Reflexiones Seniles amenper.
Hay veces que voy por el express way y me encuentro desorientado, no sé bien por donde voy y tengo un sentido nebuloso de la distancia, cuando por fin llego, no sé bien donde estoy y demoro en darme cuenta sobre lo que tengo que hacer. Esto me preocupa un poco, pienso que me estoy volviéndome senil.
Pero después me pongo a pensar que no estoy tan mal, a Cristóbal Colón le pasaba lo mismo y descubrió América.
Quizás cuando vaya a España pueda pedirle al Rey que me nombre Gran Almirante.
Después de todo, las lagunas mentales por la que estoy navegando parecen océanos.
Pero en la solemnidad de mi senilidad me produce consuelo cuando veo la bolsa de valores y su sube y baja, ¿No son más seniles que yo, los operadores de Wall Street?
La situación de la bolsa puede ser jocosa si no juegas en ella y la observan de lejos, pero es preocupante y te puede llevar a los brazos de Alzheimer si eres un inversionista tratando descifrar sus variantes.
Vemos dos panoramas económicos bien distintos. En uno de ellos, vemos las empresas financieras y los operadores de la bolsa que ya no caben en si de lo felices que están. Es el panorama de los que están chupando las docenas de miles de millones de dólares en billetes flamantes, pero sin respaldo, con la transfusión que cada mes les está enchufando la Reserva Federal por orden de Barack Obama.
Pero si enfocamos mejor, vemos otra realidad bastante distinta.
El viernes la semana pasada cerró con duros informes de la prensa económica. La revista Forbes y la agencia noticiosa Reuters, revelaron que el crecimiento económico sigue cada vez más lento, con caída en la producción industrial y de la construcción.
El martes se reveló un nuevo aumento de petición de subsidios de cesantía, además de aumentos de precios y débil demanda en el consumo detallista.
Se están relacionando estas estas malas nuevas, entre otras cosas, con la recesión en Europa que está cerrando los mejores mercados para Estados Unidos. Pero la realidad de la economía doméstica indica que el origen no hay que buscarlo tan lejos.
El Banco de la Reserva Federal, en Filadelfia, señaló que el índice de producción industrial fabril cayó hasta un 5,2% negativo. Es decir, recesión total en ese sector. Se registró también caída en las ventas domésticas de supermercados, y el rubro de la construcción que cayó un 16% por debajo de lo que se esperaba. El economista Jacob Oubina, de la RBC Capitales, de Nueva York, sintetizó la situación diciendo: “Nuestra economía no está rebotando. Solo estamos pataleando en el fango”
Ayer la bolsa bajó más de 200 puntos, por razonamiento lógico debiera seguir bajando dado los índices económicos que estamos viendo.
Pero no sería de asombrarse que en los próximos días la bolsa rebotara porque está navegando en aguas desconocidas, como Cristóbal Colón, no saben bien para donde van ni qué hacer cuando lleguen. Como en aquel comercial “Lo que importa es el Cash” y no importa que el cash cada día tenga menos valor, porque lo que importa es la imagen no importa la substancia. Hay atacar a los gigantes aunque realmente sean molinos.
Es refrescante para nosotros en nuestra senilidad el reflexionar que tenemos tanta compañía.
New Scandal Rocks Obama Regime! http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-scandal-rocks-obama-regime/
Gallup says its presidential election polling was flawed By USA TODAY June 5, 2013
Pollsters at Gallup said Tuesday that they have identified flawed methods that contributed to their incorrect prediction that Mitt Romney would win the 2012 presidential election, but they are still working to determine how to better identify who is likely to vote.
The survey firm undertook a far-reaching review after the election: Gallup’s final pre-election estimate showed Romney with 49% support to Obama’s 48%, with a margin of error of +/-2%. Most polls estimated Obama would win the popular vote by 1 percentage point. Obama won the popular vote by 3.85 points.
In pre-election polling, Gallup consistently showed Romney with a 3-percentage point lead over Obama. When Gallup switched to surveying only “likely voters,” Romney’s edge increased to 4 points.
Gallup, with researchers from the University of Michigan, will experiment with ways to better identify likely voters in surveys during the 2013 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Gallup asks seven questions in its phone surveys to determine whether people are likely to vote — a questionnaire that may rely too much on past voting and on how much “thought” voters have given to the election, Gallup Poll Editor in Chief Frank Newport said. Though all polling outfits showed an increase of support for Romney among likely voters vs. registered voters, Gallup’s bump for Romney was the most extreme. “We really are re-evaluating that from square one,” Newport said.
In a six-month postmortem review, Gallup determined that part of the poll’s overstatement of Romney support arose from too few phone interviews in the Eastern and Pacific time zones; overstating the white vote through a flawed procedure for racial identification; and relying on listed land-line phone numbers instead of random dialing.
Each of the methodological flaws was small in itself, Newport said, “but they are significant enough that we think they made a difference in our overall estimate of who was going to win the presidency last fall.”
USA TODAY partnered with Gallup throughout the 2012 election, a relationship that ended this year. “USA TODAY had a long and successful relationship with Gallup. Any time we hear there may be problems with information we rely on, we are concerned,” said David Callaway, USA TODAY editor in chief. “But we trust Gallup, like us, conducted its polls with the utmost integrity.”
Gallup’s problems with accurately representing the racial and ethnic distribution of voters were pegged a year ago by Mark Blumenthal, founder of Pollster.com, writing in The Huffington Post. The methodological problems are specific to Gallup, but the challenge of correctly identifying likely voters is relevant to all pollsters, Blumenthal said. A service of YellowBrix, Inc.
Conservative victims of IRS testify before House committee By Los Angeles Times June 5, 2013 6:46 am
WASHINGTON — Congressional Republicans seeking to spotlight misconduct at the Internal Revenue Service offered a dual assault Tuesday, inviting testimony from groups that faced extra scrutiny in applying for nonprofit status and releasing a new report faulting the troubled agency for lavish spending on employee conferences.
Appearing before the House committee responsible for writing the nation’s tax laws, six representatives of conservative and tea party-affiliated groups offered dramatic and at times emotional accounts of their dealings with the IRS, describing an arduous process that some argued was meant to intimidate government critics.
Separately, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) released the Treasury inspector general’s audit of IRS expenditures for employee conferences over a three-year period. The audit focused on a single meeting in Anaheim that cost $4.1 million — a figure that the Treasury’s watchdog argued could have been negotiated down.
The report also detailed improper booking practices, inadequate tracking of agency expenditures, and wasteful expenses including production of two videos.
Tuesday’s hearing at the Ways and Means Committee was its second into a broader controversy over how staff at the IRS’ Cincinnati field office handled applications for groups seeking tax exemptions under the 501(c)(4) provision. To qualify under the law, groups cannot have politics as their “primary purpose,” but the rules don’t say how much is too much.
The groups offered similar testimony about an IRS application process they saw as overly intrusive and treatment from the agency that one argued was criminal.
“I honestly have lost sleep in fear of what our government might do next,” said Dianne Belsom, president of the Laurens County Tea Party in South Carolina.
Kevin Kookogey, founder of a group called Linchpins of Liberty, said delays in obtaining nonprofit status cost his group a $30,000 grant, and asked why the IRS needed him to identify his mentoring group’s members — many of them minors.
Becky Gerritson, president of a tea party group in Alabama, choked up during her opening statement describing what was a 635-day process to obtain 501(c)(4) status, telling lawmakers she feared that the America she grew up in was “slipping away.”
Karen Kenney, founder of an Encino-based group, quoted John Adams and invoked “the spirit of patriots.” She noted that the IRS asked at one point for a list of “committed violations” of local laws or “breaches of public order.” She also joked that the IRS “needs to fix its labeling machine: We’re the San Fernando Valley Patriots, not Occupy Oakland.”
John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University’s School of Law and chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, said copies of the group’s tax returns and donor lists were leaked to the Human Rights Campaign, a group that supports same-sex marriage. Those leaks, he said, are felonies that have not been prosecuted despite his group’s requests to the Justice Department.
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said the witnesses were “but a small sample of Americans who have been treated differently and discriminated against by their government because of their individual, deeply held beliefs.” Speaking to reporters later, he said their testimony showed that “this was a nationwide, systematic approach to targeting people of certain political beliefs.”
The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Sander M. Levin of Michigan, told the witnesses that they were owed an apology, and that members of both parties were committed to ensuring such targeting was not repeated.
But other Democrats, while not excusing the IRS’ activities, accused Republicans of “looking for a conspiracy where there is none,” as Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) put it.
“None of your organizations were kept from organizing or silenced,” McDermott said. “We are talking about whether or not the American taxpayers will subsidize your work. We’re talking about a tax break.”
McDermott also said that by seeking special tax status, the groups were inviting scrutiny of their activities.
Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) earned cheers from the supportive audience in the hearing room when he responded: “To suggest that these citizens are to blame for applying, I don’t understand how anyone can make that conclusion.”
The sparring showed how some Democrats were feeling increasingly emboldened to accuse Republicans of overly politicizing the IRS scandal.
Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) sidestepped questions Tuesday about whether he condoned comments from Issa this weekend, in which Issa referred to White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as the administration’s “paid liar.”
At a news conference, Cantor said Republicans would continue to fulfill their obligation to conduct oversight of the administration, and would do so “in a deliberative, thoughtful manner, allowing the facts to speak for themselves.”
Staff writer Morgan Little contributed to this report. (c)2013 the Los Angeles Times Visit the Los Angeles Times at www.latimes.com Distributed by MCT Information Services
• Ataña al mismo Jeffrey García que tuvo que abandonar su cargo en la oficina del congresista Joe García
MIAMI, 5 DE JUNIO DE 2013, NHR.com—Cada día sale algo nuevo en el escándalo que involucra la oficina del congresista Joe García, sorprendido con un fraude de boletas ausentes a través de la internet, aunque el congresista ha dicho que él está ajeno al fraude que sus principales asistentes estaban cometiendo.
Se ha podido conocer que durante las elecciones de 2010, Jeffrey García, el jefe de la oficina del congresista García que a raíz del escándalo de las boletas ausentes renunció, aparentemente convenció a un intimo amigo de él, identificado como Roly Arrojo, para que en vez de postularse en contra de Joe García por el partido demócrata se cambiara de partido y se postulara por el del entonces congresista David Rivera, Rivera gano fácilmente esas elecciones.
De acuerdo con detalles obtenido por NHR.com, en las elecciones de 2010, Arrojo se postuló primero por el partido demócrata, pero días después se registr por el Tea Party indicando que vivía en Miami Beach, cuando en realidad comparte una casa con su familia en la zona de Coral Gables. Recordamos que algunos analistas republicanos denunciaron que Arrojo era una “pala” haciéndose pasar como republicano conservador para restarle votos a Rivera, que se postulaba en contra de Joe Garcia.
El comisionado de la ciudad de Miami Beach Jonah Wolfson, quien siempre se ha autodenominado un fuerte demócrata, admitió que su partido buscó un candidato fantasma, con la intención de desviar los votos de los candidatos republicanos.
En aquella ocasión varios activistas republicanos presentaron quejas ante la Comisión Federal de Elecciones sobre las finanzas de la campaña de Arrojo, el organismo federal investigó y encontró que Arrojo nunca presentó informes trimestrales de financiamiento de campañas, algo que se debía hacer, ya que la suma fue de más de $5.000. Arrojo gastó $10.440 para poder calificar su candidatura y una cantidad indeterminada de dinero en al menos un anuncio publicitario enviado por correo
Pero el escándalo se complica ahora, ya que entra en el juego el abogado Henry Yabor, quien defiende a Justin Lamar Sternad, implicado en un caso similar que involucra a David Rivera y Ana Alliegro. Yabor está solicitando que su cliente tenga los mismo beneficios que obtuvo Arrojo cuando fue candidato.
De acuerdo con lo que declaró en las últimas horas el abogado Yabor, al igual que su cliente, Arrojo es responsables de no reportar más de $10.000 por gastos de campaña y al menos un anuncio publicitario, pero Sternad se enfrenta pena de cárcel, mientras que en su momento Arrojo solo recibió una carta de la Comisión Federal de elecciones por sus violaciones.
El abogado Henry Yabor ahora le pide al FBI que se aplique la ley igualmente. “Si a mi cliente lo van a exprimir, debemos aplicar la ley igualmente”, dijo Yabor, quien ya le envió una carta al Buró Federal de Investigaciones (FBI), preguntando por qué Roly Arrojo tuvo un trato especial y su cliente sufre la posibilidad de pena carcelaria.
De acuerdo con amigos de Arrojo y Jeffrey García, ambos son amigos desde la adolescencia, cuando se conocieron en la escuela secundaria y luego fueron socios en una empresa.
Como siempre sucede en estos casos, los dos han negado que se hayan confabulado para la postulación del 2010. Ambos negaron que habían trabajado juntos para “Arrojo en 2010”.
Como hemos informado, Jeffrey García — que no es familia del congresista– renunció a su puesto como jefe de la oficina de Joe García, quien también se apresuró a negar que conociera a Roly Arrojo.
It begins: Major demand to impeach Obama Petition asks Congress to investigate, prosecute offenses
Watergate investigator Bob Woodward of the Washington Post compares Barack Obama to Richard Nixon. Members of Congress say it’s about time to consider it. Rock legend Ted Nugent says Obama’s constitutional violations make him eligible. And even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin has called for Obama’s impeachment.
The document is addressed to members of Congress, who have the responsibility to make sure government officials don’t go outside the bounds of the U.S. Constitution and to bring appropriate retribution when they do.
The petition cites a number of scandals in just the last few weeks and months.
Among them are the “lethal and prolonged terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, and the subsequent ‘Watergate-era cover-up.’” And then there’s the big – and getting bigger – scandal involving the federal government’s use of the Internal Revenue Service to harass and attack “conservative groups.”
There’s also the spying and harassment of journalists and the Associated Press.
“Top constitutional attorneys from across the political spectrum now agree that Obama has committed certain specific offenses that unquestionably rise to the level of impeachable ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,” the petition explains.
And that’s even before the issue of “Obama’s policy of targeted assassinations of U.S. citizens without any constitutionally required due process – including the drone assassination of an American-born 16-year-old as he was eating dinner.”
Oh, and let’s not forget the “disastrous ‘Fast and Furious’ operation in which approximately 2,000 firearms were directed from U.S. gun shops across the U.S.-Mexico border and into the hands of members of Mexican drug cartels.”
And Obama’s decision to refuse to obey his oath of office and defend the Defense of Marriage Act.
That’s all in addition to the alleged illegal “recess” appointments of several officials as well as the Obama Justice Department’s refusal to prosecute voter intimidation, his appointment of 30 “czars” and just general contempt for Congress and the American people.
The petition states: “Therefore, we the undersigned urge Congress to immediately undertake a full and impartial investigation into the many blatantly unconstitutional actions of Barack Obama. For members of Congress, each of whom has also sworn a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, to allow a president to routinely flout the Supreme Law of the land without being held accountable is equally repugnant to a free country and a free press.”
Tens of thousands already are on board with the effort, which is just the latest in a long string of calls for impeachment or an investigation.
It has been brought up by several WND columnists in just the past few days.
Nat Hentoff wrote that Obama, “since taking office, has continually limited the First Amendment, the most singular and powerful right that distinctly identifies Americans from residents in all other countries on Earth.”
“I want Obama to go through the process because he has it coming. In totalitarian states, after all, the people have no other recourse except to take to the streets and spill blood. But we have available the process of impeachment, and Obama should be forced to defend his contemptible lies and actions,” he wrote. “If for no other reason than his unbearable arrogance, the schmuck should have to pay a penalty. For instance, when a White House reporter asked him to justify spying on the Associated Press, Obama said, ‘I’ve still got 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and I still have a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.’ No, sir, the United States has 60,000-plus troops in Afghanistan and a bunch of intelligence officers around the world.”
A panel of top constitutional experts convened by WND blasted Obama’s actions in office. Bruce Fein, the legal scholar who is best known for having drafted articles of impeachment against former President Bill Clinton for perjury after he lied under oath, said Obama’s orders to drone-kill a terror suspect were “tantamount to murder.”
“You can’t have democracy and the rule of law if you never get to know what the facts are and you just have to accept what the government says they are. If you don’t have a trial, that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Louis Fisher, a scholar in residence at the Constitution Project, said of Obama’s appointment of “czars”: “That is a big deal. A lot of people say, ‘Well, that’s been going on a long time.’ In our form of government, citizens vote for representatives and representatives pass laws. You have people heading departments, and they’re confirmed. There’s an understanding that we will call you up whenever we need to. … Congress passed legislation saying there’d be no funds for three czars, and they were named in the bill. Obama signed it into the law, but in the signing statement, he said that’s unconstitutional because he has the ‘prerogative’ to get the advice he needs to implement statutes. Well, c’mon Obama. You don’t have a prerogative to bring into the White House anybody you want at any salary. It’s all done by law. It goes back to 1978 where Congress passed legislation saying you have this number of people and these are their salaries and Congress can increase or decrease that at any time.”
And Herbert Titus, counsel to the law firm William J. Olson who previously taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools, said Obama’s military actions in Libya are a strong argument for impeachment.
“That’s the one that stands out. It’s unprecedented. It doesn’t even fit within any of the precedents that have been set since Korea.”
Obama should have seen such a move coming. A recent poll said half of Americans say he should be impeached.
“It may be early in the process for members of Congress to start planning for impeachment of Barack Obama, but the American public is building a serious appetite for it,” said Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies, which did the telephone poll. It has a margin of error of 4.36 percent.
Half or nearly half of those surveyed said they believed Obama should be impeached for the trifecta of scandals now consuming Washington.
On the issue of the Benghazi scandal, in which four Americans were killed after terror threats were ignored, 50.1 percent of Americans said Obama should be impeached. That included 27.6 percent of the responding Democrats.
On the IRS harassment of conservative and Christian organizations? Forty-nine percent said they agree that impeachment is appropriate, including 24.4 percent of the Democrats.
And on the fishing trip the Obama administration took into AP reporters’ telephone records in search of a security breach that may have been done by his own administration, 48.6 percent said impeachment is appropriate. That included 26.1 percent of the Democrats.
Former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan wrote that the country is in the midst of the worst Washington scandal since Watergate.
“The reputation of the Obama White House has, among conservatives, gone from sketchy to sinister, and, among liberals, from unsatisfying to dangerous<” she said. “No one likes what they’re seeing. The Justice Department assault on the Associated Press and the ugly politicization of the Internal Revenue Service have left the administration’s credibility deeply, probably irretrievably damaged. They don’t look jerky now, they look dirty. The patina of high-mindedness the president enjoyed is gone.
Noonan said the Obama, “as usual, acts as if all of this is totally unconnected to him.”
“He’s shocked, it’s unacceptable, he’ll get to the bottom of it. He read about it in the papers, just like you. But he is not unconnected, he is not a bystander. This is his administration. Those are his executive agencies. He runs the IRS and the Justice Department,” she continued. “A president sets a mood, a tone. He establishes an atmosphere. If he is arrogant, arrogance spreads. If he is too partisan, too disrespecting of political adversaries, that spreads too. Presidents always undo themselves and then blame it on the third guy in the last row in the sleepy agency across town.”
It’s even being compared to Watergate, the break-in that ultimately led to the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.
That was the assessment of no less than Woodward, whose reporting on Watergate eventually snared the sitting president.
Woodward said recently: “If you read through all these emails, you see that everyone in the government is saying, ‘Oh, let’s not tell the public that terrorists were involved, people connected to al Qaeda. Let’s not tell the public that there were warnings.’ And I have to go back 40 years to Watergate when Nixon put out his edited transcripts to the conversations, and he personally went through them and said, ‘Oh, let’s not tell this, let’s not show this.’ I would not dismiss Benghazi. It’s a very serious issue.”
A Republican congressman also recently brought up the subject.
“I would say yes. I’m not willing to take it [impeachment] off to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told CNN.
“We want truth, we want to bring the people who perpetrated the terrorism in Benghazi to be brought to justice, and we want to have the president do what he has said he would always do. And that is be open and transparent. Thus far, the White House has not done that.”
Earlier, Chaffetz, in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune, was asked if impeachment was within the realm of possibility.
“It’s certainly a possibility,” he told the paper. “That’s not the goal but given the continued lies perpetrated by this administration, I don’t know where it’s going to go. … I’m not taking it off the table. I’m not out there touting that but I think this gets to the highest levels of our government and integrity and honesty are paramount.”
Chaffetz has been championing the call to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the Benghazi compound that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., said last week impeachment was possible over the “most egregious cover-up in American history.
“People may be starting to use the I-word before too long,” Inhofe told radio host Rusty Humphries, according to The Hill.
“The I-word meaning impeachment?” Humphries asked.
“Yeah,” Inhofe responded.
Additionally, radio host Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate, predicted Obama won’t serve out his full second term because of his complicity in a cover-up over Benghazi.
Other members of Congress who have suggested impeachment for a variety of reasons in recent years include Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa.
Others who have raised the subject rock legend and gun-rights defender Ted Nugent, who said there’s “no question” Obama should be impeached.
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.
Even Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin 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 affirmed she believes the drone warfare is an impeachable offense.
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:
WND also compiled a special report on the various offenses Obama is blamed for committing and reported what experts on the Constitution believe should be happening.
See detailed results of the recent survey questions:
The administration of Democrat Barack Obama has still not satisfied congressional and media questions about just what it knew and when it knew it about the terrorist attack on U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, last September 11. That attack killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya. The Obama administration has changed its explanation of that attack several times since and has so far refused to identify those officials who made key decisions not to send help to stop the attacks, and who decided not to initially call the killings a terrorist attack. Knowing that and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the Internal Revenue Service, under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama, has purposely targeted conservative and Christian groups for harassment over their tax exempt status while giving liberal nonprofit groups little or no scrutiny. Further, the IRS apparently leaked private tax information from these conservative groups to opposing liberal groups who were able to use that confidential information for political advantage. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
It has been learned that the U.S. Department of Justice under the administration of Democrat Barack Obama secretly obtained confidential telephone records of many reporters of the Associated Press in Washington, D.C. Attorney General Eric Holder has said his department obtained the phone records without the permission or knowledge of the Associated Press in order to find who in the federal government was leaking information about terrorist plots against America. AP officials have strongly protested this invasion of their privacy but the administration stands by its actions. Knowing this and anything else you may be aware of about this issue, do you agree or disagree that President Obama should be impeached over his handling of this situation?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.—–Benjamin Franklin.
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 …”
The Hierarchy of Revenge
Published Tue, Jun 4th, 2013 Marty Biancuzzo, Senior Political Analyst [sent by amenper]
Sadly, as more and more information is uncovered about the latest scandals, it’s becoming apparent that we, the people, are being played for fools. For example, Capitol Hill Daily recently uncovered some new details in the IRS Scandal – information that shows just how insulting this administration’s lies are.
Now, you don’t have to be a Lost fanatic (like me) to understand the importance of “bad” numbers. And in this case, the bad number is two.
The IRS initially claimed that two low-level employees from the Cincinnati exemption division went rogue and were the sole perpetrators targeting conservative organizations.
But in light of recent evidence, that claim is falling apart. The buzz around Washington is that, during the most recent congressional hearing, investigators identified an additional 88 employees who have documents relevant to the scandal.
So let me do a little “low-level” math for you. It’s no longer two employees involved in the IRS scandal… it’s 90 – and that’s just what we know so far.
But how can that many people be involved, you ask?
Well, when the IRS scandal first broke, an anonymous IRS employee stated in an interview, “We people on the local level are doing what we are supposed to do… Everything comes from the top. We don’t have any authority to make those decisions without someone signing off on them. There has to be a directive.”
The subdivision involved in this scandal – The Determinations Unit – handles tax exemption applications for charities and non-profits. It’s one part of the tax-exemption division in Cincinnati, an agency that employs 90,000 people.
The Determinations Unit has hundreds of agents who in turn have supervisors. These would be the “low-level employees” originally pinned as the culprits.
But as you work your way up the chain, you’ll find the managers who oversee the agents and supervisors. One step above them is the territory managers. And they all answer to the one head project manager, Cindy Thomas (who is rumored to be the next in line for interrogation).
The point here is that in every single division of the IRS across the nation, the project manager is not the ceiling. Sure they’re the highest authority in the building, but they, too, answer to higher powers.
So, the question we’re left with is: Who was Cindy Thomas receiving her orders from?
The Chain Reaction
As the investigation unfolds, a ton of questions remain unanswered. But there’s one fact that’s crystal clear – the IRS has an ironclad system in place that prevents lower-level agents from having the capability to go rogue. It’s simply impossible. If they attempted to, there are just too many safeguards in place that would catch them almost immediately.
However, conservative organizations were being discriminated against for years. And it wasn’t just nonprofits. Nearly 500 conservative groups were targeted, including at least five pro-Israeli groups, at least two pro-life groups, a Texas voting-rights group, and many more Conservative activists and businesses. Blaming lower tier employees was simply a cowardly way of preventing, well, this:
This is the Washington hierarchy and the connection to Cindy Thomas and the Cincinnati Determinations Unit. Lois Lerner was Cindy’s point of contact for direct orders passed down the chain you see above.
And as you can see, the dominoes are starting to fall. Closer to the President’s inner circle, we’re starting to see a shifting timeline of knowledge. But regardless of who found out what and when, the point is that several of the president’s closest appointees knew for a while… most before the election.
The Circle of Distrust
I don’t know what’s scarier – the fact that everyone surrounding the president knew except for the president or the fact they expect us to believe it…
Especially considering the fact that, from 2009-2013, Douglas Shulman visited the White House for briefings more times than any other cabinet member.
In fairness, some of those visits most likely occurred when Obama was elsewhere, but it casts a very dark shadow of doubt that Obama simply heard about the scandal from the same outlets you and I did.
There’s no doubt people knew… several close to the president… some for years. So we’re left with two equally disturbing realities to consider: Either the president is blatantly lying to us all without dropping a single bead of sweat, or big government’s reign has gotten so vast that it literally can’t be controlled – not even by the president himself.
Your eyes on the Hill,
Cruz Calling for the IRS to be Permanently ABOLISHED Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz is a conservative’s conservative, and the IRS’s rampant political favoritism has brought him back to one of this signature campaign issues: getting rid of the tax collection agency for good.
‘In recent weeks the IRS has admitted to unlawfully targeting conservative groups, and trying to silence the president’s critics,’ he says in a Web video launched May 27.
Federal legislators, he says ‘need to make sure it never happens again. It’s time to abolish the IRS.’
‘The senator has spoken about this since his campaign,’ Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier told MailOnline.
‘He believes that our tax code should be simple enough that there would be no need for an agency like the IRS,’ Frazier said. ‘This is an issue of principle.’
Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/06/senator-ted-cruz-calling-for-the-irs-to-be-permanently-abolished/#ixzz2VM3oYNMJ
You Can’t Make This Stuff Up: IRS spent over $40 million on ONE conference – can’t find receipts!
IRS Officials Enjoy Luxury Rooms At $4M Conference
June 4, 2013 by Breaking News
Already under siege, the IRS was criticized by a government watchdog Tuesday for a $4.1 million training conference featuring luxury rooms and free drinks, even as conservative figures told Congress they had been abused for years as they sought tax-exempt status.
A total of 132 IRS officials received room upgrades at the 2010 conference in Anaheim, Calif., according to the report being released by J. Russell George, the Treasury inspector general for tax administration.
One official stayed five nights in a room that regularly goes for $3,500 a night, George’s report said, and another stayed four nights in a room that regularly goes for $1,499 a night. The agency paid a flat daily fee of $135 per hotel room, it said, but the upgrades were part of a package deal that added to the overall cost of the conference. Without the upgrades, the IRS could have negotiated a lower room rate, as required by agency procedures.
The inspector general’s report was surfacing as the IRS came under fire again in connection with its targeting of conservative groups during the 2010 and 2012 elections. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the IG report ahead of its release
Articulo del País De España. Enviado por Ricardo Samitier.
Convertir El Plomo En Oro
Las trayectorias de Wall Street y de la City londinense están llenas de escándalos
Existe un estilo anglosajón de hacer negocios en el mundo financiero que es frecuentemente enaltecido por Financial Times, The Economist y The Wall Street Journal, principales “biblias” del capitalismo. Un repaso de lo ocurrido en lo que va de siglo puede dar una idea de su contenido.
Empecemos por la banca. El 28 de abril de 2002, el regulador del mercado bursátil estadounidense (SEC) y el fiscal Eliot Spitzer obligaron a 10 bancos de inversión de ese país, desde entonces conocidos como “la banda de los 10”, a pagar casi 1.400 millones de dólares (de ellos, 400 por Citigroup) para lavar su pésima conducta: análisis tergiversados del valor real de empresas cotizadas, percepción de comisiones bajo cuerda y realización deliberada de recomendaciones fraudulentas. Un año después, la SEC encontró pruebas de que 13 firmas de intermediarios bursátiles de las 15 investigadas habían cometido estafas en Wall Street al recibir comisiones de varios fondos de inversión a cambio de incitar a la compra de los valores que interesaban a sus gestores. En 2010, la SEC pactó con Goldman Sachs una multa de 550 millones de dólares “por los errores cometidos” en la estructuración del fondo de titulización Abacus y, meses después, el fiscal Eric Schneiderman investigaba si Goldman Sachs, Bank of America y Morgan Stanley engañaron a sus clientes con productos derivados.
Más recientemente, en julio del año pasado, el Senado de Estados Unidos presentó un informe oficial de 335 páginas en el que demostraba que el banco británico HSBC, el mayor de Europa, había permitido durante años que criminales de todo el mundo emplearan sus servicios para blanquear dinero del narcotráfico, a veces para financiar el terrorismo. Según dicho informe, este banco envió 60.000 millones de dólares en metálico, en sacos, por carretera o avión, de cuentas de narcotraficantes mexicanos a su filial estadounidense. Pues bien, la respuesta del HSBC consistió en pedir disculpas, en un alarde de estilo propio de la mejor flema británica. La multa ascendió a 1.900 millones de dólares. Pocos meses después, en noviembre de 2012, la SEC multó con 600 millones de dólares al Fondo de Inversión CR Intrinsic, propiedad de SAC Capital (y con otros 14 millones a Sigma Capital), por “beneficiarse ilícitamente de datos confidenciales sobre pruebas clínicas de un potencial tratamiento del alzhéimer”.
Ese mismo mes, el Standard Chartered, segundo banco británico por valor de mercado, fue multado en Estados Unidos con 667 millones de dólares por blanqueo de capitales; y en febrero de 2013, Barclays Bank anunció una provisión de 1.165 millones de euros adicional “por la comercialización inapropiada de productos financieros”, mientras seguía investigado por una sospechosa ampliación de capital de 8.400 millones realizada en 2008. Y no habían transcurrido tres semanas cuando el Citigroup accedió a pagar otros 730 millones de dólares “por haber engañado a inversores con hipotecas basura entre 2006 y 2008”.
Como puede apreciarse, las trayectorias de Wall Street y de la City londinense, esta última considerada como el mayor lavadero de dinero sucio del mundo, están salpicadas de escándalos. El último de ellos, a punto de acabar con la economía mundial, pasará a la historia como la burbuja de las titulizaciones, construida por destacados miembros de la citada “banda de los 10” al convertir millones de hipotecas basura en armas financieras de destrucción masiva: bonos tóxicos que fueron colocados en todo el mundo con el marchamo de activos de altísima calidad, otorgado por las agencias de calificación norteamericanas Standard & Poor’s y Moody’s, en muchos casos con la colaboración necesaria de AIG, la primera aseguradora del planeta. Al final, la mayor parte de los bancos anglosajones fueron rescatados con dinero de los contribuyentes: en Estados Unidos, 750.000 millones de dólares sirvieron para sacar del pozo séptico, entre otros, a Merrill Lynch, Bearn Sterns, Wachovia y Citibank, mientras que en Reino Unido el equipo de salvamento y socorrismo de su majestad rescató a Northern Rock, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland y Barclays Bank. Solo se dejó caer a Lehman Brothers, que dejó un pequeño agujero de 613.000 millones de dólares.
Para no destruir el capitalismo y la democracia hay que cumplir las leyes
Este cúmulo de horrores no impidió la percepción, por parte de renegados de la ética luterana, de bonus multimillonarios. Los considerados cinco grandes de Wall Street (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers y Bearn Sterns) pagaron 3.000 millones de dólares a sus máximos ejecutivos en el quinquenio 2003-2007 y solo en 2008 los banqueros de Wall Street se dieron a sí mismos 20.000 millones de dólares en bonus, mientras sus empresas perdían 42.000 millones.
Algunos de estos bancos, como Citigroup, Royal Bank of Canada o J.P. Morgan, participaron también en la falsificación del Libor durante al menos cinco años, uno de los mayores escándalos de la historia descubierto en 2012. La lista de multas por dicho motivo se inició con las impuestas al Barclays Bank (363 millones de libras), UBS (1.250 millones de euros), Royal Bank of Scotland (575 millones de euros) y HSBC (1.500 millones de euros). Se esperan otras.
En el ámbito específico de las empresas, la primera década de este siglo ha sido también una época de gran concentración de escándalos: Tyco International, Health-South, Global Crossing, Adelphia Communications, etcétera. Pero ningunos de ellos tuvo la trascendencia internacional de los casos Enron (2001) y WorldCom (2002). El objetivo de todos estos fraudes contables era el mismo: ocultar la realidad de unos beneficios empresariales cada vez más desesperadamente mediocres. Unas prácticas que, de paso, pusieron bajo sospecha a grandes firmas auditoras de cuentas y a las agencias de rating.
De estas últimas, Standard & Poor’s y Moody’s actúan impunemente en claro duopolio (entre ambas absorben el 75% del mercado mundial) y pese a que sus calificaciones tienen una trascendencia enorme, pudiendo tanto favorecer como hundir a empresas y naciones, actúan con una frivolidad exasperante; y también fabricando mentiras, como las máximas calificaciones otorgadas a Enron, AIG o Lehman Brothers hasta horas antes de su bancarrota. Al final, la Administración de Obama ha acusado a Standard & Poor’s, exigiéndole 5.000 millones de dólares por decirle al mundo que activos que sabían de plomo eran, en realidad, oro. Justo lo que pretendían los alquimistas medievales, convertir el plomo en oro.
Finalmente, forma también parte indisoluble del estilo financiero anglosajón crear y sostener paraísos fiscales y centros offshore, donde hay remansados entre 20 y 30 billones de dólares ocultos en más de dos millones de cuentas y sociedades secretas. Reino Unido es, también aquí, el principal amparo político y jurídico de estos nidos de corrupción y fraude fiscal: las Caimán (30.000 habitantes y quinto centro financiero mundial), las Vírgenes, las islas del Canal (Man, Cook, Jersey, Guernesey) y Gibraltar, así como el banco HSBC, que es “un paraíso fiscal en sí mismo” y ha sido también multado por el Tribunal Supremo español con 2,5 millones de euros por blanqueo de capitales. Esta de los paraísos fiscales en las “islas del tesoro” es, probablemente, la principal aportación británica a la UE.
A la vista de todo lo anterior, es normal que Wall Street y la City se conviertan periódicamente en gigantescos vertederos a los que los servicios de limpieza suelen llegar siempre tarde para restablecer la higiene social. Pero si no estamos seguros de que los mercados no son un refugio de bandoleros, ni de que los Estados defienden el cumplimiento de las leyes, pues estamos poniendo las bases destructoras del capitalismo y, lo que es mucho peor, de la democracia. Un asunto extremadamente grave porque la confianza es una condición esencial para que las instituciones, que según John Elster son “el cemento de la sociedad”, funcionen adecuadamente. Ellas son la única garantía que tenemos los ciudadanos para que nuestro modo de vida no se escurra por las cloacas de la economía.
Roberto Velasco es catedrático de Economía Aplicada (UPV/EHU) y autor del libro Las cloacas de la economía.
Tea-party captain: IRS scandal leads to Obama
‘The path of authority is quite clear here’
FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe says the IRS scandal is twice as bad as Watergate because of the breathtaking extent the agency was used to target conservative organizations filing for tax-exempt status as well as their donors.
“Watergate was an example of abuse of power by a few very powerful people, including the chief executive and the specific targeting of a few specific enemies,” Kibbe told WND. “In this case, you have an institution-wide bias, a widely known understanding that the IRS was targeting people based on their politics and their political philosophy. It was known for several years and yet it continued and it continued, and so you have one of the most powerful agencies of the federal government, as policy, going after the citizens, the mom-and-pop community leaders. They weren’t powerful. They weren’t in a position to fight back. It was a widely known thing among tea partiers for years, and now the rest of America is finding out about it.”
Kibbe said the details emerging about this scandal suggest far more high-ranking officials were aware of the IRS policy toward conservative groups than the Obama administration is willing to admit.
“The story coming out of the White House and the trail back to the top of the executive branch continues to grow and the story continues to change, and we still don’t know who knew what,” Kibbe said. “The path of authority is quite clear here. The IRS is part of the Treasury Department. The head of the Treasury Department reports directly to the president of the United States. For the Obama White House or even the Treasury Department to claim that they knew nothing about that, either they’re grossly incompetent or they’re not being honest and that’s what we need to get to the bottom of.”
What may lead to a very different conclusion than Watergate is the lack of a paper trail. Kibbe said he would be surprised if there is an actual email or voicemail suggesting Obama was personally involved in developing this policy, but he said all anyone needs to see are Obama’s public statements on tea-party groups.
“I think this was broadcast right on the evening news when Obama questioned the right and the motives of tea partiers and conservative donors who were out there fighting for what they believed in,” said Kibbe, who noted that administration officials kept the story from going public before the 2012 elections. He believes Obama likely would have lost to Mitt Romney if the story had come to light before Election Day.
FreedomWorks received its tax-exempt status years before the dawn of the tea-party movement and played a critical role in coordinating promoting the tea party. The group has not been audited as part of the IRS scrutiny of conservatives. But Kibbe said FreedomWorks donors were targeted, and that aspect of the story might be an even bigger scandal.
“That is probably the bigger scandal when we work our way down the food chain, that individuals are being targeted, and not just by the IRS but by various agencies of the federal government, for their political beliefs, for who they’ve decided to give money to,” Kibbe said. “It gets to our First Amendment rights, and I do think that we need to understand that the institutional difference today is that the most powerful institutions of he federal government now have the ability to go after citizens that they disagree with. And that’s the definition of tyranny.”
Kibbe said donors have not been intimidated by the IRS and news of the scandal. He believes forced government transparency is emboldening activists and the actions of the IRS only fuel the desire for smaller, more open government.
Michelle Obama: Listen or I’m leaving.
First lady Michelle Obama, encountering a protester, threatened to leave a Washington fundraiser if the person didn’t stop interrupting her.
Witnesses said Obama was delivering remarks at the private fundraiser Tuesday when lesbian activist Ellen Sturtz, 56, interrupted to demand President Obama sign an anti-discrimination executive order, The Washington Post reported.
The first lady paused and confronted Sturtz, witnesses said.
“One of the things that I don’t do well is this,” she said. “Do you understand?”
A pool report indicated Obama approached the protester and said, “Listen to me or you can take the mic, but I’m leaving. You all decide. You have one choice.”
Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.
The pool report indicated a woman near Sturtz told the activist, “You need to go” and Sturtz was led from the room.
She told the Post she was floored by Obama’s response.
“She came right down in my face,” Sturtz said. “I was taken aback.”
“I said I want your husband to sign the executive order. Her husband could sign this order tonight and protect 22 percent of the work force in this country.”
The proposed executive order would bar federal contractors from discrimination based sexual orientation or gender identity, the Post said.
Sturtz said she paid $500 to attend the fundraiser as part of a protest orchestrated by GetEqual, which heckled the president during speeches in his first term, demanding more action on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender issues.
Was Navy Seal Team 6 Set Up For Sacrifice?
June 5, 2013 by Jude Eden
“Before there was Benghazi, there was Extortion 17.” These are the chilling opening words spoken by Billy Vaughn, the broken-hearted father of Navy SEAL Aaron Vaughn. Aaron was one of 17 Navy SEALs, almost 30 American servicemen in total, killed when their antiquated Chinook helicopter was shot down during a raging battle in Afghanistan on August 6, 2011. To have lost their sons in war is tragic enough; but as they discovered the very dubious circumstances surrounding the operation and the subsequent deception and cover-up by the military under the Obama administration, a truly gut-wrenching and highly suspicious picture emerged. Several families of the fallen, military experts, elected representatives, and concerned others held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. on May 9th, 2013.
Larry Klayman, founder of Judicial Watch and Freedom Watch, calls Extortion 17 “perhaps the biggest disaster since 9-11 as far as Naval and Special Ops operations.” Before the dust had even settled on the operation that killed Osama bin Laden, President Obama and Vice President Biden revealed the classified identities of SEAL Team 6 and other servicemen; and as a result, these men “literally had targets on their backs.” Three months later, these men and others were sent in on archaic outdated equipment without support and ambushed.
“We demand to know who sent our sons into hostile territory where evidence proves a shoot-down attempt had been in full force for weeks, in less than adequate, antiquated airframes documented to be in very poor condition,” declares Karen Vaughn, Aaron’s mother. “We also demand to know who made the call to mix conventional aircraft and forces with Special Warfare Operations.”
Charles Strange, father of fallen Navy SEAL Michael Strange, says, “Michael knew what he was getting into. Michael knew what he was fighting for. Michael knew that someday he might have to give the ultimate sacrifice. But not like this. To put my son and the most elite SEAL team in the world in a Chinook helicopter over an active battle that’s going on for three and a half hours? Unacceptable! Somebody has to answer for this.”
Here are the heart-wrenching details of the labyrinth that is Extortion 17:
- The servicemen were put in a slow helicopter that is never used for combat operations, built in the early 1960s and last retrofitted in 1985, with no answer as to who made that decision.
- The helicopters they would normally have used and that they had trained with their entire careers were not available because under Obama, the pace of Special Operations aviation climbed from an average of 56 per month in 2009 to a break-neck 334 per month in 2011.
- The mission was considered to be so dangerous that the decision had to be made from a commander out of theater. Yet still it is not known, even after an investigation that yielded a 1200 page report, what commander made the call or why.
- The Tangeen Valley in Afghanistan was known to be a hotbed of insurgent forces, and U.S. Intelligence knew that there were one hundred or more enemy forces gathering there that night intending to shoot down American forces. As early as May 11, they knew that SEAL Team 6 was going to be targeted, but did not share this information with the appropriate people.
- The flight manifest was changed at the last minute, removing seven Afghani security force members who had been slated to fly. In fact, there is still some uncertainty as to who was on the flight.
- The men were flown in unescorted and dropped into a battle that had already been going on for over three hours, without any suppressive fire support.
- Even in the pitch black, General Colt told the families they could see two men on the rooftop. “They call up the Afghan administration to find out at two o’clock in the morning what these guys are doing on the building,” Charles Strange explains. “You know what they told them? ‘They’re hanging crops.’” At 2am on a rooftop?
- The Chinook was shot down by Afghanis who were waiting for it in the perfect position and at the perfect time to strike when the aircraft was its most vulnerable, during landing.
- “Perhaps the most disturbing piece of evidence that Billy and I came across in our search for truth was uncovering the fact that the Afghan National Army, the Afghan National Police, and the Afghan Security Ministry have been and still are involved in the planning of every single stage of every single Special Operation that takes place in that country. And yes, these plans include flight routes and landing zones,” says Karen Vaughn.
- The “eye-in-the-sky” predator feed over the area was turned off. It took the military ten minutes to figure out which aircraft had been shot down.
- American forces were not permitted to take out the attackers. The families were told that new Rules of Engagement dictated that we couldn’t shoot down any attacker even after being attacked because, as one high-ranking admiral put it to Billy Vaughn, “We want to win their hearts and minds.” Karen says, “We were recently told by a Special Forces operator that under the current ROE’s if the enemy fires on you, then runs back behind a rock, when he pops his head up from behind the rock you’re not allowed to engage him unless you can verify that he has not laid his gun down. In other words, you must be fired on twice now or your actions will be questioned by your government when you try to defend yourself or the lives of your teammates.”
- To add desecration to injury, the standard ramp ceremony at Bagram Air Base was presided over by an imam who gave a prayer damning the fallen to hell before their remains were sent home. No priest, pastor, or rabbi gave any prayer or said any words. Klayman says, “The funeral that was held in Kabul where you couldn’t even mention the name of our lord and savior Jesus Christ, but yet a Muslim cleric gets up and damns these fallen heroes to hell as infidels. Unbelievable that our military brass would allow this to happen!” And whereas it is standard practice that all parents of the fallen are given a transcript from the military of that ceremony, the families of Extortion 17 were not.
- In classified meetings, elected officials were lied to about Extortion 17 by top military brass. The families were lied to by these and other military officials. “When we were first visited by one of the highest level admirals in our nation [Admiral William McCraven] on January 4th…the most shocking thing we experienced is that he lied to us so continuously that if we had not studied our documentation and known the truth he would have made a mockery of everything our sons died to represent. It got to be actually embarrassing.”
- The families were told that the chopper’s “black box” was “blown away in the flood” and was supposedly never recovered. A flood? “In Afghanistan?” Charles Strange asks, exasperated.
- “They told me my son had to be cremated, everybody had to be cremated,” Charles says, weeping. “I called the commander: ‘Why did you cremate my son? My son didn’t want to be cremated! I’ve got pictures of him. When I asked for the autopsy report from Dover they sent me a disc with pictures. He’s sitting there fighting! ‘Everybody was burned beyond recognition.’ No, everybody wasn’t burned beyond recognition! Another lie!”
- No Afghani officials were involved in the investigation of the shoot-down, even though they are involved in the planning of every mission and were consulted during the mission.
- When asked how they assessed the crash, our military revealed that all sorts of support materialized. They told the families, “We had 30 planes to assess the crash. We had Black Hawks, we had Pathfinders, we had 140 men go in.” Yet there had been no air or other support for the men as they flew in.
“As we searched we became tragically aware that perhaps the cruelest, most deceitful acts of this administration have been perpetrated against the very ones fighting and dying to protect and defend it,” Karen says.
Charles recalls the day Obama greeted the families at Dover where the remains of the fallen were brought home. “He went to give me a hug and I whispered in his ear, ‘Mr. President, is there going to be a congressional inquiry?’ And Mr. President whispered in my ear, he said, ‘Mr. Strange, we’re gonna look into this very, very, very deep.’ Well, I haven’t heard nothing.” It is now nearly two years since Extortion 17.
Watch the video of the press conference below, and please share it with others. Each unanswered question, each deception that was revealed, and each reckless – if not outright sinister – decision that was uncovered is a stab in the heart for these families. They deserve answers.
But more, we should take each as a stab to our own hearts and demand those answers as if these sons were our very own. Indeed, they are America’s brave sons. If Benghazi and Extortion 17 are any indication, our servicemen today face just as much treachery from the Obama administration and our military under his command as from America’s enemies on the battlefields in faraway countries. In Benghazi, our personnel’s pleas for support while under attack went deliberately unheeded; and then the truth was and continues to be covered up. In Extortion 17, our servicemen were sent into a battle not to win, but to be deliberately sacrificed to our enemies. These words of Karen’s should serve as a dire warning: “The hearts and minds of the enemy are more important to this government than my son’s blood.”
Doug Hamburger, father of fallen SEAL Patrick Hamburger, says, “It’s a shame that we have to ask for a congressional investigation to find out answers…We’re pleading with the American people to put the pressure on your congressmen and senators to make sure that that investigation does get started up and we do get some answers as to what was going on – not so much that we can do anything for our families or our boys. But we want to make sure that our military is taken care of in the future. We love our military…We want to make sure that their sons and daughters are protected and allowed to fight at the top of their abilities.”
These are more than just scandals; they are high treason. Nothing like Benghazi or Extortion 17 has happened in America’s history, military or otherwise; but we’re seeing that atrocities like these are common for the Obama administration. Treachery doesn’t begin to cover it. This is a betrayal of the highest order. It is a betrayal of our brave servicemen who gave everything for America, the very men who killed Osama bin Laden. It is a betrayal of America’s sons and daughters fighting for her today, and of their families who raised these heroic warriors and who now survive them as parents should never survive their children.
In the words of Billy Vaughn, “We must change the hearts and minds of the leaders in Washington and the high-ups in the military, or we must see that they are removed. Those responsible must be brought to justice.”
Nueva Reunión del Club Bilderberg. Cristina Martín Posted: 05 Jun 2013 01:29 AM PDT
Bilderberg, ¿un club selecto o los amos del mundo?
A este club se le acusa de ser el responsables de provocar guerras y crisis, de poner y quitar presidentes.
Aunque sus miembros más evidentes son conocidos nadie conoce cómo se comporta el club ni su capacidad de influencia que se estima desmedida.
En mayo de 1954, el príncipe Bernardo de Holanda invitó a algunos de los hombres más ricos y poderosos del mundo a pasar unos días en la campiña de Oosterbeck. Estaban en plena guerra fría y a muchos les preocupaba que el clima enrarecido enturbiase la buena marcha de los negocios. Se trataba de pasar unos días de descanso, hablar de política y de negocios de una forma distendida y comprometerse, al menos en lo que concernía al mundo occidental, a mantener la estabilidad necesaria para un comercio fructífero. La reunión sirvió para tender puentes entre las grandes fortunas a ambos lados del Atlántico y en cierto sentido supo tener cierta visión de lo que habría de ser la globalización y el comercio mundial.
Aquella primera reunión debió de ser muy fructífera porque desde entonces, el grupo se reúne con periodicidad anual, manteniendo una base de miembros fijos y un porcentaje de invitados escogidos entre los más influyentes y prometedores del planeta. Como se alojaron en el hotel Bilderberg, aquel grupo de prohombres tomó el nombre de Club Bilderberg y nadie podrá cuestionar su buen ojo para escoger invitados. Tony Blair, por ejemplo, fue invitado en 1993. Un año después se haría con el liderazgo laborista y en 1997 se alzaría a la presidencia del Reino Unido. Más fulgurante fue aún la carrera de Bill Clinton, invitado en 1991, el mismo año en el que ganaría la candidatura demócrata y un año antes ocupar la Casa Blanca.
Según afirman quienes han estudiado el tema, desde la presidencia de Einsenhower, todos los presidentes americanos han pasado antes por el Club Bilderberg y la lista es larga y variada: John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush padre e hijo, el mencionado Bill Clinton y Barack Obama.
“El club Bilderberg está por encima de poderes e ideologías, de hecho suelen invitar a un político progresista y a otro conservador de cada país. Gane quien gane en las elecciones, ellos siempre ganan”,
afirma Cristina Martín, la primera periodista del mundo en investigar a fondo el Club y la primera en publicar un libro sobre el fenómeno, El Club Bilderberg: Los amos del mundo, en abril de 2005.
“Obama es un producto de marketing típico del Club, es un líder prefabricado dentro del laboratorio Bilderberg. No hay más que ver su equipo: Joe Bidden, Hillary Clinton… el núcleo duro de su administración es puro Club Bilderberg. Además, el hecho de que haya ganado el premio Nobel sin haber hecho nada es más que sospechoso, pero se entiende como estrategia: se le dio prestigio y legitimidad para vender el producto”,
afirma la periodista.
Hacia un gobierno mundial
La composición del Club Bilderberg ha alentado toda clase leyendas acerca de su poder atribuyéndole cierta fama de gobierno mundial en la sombra o más concretamente, de una suerte de consejo de administración de la gran empresa mundial.
“Su objetivo es formar un único gobierno, una única moneda o mercado y una única religión. Y su herramienta para lograrlo es la ONU, organismo en el que hay una gran presencia de miembros del club”,
afirma Cristina Martín.
Familias como los Rothchild, los Orange-Nassau o los Rockefeller y empresas como British Petroleum, American Express o Coca Cola, han estado presentes prácticamente desde la primera edición para alimentar esa aura de omnipotencia magnificada por el secretismo de las celebraciones y la discreción de los asistentes. Ni secretarios, ni escoltas, ni acompañantes pueden permanecer en las salas donde tienen lugar las reuniones y sin luz ni taquígrafos sólo quedan las especulaciones. Y las hay, como no podía ser de otra forma.
Lista de los participantes en “Bilderberg 2013, Gran Bretaña”
Significativo que entre los asistentes españoles este año al encuentro del grupo conspirador no haya ningún representante de la banca española (Banco Santander y la Caixa solían estar representados) y, en cambio, aparezca DIRECTAMENTE el ministro de economía, Luis de Guindos y el gerente de Zara/Inditex, Pablo Isla, amén del mandamás del Grupo PRISA (El País, Cadena Ser), Juan Luis Cebrián.
Seguidamente, por columnas, nacionalidad, nombre del conspirador y su ocupación conspiradora.
Hertfordshire, England 6-9 June 2013
Current list of Participants
Status 3 June 2013
“THE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”
“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor ‘IN GOD WE TRUST’