No 901 “En mi
opinión” Marzo
13, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE
En la iglesia,
el domingo pasado, escuché una dulce anciana en el banco, detrás de mí,
diciendo una oración. Era tan inocente y sincera, que sólo quiero compartirlo
con ustedes.
"Querido señor. Los últimos cuatro o cinco años han sido muy duros. Te
has llevado mi actor favorito, Paul Newman, mi actriz favorita, Elizabeth
Taylor. Mi cantante favorito, Andy Williams,... mis comediantes favoritos,
Robin Williams y Joan Rivers. - Sólo quería que supieras que mis políticos
favoritos son: Putin, Maduro, Santos, Correa, Evo, Cristina, Raúl y
Fidel"….. Amén. Perdon Señor Se me olvidaba Obama!
AMENPER: “Pensar y no trabajar, poco has
de ganar”
"Las personas que obtienen
éxito mantienen un enfoque positivo en la vida sin importar lo que está pasando
a su alrededor. Permanecen enfocados en sus éxitos del pasado en lugar de sus
fracasos pasados y sobre los próximos pasos de acción necesitan llegarlos
acerca al cumplimiento de sus metas en lugar de todas las distracciones que la
vida presenta a ellos".
― Jack Canfield
Jack Canfield es un escritor
motivacional, autor de un libro que por el título deben de haber oído hablar de
él, titulado “Sopa de Pollo para el Alma”.
He oído mucho del libro y he leído
partes del libro porque la esposa de mi hijo lo tiene y lo he hojeado en mis
visitas a su casa, también he oído y leído programas de televisión y
otros comentarios que han salido en artículos sobre el libro, pero nunca he
leído totalmente el libro en sí
Pero el libro que me intrigó más de
Canfield, es “El Secreto”, por un programa de televisión sobre el libro que
se describe como un método de autoayuda, el programa
era en un formato de documental que duraba como una hora.
El libro se basa en algo que Jack
Canfield presenta como la “ley de la atracción”.
Lo que llamó mi atención es que no
es un libro simplemente motivacional como “Sopa de Pollo para el alma”, pero
tiene sesgos místicos y misteriosos, y esta curiosidad me llevó a comprar el
libro.
Como se describe en el libro, la
hipótesis de la "Ley de la atracción" postula que los
sentimientos y pensamientos pueden atraer eventos y experiencias, desde el
funcionamiento del cosmos a las interacciones entre los individuos en sus
asuntos físicos, emocionales y profesionales.
La película también sugiere
que ha habido una fuerte tendencia por aquellos en posiciones de poder para
mantener este principio central ocultado al público. Se nos presenta
como que hay una conspiración para que no sepamos esto.
Para ser sencillo en el resumen de
la idea, Canfield dice que hay algo en el universo, que si tenemos una idea
fija, y creemos en ella y que se llevará a cabo, y mantenemos un estado
positivo emocional sobre esto “atraemos” el resultado de nuestros deseos.
También dice que lo mismo sucede
cuando tenemos pensamientos negativos.
Realmente, ¿no les resulta familiar
la teoría de Jack Canfield? Piensen bien, recuerden, ¿no les recuerda esto a
otra persona que les dio el mismo discurso de motivación? ¿No les recuerda a
sus abuelitas?
Creo que Canfield usa también la
influencia intelectual y gastronómica de su abuelita. El título de
“Sopa de pollo para el Alma” trae también el recuerdo de nuestras abuelitas de
las extraordinarias y místicas propiedades curativas de la sopa de
pollo. Además todos tienen que recordar cómo nuestras abuelitas
cuando teníamos un pensamiento negativo nos decía “Alabado sea Dios muchacho no
hables así, estás atrayendo lo malo”.
O sea que mi abuelita hubiera podido
ganar millones de pesos como escritora y disertadora motivacional, todo es
cuestión de tiempo y lugar.
Pero, bueno, esto me trae una
motivación para tener una idea fija durante las próximas elecciones
presidenciales, y los billetes de lotería que voy a comprar para hacerlos el
centro de mi fijación.
El único problema es que con el
éxito del libro, muchos ya saben “El secreto” y posiblemente los demócratas y
otros que han comprado billetes con otro número, también están fijando su mente
en el objetivo en que estoy fijando mi mente.
La verdad es que en “Sopa de Pollo
para el Alma” Canfield fue más serio a pesar del título.
En “El secreto” creo que Canfield no
es tan serio. No sé si el realmente cree en lo que escribió o si lo
utiliza para motivar a las personas a tener pensamientos positivos, lo cual si
es conveniente. Pero usar una mística espiritual y darle un valor
cósmico a los pensamientos, por favor, no trabajes con ingenio y persistencia,
que por muchos que te pongas a fijar la mente, poco vas a resolver.
Creo que si observan el pensamiento
que puse arriba de Canfield, esa es la realidad, en este caso tiene razón,
aprender de los fracasos y triunfos del pasado para trabajando diligentemente
no repetir los errores. Entonces “atraes” el triunfo, pero realmente
si no trabajas en ellos de poco valen los pensamientos.
Creo que lo que Canfield predica es
“Wishful Thinking” que son sueños de nuestros pensamientos deseando que se
realicen y esto es tan viejo como nuestras abuelitas, esto es el deseo de tener
suerte.
Sobre esto los filósofos gallegos
con sus dichos, tenían más lógica cuando nos dicen “Pensar y no trabajar, poco has de ganar” o
cuando dicen “A la suerte, hay
que ayudarla”: Dicho que nos invita a trabajar con esfuerzo
para obtener logros en la vida, sin esperar que la buena suerte nos acompañe.
La acción de la buena fortuna es siempre bien recibida, pero no debemos
recostarnos solamente en ella.
Creo que los gallegos que
inventaron este dicho tiene más lógica que “El Secreto” de Canfield.
El trabajo y
la economía son la mayor Lotería
BOOM!
Watch Megyn Kelly Expose The ‘Dangerous’ Lie Of Ferguson In Less Than 90
Seconds
"Rushing
to judgment is...deeply problematic and dangerous."
The intense manhunt continues for suspects in the ambush shootings of two
police officers in Ferguson, Mo., during protests Wednesday night. Both wounded
lawmen have been discharged from the hospital and are recovering from the
gunshots they suffered.
While
people turned out on the streets of Ferguson Thursday night to continue their
demonstrations, authorities say the crowd was behaved and there was no
violence.
According
to a report from St. Louis TV station KPLR, investigators say they may be on
the trail of the shooter or shooters.
“Investigators
believe they have identified two people they want to question in the shooting,
and one of them might be the shooter, a law enforcement official said. Police
are also trying to find anyone who may have helped the shooter get away.”
On
the Fox News show The
Kelly File Thursday night, host Megyn Kelly went
after the people — government officials, politicians, pundits and protestors —
she said have been fanning the flames of violence in Ferguson.
Kelly
slammed the “myth” that spawned the Ferguson protest movement which, she firmly
asserted, was “based on a lie.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-watch-megyn-kelly-expose-the-dangerous-lie-of-ferguson-in-less-than-90-seconds/#UKYXxWA1ZYL8QXxx.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/boom-watch-megyn-kelly-expose-the-dangerous-lie-of-ferguson-in-less-than-90-seconds/#UKYXxWA1ZYL8QXxx.99
AMENPER: Consumismo
El consumismo es el pecado que atribuyen los socialistas
a los males del capitalismo.
Pero los que vivimos en
el capitalismo, nos damos cuentas de los beneficios del consumismo,
reconocemos que el consumismo es bueno y necesario.
La salud económica del
país depende del consumismo. El índice del consumismo, esto es, la
confianza del consumidor, es uno de los factores determinantes en el alza
en el mercado de valores.
El consumismo es bueno
para el País porque el consumo sea de los productos que sea, lo que gestiona
es que se recauden impuestos y se mueva el dinero de esta
manera fomentando la creación de puestos de trabajo y la construcción
del producto bruto que produce la riqueza de la nación y el bienestasr de todas
las secciones de la sociedad-
Es algo bueno el
consumismo, pero las críticas de los socialistas al consumismo, es parecido a
las críticas de los ateos a la existencia de Dios.
Nos dicen ´ ¿Cómo puede
existir un Dios que permita las destructoras y sangrientas guerras y el hambre
en el mundo? No quieren reconocer que existe un Dios que creó al
hombre con libre albedrío.
La realidad evidente es
que no es Dios, son los hombres los que hacen las guerras, son los hombres los
que crean el hambre.
Vemos países como
Haití que por mucho dinero que se les dé, siempre hay hambre y miseria por los
políticos corruptos que impiden con su corrupción la educación del ciudadano y
el desarrollo de la economía. Vemos países como Venezuela que
debiera de ser uno de los más ricos de América sumido en la miseria por los
políticos socialistas.
No es culpa de Dios es
culpa de la conducta de los hombres.
Lo mismo pasa con el
consumismo, el problema no es el consumismo, si las personas en el
afán consumista, abusan y gastan más que sus ingresos, el consumismo desde ese
punto individual es malo. Hay personas con un ingreso mayor que el
índice de riquezas, que no les alcanza para pagar sus cuentas, pero también hay
personas que tienen un ingreso menor que consumen con un presupuesto adaptado a
sus ingresos. Esos son los beneficiarios del consumismo, porque
viviendo en un país donde los bienes de consumo son accesibles, toman ventaja de
ellos, y viven una vida acomodada y feliz de acuerdo con sus ingresos.
Lo curioso de los
socialistas que critican al consumismo, es que ellos son los peores consumistas
cuando toman el poder.
Tenemos a los Estados
Unidos, el país más rico del mundo, según su producto interno bruto,
nadie lo supera.
Estamos con una deuda en
los trillones aumentando todavía a un ritmo mayor con una administración de
corte socialista. Como en las personas, si gastas más que tus
ingresos terminas endeudándote.
El techo de la deuda americana
se ha convertido en algo simbólico.
Cada año se aumenta el
techo de la deuda. Los políticos de todas las vertientes son cómplices de
esto. Los conservadores hablan de impedir el crecimiento del techo
de la deuda, pero al final aprueban el aumento. Lo hacen por razones
políticas, no quieren que les digan que son insensibles a las necesidades de
los beneficios de ayuda social..
Pero la ayuda social no
sería un problema, es imprescindible para los necesitados, el problema es que
se está otorgando ayuda a los que no la necesitan, pero la dependencia de la
ayuda del gobierno es buena para los políticos que reciben el voto de los que
reciben esa ayuda como privilegios que no necesitan realmente.
De nuevo, esto no es
culpa del sistema capitalista, esto es culpa de los hombres que mal manejan el
sistema.
Como no se le puede
echar la culpa a Dios de las guerras y el hambre, no se le puede echar la culpa
al consumismo y al capitalismo de la conducta de los hombres. En
ambos casos la culpa de los hombres.
En el capitalismo los
fabricantes se esfuerzan por hacer que su producto sea el mejor. Y al mismo
tiempo liberan su enorme aparato publicitario para decirnos lo bueno que es el
producto, ofrecen aquello que nos volverá personas con un estilo de vida mejor.
Ese consumismo puede llevarnos a querer tener más para "sentirnos
mejor", a llevarnos a gastar más, con todo aquello que nos ofrecen. Sin
embargo nadie está obligado a comprar este producto si sus medios no se los
permiten, nadie debe de gastar lo que no tiene. No tenemos que cambiar el carro
cada año, no tenemos que vivir en una casa mejor si donde vivimos llena
nuestras necesidades.
Por otro lado, muchas de
las cosas modernas son útiles y se han producido por la economía causada por el
consumismo. ¿Podrían vivir sin su teléfono celular o su computadora?
Claro que sí, pero si su economía se los permite, su vida es mucho mejor con
estas maravillas modernas.
Como las naciones, las
personas tienen que tener un presupuesto de acuerdo con sus ingresos para tener
la verdadera riqueza, que es el vivir por debajo de sus ingresos
Lo bueno es lo útil y
eso nos lleva a la felicidad con los intereses que el hombre le da a
lo material, donde está postura no lo ve en un sentido egoísta ni altruista,
más bien la felicidad dependerá del mayor número de personas que se beneficien
de dicha acción.
En un país capitalista
donde abundan los bienes de consumo, hay opciones para todos los ingresos.
Tenemos todo tipo de
artículos de consumo, tanto baratos cómo de un precio exorbitante, el saber
escoger el artículo de acuerdo con nuestros ingresos, no es la labor del
fabricante es labor del individuo.
Responsabilidad en los
gastos es lo que destruye a la economía de la nación y del individuo.
Esto no debiera de ser
tan difícil de entender.
AMENPER: “El mayor
enemigo del lenguaje claro es falta de sinceridad". ― George Orwell
George Orwell con su sabiduría que nos dio “la Rebelión en la Granja” y
“1984, da en el clavo en esta frase que se puede aplicar al fenómeno de el
lenguaje políticamente correcto.
Se ha vuelto común escuchar el término "políticamente correcto"
arrojado alrededor en todas las clases de círculos.
Como lo veo yo, hablar políticamente correcto no soluciona
ningún problema. De hecho, eliminando la realidad, se crea un problema mayor.
Aplicar la corrección política, es censura, obligando, a la gente a usar
terminología específica o a evitar ciertos temas de conversación, con eso no
vamos a resolver ningún problema.
Ser "políticamente correcto" no es la medicina para los problemas
que existen — es una curita para cubrir las heridas cosméticamente. Además, sus
objetivos son todos malinterpretados.
Se supone que enseña a evitar "ofender a la gente".
Pudiéramos decir ¿Qué tiene esto de malo? ¿No es noble evitar ofender a la
gente? ¿No es este el punto? ¡No!… No es el punto. La palabra
"ofendido" en la definición de la corrección política es utilizada de
manera más abstracta de lo que la gente cree.
Hay varios problemas con la noción de la corrección política, en la cual
palabras eufemísticas son usadas para comunicar significados con que
la gente considera condiciones que son incómodas, pero lo que esto logra es
crear la percepción en el que la recibe como que su condición es denigrante.
Por ejemplo un enano, un ciego, un cojo, un viejo, un gordo, un flaco un
inválido.
Si lo llamamos diferente no dejan de tener sus condiciones y se sienten más
incomodos cuando ven que estamos tan conscientes de su problema que hemos
inventado eufemismos para su condición.
Por ejemplo, todos estamos familiarizados con la evolución de los sellos
colocados en personas inválidas como “minusválidos”, la teoría
detrás de este vocablo políticamente correcto es que inválido implica
in-validez que no tiene valor y puede ser ofensivo.
El principal problema con la idea de que no es políticamente correcto para
llamar a alguien "inválido" es según dice la clara
implicación que ser inválido no es respetable, que exige disculpas o disfraz.
Esto implica que los inválidos no merecen respeto debido a su invalidez.
Pero, y esto es lo que no entiendo, minusválido implica que todavía es de
menos valor, menos válidos.
Pero sabemos que el ser inválido es una condición de alguien que por
desgracia es simplemente..bueno.. “inválido”, y que esto no es intrínsecamente
degradante.
En consecuencia no es denigrante el para llamar a una persona
invalida simplemente invalido, como lo hemos hecho toda la vida y
desgraciadamente no podemos mejorar su condición cambiando la palabra como lo
llamamos.
Así hay que hay dos problemas con la corrección política: es poco atractiva
e impopular y por lo tanto, rara vez la usamos en la vida diaria, y cuando se
usa, no logra los objetivos adecuados
Pero hay otra categoría de palabra que si son dañinas y destructivas, o es
lo que yo llamaría “Políticamente Correcto a la Inversa”, porque
son nombres que usan los mismos que inventaron el lenguaje políticamente
correcto para sus enemigos políticos. Nombres que son ofensivos y se
repiten en la arena política indiscriminadamente: nombres tales como
"racista", "machista", "homofóbico",
"antisemita", "fanático" y similares. Muchos
lanzan estas etiquetas indiscriminadamente y sin una consideración a la
realidad del vocablo. No entiende que las etiquetas significan, sin
mencionar el daño infligido por acusar a alguien de racismo, sexismo, etc.
La acusación sola--incluso sin mérito--puede ser suficiente para manchar la
reputación, matar a una carrera, o al utilizarse invalidan la vida
entera de una persona.
Me pregunto, ¿Entienden los liberales la verdadera definición de las
etiquetas que lanzan a figuras públicas: "racista",
"machista", "intolerante", casi siempre por motivos
políticos solamente, basado en nada más que en un comentario fuera de contexto,
alguien con un torpe intento de humor, o una foto o imagen que es la expresión
artística de una persona creativa?
¿Entienden ellos las consecuencias de estas definiciones cuando llaman a
alguien un imbécil racista o sexista? Tal vez... tal vez no. ¿Realmente entienden
la gravedad de esas etiquetas? ¿O simplemente están disfrutando de insultos
destructivos basados en intereses de la política?
Creo que el lenguaje que se debe controlar es el “Político
Correcto a la Inversa”, este necesita una explicación del motivo de la
etiqueta y los motivos generalmente no son sinceros pero politizados.
El lenguaje a que nos referimos cotidianamente con relación a las personas
con impedimentos o problemas físicos, no necesitan ni explicación ni control ni
cambio. Los modernos cambios cosméticos no resuelven nada con el nuevo lenguaje
de "corrección política"..
Si nosotros debemos constantemente de autocensurarnos durante cualquier
conversación referente a características físicas, edad, o género, entonces
estamos condenados a perpetuar un lenguaje oscuro, ridículo e hipócrita.
Seremos víctimas de un totalitarismo “a la vaselina”.
Y como dijo Orwell
“El mayor enemigo del lenguaje claro es
falta de sinceridad",
Watch:
Michelle O Just Reached Out To Islamic Iran With A Big White House Party…And
Said THIS!
First
lady claims this Iranian holiday is part of the American tradition...
On
more than one occasion, President Obama has praised Muslim immigrants for their
contributions to American history, though the extent and significance of those
contributions have been questioned by many.
The Washington Examiner reminds us of Obama’s effusive shout-out to
Muslim Americans: “Throughout our history, Islam has contributed to the
character of our country, and Muslim Americans, and their good works, have
helped to build our nation.”
Now,
as the president reaches out to the mullahs of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
intent on making a controversial deal on their nuclear weapons development — a
deal that would admittedly not be legally binding — his wife is also doing her part to make
nice with the dictatorial regime.
First
Lady Michelle Obama hosted a “Nowruz” celebration of the Iranian New Year,
throwing open the doors of the White House earlier this week to mark the
official start of the Persian holiday that’s been celebrated for thousands of
years.
Nowruz
means “The New Day” and is the name of the Iranian New Year, marking the beginning of the year in the Persian
calendar.
As
a post on Downtrend notes of the White House event: “For
the optics-conscious Obamas, the timing couldn’t be more perfect with the
Republicans’ letter to Iran and Netanyahu’s speech still ruffling
administration feathers.”
In
keeping with President Obama’s public praise for Islam and the supposedly
noteworthy threads of Muslim Americans woven through the fabric of the nation’s
history, the first lady suggested to the Nowruz gathering something that could
be considered rather curious…if not absolutely stunning.
Mrs.
Obama said that a celebration like the one marking the Iranian New Year is part
of the “traditions that make us who we are as a country.”
In
other words, it certainly sounds as though Michelle Obama wants us to believe
that Nowruz is much like Thanksgiving or the Fourth of July or Presidents’ Day.
By
clicking on the video above, you can watch Mrs. Obama’s address to the Nowruz
gathering at the White House — a short speech that some might consider
history-warping.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-michelle-o-just-reached-out-to-islamic-iran-with-a-big-white-house-party-and-said-this/#mF65GklJImPz9lvZ.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-michelle-o-just-reached-out-to-islamic-iran-with-a-big-white-house-party-and-said-this/#mF65GklJImPz9lvZ.99
Gary North
The Tea Party Economist
Washington’s $210 Trillion
Deficit
You read that right: $210 trillion.
A trillion here, a trillion there: pretty soon, we’re talking big
money.
Professor
Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University testified before the Senate Budget
Committee. As usual, his testimony is shocking
The U.S. has a $210 trillion “fiscal gap” and “may well be in
worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including Greece,” Boston
University economist Laurence Kotlikoff told members of the Senate Budget
Committee in written and oral testimony on Feb. 25.
“The first point I want to get across is that our nation is
broke,” Kotlikoff testified. “Our nation’s broke, and it’s not broke in 75
years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It’s broke today.
“Indeed,
it may well be in worse fiscal shape than any developed country, including
Greece,” he said.
Kotlikoff has become skilled at producing sound bites. The media
are always after sound bites.
He is always focusing on the key statistic, which is not the
on-budget annual deficit. He focuses on the unfunded liabilities of the federal
government.
“This declaration of national insolvency will, no doubt, shock
those of you who use the officially reported federal debt as the measuring
stick for what our country owes,” Kotlikoff told committee members who are
considering President Obama’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2016.
“After all, federal debt in the hands of the public is only 74
percent of GDP. Yes, this is double the debt-to-GDP ratio recorded a decade
ago. But it’s still a far cry from Italy’s 135 debt-to-GDP ratio or Greece’s
175 percent ratio.”
However, using the Congressional Budget Office’s July 2014 75-year
Alternate Fiscal Scenario projection, Kotlikoff calculated that the U.S.’
“fiscal gap” –which he defines as “the difference between our government’s
projected financial obligations and the present value of all projected future
tax and other receipts” – is actually much higher than those of either Italy or
Greece.
“We have a $210 trillion fiscal gap at this point,” Kotlikoff told
the senators, which amounts to 211 percent of the U.S.’ $18.2 trillion GDP,
making it higher than Greece’s 175 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.
The
fiscal gap is “16 times larger than official U.S. debt, which indicates
precisely how useless official debt is for understanding our nation’s true
fiscal position,” said Kotlikoff, a former senior economist on President Ronald
Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers.
This number is astronomical. It should be obvious that there is no
way, politically speaking, that this deficit is ever going to be dealt with,
other than by default. We need to be reminded of this every year, because the
media only talk about it once a year, and that is just after Kotlikoff
testifies. He reminds us, and then the media go back to sleep. It happens every
year.
“By way of comparison, the Social Security system, taken by
itself, is 33 percent underfinanced.” Last year, Kotlikoff testified on Capitol
Hill that the Social Security system was in “significantly worse financial
shape than Detroit’s two pension funds taken together.”
Kotlikoff said that not counting “off book” liabilities like
Social Security give lawmakers and the public a false sense of the nation’s
true fiscal condition.
“What economics tells us is that we can’t choose what to put on
the books. All government obligations and all government receipts, no matter
what they are called, need to be properly valued in the present taking into
account their likelihood of payment by and to the government,” Kotlikoff
testified.
“Successive
Congresses, whether dominated by Republicans or Democrats, have spent the
postwar accumulating massive net fiscal obligations, virtually all of which
have been kept off the books,” he noted.
We know what is going to happen. If there is anyone in Congress who
is not aware of this, he is living in a fantasy world. But, I suspect, most
Congressmen really don’t understand it. They have been able to kick the can,
decade after decade, and they assume that they will be able to do this in the
future. Nothing bad has happened so far, so they assume that nothing bad will
ever happen.
The American people know nothing of this, but if they did know
anything about it, they would side with Congress. They would assume that
kicking the can is an effective way to deal with unfunded liabilities
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/03/12/washingtons-210-trillion-deficit/#E5tbE17hrOUI6Lz5.99
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/03/12/washingtons-210-trillion-deficit/#E5tbE17hrOUI6Lz5.99
HILLARY SE AFERRA A SU CORONA.
Por Alfredo M. Cepero
Los demócratas tienen, por lo tanto, que tomar una decisión terminante:
Hundirse con los Clinton o arrancar la corona de las manos de Hillary. Y eso,
como ya sabemos, no será una tarea fácil.
Cualquier político con un adarme de
honor que confrontara una crisis de credibilidad buscaría alguna salida
elegante y dejaría el camino abierto para que otro abanderado de su partido
aspirara a la presidencia de los Estados Unidos. Pero esos no son ni Bill ni
Hillary Clinton. Ellos parecen sentirse una aristocracia política a la cual no
se le aplican las mismas reglas que a los demás mortales. Tampoco caben dudas
de que son expertos en capear temporales y en superar escándalos que a otros
políticos los habrían enviado al baúl del olvido.
Su arma más eficaz ha consistido en
vituperar a sus adversarios hasta pulverizarlos y su escudo ha sido una
absoluta falta de principios morales. Que se lo pregunten a Gennifer Flowers,
Mónica Lewisnky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey y a otra media docena de mujeres a
quienes Hillary, auto proclamada defensora de los derechos femeninos, les hizo
la vida un infierno.
Desde el episodio turbio de
Whitewaters hasta nuestros días, estos personajes, unidos más por la avaricia y
la obsesión de poder que por lazos de fidelidad conyugal, han dado muestras de
ser un par de sinvergüenzas. Ella ha aguantado "cuernos con publicidad"
sin inmutarse por la humillación y él ha cometido perjurio para esconder las
violaciones y ataques a mujeres que han sido víctimas de su incontrolable
lujuria. Su meta común ha sido y sigue siendo la acumulación de poder y dinero
sin ningún tipo de inhibición o pizca de remordimiento.
Ante los recientes escándalos, los
demócratas tiemblan pero a los Clinton les importa un bledo porque ellos se
sienten más importantes que su partido. Un partido que cometió el error de
poner todos los huevos en una canasta perforada por la corrupción y ahora no
cuenta con una alternativa viable para enfrentar el tsunami de una sólida
bancada republicana en las presidenciales del 2016. En estos momentos la
coronación de Hillary y el descarrilamiento del partido demócrata parecen dos
hechos interconectados e inevitables.
Los dos episodios más recientes de
la turbulenta novela política protagonizada por esta pareja amenazan con
descarrilar las aspiraciones presidenciales de la multifacética Hillary.
Primero la revelación de cuantiosas sumas donadas por gobernantes extranjeros a
la "Fundación Clinton" mientras Hillary desempeñaba el cargo de
Secretaria de Estado. Segundo el descubrimiento de decenas de miles de correos
electrónicos desde un correo electrónico privado de la Secretaria en flagrante
violación de diversas legislaciones que se remontan a 1950.
El primero denota una obvia compra
de influencia a unos personajes que, en su desbocada carrera hacia el
enriquecimiento ilícito, han llegado al extremo de robar fondos donados a su
fundación para ayudar a los míseros haitianos. El segundo es otra muestra de la
obsesión de los Clinton por el secreto y por el uso de la mentira para encubrir
la verdad, las dos herramientas favoritas de estos dos delincuentes. Cosas que
una prensa alineada con los demócratas y complaciente con los Clinton nunca se
ha ocupado de revelar.
Cito, sin embargo, una honrosa
excepción. El periodista William Safire, asesor de presidentes y brillante
articulista del rotativo The Washington Post, en un ensayo publicado el 8 de
enero de 1996, cuando Hillary era primera dama, escribió: "Hillary Clinton
es una mentirosa congénita". Y agregó: "Ella tiene el hábito
inveterado de mentir y nunca se ha visto obligada a reconocer sus mentiras o
las mentiras que ha hecho decir a sus subordinados".
Irónicamente, estos dos escándalos
han sido descubiertos en el proceso de desenredar la madeja con la que Obama y
Hillary trataron de eludir responsabilidades en los brutales asesinatos de
cuatro diplomáticos norteamericanos en Benghazi, Libia, en la noche del 11 de
septiembre de 2012. El joven y tenaz congresista por Carolina del Sur, Trey
Gowdy, quien preside el Comité de la Cámara que investiga los hechos, descubrió
la existencia de los correos electrónicos enviados desde la cuenta personal de
Hillary.
Una cuenta abierta por Hillary aún
antes de tomar posesión de su cargo, cuando su nombramiento era considerado por
un Comité del Senado y era operada desde un servidor privado ubicado en el
sótano de su residencia particular. Ella controla esos correos y es una
hipocresía característica de esta mujer sin escrúpulos que haya enviado un
tweet donde dice que "quiero que el público lea mis correos y he pedido al
Departamento de Estado que los de a la publicidad". Ella es quien los controla
y quien tiene la obligación de proporcionárselos al Congreso. Pero si alguien
creyera en esta posibilidad, tengo una finca en Cuba que puedo venderle.
Dichos correos revelaron que fueron
subalternos de Hillary en el Departamento de Estado quienes echaron a rodar la
bola de que los actos terroristas habían sido motivados por un video editado en
Estados Unidos donde se atacaba al Profeta Mahoma. El mismo video que Hillary
mencionó a los familiares de las víctimas cuando los cadáveres fueron recibidos
en la Base Aérea de Andrews y al que hizo referencia Obama durante un discurso
ante las Naciones Unidas. Con el transcurso del tiempo ha quedado demostrado
que todo fue otra mentira de estos dos mentirosos incurables.
Ahora, Benghazi regresa a los
primeros planos, esta vez acompañado de otros escándalos potencialmente dañinos
para la ambiciosa ex Primera Dama. Esta turbulencia política ha desatado una
plétora de retos a la coronación de Hillary como candidata del Partido
Demócrata a las próximas elecciones presidenciales. Desde hace unos meses se
notaba un cierto cansancio entre los demócratas por el secuestro de su partido
por los Clinton. Una puerta que estaba entreabierta se ha abierto de par con
estas últimas revelaciones de los procedimientos torcidos de los Clinton.
Se escuchan los nombres de figuras
respetables y populares dentro de las bases del partido como el ex Gobernador
de Maryland, Martin O'Malley y el ex Senador por el Estado de Virginia Jim
Webb. Pero, según experimentados analistas políticos, la peor amenaza para
Hillary es la niña mimada de la izquierda, la Senadora por Massachusetts,
Elizabeth Warren. Esta mujer podría obligar a Hillary a moverse en dirección
izquierda para salvar su precaria postulación por el Partido Demócrata, al
mismo tiempo que prolongaría el proceso y le sacaría sus trapos sucios. Se
especula que hasta el bufón de Joe Biden podría sumarse al elenco, aunque sólo
sea para disfrutar el circo.
Si estuviéramos hablando de gente
honorable existiría la posibilidad de que Bill y Hillary se hicieran a un lado
para dejar camino abierto a otro candidato por el bien de su partido y el bien
del país. Yo vaticino que, por el contrario, se mantendrán en la trinchera y
utilizarán los fondos acumulados con promesas de favoritismo a donantes
nacionales y extranjeros para destruir a sus enemigos políticos. Los Clinton
han demostrado que, como el Don Corleone del Padrino, para ellos todo es
"cuestión de negocios". Los demócratas tienen, por lo
tanto, que tomar una decisión terminante: Hundirse con los Clinton o arrancar
la corona de las manos de Hillary. Y eso, como ya sabemos, no será una tarea
fácil.
12 de marzo de 2015.
La Nueva Nación es una publicación
independiente cuyas metas son la defensa de la libertad, la preservación de la
democracia y la promoción de la libre empresa. Visítenos
en : http://www.lanuevanacion.com
Islamist 'Martyr' Slams Car into Miami Airport
-Threatens Bomb
Mainstream
media coverage is avoiding what some websites have pointed out: there is strong
evidence she was motivated by jihad.
A
Muslim convert was arrested last week after crashing her
car into Miami International Airport while yelling in Arabic. Afterwards, she
told the police she had a bomb (which proved to be a lie). This is likely the
first act of Islamist terrorism on U.S. soil this year.
Julissa
Magdalena Maradiaga-Iscoa is an illegal immigrant from Honduras who has been
deported from the U.S. before. She was even arrested for battery in 2013.
Mainstream media coverage is avoiding saying what some Internet websites have pointed out: She is a Muslim and there is
strong evidence she was motivated by jihad.
Law
enforcement says this was no accident. A detective said she was "making an
intentional attempt to breach airport security by attempting to drive her
vehicle through the airport entrance."
Images
from the scene show she is wearing the hijab, a head covering that many devout Muslims believe women are
required to wear. Her sister says she converted to Islam about
four years ago and has become pregnant by an Arab man.
Most
significantly, Maradiaga-Iscoa describes herself as a "shaheeda" (martyr) in
English on her Facebook page. She also "likes" foreign Islamists on
her page that are unknown to many Muslim-Americans, for example, Zakir Naik, a radical cleric from India.
Her
sister says she is mentally ill but there is no connection between mental illness and
Islamic terrorism,
although homegrown terrorists with little connection to formed groups have a
higher chance of being mentally unstable. It is important to observe that not
all mentally ill people aspire to commit terrorism. Islamist extremism is that
special ingredient that can take someone—mentally ill or not—to that level.
FBI
Special Agent Michael Leverock stated, ”There appears to be no nexus
to terrorism," perhaps downplaying the significance of the incident by
using terminology referring to organizational connections to foreign jihadists.
Her
apparent act of violent jihad shows yet again the dangerous
consequences that arise from non-violent Islamist extremism.
Zakir Naik was recently honored by the Wahhabist government of Saudi Arabia with a gold medal and $2,000
for "services to Islam." Naik is known for touting
anti-Semitic, anti-Western conspiracy theories, for example, saying that 9/11
was an "inside job" committed as a pretext for a war on Muslims. He supports suicide bombings as a
"last resort" in "self-defense," citing jihad against Israel as a situation where
this is permissible.
"If
he [Osama Bin Laden] is terrorizing America—the terrorist, the biggest
terrorist—I am with him. Every Muslim should be a terrorist," Naik said in
one sermon.
In
2006, he said on the Internet, "Beware of Muslims saying Osama Bin Laden
is right or wrong. I reject them…we don't know…But if you ask my view, if given
the truth, if he is fighting the enemies of Islam, I am for him. I don't know
what he's doing. I'm not in touch with him."
Another
cleric Maradiaga-Iscoa "likes" on Facebook is a cleric in Zimbabwe
named Mufti Ismail Menk, who got his Islamic education in Saudi Arabia. He was
scheduled to do a speaking tour at six British universities in 2013, but it was cancelled after attention was brought to
his anti-gay preaching. One inflammatory quote of his was, "With all due
respects to the animals, [homosexuals] are worse than those animals."
Maradiaga-Iscoa
"likes" the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), an Islamist group
linked to the Muslim Brotherhood and a Pakistani Islamist group
named Jamaat-e-Islami. Its events feature extremist speakers and one of its
teaching guides displays the group's subversive,
anti-American, pro-jihad agenda.
She
also "likes" the Florida chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which the Justice
Department has labeled as a U.S. Muslim Brotherhood entity. The FBI
acknowledges there is evidence linking the group to Hamas. The Florida chapter
is one of the more incendiary ones. Executive-Director Hassan Shibly railed against nationalism last year as an
anti-Muslim plot.
The
media has a responsibility to report these facts and ask law enforcement about
their relevancy to the case. The evidence strongly points towards jihadist motivations. The American people
deserve to know that.
Ryan
Mauro is ClarionProject.org’s national security analyst, a
fellow with Clarion Project and an adjunct professor of homeland security.
Mauro is frequently interviewed on top-tier television and radio. Read more, contact or arrange a
speaking engagement.
Adviser to Rouhani: Iran is an Empire & Our Capital
is Baghdad
Adviser
to President Rouhani made the remarks at a talk for the Forum of Iranian
Identity in Tehran on Sunday.
An adviser to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has said that Iran’s historic empire
has been restored with Baghdad as the capital, according to Saudi owned
regional Arabic daily Al-Arabiya.
Ali
Younesi, an adviser to President Rouhani said that “Iran today has become an
empire like it used to be throughout its history and its capital now is Baghdad
and it is the center of our civilization, culture and identity, today as it was
in the past.” This was a reference to the Persian Sassanid Empire that ruled
before Islam emerged and which conquered Iraq. The capital of the empire was
Baghdad.
The
news agency of ISNA (Iranian
Students News Agency) quoted Younsi during a talk in the Forum of Iranian
Identity in Tehran on Sunday. In his speech he said that “the geography of Iran
and Iraq is not to be divided and our culture is not to be separated. That’s
why either we fight together or become united” referring to the massive Iranian
military presence in Iraq lately.
Iran
has sent Major General Qassem Suleimani,
commander of the elite Quds Force, to lead the battle for the key Iraqi town of Tikrit.
Younesi
who served as Minister of Intelligence in the government of President Mohammed
Khatami, attacked all those who opposed the Iranian influence in the area. He
said “all of the area of the Middle East is Iran, we shall protect all of the
nationalities in the area because we consider them to be a part of Iran and we
shall stand against Islamic extremism, takfirism, atheism, neo-Ottomans, the
Wahhabis, the West and Zionism.”
He
emphasized the continuing support of Tehran to Iraq’s Shiite government and he
attacked indirectly saying “our historic rivals which include the successors of
the eastern Byzantines and the Ottomans are not satisfied with our support to
Iraq,” referring to the dissatisfaction of Turkey with Iran’s expansionism.
He
said that his country intends to form an Iranian union in the region saying “we
don’t mean by this union to remove the borders, but all of the countries which
are neighboring the Iranian plateau must come closer to one another because
their security and their interests are connected one to another."
He
added “I don’t mean that we want to rule the world again, but we must get back
our standing and our historical status, which means that we will think globally
for Iran and her people.”
Younesi
is not the first Iranian politician to boast of Iran’s renewed regional
influence. Last september Ali Reza Zakani, a member of
the Iranian parliament, boasted that Iran now rules four Arab
capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.
UNBELIEVABLE: NAACP
President Compares #Ferguson Cops to ‘Roaches’
This
was stated the night before the two #Ferguson cops were shot.
Shortly
after Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson announced his resignation on
Wednesday, NAACP President Cornell William Brooks said he viewed it as “a
validation, certainly not a victory.”
“The
fact is that the Department of Justice uncovered an unholy trinity between the
Ferguson Police Department, the municipal court and city hall. And the fact you
have these resignations indicates that these public officials are reacting to
the Department of Justice report the way roaches react to light.
“That
is to say, they are running for cover. And that’s a good thing, because that
department needs to be rebuilt from the bottom up. We need to create a culture
of accountability,” Brooks told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
The
interview took place after Jackson resigned but before two Ferguson police
officers were shot and seriously wounded at the end of a Wednesday night
protest outside the Ferguson Police Department.
Although
the U.S. Justice Department found no “prosecutable conduct on the part of
Darren Wilson” in connection with Michael Brown’s death, it did find “a pattern
or practice of racial bias” in both the Ferguson Police Department and the
municipal court.
Among
other problems, the Justice Department said Ferguson’s law enforcement
practices “are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public
safety needs.” Writing tickets for “minor offenses” to generate revenue imposes
“particular hardship on Ferguson’s most vulnerable residents,” the report said.
On
Wednesday evening, Blitzer noted that five people have now resigned or been
forced out of public jobs in Ferguson — the police chief, two police officers,
the court clerk and the city manager:
“Is
that enough, or do you want more?” Blitzer asked Brooks.
“The
mayor needs to resign,” Brooks responded.
“The
fact of the matter is, the city manager worked pretty closely with the
municipal court judge to impose these fines and in collusion and in
collaboration with the police department, all under his watch. The fact of the
matter is, we have a municipality that was acting in a rogue fashion.
“The
Justice Department report demonstrates pretty clearly that this unholy trinity
violated the Constitution, federal statutes, undoubtedly state laws, and preyed
upon the citizenry through municipal fines that were confiscatory and
discriminatory. We have a police department that engaged in excessive use of
force in a racialized way.
Rep. Trey Gowdy to Newsmax: Issuing Subpoena for Hillary Is an
Option
If former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton refuses to voluntarily
comply with requests from the Select Committee on Benghazi, committee chair
Trey Gowdy will have no choice but to subpoena her, he said Thursday on Newsmax TV's "America's
Forum."
"You hate that it gets to that point," said Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is a former district attorney. "You ought to be able to make a request of a former cabinet level official. You shouldn't have to resort to legal process. But certainly, the committee can subpoena people and subpoena documents. Our committee cannot subpoena personal property like cars and boats and servers."
"But yes, we need to talk to her. And I plan on talking to her, and I hope it's something that we can work out with her lawyer," he said. "I cannot do the job that I was asked to do with respect to Benghazi in Libya without talking to the secretary of state."
"You hate that it gets to that point," said Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is a former district attorney. "You ought to be able to make a request of a former cabinet level official. You shouldn't have to resort to legal process. But certainly, the committee can subpoena people and subpoena documents. Our committee cannot subpoena personal property like cars and boats and servers."
"But yes, we need to talk to her. And I plan on talking to her, and I hope it's something that we can work out with her lawyer," he said. "I cannot do the job that I was asked to do with respect to Benghazi in Libya without talking to the secretary of state."
Revelations that Clinton exclusively used her personal email account to
conduct State Department business has added yet another hurdle to clear in the
ongoing investigation into exactly what Clinton knew, and when, as it relates
to the killing of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, in Benghazi,
Libya, in 2012.
"I cannot ask her about Benghazi until there is a level of assurance that we have everything that we are legitimately entitled to with respect to Benghazi," Gowdy said.
But Clinton, insisting that she has turned over all correspondence that she is legally required to, has said she will not allow an independent third party to review some 30,000 emails contained on her home server because they are "personal."
"What really caught my attention is when she said, 'we,'" he said. "'We' went through the documents and sorted out what was public and private. Who is 'we?'
"If you're talking about your lawyer doing it, how can we have any assurance that your lawyer negotiated or resolved or reconciled any close questions in favor of the public as opposed to his client, which would be you?"
Gowdy acknowledged that Clinton is "a very distinguished person with a very distinguished career," but said that she is not an expert on the Federal Records Act.
"So someone had to be involved in the conversation to determine, you know, this is more public than personal," he said. "And I'll give you an example: let's assume that you emailed Secretary Clinton and said, 'Looking so forward to going to Chelsea's wedding, thank you for the invitation. If I catch you at the reception, I'd like to ask you about Paraguay and what's happening there.' Is that personal or is that public? Or is it a mixture? And if it's a mixture, how do you resolve that?"
Her explanation for having a private server in lieu of using the government's is also curious, he said.
"The whole notion that it was done for convenience — I'm not an expert on cellphone technology, but I can tell you in 2010 I was able to put two email accounts on one Blackberry. And the president, who's a really, really busy guy, manages to comply with the records act using a Blackberry," said Gowdy.
"To me, what is inconvenient is setting up your own server. It'd be much easier to carry another phone or, heaven forbid, have two email addresses on one."
Gowdy reiterated that he and the committee have no interest in emails about Clinton's "yoga practice schedule or the color of the bridesmaids' dress," a reference to Chelsea Clinton's wedding, but maintained that he does want everything he's legitimately entitled to with respect to Libya and Benghazi.
"I cannot ask her about Benghazi until there is a level of assurance that we have everything that we are legitimately entitled to with respect to Benghazi," Gowdy said.
But Clinton, insisting that she has turned over all correspondence that she is legally required to, has said she will not allow an independent third party to review some 30,000 emails contained on her home server because they are "personal."
"What really caught my attention is when she said, 'we,'" he said. "'We' went through the documents and sorted out what was public and private. Who is 'we?'
"If you're talking about your lawyer doing it, how can we have any assurance that your lawyer negotiated or resolved or reconciled any close questions in favor of the public as opposed to his client, which would be you?"
Gowdy acknowledged that Clinton is "a very distinguished person with a very distinguished career," but said that she is not an expert on the Federal Records Act.
"So someone had to be involved in the conversation to determine, you know, this is more public than personal," he said. "And I'll give you an example: let's assume that you emailed Secretary Clinton and said, 'Looking so forward to going to Chelsea's wedding, thank you for the invitation. If I catch you at the reception, I'd like to ask you about Paraguay and what's happening there.' Is that personal or is that public? Or is it a mixture? And if it's a mixture, how do you resolve that?"
Her explanation for having a private server in lieu of using the government's is also curious, he said.
"The whole notion that it was done for convenience — I'm not an expert on cellphone technology, but I can tell you in 2010 I was able to put two email accounts on one Blackberry. And the president, who's a really, really busy guy, manages to comply with the records act using a Blackberry," said Gowdy.
"To me, what is inconvenient is setting up your own server. It'd be much easier to carry another phone or, heaven forbid, have two email addresses on one."
Gowdy reiterated that he and the committee have no interest in emails about Clinton's "yoga practice schedule or the color of the bridesmaids' dress," a reference to Chelsea Clinton's wedding, but maintained that he does want everything he's legitimately entitled to with respect to Libya and Benghazi.
"And the media has requests that were outstanding and there are
other committees, so it's bigger than just our committee and what we want to
ask her," he said. "I can't ask her about Benghazi until I satisfy
myself that we are in a position to have access to every document we're
entitled to."
The State Department has also not been forthcoming, according to Gowdy, who said that "they never once told us that [Clinton] only used a personal email account."
The committee, he said, was not notified until the Friday before The New York Timesbroke the story the following Monday that they didn't have Clinton's email records.
In August, the State Department turned over to the select committee eight emails, all of which came from Clinton's private email address. That address was something committee members made note of during their pursuit of other things with the State Department, such as access to witnesses and other issues relating to Benghazi, Gowdy said.
He has since learned that in October, the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state asking them to produce emails for archiving.
"So fast forward to February and, oh by the way, in December, we wrote her personal attorney, David Kendall, and said, look, can you help us with this personal email address? And he referred us back to this State Department," Gowdy said.
"So we're thinking the whole time, well, State Department has all these emails, we just got to hurry them up.
"They gave us another production in February," he said. "It was about 800 pages but 300 emails, all of them were personal accounts, no official account.
"When The New York Times broke their story is the first time that I learned that the only reason we're getting a personal account is that's all she has and, oh by the way, she kept her records when she left the State Department. That never was shared with us by the State Department, despite multiple opportunities for them to do so."
Gowdy said he and his committee have been diligent about keeping all information gleaned during the investigation confidential in order to keep from the appearance that it's "a political exercise and not a serious investigation."
"I did not sign up for a political exercise," he said. "I signed up to try to bring some comfort and some justice to my fellow citizens and four people who were murdered. So I take this very seriously and I don't like leaks and I don't like selective releases, and The New York Times knows full well no one on our committee was the source of that information.
"I learned it when I read the story. Did I know she had a personal email account? Absolutely," he said. "Did I know that's all she had? Did I know that the State Department didn't have all of her records until she gave them back?
"Not until I read Mr. Schmidt's article," Gowdy said. "He's got better sources at the State Department than I do."
The State Department has also not been forthcoming, according to Gowdy, who said that "they never once told us that [Clinton] only used a personal email account."
The committee, he said, was not notified until the Friday before The New York Timesbroke the story the following Monday that they didn't have Clinton's email records.
In August, the State Department turned over to the select committee eight emails, all of which came from Clinton's private email address. That address was something committee members made note of during their pursuit of other things with the State Department, such as access to witnesses and other issues relating to Benghazi, Gowdy said.
He has since learned that in October, the State Department sent a letter to former secretaries of state asking them to produce emails for archiving.
"So fast forward to February and, oh by the way, in December, we wrote her personal attorney, David Kendall, and said, look, can you help us with this personal email address? And he referred us back to this State Department," Gowdy said.
"So we're thinking the whole time, well, State Department has all these emails, we just got to hurry them up.
"They gave us another production in February," he said. "It was about 800 pages but 300 emails, all of them were personal accounts, no official account.
"When The New York Times broke their story is the first time that I learned that the only reason we're getting a personal account is that's all she has and, oh by the way, she kept her records when she left the State Department. That never was shared with us by the State Department, despite multiple opportunities for them to do so."
Gowdy said he and his committee have been diligent about keeping all information gleaned during the investigation confidential in order to keep from the appearance that it's "a political exercise and not a serious investigation."
"I did not sign up for a political exercise," he said. "I signed up to try to bring some comfort and some justice to my fellow citizens and four people who were murdered. So I take this very seriously and I don't like leaks and I don't like selective releases, and The New York Times knows full well no one on our committee was the source of that information.
"I learned it when I read the story. Did I know she had a personal email account? Absolutely," he said. "Did I know that's all she had? Did I know that the State Department didn't have all of her records until she gave them back?
"Not until I read Mr. Schmidt's article," Gowdy said. "He's got better sources at the State Department than I do."
The lawmaker hopes Clinton will reconsider what he characterizes as a
"very reasonable request."
"Turn the server over to an independent, neutral, detached third party. Let that person determine what's personal, what's public — let that person determine what's related to Benghazi and Libya. You keep all the rest of it, Mr. Neutral Referee or Mrs. Neutral Referee. Just give me what I'm entitled to," Gowdy said.
"I do need to talk to her about how she handled records before I talk to her about Benghazi. But as soon as those conversations can take place, I would be thrilled to have her before the committee.
"We can ask her the questions we have, and we will continue interviewing eyewitnesses and we will continue interviewing other principles and witnesses with respect to Libya," he said. "We're going to write a really good report at the end of our investigation. How quickly she comes and goes from Capitol Hill is, frankly, solely in her power."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Trey-Gowdy-Hillary-Clinton-Email-subpoena/2015/03/12/id/629756/#ixzz3UCSjt5Bd
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
"Turn the server over to an independent, neutral, detached third party. Let that person determine what's personal, what's public — let that person determine what's related to Benghazi and Libya. You keep all the rest of it, Mr. Neutral Referee or Mrs. Neutral Referee. Just give me what I'm entitled to," Gowdy said.
"I do need to talk to her about how she handled records before I talk to her about Benghazi. But as soon as those conversations can take place, I would be thrilled to have her before the committee.
"We can ask her the questions we have, and we will continue interviewing eyewitnesses and we will continue interviewing other principles and witnesses with respect to Libya," he said. "We're going to write a really good report at the end of our investigation. How quickly she comes and goes from Capitol Hill is, frankly, solely in her power."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Trey-Gowdy-Hillary-Clinton-Email-subpoena/2015/03/12/id/629756/#ixzz3UCSjt5Bd
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Lawyer: Hillary Committed Felony if She Signed Disclosure Form
Hillary Clinton said in a press conference on Tuesday that, "I
fully complied with every rule that I was governed by" when serving as
secretary of state.
But a Washington lawyer says that's not true if she signed the OF-109 form required of every State Department official, including the secretary, upon leaving office.
The form states that the signer has "surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the government acquired while in the employ of the federal government."
But a Washington lawyer says that's not true if she signed the OF-109 form required of every State Department official, including the secretary, upon leaving office.
The form states that the signer has "surrendered to responsible officials all unclassified documents and papers relating to the official business of the government acquired while in the employ of the federal government."
Signing and not complying constitutes a false statement and is a felony,
punishable by fines and/or prison time, said Shannen Coffin, a former assistant
deputy U.S. attorney general, on Fox News Channel's "The
Kelly File."
Clinton did not surrender her emails until two years after she left office.
"She didn't comply with the Federal Records Act," Coffin said. "And she clearly did not comply with her own records management handbook for the Department of State, which sets out a very specific process about how you remove records from the department's control."
Clinton did not surrender her emails until two years after she left office.
"She didn't comply with the Federal Records Act," Coffin said. "And she clearly did not comply with her own records management handbook for the Department of State, which sets out a very specific process about how you remove records from the department's control."
Those rules require an exiting employee to "prepare an inventory of
personal papers and nonrecord materials that you are proposing for
removal" and then "request a review of those materials that you've
proposed for removal."
A records official then sorts through through all records, including emails, at the time of departure to determine what is public and what is private, Coffin said.
The form itself warns that making a false statement is prosecutable, he said.
"Making a false statement in this context knowingly and willfully – which I can't imagine anything more knowing and willful than knowing you have 55,000 records sitting in your home – if you do that, it is a felony punishable under 18 U.S.C 1001," Coffin said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-disclosing-records-form/2015/03/11/id/629656/#ixzz3UCTXdVcU
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
A records official then sorts through through all records, including emails, at the time of departure to determine what is public and what is private, Coffin said.
The form itself warns that making a false statement is prosecutable, he said.
"Making a false statement in this context knowingly and willfully – which I can't imagine anything more knowing and willful than knowing you have 55,000 records sitting in your home – if you do that, it is a felony punishable under 18 U.S.C 1001," Coffin said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/hillary-clinton-disclosing-records-form/2015/03/11/id/629656/#ixzz3UCTXdVcU
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Giuliani: To Redeem His Legacy, Obama Should Channel Cosby, Nixon
Just weeks after coming under fire for saying he didn't think President
Barack Obama loved America, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani is making
headlines again for remarks he made Thursday on a Big Apple radio talk show.
Offering advice on how Obama could redeem his legacy, tarnished in part by the anti-police "tone" he has set — resulting in police being shot, according to Giuliani, the president should take a page from comedian Bill Cosby's book and censure black men "about the large incidence of crime" they commit, the Washington Post reports.
Offering advice on how Obama could redeem his legacy, tarnished in part by the anti-police "tone" he has set — resulting in police being shot, according to Giuliani, the president should take a page from comedian Bill Cosby's book and censure black men "about the large incidence of crime" they commit, the Washington Post reports.
"If an African-American president stood up and said — I hate to mention it because of what
happened afterwards — the kind of
stuff that Bill Cosby used to say, the first guy to applaud him would be
me," Giuliani told AM 970 host John Gambling. "If he does that, I'm
telling you, whatever he does right or wrong he gets a place in history."
Cosby was once considered entertainment royalty, but has been accused by dozens of women of drugging and sexually assaulting them over his decades-long career.
"It is the obligation of the President to explain . . . that our police are the best in the world," Giuliani continued, The New York Daily News reports.
Cosby was once considered entertainment royalty, but has been accused by dozens of women of drugging and sexually assaulting them over his decades-long career.
"It is the obligation of the President to explain . . . that our police are the best in the world," Giuliani continued, The New York Daily News reports.
Giuliani compared Obama's opportunity to President Richard Nixon's
decision to normalize relations with China in the 1970s.
"I explained it this way to a person very close" to the
president, Giuliani said Thursday, the Post reports. "I said this is like
Nixon going to China. Nixon could go to China because Nixon was a strong
anti-communist going back to the McCarthy era…. Well this guy has credentials
as an African-American. If he stands up and says, 'You see my family, my
daughters, my wife, the way we're together.' This is the model. This is the
model we need."
"… This president has a chance to leave a legacy that no other president will have a chance to leave until we get another African-American president and who knows when that's gonna be, right."
Giuliani acknowledged that while he disagrees with the president "on almost everything," he admires the husband and father that he is.
"I think he's a good family man and a good man," he said. Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rudy-Giuliani-Bill-Cosby-Richard-Nixon/2015/03/13/id/629931/#ixzz3UIP6gsV3
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
"… This president has a chance to leave a legacy that no other president will have a chance to leave until we get another African-American president and who knows when that's gonna be, right."
Giuliani acknowledged that while he disagrees with the president "on almost everything," he admires the husband and father that he is.
"I think he's a good family man and a good man," he said. Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Rudy-Giuliani-Bill-Cosby-Richard-Nixon/2015/03/13/id/629931/#ixzz3UIP6gsV3
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Poe: Obama Will Lose Appeal Over Executive Order
There is no question that the Obama
administration will lose its appeal on a ruling by a Texas judge imposing an
injunction blocking the president’s executive order granting de facto amnesty
to some 5 million illegal immigrants, Texas Rep. Ted Poe said Friday on
"America’s Forum" on Newsmax TV.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen "said that the administration's action of legalizing basically 5 million people was so egregious that he had to order an injunction to prevent that executive action from taking place because it violated the law and technically he didn't get to the issue of constitutionality," explained Poe, a former judge.
U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen "said that the administration's action of legalizing basically 5 million people was so egregious that he had to order an injunction to prevent that executive action from taking place because it violated the law and technically he didn't get to the issue of constitutionality," explained Poe, a former judge.
"The judge said that the
administration did not open up this order for public comment."
President Barack Obama, who Poe said "thinks it's Burger King, he can always have his way," has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, where Poe predicts "he's going to lose again."
"The best thing so far is the injunction has been implemented and the process, the court process, as everybody in the country knows, takes a long time. So we're talking about months from now before any ruling by a higher court. "
He doesn’t think an appeals court will be swayed by the administration’s argument that the judge’s edict could apply just to the 25 states that field the lawsuit.
"Our defense, the state of Texas and the 25 states’ defense … is hey that's ridiculous because people move across state lines and so if you allow it for the people in these other states, those people will end up coming to the 25 states that have sued the president."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ted-Poe-appeal-executive-order-immigrants/2015/03/13/id/629996/#ixzz3UIPu9T8g
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
President Barack Obama, who Poe said "thinks it's Burger King, he can always have his way," has appealed the decision to the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, where Poe predicts "he's going to lose again."
"The best thing so far is the injunction has been implemented and the process, the court process, as everybody in the country knows, takes a long time. So we're talking about months from now before any ruling by a higher court. "
He doesn’t think an appeals court will be swayed by the administration’s argument that the judge’s edict could apply just to the 25 states that field the lawsuit.
"Our defense, the state of Texas and the 25 states’ defense … is hey that's ridiculous because people move across state lines and so if you allow it for the people in these other states, those people will end up coming to the 25 states that have sued the president."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ted-Poe-appeal-executive-order-immigrants/2015/03/13/id/629996/#ixzz3UIPu9T8g
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Our desgovernment at work this cost Billions of $$$$
Audit: 6.5 Million on Social Security Are Over 112
Years Old
(Lane Erickson/Dreamstime)
Tuesday, 10 Mar 2015 09:09 AM
By Drew MacKenzie
An audit of the Social Security Administration shows
some 6.5 million people on the agency's rolls are 112 or older, raising the ire
of Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson.
The SSA’s inspector general says that in all these cases the dates of death have not been registered in the main electronic file, called Numident, while thousands of dead people are having their identity stolen by illegal immigrants to apply for jobs, according to CNS News.
The SSA’s inspector general says that in all these cases the dates of death have not been registered in the main electronic file, called Numident, while thousands of dead people are having their identity stolen by illegal immigrants to apply for jobs, according to CNS News.
The audit by the
Inspector General released this month revealed that the agency
does not have the technical ability to record death information on
“numberholders” who exceed "maximum reasonable life expectancies,"
including people who were born before the Civil War.
"We obtained Numident data that identified approximately 6.5 million numberholders born before June 16, 1901 who did not have a date of death on their record," the report says.
The inspector general says that the numbers given to long-dead people were used fraudulently to open bank accounts and that thousands of those numbers were also used by illegal immigrants to obtain work, according to CNS.
“It is incredible that the Social Security Administration in 2015 does not have the technical sophistication to ensure that people they know to be deceased are actually noted as dead,” said Sen. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican. “Tens of thousands of these numbers are currently being used to report wages to the Social Security Administration and to the IRS.
"We obtained Numident data that identified approximately 6.5 million numberholders born before June 16, 1901 who did not have a date of death on their record," the report says.
The inspector general says that the numbers given to long-dead people were used fraudulently to open bank accounts and that thousands of those numbers were also used by illegal immigrants to obtain work, according to CNS.
“It is incredible that the Social Security Administration in 2015 does not have the technical sophistication to ensure that people they know to be deceased are actually noted as dead,” said Sen. Johnson, a Wisconsin Republican. “Tens of thousands of these numbers are currently being used to report wages to the Social Security Administration and to the IRS.
“People are fraudulently, but successfully, applying
for jobs and benefits with these numbers. Making sure Social Security cleans up
its death master file to prevent future errors and fraud is a good government
reform we can all agree to.”
Calling it “a major problem,” Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the Homeland Security Committee's ranking Democrat, said that the scandal exposes Americans to identity theft and is throwing taxpayers’ money down the drain.
"It is simply unacceptable that our nation’s database of Social Security numbers of supposedly living people includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age, with a few thousand having birth dates from before the Civil War,” said Carper.
Calling it “a major problem,” Delaware Sen. Tom Carper, the Homeland Security Committee's ranking Democrat, said that the scandal exposes Americans to identity theft and is throwing taxpayers’ money down the drain.
"It is simply unacceptable that our nation’s database of Social Security numbers of supposedly living people includes more than six and a half million people who are older than 112 years of age, with a few thousand having birth dates from before the Civil War,” said Carper.
“Preventing agency errors by keeping track of who has
died is a relatively simple problem that the government should pursue as a high
priority."
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
DAILY EVENTS
Operation Choke Point is government run amuck
Liberal economist and health care advisor
Jonathan Gruber was forced to testify before a House committee months ago to
explain and apologize for his now infamous comments about the “stupidity of the
American voter.”
While Gruber was scolded by members of both
parties for callously dismissing the actions of millions of Americans, his
comments represent a feeling all too common among the Beltway establishment.
They will not admit it, but they really believe that voters are dumb and
consumers need government to protect them from themselves.
A new program from the Obama Administration operates under the same idea as
Gruber, and I bet you haven’t even heard about it…until now.
Operation Choke point is an Obama
Administration Justice Department program created in 2013 to intimidate banks
into not loaning money to businesses that they simply do not like. This means
that gun shop owners, tobacco retailers, and other companies like this are
going to be feeling the stranglehold of government.
Already, they have used the program to block
credit being issued to small business owners and have put gun dealers out of
business. They have targeted companies that sell fireworks. They targeted
online gaming companies. They went after tobacco sellers and dating
services. They have even targeted loan companies if they don’t favor the rates
and the recipients, such as “payday” loan companies.
Federal officials are operating under the
paternalistic premise that millions of consumers who use short-term credit –
and payday loans, in particular – are simply irrational, and that government
must therefore “nudge” them toward “better” choices. Which essentially
means that they’re acting as an overbearing father.
A House Oversight Committee investigation has
revealed that officials running the program are motivated by personal ideology.
In fact, one senior bank examiner wrote to another FDIC official, “I literally
cannot stand pay day (sic) lending” and that such lenders “do not deserve to be
in any way associated with banking.”
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
Director Richard Cordray testified that the “very sophisticated” members of the
House Financial Services Committee should “think about [their] mothers and
fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters” and how to “protect” them
from small dollar loans.
And while these regulators try to limit
private enterprise, others are busy creating taxpayer backed alternatives to
fill the gap. The United States Postal Service Office of the Inspector General
(USPS OIG) recommended earlier this year that the agency offer financial
services, effectively wanting to create a government run payday loan company
Which they’ve already vilified, yet they want
to set up their own payday loans? Makes no sense.
In an attempt to force people into behaving
as they want, regulators are increasingly pushing short-term credit out of
reach for millions of consumers. The champions of such over-regulation will not
admit this, just as they will not admit that short-term credit plays an
important role in our economy.
Advocates of the Choke Point program claim
that if products like payday loans are eliminated, consumers will simply save
more and spend less. Which anyone who has taken economics 101, will tell
you is flat-out wrong.
Increased savings and more borrowing options
are noble goals. But they will not be achieved by taking away popular and
practical financial management tools.
Such thinking on the part of bureaucrats and
activists ignores reality for the 76% of Americans who live paycheck to
paycheck, with little in the way of savings and who need reliable credit, not
scolding or hypothetical solutions, or worse, another government program.
When these hard-working Americans face an
unexpected financial shortfall, millions make the perfectly rational decision
to use short-term loans to help cover costs associated with all of life’s last
minute disasters such as a car breaking down, emergency repairs, etc.
Columbia Professor Ronald Mann wrote, while
these products are not inexpensive, the decision to use them is rational
because the costs of borrowing are “dwarfed by the opportunity costs of what
they would lose if they did not borrow.”
Sounds logical right?
Well, despite this rationality, federal
regulators proclaimed that for those borrowing short-term loans from banks –
called deposit advances – financial challenges can only last a single pay
period; these punitive regulations have resulted in banks discontinuing the
service. Similarly, the CFPB has signaled a desire to implement additional
rules governing state-regulated payday loans. How does this help consumers
struggling to make ends meet? It doesn’t.
Restricting access to short-term loans will
not alleviate the urgent financial challenges facing many who struggle to keep
the lights on and to pay the bills. I just wish their energy would be put to
better use, like growing the economy, instead of a bullish government.
|
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment