y otros animals salvajes  etc etc...  .por eso la histeria de todos lo tiranos "TRADUZCO ...TODO SOCIALISTOIDE"  DEMO_RATS.... y los cuentos y TRUCOS para lavarle el cerebro al pueblo que no conoce la costitucion de su propio pais... USA ... y no duden que aparezcan VERSIONES de la CONSTITUCION EN INGLES...en cualquier momento que ademas de otras "MODIFICACIONES"  la parte final de la 2da enmienda no  tenga la PRECISION QUE ES..... PARA DEFENDERSE EL PUEBLO DE UN GOBIERNO TIRANICO...... Yo tengo una version en espanol ...que la 2da enmienda la tiene mutilada..!!!!!... COSA TIPICA DE LOS SOCIALSITAS  Y TRAIDORES QUE TODO LO CAMBIAN Y  RESCRIBEN ...... ejemplo en Cuba de los 34 o 35 tomos de la obra completa de Jose Marti la condensaron unos HP MERCENARIOS DE LA PLUMA en 2 tomos...en los que Marti era SOCIALSITIODE.... cuando si alguien fue excepcionalmte opuesto a la esclavitud desde los 16 anos fue el.... y en el tomo 15 o 16 ... nunca lo recuerdo exacto.... pero si el articulo HERBER SPENCER.... donde 30 anos antes que el primer HP DEMO_RAT en USA Woodrok Wilson empezara la TRAICION de cambiar a USA hacia el SOCIALISMO_ESCLAVITUD y el HP de lenin 4 anos mas tarde los llamo "IMBECILES UTILES...AKA... TRAIDORES UTILES".... Marti definio a esos FUNCIONARIOS... COMO ESCLAVIZADORES !!!!! tambien HERBER SPENCER llamo a ese SISTEMA como la "NUEVA ESCLAVITUD" ...que claro estuvieron.!!!!!...porque socialsimo COMUN...ETC..etc. ES solo ESO..ESCLAVITUD...DE UNOS HPs.. CONTRA SU PUEBLO... http://guns.buzz/2015/02/17/the-next-time-liberal-friends-tell-you-guns-cause-crime-pull-out-some-of-these-facts/ Luis E. Guzman

Oil's Decline Keeps Looking Like the Better Bet: A Gary Shilling

By A Gary Shilling

At about $50 a barrel, crude oil prices are down by more than half from their June 2014 peak of $107. They may fall more, perhaps even as low as $10 to $20.  

Here’s why. 

U.S. economic growth has averaged 2.3 percent a year since the recovery started in mid-2009. That's about half the rate you might expect in a rebound from the deepest recession since the 1930s.  

Meanwhile, growth in China is slowing, is minimal in the Eurozone and is negative in Japan. Throw in the large increase in U.S. vehicle gas mileage and other conservation measures and it’s clear why global oil demand is weak and might even decline.

Oil Prices

At the same time, output is climbing, thanks in large part to increased U.S. production from hydraulic fracking and horizontal drilling. U.S. output rose by 15 percent in the 12 months through November from a year earlier

Something else figures in the mix: The eroding power of the OPEC cartel. Like all cartels, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is designed to ensure stable and above- market crude prices.  But those high prices encourage cheating, as cartel members exceed their quotas.  For the cartel to function, its leader — in this case, Saudi Arabia — must accommodate the cheaters by cutting its own output to keep prices from falling.  But the Saudis have seen their past cutbacks result in market-share losses.  

So the Saudis, backed by other Persian Gulf oil producers with sizable financial resources — Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — embarked on a game of chicken with the cheaters.  On Nov. 27, OPEC said that it wouldn't cut output, sending oil prices off a cliff. 

The Saudis figure they can withstand low prices for longer than their financially weaker competitors, who will have to cut production first as pumping becomes uneconomical. 

What is the price at which major producers chicken out and slash output?  Whatever that price is, it is much lower than the $125 a barrel Venezuela needs to support its mismanaged economy.  The same goes for Ecuador, Algeria, Nigeria, Iraq, Iran and Angola. 

Saudi Arabia requires a price of more than $90 to fund its budget.  But it has $726 billion in foreign currency reserves and is betting it can survive for two years with prices of less than $40 a barrel. 

Furthermore, the price when producers chicken out isn’t necessarily the average cost of production, which for 80 percent of new U.S. shale oil production this year will be $50 to $69 a barrel, according to Daniel Yergin of energy consultant IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Instead, the chicken-out point is the marginal cost of production, or the additional costs after the wells are drilled and the pipes are laid. 

Another way to think of it: It's the price at which cash flow for an additional barrel falls to zero. 

Last month, Wood Mackenzie, an energy research organization, found that of 2,222 oil fields surveyed worldwide, only 1.6 percent would have negative cash flow at $40 a barrel. That suggests there won't be a lot of chickening out at $40. Keep in mind that the marginal cost for efficient U.S. shale-oil producers is about $10 to $20 a barrel in the Permian Basin in Texas and about the same for oil produced in the Persian Gulf. 

Also consider the conundrum financially troubled countries such as Russia and Venezuela find themselves in: They desperately need the revenue from oil exports to service foreign debts and fund imports.  

Yet, the lower the price, the more oil they need to produce and export to earn the same number of dollars, the currency used to price and trade oil. 

With new discoveries, stability in parts of the Middle East and increasing drilling efficiency, global oil output will no doubt rise in the next several years, adding to pressure on prices.  

U.S. crude oil production is forecast to rise by 300,000 barrels a day during the next year from 9.1 million now.

Sure, the drilling rig count is falling, but it’s the inefficient rigs that are being idled, not the horizontal rigs that are the backbone of the fracking industry. Consider also Iraq’s recent deal with the Kurds, meaning that another 550,000 barrels a day will enter the market. 

While supply climbs, demand is weakening. OPEC forecasts demand for its oil at a 14-year low of 28.2 million barrels a day in 2017, 600,000 less than its forecast a year ago and down from current output of 30.7 million.  It also cut its 2015 demand forecast to a 12-year low of 29.12 million barrels. 

Meanwhile, the International Energy Agency reduced its 2015 global demand forecast for the fourth time in 12 months by 230,000 barrels a day to 93.3 million and sees supply exceeding demand this year by 400,000 barrels a day. 

Although the 40 percent decline in U.S. gasoline prices since April 2014 has led consumers to buy more gas-guzzling SUVs and pick-up trucks, consumers during the past few years have bought the most efficient blend of cars and trucks ever.  

At the same time, slowing growth in China and the shift away from energy-intensive manufactured exports and infrastructure to consumer services is depressing oil demand.  China accounted for two-thirds of the growth in demand for oil in the past decade. 

So look for more big declines in crude oil and related energy prices.  

To contact the author on this story: A Gary Shilling at insight@agaryshilling.com

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

3044 S.W. 27 Ave

 

PEACEFUL ISLAM: The Greatest Lie Since 632 AD

Written by Audrey Russo 

It’s been some 1,400 years since Islam entered the world’s culture. And from its inception, it has maintained a suffocating menu of choices to mankind…none of which concern free will OR peace.

As we have seen and continue to see globally, Muslims hot for the Quran and Sharia Islamic Law, are on a Jihad crusade against all who choose NOT to follow Allah or his prophet Muhammed.

There have been over 25,000 deadly terror attacks committed by Muslims since 9-11. From Canada to Denmark to Australia…Islam’s influence (by its hateful harangues emanating from Islam’s holy books) has encouraged torture, rape, pedophilia and slaughter (via beheadings, incinerations, stabbings and bombings) of thousands upon thousands of innocent human beings.

And yet, anyone who dares mention these facts…is subject to an crushing bombardment of verbal salvos by cowering Westerners…as well as death threats by Muhammed’s faithful.

Exactly WHEN was the last time an Islamic message broke out in loving and serving non-Muslims? Or a street rally of Muslims chanted: “Love to America”, “Hugs to Israel”, “Bless anyone who slanders the prophet” or “Be kind to Infidels, wherever you find them”?

Has this EVER happened? As we say in NYC: NEVA!!

Western leaders and the mainstream media like to use the term “Radical” when referring to devout Muslims that commit heinous acts for Islam. But here lies the rub…the actual definition of that term is the antithesis of how it’s being used. The dictionary defines “radical” as: of or going to the root or origin; fundamental.

These Muhammedans have gone back to the roots of their creed. They are fundamentalists who follow in the footsteps and behaviors of their prophet. Muhammed was not a man of peace, but rather a man of war, having been in 100 violent campaigns to spread Islam and fill his Jihad coffers. We see this STILL occurring with ISIS, Boko Haram, Hamas, et al. They invade the lands of non-Muslims, kill, steal and destroy…

Just like Muhammed did…

The split second these Islamic attacks occur…the West is falling all over itself in a mad rush for the microphone to announce to the world the mantra of morons: Islam is a religion of peace.

But, in actuality…according to the empirical evidence: Islam is a religion of bigotry, hate and brutality. And that’s on a good day…

Now, I don’t intend to be harsh, BUT…let’s stop being the idiotic infidels that Muhammed told his followers we are. Let’s instead go back to critical thinking where we use the intellect the Judeo-Christian God gave us…and finally confront this centuries-old LIE with TRUTH.

Shalom through strength...

Here’s How ISIS Militants May Soon Be Slipping Into The U.S…

This is terrifying...

F. PETER BROWN — FEBRUARY 18, 2015

image: http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/isis6.jpg

ISIS militants may soon be slipping into the US via the thousands of Syrian “refugees” coming to the country.

According to Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism unit, the U.S. does not have the resources to prevent ISIS fighters from slipping into the US alongside the many other refugees being let in.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, recently held hearings on the process of vetting refugees and wrote a letter to the White House voicing the committee’s “serious national security concerns.”

In a letter to National Security Advisor Susan Rice, McCaul and other Republicans stated that “The continued civil war and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments on specific refugees.”

Steinbach told the committee:

“The difference is that in Iraq we were there on the ground collecting (information), so we had databases to use,” he added. “The concern is that in Syria, the lack of our footprint on the ground in Syria, the databases won’t have the information we need. So it’s not that we have a lack of a process, it’s that there is a lack the information.”

Ned Price, a National Security Council spokesman, stated that rigorous screening of all Syrian refugees would take place:

“Our screening protocols for refugees are rigorous, continually refined, and build on years of experience vetting individuals coming to the United States from around the world,” he said in an e-mailed statement. “They permit us to proceed in a way that seeks to both safeguard public safety and serve our mission of providing refuge to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Still, McCaul and other Republicans are not so sure about the vetting of the refugees.

What do you think? Are ISIS militants bound to slip in among the Syrian refugees? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/how-isis-militants-may-soon-be-slipping-into-the-u-s/#tbdVwtBgFIZZtces.99

Iraq Envoy to UN: Islamic State Might be Harvesting Organs

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations asked the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday to look at allegations that the Islamic State group is using organ harvesting as a way to finance its operations.

Ambassador Mohamed Alhakim told reporters that in the past few weeks, bodies with surgical incisions and missing kidneys or other body parts have been found in shallow mass graves.

"We have bodies. Come and examine them," he said. "It is clear they are missing certain parts."

He also said a dozen doctors have been "executed" in Mosul for refusing to participate in organ harvesting.

Alhakim briefed the council on the overall situation in Iraq and accused the Islamic State group of "crimes of genocide" in targeting certain ethnic groups.

The outgoing U.N. envoy to Iraq, Nikolay Mladenov, told the council that 790 people were killed in January alone by terrorism and armed conflict.

Mladenov noted the increasing number of reports and allegations that the Islamic State group is using organ harvesting as a financing method, but he said only that "it's very clear that the tactics ISIL is using expand by the day." He used an acronym for the group.

He said Iraq's most pressing goal is to win back the vast territory that the Islamic State group has seized in the past year. The Sunni militants seized a third of both Iraq and neighboring Syria and imposed strict Sharia law.

"Especially worrying is the increasing number of reports of revenge attacks committed particularly against members of the Sunni community in areas liberated from ISIL control," Mladenov said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Headline/iraq-harvesting-organs-isis/2015/02/18/id/625371/#ixzz3S8AwO8lP 

WND EXCLUSIVE

OBAMA WANTS TENS OF THOUSANDS MORE MUSLIM 'REFUGEES'

'Boston bombers' came to U.S. under similar 'resettlement'

 AARON KLEIN 

Amid concerns potential terrorists can take advantage of the U.S. refugee quota for Syrians, it may be instructive to recall the family of Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the brothers who carried out the Boston Marathon bombing, were granted political asylum in the U.S. under a similar program.

{"uid":2,"hostPeerName":"http://www.wnd.com","initialGeometry":"{\"windowCoords_t\":0,\"windowCoords_r\":1600,\"windowCoords_b\":860,\"windowCoords_l\":0,\"frameCoords_t\":1217,\"frameCoords_r\":475.5,\"frameCoords_b\":1817,\"frameCoords_l\":315.5,\"styleZIndex\":\"auto\",\"allowedExpansion_t\":0,\"allowedExpansion_r\":0,\"allowedExpansion_b\":0,\"allowedExpansion_l\":0,\"xInView\":0,\"yInView\":0}","permissions":"{\"expandByOverlay\":true,\"expandByPush\":false,\"readCookie\":false,\"writeCookie\":false}","metadata":"{\"shared\":{\"sf_ver\":\"1-0-1\",\"ck_on\":1,\"flash_ver\":\"16.0.0\"}}","reportCreativeGeometry":false}" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" width="160" height="600" data-is-safeframe="true" style="outline: 0px; border-width: 0px; font-size: 14px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;"> WND reported last week a senior FBI official has admitted the U.S. is finding it virtually impossible to screen out terrorists that could be hiding among the tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” heading soon to American cities through the State Department’s refugee-resettlement program.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his parents came in April 2002 to the U.S. on a 90-day tourist visa and applied for political asylum, citing fears of persecution due to the father’s ties to Chechnya.

Tamerlan arrived in the U.S. about two years later. The brothers’ parents received asylum and then filed petitions for their four children, who each received “derivative asylum status.” The brothers are charged with exploding two pressure cooker bombs during the Boston Marathon April, 15, 2013, killing three people and injuring an estimated 264 others.

Further, with the help of President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a high-ranking Chechen separatist leader accused of terrorism by Russia was granted political asylum in the U.S. and lived for a period of time in Boston.

The Chechen leader, Ilyas Akhmadov, who also served as Chechnya’s foreign minister, insists he was falsely accused by the Kremlin.

Akhmadov was once the deputy to the radical Chechen Islamist leader Shamil Basayev, who was killed in 2006 before being described by ABC News as “one of the most-wanted terrorists in the world.”

Tamerlan Tsarnaev traveled to Russia in January 2012 and visited the North Caucasus, including Chechnya, where Basayev’s predecessors continue to operate.

Shamil Basayev’s picture was reportedly found in the deleted Instagram account of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Chechen rebel and asylum program

Akhmadov has been on Russia’s most-wanted list, charged with organizing terrorist training camps and armed insurgent actions. Despite Russian objections, Akhmadov now lives in Washington, D.C., after the U.S. said it could find no links to terror.

The story surrounding Akhmadov is complicated by accusations and counter-accusations, as well as by the support his asylum application received from prominent political figures, including Brzezinski; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.; former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Alexander Haig; and former defense secretary Frank Carlucci.

Akhmadov received asylum from an immigration judge in Boston. The ruling became effective in August 2004 after the Department of Homeland Security’s abrupt withdrawal of its notice of appeal to the judge’s decision.

He also received a grant from the National Endowment for Democracy.

“I’m not exaggerating when I say that one of the happiest days of my life was when I called Ilyas to tell him that he would be able to stay in America,” said Brzezinski in an interview with his nephew, Matthew Brzezinski, who wrote an extensive August 2004 profile of Akhmadov for the Washington Post.

Zbigniew Brzezinski also wrote the forward for Akhmadov’s 2010 book, “The Chechen Struggle: Independence Won and Lost.”

Russia: ‘He’s a terrorist’

Russia strongly opposed the asylum.

“He’s a terrorist, there is no doubt about it,” Aleksander Lukashevich, a senior political counselor at the Russian Embassy in Washington, told the Washington Post in 2005. “We have proof. … Our foreign minister has made Russia’s position on extradition quite clear.”

“How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?” asked the Russian online newspaper Pravda.

Russian President Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of hypocrisy for granting Akhmadov asylum.

“We cannot have double standards while fighting terrorism, and it cannot be used as a geopolitical game,” Putin said.

Akhmadov was charged with organizing terrorist training camps and leading 2,000 armed insurgents in a deadly 1999 Dagestani incursion.

Akhmadov was also once an aide to Shamil Basayev, leader of Chechnya’s violent jihadist movement.

Basayev led the most famous Chechnya rebel attack, dubbed the Budyonnovsk hospital hostage in 1995.

In the attack, more than 1,000 hostages were held for a week, and 100 of them were killed when Russian forces stormed the hospital. Russia says the hostages were mainly executed by Basayev’s men, while the rebels claimed Russian forces killed the hostages in the firefight.

Akhmadov told Matthew Brzezinski in 2004 that he distanced himself from Basayev after the war leader became an Islamic fundamentalist. Akhmadov went to work at the Chechen foreign ministry.

“I found him someone whose life was dedicated to peace, not terrorism,” Albright assured then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in a 2003 letter endorsing Akhmadov’s request for political asylum.

“I have met with Mr. Akhmadov on three occasions,” McCain wrote to DHS. “I have found him to be a proponent of peace and human rights in Chechnya.”

A Washington Post editorial supporting Akhmadov’s asylum described him as opposing the use of suicide bombings and for working for a “negotiated peace” in his country.

Syrian refugees

The news media have reported concerns over a program to bring to the U.S. Syrians caught up in the ongoing insurgency targeting the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Nicholas Rasmussen, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, told the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday, “It’s clearly a population of concern.”

Numerous GOP lawmakers expressed fears Syrian jihadists could take advantage of the refugee program.

Committee Chairman Mike McCaul, R-Texas, asserted it would be a “huge mistake” to bring Syriam refugees from the conflict to the U.S.

Larry Bartlett, the State Department’s director of refugee admission for the Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, told ABC News that each refugee is vetted through an “intensive” system run by numerous U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Pentagon.

However, some counter-terror analysis and lawmakers have raised questions about the U.S. government’s ability to screen for potential jihadists from amongst the refugees.

A letter to National Security Adviser Susan Rice signed by McCaul and other leading Republicans warned, “The continued civil war and destabilization in Syria undeniably make it more difficult to acquire the information needed to conduct reliable threat assessments on specific refugees.”

The U.S. government “cannot allow the refugee process to become a backdoor for jihadists,” they wrote.

WND reported a senior FBI official expressed further concern about the ability to screen out terrorists that could be hiding among the thousands of Syrian “refugees” heading soon to American cities.

Michael Steinbach, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter terrorism unit, was questioned by McCaul at Wednesday’s House Homeland Security Committee.

“Would bringing in Syrian refugees pose a greater risk to Americans?” asked McCaul.

“Yes, I’m concerned,” said Steinbach. “We’ll have to go take a look at those lists and go through all of those intelligence holdings and be very careful to try and identify connections to foreign terrorist groups.”

In Iraq, where the U.S. maintained a large occupation force, the U.S. government’s vetting process missed “dozens” of Iraqi jihadists who slipped into the country posing as refugees and took up residence in Kentucky, according to a November 2013 ABC News report.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/terrorists-already-hit-u-s-via-refugee-program/#1AGcOF3ap8qVtctY.99

Robbing your wallet: Low gas prices mean big tax increases

COWBOY BYTE — 

We all knew it was too good to be true.
Check it out:

When President Barack Obama first took office in January 2009, the national average gas price was $1.95, but over most of Obama’s presidency, prices have risen continuously, averaging well over $3 per gallon through much of 2014.

Beginning in the fall of 2014, however, something truly amazing for American consumers occurred: Gas prices suddenly started to fall, and at a rapid pace. According to AAA’s Fuel Gage Report, gas prices in September 2014 averaged $3.39 per gallon, but by January 2015, gas prices had plummeted to below $2.20, with many states like Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas seeing gas prices fall below $2 for the first time in nearly five years.
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/36829/robbing-wallet-low-gas-prices-mean-big-tax-increases/

Leaked Documents Show Army Intends To Make It Harder To Discharge Transgendered Soldiers

Posted on February 17, 2015 by Jonah Bennett — 9 Comments

A switch in Army procedure means that it will now be more difficult to discharge transgender soldiers, according to documents obtained by USA Today.

Based on the undated memorandum called the All Army Activities Directive, the authority to discharge will rest with the assistant secretary of the Army for personnel. Lower-level officers will no longer have this authority. While activists appreciate the gesture, they say it’s simply is not enough, since transgender soldiers still have to hide their condition. Additionally, whether this will result in fewer discharges remains to be seen.

“This is a welcome step toward inclusive policy, but transgender troops must still serve in silence until more is done to dismantle the ban,” said Aaron Belkin, director of the Palm Center.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, expected to be succeeded by Ash Carter on Tuesday, has stated in the past that the policy banning transgender soldiers from service needs to be reviewed. The White House has also signaled approval of a review, but it currently is not a very high priority for the military.

“Hopefully this is a signal that the Army — and other service branches — will finally begin a comprehensive review of the regulations regarding transgender servicemembers, which everyone agrees is long overdue,” said Joshua Block, who leads the American Civil Liberties Union Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project. “I also hope the 12-month time frame is an indication that the Army understands the urgency of this issue for transgender servicemembers and their commanders.”

The news comes just shortly after revelations that the Army will provide hormone treatment for Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, a 27-year-old who was sentenced to 35 years in prison for leaking sensitive documents to WikiLeaks. Manning currently resides in Kansas’ Fort Leavenworth Army prison, and the recent decision will mark the first time hormone treatment has ever been granted by the Department of Defense, The Associated Press reported. The Department of Veterans Affairs, on the other hand, already pays for hormone treatment but not reassignment surgery, according to CS Monitor.

Best estimates place the number of transgender soldiers discharged from the Army at around 24. The exact figure is unknown because the Pentagon doesn’t keep numbers

Scott Walker: Obama's Harvard Degree Proof I Don't Need One

By Drew MacKenzie

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has lashed out at the "elitist" critics who have attacked him for not having a college degree.
On Fox News' "The Kelly File," the potential Republican presidential candidate defended himself after liberal commentators had attacked him for failing to finish his final year at Marquette University in Milwaukee.
"That's the kind of elitist, government-knows-best, top-down approach we've had for years," Walker told host Megyn Kelly, according to Mediaite.
"I'd rather have a fighter who's proven he can take on the big government interests and win. I think people want to judge what have you done lately."

He also noted that President Barack Obama, who has a degree from prestigious Harvard University in Massachusetts, has done a lousy job running the country for six years.
Although he hopes his own sons finish their education, the college dropout added, "You don’t have to have that to be successful."
Earlier this month, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean questioned Walker’s intelligence on "Morning Joe" while discussing the GOP governor’s controversial remarks on evolution. Walker recently declined to say whether he believes in the theory during a speech in London.
"This is a particular problem for Scott Walker which has not been an issue yet, but it will," said Dean. "Scott Walker, were he to become president, would be the first president in many generations who did not have a college degree.
"So the issue here is not just the issue of dancing around the question of evolution for political reasons, the issue is, how well educated is this guy?"

If Walker were elected, he would be the first president in the White House without a degree since Harry Truman, who served from 1945-53.
But Deroy Murdock, of the National Review Online, said that even without a college degree Walker has done a good job as Wisconsin’s governor. 
"Wisconsin's state deficit was $3.6 billion when Walker arrived. It's now a $517 million surplus," Murdock writes. "On his watch, unemployment plunged from 7.7 percent to 5.2 percent. Chief Executive ranked Wisconsin No. 41 among states in which to do business when Walker took office. It's now No. 14."
And Vox’s Libby Nelson said there’s no reason that Walker’s lack of a degree should make him less suitable as a candidate for the White House than any other GOP hopeful.
"Higher education is more economically valuable today than it's ever been, but that doesn't mean a college degree needs to be a prerequisite for the presidency," Nelson wrote.
Although he was technically a senior, Walker had not earned enough credits to get his degree on time — he was 34 credits short of a degree when he left Marquette. Yet, the college dropout still has about three years of classes on his education resume.
"If a college degree is valuable because of what you learn along the way, Walker probably reaped most of the gains anyway," added Nelson.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Politics/scott-walker-college-dropout-degree/2015/02/18/id/625409/#ixzz3S8CwTDVb 
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

 “En mi opinión”

No 871  Febrero 19, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

http://enmiopinionlazarorgonzalez.blogspot.com/