En mi opinion No 367 4/22/2013 EMO

“En mi opinión” IN GOD WE TRUST.

.No 367 Abril 22 2013    Editor Lázaro R González Miño.  

367 4/22/2013 EMO



Vemos como hay una número cada día mayor de personas a los que les ha dado por establecer la sublimidad legalista en el caso del perpetrador de las bombas de Boston, pidiendo que sea juzgado con todos los privilegios del sistema jurídico civil. 

Los que quieren que se juzgue como enemigo combatiente, no lo hacen por venganza, pero porque en Massachusetts, un estado prominentemente liberal, el sistema jurídico está influenciado por su liberalidad, y la pena de muerte está prohibida. 

O sea que Un criminal asesino que indiscriminadamente mató a niños y adultos con un odio satánico cumpliría simplemente una condena en la cárcel. En un caldo político adequado en el futuro, la condena pudiera ser conmutada y ser puesto en libertad. 

Ahora tratan de ir más allá de lo legalista, acusan a los que quieren que si es juzgado y condenado se le imponga la pena de muerte, de ser unos cristianos hipócritas, porque la ley que Dios entregó a Moisés dice en el sexto mandamiento dice “No matarás”. Entonces, según ellos no somos cristianos si abogamos por la pena de muerte.

Pero el sacar del contexto total de la Biblia, un mandamiento del decálogo, sin analizarlo, es un simplismo para olvidar que lo principal es tratar de hacer la voluntad de Dios, no sacar una interpretación aislada para afirmar una doctrina.

El sexto mandamiento lo que implica es no “asesinarás”. 

Así lo entendió Moisés, y la ley Mosaica establecío y cumplió en numerosas ocasiones la pena de muerte.

Porque la  pena de muerte es un principio Bíblico.

Fue Dios El que instituyó la pena capital: “El que derramare sangre de hombre, por el hombre su sangre será derramada, porque a imagen de Dios es hecho el hombre.” (Génesis 9:6)

Ahora bien, una vez establecimos que el Sexto Mandamiento no dice que “no debemos matar”, sino que “no debemos asesinar”, debemos tener clara la noción de que cuando una sociedad decide aplicar la Pena de Muerte a un criminal, no se está “matando” a un inocente, sino a un culpable. No se está tomando la vida de un inocente, sino de un criminal.

Una vez comprobado esta declaración Bíblica en Génesis, tenemos que reconocer que Dios instituyó la pena capital en Su Palabra; por lo tanto, sería presuntuoso pensar que nosotros podemos instituir un estándar más alto que el de Dios o ser más compasivos que Él.
Es anti bíblico clamar que Dios se opone a la pena de muerte en todas las instancias. Los cristianos nunca deben alegrarse cuando la pena de muerte es ejercida, pero al mismo tiempo no deben pelear contra el derecho de la sociedad de ejecutarla sobre los perpetradores de los crímenes más viles

Juan Pablo II en su encíclica “Evangelium Vitae” en 1995 dijo que la pena de muerte es justificada en casos de absoluta necesidad, y no creo que haya una necesidad más absoluta que esta,

Por favor, no me den lecciones de Cristianismo para defender a un criminal.  La pena de muerte no es venganza, es condenar a un culpable para sacarlo de la sociedad, a la que hizo daño y podría volver a hacerlo.

Además la pena de muerte es el mejor ejemplo para evitar que otras personas puedan ejecutar un crimen similar, y no podemos pensar en un hecho en que se necesite dar un ejemplo, más importante que este.


Wow…read this one! Then check out the suggested web sites!!! Armando Valladares

Many of the emails that I have sent or forwarded that had any anti Obama in it were negated by Snopes. I thought that was odd. Check this out.

Snopes, Soros and the Supreme Court’s Kagan.We-L-L-L-L now, I guess the time has come to check out Snopes! Ya’ don’t suppose it might not be a good time to take a second look at some of the stuff that got kicked in the ditch by Snopes, do ya’?

We’ve known that it was owned by a lefty couple but hadn’t known it to be financed by Soros!

Snopes is heavily financed by George Soros, a big time supporter of Obama! In our Search for the truth department, we find what I have suspected on many occasions.

I went to Snopes to check something about the dockets of the new Supreme Court Justice. Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed, and Snopes said the email was false and there were no such dockets. So I Googled the Supreme Court, typed in Obama-Kagan, and guess what? Yep, you got it; Snopes Lied! Everyone of those dockets are there.

So Here is what I wrote to Snopes:
Referencing the article about Elena Kagan and Barack Obama dockets:
The information you have posted stating that there were no such cases as claimed and the examples you gave are blatantly false. I went directly to the Supreme Courts website, typed in Obama Kagan and immediately came up with all of the dockets that the article made reference to. I have long suspected that you really slant things but this was really shocking. Thank You. I hope you will be much more truthful in the future, but I doubt it.

That being said, Ill bet you didn’t know this.

Kagan was representing Obama in all the petitions to prove his citizenship. Now she may help rule on them. Folks, this is really ugly.
Chicago Politics and the beat goes on and on and on. Once again the US Senate sold us out!

Now we know why Obama nominated Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court. Pull up the Supreme Courts website, go to the docket and search for Obama. She was the Solicitor General for all the suits against him filed with the Supreme Court to show proof of natural born citizenship. He owed her big time. All of the requests were denied of course. They were never heard. It just keeps getting deeper and deeper, doesn’t it? The American people mean nothing any longer.
It’s all about payback time for those who compromised themselves to elect someone who really has no true right to even be there.
Here are some websites of the Supreme Court Docket: You can look up some of these hearings and guess what?

Elena Kagan is the attorney representing Obama!

Check out these examples:http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-8857.htm



If you are not interested in justice or in truth, simply delete.
However, if you hold sacred the freedoms granted to you by the U.S. Constitution, by all means, PASS it ON!
There truly is tyranny afoot.


Bush Attorney General: It Was Jihad

Former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey

The Boston Marathon bombings were unmistakably a jihadist act, says former U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey. But the Obama administration has disbanded the CIA interrogation group charged with investigating these plots, leaving America more vulnerable than ever to future threats.

Those who feel the only threat from brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been eliminated now that one is dead and the other is in custody for the rest of his life can rest easy, Mukasey writes in an op-ed piece published in The Wall Street Journal Sunday.

“But if your concern is over the larger threat that inheres in who the Tsarnaev brothers were and are, what they did, and what they represent, then worry — a lot.”

One big worry, Mukasey notes, is how the High-Value Interrogation Group (HIG) will even do its job.

The group was formed by the FBI after the so-called “underwear bomber” was Mirandized in 2009. President Barack Obama had disbanded the CIA interrogation program that might have run the interrogation of the bomber. The two programs aren’t even remotely similar in their tactics and goals, suggests Mukasey, who served in the Bush administration from 2007 to 2009.

The FBI has “bowdlerized” its training materials at the request of such Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated groups as the Council on American Islamic Relations (the very controversial CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America, writes Mukasey. They no longer even mention references to militant Islamism.

“Does this delicacy infect the FBI’s interrogation group as well?” he asks in the op-ed, entitled “Make No Mistake, It Was Jihad.”

“Will we see another performance like the Army’s after-action report following Maj. Nidal Hasan’s rampage at Fort Hood in November 2009, preceded by his shout ‘allahu akhbar’ — a report that spoke nothing of militant Islam but referred to the incident as ‘workplace violence’?

“If tone is set at the top, recall that the Army chief of staff at the time said the most tragic result of Fort Hood would be if it interfered with the Army’s diversity program,” Mukasey writes.

Mukasey wonders whether the probe will look into the FBI’s own previous questioning of Tamerlan, which was made after questions were raised by a foreign government, presumably Russia, about radical leanings.

“Tamerlan Tsarnaev is the fifth person since 9/11 who has participated in terror attacks after questioning by the FBI,” Mukasey writes.

Another worry: The Tsarnaevs obviously were conducting a suicide operation, Mukasey says, though not the type in which one blows himself up along with his intended victims. Rather, the brothers went about it “in the way of someone who conducts a spree, holding the stage for as long as possible, before he is cut down in a blaze of what he believes is glory.”

It had been widely accepted that such attacks were unlikely on American soil since organizers would find it hard to find enough spiritual support to keep would-be suicide attackers focused.

“That analysis went out the window when the Tsarnaevs followed up the bombing of the marathon by murdering a police officer in his car — an act certain to precipitate the violent confrontation that followed,” Mukasey writes.

Smaller, less complicated crimes have been attempted since 9/11 because the United States has stepped up its defenses. Mukasey points to the Times Square attempted bomber. These smaller events are still intended to send a message of terror.

But that message may be lost on a president who seems preoccupied with Islamic sensibilities, Mukasey suggests, and not American security.

“There is also cause for concern in the president’s reluctance, soon after the Boston bombing, even to use the ‘t’ word—terrorism—and in his vague musing on Friday about some unspecified agenda of the perpetrators, when by then there was no mystery: the agenda was jihad.”

For five years there have been claims that Americans need to learn how to change the Muslim world’s perception of the United States. Few have focused on a more important question: why we are hated, Mukasey writes.

The ideology of hatred extends at least to the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in the early part of the 20th century, according to Mukasey.

“The ideology has regarded the United States as its principal adversary since the late 1940s, when a Brotherhood principal, Sayid Qutb, visited this country and was aghast at what he saw as its decadence.”

Qutb was especially shocked by the freedom that women had at the Colorado college he attended. One of the most influential Muslim thinkers of the last 100 years, his inner circle mainly consisted of influential politicians and intellectuals in Egypt and other countries. Many of his writings were required reading in the curricula of the Arab world’s finest universities.

The first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, U.S. embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, and the 9/11 attacks were all fueled by hatred of American values that has its roots in Qutb’s writings, Mukasey writes.

Despite this, no outreach is extended to critical Muslim organizations in the United States, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, that speak out against the totalitarian Islamic ideology, he points out.

“There are Muslim organizations in this country, such as the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, headed by Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, that speak out bravely against that totalitarian ideology. They receive no shout-out at presidential speeches; no outreach is extended to them,” he adds.

“One of the Tsarnaev brothers is dead; the other might as well be. But if that is the limit of our concern, there will be others,” he concludes.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mukasey-boston-bombings-jihad/2013/04/21/id/500610?s=al&promo_code=1338C-1#ixzz2RCiLUrhb
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


La Homosexualidad No Puede Ser Científicamente Comprobada…

Es Un Comportamiento “Alegado”. Ricardo Samitier.


¿Por qué decimos “alegado”?

El aberro sexual, no se identifica por señas externas… como sucede con un tuerto o por ser cojo y aun peor tener algún retraso mental de nacimiento…


El aberro sexual carece de toda característica física inmutable y o señal visible que lo identifique como tal.


Características externas VISIBLES son NECESARIAS e INDISPENSABLES para exigir un supuesto “DERECHO” o para la aplicación de leyes contra la discriminación legal por comportamiento o conducta sexual.

Toda persona culta, toda persona pensante, sabe que los derechos humanos se basan en la condición humanas físicas del individuo no en un “alegado” comportamiento sexual que no se puede comprobar… y que resultaría de MAL GUSTO y un  ASCO comprobarlo visualmente…


De igual manera, los derechos civiles se basan en la condición o estatus legal del individuo, no en su comportamiento sexual alegado.

Abogar, exigir o plantear supuestos “derechos” en base de un comportamiento sexual alegado es totalmente arbitrario, discriminatorio e injusto, pues cualquier persona, con tal de obtener esos supuestos “derechos” o de beneficiarse injustamente de una ley contra la discriminación, puede alegar cualquier tipo de comportamiento o conducta sexual. Ya que no se puede comprobar lo contrario…


Es mundialmente conocido que durante la expulsión de homosexuales por el régimen de Castro… por Mariel  más de 1,000 cubanos se declararon homosexuales sin serlo para beneficiarse y ser expulsados.


Salió Del Closet El Obispo De Costa Rica

En una entrevista reciente con un diario costarricense, el arzobispo Piero Marini, ex maestro de ceremonias del Papa Juan Pablo II, afirmo: Es necesario reconocer las uniones de personas del mismo sexo, hay muchas parejas que sufren porque no se reconocen sus derechos civiles“.


Estas declaraciones de monseñor Marini son una muestra fehaciente de ignorancia imperdonable en un prelado o de corrupción indescriptible para un arzobispo e íntimo ex colaborador papal.

Como pastor, mons. Marini tiene el deber de educar y alertar a la ciudadanía sobre los serios daños que implica para la sociedad y para la nación, la imposición del absurdo y ridículo pseudo “matrimonio” aberro sexual al igual que el otorgar supuestos “derechos” en base de un comportamiento sexual alegado.


El asunto es tan sencillo y tan claro como esto. Pero lo más triste es que mons. Marini debe saber esto o, de lo contrario, debe dejar de hacerse pasar por hombre culto, instruido y honesto. Igualmente o hasta más importante, mons. Marini debe dejar de cobrar su cómodo sueldo como arzobispo de la Iglesia ya que incumple con las condiciones mínimas de su empleo. ¿Debe mons. Marini devolver toda la plata que cobra por un trabajo que incumple? ¿Debe el Papa Francisco, con toda la humildad que lo caracteriza, reclamarle a mons. Marini esta plata para entregársela a los pobres?

¿Por qué mons. Marini se expresa así?

Según expertos en asuntos vaticanos, mons. Marini se expresa tan desfachatadamente porque sabe que el Papa Francisco no lo llamará a contar por tamaña aberración. De ser así, esto es altamente escandaloso y preocupante para toda persona honrada, sea o no católica, pues pone al desnudo el elevado grado de corrupción e inmoralidad en el Vaticano actual.


Cabe agregar que los argumentos básicos contra el seudo ”matrimonio” aberro sexual, contra los supuestos “derechos” basados en comportamiento sexual alegado y contra la criminal entrega de niños huérfanos y abandonados a aberro sexuales, nada tienen que ver estrictamente con ”la religión” en sí. Tienen que ver con la recta razón, la lógica, el sentido común, la justicia, la ética, el respeto a los derechos humanos y el amor a la vida y a familia.


O sea, tanto ateos, comunistas, santeros o personas de cualquier religión o de ninguna, pueden apoyar y defender perfectamente el comportamiento sexual biológicamente correcto y éticamente sano sin recurrir a argumentos meramente “religiosos”. El rechazo al aberro sexualismo es instintivo, aplastante y universal, de ahí que los partidarios de la descabellada ideología aberro sexualista necesiten recurrir al engaño, la tergiversación y los trucos semánticos para imponérsela a la humanidad.


Por favor, Mons. Marini, haga lo correcto y devuélvale su sueldo al Papa Francisco para que pueda dárselo a los pobres tan queridos por él. Y, de paso, tenga la bondad de renunciar al cargo que ostenta como pastor del aguerrido rebaño de Jesucristo y búsquese un trabajo en uno de esos muchos complejos turísticos de 5 estrellas que hay por el mundo entero para sus pobres aberro sexuales “discriminados”.


¿Porque decimos “Alegado”?

Decimos “alegado” porque el comportamiento sexual es por naturaleza algo privado, íntimo y personal, razón por la cual es algo que no se puede observar públicamente…HAY QUE CREER AL DECLARANTE… pues no se  puede comprobar científicamente.


*** El Dr. Eladio José Armesto es vice decano del Colegio Nacional de Periodistas de Cuba en el Exilio, tesorero de la Federación de Editores Hispanos de Estados Unidos y editor del periódico El Nuevo PATRIA. Puedes contactarlo al P.O. Box 2, José Martí Station, Miami, FL 33135-0002 o en patrianews@aol.com.


Police say 5, including gunman, killed in Washington apartment shooting

Published April 22, 2013 FoxNews.com

April 22, 2013: A Washington State Patrol trooper directs a driver away from a street blocked off several blocks from the scene of an overnight shooting that police said left five people dead. (AP)


Authorities say five people, including the gunman, are dead after a shooting at a Washington state apartment complex that appears to have been sparked by a dispute.

Officers responding to an emergency call at 9:30 p.m. Sunday at the apartments in Federal Way encountered a chaotic scene, with bullets flying.

“When officers arrived there were still shots being fired,” said Federal Way police spokeswoman Cathy Schrock.

Police found two injured men on the ground in a parking lot. One of the men reached for a gun as police moved in to assist the two, she said.

At that point, officers opened fire. The suspect died, but police said it wasn’t immediately clear if it was from their gunfire.

The other man on the ground and a third man in the parking lot were found dead.

In a search of the complex, police found a fourth man dead in one apartment and a murdered woman in another unit. Schrock said police were trying to determine if the woman was accidentally hit by gunfire.

A total of eight officers fired their weapons, Schrock said. All have been placed on administrative leave, per standard policy, as the investigation continues.

A law enforcement source tells Q13 Fox it appears the shooting may have been a result of a fight that broke out in the parking lot of the apartment complex.

“We’re gonna continue to go door to door in hopes that we can find some additional witnesses, and hopefully we won’t be finding any more victims.” Schrock said.  “We still don’t have any idea what started this disturbance tonight.”

After police flooded the area and carried out searches, authorities said they did not think another shooter was on the loose or that there was an immediate threat to the public.

There were no reports of any officers being injured, and the names of the five people who were killed were not immediately available.

Federal Way is about 20 miles south of Seattle.

Click for more from Q13 Fox.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/22/police-say-5-including-gunman-kjlled-in-washington-apartment-shooting/#ixzz2RCscf1Uy

Boston Marathon bombing suspect: enemy combatant or common criminal?

By Miami Herald April 22, 2013 7:02 am

The capture of the alleged Boston Marathon bomber has uncorked a long simmering national political debate about the way forward in this, the second decade of the war on terror: Treat the American prisoner as an enemy of the state, like a Guantanamo captive, or let him have a lawyer, the right to remain silent and charge him like a common criminal?

Soon after Friday’s capture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, federal law enforcement forged a path in the middle. It invoked a public safety exception to the law that delayed for some days his right to an attorney, and sought to interrogate him for his knowledge of potential future explosions.

But, once it was clear that Tsarnaev’s health delayed those interrogations, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., waded in and invoked his role writing the law that lets the Pentagon try alleged terrorist by military commission. He urged the Obama administration to declare the suspected teen terrorist “an enemy combatant,” a technical term for a war prisoner — and subject him to Guantanamo-style, FBI and CIA interrogation.

Once the interrogators had extracted any al-Qaida or other conspiracy secrets, Tsarnaev could get a lawyer, Graham argued, while federal prosecutors build a case against for trial in federal court because he’s a U.S. citizen.

“A citizen can be an enemy combatant,” the senator said on CNN’s State of the Union, invoking the category of detainee at the U.S. base in Cuba. “He is not eligible for a military commission trial. It should be a federal trial.”

He had the support of fellow Republican senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and John McCain of Arizona, who in a joint statement with Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., didn’t outright advocate sending Tsarnaev to Guantanamo, just giving him the same status as indefinite detainees there.

A U.S. Justice Department official characterized it as throwback thinking to the Bush administration. The American Civil Liberties Union called the idea unacceptable. And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, chair of the Senate intelligence committee, called it lamentable.

“I very much regret the fact that there are those that want to precipitate a debate over whether he’s an enemy combatant or whether he is a terrorist, a murderer, et cetera,” Feinstein said on Fox News Sunday, calling the proposal “unconstitutional.”

ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said Sunday that the suspect should be “charged as a criminal” before federal courts and granted “all protections given to criminal defendants.”

Throughout the weekend, Tsarnaev was unable to speak. He was sedated and held under close guard at Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center since his capture Friday night following several shootouts, reported to be intubated, in serious condition.

Only two Americans have been held as enemy combatants, Graham’s recommended course of action, since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks:

— Jose Padilla, who was captured on American soil, like Tsarnaev. He was held for more than three years at a Navy brig before he was charged, sent to Miami and convicted of terror conspiracy charges. He’s now in federal prison.

— Yasser Hamdi, who was captured in Afghanistan, brought to Guantanamo then held in Navy brigs in Norfolk, Va., and Charleston, S.C., before he was sent to his parents in Saudi Arabia in exchange for renouncing his American citizenship.

John Walker Lindh, who was captured in Afghanistan around the same time as Hamdi, was never taken to Guantanamo, never held in the U.S. as an enemy combatant. Instead, he faced federal trial in Virginia, pleaded guilty to aiding the Taliban in exchange for a 20-year sentence.

On Sunday, a Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the case publicly, said the White House was not considering enemy combatant status for Tsarnaev, whose elder brother was killed in a shootout with police. The official called the younger, surviving suspect “a naturalized American.” Reports said he became a citizen on Sept. 11, 2012.

While the Bush administration chose to process certain U.S. citizens as enemy combatants, the official said, Obama has “made clear that this administration, as a matter of policy, will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens, regardless of their place of capture.”

Federal officials invoked a “public safety exception” to postpone Tsarnaev’s right to an attorney. The exception, the Justice Department official said, “allows for law enforcement to quickly interrogate a suspected terrorist without giving Miranda warnings under certain circumstances to gain critical intelligence and national security information.”

Federal officials invoked the exception almost immediately after the alleged terrorist’s capture. The process to categorize a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant “would take considerable time,” the Justice official said.

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said Sunday that the senator agreed with Graham on the way forward and that news reports Sunday had “mischaracterized” McCain’s desire to send Tsarnaev to Guantanamo. The offices of Ayotte and New York Rep. Peter King, who appeared to support making Tsarnaev a military prisoner, did not respond to emailed requests for clarification.

Graham invoked his 30 years of experience as a military lawyer to essentially confront the White House in broadcast comments.

“He’s not entitled to Miranda Rights if he’s a terrorist who’s associated himself with enemies of the nation,” he said on Fox TV Saturday night. “No American citizen is immune from having the law of war applied to them if they collaborate with the enemy.”

Designating him as an enemy combatant would keep him away from a lawyer and give the FBI and CIA time to interrogate him, Graham said. “I want to find out if he was in fact involved with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. Clearly he is a prime candidate for that designation.”

Politicians debated what they want Boston law enforcement to do in the marathon bombing case on the day the military at Guantanamo reported that more than half the captives there were on hunger strike in a several months old protest over their indefinite detention.

A total of 84 Guantanamo prisoners were classified as hunger strikers at the U.S. military base in Cuba, Army Lt. Col. Samuel House said Sunday. The prison’s population is 166.

House added by email that 16 of the 84 prisoners were being force-fed Sunday, and said he erred a day earlier in describing 17 detainees as getting nutritional supplements by tubes snaked up a nostril, down the back of each captive’s throat until it reached his stomach.

Five of the 84 were in the hospital, House said, none with life-threatening conditions.

Reporters Michael Doyle and Jonathan Landay of the McClatchy Washington Bureau contributed to this report.

Why Conservatives Accept High Taxes, the Federal Reserve System, and Fiat Money

Written by Gary North on April 19, 2013 Gary North’s Reality Check

Recently, I wrote an article in which I argued that there are three political foundations of modern warfare: high graduated tax rates, a central bank, and the abolition of the gold coin standard. I called it “The Triumvirate of Modern Warfare.”

From the day that Ron Paul was sworn in as a Congressman in 1976, his critics inside Congress were consistent. They opposed his position on foreign relations and defense. He opposed the expansion of the American Empire. He wanted a strictly defensive system of military expenditures. He did not approve of the constant meddling of the American government in the domestic policies of other nations. So, he was criticized by conservatives inside Congress as being soft on Communism, or being naïve about the necessity of an aggressive foreign-policy, or by being anti-defense.

These same conservatives regarded themselves as hard-core opponents of the modern welfare state. But the modern welfare state is also supported by the three pillars of the modern warfare state, namely, high marginal tax rates, the central bank, and the abolition of the gold coin standard. The structure of all modern governments favors the expansion of the warfare state and the welfare state.


Some of these elected conservatives said they were in favor of the older gold standard, which was a fake gold standard, which Nixon abolished unilaterally on August 15, 1971. They also said that they wanted lower taxes. They said nothing about the Federal Reserve System.

When it came to their voting records on military affairs, these elected conservatives voted in favor of policies that could only be enforced by means of a highly graduated taxation, central bank inflation, and the abolition of the gold coin standard. No matter what they said about their supposed commitment to conservative fiscal principles and conservative monetary principles, what they voted for when it came time to vote for the funding of the Pentagon was this agenda: high graduated taxes, the central bank, and the abolition of the gold coin standard.

People wonder why it is that elected conservatives cannot seem to understand that marginal tax rates are too high in the United States. They also do not seem to understand that the restoration of a full gold coin standard is mandatory if we are ever to stop the expansion of the modern welfare state. The Federal Reserve System must be privatized. All of its legal connections with the federal government must be abolished. That is what Andrew Jackson did in 1836 with the Second Bank of the United States, and within a few years, that bank was bankrupt. It could not be sustained apart from a monopoly granted to it by the federal government. This is equally true of the Federal Reserve System.

When you see conservatives voting for a larger Pentagon budget than they voted for last year, you can be sure that these conservatives are not ready to vote for reduced tax rates, the abolition of the Federal Reserve System, and the restoration of a full gold coin standard. They are therefore also not willing to take the only stands that could undermine the modern welfare state.


Welfare state Democrats are willing to vote for an aggressive foreign-policy and a larger Pentagon budget, as long as they get to maintain the federal government’s high expenditures on welfare projects. Similarly, conservative Republicans are willing to vote for the welfare state projects, as long as the Democrats continue to fund the Pentagon.

Read more: http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/04/19/why-conservatives-accept-high-taxes-the-federal-reserve-system-and-fiat-money/#ixzz2RCf9Dnjs



The irony of Cruz for president  — Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz has not been a shrinking violet during his short tenure in the Senate and his fiery brand of conservatism has attracted a passionate following from the conservative grassroots. TheDC’s Alex Pappas reports:

“With all of his activity, Cruz is developing a national fan base of conservatives. He keynotes national conservative confabs, like the Conservative Political Action Conference. He also comfortable taking the conservative message to the Sunday shows, once even battling New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer on ‘Meet the Press.’ His supporters argue he can help improve the Republican Party’s image with youthful vigor, humor and a positive message. He often speaks of what he calls ‘opportunity conservatism.'”

Some wonder if Cruz will take his uncompromising conservative brand and run for president in 2016. Ironically, it is likely that the segment of conservatives who most love what Cruz stands for contain the highest proportion of those who think Cruz is ineligible to run for president since he was born in Canada (even though his mother was American).Muchos pensamos que cuando cogen a un espía lo ponen en un lugar especial y que tratan de sonsacarlos para que digan quienes son sus secuaces, sus fuentes, sus jefes. Pero a veces no ocurre así.


Beyond Disrespect Carlos Bringuier.

Here is one item we should all contemplate and then send off to all your
email buddies.
Abraham asked the Lord to spare 50 righteous people. God responded to
Abraham’s plea “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I
will spare all ….Genesis 18:16-33
The movie ” Corpus Christi ” is due to be released this June to August. A
disgusting film set to appear in America later this year depicts Jesus and
his disciples as homosexuals! As a play, this has already been in theaters
for a while. It’s called ” Corpus Christi” which means “The Body of

Christ”. It’s revolting mockery of our Lord. But we can make a difference.

That’s why I am sending this e-mail to you. If you do send this around, we
just might be able to prevent this film from showing in Canada and America .
Let’s stand for what we believe in and stop the mockery of Jesus Christ our
Savior. Where do we stand as Christians? At the risk of a bit of inconvenience,
I’m forwarding this to all I think would appreciate it, too. Please help us
prevent such offenses against our Lord. There is no petition to sign, no
time limit, or minimum number of people to send this to.. It will take you less than
2 minutes!  
If you are not interested and do not have the 2 minutes it will take to do
this, please don’t complain when God does not have time for you because He
is far busier than we are. Hey it’s worth a shot!
Apparently, some regions in Europe have already banned the film. All we need
is a lot of prayer and a lot of e-mails.
…. Will God be able to find at least 50 righteous people who are willing to
express their concern and voice their opinion against this act of blasphemy..

Washington Post Magazine

Ana Montes did much harm spying for Cuba. Chances are, you haven’t heard of her. Posted by Jim Popkin on April 18, 2013  By Jim Popkin

Ana Montes has been locked up for a decade with some of the most frightening women in America. Once a highly decorated U.S. intelligence analyst with a two-bedroom co-op in Cleveland Park, Montes today lives in a two-bunk cell in the highest-security women’s prison in the nation. Her neighbors have included a former homemaker who strangled a pregnant woman to get her baby, a longtime nurse who killed four patients with massive injections of adrenaline, and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme, the Charles Manson groupie who tried to assassinate President Ford.

But hard time in the Lizzie Borden ward of a Texas prison hasn’t softened the former Defense Department wunderkind. Years after she was caught spying for Cuba, Montes remains defiant. “Prison is one of the last places I would have ever chosen to be in, but some things in life are worth going to prison for,” Montes writes in a 14-page handwritten letter to a relative. “Or worth doing and then killing yourself before you have to spend too much time in prison.”

Like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen before her, Ana Montes blindsided the intelligence community with brazen acts of treason. By day, she was a buttoned-down GS-14 in a Defense Intelligence Agency cubicle. By night, she was on the clock for Fidel Castro, listening to coded messages over shortwave radio, passing encrypted files to handlers in crowded restaurants and slipping undetected into Cuba wearing a wig and clutching a phony passport.

Montes spied for 17 years, patiently, methodically. She passed along so many secrets about her colleagues — and the advanced eavesdropping platforms that American spooks had covertly installed in Cuba — that intelligence experts consider her among the most harmful spies in recent memory. But Montes, now 56, did not deceive just her nation and her colleagues. She also betrayed her brother Tito, an FBI special agent; her former boyfriend Roger Corneretto, a Cuban-intelligence officer for the Pentagon; and her sister, Lucy, a 28-year veteran of the FBI who has won awards for helping to unmask Cuban spies.





The Washington Dictator‏. Carlos Bringuier.

Obama Seeks End Run Around UNESCO Funding Ban

Back in October 2011, the United States was forced by law to cut off funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) after it voted to approve full membership for the Palestinian Authority.

The Obama administration sought to circumvent the funding ban by including $79 million for UNESCO in its fiscal year 2013 budget request, but the request was not approved.

Now the administration is once again trying to fund the agency, including $77.7 million for UNESCO in its newly released fiscal 2014 budget request.

Public Law 101-246, passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in 1990, states that “no funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or any other Act shall be available for the United Nations or any specialized agency thereof which accords the Palestine Liberation Organization the same standing as member states.”

Public Law 103-236 Title IV, passed in 1994, prohibits “voluntary or assessed contribution to any affiliated organization of the United Nations which grants full membership as a state to any organization or group that does not have the internationally recognized attributes of statehood.”

But as the Insider Report disclosed earlier, the agency went ahead with granting membership to the Palestinian Authority, a move that Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., said at the time was “anti-Israel and anti-peace.”

With U.S. contributions comprising 22 percent of the operating budget, UNESCO head Irina Bokova said the loss of American funds has led to the “worst ever” financial crisis in the agency’s history, according to CNS News.

In its budget proposal, the administration attempts to justify renewed funding of UNESCO: “The ability to make such contributions is essential to advancing U.S. interests worldwide and strengthening U.S. global leadership, influence, and credibility.”

During the 1980s, the United States and the United Kingdom withdrew from UNESCO, accusing the agency of mismanagement and an anti-Western political agenda. The U.K. returned in 1997 and President George W. Bush restored the U.S. relationship in 2002, citing wide-ranging reforms.

Footnote: Buried in the State Department’s budget request is news that if the administration can convince Congress to grant a waiver to the funding freeze, State hopes to give UNESCO the money it did not provide in 2012 and 2013, which could amount to $135 million.


Por Armando F. Valladares **(En primicia para El Nuevo Acción)

Francisco, el primer pontífice latinoamericano, en su reciente discurso al cuerpo diplomático destacó la pobreza física y la pobreza espiritual como dos grandes males del siglo XXI, y se compadeció del “sufrimiento” que afrontan sus víctimas.

Al leer ese discurso papal sobre el flagelo de la pobreza, no pude dejar de recordar a mis hermanos cubanos, pobres entre los más pobres latinoamericanos y caribeños, víctimas de más de 50 años de comunismo. Evoqué tantos lances lamentables de la diplomacia vaticana hacia Cuba comunista en las últimas décadas, que de una u otra manera favorecieron la continuidad de la dictadura cubana. Y me pregunté con legítima expectativa, en cuanto católico cubano, cuál será durante este nuevo pontificado la orientación de la diplomacia vaticana hacia la pobre Cuba, la otrora “perla de las Antillas”. Hasta el momento, no son muchos los elementos de que se disponen como para levantar una hipótesis sobre lo que podría ocurrir. Se trata sin duda del test cubano.

La expectativa y hasta la ansiedad de los cubanos sobre los rumbos de la diplomacia vaticana hacia Cuba comunista se justifica, porque el drama de la isla-cárcel ya se prolonga durante demasiado tiempo. Después del viaje de Juan Pablo a Cuba, en 1997, el entonces arzobispo de Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, publicó el libro “Diálogos entre Juan Pablo II y Fidel Castro” (Ed. Ciudad Argentina, Buenos Aires, 1998), una edición al parecer agotada, pero que en eventual reedición podrá dar luz sobre el pensamiento de Francisco sobre el problema cubano.

Diversos comentaristas han recordado el papel del arzobispo de Buenos Aires, cardenal Bergoglio (foto), como presidente de la comisión de redacción del documento de la V Conferencia General del Episcopado Latinoamericano y del Caribe (CELAM), cuyos miembros se reunieron en el Santuario Nuestra Señora Aparecida, Brasil, el 13 de mayo de 2007. Francisco habría obsequiado dicho documento a mandatarios recientemente recibidos en audiencia por el nuevo pontífice, como fue el caso de la presidenta argentina.

En mayo de 2007, antes de esa reunión del CELAM, tuve la oportunidad de enviar un público mensaje a los miembros de ese organismo, difundido por la prensa y en las redes sociales; y entregado en manos a buena parte de los altos eclesiásticos participantes y a sus asesores, en el propio local del evento, en Aparecida. En dicho mensaje, expresaba “mi angustiada interrogación, en cuanto católico cubano y ex preso político en las cárceles comunistas durante 22 años, respecto de si esta reunión del CELAM abordará el drama de los católicos cubanos o si, una vez más, optará por el silencio”. También constataba que “el sufrimiento espiritual del rebaño católico cubano en relación a la actitud complaciente de los pastores ante los lobos rojos es dilacerante”. Y recordaba que durante la reunión del Encuentro Nacional Eclesial Cubano (ENEC), el entonces arzobispo de Santiago de Cuba, monseñor Pedro Meurice, reconoció que en un comienzo los fieles católicos cubanos consideraban a los eclesiásticos de ese país como miembros de “una Iglesia de mártires”, pero que después, por esa actitud colaboracionista con la dictadura castrista, “dicen que somos una Iglesia de traidores”. Un resumen de ese mensaje a los participantes del CELAM fue divulgado por la Agencia Católica de Informaciones (ACI) (“Ex preso político pide que drama cubano no pase desapercibido en 5a Conferencia”, ACI, Mayo 06, 2007).

Lamentablemente, en esa oportunidad, el silencio del CELAM sobre el drama cubano fue total.

Dos meses después, los directivos del CELAM partieron hacia La Habana, para participar en la 31a. asamblea ordinaria de la entidad eclesiástica. Se presentaba otra oportunidad inmejorable para que el CELAM rompiese con el muro de silencio, de indiferencia y de vergüenza que asfixia a mis hermanos cubanos, pobres entre los más pobres, huérfanos espirituales entre los más huérfanos, que sufren en la isla-cárcel del Caribe.

Antes de comenzar el encuentro eclesiástico en La Habana, autoridades del CELAM habían recibido conmovedoras cartas, así como pedidos de ayuda de parte de fieles católicos, de madres y esposas de presos políticos, sobre las generalizadas violaciones de derechos humanos y religiosos de los habitantes de la isla-cárcel. Después del encuentro eclesiástico, hubo inclusive una reunión de dos horas y media entre representantes del CELAM y representantes de la dictadura cubana. No obstante, monseñor Emilio Aranguren, obispo de la diócesis cubana de Holguín, se apresuró a aclarar que en esa reunión simplemente “ninguno de esos temas se puso sobre la mesa”, porque se habría conversado únicamente “sobre los temas que eran verdaderamente importantes para los obispos presentes”.

En el infierno cubano, la asfixia y el exterminio espiritual y físico del pobre rebaño al parecer no era un tema suficientemente importante. El buen pastor está dispuesto a dar la vida por sus ovejas (cf. S. Juan, 10,10). ¿Qué decir de aquellos pastores que dejan a sus ovejas a merced del lobo, pareciendo ignorar el drama de los fieles católicos cubanos, pobres entre los más pobres, física y espiritualmente?

En la “ostpolitik” eclesiástica hacia Cuba, hasta el momento han sido varios los actores. Entre ellos, la secretaría de Estado de la Santa Sede; obispos católicos cubanos; cardenales y obispos católicos estadounidenses; y cardenales y obispos católicos latinoamericanos. Al tema he dedicado decenas de respetuosos y sinceros artículos, durante los últimos años.

En esta ocasión, evoco esos dolorosos hechos eclesiásticos en la angustiada, expectante y filial perspectiva de saber cómo será la orientación de la diplomacia de la Santa Sede, durante el pontificado de Francisco, con relación a Cuba. Se trata del test cubano. La actual coyuntura actual de la Iglesia, interna y externa, tal vez sea una de las más dramáticas de su Historia. Que en relación al futuro de la isla, la Virgen de la Caridad del Cobre, Patrona de Cuba, ilumine la mente, las decisiones y los pasos de los actuales y más importantes protagonistas, especialmente, del nuevo pontífice.

Armando Valladares, escritor, pintor y poeta. Pasó 22 años en las cárceles políticas de Cuba. Es autor del best-seller “Contra toda esperanza”, donde narra el horror de las prisiones castristas. Fue embajador de los Estados Unidos ante la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de la ONU bajo las administraciones Reagan y Bush. Recibió la Medalla Presidencial del Ciudadano y el Superior Award del Departamento de Estado. Ha escrito numerosos artículos sobre la colaboración eclesiástica con el comunismo cubano y sobre la “ostpolitik” vaticana hacia Cuba

Is Barack Obama Mentally Unstable?

April 15, 2013 by Breaking News

(Editor’s note: The following article has been endorsed by Israeli psychiatrist Dr. Sam Vaknin, the world’s leading expert on Narcissistic Personality Disorder and the author of “Malignant Self Love.”)

Who is Barack Hussein Obama, the man in the White House? Without a doubt, Obama is the most unvetted, unaccomplished, unqualified person to ever to occupy the Oval Office in American history. Do we even know for sure that Obama mentally stable? Dr. Sam Vaknin, the world’s leading expert on narcissism and the author of “Malignant Self Love ,” has said that “Obama’s language, posture, and demeanor and the testimonies of his closest, dearest and nearest suggest that Obama is a narcissist or he may have Narcissistic Personality Disorder.” Narcissists have a grandiose, inflated, messiah like self image and cannot stand to be criticized. Obama’s Christ like view of himself is very clearly revealed in his Democratic nomination victory speech in St. Paul, Minnesota on June 3, 2008 in which he tells a worshipping audience, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” Clearly, this is a delusional statement. At the end of Barack’s Super Tuesday speech in Chicago on February 5, 2008 Obama makes another ludicrous and insane pronouncement telling his followers “We are the ones that we have been waiting for.” This is narcissistic double speak; in translation what Obama is really saying is, “I am the one the world has been waiting for.”

Why is so much of Obama’s past shrouded in secrecy and why is there such a plethora of unanswered questions about Barack. For instance:

1) Why are all of Obama’s college records sealed?

2) Did Obama receive government aid as a foreign exchange student when he attended Occidental College?

3) Obama admits he traveled to Pakistan at age 20 in 1981. Well then, what passport did Obama use to fly to Pakistan since Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s no travel list at that time?

Republicans Ask If FBI Mishandled Case of Bombing Suspect

Sunday, 21 Apr 2013 03:04 PM

Republican lawmakers questioned Sunday whether the FBI had fumbled the case of one of the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects, saying it was one of a series in which someone the agency had investigated had gone on to participate in terrorist attacks.

House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul said he wrote to the FBI and other officials asking why more wasn’t done after the FBI’s 2011 interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the elder of two brothers suspected in the Boston bombing, who was killed in a shootout with U.S. police. He was 26.

“Because if he was on the radar and they let him go, he’s on the Russians’ radar, why wasn’t a flag put on him, some sort of customs flag?,” McCaul, of Texas, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program. “And I’d like to know what intelligence Russia has on him as well.”

McCaul said he believed Tsarnaev had “received training” while on a trip to Russia last year. U.S. investigators say Tsarnaev, an ethnic Chechen, spent six months in Russia last year.

Tsarnaev’s brother Dzhokhar, 19, remained hospitalized in serious condition on Sunday, unable to speak.

Three people were killed in the bombing on Monday near the finish line of the famed marathon and 176 were injured.

McCaul’s letter, which was also signed by the former chairman of the homeland security panel, Representative Peter King of New York, said Tamerlan Tsarnaev “appears to be the fifth person since Sept. 11, 2001, to participate in terror attacks despite being under investigation by the FBI.”

They said the others were Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric and leader of al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen who was killed in a U.S. drone strike; David Headley, an American who admitted scouting targets for a 2008 Islamic militant raid on Mumbai; Carlos Bledsoe, who killed an Army private outside a military recruiting office in Arkansas in 2009; and Nidal Hasan, who is on trial for killing 13 people at Fort Hood Texas in 2009.

In addition, Farouk Abdulmutallab, who tried to bring down a U.S. jetliner over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009, had been identified to the CIA as a potential terrorist, the letter said, adding the cases “raise the most serious questions about the efficacy of federal counterterrorism efforts.”

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a former FBI agent, defended the agency. The Michigan Republican said it had performed a “very thorough” review of the older brother in 2011, but then failed to receive further cooperation from the foreign intelligence agency that requested the review. U.S. law enforcement sources say this agency was from Russia.

“That case was closed prior to his travel, so I don’t think we missed anything,” Rogers said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“At some point they (the FBI) asked, is there more clarifying information, and never received that clarifying information, and at some point they have nothing. You can’t ask them to do something with nothing,” Rogers said.

But King told “Fox News Sunday” he wondered why the FBI did not take more action after Tsarnaev returned to the United States and put statements on his website “talking about radical imams.”

“I’m wondering, again, is there something deficient here? What was wrong?” King asked.

The McCaul-King letter asked for all information the U.S. government had on Tsarnaev before April 15. It was also addressed to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/republicans-king-fbi-bombing/2013/04/21/id/500589?s=al&promo_code=1338A-1##ixzz2R8Vrrev6
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


Front he office of Senator Rand Paul.

Dear Lazaro R Gonzalez, (En mi opinion),

It never ends…
In the immediate wake of the gun control fight, Harry Reid is looking to sneak through yet another big-government tax hike.
And the vote to proceed could occur as early as 5:30 PM TODAY!
You and I can put the brakes on this scheme as well.
Please read about Harry Reid’s latest power-grab, and then take the below actions to stop it.
When my colleagues in Washington introduce controversial legislation, they make sure to give it a name that will be more receptive.
And the latest example is the Marketplace Fairness Act.
Given Congress’ record, do you really believe anything in this bill will be “fair?”
The Marketplace Fairness Act is nothing more than a scheme to regulate activity and collect more of your money through internet purchases.
So let’s call it what it really is: The Internet Tax Mandate.
At a time when businesses are already suffering under job-destroying regulations and excessive taxation, the Internet Tax Mandate would add even more costs to our nation’s small businesses and job creators.
What is even more disconcerting is the fact some of my fellow Republicans are planning on voting for this big-government boondoggle!

That’s why it’s vital you call BOTH of your Senators and tell them to oppose the motion to proceed on the Internet Tax Mandate.

(202) 224-3121
And please sign your No Internet Tax FAX Petition IMMEDIATELY.
Lazaro R, tax-and-spend politicians are foaming out the mouth fantasizing about new spending programs they can create using additional taxpayer dollars.
The last thing we need is more taxes for the purpose of implementing more government.
The Internet is one of the greatest inventions of our time – and also happens to be the one marketplace with limited government intrusion.
The only way to ensure its growth is to allow small businesses and the consumer it serves to be as free from government interference as possible.
While larger corporations can take on the additional costs of the Internet Tax Mandate, small businesses won’t be so fortunate.
I fear they won’t be able to afford the extra burden – putting them out of business and stifling economic growth.
So please sign your No Internet Tax FAX Petition and call BOTH of your Senators and insist they stand with me in opposing the Internet Tax Mandate.

(202) 224-3121
This week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will push this legislation on the Senate floor.
And in response, I will offer an amendment to cut the corporate income-tax rate in half as well as eliminate the Death Tax.
We need to be lowering taxes, not raising them.
We need to get government out of the way so more jobs can be created, not have more government at the expense of the productive sector.
I plan on rejecting any attempt to impose an Internet tax.
I hope you will stand with me by contacting BOTH of your Senators and signing the No Internet Tax FAX Petition IMMEDIATELY.
The vote to proceed is expected later today, but it is just the beginning of this fight.
Even if Harry Reid and his big-government pals succeed on the motion to proceed, the fight is just beginning.
Please stand with me in opposing the Internet Tax Mandate.

In Liberty,
Senator Rand Paul

P.S. Harry Reid is looking to force through the Internet Tax Mandate, and he has the help of several of my Republican colleagues.
It is vital you and I stop this scheme TODAY.
So please sign your No Internet Tax FAX Petition and call BOTH your Senators IMMEDIATELY.



 “THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”  Editor Lázaro R González Miño.




Una respuesta to “En mi opinion No 367 4/22/2013 EMO”

  1. romelbpaz1 Says:

    Para enviarme informaciones u opiniones por favor: lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com, gracias y que DIOS los Bendiga abundantemente.


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )


Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: