En mi opinión No379 5/8/2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño

“En mi opinión”   IN GOD WE TRUST.

.No 379 Mayo 8 2013  Editor Lázaro R González Miño.  

ImageSpecial Ops halted from responding to Benghazi attacks, U.S. diplomat says

By Ernesto Londoño, May 06, 2013 09:39 PM EDT The Washington Post Published: May 6

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-ops-halted-from-responding-to-benghazi-attacks-us-diplomat-says/2013/05/06/c3f311d4-b677-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

As the weakly protected U.S. diplomatic compound in eastern Libya came under attack the night of Sept. 11, 2012, the deputy head of the embassy in Tripoli 600 miles away sought in vain to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets over Benghazi in a show of force that he said might have averted a second attack on a nearby CIA complex.

Hours later, according to excerpts of the account by the U.S. diplomat, Gregory Hicks, American officials in the Libyan capital sought permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops to Benghazi aboard a Libyan military aircraft early the next morning. The troops were told to stand down.

House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., discusses new details about the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi.

Defense Department officials have said they had no units that could have responded in time to counter the attack in Benghazi, but Republicans on Capitol Hill have questioned whether the Obama administration could have saved lives with a nimbler, more assertive response. They say that the reluctance to send the Special Operations troops may have, at the very least, deprived wounded Americans in Benghazi of first aid.

Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks’s testimony Monday ahead of a hearing Wednesday at which he is scheduled to appear. His remarks are the first public account from a U.S. official who was in Libya at the time of the attacks about the options that were weighed as militants mobbed the American diplomatic outpost and CIA station in Benghazi, killing U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other government employees.

The new details are certain to reignite a debate over whether the Obama administration has been sufficiently forthcoming in its public accounting of the events and missteps that resulted in the first death of a U.S. ambassador in the line of duty in a generation. If Republicans in Congress succeed in portraying the administration’s response as feckless, the episode could dog any future political aspirations of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was secretary of state when the attacks happened.

After the attacks ended without planes being scrambled or special forces dispatched, the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told Hicks he was sorry that his men had been held back.

“I’ve never been so embarrassed in my life that a State Department officer has bigger balls than someone in the military,” the officer told Hicks, according to the diplomat’s account. Hicks called that “a nice compliment.”

Hicks may have been the last American official to speak with Stevens. After an embassy security official ran into his residence to tell him about the initial attack, Hicks managed to get Stevens on the phone. “Greg, we’re under attack,” Stevens blurted out, according to Hicks. “My response is ‘Okay,’ and I’m about to say something else and the line clicks.”

The administration has said the independent review of the Benghazi assault was exhaustive, and State Department officials have vowed to implement reforms to make U.S. missions abroad safer. Republicans, however, say Hicks’s account suggests the administration has not been entirely truthful.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/rep-issa-reveals-on-benghazi-attack-details/2013/05/05/977be93c-b5a5-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_video.html

BREAKING: Obama Administration Changed Benghazi Survivor’s Name!‏

No sean tan mal pensados… lo hicieron solo para que los periodistas no los molestaran… y si se creen eso, tambien deben de creer en Santa Claus y en la Caperucita Roja!

BREAKING: Obama Administration Changed Benghazi Survivor’s Name!
http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obama-administration-changed-benghazi-survivors-name/

 

Ghosts of Benghazi. The hearing in the Congress, will be streamed live here beginning at 11:30 a.m. ET. The Heritage Foundation (morningbell@heritage.org)

The White House might have wanted to mute its response to the terrorist attack in Benghazi for fear of inflaming Anti-American sentiment. Perhaps the President did not want to acknowledge a successful attack by an al-Qaeda affiliate on the anniversary of 9/11—right before a national election. Maybe it was just all “Keystone Kops” at the national command authority on the night four Americans were killed at their posts. It could be a bit of all three. The problem is, nine months later, we still don’t know for sure.

Dramatic hearings are expected today as Gregory Hicks, a State Department official who was on the ground in Libya during the 9/11 attack when four Americans died, talks to a House panel.

Some of his testimony from pre-hearing interviews with committee staff has already been released to the press. It includes claims that a Special Forces team that could have helped save lives and safeguard evidence and classified materials at the U.S. facility had been ordered to “stand down.” In addition, Hicks contends that from the outset, the ambassador’s team knew that they were under attack and reported that to Washington.

Hicks’s testimony follows a House Republican Conference report and a detailed article on the “Benghazi Talking Points” in The Weekly Standard that further call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration’s response.

What is becoming increasingly clear is that (1) the Administration bungled security before the incident; (2) the response to the assault was disjointed and inadequate; and (3) the Administration made a consistent and considerable effort to hide these facts.

The timeline still does not add up.

>>> Watch our video on the Benghazi information timeline

That Hicks is only just now being allowed to testify before Congress reinforces concerns that the Administration continues to slow-roll the truth coming out. Yet the White House continues to stick to the increasingly incredulous line that it has been forthcoming at every step.

Just recently, the White House press spokesperson defended the State Department’s internal review of the attack as “rigorous and unsparing,” even after the State Department Inspector General announced it is investigating the conduct of the panel that produced the report.

Fundamental questions about the security breakdown in Benghazi still have not been fully answered. With a White House that is still in denial about sharing the truth, it remains up to the Congress to press for answers and the press the Administration to take its responsibility of protecting our personnel overseas more seriously than protecting its political reputation at home.

The hearing will be streamed live here beginning at 11:30 a.m. ET.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

CBS News Confirms that Obama Administration Covered-up Benghazi‏

Secure America Now (info@SecureAmericaNow.org)

5/07/13 Newsletters To: Lazarorgonzalez

 

Exclusive Security Briefing by Secure America Now, registered as a U.S. 501(c)(4) Non-Proft organization

Email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.

 

 

Security Analysis

CBS News Confirms that Obama Administration Covered-up Benghazi

Just days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Secure America Now created a video, “The Truth About Libya: Failed Foreign Policy” – the first of its kind after the tragedy, which held the U.S. government responsible for the deaths of Ambassador Stevens and three brave Americans.

Last week, the Weekly Standard obtained a timeline briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence – documented evidence that the talking points used by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice were heavily edited by senior members of the Obama administration to hide the role of Al Qaeda in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya on the evening of Sep. 11, 2012.

 

As Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes notes, the administration knew from an early stage – two hours into the attack – that an “Al Qaeda-linked terrorist group operating in Libya” was responsible. That information was known throughout various government agencies. And yet, by Sunday, Sep. 16, the story had been transformed into the now-infamous lie about an anti-Islam YouTube video.

Later, when the fictitious YouTube-centered story began to unravel, the administration issued a statement through the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that suggested that new information had come to light about the role of terrorists in the attack.

The information was not new; it had been known from the very earliest stages of the attack. Was this a deliberate attempt to deceive the America people?

Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 8, three senior State Department officials with inside knowledge of the Benghazi attack will testify before the House Oversight Committee.

According to CBS News, one of those witnesses, the deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy – Gregory Hicks – told congressional investigators that the State Department internal review of the catastrophe at the mission in Benghazi, “Let people off the hook.” Indeed, Hicks said, “I never reported a demonstration; I reported an attack on the consulate.”

Hicks also questioned Ambassador Susan Rice’s talking points that made the rounds on numerous Sunday shows following the attack.

It is time the American people were told the truth about the terrorist attack that took place in Benghazi.

Contact Congressman Issa to thank him for standing strong and not being deterred by the administration’s refusal to come forward with the truth. The American people deserve to know.

Other Security Developments:

 

Eclipse anular transformará el sol en un “anillo de fuego”

(CNN Español) – El primer eclipse solar de 2013 se producirá esta semana, cuando la luna bloquee el sol generando un espectacular eclipse anular, un evento celestial que va a transformar el sol en un “anillo de fuego” cósmico durante el día, según la NASA.

El eclipse solar anular tendrá lugar entre el jueves y viernes (9 y 10 de mayo), hora del este. Si el tiempo lo permite, el eclipse será visible en algunas partes de Australia y el Océano Pacífico Sur, donde la hora local será el viernes.

“Los eclipses solares pueden ser fuente de inspiración para los estudiantes y otras personas, por lo que es interesante que todo el mundo vea el eclipse, pero sólo los métodos seguros de verlo deben ser utilizados”, dijo en un comunicado Jay Pasachoff, un astrónomo del Williams College y presidente del grupo de trabajo de la Unión Astronómica Internacional sobre eclipses.

Todo el mundo debería ser capaz de echar un vistazo al eclipse anular gracias a la Cámara Espacial Slooh que estará en línea. Slooh ofrecerá una webcast con comentarios de expertos y vistas del eclipse el jueves a partir de las 5:30 pm EDT (2130 GMT). Usted puede ver la transmisión en vivo en SPACE.com.

 

“CUBA URGENTE”: Enrique Artalejo (eartalejo@bellsouth.net)

Asaltan el hospital y se llevan a los huelguistas por la fuerza.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZ6VRaT2jY

Alabama Supreme Court to Hear Sheriff Joe Evidence Against Obama Birth Certificate

Posted on May 7, 2013 by Dave Jolly

 

Most people believe that all of the challenges to Barack Obama’s eligibility to be President of the United States ended on January 20, 2013 when he was sworn into office for the second time.

But they haven’t, and although most people watching what is happening say it will have little if any effect on Obama’s presidency, I beg to disagree.

In December 2012, it was reported that a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility in Alabama was being appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court.  The lawsuit claims that Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman had failed to verify the eligibility of everyone appearing on the November ballot.  Had she done so, the suit claims that Obama would not have appeared on the ballot.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Hugh McInnish and others and is being handled by Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and the Klayman Law Firm of Washington.

What makes this case different than most of the other cases is who the case is being heard in front of.  Roy Moore, was re-elected as the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.  Moore is very much a constitutional attorney and judge and has not fallen to the liberal misinterpretations of the Constitution that so many other judges have succumbed to.  It is no secret that Moore has made previous statements that indicate his doubt of Obama’s eligibility.

Democrats and Obama’s attorneys have been trying to make this case go away.  Last week they stated:

“In order for one to accept the claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery [and that he is ineligible], one has to buy into a conspiracy theory so vast and byzantine that it sincerely taxes the imagination of reasonable minds.”

The statement from the Democrats also quoted a renowned constitutional authority, late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel who said:

“These people could have personally witnessed Obama being born out of an apple pie, in the middle of a Kansas wheat field, while Toby Keith sang the National Anthem – and they’d still think he was a Kenyan Muslim.” http://godfatherpolitics.com/10716/alabama-supreme-court-to-hear-sheriff-joe-evidence-against-obama-birth-certificate/

Multiple Obama Birth Certificates Surface In Alabama Eligibility Case

May 6, 2013 by Breaking News

 

Not that we are surprised, but now there are multiple copies of Barack Hussein Obama’s “real” birth certificate that are surfacing and they are clearly indicating fraud. In a rare move, the Alabama Democrat Party has submitted an amicus brief in the McInnish Goode v Chapman Appeal case. The reason being is most likely because the Alabama Supreme Court has Chief Justice Roy Moore presiding over it. The Alabama Democrat Party just submitted a completely different birth certificate than the one that was posted at the White House website in 2011.

Larry Klayman, the plaintiff’s counsel submitted the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate that was posted to whitehouse.gov on 4-27-2001 (seen below). Fogbow/Jack Ryan obot group produced another bogus one. Still a third birth certificate has been submitted by Alabama Democrats to the Supreme Court.

Remember, this court is being presided over by Chief Justice Roy Moore, who supported Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, when he believed Obama to be a usurper and denied following orders to deploy to Iraq until Obama proved his eligibility as part of keeping his oath (ironically Lakin was not supported by Mr. Oathkeeper Stewart Rhodes). Another justice on the court by the name of Tom Parker will also hear the case. He has stated in a previous case:

“McInnish has attached certain documentation to his mandamus petition, which, if presented to the appropriate forum as part of a proper evidentiary presentation, would raise serious questions about the authenticity of both the “short form” and the “long form” birth certificates of President Barack Hussein Obama that have been made public.”

Read More at freedomoutpost.com . By Tim Brown.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/multiple-obama-birth-certificates-surface-in-alabama-eligibility-case/

Beck To NRA: Radical Revolutionaries Now Run Government. http://www.westernjournalism.com/beck-to-nra-radical-revolutionaries-now-run-government/

Will Benghazi Explode on Obama?

6 May 2013 /

Constitutionalists are wondering if the Benghazi cover-up will bring down the most corrupt and immoral presidency in America’s history.

Don’t count on it.

The Examiner opens its article on the Benghazi affair with the following:

“Although the Benghazi debacle is far from the only scandal that has rocked the Obama administration, it has a very real potential of being the one scandal that could explode, blowing up right in the faces of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other top administration officials.”

Barack Obama is not George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Richard Nixon. As long as the welfare checks keep coming, food stamps are available, abortion remains legal, homosexuality is pushed as a new civil rights cause, and Republicans don’t have an alternative conservative platform they are willing to run on, Benghazi will not affect the president.

The Republicans won’t get any public traction for at least six reasons: (1) Barack Obama is not Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, or Bush 1 or Bush 2, (2) the Justice Department and State Department will drag their feet and obfuscate, (3) the Obama administration will not cooperate, (4) the Democrats will circle the wagons after initially expressing outrage on the Benghazi debacle, (5) the media won’t report aggressively on the story, and (6) the media, Democrats, and Obama will find a scapegoat to blame.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2013/05/dont-count-on-benghazi-exploding-on-obama/#ixzz2SckJSmes

 

La Ley de Ajuste Cubano se encuentra Sobre el Tapete Nacional amenper

Hay un editorial en el Chicago Tribune acerca de la Ley de Ajuste Cubano.  El Chicago Tribune es un periódico que tradicionalmente fue conservador, pero que en los últimos años bajo la nueva administración ha apoyado a Obama, por lo que esto se ve como un golpe contra la permanencia de la Ley de Ajuste Cubano  a un nivel diferente.

Quizás es un globo de ensayo lanzado por la admistración de Obama para congraciarse con los mejicanos, o quizás sea una posición editorial sobre una fruta que ya está tan madura que tiene que caer del árbol de todas maneras.

El editorial comenta que la Ley de Ajuste Cubano en un asunto delicado en medio de la ley de inmigración que trata de aprobar el Congreso, y sugirió que deben aplicarse a los cubanos las mismas reglas que pesan sobre los inmigrantes económicos procedentes de otros países.

El tono liberal del editorialista lo presenta parcializado hacia los mejicanos.

Pero es difícil argumentar que los cubanos necesitan consideraciones especiales que normalmente se reservan para las víctimas de la represión política, cuando entran y salen libremente de su país.

“Uno no huye del comunismo sólo para volver en repetidas ocasiones con una maleta llena de dinero y de mercancías para la familia”, afirma el editorial. Esto es algo evidente, imposible de negar.

¿Podemos decir que el periódico es anticubano?  Si, el periódico siempre ha sido abiertamente anticubano, pero por otras razones, en partes del editorial podemos ver las simpatías con el gobierno de Castro. Pero cuando se trata de la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, lo único que está haciendo es mencionar un hecho que es una realidad. No se puede defender lo indefendible.

Este  tema ha estado en boca de diferentes sectores de la comunidad, así como  de los políticos cubanoamericanos como el senador Marco Rubio y los congresistas Ileana Ros-Lehtinen y Mario Díaz-Balart, quienes han cuestionado el hecho de que los refugiados retornen indiscriminadamente a la isla.

Realmente cuando se implementó la ley de Ajuste Cubano se hizo para los refugiados políticos. 

Un refugiado político es una persona que tiene temor de vivir en su país porque se encuentra perseguido.

Hay miles de exilados Cubanos que caen en esa categoría, pero cada día más vemos como los recién llegados, confiesan que no son políticos y no quieren ni siquiera mencionar o criticar el régimen del que se supone que vienen como refugiados políticos.

En algunos casos  hasta defienden abiertamente al régimen..

El concepto de la persecución política está vigente en la ley, la ley nunca ha cambiado. 

La ley de Ajuste Cubano, cómo las demás leyes de inmigración de Estados Unidos, fueron leyes aprobadas razonablemente en sus respectivas épocas..

El problema de las leyes migratorias, es que no se cumplen, y que en la práctica, no se cumplen porque las razones políticas del incumplimiento es parte de la política que hace imposible el cumplimiento.

Vamos a poner un ejemplo a nivel local.  Si un beneficiado de la ley de ajuste cubano, viaja a Cuba al poco tiempo de haber recibido la entrada como exilado político, está implícito que cometió perjurio, y a su vuelta tiene que ser arrestado o deportado. 

Se imaginan el escándalo en la comunidad, habrían manifestaciones de una y otra parte y un estado de agitación civil. 

Haciendo un símil médico, cada órgano del cuerpo humano tiene su función, pero hay veces que hay que removerlo porque está dañado, y no sólo no cumple su función pero afecta el resto del organismo.

Hay que derogar la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, porque es imposible de cumplir así como hay que cambiar las antiguas leyes de inmigración de Estados Unidos porque no son posibles de cumplir en estas condiciones y bajo esta administración

Si Romney hubiera sido electo, si los votantes hubieran elegido a representantes y senadores republicanos, no habría necesidad de haber un proyecto de ley de Inmigración del tipo que se está haciendo.  No se puede culpar a los que están tratando de cambiar el status quo, los culpables son los votantes que escogieron a estos oficiales demócratas que quieren una reforma todavía más permisiva..

Deportar a los millones de indocumentados de un golpe es imposible bajo estas condiciones políticas en esta administración, como es imposible el deportar para Cuba a los que han viajado después de decir que son perseguidos políticos .  Es lo que se debiera hacer, pero pragmáticamente es una imposibilidad.

Hay que tratar de hacer una ley migratoria que impida la continuación de la entrada de ilegales y que establezca un control de las personas que se encuentran ilegalmente en el país, caso por caso, deportando a los criminales y tratando de hacer un estudio justo de las familias que han tenido una conducta correcta y se han mantenido trabajando para que bajo las leyes migratorias puedan aspirar a una residencia.

 

Este es el editorial del Chicago Tribune traducido al español

 

REPENSANDO EL BENEFICIO DE CUBA amenper

Estatus migratorio especial genera críticas

Para los cubanos que desean emigrar a los Estados Unidos, lo más difícil es llegar hasta aquí.

Desde 1966, a ellos básicamente se les ha concedido el estatus automático de refugiado a su arribo. La Ley de Ajuste Cubano fue aprobada entonces para resolver la situación jurídica de 300,000 cubanos que habían huido de la revolución socialista de Fidel Castro.

Casi medio siglo después, los cubanos que llegan a Estados Unidos raramente dicen ser víctimas de persecución política. Ellos quieren un mejor futuro económico o vienen para reunirse con familiares que ya están aquí, o ambas cosas -al igual que la mayoría de las personas que desean emigrar a cualquier otro lugar.

A diferencia de la mayoría de los inmigrantes, sin embargo, los cubanos no tienen que esperar años para una visa o cruzar la frontera ilegalmente. Una vez que están aquí, tienen vía rápida para obtener la residencia legal, con un camino claro hacia la ciudadanía.

Es un tema delicado cuando el Congreso considere qué hacer con los 11 millones de inmigrantes indocumentados con quienes el sistema no ha sido tan generoso.

Los inmigrantes -más de la mitad de ellos procedentes de México- viven y trabajan bajo el radar del gobierno, a menudo por bajos salarios, en constante temor de ser deportados.

Para venir aquí legalmente, más trabajadores mexicanos tendrían que esperar décadas para una visa. Pero a los cubanos que se presentan en nuestra frontera sur -un punto común de entrada gracias a la política estadounidense de “pies secos, pies mojados”- se les permite la entrada una vez que muestren una identificación.

“Se está volviendo cada vez más difícil de justificar ante mis colegas”, dijo el senador Marco Rubio, republicano de Florida, quien es hijo de inmigrantes cubanos. Rubio es uno de los ocho senadores que trabajan en un proyecto de ley de reforma migratoria bipartidista. “No estoy seguro de que vamos a ser capaces de evitar, como parte de un enfoque global de la inmigración, una conversación sobre la Ley de Ajuste Cubano”, dijo.

Las consideraciones especiales son particularmente difíciles de defender, ahora que los cubanos pueden viajar libremente entre Estados Unidos y su país de origen, gracias a la flexibilización de las restricciones en ambos extremos.

En el 2009, el presidente Barack Obama levantó la mayor parte de las limitaciones que impedían a los cubanoamericanos viajar a la isla para visitar a sus familias. El año pasado, más de 400,000 lo hicieron, algunos de ellos docenas de veces.

En enero, el gobierno cubano comenzó a permitir a los ciudadanos nacionales viajar al extranjero sin el permiso de salida. Los pasaportes se otorgan en la actualidad más abundantemente, y los que se van pueden mantenerse fuera del país hasta dos años sin perder su residencia. La mayoría de los cubanos son capaces de ir y venir a su antojo.

En conjunto, los cambios tienden a invitar a un nuevo flujo de cubanos hacia Estados Unidos, donde son elegibles para obtener la residencia legal, a la vez que los alienta a regresar con frecuencia para visitar a la familia -y gastar dinero- en Cuba.

No tenemos ningún problema en permitir a los cubanoamericanos viajar de ida y vuelta a Cuba. El Congreso debe eliminar por completo la prohibición de viajar, de modo que todos los estadounidenses puedan visitar la isla. Turistas procedentes de otros países han frecuentado en masa el “terrorista” Estado de Cuba desde hace años.

Mezclarse con el mundo exterior es un ejercicio importante para los cubanos en tanto les permite evaluar las opciones de un futuro sin los envejecidos hermanos Castro.

Pero es difícil argumentar que los cubanos que pueden entrar y salir cuando les plazca de su país, están necesitados de consideraciones especiales que normalmente se reservan para las víctimas de la represión política. Uno no huye del comunismo sólo para volver en repetidas ocasiones con una maleta llena de dinero y de mercancías para la familia.

Tampoco tiene sentido permitir que la entrada a Estados Unidos se acepte no por un reclamo de persecución, sino en base a que la persona esquive suficientemente los barcos de la Guardia Costera como para marcar territorio estadounidense.

 Los cubanos que quieren venir aquí por razones económicas deben atenerse a las mismas reglas que los inmigrantes económicos procedentes de otros países.

 

La técnica de domesticación humana 
CARLOS ALBERTO MONTANER 

Once diputados de la Unidad Democrática fueron golpeados en la Asamblea Nacional de Venezuela. Algunos de ellos, como María Corina Machado, tuvieron que pasar por el quirófano. Le rompieron el tabique nasal y la patearon en el suelo. La fractura de Julio Borges, en pleno rostro, parece que no tiene solución quirúrgica. 

El gobierno ha querido presentar la agresión como el resultado de una provocación de los opositores o como una trifulca de las que ocasionalmente se producen en los parlamentos, pero no hay nada de eso. 

Lo que sucedió en Caracas es mucho más grave. Estamos ante una medida punitiva encaminada a someter a la obediencia a los parlamentarios de la oposición. Es parte de un cruel ejercicio de domesticación. 

Previamente, el teniente Diosdado Cabello, presidente del Parlamento, el gran domador de caballos, los había silenciado. Como los diputados insistían en hablar y reclamaban su derecho a expresar sus criterios, función para la que habían sido elegidos, Cabello decidió darles unos cuantos fustazos. 

Ésa es la lógica del castrismo en su más pura esencia: al enemigo se le intimida, golpea o encarcela hasta que obedezca. Y si resiste tercamente, siempre es posible fusilarlo como una forma de escarmiento colectivo. Al general Arnaldo Ochoa, por ejemplo, lo fusilaron para mandarles un mensaje a sus compañeros del ejército: el que se mueva, es hombre muerto. 

En Cuba –que ahora copian los venezolanos del triste bando de Maduro y Cabello– hay distintos anillos represivos. 

El primero es la advertencia. Un policía se acerca a la casa del ciudadano díscolo y le explica que por el camino que va será echado del trabajo o de la universidad, a menos de que deponga su actitud contestataria y acepte su revolucionario papel de aplaudir dócilmente a los jefes. 

Si la persona insiste en su actitud rebelde, se toman represalias en sus centros de trabajo o estudio. Es el segundo anillo represivo. Ya Fidel explicó, hace muchos años, y ha sido una regla inflexible, que “la universidad es para los revolucionarios”. 

Lo mismo sucede con los buenos trabajos o con las prebendas que dispensa el poder a sus paniaguados (autos, viviendas decentes, viajes al extranjero). La buena vida es para unos pocos revolucionarios. 

Como conductistas extremos, los Castro moldean la conducta de los cubanos con refuerzos positivos y negativos. Dulces para el que obedece. Palos para el que protesta. Muerte para el que se excede peligrosamente. Así han gobernado más de medio siglo. 

El tercer anillo son los llamados “actos de repudio”. “El pueblo enardecido” insulta, escupe, zarandea y golpea a los ciudadanos desobedientes. La turba penetra en sus casas y lo destroza todo. Si intentan defenderse, entonces entran en acción “las brigadas de respuesta rápida”. 

Ése es el cuarto anillo represivo: matones armados con estacas que machacan al disidente. Luego la policía acusa a la víctima de escándalo en la vía pública, lo que acarrea pena de cárcel. 

Por último, el quinto anillo represivo es el formado por las tropas especiales. Son militares entrenados para hacer mucho daño con sus armas de fuego, sus porras o sus puños –son karatekas, yudocas, boxeadores–, y no les tiembla el pulso si tienen que matar a golpes o a tiros a los “enemigos de la revolución”. 

Maduro y su entorno, bajo la dirección de “los cubanos”, van a utilizar fielmente este modelo represivo para controlar a la sociedad venezolana, de manera que no se les escape el poder de las manos. Lo que pasó en la Asamblea Nacional es parte del adiestramiento. 

La meta es impedir a cualquier costo el referéndum revocatorio que puede convocarse dentro de tres años. Los chavistas ya están seguros de que son minoría y están convencidos de que tienen poco tiempo para someter a todos los venezolanos a la obediencia, el silencio y el aplauso. Por eso están dando golpes y desbravando a los rebeldes. Tienen poco tiempo para juntar el rebaño.

Periodista y escritor. Su último libro es la novela Otra vez adiós. 

http://www.firmaspress.com/ 

© Firmas Press 

Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/05/05/1468843/carlos-alberto-montaner-la-tecnica.html#storylink=cpy

 

Esto todo lo sabemos…pero tenemos MIEDO DECIRLO‏ Ricardo Samitier.

Esto Nadie Lo Discute…Cuando Una Condición Humana Por NACIMIENTO Es Una ANOMALÍA Que Solo Se Repite En Una MINORÍA De Los NACIDOS… Es Mundialmente

Reconocida Como Una Enfermedad…

Los homosexuales por nacimiento son una anomalía de un 2% de la población… como son otras múltiples anomalías por nacimiento… el problema es que las otras anomalías… NO SON CONTAGIOSAS…  

 

El homosexual REQUIERE contagiar a un NO HOMOSEXUAL para poder efectuar su acto sexual… ELLOS USAN todos los medios a su alcance para logar su objetivo… y la mejor forma es IR CONTRA EL SISTEMA NORMAL… Ya en el siglo XII  los homosexuales lograron el control del SUR DE FRANCIA… e hicieron su propia religión… donde declararon PECADO el acto sexual con la mujer a NO SER QUE FUESE HECHO EN LOS DÍAS PROPICIOS PARA PROCREAR…

De acuerdo a la RELIGIÓN ALBIGENSE (léase homosexual) la satisfacción sexual eran solo hombre con hombre… y  mujer con mujer… ES DECIR ESTABAN CONTRA EL MATRIMONIO…

Hoy aquí tenemos las declaraciones públicas de uno de los líderes de los MARICONES… en que dice que hay que abolir el MATRIMONIO… Y va más lejos… NOSOTROS MENTIMOS para lograr nuestro propósito (por el momento)…

He aquí sus declaraciones…

Los homosexuales, quieren destruir la sociedad ACTUAL

http://www.therightscoop.com/institution-of-marriage-should-not-exist-gay-activist-admits-we-lie-that-marriage-wont-change/

Benghazi buzz: Obama predicted to leave office

More serious than Watergate ‘because 4 Americans did in fact die’

      

To this day, it is not known what role President Richard Nixon played in the break-in at the Watergate Hotel, but the tape recordings from the White House confirm he and Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman discussed using the CIA to slow down the FBI investigation.

It was the cover-up, as history records, that eventually brought about Nixon’s resignation in disgrace.

 

Now, Congress is investigating an alleged cover-up of the terrorist attack Sept. 11, 2012, on the U.S. foreign service facility in Benghazi, Libya, amid predictions from prominent voices that the scandal will bring down the Obama administration.

 

Former Arkansas governor and onetime presidential candidate Mike Huckabee made the bold prediction this week, ahead of a House hearing Wednesday that will feature witnesses of the attack.

 

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term,” he said. “I know that puts me on a limb. But this is not minor. It wasn’t minor when Richard Nixon lied to the American people and worked with those in his administration to cover up what really happened in Watergate.

“But, I remind you – as bad as Watergate was, because it broke the trust between the president and the people, no one died. This is more serious because four Americans did in fact die.”

 

Meanwhile, John Bolton, former U.N. ambassador and now a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has also declared the Benghazi scandal could lead to Obama’s removal from office.

 

“This could be the hinge point,” he told Newsmax. “It’s that serious for them.”

Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy, wrote in a Washington Times column that “the dam seems to be breaking on the nearly eight-month-long cover-up concerning the deadly jihadist attack on Americans and their facilities in Benghazi, Libya.”

After the foreign service facility in Benghazi was attacked, the Obama administration initially claimed Muslims spontaneously rioted over a little-known online video that defamed Islam’s founder.

But now there is evidence that the administration knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack and altered its talking points.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is digging into the truth, holding a hearing that calls on those who were in Benghazi to explain what happened.

The questions will probe who created the story that was delivered to America and why.

 

Hear Huckabee:

Critics have asserted that in the heat of the presidential election race, Obama, who had been campaigning on the claim that al-Qaida essentially were defeated, was unwilling to provide ammunition to his GOP critics by confirming such a brazen terror attack on America, particularly on the anniversary of 9/11.

The witnesses include State Department career worker Gregory Hicks, who already has provided sworn testimony that American resources were told to “stand down” that day while four Americans died.

 

That statement would directly conflict with multiple statements by the Obama administration.

 

Rep. Darrell Issa, D-Calif., pointed out that the Obama administration specifically denied that anyone was told to stand down.

The Washington Post also reported that U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets in a show of force. The embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack.

Congressional investigators released a partial transcript of Hicks’ coming testimony. It includes his report that the lieutenant colonel in Tripoli who commanded the Special Operations team told him he was sorry that his men had been held back.

Get the bumper sticker that says it all, “Honk for Impeachment.

Hicks said he received communication from Stevens, saying, “Greg, we’re under attack.”

In an interview with the Fox News Channel, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said getting the information is going to be a chore.

“There are people who want to testify that have been suppressed,” he said, according to the Washington Times.  “They’re scared to death of what the State Department is doing with them.”

 

Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state at the time of the attack, has a huge stake in the outcome of the investigation, as she is considered the favorite for the 2016 Democratic Party nomination for president.

 

She famously unleashed an emotional outburst at an earlier hearing on Benghazi, dismissing questions about the reason for the attack with, “What difference does it make?”

 

Chaffetz expressed little confidence in what Obama and Clinton have told the public.

“We were certainly misled at every step of the way,” Chaffetz said.

In his Washington Times column, Gaffney noted the combination of congressional hearings along with reports that “long-silenced witnesses are determined to reveal what they know.

 

“At the instigation of Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, and with encouragement from more than 700 special operations veterans and family members of those lost in Benghazi, some 135 legislators in the House of Representatives and three U.S. senators are calling for a special investigatory committee,” he wrote. “To be sure, Team Obama seems as determined as ever to defy efforts to ferret out the truth about Benghazi. In this, they have been aided by the failure of Congress to date to mount a single, concerted investigation of what led up to, happened during and took place after the attack.”

Get “Taking America Back,” Joseph Farah’s manifesto for sovereignty, self-reliance and moral renewal

Gaffney wrote that it’s critical to know the truth about where Obama was during the attack and what was he doing.

“He evidently did not order a rescue operation,” he said. ” … We need to know why not, and what the president was doing instead of his first responsibility: protecting Americans.”

 

Gaffney said there are also questions about Hillary Clinton’s role, particularly why she failed “to intervene on behalf of her subordinates in harm’s way.”

Huckabee acknowledged that if Democrats continue to control the U.S. Senate, nothing will happen.

“They won’t let it happen, not because they’re protecting just the president, they’re trying to protect their entire political party. If they try to protect the president and their party, and do so at the expense of the truth, their president and their party will go down. Now, here’s what I’m going to suggest will happen – as the information and facts begin to come out, it will become so obvious that there was a concerted and very, very deliberate attempt to mislead this country and its people to lie to Congress, as well as to you.”

 

Huckabee continued: “When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern. And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

 

Retired Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, once commander of missions for the Army Rangers and now executive vice president for the Family Research Council, said the truth needs to come out about Benghazi.

In an interview published by WND, he said there has been no acceptable explanation for not rescuing Americans under siege in Benghazi, and nothing less than a special House committee investigation will satisfy him.

 

He said the lack of answers since has been bothering him for months, and that’s why he worked on a letter to Congress.

“I’ve been working this since not long after the events on the 11th of September. That said, the U.S. Congress has been sort of ignoring all of our efforts to try and get some full accounting on this thing,” Boykin said. “I just simply reached out to some people that I knew had a deep passion for this, that would in fact bring a different dimension to it and that’s the retired special operations guys that spent a good portion of their professional careers preparing for and executing these kinds of operations. They’ve risked their lives for this. They’ve seen people that have sacrificed their lives to save other Americans, and I knew these people would come on quickly and would come on with deep passion.”

 

The letter to the House of Representatives called for the creation of an investigative committee. It was signed by hundreds of members of the military.

Boykin said what’s baffling is why there was no attempt to rescue the Americans.

“Why was there no attempt to recover the bodies before they fell into the hands of the Libyans? We find that perplexing and inexcusable that we don’t have those answers,” he said.

 

Issa’s committee praised Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counter-terrorism; Hicks; and Eric Nordstrom, diplomatic security officer; for agreeing to testify.

 

The committee’s analysis indicates Clinton cut her own department’s counter-terrorism unit out of the situation, and a source reported the U.S. military could have reached Benghazi in time to save lives.

 

It’s not the first time talk of of impeaching Obama has come up.

Lawmakers who have broached the subject of impeachment include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Steve Stockman. Others include former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; and author and columnist Pat Buchanan.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

The U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

 

Only two U.S. presidents have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. Nixon resigned before the full House voted on his impeachment.

 

Besides the Benghazi disaster, issues that have prompted the impeachment discussions include Obama’s Fast and Furious gun-running scandal, his decision to order the assassination of an American-born Muslim cleric who joined al-Qaida, his “recess appointments” to the National Labor Relations Board even though Congress was not in recess, his appointment of many unvetted “czars,” his fight against enforcing immigration laws, amnesty, U.S. involvement in Libya and gun control.

Specifically on Benghazi, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney accused an anti-Muslim video on YouTube of inciting the attack. On Sept. 16, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice made five Sunday morning television appearances in which she claimed the attacks were spontaneous reactions to the obscure film. Obama mentioned the YouTube video six more times at the U.N. on Sept. 25.

However, there was never any kind of protest at the Benghazi compound that night.

 

WND also reported a March poll showed advocates for impeachment nearly equal to those against it. For example, regarding Obama’s campaign for amnesty to illegals, 44 percent said he should be impeached for it, while only 48 percent say he should not. And 46 percent said Obama should be impeached for launching the war to remove Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, while 49 percent said no.

 

“Taken by itself, any of these questions about President Obama could be ignored, but it becomes much more questionable when all of these … administration actions are taken as a whole,” said Fritz Wenzel, whose public opinion and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies conducted the poll.

“Obama appears to have found a way to split the nation directly down the middle on each issue, but, as his plummeting poll numbers may now indicate, the American public may well be catching up with the cumulative effect of this administration’s handling of the Constitution and the federal government,” Wenzel said.

 

Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach Obama.

Another recent call for impeachment came from rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent.

“There’s no question that this guy’s violations qualify for impeachment,” he said. “There’s no question.”

He blasted “the criminality of this government, the unprecedented abuse of power, corruption, fraud and deceit by the Chicago gangster-scammer-ACORN-in-chief.”

“It’s so diabolical,” he said.

 

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on his program that the Obama administration’s release of hundreds and potentially thousands of illegal-alien criminals from U.S. detention centers in connection with possible budget cuts is “an impeachable offense.”

“In what used to be considered (if we can remember this far back) normal, sane times, this is an impeachable offense,” Limbaugh said. “This is action being taken against the country. … It is sheer madness to be doing this. It is petulant, it is childish.”

Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has called for the impeachment of Obama over his policy of permitting drone strikes on American citizens overseas who are members of terrorist organizations.

 

On WABC Radio’s “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio,” Benjamin said she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.

You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama.

See Dennis Kucinich advocate for impeachment over Libya:

See Texas congressman lobby for impeachment over gun control:

See Andrew Napolitano talk about impeachment over the budget:

 

Get the bumper sticker that says it all, “Honk for Impeachment.

The idea of impeachment actually seems moderate given the results of another recent poll.

The poll, conducted by telephone by Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind, found that 29 percent of Americans believe armed revolution may be necessary, with 5 percent saying they’re not sure.

While 18 percent of Democrats and 27 percent of independents believe that to be true, 44 percent of Republicans questioned in the poll said armed revolution may be needed.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/05/obamas-departure-predicted-as-congress-focuses-on-cover-up/

 

Huckabee’s Crystal Ball Says Barack will Resign Over Benghazi.

“EMO” Nota: No creo que el negrito “Tun-Tun” renuncie por esto ni por nada,  a ese tipo para que salga de ahí “HAY QUE DARLE CANDELA COMO EL MACO POR EL ‘C” y duro” LRGM.

By Clash Daily / 7 May 2013 / 337 Comments

Mike Huckabee predicted today on his radio show that President Obama would resign over a supposed “cover-up” of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Huckabee claimed that the “cover-up” was “more serious than Watergate,” reported Politico.com.

“I believe that before it’s all over, this president will not fill out his full term. I know that puts me on a limb,” Huckabee claimed. “But this is not minor. It wasn’t minor when Richard Nixon lied to the American people and worked with those in his administration to cover-up what really happened in Watergate.”

“But, I remind you, as bad as Watergate was, because it broke the trust between the president and the people, no one died. This is more serious because four Americans did in fact die.”

However, Huckabee added a disclaimer that his prediction about President Obama “will not happen” if the Democrats have control of the House and Senate in 2014.

Read more: opposingviews.com

Read more: http://clashdaily.com/2013/05/huckabees-crystal-ball-says-barack-will-resign-over-benghazi/#ixzz2Shz2cujU
Get more Clash on ClashDaily.com, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

 

 

35 STATES SO FAR….IT’S GROWING

Governors of 35 states have filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.

This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
This is an idea that we should address.

For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress.  The latest is to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform that passed … in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn’t seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law. I truly don’t care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever . The self-serving must stop.

If each person that receives this will forward it on to 15 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message. This is one proposal that really should be passed around.

Proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States …”

 

YA ERA HORA !!!
SI NO HAY IGLESIAS EN ARABIA SAUDÍ
NO HAY MEZQUITAS EN EUROPA                                                      

Reciprocidad 

Noruega ha prohibido a Arabia Saudí financiar mezquitas

mientras no permitan construir iglesias en su país.

El Gobierno noruego ha dado un paso importante a la hora de defender la libertad en Europa
frente al totalitarismo islámico.

Jonas Gahr Stor, ministro de Asuntos Exteriores,

ha afirmado que se rechazarán las donaciones millonarias de Arabia Saudí

y varios empresarios musulmanes para financiar la construcción de mezquitas en Noruega.

 

Según dicho ministro, las comunidades religiosas tienen derecho a recibir ayuda financiera,

pero el gobierno noruego, excepcionalmente y por razones lógicas,

no apoya la financiación islámica con cientos de millones de euros.

 

Jonas Gahr Stor apunta que

“sería una paradoja, y antinatural aceptar las fuentes de financiación de un país donde no hay libertad religiosa”.

 

El ministro también afirma que “la aceptación de ese dinero sería un contrasentido”,

recordando la prohibición que existe en el país árabe para la construcción de iglesias de otras religiones.

 

Jonas Gahr Stor también anuncia que “Noruega llevará el asunto ante el Consejo de Europa”

donde defenderá esta decisión basada en la más estricta reciprocidad con Arabia Saudita.

POR CIERTO; ESTA NOTICIA CASI HA PASADO DESAPERCIBIDA EN ESPAÑA
DONDE, ANTE EL TEMOR DE REPRESALIAS,
LOS MEDIOS DE COMUNICACIÓN …
PREFIEREN CALLARSE … !!!

Esto debe de saberse, hay que difundir lo más posible

Don’t Investigate Obama Unless You Can Pay The Tab

May 7, 2013 by George Spelvin 24 Comments

inShare8

 

The social security number (042-68-4425) bearing the name “Barack Obama” has failed the United States’ Social Security Number verification check.  “I was outraged; nobody vetted this man,” said Seattle housewife Linda Jordon, who filed a self-check investigation listing herself as Obama’s employer (as a U.S. taxpayer).  Jordon exposed the absurdity of a man who has access to the code for America’s nuclear football but couldn’t get clearance to pick tomatoes because his social security number has been flagged and kicked back! For her diligent efforts as a concerned American citizen, Jordon is being slammed with over $13,000 in fees and court costs because a judge deemed her investigation of the anomalies surrounding Obama’s social security number “frivolous.”  ”I’m a mom, wife, homemaker,” says Jordon, who compared the 1 1/2 year vetting process her son had to go through to become a deputy sheriff with the lack of investigation into Obama’s history and documents.  “Something is very wrong here.”

Three red boxes surrounded the SSN number claimed by Obama.  One red box states: “The SSA record does not verify, other reason, SSA found a discrepancy in the record.”  A second red box says: “Obama, Barack H. 08/17/2011-Date of Mismatch.”  The third red flag says, “042-68-4425, Employee’s SSN, Case Verification # 2011229111431GY.”   The form letter sent to Obama, flagging his number, is posted online along with the mismatch information.

Mrs. Jordon went deeper and researched the Social Security publication known as the POMS book.  She learned that the designations given this SSN “are reserved for very few recipients and involve possible fraud.”  Jordon began looking into the Obama document forgeries when she heard him say that his kids played with those of domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.  “Bill Ayers’ kids were 23 years older than Obama’s kids. . .(Ayers) must have had (them) when he was 60, ” she said.  Radio talk host Rick Wiles of www.TrueNews.com  points out in their audio interview that Obama said his father got his education because of the GI Bill.  However, “his father never (was) in the Military.”

A picture of Barack SOETORO on a Columbia University “Foreign Student” identity card is posted at the end of a very long thread about the BC fraud.  Many have posted links to questions surrounding the Obama Selective Service card which Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo has described as “poorly forged!”

 

 

Aquí tienen un viaje por partes de los Estados Unidos. Espero que les guste:

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=KcuDdPo0WZk

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Para comentarios, sugerencias, aportes, artículos, noticias, opiniones, ideas, o sugerencias enviarlos a los e-mails:

LazaroRGonzalez@hotmail.com,       

LazaroRGonzalez@gmail.com,

Para leer o revisar publicaciones anteriores ir a los Blogs:

MrLazaroRGonzalez.blogspot.com,

EnMiOpinionLazaroRGonzalez.blogspot.com,

RomelBPaz1@wordpress.com,

Para ver nuestros Flash en Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/lazarorg?ref=tn_tnmn

“EN MI OPINION”  .

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

 

2 comentarios to “En mi opinión No379 5/8/2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño”

  1. Detmorkatornet.Blogspot.com Says:

    �owica dysku, zamigały światełka
    kablowego modemu, Frodo patrzył Detmorkatornet.Blogspot.
    com w zakratowany prostokąt okna.
    – Z jakiego powodu ci owo opowiadam, – mruknął ostatecznie.

    – Co ciebie owe obchodzi…
    Położyła mu graba na ustach. Przewrotowe, złotówkodajne opuszki palców.
    Milczała.
    – Inteligentna jesteś Mariszka… Akuratnie pamiętam? Zdążyłaś zapewne się zaprezentować?

    . Roześmiał się, tenże sam zastanawiając się, skąd w poprzednio.

  2. steam wallet codes Says:

    Thanks for finally talking about >En mi opinión No379 5/8/2013 Editor Lázaro R González
    Miño | Romelbpaz1’s Blog <Liked it!

Responder

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 )

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Conectando a %s


A %d blogueros les gusta esto: