En mi opinión No385 5/16/2013 Editor Lázaro R González Miño‏

“En mi opinión”  ,  IN GOD WE TRUST.

.No 385 Mayo 16, 2013  Editor Lázaro R González Miño.  

Image

El secretario de Justicia de EE.UU. dice que sabe poco del caso AP Por Tom Cohen y Michael Pearson

Washington (CNN) – (CNN) — El secretario de Justicia de Estados Unidos, Eric Holder, dijo este miércoles que su decisión de recusarse de una investigación del Departamento de Justicia sobre una filtración que llevó a la recolección de los registros telefónicos de la agencia The Associated Press le impiden responder preguntas sobre el hecho.

“No sé lo que pasó ahí con el cruce entre la AP y el Departamento de Justicia”, dijo Holder ante la Comisión Judicial de la Cámara de Representantes. “Yo estaba recusado del caso”.  En mi opinión:  Hay que tener la cara de lata. LRGM

La agencia de noticias reveló este lunes que agentes federales recolectaron secretamente dos meses del historial telefónico de algunos de sus reporteros y editores.

La AP dijo que, aparentemente, agentes investigaban la fuente de una noticia que reveló cómo la CIA impidió que al Qaeda hiciera estallar un avión con destino a Estados Unidos en mayo de 2012, durante el aniversario de la muerte de Osama bin Laden.

Fuentes dijeron después a CNN que el militante que realizaría el ataque fue en realidad insertado dentro de la filial de al Qaeda en Yemen por la inteligencia saudí, y que el dispositivo fue enviado a Estados Unidos para análisis.

Holder dijo a reporteros este martes que se retiró de la investigación para evitar cualquier conflicto de interés en el caso y dejó la decisión de pedir los registros al subsecretario de Justicia, James M. Cole, quien autorizó la solicitud.

Holder, que ha sido interrogado por agentes del FBI como parte de la indagatoria sobre la filtración, dijo que se retiró para asegurarse de “que la investigación fuera vista como independiente”.

Pero la editora ejecutiva de la agencia, Kathleen Carroll, dijo este martes que los datos recolectados dentro de la investigación cubren “una amplia red” e involucran las operaciones de AP “que no tienen, hasta donde sé, alguna conexión particular con la historia que ellos (las autoridades federales) dicen que investigaban”.

“Nunca habíamos visto algo del tamaño y el alcance de esta investigación en particular”, dijo Carroll a CNN.

Según la AP, los agentes federales recolectaron registros de más de 20 líneas telefónicas, incluidas líneas personales, utilizadas por 100 periodistas en Nueva York, Hartford, Connecticut y Washington.

El Departamento de Justicia defendió este martes su decisión de pedir los registros, y afirmó que fueron limitados y necesarios.

“Se nos pide que negociemos con la organización de noticias con anticipación antes de emitir las órdenes, a menos de que al hacerlo se ponga en sustancial amenaza la integridad de la investigación”, escribió Cole en una carta a la AP. “Tomamos esta política, y el interés que pretende proteger, muy seriamente y se siguió en este asunto”.

Jay Carney, vocero de la Casa Blanca, dijo que funcionarios de su dependencia no estuvieron involucrados en la investigación y no sabían nada sobre el hecho.

El gobierno de Barack Obama ha lanzado varias investigaciones de alto perfil por filtraciones, tras lo cual dos empleados del gobierno han sido acusados de revelar información clasificada.

Thomas Drake, un exfuncionario de seguridad nacional, fue sentenciado a un año de libertad condicional y 240 horas de servicio comunitario en 2011, mientras que el exfuncionario de la CIA, John Kiriakou, fue condenado a 30 meses de prisión luego de admitir que identificó a un agente encubierto.

Matt Smith, Jessica Yellin, Carol Cratty, Kevin Bohn, Greg Botelho, Joe Sterling y Josh Levs contribuyeron con este reporte.

Boehner is the Problem, Help Fix Him!

 

Dear Member:

Are you happy about the job Congress is doing to expose ‘Benghazi-gate’?

Here is the 8-month track record of failure:

Congress has not issued one single subpoena. 

Potentially dozens of witnesses have never been interviewed, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who should be interrogated.

Many of these witnesses and ‘whistleblowers’ are now being harassed, intimidated, and retaliated against by Team Obama.  All that these fine men and women want is to honor the sacrifice made by their abandoned and slaughtered colleagues.  Instead, they’re being warned to ‘shut-up’ or else.

After 6 months of lethargy, confusion, and overwhelming Obama distractions, only 1 of the 5 congressional committees investigating Benghazi even held a single, one-day congressional hearing

Obama called theses hearings a ‘side show’.  And the 5-committee chairs may prove him correct, as there’s not a single Benghazi hearing planned for May, or in the foreseeable future.  None!  This is totally unacceptable.

If you’re mad as h_ll about Benghazi, there’s only one person to blame.

This one powerful person isn’t Dirty Obama. 

 

It isn’t alleged Benghazi-perjurer Hillary Rodham Clinton, or even her lapdog political fixer Cheryl Mills.

 

The person to blame is none other than House Speaker John Boehner.  

When it comes to Benghazi, Boehner is the problem. 

As the House Speaker, and third in line to the Presidency, John Boehner is an immensely powerful politician.   

Speaker Boehner has strongly opposed a special Benghazi committee since last November. 

Back then rank-and-file Republican members fell in line behind the Speaker, trusting his leadership. 

But those days are long over! 

Now 8 months later, Boehner still opposes a House Select Committee on Benghazi. 

But other than his handpicked Leadership Team, and a few other hanger-ons’, Speaker Boehner has lost the caucus on Benghazi. 

With each passing day, more House Republicans abandon Boehner to support a House Select Committee — just like Nixon had at ‘Watergate’. 

Eighty-five cosponsors have joined since Easter Recess, 40 since Boehner’s failed ‘Progress Report’ was released, and another 15 just since the hearing last week, including 8 in the last two days!

Help Us Continue to Add Even More Cosponsors!  

Late last night, I spoke with a senior aide to Speaker Boehner about Benghazi.  

Frankly, Boehner’s Office didn’t move an inch, and only dug-in deeper.  

But it is Imperative for All of Us to Keep Calling Speaker Boehner’s Office at (202) 225-0600. 

Tell Speaker Boehner to Stop Blocking the House Select Committee on Benghazi! 

If your Congressman has already cosponsored Resolution 36, the House Select Committee, please ask them to do even more, because they can.   

Ask your Congressman to issue a public statement of support that calls upon Speaker Boehner to immediately appoint the House Select Committee. 

You can reach your Member of Congress at (202) 225-3121 

It is urgent for you to call as soon as possible, and if the phone is busy, just keep on calling!  You’ll get through!   

I cannot underscore enough the importance of phone calls and meetings. 

Since a Member of Congress rarely sees your email among many thousands of others, and receives ‘irradiated’ postal mail a month late, only phone calls and visiting with your Congressman can get the job done.   

This is really Revive America’s two-part strategy of attack:

1). Apply pressure-up from the ‘grassroots’ to Congress:    

As a citizen and fellow American, you engage in the political process by making phone calls, and lots of them! 

When Congress is in session, like today, call (202) 225-3121.  When they’re back home on recess, call them at their home district offices!  This always gets their attention, because you’re not competing against slick Washington-DC lobbyists for your congressman’s attention. 

2). Personal One-on-One Meetings with Congressman and Senior Aides:

Revive America is continuously meeting with Congress everyday up on Capitol Hill.  Help Us Continue Our Work on Capitol Hill  

Revive America’s two-part strategy has paid off big time for our campaign on Benghazi.   

We’re so close now to winning this incredibly important House Select Committee to investigate Benghazi.   

But Revive could not do it without you. 

So from one American to another, thank you for staying in the fight! Yours for America, 

 

Bob Adams Founder & President

Obama to Announce Major US Nuclear Force Cuts Soon Wednesday, 15 May 2013 07:51 PM By Bill Gertz

“EMO” Esta es la forma más eficiente de entregarles el país a los chinos, rusos, musulmanes y a la madre que los pario. LRGM

President Barack Obama is set to announce a new round of strategic nuclear warhead reductions in the near future as part of a disarmament agenda that could reduce U.S. strategic warheads to as few as 1,000 weapons.

The next round of U.S.-Russian arms talks would follow Obama’s expected announcement that the United States’ arsenal of strategic warheads can be reduced unilaterally to around 1,000 warheads. That position is expected as part of the Pentagon’s long-delayed Nuclear Posture Review implementation study that Obama was expected to sign earlier this year.

Recent press reports have indicated that President Obama may make the cuts — fully one-third of the nation’s arsenal — by executive action and without Congressional authorization.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

Specialists on nuclear deterrence say further cuts beyond the 1,550 deployed warheads mandated by the 2010 New START arms treaty could undermine the United States’ ability to deter nuclear powers like Russia and China, who have significant modernization programs for their nuclear arsenals underway.

Further cuts also are likely to embolden other non-nuclear states, including Japan, to consider building their own nuclear arsenals, analysts say.

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said the administration is seeking to unilaterally disarm U.S. nuclear forces, something that is “the most dangerous thing I have ever seen an American president attempt to do.”

“This is not the time to embark on such a dangerous path, with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea increasing their nuclear forces,” he said.

A U.S. official familiar with strategic nuclear policy said the delay in signing the implementation study may be the result of concerns among military commanders in charge of nuclear deterrence that China’s nuclear arsenal is expanding more rapidly than anticipated, and that Russia and other nuclear states, including Pakistan and North Korea, are modernizing their forces.

“I hear increasing concerns about China,” the official said. “We really don’t know what they’re doing and what decisions are being made” about China’s nuclear-force modernization.

In addition to cuts to the nation’s nuclear arsenal, the Obama administration appears to be getting ready to limit U.S. missile defenses in a new agreement with Russia.

Obama wrote a still-secret letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin that was delivered in Moscow by White House National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon during a visit there in mid-April.

Putin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters in Moscow the letter “addresses problems of military policy, including the missile defense and nuclear arsenals issues.”

A reply from the Russian president is expected soon, and a deal on both missile defenses and new talks on strategic nuclear reductions could come during Obama’s visit to Russia in September.

Despite the Obama administration’s pledge to not complete the final phase of its missile-defense program in Eastern Europe, Moscow remains vehemently opposed to the U.S- backed NATO plan to deploy a series of sea- and land-based missile defenses in Europe over the next five years.

Washington says the deployment is meant to counter Iran’s long-range missiles, but Moscow insists they are covertly aimed at countering its offensive strategic missiles.

“The administration is hoping to get some sort of missile-defense deal by June, so that by September or October Putin and Obama can announce a new round of nuclear-reduction talks,” the official said.

Rogers: Unilateral Reductions of ‘Immense Importance’

The impending nuclear cuts and missile-defense concessions are raising concerns among senior Republicans on Capitol Hill who fear the president is now following through on his open-microphone comment in March 2012 to then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

Obama was overheard promising the Russians “more flexibility” on missile defenses after the November election.

Rep. Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on strategic forces, said recently the administration’s review of the nuclear war plan is nearly complete and “is likely to recommend significant further U.S. nuclear-force reductions.”

“As the stockpile shrinks in size, we have reached the point where further reductions take on immense importance to the nation’s security and international stability,” said Rogers, an Alabama Republican.

Further angering Republicans are concerns that the administration, in order to avoid congressional opposition and a difficult Senate ratification process, is planning to make the next round of cuts through an executive agreement rather than a treaty that requires Senate approval.

Rogers vowed to oppose that process. “Let me be clear: I intend to ensure that no further reductions to U.S. nuclear forces, including New START treaty reductions, will occur without a formal treaty or explicit, affirmative authorization by Congress,” he said in an April 24 speech to a breakfast group on Capitol Hill.

In April, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Newsmax TV that “there will be a tremendous backlash” if Obama moves to unilaterally deactivate a significant portion of the nuclear arsenal without congressional approval.

“What kind of signals are we sending? Our nuclear deterrent arsenal needs to be modernized,” said Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

As a further indication of the coming nuclear cuts, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ordered the Air Force to conduct an environmental impact statement of shutting down an entire wing of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles — one of the clearest signs of coming additional force cuts. The New START treaty contains no provision for shuttering an ICBM facility.

While the United States under Obama’s anti-nuclear weapons agenda is seeking to build down its forces, other nations, notably Russia and China, are aggressively modernizing their weapons.

“The problem is not just Russia. Every other nuclear power is building up their arsenals,” the U.S. official said.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

The Russia strategic buildup is stark, officials say. It includes the following new systems:

• A new mobile ICBM called the Yars-M to be deployed later this year that will use a more powerful fuel, allowing the missile to better defeat missile defenses. The missile will have a range of up to 6,835 miles and have 10 warheads.

• A new rail-mobile ICBM is being deployed by 2020. The Soviet Union was the first to deploy a rail-mobile SS24 in the 1980s.

• New submarines are being deployed with new submarine-launched Bulava missiles.

• A new strategic bomber to be deployed by 2020.

• A new Kh-102 air-launched cruise missile will be deployed by 2013 and a new Kaliber submarine-launched cruise missile is being developed.

China’s strategic nuclear buildup also has been under way for a decade and includes three new road-mobile ICBMs: the DF-31, DF-31A, and DF-41, and a new submarine-launched ballistic missile, the JL-2.

The Pentagon revealed in its latest annual report to Congress on the Chinese military that China is building two new classes of missile submarines — one for nuclear ballistic missiles and one for conventional cruise missiles. It was the first time the Pentagon revealed the new missile submarines, which were disclosed as China has begun deploying Jin-class nuclear-missile submarines and new Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines.

U.S. intelligence agencies estimate China has a relatively small nuclear arsenal of around 240 warheads. The intelligence estimate was based in large measure on China’s declared policy of “no-first-use” — that it would not be the first to use nuclear arms in a conflict.

However, the recent Chinese defense white paper, the authoritative statement of Chinese military and defense policy, for the first time made no mention of the no-first-use nuclear policy, raising new concerns that China is on the path for a large-scale strategic nuclear-warhead buildup.

Former State Department intelligence analyst John Tkacik said the rapid deployment of Chinese missile submarines and the shift from single-warhead to multiple-warhead missiles is changing the strategic balance.

“Doing the math, we’re looking at 60 JL-2s on five submarines, each with at least three MIRVs (multiple, independently targetable re-entry vehicles), so that’s 180 new Chinese nuclear warheads that we have to plan for,” Tkacik said. “It gives me the heebie-jeebies.”

Additionally, China recently deployed the first of its unique intermediate range anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to defeat U.S. aircraft carriers that are the key platform that would be used in any defense of Taiwan, the island state that China has said it is prepared to use force to retake. The missiles, known as the DF-21D, are considered a major threat to U.S. naval forces operating in the western Pacific.

Asked during a recent congressional hearing if Chinese naval forces are a worry, Adm. Jonathan Greenert said: “I would just say that I’m vigilant. I would hate to say that I’m worried, yet, because I’m not necessarily worried. Very vigilant, and we need to pay attention and understand the intent. And challenge them on that intent.”

North Korea, which has conducted three underground nuclear tests, also is said to be developing small warheads for missiles. Asahi Shimbun reported in January, quoting intelligence sources, that North Korea was ready to test a “fusion-boosted fission bomb” in its next test. The sophisticated bomb could be placed on a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, or North Korea’s new road-mobile ICBM, the KN-08.

Pakistan also is developing more modern nuclear warheads and missiles to deliver them, U.S. officials said. Pakistan is said to be getting assistance from China, which provided the designs for Pakistan’s first warheads, which in turn were based on stolen U.S. nuclear-warhead designs.

India, Pakistan’s rival, also recently tested a new intercontinental-ballistic missile and is working on an advanced ICBM.

U.S. Strategic Command Calls for Modernization

With other nations making efforts to expand and modernize their nuclear forces, U.S. military officials have voiced concerns about the need to upgrade America’s existing stockpile of nuclear weapons.

The commander of U.S. nuclear forces said he is concerned about cuts in both the number of warheads as well as shortages in funding needed to modernize aging nuclear weapons and infrastructure.

Nuclear forces that need upgrades include delivery systems, weapons life-extension programs, stockpile monitoring, naval-reactor design work, and upgrades for nuclear command and control, Gen. Robert Kehler, head of the Omaha-based U.S. Strategic Command, said during a talk last June at the Council on Foreign Relations.

If further funding cuts are made, “we will have to go back and do what we did with this round of reductions: completely review what those impacts could be and make the appropriate recommendations,” the four-star general said.

“Of all the elements of the nuclear enterprise, I’m most concerned with the potential for declining or inadequate investment in the nuclear-weapons enterprise itself; some declining investment that would result in our inability to sustain the deterrent force,” he said.

Rogers said he is concerned about “the sorry state of the nuclear modernization commitments made during the last round” of talks with Russia.

Most Senate Republicans opposed the New START Treaty, noting its significant gaps. While bringing Russia and the United States to parity in strategic nuclear weapons of 1,550 each, it allowed Russia to maintain its sizeable advantage in tactical nuclear warheads, with an estimated stockpile of 3,800 such weapons. The United States, in comparison, has less than 500.

In the end, a handful of Senate Republicans supported ratification of New START after Obama promised to invest $85 billion over 10 years after 2010 to fix the aging U.S. nuclear arsenal and infrastructure, which is largely based on outdated technology that spans the Cold War period from the 1960s to the 1980s.

While the Pentagon has said it will try to protect nuclear-force modernization from the devastating effect of across-the-board cuts as part of congressional sequestration, funding for nuclear modernization is being cut.

Rogers said in a recent speech that funding levels agreed to in 2010 were the “minimum required to accomplish this modernization.” However, the administration is underfunding nuclear forces by between $1 billion and $1.6 billion, he said.

“Setting aside the gross budget numbers and looking at capability, it is easy to see that nuclear modernization is in grave danger,” Rogers said.

Among the weapons systems in jeopardy is the replacement for the Ohio-class ballistic-missile submarine, which is being delayed. Other programs that are being delayed are urgently needed life-extension programs for W-78 and W-88 nuclear warheads, the long-range standoff cruise missile, and numerous other programs. And one of the most urgently needed facilities — a plutonium laboratory in New Mexico — was canceled.

U.S. programs being delayed included the submarine-launched Trident D-5, which is now two years late and will not be deployed until 2029 at the earliest.

In addition, Congress and the Obama administration have blocked any development of newer and safer nuclear weapons, allowing only the refurbishing of older warheads.

Urgent: Did Obama Lie? Vote Here in Urgent National Poll.

The U.S. official knowledgeable about nuclear forces said the Obama administration’s approach to strategic nuclear cuts fits the model of what the late U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeanne Kirkpatrick called the “blame America first” advocates.

“They see everything in the world as all the United States’ fault and want to restrict our strategic forces as a solution,” the official said.


Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-nuclear-arsenal-cuts/2013/05/15/id/504736?s=al&promo_code=13820-1##ixzz2TSwCej5y
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
Vote Here Now!

DESTAPANDO EL ENCUBRIMIENTO‏. Alberto L Perez, amenper.

El editorial del Wall Street Journal pone el dedo en la llaga.  El problema del IRS es complejo, es la institución en sí que no tiene cabida en una democracia, y también es el uso que los demócratas le han dado a esta agencia como si fuera un apéndice del partido demócrata.

No nos pueden presentar chivitps expiatorios como dos muchachos agresivos de Cincinnati o resolver el problema destituyendo al comisionado.  Vendrá otro comisionado y la institución seguirá lo mismo.

En el artículo se hace mención de declaraciones de Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer y  Max Baucus, antes de que se destapara en escándalos.  Estas declaraciones prácticamente fuerzan al IRS para que investiguen a los conservadores.  El IRS no es una agencia independiente, es una agencia del partido demócrata y ha sido usada repetidamente para la conveniencia del partido hasta cuando no está en el poder.

Si realmente se quiere resolver el problema, hay que nombrar un investigador verdaderamente independiente, DESTAPANDO EL ENCUBRIMIENTO, no un chiste como en Benghazi, entonces si se puede llegar al fondo del asunto, y las cabezas de chivos que rodarán  serán las verdaderamente responsables, no los chivitos mamones que nos están presentando. Srán los culpables que están en posiciones en la cumbre.

Pero mientras la investigación será dirigida por los que tienen que ser investigados, estamos mal.

 

 

15, 2013, 7:24 p.m. ET

Democrats and the IRS

Chuck Schumer wanted the agency to probe tax-exempt political groups.

President Obama fired acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller on Wednesday, two days after claiming it was an “independent” agency. That was certainly a rapid re-education. But Mr. Miller shouldn’t be the only fall guy, because the 54-page report released Tuesday by the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration makes clear that the tax agency tried to quash the political speech of groups opposed to Democrats during a Presidential election.

Beginning in early 2010, the report says, IRS officials in Cincinnati began using “inappropriate criteria that identified for review Tea Party and other organizations applying for tax-exempt status based upon their names or policy positions instead of indications of potential political campaign intervention.” The Cincinnati workers also developed a spreadsheet that was dubbed “Be On The Look Out” with key words to target conservative groups.

Over the next 18 months those groups found their applications delayed, and they were served with aggressive and burdensome questionnaires as part of the process of applying for tax-exempt status. Of the 170 groups that got requests for extra information, the Treasury report finds that 98 or 58% of the requests were unnecessary.

Fox News commentator and author Monica Crowley on the Department of Justice’s investigation of the IRS’s harassment of conservative groups. Photos: Getty Images

IRS defenders have said in recent days that the operation wasn’t really partisan because tea party and similar groups only made up a third of all groups flagged for additional scrutiny. But according to the report, “all cases with Tea Party, Patriots, or 9/12 in their names were forwarded to the team of specialists” (our emphasis). Of the 296 applications that were selected as “potential political cases,” 91 of them, or 31%, were selected for scrutiny even though they showed no evidence of major political campaign activity.

Once they were selected, the report confirms they were slow-tracked: While a few applications got attention, the vast majority sat interminably as the 2012 campaign rolled on. According to the report, “No work was completed on the majority of these applications for 13 months.” And “all applications that were forwarded to the team of specialists experienced substantial delays in processing.” The political cases took the IRS some 574 days on average to process compared to 238 days for other nonprofit applications.

Those delays effectively sidelined the political activity of groups that would have opposed the re-election of President Obama and other Democratic priorities. The report acknowledges that “For I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) organizations, this means that potential donors and grantors could be reluctant to provide donations or grants. In addition, some organizations withdrew their applications and others may not have begun conducting planned charitable or social welfare work.”

***

It’s no surprise, then, that Democrats have been angling to blame all this on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision to allow more independent campaign spending. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi responded to the scandal by saying that “We must overturn Citizens United, which has exacerbated the challenges posed by some of these so-called ‘social welfare’ organizations.” So a Supreme Court decision justifies selective tax enforcement?

Ms. Pelosi’s remarks are revealing because they underscore that Democratic agitation to restrict political speech may have driven this IRS dragnet. In a September 2010 letter to then-IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman, Montana Senator Max Baucus encouraged the IRS to investigate the use of nonprofit status by conservative groups. Noting media reports on conservative groups like Crossroads GPS, American Action Network and Americans for Job Security, Mr. Baucus wrote that there are “serious questions about whether such organizations are operating in compliance with the Internal Revenue Code.”

In March 2012, New York Senator Chuck Schumer and six other Democrats signed a letter demanding that the IRS put a “cap” on spending by nonprofits or face legislation. In the meantime, they wrote, the groups should be forced to “show their math” to prove that they deserve the tax-exempt status they are applying for. “The IRS should already possess the authority to issue immediate guidance on this matter,” the Senators wrote.

Before he was fired Wednesday, Mr. Miller, the acting IRS commissioner identified two “rogue” Cincinnati workers as the puppeteers behind the overly “aggressive” enforcement. But don’t be surprised if they thought they were merely following the direction of Senate Democrats.

***

Whether these T-men were dumb or ambitious, count us skeptical that the buck stops there. The report blames much of the debacle on inefficient management or inadequate oversight of low-level workers. But IRS Exempt Organizations Director Lois Lerner has years of experience that include 20 years at the Federal Election Commission, including as Acting General Counsel.

The report also lobs some softballs that deserve follow-ups. On page 7, the report notes that “We asked the Acting Commissioner, Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division; the Director, EO; and Determinations Unit personnel if the criteria were influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS. All of these officials stated that the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.” So, that’s it? Let’s get that one answered under oath.

An IRS culture of politicized enforcement has shown up elsewhere too. The ProPublica website said recently that in 2012 the Cincinnati IRS gave it the confidential nonprofit applications of nine conservative groups, of which ProPublica later published six. The ProPublica reports were exploring the theme that Ms. Pelosi and Democrats sounded on tax-exemptions and political spending.

These leaks are an abuse of power. By all means let’s hear from the folks in Cincinnati, but the idea that conservative group tax-exemptions should be targeted also has a Washington pedigree.

A version of this article appeared May 16, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Democrats and the IRS.

Un Traidor… Un Solo Voto… Es El Culpable

De Que El Obama Care Se Este Implementando. R Samitier.

Para quienes NO RECUERDEN AL TRAIDOR…Que voto a favor del ObamaCare Diciendo que era un Impuesto… EXACTAMENTE lo que Obama y LosDemocratas decían que NO ERA…

 

Fue John Roberts, el supuesto JUEZ CONSERVADOR Presidente del Tribunal

Supremo quien decidió a favor de Obamacare.

En ese momento, Lo llamé traidor a todos lo principios que el decía que representaba

Si los republicanos, recuperan el control de la Cámara y el Senado, Roberts debe

ser DESTITUIDO…por los daños, que ha causado la Nación!

Léea esta noticia y llore… En California el Obama Care se va a operar SECRETAMENTE. AQUÍ LA TIENEN…

 

http://www.naturalnews.com/040332_Obamacare_California_financial_secrecy.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Benghazi emails show State Department had heavy hand in watering down account of attack

Published May 16, 2013FoxNews.com Benghazi investigation:Questions that still need to be asked. What do Benghazi documents, e-mails reveal? Where is Benghazi scandal headed?

WASHINGTON – State Department officials repeatedly objected to — and tried to water down — references to Islamic extremist groups and prior security warnings in the administration’s initial internal story-line on the Benghazi attack, according to dozens of emails and notes released by the White House late Wednesday.

The documents also showed the White House, along with several other departments, played a role in editing the so-called “talking points,” despite claims from the White House that it was barely involved. And they showed then-CIA Director David Petraeus objected to the watered-down version that would ultimately be used as the basis for U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s flawed comments on several TV shows the Sunday after the attack.

“Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this,” Petraeus told his deputy in a Sept. 15 email.

The documents were released under pressure after whistle-blowers testified on the Hill and some email excerpts leaked to the media last week.

The 100-page file showed that State Department officials were even more heavily involved in editing the “talking points” than was previously known.

One email sent the Friday night after the attack from an unknown official said: “The State Department had major reservations with much or most of the document.”

Individual emails leading up to that assessment show State officials repeatedly objecting to the intelligence community’s early version of events.

The early versions stated that “Islamic extremists with ties to Al Qaeda” participated in the assault and discussed links to militant group Ansar al Sharia — and referenced prior attacks against western targets in Benghazi, as well as intelligence warnings.

State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland complained that she had “serious concerns” about “arming members of Congress” to make assertions the administration was not making. “In same vein, why do we want Hill to be fingering Ansar al Sharia, when we aren’t doing that ourselves until we have investigation results … and the penultimate point could be abused by Members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings so why do we want to feed that either? Concerned …”

She also wrote that the line saying the administration knows there were extremists among the demonstrators “will come back to us at podium,” voicing concern that some would question how the administration knows that. She said she would “need answers” if that line is used.

In response to her concerns, Assistant Secretary of State David S. Adams voiced agreement. He said the line about prior incidents “will read to members like we had been repeatedly warned.”

The emails show Petraeus’ deputy Mike Morell involved in circulating revised points. In one email, he too noted the State Department had “deep concerns” about referencing prior “warnings.”

A page of hand-written notes showed Morell scratching out mentions of Al Qaeda, the experience of fighters in Libya, Islamic extremists and a warning to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo on the eve of the attacks of calls for a demonstration. Ultimately, all of that was scrubbed from the talking points. The final version said “extremists” participated, without mentioning prior attacks and warnings in the region.

Petraeus specifically complained about the removal of the line about the warning to Cairo. That is when he said he’d rather not use the talking points, but acknowledged it wasn’t his call.

Senior administration officials told reporters Wednesday that Morell made the changes to the talking points because of his own concerns that they could prejudge an FBI investigation into who was responsible for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.

The emails also show Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes was alerted that the intelligence community was drafting the memo, as well as National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor.

As late as 3:04 p.m. on Friday, the points still included references to extremists tied to Al Qaeda and an “attack.”

The terms “Al Qaeda” and “attack” were stripped by 4:42 p.m. Senior administration officials indicated Wednesday these terms were dropped after internal CIA deliberations.

Shortly afterward, Vietor thanked colleagues for revisions and said they would be vetted “here,” as in the White House. He then forwarded “edits” from John Brennan, the current CIA chief who then was a White House counterterrorism adviser.

Rice would go on to say the attack was triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film, leaving out references to Islamic groups and prior warnings.

The talking points did show all along that the intelligence community believed at the time that the “demonstrations” in Benghazi were “spontaneously inspired” by protests in Cairo. Officials later acknowledged there was no protest in Benghazi at the time, though officials and lawmakers continue to argue over what role — if any — the Cairo protests had in inspiring the attack on the Benghazi post. Many Republicans say the two were largely unrelated.

After the emails were released, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner said they confirmed what House investigators had earlier alleged – that senior State Department officials watered down the talking points. He also said they “contradict” White House claims that it and State only changed one word.

“The seemingly political nature of the State Department’s concerns raises questions about the motivations behind these changes and who at the State Department was seeking them,” Buck said, while calling the document dump “long overdue.”

The White House had until now declined to make the documents public and had let congressional investigators review the documents without making copies.

A senior intelligence official told Fox News that the CIA was the agency that reviewed the documents and “declassified information for release to the public.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report

 

THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER IS A “PAID HANGMAN”‏ JORGE AGUIAR

What do I think of Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice?  Is the worst "DOJ" that we have ever had. Eric Holder is always at the center of all the problems . Take the "Fast and Furious" incident and his refusal to produce the evidence and using Presidential privileges, the black muslim's voter incident in Chicago intimidating voters and his refusal to prosecute . He is in the loop with the Benghazi group as well. The AP spying/investigation and his refusal to speak and assume responsibility. The IRS selective audits, while he does not appear to be directly involve he certainly is not reliable to conduct any meaningful investigation where the government is involve.
>
> Mr Eric Holder also has a long list of what I call "SELECTIVE PROSECUTION"  to protect the administration agenda such as issues with "PLANNED PARENTHOOD, not enforcing illegal immigration laws while prosecuting those that enforce them like in the case of Sheriff Arpaio  and many more. Eric holder is nothing more than a "PAID HANGMAN" to chastise whoever is opposing the current administration agenda and help promote fear and hardship to those that disagree with the marching orders of the administration.
>
> What do think of Attorney General "THAT HE MUST GO". We need an Attorney General trustworthy and impartial.
>
> Jorge Aguiar
> Doral, Florida

 

Holder refuses to accept responsibility

By Associated Press May 16, 2013 6:52 am

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress Wednesday that a serious national security leak required the secret gathering of telephone records at The Associated Press as he stood by an investigation in which he insisted he had no involvement.

Pestered by Republicans and some Democrats, Holder testified that he has faith in the individuals conducting the broad investigation, driven in large part by GOP outrage last year over the possibility that administration officials leaked information to enhance President Barack Obama’s national security reputation in an election year.

Holder said he had recused himself from the case because “I am a possessor of information eventually leaked.” He said he was unable to answer questions on the subpoenas and why the Justice Department failed to negotiate with the AP prior to the subpoenas, a standard practice.

That elicited frustration from some committee members with the Obama administration and the attorney general.

“There doesn’t appear to be any acceptance of responsibility for things that have gone wrong,” Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told Holder. He suggested that administration officials travel to the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and take a phone of the famous sign, “the buck stops here.”

It was the Justice Department’s No. 2 official, Deputy Attorney General James Cole, who made the decision to seek news media phone records, Holder said.

Last year, Holder appointed two U.S. attorneys to lead a Justice inquiry into who leaked information about U.S. involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran and an al-Qaida plot to place an explosive device aboard a U.S.-bound flight. Holder had resisted calls for a special counsel, telling lawmakers that the two attorneys, Ron Machen and Rod Rosenstein, are experienced, independent and thorough.

Holder was grilled on several scandals rocking the administration, including the targeting of conservative groups by the Internal Revenue Service and any missteps in sharing intelligence information prior to the bombings in Boston.

Responding to news of the gathering of AP records, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., planned to revive a 2009 media shield bill that protects journalists and their employers from having to reveal information, including the identity of sources who had been promised confidentiality.

The law does contain some exceptions in instances of national security.

“This kind of law would balance national security needs against the public’s right to the free flow of information,” Schumer said in a statement. “At minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case.”

The White House threw its support behind the legislation, said a White House official, who was not authorized to speak on the record about the topic and demanded anonymity. Ed Pagano, President Barack Obama’s liaison to the Senate, placed a call Wednesday morning to Schumer’s office to ask him to revive the bill, a move the senator had planned to make.

Obama’s support for the bill signaled an effort by the White House to show action in the face of heated criticism from lawmakers from both parties and news organizations about his commitment to protecting civil liberties and freedom of the press.

White House officials have said they are unable to comment publicly on the incident at the heart of the controversy because the Justice Department’s leak probe essentially amounts to a criminal investigation of administration officials.

Holder on Tuesday defended the move to collect AP phone records in an effort to hunt down the sources of information for a May 7, 2012, AP story that disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen to stop an airliner bombing plot around the anniversary of the killing of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden. The attorney general called the story the result of “a very serious leak, a very grave leak.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence committee, said Wednesday that the leak was “within the most serious leaks because it definitely endangered some lives.”

Feinstein said it was her understanding that the information gathering did not focus on the “content of phone calls,” but rather “to see who reporters have spoken to, that somebody did provide this information with respect to this bomb.”

At a news conference Tuesday, Holder defended the subpoenas to the AP and disclosed that the department was investigating the IRS for giving tea party groups extra scrutiny when they applied for tax exempt status.

Documents obtained by the AP suggest the targeting of conservative groups could be more widespread than the IRS has acknowledged. The agency has said it was limited to low-level workers in a Cincinnati office.

At Tuesday’s news conference, Holder said the U.S. has gotten good cooperation from the Russians on the Boston bombings investigation. U.S. law enforcement officials are trying to determine whether Tamerlan Tsarnaev was indoctrinated or trained by militants during his visit to Dagestan, a Caspian Sea province of Russia that has become the center of a simmering Islamic insurgency.

Associated Press writers Josh Lederman, Erica Werner and Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

 

La entrevista Al Nuevo Papa FRANCISCO, Que MSNBC Censuró Pero Que Ahora Gracias A Un Robo… Esta Circulando.

La Entrevista al PAPA que la prensa SOCIALISTA y HOMOSEXUAL de USA CENSURO  
  
Empieza a circular la transcripción de una entrevista que le hicieran al entonces cardenal Bergoglio en su país Argentina…  

Pero en realidad era una emboscada ejecutada por el periodista socialista Chriss Mathews. 

   Sin embargo, el ahora Papa Francisco, termina acribillando a Mathews de tal forma que MSNBC nunca pasó la transmitió.

Mathews, al darse cuenta que su plan fallaba, interrumpió el evento y el video fue archivado.

Un estudiante de Notre Dame que cumplía su servicio social en MSNBC, lo sustrajo para entregársela a sus profesores.
El plato fuerte de la entrevista sería su debate acerca de la pobreza.

El intercambio se inicia cuando el periodista trata de emboscar al cardenal insinuando era admirador de la pobreza.
 

 El Cardenal le responde:

“Primero en Europa y ahora en América, los políticos se han dedicado a endeudar a la gente creando un ambiente de dependencia.

  • ¿Para qué? Para incrementar su poder.
  • Son grandes expertos creando pobreza y nadie los cuestiona.
  • Yo lucho por combatir esa pobreza y si eso requiere oponerse a  sus causas, no seré Papa. 
  • La pobreza se ha convertido en una condición natural y ello es suficientemente malo.
  • Mi tarea es evitar el agravamiento de tal condición.
  • Las ideologías que fabrican más pobreza deben ser denunciadas.
  • Yo lo he hecho y por esa razón, no seré Papa.”

 “Estoy enterado de tu formación como economista.

  • Bien, compradores y vendedores no llevan a cabo intercambios en contra de su voluntad.
  • El hombre comete errores, a veces es egoísta y se involucra en intercambios que no le ayudan.
  • Algunas veces eso lo lleva a la pobreza, pero fue su decisión. 
  • Aquí lo único que puede hacer la iglesia es educar para que se conviertan en mejores agentes económicos.
  • La educación es la gran solución de este problema.
  • Debemos enseñar a la gente como salvar su alma,
  • pero también enseñémosle a evitar la pobreza
  • y no permitir que el gobierno los conduzca a ese penoso estado.” 

>  
Mathews ofendido le pregunta: ¿Usted culpa al gobierno?

Responde el cardenal:

> “No, CULPO A LOS POLÍTICOS que solo buscan sus intereses”.

En esos momentos el Cardenal se da cuenta que le entrevista jamás saldría al aire y se quita los guantes:

  •  “Tu eres socialista y tus amigos también lo son.
  • Ustedes y sus políticas son la razón de los 70 años de miseria en Rusia y que Europa esté a punto del colapso.
  • Creen en la redistribución y es una de las razones de la pobreza.
  • Ustedes quieren nacionalizar el universo para controlar todas las actividades humanas.
  • Ustedes destruyen el incentivo del hombre para, inclusive, hacerse cargo de su familia, un crimen contra la naturaleza y contra Dios.
  • Estas ideologías crean más pobres que todas las corporaciones que ustedes etiquetan como diabólicas.”

 

Replica Mathews: Nunca había escuchado algo así de un cardenal.

 Responde el Cardenal:

  • “La gente dominada por socialistas necesita saber que no tenemos que ser pobres.
  • Alguna pobreza es parte de los expulsados del Edén.
  • Pero mira el imperio de la dependencia creado por Hugo Chávez.
  • Con falsas promesas, mintiendo para que lleguen a arrodillarse ante el gobierno y ante él.
  • Dándoles peces pero sin permitirles pescar.
  • Si en América Latina alguien aprende a pescar, es castigado y sus peces confiscados por los socialistas.
  •  La libertad es castigada en todo el mundo.”

 

Ataca Mathews:  ¿Y América Latina? ¿Quiere borrar ese progreso logrado?

Responde el Cardenal:

  • “Tú hablas de progreso y yo de pobreza. Temo por América Latina.
  • Toda la región está controlada por un bloque de regímenes socialistas como Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua.
  • ¿Quién los salvará de esa tiranía?”

 Acusa Mathews: Usted es capitalista

Responde el Cardenal. “Sí pensar que el capital es necesario para construir fabricas, escuelas, hospitales, iglesias tal vez lo sea.

¿Tú te opones a este proceso?”

Matheus

Por supuesto que no, pero ¿no piensa que el capital es arrebatado de la gente por corporaciones abusivas para esos proyectos?
 
 Revira el Cardenal:

  • “No, yo pienso que la gente, a través de sus opciones económicas, decide que parte de su capital irá para esos proyectos.
  • La utilización del capital debe ser voluntaria. Solo cuando los políticos confiscan ese capital para construir obras del gobierno,                                                                            para alimentar la burocracia, surge un grave problema.
  • El capital invertido de forma voluntaria es legitimo, pero el que se invierte a base de coerción, es ilegitimo.”

> Mathews

  Sus ideas son radicales, afirma el periodista.
>
> Responde el Cardenal:
> “No, tal vez reaccionarias. Hace años  Khrushchev hizo una advertencia:

  • ‘No debemos esperar que los americanos abracen el comunismo,
  •   Pero podemos asistir a sus líderes electos con inyecciones de socialismo
  • Hasta que, al despertar, se den cuenta se embarcaron en el comunismo.’
  • Esto es lo que sucede en estos momentos en al antiguo bastión de la libertad.
  • ¿Cómo los EU puede salvar a América Latina si ellos se han convertido en esclavos de su gobierno?”

 
> Mathews afirma: Yo no puedo digerir todo esto.
 
> El Cardenal responde:
>
> “Te ves muy enojado pero la verdad puede ser dolorosa.

  • Ustedes han creado el estado de bienestar y ha sido solo respuesta a las necesidades de los pobres creados por la política.
  • El estado interventor absuelve a la sociedad de su responsabilidad.
  • Las familias escapan de su responsabilidad en el estado de bienestar e inclusive, las iglesias.
  • La gente YA NO PRACTICA LA CARIDAD pues ve a los pobres como problema del gobierno.
  • Para la iglesia ya no hay pobres que ayudar, LOS HAN EMPOBRECIDO PERMANENTEMENTE y son ahora propiedad de los políticos.
  • Algo que me irrita profundamente, es la inhabilidad de los medios para observar los problema sin ANALIZAR CUÁL ES LA CAUSA. 
  • A la gente la empobrecen para que luego vote por quienes los hundieron en la pobreza.”

La Incurabilidad del Cáncer Político amenper

Como el cáncer biológico, no hemos encontrado la cura para el cáncer político. 

Algunas veces entra en remisión, como cuando la caída del muro de Berlín, que creímos que habíamos encontrado la cura  para el comunismo, todo para simplemente ver más tarde como el cáncer socialista, ha hecho metátesis en el mundo.

Los Estados Unidos ha sido el ejemplo del mundo por el sistema democrático representativo y la aplicación del sistema de libre mercado. 

Pero en los Estados Unidos, interinamente el cuerpo democrático ha sufrido de un cáncer por muchos años.  Este cáncer es el Internal Revenue Service.

El internal Revenue Service comenzó como una agencia llamada Oficina de Rentas internas (Internal Revenue Bureau)  Basicamente era una oficina para recaudar fondos para la recuperación económica de la nación durante la guerra de secesión y la primera guerra mundial.

Más tarde los liberales del partido Demócrata, comenzando por Franklin D Roosevelt, y más tarde implementado por Harry Truman en 1949, convirtieron a la agencia en un gobierno dentro del gobierno, con poderes extraordinarios.  No hay una agencia dentro de un gobierno que tenga los poderes y un sistema de colección de impuesto más complejo que el Internal Revenue Service de los Estados Unidos.

Después de la Ley de Reorganización de 1949, la Oficina de Rentas Internas comenzó a cambiar su estructura general. Todos los puestos de trabajo en la agencia se convirtieron en puestos de trabajo civil, y  nuevos profesionales fueron contratados como agentes policiacos, convirtiéndose de una oficina de recaudar impuesto a una agencia extremadamente burocrática con polizontes para ejecutar sus propias leyes.

Los cambios en la organización, que cambió el nombre en 1953 a Internal Renenue Service, forzaron al ciudadano común a tener que emplear profesionales para poder presentar la interminable y complicada documentación y poder mantenerse cumpliendo los requerimientos de la agencia.

La agencia pasó a ser “de facto” una institución para-militar para hacer cumplir sus propias leyes, siempre crecientes.  Se convirtió de hecho en una organización enemiga de los ciudadanos y de las empresas que producen la riqueza de la nación, una contradicción dentro del sistema de libre mercado de los Estados Unidos.

En la novela “1984” George Orwell describe el doble pensamiento como “el poder de tener dos creencias contradictorias en una mente, y aceptar ambas”

En los estados Unidos tenemos al mismo tiempo la Democracia Representativa, y la idea contraria, el Internal Revenue Service.

Desde que empezó la potencia institucional del Internal Revenue Service, una agencia siempre liderada por liberales, empezó también la utilización por los gobiernos liberales del poder de la institución para atacar a sus enemigos.

Obama no inventó el Internal Revenue Servicie,como una institución para librarse de sus enemigos,  simplemente lo utilizó, corruptamente, como lo hicieron sus predecesores demócratas. 

El IRS es algo que típicamente es contrario a la idea conservadora, por esto siempre el IRS será enemiga de los conservadores y aliada a los liberales..

No creo que la solución definitiva al problema actual sea hacer renunciar al Comisionado General, la solución sería implementar el Fair Tax, y eliminar el adefesio tiránico y costoso que es el IRS. 

ObamaCare será implementado por el IRS, por diseño Obama delegó en la organización más tiránica una ley que fue pasada tiránicamente.

Lo que está pasando con el IRS y los políticos contrarios a Obama todos lo saben, pero déjenme darle una recopilación histórica de los políticos liberales que han iursado el IRS para tratar de eliminar a sus enemigos:

El presidente Franklin Roosevelt usó el IRS para amedrentar a las publicaciones que es opusieron al “New Deal” como Willam Randolph Hearst de las publicaciones Hearst y Moises Annenberg el editorialista del Philadelphia Inquirer.  También uso la mandarria del IRS para otros rivales políticos como Huey Long y el comentarista de radio Father Coughlin y políticos republicanos como el Adrew Mellon. 

También atacó a alguien que después fue un liberal moderado,pero que en aquella época estaba en la rama conservadora de los Demócratas, y era enemigo del New Deal, el futuro presidente Lyndon Johnson cuando FDR usó al IRS para que investigara sus contribuciones de campaña.

 

John F. Kennediy fue el primero que llevó la explotación política del IRS como un arte.

Como Obama usó la retórica atacando a los “extremistas de derecha” y fue más allá que Obama cuando dijo en un discurso que esperaba que el IRS investigara el status de excepción de impuestos de las organizaciones conservadoras..

A los pocos días del discurso el IRS lanzó una investigación de los grupos conservadores incluyendo la Cruzada Cristiana Anticomunista, El Instituto de La Empresa Americana y la Fundación de Educación Económica.

Kennedy también usó el IRS para amenazar a compañías del acero que no querían “voluntariamente” subir  el precio del metal. Al final Kennedy se convirtió en el único presidente de Estados Unidos que ha establecido una regulación de precios.. 

 .

En 1995 la Casa Blanca y el Comité Nacional del partido Demócrata levantó ronchas por el abuso a los contribuyentes que se oponían a las políticas de Clinton.

Las revistas y publicaciones que atacaban a Clinton fueron mencionadas por el comité del Partido Demócrata como conspiradores. Más tarde estas instituciones periodísticas recibieron auditorías del IRS, incluyendo “The Heritage Fundation y “The American Spectator Magazines, también alguna de las “amiguitas” de Clinton como Paula Jones y Jennifer Fólders recibieron auditorías del IRS.”

 

Con este escándalo ahora del IRS , lo que hemos visto es sólo la punta del glacial, lo grueso vendrá cuando el IRS sea la agencia que implementará las penalidades en el ObamaCare.

Lo triste es que inclusive en estos momentos, muchas personas están siendo atacadas, por sus posiciones políticas. 

El IRS se considera intocable, como sabe que el Fair Tax, que sería su fin, no puede ser implantado porque las personas que no pagan impuestos serían afectadas, piensan que todos estás bajo la bota de sus requerimientos indescifrables, y que si no se ajustan a sus políticas los pueden destruir.

Ahora convertidos en el martillo del ObamaCare, todavía se sentirán más protegidos.

Hay un dicho americano que dice que lo único seguro que hay en la vida son la muerte y los impuestos.

Pero con el IRS creo que las dos cosas son los mismo, porque si no pagas los impuestos el IRS te acaba la vida.

Chivos Expiatorios Alberto L Perez, amenper.

Steven Miller, comisionado del Internal Revenue Service ha renunciado por haber hecho su trabajo de perseguir a los enemigos de Obama según órdenes superiores.  Pero es el chivo expiatorio.

La expresión Chivo Expiatorio proviene de un ritual del antiguo pueblo de Israel para el cual se elegían dos chivos. Mediante el azar se elegía uno como ofrenda a Yahveh, que era sacrificado por el sacerdote durante el rito; el otro era cargado con todas las culpas del pueblo judío, y entregado al demonio Azazel. Este último, conocido como chivo expiatorio, era abandonado en mitad del desierto, acompañado de insultos y pedradas, es por eso que se llama así.

En la actualidad se utiliza la expresión para denominar a aquél que ha pagado para encubrir las culpas de otro, librando a este de culpa o represalias en el discurso político.

Vemos políticos demócratas y periódicos liberales atacando los hechos descubiertos en los últimos días, vemos a Obama y Holder dándose golpes de pecho fingiendo ignorancia y asombro y diciendo que se enteraron de estas cosas por las noticias, igual que nosotros. 

Todo esto es en preparación para los sacrificios de los chivos expiatorios que caerán en los próximos días, para encubrir las culpas de Obama.

Habrá una escasez de chivos por la cantidad de los sacrificados. En mi pueblo había un Chivo muy popular llamado Perico. Si Perico estuviera aquí seguro que le cortaban la cabeza, el pobre Perico hubiera tenido que pagar por Obama.

Nueva Película de Hollywood amenper.

Estaba leyendo una entrevista a Robert Redford sobre la nueva película que producirá en Hollywood.

Esta es una película de intriga política como son todas las películas de Robert Redford.

”Hace tiempo que estaba esperando una situación como esta que se está produciendo en la nación para producir una película de intriga política”, dijo Redford, quien actuará producirá y dirigirá la película con los actores Susan Saradon, Ben Affleck, Sean Penn y Barbara Streisand.

El tema será los ataques de un gobierno autoritario a periodistas y militantes políticos que se ven asediados por las agencias del gobierno.

Según Redford estos hechos representarán a los ataques a los militantes conservadores y a los periodistas de la Prensa Asociada por el gobierno de Obama.

No pude seguir leyendo el escrito completo,…….. mi mujer me despertó porque me estaba riendo dormido.

 

SCAPEGOAT#1 

(“moving forward…”) NEXT!!!…

 

 

Obama announces acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller’s ouster as White House works to contain scandal

‘Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it,’ Obama said following an investigation that found that the agency improperly targeted conservative groups.

     
 
             

 

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

President Obama made his announcement after Republicans made clear they wanted more than Miller’s resignation. “My question is about who’s going to jail over this scandal,” House Speaker John Boehner said. 

Handout

Acting IRS Commissioner Steven Miller was not in charge during much of the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, but learned of the matter in May 2012 without informing Congress. 

WASHINGTON – President Obama announced the dismissal of the acting head of the Internal Revenue Service Wednesday evening, as his administration tried to contain a scandal over the IRS targeting conservative groups for scrutiny.

Speaking at the White House, the President said his Treasury secretary had requested and accepted the resignation of Steven Miller, the IRS acting commissioner.

 

“Americans have a right to be angry about it, and I’m angry about it,” Obama said. “It should not matter what political stripe you’re from. The fact of the matter is the IRS has to operate with absolute integrity.”

 

He added, “I’ll do everything in my power to make sure it never happens again.”

Obama said his administration is working to ensure the IRS complies with recommendations detailed by an inspector general’s report released Tuesday. He pledged “to work with Congress as it performs its oversight role.”

 

Miller was not head of IRS when much of the scrutiny of conservative groups, mostly by agency employees in a Cincinnati office, occurred.

But the inspector general’s report indicated he learned of the problem on May 3, 2012 – and failed to inform members of Congress, who repeatedly had been asking if conservative groups were being targeted.

 

Obama spoke after Republicans made clear that Miller’s resignation would not be enough.

 

“My question isn’t about who’s going to resign,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters. “My question is about who’s going to jail over this scandal.”

 

“Clearly someone violated the law,” Boehner said.

“Someone made a conscious decision to harass and to hold up these requests for tax-exempt status,” he said. “I think we need to know who they are.”

 

In an afternoon appearance on Capitol Hill, Attorney General Eric Holder said a Justice Department and FBI probe of the IRS will examine whether employees broke a range of criminal laws.

 

Holder told the House Judiciary Committee the probe will look for possible violations of civil rights laws, false statements, and potential violations of the Hatch Act, which bans partisan political activity by federal employees.

Legal experts have voiced skepticism IRS agents could be convicted of criminal acts.

 

The scandal erupted last Friday, when an IRS official – anticipating the inspector general’s report – revealed that some employees singled out conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status to determine if they were “social welfare” organizations, as they claimed.

The inspector general’s report said there was no evidence of influence by Democrats in Washington. It blamed ineffective management.

But agents in other IRS offices, including Washington, were involved in the examinations of the applications.

 

Holder told the House Judiciary Committee that the Justice Department probe will be national. “We will go wherever the facts take us,” Holder said.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/irs-acting-commissioner-resigned-president-obama-article-1.1345175

 

Obama Freak-Out on Benghazi ‘Sideshow’:

‘There’s No There There’‏

I, am going, ‘m going to tell my, my momma if you keep… just leave me alone… don’t bother me anymore!!!          

Obama Freak-Out on Benghazi ‘Sideshow’: ‘There’s No There There’

President Obama insisted that the brewing Benghazi story was nothing but a “sideshow” and that “there’s no there there.” But the substance of new findings and growing public sentiment are at odds with the president.

 

The president stammered repeatedly as he lashed out at critics of the meager security at the diplomatic outpost, the ineffectual way the crisis was handled, and the White House’s obvious cover-up in the aftermath:

The whole issue of talking points, frankly, throughout this process, has been a sideshow. We have been very clear about throughout that immediately after this event happened we were not clear who exactly had carried it out, how it had occurred, what the motivations were.

It happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embassies in Cairo as a consequence of this film and nobody understood exactly what was taking place during the course of those first few days. And the e-mails that you allude to were provided by us to congressional committees. They reviewed them several months ago, concluded that in fact there was nothing afoul in terms of the process that we had used. And suddenly, three days ago, this gets spun up as if there is something new to the story. There is no there there.

The findings from the Benghazi whistleblowers’ hearing were manifold in their import for what actually took place and what the American people were told. There was State Department intimidation of the second man in charge in Libya not to cooperate with a House investigation into what happened. When Gregory Hicks disregarded the warning, thereby putting his career on the line, he was demoted to a desk job.

 

No flyover authority for armed U.S. aircraft in Libyan airspace was ever requested, proving how disinterested the White House’s response to the nearly 13 hour crisis was. Gregory Hicks also backed up the crucial point that a stand down order was issued from somewhere in the Chain-of-Command, possibly AFRICOM or SOCAFRICA, to “furious” U.S. soldiers available in Tripoli, Libya — just hours away.

 

House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa responded to the attempt by the president to keep the Benghazi developments buried:

“Only the president could tell us with a straight face that there’s never been any confusion and that from the beginning they’ve said the right thing. … As you go through the facts as they were, yes, in real-time, we knew this was an al Qaeda backed terrorist attack and everything else in between is simply revisionist history.”

An increasing number of the literate public disapprove of the president’s handling versus those who approve. According to a Huffington Post/YouGov poll:

The poll found that 42 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the way it has been handled, while 27 percent said they approve. In another HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted last October, respondents disapproved by a similar margin, 41 percent to 32 percent. […]

By a 42 percent to 33 percent margin, more said the Obama administration “deliberately misled” the public on the issue than those who said the administration “shared facts as they became available.” Another 25 percent said they weren’t sure.

Beyond what informed people know, there are certain to be more learning about the story in the coming weeks:

The new poll was conducted before new information came to light Friday about the State Department pushing for revisions to the initial talking points given to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice after the attack occurred in September. […]

The new poll also suggests that many Americans are paying relatively close attention to news about the attack and its aftermath. Fifty percent of respondents said that they’ve heard a lot about it, 33 percent have heard a little, and 12 percent have heard nothing at all.

The president shows up at a press conference to talk about the Benghazi terrorist attacks and the main thing he has to say is that ‘there is no there there.’ But that isn’t giving the American people answers about what happened that deadly night of September 11th, it’s telling them that there are no good answers.

 

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/05/52062-obama-on-the-benghazi-attack-sideshow-theres-no-there-there/

 

¡Especial! : Detective Joe Carrillo revela quiénes han encubierto la verdad sobre la boletera de Hialeah

• Carlos Giménez y Kathy Fernández Rundle involucrados en el caso

MIAMI,16 DE MAYO DE 2013, NHR.com—Explosivas fueron las declaraciones que hiciera anoche el investigador privado Joe Carrillo en el programa ‘La Diferencia’ que dirige el popular periodista Roberto Rodríguez Tejera por Tele Miami (Canal 18-Comcast, Canal 20 AT&T U-Verse).

Carrillo fue el mismo detective privado que investigó y descubrió las actividades de boletera de Hialeah Daysi Cabrera.

De acuerdo con Carrillo, en este caso todos los involucrados han mentido, “porque todos conocen a Daysi Cabrera”; Kathy Fernández Rundle, Carlos Giménez etc. “Fernández Rundle sabía todo lo relacionado a la recogida de las boletas ausentes, ella conocía quién era Daysi Cabrera y a lo que se dedicaba”, dijo Carrillo, quien aparece frustrado porque la investigación que realizó no ha dado los frutos que él esperaba, y lejos de eso reúne las características de ser un encubrimiento por todos los involucrados.

“Yo me reuní con Kathy y le expliqué todo y no ha hecho nada, simplemente porque protege a sus amigos” dijo Carrillo a Rodríguez Tejera en ‘La Diferencia’.

La fiscal Fernández Rundle conocía la conexión de Jerry Ramos, Al Lorenzo y la boletera Daysi Cabrera; “era Jerry quien le pagaba a Cabrera”, dijo Carrillo.

El encubrimiento es tal que Carrillo temió entregar todos los documentos que él tenia en su poder, ya que la propia fiscal Fernández Rundle le pidió que los entregara, “Katty vio las libretas donde estaba toda la información” dijo.

El investigador privado hizo una revelación inédita hasta ahora. De acuerdo con Carrillo, el arresto de Daysi Cabrera había sido planeado para realizarse en las mismas oficinas políticas del alcalde Carlos Giménez en Hialeah, ya que el alcalde conocía y sabia de las gestiones que la mujer hacia para las campañas. “Desde muy arriba se ordenó cancelar la operación a última hora dentro de las oficinas del alcalde”, dijo Carrillo.

Se desconoce quién fue el que ordenó que se parara el arresto en esa oficina, pero otras fuentes le dijeron a NHR.com que fue ordenado desde el Departamento de Policía porque dañaría la imagen del alcalde en plena campaña.

Otro ángulo que revela la involucración del alcalde Carlos Giménez con la boletera Daysi Cabrera es que de acuerdo con Carrillo, Cabrera entraba y salía de esa oficina como “Pedro por su casa”, y añadió que Cabrera entraba en la oficina cargada con boletas ausentes y allí alguien le ponía el sello y las llevaba al correo.

A preguntas de Roberto Rodríguez Tejera sobre si no tenía miedo de ser demandado por hacer estas declaraciones, Carrillo señaló que él se alegraría que lo demandaran, ya que de esa manera podría también citar judicialmente a todos los involucrados y bajo juramento tendrían que testificar.

 

Benghazi. Heroes y verdades que deben conocerse sobre crimen en Benghazi‏

THIS PART YOU DON’T KNOW, BUT SHOULD.
>  
>
AMERICAN VALOR, BENGHAZI:
>
The stunning part of this story is that Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty killed 60 of the attacking force.  Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
>
>
The news has been full of the attacks on our embassies throughout the Muslim world, and in particular, the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others in Benghazi, Libya.
>
>
However, there’s a little known story of incredible  bravery,  heroics, and  courage that should be the top story.
> So what actually happened at the U.S. embassy in Libya?  We are learning more about this every day.  Ambassador Stephens and Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, along with administrative staff, were working out of temporary quarters due to the fact that in the spring of 2011 during the so-called Arab Spring, the United States cut ties with then president Moammar Gadhafi.  Our embassy was looted and ransacked, causing it to be unusable.  It is still in a state of disrepair.
>
>
Security for embassies and their personnel is to be provided by the host nation.  Since Libya has gone through a civil war of sorts in the past 18 months, the current government is very unstable, and therefore, unreliable
>
>
A well-organized attack by  radical  Muslims  was planned specifically  targeting the temporary  U.S. embassy building.  The Libyan security force that was in place to protect our people  deserted their post, or  joined the attacking force.  Either way, our people were in a real fix.  And it should be noted that Ambassador Stephens had mentioned on  more than one occasion  to Secretary of State,  “Hillary Clinton”,  that he was quite concerned for his personal safety and the welfare of his people.  It is thought that Ambassador Stephens was on a  “hit list.”;
>
>
A short distance from the American compound, two Americans were sleeping.  They were in Libya as  independent contractors  working an assignment totally unrelated to our embassy.  They also happened to be former  Navy Seal’s.
>
>
When they heard the noise coming from the attack on our embassy, as you would expect from highly trained warriors, they ran to the fight.  Apparently, they had no weapons, but seeing the Libyan guards dropping their guns in their haste in fleeing the scene, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty snatched up several of these discarded weapons and prepared to defend the American compound.
>
>
Not knowing exactly what was taking place,  the two Seal’s set up a defensive perimeter.  Unfortunately Ambassador Stephens was already gravely injured, and Foreign Service officer, Sean Smith, was dead.  However, due to their quick action and suppressive fire, twenty administrative personnel in the embassy were able to escape to safety.  Eventually, these two courageous men were overwhelmed by the  sheer numbers brought against them, an  enemy force numbering between  100 to 200 attackers  which came in two waves.  But the stunning part of the story is that  Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty  killed 60  of the attacking force.  Once the compound was overrun, the attackers were incensed to discover that just two men had inflicted so much death and destruction.
>
>
As it became apparent to these selfless heroes, they were definitely going to lose their lives unless some reinforcements showed up in a hurry.  As we know now, that was not to be.  I’m fairly certain they knew they were going to die in this gun fight, but not before they took a whole lot of bad guys with them!
>
>
Consider these tenets of the  Navy  SEAL Code:
> 1) Loyalty to Country,  Team  and  Teammate,
> 2) Serve with  Honor and  Integrity  On and Off  the Battlefield,
> 3) Ready to Lead, Ready to Follow, Never Quit,
> 4) Take responsibility for your actions and the actions of your teammates,
> 5) Excel as Warriors through Discipline and Innovation,  6) Train for War, Fight to Win, Defeat our Nation’s Enemies, and…
> 7) Earn your Trident every day
>
>
(http://www.navyseals.com/seal-code-warrior-creed <http://www.navyseals.com/seal-code-warrior-creed> ).
>
>
Thank you, Tyrone and Glen!  To the very last breath, you both lived up to the SEAL Code.  You served all of us well.  You were courageous in the face of certain death.
>
>
And Tyrone, even though you never got to hold your newborn son, he will grow up knowing the character and quality of his father, a man among men who sacrificed himself defending others.
>  
>
Dr. Charles R. Roots
> Senior Pastor
> Former Staff Sergeant,
> USMC Captain,
> U. S. Navy Chaplain Corps (Ret.)

 

17 de MAYO DE 1959  UNA FECHA QUE NINGUN CUBANO DEBE OLVIDAR. JESUS MARZO FERNANDEZ.
 
El dia que todo comenzo, la promulgacion de la prometida    Ley de la
Reforma Agraria.   Increible pero cierto, el pais principal productor de
alimentos del mundo [si del mundo] que exportaba mas de 1tonelada
alimentos por habitante, la azucarera del mundo, que producia mas del
85% de lo que consumia -excepto algunos granos, quesos, conservas etc-
actualmente importa mas del 50% de lo poco que consume.  Cuba entre
los 3 paises mejor alimentados de America,  Argentina, Cuba y Uruguay.
Hoy entre los peores 3, Haiti, Bolivia y Cuba.
Los resultados fueron casi inmediato, en menos de 2 anos, fue necesario
implantar un racionamiento total, que aun continua vigente,  Unico para
un pais que no ha confrontado ni ocupacion o guerra.  Y unico en la historia
que ha considerado hasta el “vicio” cigarros, tabacos, bebidas alcoholicas.
 
El pais se transformo totalmente, desde el sistema de distribucion de alimentos,
hasta el idioma, de inmediato una larga cola, para adquirir los alimentos,
todos se convirtieron en verdaderos especialistas, marcaban, y  surgio la
frase mas repetida, durante la historia de la revolucion “QUIEN ES EL ULTIMO”
 
El idioma se fue acomadando a las circunstancias, que imponia el nuevo sistema:
MALANGA DE DIETAS, LECHE DE NINOS, YOGURT PARA VIEJOS, REFRESCOS DE
FIESTAS, TOMATE POR NUCLEOS. EL FRICANDEL DE LA SEGUNDA NOVENA, EL
CHOCOLATIN POR LIBRETA. CAKE PARA 15 , BEBIDAS DE EXPORTACION.
LOS PRODUCTOS DE CALIDAD COMO EL “FILETE” LANGOSTA Y CAMARONES,
PARGO O CHERNA Y LA MAYORIA DE LAS FRUTAS   “””PARA EL TURISMO”
 
Increible hasta el azucar por la libreta, el pan y hasta el dulce guayaba. todo
fue desapareciendo.  No me quiero extender en un tema que todos los cubanos
conocen y ademas han sufrido, sobre todo cuando tocaba a los ninos,
la leche de 0-6, a esa edad ya era tratado como mayor o la compota de 0-2.
 
Ahora es peor, sino tiene US/d apaga y vamonos.   Lo mas interesante de
todo son las declaraciones de Raul cuando asumio el mando de la nave.
hace 6 anos  “”Hay que erradicar el racionamiento, sobra tierra, agua y
trabajadores calificados”” si en vez de erradicar el racionamiento, hubiera
dicho erradicar el socialismo, ya todo se hubiera resuelto,

 

 

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

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.

 

 

Mi nombre es “AMERICA” y no creo ni en negro guapo ni en tamarindo dulce. 
http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1

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: