“En mi opinión” IN GOD WE TRUST.
.No 380 Mayo 9 2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño.
8 May 2013
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
This last week Attorney General Eric Holder pandered to illegal aliens, calling them “unauthorized immigrants.” Shortly thereafter, Obama went to Mexico pandering to illegals while blaming the American people for the very crimes he and his administration contrived through “Fast and Furious”. I have got to believe that the people in Mexico realize that this man’s administration is personally responsible for the bloodshed of 300 Mexicans. Shortly after Obama’s speech – surprise, surprise – pro-amnesty protesters show up in Dallas, Texas, proclaiming, “Listen, Obama! We’re at war!”
I have been exposing this administration on my radio show for years concerning their criminal conduct.
I once had a radio station manager approach me because I was calling out Obama’s corruption on the air (sonsoflibertyradio.com). He admitted that he knows President Obama is “un-American, reckless, ignorant, dangerous, and even corrupt.” And, of course, I agreed with him.
But then he went on to say, “He is still the president of the United States, and we need to honor him and his office as such.”
I said, “Honor him as such? You’ve got to be out of your mind to think that I am going to honor any individual in any office that steps on the sacrifice of our veterans who ratified the Constitution of the United States with their blood.” (Which, by the way, is the same Constitution those in office swear to uphold.)
Obama Could Be Indicted For War Crimes
May 8, 2013 by Kris Zane
On October 2, 2002, Barack Obama burst onto the national scene with his famous anti-war speech at the Federal Plaza in Chicago. Mysteriously—or not so mysteriously per the 2008 Obama presidential campaign—video of the speech was “lost” except for thirteen seconds (shown in the above video). Many believe it was lost because the panning camera would have revealed a who’s who of radical leftists, anti-Semites, and “social justice” (that is socialist) unions in the audience.
It was only one step then from the 2004 Democratic Convention keynote speech to the presidency. Along the way, Obama continued to rally his anti-war shock troops, complete with “Bush is a war criminal” posters and frothing protesters reminiscent of the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Oddly, or not so oddly, these anti-war protesters suddenly disappeared once Obama ascended to the presidency. But lo and behold, when the Occupy Wall Street movement got under way, the same radicals who were part of the anti-war movement were now part of the “pay your fair share” movement.
But “anti-war” President Obama proved himself nothing of the kind. He embraced the use of Orwellian doublespeak and secrecy to conduct endless wars that has made George W. Bush look like a pacifist.
The non-war war in Libya wasn’t a war because Obama never invoked the War Powers Act—or more correctly, he refused to seek approval for the war from Congress. Then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta famously told Congress that seeking “international permission” from NATO was sufficient for action against Gaddafi. Obama’s rationale, on the other hand, for not seeking Congressional approval, was because we didn’t have any boots on the ground. Because we pulverized Gaddafi with a blitzkrieg of air power instead of a standing army, then, technically, war was never declared. According to this line of reasoning, the attack on Pearl Harbor was not actually a declaration of war.
Because of Obama’s non-war war in Libya, we have much of Libya (and North Africa for that matter) controlled by al-Qaeda, which led directly to the attack on the Benghazi consulate on the anniversary of 9/11.
Why didn’t Obama send in help to save Americans when the Benghazi consulate was attacked? We now know at least one stand down order was given. It is a forgone conclusion it was because Benghazi was ground zero for another one of Obama’s non-war wars—in Syria—in which Obama had been secretly shipping weapons to the Syrian “rebels” (and sending in help would have revealed this.)
The difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the fact that the rebels were linked to al-Qaeda was kept under wraps. The Syrian rebels, on the other hand, make no bones about their links to al-Qaeda.
But this is only the surface of Obama’s non-war wars. John Brennan (simply a terrorism advisor to Obama until recently being named CIA director), according to the extensively research book Benghazi: The Definitive Report, has been waging a series of secret wars in North Africa and the Middle East against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-linked groups for years. Brennan and his minions at JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command) have not only been operating outside the purview of Congress, but outside the purview of the Pentagon and CIA. Former CIA head David Petraeus wasn’t even aware of Brennan’s secret wars!
According to Benghazi: The Definitive Report, the attack on the Benghazi consulate had nothing to do with, as we were told, an amateurish anti-Muslim YouTube video leading to a “protest turned violent”—now completely debunked by the release on Monday of the “revised” White House talking points—but was retaliation for John Brennan’s JSOC attacks on the al-Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Sharia.
Not only in charge of dozens of secret wars, Brennan then as now is in charge of the vast drone program that has reached a frightening level. Obama authorized more drone strikes in the first ten months of his presidency than George W. Bush carried out in his entire eight-year presidency.
Obama authorizes, for the most part, what are called “signature” strikes, which means in a nut shell that you are never sure who you are killing. This of course translates into hundreds if not thousands of civilian casualties, including women and children.
Jeremy Scahill’s just-published blockbuster book, Dirty Wars, gives a laundry list of the “anti-war” Obama’s real record as a warmonger.
Just six months into his presidency, on June 23, 2009, Obama authorized the use of a drone to fire multiple hellfire missiles to take out a single “high value target” (HVT) on a funeral procession! According to Dirty Wars:
Scores of civilians— estimates ranged between eighteen and forty-five— were killed. “After the prayers ended people were asking each other to leave the area as drones were hovering,” said a man who lost his leg in the attack. “First two drones fired two missiles, it created a havoc, there was smoke and dust everywhere. Injured people were crying and asking for help… they fired the third missile after a minute, and I fell on the ground.”
And this is just one instance of what many are calling war crimes. It is estimated that for every “high value target” killed by a drone, fifty civilians are killed, predominantly women and children.
All of this has been conveniently covered up by Obama’s compliant media, but it appears the wheels are now coming off the “anti-war” Obama bus.
Buried in the mainstream media amid the Boston Marathon terror attack the day before, on April 16, an organization called the Constitution Project released the mammoth 600 page study entitled “The Report of The Constitution Project’s Task Force on Detainee Treatment.”
The report comes to some shocking conclusions. It in effect makes the case that Barack Hussein Obama, under international law, is guilty of war crimes and should be indicted.
In the coming days, we will be looking at this mammoth document along with Jeremy Scahill’s equally mammoth study, discussing Obama’s Dirty Wars in order to determine if in fact Barack Hussein Obama is a war criminal who should be indicted for war crimes
Benghazi: Are We A Nation Run By Fools?
May 8, 2013 by Susan Stamper Brown
It seems like only yesterday when President Obama stood in front of an electrified audience at the 2012 Democratic National Convention just days before the deadly September 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, reminding supporters, “al Qaeda is on the path to defeat and Osama bin Laden is dead.”
Days later, on September 14, a somber-faced Obama and his sullen-faced Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stood in front of four flag draped coffins at Andrews Air Force Base, assuring the small group of grieving family members that their loved ones did not die in vain. Their ill-informed message suggested these patriots weren’t killed by terrorists; they died because of protests about a YouTube video.
Since then, the administration has done its best to dodge questions and distance itself from the events of September 11 (and acquired a convenient case of amnesia along the way.) Nine months in, and Americans still have no clue why initial talking points from top officials claiming the attacks were most likely executed by al Qaeda-linked terrorists were reduced to “a YouTube video.” Did they fear acknowledging such a claim so close to the 2012 presidential election? Or did they actually believe the video story?
Hopefully, some of these questions were answered by way of three courageous State Department whistle-blowers scheduled to testify before the House Oversight Committee May 8. Pre-hearing interviews from one of the whistleblowers, Gregory Hicks (the second highest diplomat in Libya at the time of the attacks), were released to the press. Hicks claimed a Special Forces team, which could have saved lives and protected evidence, was ordered to “stand down” despite multiple pleas for help. Contrary to the administration’s claims, Hicks also said, “…everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack” from the beginning.
Hicks’ statements seem to fit in with the timeline obtained by the Weekly Standard from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Weekly Standard article “The Benghazi Talking Points” describes how “senior Obama administration officials knowingly misled the country about what had happened” and made “substantive revisions” to the “CIA’s talking points” six weeks outside the 2012 presidential election.
So where’s your thirst for truth, America? Why aren’t we outraged? Maybe because, as White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said, “Benghazi happened a long time ago.” Maybe Carney should ask grieving family members wanting answers and longing for closure how long it’s been since their loved ones lost their lives in Benghazi. Or maybe we are at a point in this country where a politician’s political aspirations trump everything else.
The last time something of this magnitude happened, a U.S. president stepped down. But that was during a time when good men who made bad choices still had the intestinal fortitude to accept personal responsibility for their actions. It was also a time when journalists were principled enough to set aside politics to do their job and make politicians accountable.
Some in the mainstream media are reluctantly pulling their heads out of the ground. On May 5, CBS news anchor Bob Schieffer acknowledged the possibility the administration might have been involved in a “cover-up.” Others are unenthusiastically following suit because they have no choice. Of course, the illegitimate diehards will remain with their heads in the sand until the storm passes.
As the pieces of this puzzle come together, one thing is certain: full and honest disclosure is always the best policy. Regardless of how Benghazi pans out, we will discover that either the Obama administration was involved in a cover-up and played us as fools, or our government is run by fools who actually believed the Benghazi attacks were in response to an uprising over an amateurish anti-Islam video by a man now serving jail time for a separate issue. Either way, we lose
Benghazi Revelations Today Could Obliterate Obama’s Credibility and Sink Hillary’s 2016 Ambitions
Bloodstains at the main gate believed to be from one of the American staff members of the U.S. Consulate, after an attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens on the night of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012, in Benghazi, Libya. (AP)
Was a Stand Down Order Given?
There are also reports that Hicks told House investigators that a Quick Reaction Force from Tripoli was held back despite being ready to deploy to Benghazi. This occurred before the second wave of attacks on the annex facility, and therefore the delay could have cost American lives.
That any U.S. official would hamper a rescue team from deploying with all due haste to assist a U.S. Ambassador and numerous other Americans in jeopardy defies our most basic expectations. If political optics—the possibility that a large, sustained gunfight with Benghazi terrorists may have looked bad on television the next day—influenced the decision to give the stand down order in any way, the American people have a right to know. And someone must be held accountable.
The Cover Up: How Deep and High Up Does it Go?
Anyone with an internet connection can prove that the Obama administration lied about the Benghazi attacks to prevent an election-changing narrative from taking hold in the minds of the American people. The three whistle-blowers today could be in a position to make such an airtight case for a cover up at the top levels of the administration that efforts to downplay or dismiss it will finally become impossible.
Here’s what we already know: It was obviously a terrorist attack from the start. The talking points were changed to avoid calling it that. The claims about the Youtube video were a cynical smokescreen, meant to stall the news cycle. For two weeks, officials obfuscated and lied about the attacks. And the FBI took an astonishing 24 days to get on site—long after news outlets like CNN were able to rummage through the wreckage.
What we don’t know—and what the whistle blowers may be able to tell us—is just who exactly made those decisions. And while we can come to our own conclusion about why, we don’t have hard evidence– yet.
What’s At Stake for Obama, Hillary, and the Democrats?
The Benghazi hearing could reestablish an old narrative: that Democrats are feckless on national security and place raw domestic political considerations above all else. This would be a disaster, not just for those currently in power, but for Hillary “Benghazi” Clinton in 2016.
To be sure, the Democrats will fight this tooth and nail. They will try to undermine the credibility of the whistle-blowers. If that doesn’t work, they will downplay their testimony as old news, and claim that all of this is a political witch-hunt.
But their primary goal at this point will be to protect Hillary Clinton’s legacy. President Obama will never run for office again, and despite the wishes of some conservatives, Obama will not be pushed from office. The House is very unlikely to impeach him, and even if they did, the Democrat-controlled Senate would not remove him from office.
While Benghazi is much worse than Watergate, the consequences for President Obama will definitely not be.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is another matter. An Ambassador was killed under her watch, a man who was her responsibility. Three other brave Americans died with him. Hillary’s signature, automatic or not, was on cables pulling back security resources. Her previous testimony to Congress could be described as misleading at best.
The Benghazi hearing will not just be a search for the truth—it will inevitably be a preemptive political battle against Hillary Clinton, the presumed next Democratic nominee.
Americans had a chance to enforce accountability for Benghazi at the ballot box last November, and more than half failed to do so. If the whistle-blowers today have their say, and enough of the American people are listening, we may have one last chance to punish—or at least avoid—dishonest leadership in the form of Hillary 2016.
Benghazi makes Watergate ‘look like kindergarten’
General: ‘A dereliction of duty this nation has never seen before’
Revelations in Wednesday’s congressional hearings on the Benghazi terrorist attacks prove it is a massive scandal that will carry significant consequences for those involved in the cover-up, according to retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney.
McInerney served at the highest levels in the Air Force, including time as assistant vice chief of staff and vice commander in chief of the U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He believes the Obama administration deliberately misled the American people on the motivation for the attack and is now covering its tracks on decisions to prevent a military rescue in Benghazi. He told WND that is more clear than ever following Wednesday’s testimony of former Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks and two others before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“This is going to be the biggest scandal. It is going to make Watergate look like kindergarten because Watergate was primarily limited to the Oval Office. This cuts across the whole national security apparatus, where people were lying and covering up,” McInerney said. “It is a dereliction of duty that this nation has never seen before.”
So what consequences could that mean for the highest levels of the administration?
“Well, just see what the consequences were in Watergate. If it’s far worse than Watergate, the consequences will go right into the Oval Office,” he said.
McInerney said the tell-tale sign of Obama’s dereliction of duty can be determined in the admitted White House narrative of the president’s actions as the terrorist attack played out the night of Sept. 11, 2012.
“When is the exact minute he knew? We don’t have the timeline, and it was well before the secretary of defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff went over there. He only talked to the secretary of defense one time, so it’s obvious he knew that he had given the stand-down order and did not need to talk to the secretary of defense or anybody else after that,” McInerney said. “Then he goes the next day out on a fundraising campaign to Las Vegas. That is a low for the commander in chief of this great nation.”
He also insists the stand-down order could only come from one source: the president himself.
“The only person who could have given it was the president, and he had to give it through the secretary of defense, secretary of state. The word came out so it came from the combatant commands and other unites below, but nobody could have given that except the president of the United States, and that is very clear,” said McInerney, who noted that the State Department’s own Accountability Review Board likely reached a similar conclusion in its report, which is why so few have seen it and the leaders of that study refuse to appear before Congress. McInerney believes they should be subpoenaed.
While he believes Obama has a lot to answer for, McInerney made it clear that many top-level subordinates deserve a lot of the blame too, and that’s what makes the scandal so troubling.
“It’s going to have significant consequences because it impacts two CIA directors, two secretaries of state, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, two secretaries of defense that are all involved now with the cover-up,” he said.
The general also singled out former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for her comment at congressional hearings in January in which she bristled severely at accusations the administration concocted a plan to blame the attack on a spontaneous demonstration over an anti-Islam YouTube video that got out of hand. Clinton slammed Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, saying, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
McInerney sees that as a low point in American history.
“That is one of the most despicable statements that any American has said about such a tragic incident when you lose people like that. It makes a huge difference that our troops know that they will always be protected as much as they can and we’ll do anything to protect them,” he said. “She says, what difference does it make? That will live with her til the day she dies. I can tell you, all the people I know, both active and retired, think that is one of the most despicable statements we have ever heard a civilian leader say in our country’s history.”
McInerney said the administration’s story is full of holes on a number of fronts, including the narrative about the supposed video protests. But the general said his own experience serving in that theater convinces him there was plenty of time and opportunity to deploy U.S. forces to protect Americans in Benghazi.
“We have never done that, that I know, in our military history, where we just abandoned and did not try to send in rescue forces. They could have gotten there from Aviano (Air Base in Italy) the F-16s. I used to fly F-16s out of Aviano when I was vice commander in chief of U.S. Air Forces in Europe. I know that scene very well. They could have made it. They said they didn’t have tankers. They could have dropped their tanks. They could have recovered at a nearby Italian air base on an island,” he said.
“So it is unacceptable to me that we didn’t send those forces from Tripoli that we had there. We didn’t send F-16s and the FEST team to go in and to try to rescue those people. That was unacceptable, but from the get-go they had a narrative that they wanted to stick with that was a political narrative that the war was over, they had defeated al-Qaida,” he said.
Hillary Benghazi Clinton Alert: 7 Things We Just Learned from the Whistleblowers
1. There were multiple stand-down orders, not just one.
2. Ambassador Stevens’ reason for going to Benghazi has been cleared up.
3. Clinton was briefed at 2 am on the night of the attack, was never told that a movie had anything to do with the attack by those on the ground in Libya, yet blamed the movie anyway.
4. Whistleblowers were intimidated into silence.
5. “The YouTube movie was a non-event in Libya.”
6. Democrats were uninterested in getting at most of the facts, but were very interested in destroying Mark Thompson.
7. House hearings are a poor way to determine who did what and why during and after the attack.
Getting to the Bottom of Benghazi May 7, 2013 at 5:00 am / by Sonya Sasser
This week, after eight months of distractions and unanswered questions, we are getting closer to the bottom of Benghazi and understanding what exactly transpired during the 9/11 consulate attack (in which U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed)– as three career State Department officials will testify at this Wednesday’s (May 8, 2013) widely anticipated congressional hearing.
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa recently said, “This Administration has offered the American people only a carefully selected and sanitized version of events from before, during, and after the Benghazi terrorist attacks…This week’s hearing will expose new facts and details that the Obama Administration has tried to suppress.”
Fox News also recently reported the names of the three men who will testify about the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks:
- Gregory N. Hicks, a foreign service officer and former Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks.
- Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine and now the deputy coordinator for Operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau.
- Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya, the top security officer in the country in the months leading up to the attack.
Also, just as the White House recently attempted to ‘blow off’ questions about the September 11, 2012 Benghazi attack, other fresh information has emerged, revealing that top Obama administration officials deliberately misled the nation about what happened in the weeks following the attack.
The Weekly Standard reported it has “…obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence detailing the heavy substantive revisions made to the CIA’s talking points, just six weeks before the 2012 presidential election, and additional information about why the changes were made and by whom…As intelligence officials pieced together the puzzle of events unfolding in Libya, they concluded even before the assaults had ended that al Qaeda-linked terrorists were involved.”
Yet, the Obama administration downplayed al Qaeda’s involvement, as it pointed its finger at some ridiculous you-tube video, claiming the video ‘outraged’ the Muslim community, and caused the protests that led to the Benghazi assault. President Obama even continued to blame the video when he addressed the United Nations weeks after the attack.
Breitbart reports that according to featured transcripts of interviews with Issa’s committee, one of the “whistleblowers,” Gregory Hicks, said he was “stunned” by what UN Ambassador Rice claimed “on five different news shows on Sep 16”.
“When she appeared on Face the Nation, she followed an interview with the President of Libya who claimed he had ‘no doubt’ it was a terror attack,” Gregory Hicks said. “Moments later, Ambassador Rice contradicted him and claimed a spontaneous protest was more likely.”
“Acting Ambassador Hicks watched the Sunday shows and said he found this contradiction shocking. “The net impact of what has transpired is the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world has basically said that the President of Libya is either a liar or doesn’t know what he’s talking about,” he accused. Hicks added, “My jaw hit the floor as I watched this…I’ve never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career as on that day.
Hicks believes the stunning failure of diplomacy on the Sunday news shows explains why it took the FBI three weeks to gain access to the Benghazi site. The U.S. had effectively humiliated the Libyan President on national TV. That decision, he believed, probably compromised our ability to investigate and track down those responsible.”
According to Fox News:
“Joe diGenova, a former U.S. attorney, and wife Victoria Toensing, a former chief counsel to the Senate Intelligence Committee — Republicans — disclosed this week that in their private practice in the nation’s capital, they now represent pro bono two career State Department employees who regard themselves as “whistle-blowers” and would be testifying before Issa’s committee at its next Benghazi hearing, on May 8.”
Fox News also reports that these lawyers claim their clients have been threatened to keep quiet about the attack:
“The lawyers said their clients believe their accounts of Benghazi were spurned by the Accountability Review board (ARB), the official investigative body convened by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to review the terrorist attacks, and that the two employees have faced threats and intimidation from as-yet-unnamed superiors.
“I’m not talking generally, I’m talking specifically about Benghazi — that people have been threatened,” Toensing told Fox News on Wednesday. “And not just the State Department; people have been threatened at the CIA. … It’s frightening. …They’re taking career people and making them well aware that their careers will be over.”
The “whistleblowers” have wanted to share their accounts of the terrorist attack for months now, but were intimidated and told they weren’t allowed. Needless to say, we’ve already gone eight long months without answers about that horrific night in Benghazi.
That’s why all Americans will be watching this Wednesday, May 8th, as these brave servants finally get to share the truth! http://politichicks.tv/column/getting-to-the-bottom-of-benghazi/
Eliminan Que Dios Nos Bendiga del Cementerio de Arlinton Ricardo Samitier.
Cambiaron en los Mármoles del Cementerio de Arlington La Palabra “Que Dios Los Bendiga:
Otra Prueba Más De La Guerra Contra Dios Que Se lleva A Cabo SIGILOSAMENTE Contra Dios En Todos Los Departamentos Por Los Demócratas Y Obama …
Hay que lograr que los politiqueros CONTRATEN a un grabador en mármoles para que vaya al CEMENTERIO NACIONAL DE ARLINGTON y añada “Que Dios Los Bendiga” palabras que faltan En el Monumento a la Segunda Guerra Mundial.?
ESTE ES UN MENSAJE DE UN OBSERVADOR consternado:
Hoy he ido a visitar el NUEVO MONUMENTO construidos bajo el gobierno de Obama… A caídos en la SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL en Washington, DC.
Recibí una lección de historia inesperada. Porque soy un joven, yo era uno de los más jóvenes en la multitud. La mayoría eran de la edad de mis padres, veteranos de ‘la guerra más grande, “con sus familias. Era un hermoso día, y la gente estaba sonriendo y feliz de estar allí.
Cientos de nosotros caminamos alrededor del monumento, la lectura de las palabras inspiradoras de Eisenhower y Truman que están grabados allí.
En el lado del Pacífico un grupo de nosotros se reunieron para leer las palabras que el presidente Roosevelt utilizó para anunciar el ataque a Pearl Harbor:
‘Ayer 7 de diciembre de 1941 – una fecha que vivirá en la infamia – los Estados Unidos de América fue repentina y deliberadamente atacados.
Una señora mayor leyó en voz alta:
“Con confianza en nuestras fuerzas armadas, con la determinación abundante de nuestra gente, ganaremos el inevitable triunfo.
Pero a medida que leía, repentinamente se volvió furiosa. Dijo: -Espera un momento-, han CAMBIADO EL FINAL del DISCURSO. Dejaron de lado la parte más importante…
Roosevelt terminó el mensaje diciendo “Que Dios Nos Ayude.”
Su marido le dijo: “Tú probablemente tengan razón… pero No debemos decir cosas como eso. “
“Yo sé que tengo razón”, insistió. “Recuerdo el discurso.” Los dos se miraron consternados, sacudió la cabeza con tristeza y se alejó.
Escuchando su conversación, me dije a mí mismo: “Bueno, ha sido más de 50 años, ella es probablemente olvidado.
Pero ella no lo había olvidado. Ella estaba en lo cierto ..
Fui a casa y saqué el libro de mi club de lectura es la lectura “Flags of Our Fathers ‘— por James Bradley. Se trata de la batalla de Iwo Jima.
No he llegado demasiado lejos en el libro. Es difícil de leer porque es una descripción gráfica de las batallas de la Segunda Guerra Mundial en el Pacífico.
Pero allí estaba, en la página 58. El discurso de Roosevelt y termina diciendo”
“Que Dios nos ayude.”
Las personas que editaron esa parte del discurso cuando se graban en el mármol del monumento DELIBERADAMENTE Eliminaron A Dios están engañando a todos.
Yo nací después de la guerra! Pero no pudieron engañar a la gente que estaba allí. Las Palabras de Roosevelt están grabados en sus corazones.
Ahora le pregunto: “¿Quién les dio el derecho de modificar los PALABRAS DE LA HISTORIA????????
Enviar esto alrededor a sus amigos. La gente tiene que saber antes de todo el mundo olvida…
Los gobernantes de USA de hoy están tratando de cambiar la historia de América, dejando a Dios fuera de ella, pero la verdad es que Dios ha sido parte de esta nación, desde el principio. Él todavía quiere ser… y siempre lo será!
SHALL WE HIRE A MONUMENT ENGRAVER TO GO TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND ADD THE MISSING WORDS?
THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER:
Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. I got an unexpected history lesson. Because I’m a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, Veterans of ‘the greatest war,’ with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there.
On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:
‘Yesterday, December 7, 1941–a date which will live in infamy–the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked.’
One elderly woman read the words aloud:
‘With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph.’
But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. ‘Wait a minute,’ she said, ‘they left out the end of the quote. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with ‘so help us God.’
Her husband said, ‘You are probably right. We’re not supposed to say things like that now.’
‘I know I’m right,’ she insisted. ‘I remember the speech.’ The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away.
Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself, ‘Well, it has been over 50 years; she’s probably forgotten.’
But she had not forgotten. She was right..
I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading — ‘Flags of Our Fathers’ by James Bradley. It’s all about the battle at Iwo Jima.
I haven’t gotten too far in the book. It’s tough to read because it’s a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific.
But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt ‘s speech to the nation ends in ‘so help us God.’
The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war! But they couldn’t fool the people who were there. Roosevelt ‘s words are engraved on their hearts.
Now I ask: ‘WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?????????’
People today are trying to change the history of America by leaving God out of it, but the truth is, God has been a part of this nation, since the beginning. He still wants to be…and He always will be!
La situación es igual en todos los países CAPITALISTAS.. Ricardo Samitier (email@example.com)
Vamos A Ver Si entendemos algo de esta cosa loca…
¿Lo Que En Verdad Hacen Los
Bancos Centrales De Los Países
Que Dicen Ser “CAPITALISTAS”?
Antiguamente los Banco Central… Era un lugar donde se almacena el dinero… hoy en día Es un lugar donde se crea el dinero DE LA NADA! ¡SÍ! DE LA NADA!
Eso lo sabe todo el mundo y Nadie se indigna…PERO es aun PEOR…
Cuando el banco central crea dinero de la nada, entonces se lo PRESTA AL GOBIERNO que lo ha autorizado a imprimirlo con interés!
¡Eso es! Se crea (se imprimé) de la nada y LUEGO SE COBRA INTERÉS AL GOBIERNO! ¡Tremenda Ganga!
A Continuación, El Gobierno Presta Ese Dinero “Recién IMPRESO (creado) a los bancos que el gobierno les ha dado una PATENTE ESPECIAL… diciendo que son demasiado GRANDES para dejarlos quebrar…
En la actualidad, esos bancos (que debieron haber quebrado en el 2008) están pagando un interés 0.50%. Sin embargo, la tasa de inflación es del 2%. Por lo tanto, los Banqueros ya están recibiendo dinero gratis, directamente de los gobiernos… (Esto está pasando en todo los países CAPITALISTAS)
INCLUSO UN IDIOTA, puede ganarse la vida prestando dinero, por debajo de los costos de devolución!
Todos Tenemos Que Reconocer Que Es Un Mal Negocio Para El Gobierno… y como el gobierno es EL REPRESENTANTE DEL PUEBLO… Es un mal negocio hecho por nuestros representantes…
Si Usted y Yo sabemos que es un MAL NEGOCIO… ¿Por qué el gobierno lo hace???
Porque, saben que usted COBARDEMENTE NO SOLO VA A PAGAR LAS PERDIDAS con mas IMPUESTOS… sino que además los van a RE-ELEGIR en las próximas elecciones…porque los politiqueros saben:
- Que el 42% está muy ocupado en día de las elecciones y NO VA A SALIR A VOTAR… pues ya les han hecho creer que los VOTOS NO CUENTAN…
- Los que viven del gobierno (el “NOTORIO 47%” de las últimas elecciones VAN A VOTAR por los que ELLOS les garantizan la re-elección (PUES QUIEREN SEGUIR COBRANDO o recibiendo los BENEFICIOS)
- Los que pagan los impuestos como usted ya son una minoría… PERDEDORA…
Los “Homosexuales” quieren que se les incluya en la ley de emigrantesRicardo Samitier (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Los Homosexuales Quieren Que No Se Apruebe la Ley Que Normalice A Los Emigrantes…
He Aquí El “Por Qué”
Si la Ley Fracasa… le van echar la culpa a los Republicanos… Y los maricones desean que la Cámara Baja sea controlada en las próximas elecciones por el PARTIDO DEMÓCRATA donde ellos tienen mayor influencia para conseguir las leyes que ellos DESEAN DE VERDAD…la autorización a casarse FEDERAL… como ley del país…
La Justicia en USA está enferma de Hipocresía Ricardo Samitier (email@example.com)
Los Fiscales “TRATANDO DE HACERSE FAMOSOS… Para
Después postularse Han Gastado $1,100,000 Y 4 Meses
En Juzgar Y Hacer Notoria A Judy Arias…
El crimen en sí no necesitaba 4 meses… pues la SEÑORA entonces de 30 años de edad, ASESINO a su MARI-NOVIO de un disparo en la frente, lo apuñaló 30 veces y le cortó la garganta de oreja a oreja, dejándolo casi decapitados. Ella afirmó que el la atacó y luchó por su vida…
No existe la posibilidad de hacer todo eso en “Defensa Propia”…
Ahora los burócratas… Van A Seguir Gastando Dinero… pues estará en la Cárcel APELANDO “Cualquier que sea la sentencia… y el PUEBLO PAGANDO… dentro de 10 ó 12 años todavía… oiremos las noticias de sus apelaciones…
Los TERRORISTAS son CATEDRATICOS UNIVERSITARIOS
Ricardo Samitier (firstname.lastname@example.org) 5/08/13
¿Por qué La Juventud Universitaria Apoya A Obama?
Las Universidades Son Un Nido De Comunistas En Los Últimos 50 Años Han Logrado Lavarle El Cerebro A La Juventud… Contra La Civilización Cristiana Y La Libre Empresa…
Señale ayer como TODOS LOS POLITIQUEROS que han tenido que renunciar por cualquier tipo de ESCÁNDALO… automáticamente son contratados por las universidades como CATEDRÁTICOS…
El día 2 de Abril el Washington Post descubrió otra TERRORISTA en este caso una que cumplió 22 años de prisión dando clases como CATEDRÁTICA de la Universidad de COLUMBIA… EN ESTE CASO es la EX WEATHER UNDERGROUND RADICAL KATHY BOUDIN - quien hace 24 años participó en un robo a mano armada de camiones blindados en el que murieron dos policías y un guardia de Brinks – ahora es UNA PRESTIGIOSO PROFESOR en la Escuela de Trabajo Social de la Universidad de Columbia.
Estos nuevos descubrimientos indican que no solo es el amigo y mentor de Obama, Bill Ayers y su novia psicópata los únicos terroristas que han encontrado cómodos EMPLEOS en el mundo académico:
Ángela Davis es otra PROFESORA OFICIALMENTE COMUNISTA de la universidad de Santa Cruz de California… Ángela tiene entre otras cosas en su resume el haber sido galardonada con el “Premio LENIN de la Paz” de la de Alemania del Este en 1979.
Además es la LÍDER del movimiento para liberar a todos los criminales que se encuentran presos miembros de minorías… ALEGANDO que son presos políticos de los racistas Estados Unidos…
COMO SALIÓ ABSUELTA ÁNGELA DAVIS:
Ella fue la que compro el arsenal de armas a las Panteras Negras que usaron para matar a UN JUEZ del condado de Marín, en un intento fallido de rescatar a Panteras Negras encarcelados…
EL JURADO ESTABA INFILTRADO por las PANTERAS NEGRAS…
Tras el anuncio del veredicto que la ABSOLVIÓ, un miembro del jurado ante cámaras de televisión… le dio el saludo comunista y de las PANTERAS NEGRAS de levantar la mano CON EL PUÑO CERRADO… lo cual es motivo para CANCELAR el veredicto y volver a juzgar a la Davis… y desde luego el miembro de jurado arrestado por no haber declarado que era COMUNISTA antes del juicio…
Pero la cantidad de comunistas infiltrados en todos los NIVELES DEL GOBIERNO DE USA… alegando que pudieran los NEGROS SUBLEVARSE en las ciudades… es decir el MIEDO A LOS NEGROS… NO SE CUMPLIÓ CON LA LEY…
La Situación De Las Universidades Tiene 3 CULPABLES:
- 1. Los políticos que son los que NOMBRAN a los directores… pues ¿Qué clase de enfermos están dirigiendo las UNIVERSIDADES que contratan esa escoria COMUNISTA y CRIMINAL como Kathy Boudin, Ángela Davis, Bill Ayers, etc. para educar a los jóvenes estadounidenses?
- 2. La Juntas REGENTES que no cumplen con su DEBER supervisando a quienes contratan…
- 3. Los padres que envían a sus hijos a las UNIVERSIDADES por el NOMBRE… y PAGAN COSTOSAS CARRERAS sin saber quiénes son los profesores de sus hijos.
- 4. Como resultado los estudiantes UNIVERSITARIOS hoy SON EN MAS DEL 65% LOS QUE VOTARON POR OBAMA…
La Universidad Internacional de la Florida… Es una de las mas COMUNISTOIDES de la nación… es un nido de izquierdistas y de elementos cubanos comunistas INCLUYENDO TENIA DOS ESPÍAS que fueron condenados…
Esos espías… también ENCUBRÍAN SUS ACTIVIDADES siendo miembros activos de los “Matrimonios Católicos” de la IGLESIA PARROQUIAL St THOMAS… donde funcionaban y hacían comunión semanal… Sus hijos se educaron en Belén y como todos sus compañeros eran anti – comunistas… siendo para ellos peor sorpresa saber que eran hijos de TRAIDORES A SU PATRIA y ESPÍAS a su país de nacimiento…
Hudson Panel: U.S. Ignoring Increasing Christian Persecution
by John Rossomando IPT News March 28, 2013
Christian persecution is on the rise throughout the Muslim world, and the United States is leading from behind on the issue, according to a panel that gathered at the Hudson Institute in Washington Wednesday to discuss the book, Persecuted: The Global Assault on Christians.
The U.S. State Department and Western governments have been largely silent on the issue of Christian persecution because of political correctness and multiculturalism, panelists said.
“If there is a hiker … abducted in Iran, the State Department has no hesitancy to come out and make a major issue of these cases, but it seems like when Christians are involved, they shy away, ” said panelist Nina Shea. “It is found in both Republican and Democratic administrations.”
Panelists cited the case of Iranian-American pastor Saed Abedini, who was sentenced to eight years in prison in Iran, as an example of the State Department’s failure to take action on its own when Christians are being persecuted. However, the State Department announced Wednesday that Secretary of State John Kerry had called on the Iranians to release Abedini after being pressured to do so by the American Center for Law and Justice and others.
The Obama administration recently refused to send a representative to a hearing by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission two weeks ago to discuss Abedini’s plight.
Commission Chairman Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., slammed the administration in a release on March 20, saying that the State Department’s failure to send a representative showed that religious freedom was not a priority of its foreign policy. Several State Department officials did meet with Abedini’s wife and counsel that same day, however, so claims no one was available to appear at the hearing seem disingenuous, he wrote.
“In short, the Department misled the commission and in doing so sent a dangerous message to rogue regimes the world over – even human rights abuses that compromise the safety and security of American citizens will be met with virtual silence from the U.S. government,” Wolf wrote in his letter to Kerry.
In Egypt, the Obama administration is asserting a moral equivalency between actions by government forces and the Coptic Christian minority, said Shea, director of Hudson’s Center for Religious Freedom. She noted that the State Department failed to forcefully condemn the Egyptian government for sending tanks and bullets after Copts protested the burning of their churches in October 2011. The massacre left 24 Copts dead and 272 injured.
“The U.S government put out a response condemning it and asking for both sides to refrain from further violence,” Shea said. “Sam Tadros said in NRO at the time that I should tell the military to stand down and tell the Copts to stop dying.”
Moderator Eric Metaxis suggested that the Obama administration chose to throw the issue of religious freedom “under the bus” in the interest of greater peace.
But this situation is just a recent manifestation of an increasing wave of radicalism that has swept the Muslim world over the past 10 to 15 years. Christians have found themselves subject to increasing persecution in places such as Indonesia and Senegal that were previously known for their tolerance of non-Muslims.
Examples of Gilbert’s point include recent attacks on Coptic churches in Libya, the sentencing of an Egyptian woman and her family to 15 years in prison for converting to Christianity, and a Fox News report Tuesday of an Egyptian mosque being used to torture Christians.
Additionally, Shea criticized the Obama administration for not stopping the Karzai government from closing Afghanistan’s last remaining church in 2010, making it the only country other than Saudi Arabia that doesn’t have a church open in it. This event occurred as the U.S. troop surge into the country was on the upswing, and resulting in forcing American diplomats and contractors to worship in secret.
“I attribute this to political correctness, to multiculturalism and an unwillingness to say that Christians are victims in that part of the world,” Shea said. “It’s trying to be nice … and I can’t find any other explanation.”
Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Paul Marshall noted that the State Department takes a very different approach to confronting the persecution of Bahais in Iran. While it usually is quick to come to their defense, he said, for some reason it is reluctant to even acknowledge that the persecuted people are Christians.
The United States doesn’t seem to want to be seen as a Christian nation protecting Christians, Marshall said.
“There seems to be a tendency to go easy on our friends and on people who want to be our friends,” he said. “We seem to be more outspoken on Iran and less outspoken about Afghanistan and what goes on there.”
Islamic radicalization during the past 10 to 15 years has fueled much of the persecution of Christians throughout the Islamic world. Countries such as Indonesia and Senegal that had relatively tolerant Islamic populations have become more radical, and Christians have found themselves subject to persecution where they hadn’t been before.
Marshall dismissed the idea that Muslim radicals have targeted the United States in recent years because of its foreign policy. Instead he says that groups like al-Qaida target Americans because they view the U.S. as Christian.
“How many mosques have been burned or attacked in Egypt?” Marshall asked. “To my knowledge zero, but large numbers of churches [have been].
“In terms of the clashes it’s not a clash between two forces; it’s Islamists versus the West, and Christians are one of the principle targets.”
• Lo que se les prometíó hoy no son más que mentiras.
MIAMI, 9 DE MAYO DE 2013, NHR.com—“Lo mejor que le podría pasar a los Miami Marlins es que su propietario Jeffrey Loria lo pusiera a la venta”, le dijo anoche a NHR.com una fuente que representa a un grupo de inversionistas que está dispuesto a participar en la compra del equipo.
Y es que el equipo aparte de no estar a la altura de las expectativas, sus dueños tampoco están interesados en invertir en peloteros de clase para tener un equipo ganador como en los años 1997 y 2003, cuando ganaron la Serie Mundial.
Según NHR.com ha podido conocer, los concesionarios socios del equipo en el Marlins Park estar molestos con Loria por la poca presencia de público, sus ventas se han visto reducidas y la cuota a pagar es la misma.
Lo que suponía ser un motor económico para la zona de la Pequeña Habana se ha convertido en solo promesas que han caído en el vacío.
El fracaso del Marlins Park es responsabilidad de Loria que de acuerdo con personas que le conocen bien es una persona prepotente, descortés y a quien le importa poco los fanáticos de la pelota, según señaló una ejecutiva radial hace poco.
También varias empresas que había firmado cartas de interés con los Marlins para operar distintas concesiones en el parque han desistido y algunas han perdido sus depósitos, nos dijo una fuente dentro de los Marlins.
Esas fuentes dijeron que aparte de Marco’s Pizza, y otras dos cadenas de restaurantes que deseaban participar en las concesiones del Marlins Park, existen por lo menos otras 5 empresas que han suspendido las negociaciones y otras que actualmente tienen espacios alquilados desean salirse del estadio.
Subway es otra de las franquicias que han rentado espacio en la zona de estacionamientos, sin embargo ni siquiera han comenzado a construir el restaurant y pudieran “dar marcha atrás” a las propuesta, le dijo la fuente a NHR.com.
Otro de los grandes problemas por el que atraviesan los Marlins es la venta de boletos. Han tenido que recurrir a empresas como cadenas de restaurantes como Sir Pizza, o empresas de seguros para venderle boletos a bajo precio para que éstas empresas se los ofrezcan a sus clientes.
Las estaciones de radio están regalando entradas a los partidos “pero nadie los viene a recoger” nos dijo la encargada de entregar los boletos ganadores a los oyentes de una radioemisora local.
Recordamos que uno de las razones que tuvieron los entonces Florida Marlins para presionar por la construcción de un nuevo estadio fue que en la televisión nacional se veía mal aspecto la lona que cubría parte del Sun Life Satadium cuando jugaban allí, pues en los próximos juegos se ha ordenado colocar una lona similar en la cubierta superior del Marlins Park, ya que los fanáticos no asisten a esa parte del estadio.
De acuerdo con los datos que suministra el equipo, las ventas de entrada promedio no pasan de más de 18.000 por juego, pero realmente esa no es la asistencia, pues de acuerdo con nuestras fuentes dentro del equipo, no pasan de 14.000, y gran cantidad son obsequiadas.
“EMO” A este trabajo del equipo de Nelson Horta, solo puedo anotar que “Los culpables de todo este DESPARPAJO Son los negociadores de este asunto, Manny Díaz, Carlos Alvarez ex alcalde de MD y La ciudad de Miami y todos los demás que se metieron en cosas que no sabían o en cosas que les iban a reportar mucho dinero a expensas de los ciudadanos de Miami Dade y que hicieron impunemente. Es un bochorno que esto ocurra públicamente y que los organizmoc de perseguir el crimen organizado no los halla metido presos a todos incluyendo al dueño de los Marlins. ¡QUE INMORALIDAD, QUE IMPUNIDAD! Y QUE DESVERGUENZA DE LOS QUE TIENEN QUE CASTIGAR ESTOS ACTOS Y ESTEN SENTADOS AHÍ EN SUS PUESTOS INCLUSIVE EN LOS TRIBUNALES REPRESENTANDO LA JUSTICIA! Lázaro R González Miño
Para comentarios, sugerencias, aportes, artículos, noticias, opiniones, ideas, o sugerencias enviarlos a los e-mails:
Para leer o revisar publicaciones anteriores ir a los Blogs:
Para ver nuestros Flash en Facebook:
. “EN MI OPINION” .
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE” Editor Lázaro R González Miño.