No 535 “En mi opinion” Dic. 3, 2013

No 535 “En mi opinión” Diciembre 3, 2013
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño  Editor

Jorge Aguilar: A “TSUNAMI” of property taxes will hit Miami-Dade County property owners next year. This is not a guess or a foolish prediction. During this current fiscal year billions of dollars have been approved in bonds. Such as billions of dollars for the school system. Hundreds of millions were recently approved for Jackson Hospital. Other taxes for Dog and Cats care. All of it was approved by the Miami-Dade County resident voter. The interest of the issued bonds will cost hundred of millions, not to mention that to retire the bond debt needs to be accounted and accrued in the form of reserves in a yearly basis. ALL of it is an immense amount of tax that will be required . Incredibly and unfairly  paid by a minority , that is the property owner. 
Now the Miami-Dade County Commission is ready to provide the Miami-Dade County employees with “FREE HEALTH CARE”. While many in the community struggle with the future monthly insurance payment with large deductions and copays generated by the new law  known as the Affordable Healthcare Act (i.e. aka Obamacare) . Many in the private sector are feeling the new insurance cost that the Affordable Care Act will bring them. Many employers are dropping coverage or are providing their employees with a flat amount as in the case of Walgreen Corp. Traditional Medicare has increase deductible substantially, Monthly contribution for Medicare is currently up as well with bigger monthly payments come 2015.
The aforementioned conditions will create next year a budget that will require a very large amount of property tax increase to cover the above mentioned items. That is,  if the Maimi-Dade County Commission  provides free health care on top of all of the other taxes mentioned. Also ponder the idea that recently we went through difficult  cuts to libraries and others to the Fire Department to balance the budget in order to keep the  same property tax rate . Another item that very soon will become quite burdensome is the upgrading of Miami-Dade County Sewer System. Whether is a tax or a large fee increase the result is the same.
The property owner is going to get a substantial property tax increase. Renters will pay a great deal more as well as the new property tax will certainly be passed to them with additional increase to compensate for others items. 
I ask why is it always the property owner who pays for everything while many derive the benefits and don’t contribute such as the Miami-Dade County employee getting free healthcare and others such as tourist/investors/snow birds . Others perhaps illegal immigrants and other so called people in need that in many cases are not needy but game the system daily.


President’s actions called ‘unprecedented power grabs’

President Obama’s three appointments to the National Labor Relations Board last year were ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court, but the appointees are still in place as the dispute moves to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Obama’s recess appointments are unprecedented power grabs, which if left to stand will turn the constitutional separation of powers on its head,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, which has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case.
“Unfortunately, these recess appointments are one of many examples of this president acting outside of his constitutional authority. We hope the Supreme Court reminds President Obama that he is not above the law,” said Fitton, whose organization describes itself as a watchdog on the federal government.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the January 2012 appointments were unconstitutional, because the U.S. Senate was not in recess at the time.
Judicial Watch joined with the Allied Educational Foundation in the brief, which charges the president’s “alleged recess appointments to the NLRB are unconstitutional for the primary reason that the Senate was in session at the time of the purported appointments.”
“The president’s declaration that these sessions were invalid disregards the Senate’s authority to determine and administer its own procedures, including when it will recess and how it will conduct its business,” the Judicial Watch/AEF brief argues.
“The Senate alone can determine when it will hold session in conformity with its obligations and delegated powers by the Constitution.”
WND reported earlier on the case when the appeals court ruled the appointments violated the law.
At the time, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the correct next step in the dispute would be for the appointees to step down.
Issa, the chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, chided that the president, “who taught constitutional law, should’ve known better.”
“As the Oversight Committee examined in a hearing a year ago, President Obama’s appointments looked like an obvious election-year pander to big labor bosses,” Issa said.
He said the ruling made the decisions from the board itself suspect.
“To avoid further damage to the economy, the NLRB must take the responsible course and cease issuing any further opinions until a constitutionally sound quorum can be established,” he said. “The unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and step down.”
Issa said his committee has examined the unconstitutionality of the president’s appointments and the repercussions that his decision to bypass the Senate confirmation process for NLRB appointees would have on the troubled agency.
The chairman said it’s largely uncharted territory.
In a statement at the time the review was conducted, Issa said that if the Senate can pass a bill and send it to the president for his signature, it is clearly not in recess.
“But a ‘recess’ is exactly what President Obama has argued in justifying four recent appointments,” Issa said.
The members named to the NLRB were Richard Griffin Jr., Sharon Block and Terence F. Flynn.
The issue was that the Senate, although not meeting every day, met regularly and did not announce a formal adjournment. Nevertheless, Obama declared the Senate in recess and made the appointments.
“This is not a recipe for good government and effective rulemaking – it’s a recipe for constitutional crisis,” Issa said.
In the unanimous court opinion, the appellate judges said the Obama administration’s arguments were not persuasive.
“To adopt the … proffered intrasession interpretation of ‘the recess’ would wholly defeat the purpose of the Framers in the careful separation of powers structure reflected in the Appointments Clause,” the court said.
The Supreme Court previously has said the “manipulation of official appointments had long been one of the American revolutionary generation’s greatest grievances against executive power, because the power of appointment to offices was deemed the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth century despotism.’”
Because of the potential for abuse, the “advice and consent” part of the Constitution requires Congress to approve presidential appointments, they explain.
Judicial Watch said there should be no confusion regarding the intent of the Founders.
Furthermore, the brief argues, the Senate sets its own rules.
Obama’s flouting of the constitutional requirements has been cited as one of many reasons to impeach him.


Amenper: Lección elemental  sobre el comunismo

Si tuviéramos que dar una lección elemental sobre el comunismo a un grupo de extraterrestres (porque lo terrestres ya deben de saber lo que es el comunismo)  no hay un ejemplo mejor que el Obamacare.
No quiero decir que la ley del Obamacare sea una ley comunista, ni siquiera es la socialización de la medicina, aunque creo que eso es su motivación para el futuro.
 Pero lo que enseña el Obamacare es lo que significa lo que es el desastre del comunismo, que es lo que sucede cuando el gobierno toma las riendas de una empresa. 
El gobierno no es empresario, sus características intrínsecamente burocráticas lo hace absolutamente inepto para manejar un negocio.
El Obamacare es una mala ley, pero su implementación ha sido peor que la ley. 
Los defectos de la implementación se arreglarán, como es lógico con un costo enorme que al fin y al cabo tendremos que pagar los contribuyentes.  Si fuera una empresa privada sería el final de la carrera del CEO, pero en este gobierno nadie ha perdido su trabajo.
 La ley seguirá su curso, no hay remedio, y sus consecuencias serán fatales para el cuidado de la salud para todos. 
Pero este ejemplo de la ineptitud del gobierno para implementar lo que debe de ser sencillo, una página web como hay cientos en el internet, nos da un ejemplo de lo que es un negocio en manos de la burocracia del gobierno.   También nos da un avance de lo que será el servicio de salud cuando esté en manos del gobierno.
Y esto señores elevado a nivel de todas la empresas de una nación en manos del gobierno, esto es el desastre del comunismo.

Miami-Dade County workers’ pay at center of union hearings
Related Content
Relief from approval of county budget may not last
More than 200 Miami-Dade County workers paid to take it easy
Commissioners override mayor’s veto on garbage workers’ pay
State sides with county on healthcare reserves
It has become a dreaded routine for the Miami-Dade County Commission: asking public employees to give up some of their benefits and wages to keep the government financially afloat.
On Thursday, commissioners will consider Mayor Carlos Gimenez’s latest request to require workers to contribute 5 percent of their base pay to cover group healthcare costs for another year.
This time, the mayor may have a harder time finding consensus among commissioners.
The commission has already defied the mayor and eliminated the 5-percent contribution for two labor unions. That decision, overriding a Gimenez veto in September, set a precedent for the remaining seven unions fighting the proposed extension, union leaders say


On Nov. 21, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other members of the Senate, with the support of President Obama, who apparently lobbied wavering Democrats, broke the rules to change the rules and got rid of the filibuster for presidential nominations. So much for the tradition of debate in the U.S. Senate. The consequences could be dire.
When Harry Reid was the minority leader in the Senate in 2005 and Republicans were contemplating such a change, Reid said the “filibuster was far from a procedural gimmick.” According to the 2005 Reid, the ability to engage in extended debate was “part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate” and “within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They established a government so that no one person – and no single party – could have total control.”
Reid even promised that he would never “employ or use the nuclear option,” which he claimed would “ruin our country.” But this is now and that was then – he apparently has no problem today engaging in behavior he once called “un-American.”
President Obama issued a statement approving heartily of what Harry Reid and the Democrats had done to trample on the rights of the minority. Too bad he didn’t go back and re-read the statements of then-Sen. Obama, who severely criticized the GOP proposal in 2005 and said that if the majority chose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, “then the fighting and bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.” That prediction of the 2005 Obama is sure to come true.
And, it is worth noting, in 2005, then-Sen. Joseph Biden decried the prospect of the Republicans exercising the nuclear option, stating: “The nuclear option abandons America’s sense of fair play. It’s the one thing this country stands for. … And I pray [to] God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
What makes all of this even worse is that the exercise of the nuclear option in the Senate was based on a total fraud – the claim that the Republicans have engaged in unprecedented obstruction of President Obama’s nominees. But as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) has pointed out, prior to the recent success of the Republicans in stopping the three judicial nominees for the under-worked D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that are part of President Obama’s court-packing plan, Republicans had stopped a grand total of just two of his judicial nominees.
Democrats have claimed that Senate Republicans have filibustered 34 of the president’s nominees, but that is a fraudulent number, generated by Sen. Reid through “a procedural gimmick,” according to Grassley. In fully half of those cases, Reid filed cloture motions even though Republicans had expressed no opposition to the nominees. None of those 17 cloture petitions required a vote – every petition was withdrawn, and every one of those nominees was confirmed. Of the remaining 17, Reid himself withdrew another six of the cloture petitions. So only 11 nominees actually ever faced a real cloture vote, and six of those nominees were confirmed.
Compare this to 30 real cloture votes during the Bush administration; the Democrats were successful in 20 of those votes, effectively killing those nominations. So the Democrats had an “obstruction rate” during the Bush administration that was four times larger than what is happening today.
In fact, during President Obama’s tenure in office, the Senate has confirmed 209 of his lower court Article III judges. That is a 98 percent confirmation rate. In the 112thCongress, according to Grassley, Obama had more district court judges confirmed than were confirmed in any of the previous eight Congresses. In 2013, Congress has already confirmed 38 lower court judges, which is more than two and a half times the number confirmed at a similar point in President Bush’s second term.
Given these facts, it should come as no surprise that what President Obama says to Democratic donors is very different. In very revealing remarks at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee event in Dallas on Nov. 6, Obama said that “we are remaking the courts…in addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous Presidents. When it comes to the appellate courts, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it” (emphasis added).
And why is the administration a “little bit behind?” Because of the 93 vacancies in the federal court system, President Obama has not submitted a nomination for almost half of the open positions, 43 of them. It is a little difficult to blame that on Republican obstructionism.
But Obama’s statement reveals the real reason for the exercise of the nuclear option in the Senate. The president and his allies want to “remake” the federal courts. Why? Because they know that one of the only remaining avenues open to conservatives and others to try and stop the abuse of federal power is through the federal court system. And they want federal judges in position who share their ideology and disregard for the strictures of the Constitution to bless everything they are doing.
Given what happened in the Senate, the president and his allies may very well succeed.


Amenper: “Porque con la medida con que midáis se os medirá. Lucas 6,36-38
Es algo difícil el no estar de acuerdo con el Sumo Pontífice de la institución más grande del cristianismo en el mundo.  Por eso cuando el Santo Padre habla hay que analizar lo que dijo antes de criticar sus palabras. 
Cuando habló sobre el aborto y los homosexuales, mencionando que eran pecadores, pero que también lo éramos nosotros, aunque nuestros pecados fuesen otros, estaba hablando de la principal doctrina del cristianismo que es el perdón.  Por eso aunque algunos los criticaron, yo he creído que está dentro de sus obligaciones explicar las doctrinas cristianas.
Pero se me ha presentado un problema con el Papa Francisco, en su primera exhortación apostólica, la  Evangelii Gaudium, en la que critica a la economía de mercado y al capitalismo como sistemas que crean la pobreza. 
Por más que lo analizo, no lo puedo aceptar. 
Primero creo que la infalibilidad del Papa es en asuntos de doctrina, no asuntos de filosofía económica, y segundo no comparto su opinión de que personalmente yo y los miles de millones de personas que practicamos la economía de mercado seamos responsables de un pecado contra los pobres, y si no es un pecado, entonces no está bajo su jurisdicción doctrinal.
Como me encuentro atacado por el Papa, he ido a la jurisdicción superior que es la Palabra de Dios, y me dice en Lucas 6,36-38 “Porque con la medida con que midáis se os medirá”.  
Así que bajo esa autoridad voy a medir al Papa como él me nos ha medido a nosotros, con la misma medida de no ayudar a los pobres..
La institución Católica tiene empresas dentro de la economía de mercado en todo el globo terráqueo, antes de juzgarnos a nosotros tiene que socializar esas empresas.
Después abrir las arcas del banco del Vaticano, hinchadas con el lavado de dinero, vender las propiedades inmuebles de Vaticano en todo el mundo, sus joyas y obras de arte, y regalarlo todo a los pobres.
El Papa puede mudarse a un efficiency en la Via Apia en Roma, desde allí puede hacer todas las exhortaciones que quiera, no hace falta tantos sirvientes en los apartamentos papales, con una computadora puede hacer las encíclicas y las exhortaciones.
Sólo después que haga eso, después que suelte el guano no bendito, entonces puede juzgarme.
Por ahora me reservo el derecho de medirlo con la misma medida con que me está midiendo y desestimar lo que dice.

Amenper: La exhortación apostólica.

La exhortación apostólica Evangelii gaudium[1] (EG), del Papa Francisco, no es un texto de economía al menos no debiera serlo.
Sin embargo, en el diagnóstico que Francisco realiza de las actuales circunstancias hay algunas apreciaciones de cuestiones económicas que nuevamente han despertado la  adhesión de aquellos que critican al libre mercado y la preocupación o vivo rechazo de quienes lo defienden.
Entre los que han expresado su admiración, se encuentran, Nicolás Maduro y la corte de gobiernos socialistas del siglo XXI en nuestro hemisferio. Solamente por esos admiradores ya me molesta la incursión de Francisco en las filosofías económicas.
La infalibilidad del Papa en los asuntos de doctrina, es una creencia de la institución religiosa católica que debe ser aceptada por los creyentes y respetada por los que no creen, esa es la libertad de culto.
Pero el Papa no es infalible en asuntos políticos o económicos, eso ha sido evidente a través de la historia antigua y moderna.
Si el Papa tiene una opinión personal sobre el sistema económico del mundo, debe de expresarlo como una persona laica, no en una exhortación apostólica. Porque
¿Quien es el Papa como hombre para saber si el sistema socialista o el capitalista es el mejor para los pobres?
Creo que el Papa ha pecado de juzgar un sistema, y por la “vara que juzgas, así serás juzgado”.
Los hombres cuando son exaltados a posiciones altas, sufren del pecado de vanidad que los hacen sentirses superiores al resto de la humanidad, y no hay dudas que el Papa es un ser humano, con sus virtudes y sus defectos.
El Acton Institute, un think tank conservador con base en Michigan, ha declarado “una serie de afirmaciones de este documento y algunos de los supuestos que subyacen a esas declaraciones son bastante cuestionables”. En ese sentido, el documento del Instituto defiende que “la apertura de los mercados de todo el mundo ha contribuido a reducir la pobreza en muchos países en desarrollo”.
En la misma línea se manifiesta Daniel J. Mitchell, reconocido economista del Cato Institute. “Yo no soy un experto en teología papal, así que no sé si es correcto decir que estoy sorprendido (con su exhortación apostólica). Sin embargo, puedo decir que se equivoca sobre el capitalismo”, explicó el ex académico titular de la Heritage Foundation. “En pocas palabras, los mercados libres son la única forma efectiva de generar una prosperidad ampliamente compartida”.
A estas declaraciones, no a la exhortación papal tengo que decir….Amen….Amen.

Olga Grinan: Presidential term limits: necessary and right, or bad for democracy?
The time has come to end presidential term limits, because continuing the restrictions on how long one can serve in the country’s highest office is bad for the United States, a university professor argued this week.

In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post, Jonathan Zimmerman, a history and education professor at New York University, says deciding whether a president deserves a third, fourth or more terms should be left to the American people, not the22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which placed a two-term limit on the position. As background, here’s an excerpt from the amendment, ratified in 1951:
“No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”
The amendment came into being a few years after Franklin Roosevelt was elected to the fourth of his White House terms. Known to Americans as the president during the final years of the Great Depression and most of World War II, Roosevelt, a Democrat, died in office before completing his last term. After the war, Republicans made a successful bid to install a two-term maximum for future presidents. But, according to Zimmerman, they limited not only the president’s time in office, but also “democracy itself.”
With President Obama’s job-approval numbers down sharply, Zimmerman indicates that the nation’s chief executive is perhaps being hampered by the fact that he’s in his final term, giving GOP opponents and even Democrats little incentive to support him on issues that might hurt their own re-election chances.
To illustrate his point, he uses two topics in the headlines: the implemention of the new health care law and the nuclear agreement with Iran.
He writes:
“Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have. Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)? Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.”
Zimmerman adds, “Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?”

On this last point, he invokes George Washington, the first president of the United States. Washington, he says, stepped down after his second term, but not because he was required by law to do so. Zimmerman says Washington didn’t support enforced term limits, citing one of his letters. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote. By leaving office, however, he did establish a precedent that would be followed for more than a century.

In his “Presidential Term Limits in American History: Power, Principles, and Politics,” Michael Korzi, a professor of political science at Towson University, cites the first president’s remark, stating that Washington departed voluntarily after his second term “more for personal reasons than for reasons of philosophy.”

Even so, the Founding Fathers had different opinions on whether to impose a mandate on term lengths, researchers indicate. (U.S. senators and representatives don’t have term limits.) Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the U.S., felt a maximum had merit. In “Jefferson Himself: The Personal Narrative of a Many-Sided American,” edited by Bernard Mayo, Jefferson referenced his dislike of the idea of an entrenched leader: 

“That I should lay down my charge at a proper season is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully … . These changes are necessary, too, for the security of republican government. If some period be not fixed, either by the Constitution or by practice, to the services of the First Magistrate, his office, though nominally elective, will in fact be for life; and that will soon degenerate into an inheritance.”

As for the present, Zimmerman’s idea isn’t new, and in fact, rumor-researching website notes multiple proposals in recent years to repeal the 22nd Amendment. Republicans and Democrats alike have raised the issue, but none of the attempts have gotten too far. .

You tell us: Do you prefer to have presidential term limits? Or would you rather a president be able to run as many times as they want?
–  I personally do not believe Obama plans to just walk away after this term. Is he going to try for a third term or something much bigger? I don’t know, but I truly think he believes that he is what the U.S and the rest of the world needs. If he could in this second term get control of the house and the senate, I am afraid we would soon find out. A very frightening thought for me. All of this is just my own opinion of course.
–  We are supposed to be a Constitutional Republic, NOT a Democracy, first and foremost. Term limits for ALL elected men and woman should be the norm and is critical to our survival as such. Frankly, even Supreme Court Justices should have term limits as well, but for the moment, we must maintain our current Presidential term limits or it’s over for this nation as we have known it in the past. The Congress and this White House have total forgotten or are just ignoring, WE the people,
–  Before we change term limits, let’s work on their benefits. They should pay for their own life insurance or give all Americans free life insurance just like them. They should not receive lifetime pensions, let them open a 401k like the rest of us try to do and live off of that. There jobs should be treated like regular jobs not like they are some kind of super humans. There should also be a way for special elections in every state to get rid of the person if they are not doing the job they were sent there to do. We get fired if we do not do our jobs right why shouldn’t they.–necessary-and-right–or-bad-for-democracy-192726518.html

Hit the road barack.
Conservative Radio Giant Hits the Road

After more than four decades on the air, much of it as part of his syndicated eponymous program based in Atlanta, Ga., Neal Boortz retired earlier this year. As one of the headlining speakers at the upcoming Western Conservative Conference, the libertarian firebrand remains as relevant as ever in his golden years.
“” style=”margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; display: block; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;”
Boortz handed the reins of his show to longtime friend and former presidential candidate Herman Cain and continues to serve as a guest host on the rebranded show. The widely popular host who amassed a loyal audience of more than four million listeners still produces a daily podcast featuring his unique perspective. Capable of offending ideologues in either party, Boortz stands firm on his principles and conveys his beliefs with a healthy dose of humor and self-deprecation.
The Pennsylvania native traveled extensively as part of a military family before settling in Atlanta after attending college at Texas A&M University during the 1960s. Though he held many jobs during his young adulthood and earned his law degree from John Marshall Law School, political talk radio remained a passion for the fledgling host.
Though he practiced law until 1992, he was a frequent voice on local radio throughout his career. Shortly after his departure from private practice, he signed a deal with WSB, a major Atlanta station, to host his own program. Ultimately syndicated to reach more than 250 stations, Boortz quickly became a heavy-hitter among conservative talkers.
In 2002, his show received two prestigious honors. In addition to being named as a Marconi Award finalist for “Network Syndicated Personality of the Year,” Radio and Records Magazine selected him as its “Newstalk Personality of the Year.”
He followed up this success with a trio of New York Times bestselling books. His advocacy for tax reform and support of the Fair Tax led to his co-authorship of two primers regarding the details of this revenue system. Boortz also penned the highly successful tome “Somebody’s Gotta Say It.”
“” style=”margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto; display: block; border: 0px; vertical-align: bottom;”
A pilot and golfer, he has been able to carve out time for his hobbies and family during the first few months of his retirement. Those expecting him to shrink into the background, however, might want to reconsider.
–B. Christopher Agee
Have an idea for a story? Email us at
ObamaCare: “Mayday! Mayday!” Says New York Times
Written by Gary North on December 2, 2013

The New York Times ran a long article on the panic in the White House over the failure of Obama is now in full-time damage control.
The end of the article gives some indication of his strategy: pretend the site is not there. “Website? Never heard of it!”
In the White House, aides to Mr. Obama know that Republican attacks will keep coming, and that a clearer assessment of the Affordable Care Act will not come until at least the end of March, when the initial sign-up period for enrollment closes. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that seven million people will have signed up for coverage by then, but so far enrollment has been slow. During October, the federal government has reported, just 106,000 people picked new health plans, a vast majority of them through state-run exchanges.
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, is trying to turn the page. After a bruising two months in Washington, he spent the early part of last week on the West Coast, talking about other priorities — the economy and an immigration overhaul — raising money for Democrats, and trying at every turn to sound upbeat.
At a closed-door fund-raiser Tuesday night at the Beverly Hills home of the basketball star Magic Johnson, Mr. Obama made only scant reference to the law that he has long hoped will define his presidency. The president, who just two weeks earlier stood before a roomful of reporters in Washington and confessed that he had “fumbled” the rollout of his biggest legislative initiative, now confined his remarks about health care to his long-running battle with Republicans.
“I’m absolutely sure we’re going to make sure this country provides affordable health care for every single American,” Mr. Obama told the donors. “And if I have to fight for another three years to make sure that happens, I will do so.”
He did not mention the website.
When the liberal media’s flagship newspaper runs an article like this, we know: Obama’s ship is sinking. He will go down with his ship. He will take a lot of Democrats in the Senate with him.
In the Senate, Democrats are moving toward the lifeboats. They deny it, of course. They are really heading for the grand ballroom, they insist.
But why are they wearing life jackets?

Military Mocks Obama Birth Certificate Fraud
December 2, 2013 @ NewsEditor ?

US military spokesman Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale, blew off a legitimate editor’s query concerning analysis of the “computer generated forgery” posted online by the White House as being mere nonsense.  “We can only assume that your query is not a legitimate question and is some sort of nonsensical joke,” Breasseale commented via Email to Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post & Email.   He is calling her very reasonable inquiry nothing more than a web “absurdity”.  “We are happy to consider reality-based requests, but do not entertain absurdities from the web,” replied “Todd” in an insulting try at familiarity.When Editor Rondeau replied, “It is absolutely not a joke,” the military mouthpiece came back with merely, “noted,” to her follow up question about the military’s possible analysis of the Obama birth certificate image posted online by someone in or representing the White House on April 27, 2011, as well as the Obama Selective Service registration. “Why has that not been done?” Rondeau asked Public Affairs officer Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson who evidently passed off this inquiry to Breasseale.  So much for that; our military “has remained silent” says the CT editor of The Post & Email.Meanwhile, the 69 page affidavit of lead investigator Mike Zullo is filed as evidence in the Alabama Supreme Court’s review of findings by a lower court which also tossed inquiry into authenticity of the WH computer image. The Zullo court document reads, at point # 26: “All in attendance agreed unanimously that the WH computer image, pdf file contained anomalies that were un-explainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document”.  Zullo is presenting the results of months of investigation by the Sheriff Arpaio forensic team into the nine layered computer image put on the official WH website.  The team of long time forensic and law enforcement investigators, retired military members, physicians, and computer CEO’s and attorneys concluded “the certificate of live birth. . .is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate.”

Rush Limbaugh: El papa Francisco predica ‘puro marxismo’ Por Daniel Burke, CNN

(CNN) – Papa Francisco: Sucesor de San Pedro… el pontífice del pueblo… ¿marxista?
Eso es lo que el anfitrión del programa de entrevistas de radio, Rush Limbaugh —locutor radial conservador de EE.UU.—, sugiere, refiriéndose al más reciente documento del papa como “puro marxismo”.
Limbaugh atacó al pontífice el miércoles, un día después de que Francisco presentara el documento “Evangelii Gaudium” (El gozo del evangelio), una declaración de 50.000 palabras que llama a la reforma de la iglesia y castiga los elementos del capitalismo moderno.
El segmento de Limbaugh, el cual ahora se encuentra en línea y se titula “Es triste ver cuán equivocado está el papa Francisco (a no ser que sea una traducción errónea deliberada hecha por izquierdistas)”, apunta directamente a las opiniones económicas del papa, refiriéndose a ellas como “total, vergonzosa y desconcertadamente erróneas”.
El Vaticano emitió la traducción al inglés de “Evangelii”, la cual oficialmente se conoce como una exhortación apostólica.
Francisco —el primer papa originario de Latinoamérica, donde trabajó en beneficio de los pobres en su país natal de Argentina— advirtió en “Evangelii” que la “idolatría al dinero” llevaría a una “nueva tiranía”.
El papa también criticó la “teoría de la filtración de las riquezas”, argumentando que ésta “expresa una cruda e ingenua confianza en la bondad de quienes ejercen el poder económico”.
La crítica que el papa hizo al capitalismo emocionó a muchos católicos liberales, quienes por mucho tiempo han instado a los líderes de la iglesia a invertir más tiempo y energía en proteger a los pobres de las desigualdades económicas.
Sin embargo, Limbaugh, cuyo programa se calcula que alcanza a 15 millones de radioescuchas, mencionó que los comentarios del papa habían sido “tristes” e “increíbles”.
“Es triste porque este papa deja ver muy claro que no sabe de lo que habla cuando se trata del capitalismo, socialismo, y así sucesivamente”.
De hecho, Argentina fue un campo de batalla entre socialistas de izquierda y fuerzas de seguridad de derecha durante gran parte de la carrera inicial de Francisco en el país, donde fue un sacerdote jesuita y más adelante, arzobispo de Buenos Aires.
Limbaugh, quien no es católico, indicó que admira “profundamente” la fe. También admiraba al papa Francisco, “hasta ahora”, expresó.
El anfitrión del programa de entrevistas también comentó que ha hecho numerosas visitas al Vaticano, el cual dijo “no existiría sin toneladas de dinero”.
“Pero, de todas formas, lo que vemos aquí, es que alguien ya sea ha escrito esto por él o lo ha influenciado”, añadió Limbaugh. “Es puro marxismo lo que sale de la boca del papa”.
Limbaugh en especial mostró su desacuerdo con las críticas que el papa hizo respecto a la “cultura de la prosperidad”, la cual el pontífice llamó un “simple espectáculo” para las muchas personas que no pueden participar.
“Esto es casi una declaración acerca de quién debería controlar los mercados financieros”, dijo Limbaugh. “Él afirma que la economía global requiere del control del gobierno”.
“No soy católico, pero conozco lo suficiente como para saber que habría sido inconcebible que un papa creyera o dijera esto hace tan sólo unos años”, continuó Limbaugh.
De hecho, el predecesor de Francisco, Benedicto XVI, quien ahora es un papa emérito, podría haber sido un crítico igual de firme hacia el capitalismo.
En 2009, Benedicto, en una carta oficial de la iglesia llamada encíclica, dijo que había una necesidad urgente de que hubiera “un orden político, jurídico y económico” que “manejara la economía global”.
Como Limbaugh señala, el predecesor de Benedicto, el fallecido papa Juan Pablo II, era un notable enemigo del comunismo, después de vivir bajo sus opresiones en su país natal de Polonia. Sin embargo, incluso Juan Pablo pensaba que el capitalismo no reglamentado podría tener consecuencias negativas.
En “Evangelii”, Francisco llamó más a una revolución espiritual y ética, que a una revolución reguladora.
“Animo a los expertos financieros y líderes políticos a considerar las palabras de uno de los sabios de la antigüedad: ‘No compartir las riquezas con los pobres es robarles y privarlos de sus medios de subsistencia. No son nuestros propios bienes, los que poseemos, sino son de ellos'”, dijo Francisco, citando a San Juan Crisóstomo, un religioso del siglo V.
El lunes, católicos liberales defendieron al papa Francisco, e instaron a Limbaugh a disculparse y retraerse de sus comentarios.
“Referirse al Santo Padre como un defensor del ‘marxismo puro’ es tanto mal intencionado como ingenuo”, dijo Christopher Hale, de la organización Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (Católicos en alianza por el bien común), con sede en Washington. “Las críticas que Francisco hace respecto al capitalismo descontrolado van de acuerdo con las enseñanzas sociales de la iglesia”.
Limbaugh no es el único comentador conservador que ha mostrado su desacuerdo hacia las opiniones del papa respecto al capitalismo.
“Voy a la iglesia para salvar mi alma”, expresó Stuart Varney, de Fox News, quien es miembro de la Iglesia Episcopal. “No tiene nada que ver con mi voto. El papa Francisco los ha vinculado a los dos. Ha ofrecido críticas directas respecto a un sistema político. Ha caracterizado dicho sistema de forma negativa. Creo que quiere influenciar mis ideas políticas”.
Sin embargo, no parece que las críticas están desacelerando a Francisco. Ha empezado a enviar a un contingente del Vaticano, incluyendo a la Guardia Suiza Pontificia, a Roma a entregar alimentos y a hacer obras benéficas.
OPINIÓN: El papa Francisco no cambia nada pero lo cambia todo
OPINIÓN: El papa quiere una Iglesia Católica compasiva y audaz


Colunna de Samitier:

1- Considero IRREALIZABLE La Distribución De
Paquetes Propuesta Por AMAZON /BEZOS
Para Mi Es SOLAMENTE Una Campaña Publicitaria…
Pagando Una Entrevista En 60 Minutos… Y Poniendo
A Todos A Hablar Del Nuevo Sistema…
Ya este articulo en Inglés describe las razones Por lo que NO ES POSIBLE…
Una BUENA Publicidad… usando un proyecto FALSO…
Speaking of death, will Amazon become known as the new (and definitive) mom-and-pop-shop-killer, 
taking the crown from Walmart?

2- Considero IRREALIZABLE La Distribución De
Paquetes Propuesta Por AMAZON /BEZOS
Para Mi Es SOLAMENTE Una Campaña Publicitaria…
Pagando Una Entrevista En 60 Minutos… Y Poniendo
A Todos A Hablar Del Nuevo Sistema…
Ya este articulo en Inglés describe las razones Por lo que NO ES POSIBLE…
Una BUENA Publicidad… usando un proyecto FALSO…
Speaking of death, will Amazon become known as the new (and definitive) mom-and-pop-shop-killer, 
taking the crown from Walmart?

3- ü     La verdadera riqueza de un país es la educación de su pueblo.
 1 – ¿Sabías que los niños japoneses limpian sus escuelas todos los días durante un cuarto de hora con los profesores, lo que llevó a la aparición de una generación de japoneses que son modestos y entusiastas en la limpieza.
 2 – ¿Sabía usted que cualquier ciudadano japonés que tiene un perro tiene que llevar saco y bolsas especiales para recoger excrementos de perro. Higiene y su afán por abordar la limpieza es parte de la ética japonesa. 
  3 – ¿Sabía usted que el trabajador de limpieza en Japón se llama “ingeniero de la salud” y puede ganar un sueldo de USD 5000 a 8000 por mes.
  4 – ¿Sabía usted que Japón no tiene recursos naturales, y está expuesto a cientos de terremotos al año, pero eso no le impidió convertirse en la segunda economía más grande del mundo? 
 5 – ¿Sabía usted que Hiroshima regresó a lo que era económicamente vibrante antes de la caída de la bomba atómica, en sólo diez años? 
6 – ¿Sabía usted que Japón impide el uso de la telefonía móvil en los trenes, restaurantes y cubiertas.
7 – ¿Sabía usted que en Japón los estudiantes del primer al sexto año de primaria debe aprender la ética en el trato con la gente.
8 – ¿Sabía usted que los japoneses a pesar de ser uno de los pueblos más ricos del mundo, no tienen sirvientes. Los padres son responsables de la casa y los niños.
 9 – ¿Sabía usted que no existe un examen de primero a tercero de primaria, porque el objetivo de la educación es inculcar conceptos y formación del carácter, y no sólo conocimientos y adoctrinamiento. – 
10 – ¿Sabía usted que si usted va a un restaurante de buffet en Japón se dará cuenta la gente sólo come todo lo que necesitan sin desperdicio alguno.
 11 – ¿Sabía usted que el promedio de impuntualidad de los trenes en Japón es de aproximadamente 7 segundos por año! Ellos aprecian el valor del tiempo.
12 -. ¿Sabía usted que los niños de las escuelas deben cepillarse los dientes después de las comidas en la escuela; Mantienen su salud desde una edad temprana –
13 – ¿Sabía usted que los estudiantes toman media hora de descanso luego de terminar sus comidas para garantizar una digestión correcta.
Estos estudiantes son el futuro de Japón.
Ojalá aprendiéramos un poquito de esta filosofía.

4- COLON ERA SOLTERO.-Prueba contundente y ampliamente confirmada…!!!

Cristóbal Colón pudo descubrir América sólo porque ¡¡ERA SOLTERO!! Si Cristóbal Colón hubiese tenido una esposa, habría tenido que oír: 

– ¿Y por qué tenes que ir vos? 

– ¿Y por qué no mandan a otro? 

– ¡Todo lo ves redondo! ¿Estas loco o sos idiota? 

– ¡No conoces ni a mi familia y vas a descubrir el nuevo mundo! 

– ¿Y sólo van a viajar hombres? ¿crees que soy pelotuda? 

– ¿Y por qué no puedo ir yo si vos sos el jefe? 

– ¡Desgraciado, ya no sabes qué inventar para estar fuera de casa! 

– ¡Si cruzas esa puerta yo me voy con mi vieja! ¡Sinvergüenza! 

– ¿Y quién es esa tal María? ¿Qué Pinta? ¡Y la hija de puta se hace la Santa!!! 

– ¿Y decis que es una Niña?… ¡andate a la mierrrrdaaa! 

– ¡Todo lo tenías planeado, maldito! Vas a encontrarte con unas indias putitas….táquetepáaaaaarió!!!! 

– ¿A mí me vas engañar? 

– ¿Qué la Reina Isabel va a vender sus joyas para que vos viajes? ¿Me crees boluda o qué? ¿Qué tenes con esa vieja hija de puta, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh?????? – ¿Me vas a decir que la Reina te paga el viaje porque vos le mostraste un huevo???? 
– ¡No vas a ningún lado! 

– No va a pasar nada si el mundo sigue plano. Así que no te vistas que ¡¡¡no vas!!! 

Definitivamente: ERA SOLTERO…


Tengan todos muy buenos dias y buena suerte.
“EN MI OPINION” Lázaro R González Miño Editor.,,



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

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión /  Cambiar )

Google+ photo

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

Imagen de Twitter

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

Foto de Facebook

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


Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: