Archive for 24 enero 2015

No 857 “En mi opinion” Enero 24, 2015

enero 24, 2015

No 857 “En mi opinion” Enero 24, 2015.

No 856 “En mi opinion” Enero 23, 2015

enero 23, 2015

No 856 “En mi opinion” Enero 23, 2015.

No 855 “En mi opinion” Enero 22, 2015

enero 22, 2015

No 855 “En mi opinion” Enero 22, 2015.

No 854 “En mi opinion” Enero 21, 2015

enero 21, 2015

No 854 “En mi opinion” Enero 21, 2015.

No 854 “En mi opinion” Enero 21, 2015

enero 21, 2015

No 854 “En mi opinión”  Enero 21, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

Time left until Obama leaves office

http://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?p0=263&iso=20170120T00&msg=Time%20left%20until%20Obama%20leaves%20office

 

RAND PAC

My response to President Obama, Rand Paul

Higher taxes, more spending, and bigger government. 
President Obama just revealed that is what he has in store for Americans in 2015.
But you and millions of your fellow Americans sent a loud and clear message to President Obama in November.
It’s time to lower taxes, not raise them. It’s time to reduce spending, not increase it. It’s time to shrink government, not grow it.
I’m ready to answer the call and lead the fight for our conservative principles.
Tonight, I responded to President Obama’s State of the Union address by outlining my vision for our great nation. 
Please take a moment and watch the video below
After watching, be sure to share my response by 
forwarding this email and sharing it on Facebook

In Liberty,

Rand Paul

 

Amenper: La Clase Media según Obama

Cuando oímos el discurso de Obama, la retórica de que es una ayuda a la “clase media” es una evidente falsedad. 

Los pequeños negocios que son el intento de la clase media para crear riqueza personal y en el inento crear trabajos y aumentar la economía, son las víctimas de la política socialista del presidente Obama.

Cuando vemos los que triunfan en los negocios, vemos admiración en algunos, envidia en otros, pero lo que no vemos es la compasión para los miles que fracasan en el intento, perdiendo sus ahorros, sin la ventaja de un retiro, dependiento del social security, algunos pasado su edad productiva, cayendo en una vejez de necesidad económica y una vida de decepción.

Estos son los “ricos” que Obama atacó en su discurso.

Las grandes corporaciones fueron protegidas, con razón, porque el impuesto corporativo de Estados Unidos ya es el mayor del mundo, y esto limita las inversiones extranjeras.

Pero los pequeños negocios fueron las víctimas potenciales de las medidas que Obama trata de implantar.

En la plétora de datos publicados por las estadísticas en los Estados Unidos, cada año, hay dos números que son de particular importancia para pequeños empresarios: unos 145.000 nuevos pequeños negocios comienzan  cada año en este país, y unos 137.000 de este tipo de negocios declaran bancarrota cada año.

No es difícil hacer la matemática; la proporción es casi un fracaso para cada negocio puesto en marcha, y plantea la pregunta: “Cómo es posible que el emprendimiento tiene tantas víctimas en términos de dinero perdido y vive a menudo horriblemente molesto?”

La repuesta la podemos encontrar en el discurso a la nación de Obama esta noche.

Las regulaciones burocráticas y los impuestos hacen muy difícil el triunfo a un pequeño empresario. 

Lo que debemos de que tomar en consideración no son los que triunfan, pero loa negocios que existen, que parecen que los dueños tienen una posición privilegiada y que vemos como cierran sus puertas.

Las estadísticas de los tribunales de bancarrota enseñan que durante los doce meses que cerraron el período que finalizo el pasado 30 de Septiembre de 2014, un total de 963,739 negocios y personas declararon bancarrota.

De estos  963.739, el numero de negocios que declararon bancarrota fueron 642.366 y 7,658 se decalaron en el Capítulo 11, que es una bancarrota en la que continúan haciendo negocios bajo la reorganización del gobierno.

Y cada vez que un negocio cierra, un número de empleados pierde su trabajo.

Acostumbraba a tomar café en el restaurant Larios de South Miami, parecía un negocio productivo y sólido que había estado establecido por muchos años. 

El pasado domingo cuando fui, lo encontré cerrado, y más tarde me enteré que había declarado bancarrota.

No sé exactamente cuantos empleados pasaron a la lista de los desempleados, pero me imagino que deben de habier sido decenas.

Este es un caso aislado de los muchos que podemos ver a diario si nos tomamos la molestia de observar los negocios que cierran a diario.

No es fácil ser empresario, y mucho menos con un tipo de administración que considera a los empresarios como ricos explotadores- Que usa la retórica de no considerarlos como clase media, haciendo su labor no limitada a las característica normales que enfrenta una empresa, pero a una labor añadida por las regulaciones burocráticas y los impuestos de una administración de corte socialista. 

 

 

“EMO” Este es un articulo de nuestro privilegiado Saguero Alberto Perez “Amenper” Un hombre muy valioso y dotado que equivoco su destino pero que  Gracias a DIOS ahora esta haciendo lo que siempre debio hacer. LRGM…

Los “Carptetbaggers” y el Racismo Resultante

La historia se repite

Con este asunto del día de Martín Luther King, en todos los canales de televisión lo inundan a uno de esas negradas de discriminación racial al negro.  

Los que hemos sido testigos de toda la historia del racismo en el Sur de los Estados Unidos, vemos como todas las versiones tienen una manera de presentarlas que no se ajusta a la realidad de los hechos.

Dinesh D´Souza el hindú-americano que hizo la película América 2016, en la que desnudaba a Obama y su pasado, y que ha tenido que pagar con persecuciones su atrevimiento, fue uno de los que entrevistaron.

D´Souza dijo entre otras cosas que su próxima película será sobre el fin del racismo en Estados Unidos.

Como nacido y criado en Cuba, tengo como D´Souza una percepción objetiva sobre la diferencia del racismo como era en Estados Unidos y como se presenta en otros lugares.

El racismo en la India así como en Cuba, era el racismo de castas, que es un racismo inherente en el ser humano. Todos nos sentimos mal ante algo o alguien que no luce igual a nosotros o que no tenga nuestros mismos valores culturales.

 En india hay una serie de castas raciales de una multiplicidad extraordinaria, en Cuba teníamos los negros y los chinos, y era debido al origen de la entrada de estas razas como esclavos en Cuba.

La discriminación por castas, que se puede también extender a la posición económica, es básicamente social.  El miembro de la casta discriminada es considerado inferior socialmente, y la casta superior no quiere identificarse socialmente y mucho menos familiarmente con la casta inferior.

Pero este tipo de discriminación, como no es más que una percepción, no una realidad, puede ser superado fácilmente.

En los Estados Unidos, los que por una u otra razón hubimos de ser testigos de primera mano del racismo en el sur en los años 50 que fueron el pico de la segregación, vimos el tipo de discriminación diferente a la que teníamos en Cuba y  nos asombramos de que era una discriminación que tenía un factor añadido,  era una discriminación de odio.

El odio es un sentimiento de profunda, aversión, enemistad o repulsión hacia una persona, cosa, o fenómeno, así como el deseo de evitar, limitar o destruir a su objetivo, en este caso un individuo de la raza negra..

El odio generalmente se basa basar en el miedo a su objetivo, ya sea justificado o no, o más allá de las consecuencias negativas de relacionarse con él.

O sea que no sólo era como en Cuba que era un resultado de una condición inherente de ser humano ante algo diferente, lo cual produce prejuicio y el distanciamiento pero no odio.

El problema racial de Estados Unidos se basa primordialmente, no en la esclavitud, como en Cuba, sino lo que pasó después de la emancipación. 

La parte triunfadora impuso durante la mal llamada reconstrucción, la condición de nación ocupada a la parte derrotada. 

En el proceso, cuando un agente de impuestos, iba a cobrarle los impuestos a los sureños derrotados, los llamados “carpetbaggers” siempre llevaban un ayudante negro, para humillar más a los sureños.  Utilizaron a los negros, y estos se dejaron utilizar para humillar y degradar a los derrotados poniéndolos en posiciones en el gobierno superior a los blancos.

Como es lógico esto creó el odio, no sólo a los Yankees, pero a los negros.  O sea que a la discriminación natural se añadió el odio racial.

Guerrillas como el KKK y otros surgieron de los veteranos de las tropas confederadas, los sureños lograron con los años, volver a tomar las riendas de sus territorios, y establecieron lo que consideraron la medida defensiva de las leyes Jim Crow de segregación al negro.

Eliminar este tipo de discriminación tomó generaciones y  muchas legislaciones y luchas, pero se logró, y esto es lo que quiere decir D´Souza con el fin del racismo, fue el fin del racismo del odio. Ya en el siglo XXI no existía el racismo de odio causado por la reconstrucción, solamente un remanente de prejuicios que también estaba desapareciendo.

El país eligió a un presidente negro, esto se suponía que era como ponerle la cubierta de merengue al cake del fin del racismo.

Pero tocó el negro equivocado, y Obama con su alianza a otros negros que usan la inexistente discriminación como un medio de protagonismo político, ha creado una nueva discriminación de odio que cada día se hace mayor.

El trabajo que hizo Martin Luther King, que sin lugar a dudas con sus defectos personales, fue extraordinario, desaparece bajo los nuevos “carpetbaggers” de nuestra época.

La historia se repite, y surgirán los movimientos racistas como un contragolpe a la utilización de los negros para humillar a los blancos y sus instituciones como en el caso de la policía, repitiéndose los errores de la reconstrucción.

Debíamos aprender de los errores de la historia, pero nosotros los cubanos mejor que nadie sabemos que nadie aprendió de nuestros errores. Latinoamérica se encuentra bajo el sistema que destruyó a Cuba, ellos lo escogieron pensando que era lo mejor para ellos.

Los “carpetbaggers” de esta época no aprendieron de los de la reconstrucción, pero inevitablemente el resultado será el mismo, y veremos una nueva segregación, quizás en una forma más sofisticada, pero nada bueno para los negros. 

Mientras tanto, voy esta noche a oir el discurso del “Carpetbagger” en jefe, a ver cuanto me quiere cobrar para castigarme por haberme ganado mi dinero honradamente, para distribuirlo entre otros que lo ayuden en su agenda.  La historia se repite.

 

 

Buque espía ruso llega a Cuba un día antes del diálogo con Estados Unidos

gelomeusa@yahoo.com

http://www.cubanet.org/noticias/buque-espia-ruso-llega-a-cuba-un-dia-antes-del-dialogo-con-estados-unidos/

 

 Anticipando al Discurso de Obama

Podemos hablar del discurso de Obama que dará esta noche, porque ya sabemos lo que hablará.

Mejor dicho sabemos de lo que no hablará mucho y de lo que va a hablar mucho.

Hablará muy poco de como protegerá a la nación contra el terrorismo, y hablará mucho de su versión de la distribución de la riqueza.

Lo único bueno de esta parte del discurso es que todo lo que hablará sobre el aumento de los impuestos será paja seca. 

Nunca será aprobada ni siquiera por los demócratas.

¿Entonces por qué pierde su tiempo?  No, realmente no está perdiendo su tiempo.

Primero porque está ocupando el tiempo de su discurso para no tener que hablar del peligro islámico.  Después porque sirve de adoctrinamiento sobre la distribución de la riqueza-

Sonará muy agradable a algunos oídos la dulce retórica de una distribución que no será tal porque será protección de los ricos de las grandes corporaciones y extorsión de las pequeñas corporaciones que afectarán los trabajos y salarios de la clase media- Pero cumplirá con el adoctrinamiento socialista siempre existente en el discurso de Obama.

Nos dirá que va a poner impuestos en los ricos para ayudar a lo que él llama la clase media.

¿Pero qué cosa es clase media en los Estados Unidos?  Siempre en este país se ha considerado clase media a los pequeños comerciantes. Siempre se ha aceptado que los pequeños negocios son la médula de la espina dorsal de la nación, por eso se han protegido, por eso se establecieron corporaciones especiales para los pequeños negocios llamados Corporations S. 

Estas empresas se denominan “pass-through” empresas porque sus ingresos se pasan a sus propietarios, donde se grava la tasa impositiva individual en lugar de corporativo.

Pero poco a poco se ha atacado a estas empresas. Actualmente, combinado con impuestos sobre la renta estatal, muchos negocios rentables passthrough están enviando más de la mitad de sus ingresos al gobierno cada año.

Mayor impuestos a las herencias y ganancias de capital sólo agregarían a esta carga.

Y esto es lo que hará Obama, y muchos dirán, bueno son ricos, que paguen, que tienen bastante.

La idea de que estos dueños de negocios no son clase media, pero ricos, se debe a la percepción de la mayoría de lo que es rico y clase media.  

Lo podemos apreciar a nivel de las tiendas al detalle que son las que tienen mayor visibilidad al hombre común. 

Las grandes tiendas locales, como las Farmacias Navarro y los Mercados Sedanos, tienden a ser considerados como grandes negocios, y sus dueños, antes de que Navarro vendiera a CVS, como ricos por el hombre de a pie. 

Pero en el mundo corporativo de los Walgreen, WalMart, CVS y otros, no son nada más que unos pequeños negocios locales-

Similarmente, a nivel de industrias y distribución, hay otras empresas de Corporaciones S, que emplean a desde 50 a 1000 empleados que también muchos consideran a sus dueños como ricos, pero estos negocios que son pequeños comparados con las grandes corporaciones, pero combinados, son mayores empleadores y pagan más impuestos que las grandes empresas corporativas multinacionales.

Paradojicamente, estos pequeños negocios son los que Obama va a cargar con los nuevos impuestos.

Estas tasas de impuestos excesivos son un ataque directo contra nuestros creadores de trabajo más eficaces.

Según la Fundación de impuestos, las empresas passthrough —Corporaciones S, asociaciones y los propietarios únicos — emplean a la mayoría de los trabajadores estadounidenses y contribuyen con la mayoría de los ingresos de negocios para la economía nacional. Aún las preocupaciones sobre las tasas impositivas, dañando su capacidad para contratar a los trabajadores e invertir en nuevos equipos son en gran parte ignoradas o saludadas discretamente, algo como encogerse de hombros y una admisión condescendiente por lo políticos con una que otra frase de que “hagamos algo para pequeñas empresas.” Claro los mayores contribuyentes a sus campañas son las grandes corporaciones no los pequeños negocios.

Son los pequeños negocios, no las grandes corporaciones los que en la suma total emplean más personas en el país. En su discurso del estado de la Unión esta noche, Obama propondrá fuertes incrementos en los impuestos a las herencias y ganancias de capital a su lista de deseos de reformas destinadas a ayudar a la “clase media”. En realidad, sin embargo, estas medidas harían daño a la clase media mediante el aumento de la carga fiscal ya pesado de muchos empleadores.

El Presidente ha pedido acertadamente una menor tasa de impuesto sobre Corporaciones C pero propone un nuevo aumento de impuestos otra capa tras las otras en los negocios de corporaciones S.

Durante años América corporativa correctamente ha argumentado que el 35% superior corporativa impuesto tasa — el más alto en el mundo — lo pone en desventaja global. Pero lo más probable es la exitosa sociedad o corporación S por la calle paga impuestos federales a un ritmo aún mayor: casi el 45% en algunos casos.

Peor aún, para ayudar a compensar el costo de la tasa de corte en las corporaciones C, la administración tiene propuesto “ampliación de la base” para todas las empresas, incluyendo negocios de paso. Así las empresas Main Street terminaría pagando tasas impositivas más altas sobre una base más amplia de la renta.

A continuación les voy a pasar un artículo del Wall Street Journal de hoy.  Cuando leo un artículo, aunque me guste, nunca puedo decir que no tengo alguna diferencia de opinión.  En este artículo, cada palabra es como si estuvieran presentando mi pensamiento como si fuera yo mismo, como son mis inquietudes y mis problemas.  Lo que exponen es la verdad de lo que estamos sufriendo los que con nuestro trabajo hemos logrado un pequeño negocio, y que ahora no podemos ni siquiera pasárselo a nuestros hijos y nietos sin tenerle que dar una tajada de más del 50% al gobierno. 

Pero podemos pensar, yo no soy comerciante, así que no me importa, o podemos decir yo no soy una corporación S sino una gran corporación, así que no me importa, pero cuando te intenvengan tu empresa, cuando tengas que trabajar para el único empleador, el gobierno, entonces será demasiado tarde, y es tarde para decir que el socialismo es como el Romerillo.

 

Una vez El che le pregunto a Fidel…

¿Fidel crees tu que alguna vez volvamos a tener realciones con los yanquis.

La hiena de Biran se sonrio cinicamente y le respondio al Che:

Si y eso va a ha ser: Cuando El presidente de Los Estados Unidos sea un Negro y el Papa un Argentino como tu.

Gelome USA.

 

 

Gallup: Obama Plummets to Lowest Annual Approval Rating Ever

By John Blosser

With six years down and just two left in which to build a legacy, President Barack Obama has posted his lowest-ever average annual approval rating.
Gallup poll finds that Obama, in the one-year period between Jan. 20, 2014, and Monday, posted an approval average of just 42.6 percent.
During their sixth year in office, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon showed their lowest approval rating as well, with the sixth-year approval rating of every president since 1945 averaging just 45.5 percent, Politico notes. 

President George W. Bush tapped out the lowest at 37.3 percent, while President Bill Clinton scored an average approval of 63.8 percent, just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke Politico reports. Ronald Reagan, in his sixth year, averaged a 59.9 percent approval rating, Gallup reports.
Previously, Obama’s lowest yearly average came during the third year of his presidency, 44.4 percent, and his current yearly average is below last year’s average of 45.8 percent, Politico notes.
Obama gets slightly better news from Real Clear Politics, which lists him as averaging a 44.7 current approval rating, according to the site’s roundup of polls, which shows various polls giving him approval ratings ranging from a low of 38 percent, from Reuters, to a high of 48 percent, from Rasmussen Reports.
“President Obama certainly had a trying sixth year in office as he dealt with challenges abroad, such as the rise of Islamic militants in the Middle East, and faced continued partisan gridlock in trying to address key domestic issues,” Gallup commented.

“During the fall months, he registered some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency. That culminated with Republicans’ strong showing in the midterm elections, giving them solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
“But since that time, aided by falling unemployment, plummeting gas prices, and generally solid economic growth, as well as resurgent support from Hispanics, things have started to look up for Obama.”
Obama’s approval rating, The New York Times notes, has increased lately to 46 percent from around 42 percent right after the mid-term elections in November.
“It is a relatively small increase, but it is more impressive in the context of the unusual stability of Mr. Obama’s approval rating, which hovered between 42 and 44 percent for 15 consecutive months,” the Times notes.
“There is a well-established relationship between the pace of economic growth and a president’s approval ratings, and Mr. Obama is clearly benefiting from signs of accelerating economic growth,” the Times commented.
“The modest improvement in Mr. Obama’s standing suggests that the Republicans cannot count on an easy midterm-like victory if the economy continues to grow at a healthy pace.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/barack-obama-annual-approval-ratings/2015/01/20/id/619663/#ixzz3PTFf8r2A
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

 

Orrin Hatch Accuses Obama of ‘Class Warfare’

The Senate’s top tax law writer accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of undertaking “class warfare” with his plan to raise taxes on wealthier Americans to help the middle class.

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the proposals Obama is expected to set out in his State of the Union address on Tuesday evening would violate principles of simplicity and “revenue neutrality” that Hatch said are key to any real tax reform.

“This plan that we’ll hear about tonight appears to be more about redistribution, with added complexity, and class warfare, directed at job-creating small businesses, than about tax reform,” Hatch said in remarks prepared for delivery in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

He said this was “unfortunate, because we’re going to need real leadership from the White House – not just liberal talking points – if tax reform is going to be successful.”

Obama, a Democrat, will push a plan to increase taxes by $320 billion over 10 years on the wealthy by closing tax loopholes and imposing a fee on big financial firms. The money would be used to pay for an increase in benefits for the middle class.

Obama’s aim is to help those left behind by an economic revival taking hold six years into his tenure, which began with the president facing a crippling financial crisis.

The plan would need approval from Congress, which is controlled in both chambers by Republicans.

Hatch said he hoped Republicans could get Obama to reverse course, because his ideas would “be particularly damaging, undoing tax policies that have been successful in helping to expand the economy, promote savings, and create jobs.”

Hatch, however, said he was working on another priority that he shares with Obama – getting legislation passed to give trade deals a fast track through Congress.

Hatch said he was talking to Senate Democrats as well as lawmakers in the House of Representatives with the goal of introducing a bipartisan, bicameral bill on Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).

“My plan, therefore, is to move carefully but quickly to mark up (vote in committee on) a TPA bill,” he said. Hatch did not give a time frame but said he wanted to introduce a bill “that we can move in short order.”

He also urged Obama to be more “forward leaning” in urging members of his own party to support TPA. Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/hatch-obama-tax-hike/2015/01/20/id/619525/#ixzz3PTIkUZv2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

 

Fox News Producer Tried to Report From Inside Texas Muslim Convention. Take a Look at What Followed.

Oliver Darcy

Fox News producer Jesse Watters attempted to report from inside a Muslim conference that took place near Dallas, Texas, over the weekend, but was denied entry.

“Did you fill out the media form?” a man appearing to be an organizer asked Watters outside the ”Stand With the Prophet” event.

“Yeah, I filled out the media form and I bought tickets too, personally,” the Fox News producer replied. “And now they’re saying I can’t go in.”

“There’s a certain type of media allowed,” the man replied to Watters.

“I thought this was supposed to be open press and I came all the way down here from New York,” Watters countered as the man walked away.

Image source: Screen grab via Fox News

Seeking to get more answers about why Fox News couldn’t enter a conference center owned by a local school district, Watters spoke with a police officer.

“They can’t ban us from being a conference center,” he said. “They don’t own the conference center.”

“They rented it out,” the unidentified officer replied.

After appearing to report outside the conference center for hours, Watters reported that organizers eventually told him they “specifically barred ‘The O’Reilly Factor’ from coming inside.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01/19/fox-news-producer-tried-to-report-from-inside-texas-muslim-convention-take-a-look-at-what-followed/

 

 

 

Tax Reform Should Go Right Down Main Street

Large firms need relief, but smaller enterprises vital to the economy are often hit even harder.

By BRIAN REARDON And  TOM NICHOLS

Jan. 19, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Obama will add steep increases in capital-gains and death taxes to his wish list of reforms designed to help the “middle class.” In reality, however, such steps would hurt the middle class by increasing the already heavy tax burden of many employers.

The president has rightly called for a lower corporate tax rate even as he proposes to layer one new tax hike after another on Main Street businesses. As negotiations commence with the new Republican-controlled Congress, there’s still hope for pro-growth tax reform, but only if Main Street businesses are brought in and made equal partners with larger corporations.

For years corporate America has correctly argued that the 35% top corporate tax rate—the highest in the world—puts it at a global disadvantage. But chances are the successful partnership or S corporation down the street pays federal income taxes at an even higher rate—nearly 45% in some cases.

These enterprises are called “pass-through” businesses because their income is passed through to their owners, where it is taxed at the individual rather than corporate tax rate. Combined with state income taxes, many profitable pass-through businesses are sending more than half their income to the government every year. Higher capital-gains and death taxes would only add to this burden.

These excessive tax rates are a direct assault on our most effective job creators. According to the Tax Foundation, pass-through businesses—sole proprietorships, partnerships and S corps—employ the majority of U.S. workers and contribute the majority of business income to the national economy. Yet concerns about tax rates hurting their ability to hire workers and invest in new equipment are largely ignored or waved off with a shrug and a condescending admission that we should “do something for small business.”The Obama administration’s 2012 corporate tax-reform plan is an example of this neglect. The administration proposes to lower marginal rates on C corps only. S corps and partnerships would continue to pay top marginal rates in excess of 40%, while C corps would pay rates as low as 25%.

In place of lower rates, the administration offers pass-through businesses higher limits on expensing and cash accounting. Helpful provisions to be sure, but provisions that apply to some businesses only and whose benefits are marginal compared with lower rates.

Worse, to help offset the cost of the rate cut on C corporations, the administration has proposed “broadening the base” for all businesses, including pass-through businesses. So Main Street businesses would end up paying higher tax rates on a broader base of income.

From 2003 to 2012, American businesses paid a top rate of 35% regardless of how they were organized. In January 2013, the “fiscal cliff” deal allowed the top individual rate to rise to 39.6% from 35%. Meanwhile, health-care reform hiked payroll taxes and enacted a new investment surtax, both of which can apply to income earned from pass-through businesses.

These changes have the owners of many proprietorships, S corps and partnerships paying tax rates nearly 10 percentage points higher than most C corps.The Obama administration’s plan would substantially increase this rate disparity. Instead, tax reform should re-establish rate parity and lower top marginal tax rates on all businesses.

The double taxation of corporate income must also be addressed. Shareholder-level taxes raise the cost of hiring and investing, while imposing a second layer of tax on the same income encourages all sorts of economically harmful behaviors, including creating a strong incentive for corporations to take on too much debt. If tax reform is to be real reform, it must focus on reducing or, better yet, eliminating the double corporate tax.

Businesses can’t prosper if they are forced to send too much of their income to the government (effective rates), and they avoid taking risks and hiring new workers if each new investment faces an even larger tax bite (marginal rates). Lower effective and marginal rates are crucial to growth, which is why tax reform should combine lower top tax rates for all business structures with a single layer of tax.

Done correctly, tax reform would reduce the marginal tax on new investments while leveling the tax burden paid by businesses of all types and across all industries. To accomplish this, however, Main Street businesses will need to be full participants in the plan. 

Mr. Reardon is president of the S Corporation Association. Mr. Nichols, an attorney, is a former chairman of the American Bar Association Tax Section Committee on S Corporations.

 

 

Liberal Healthcare Group Wants To Provide Healthcare To Undocumented Immigrants And Expand Dental Coverage For All

“Healthcare 2.0” proposal released by FamiliesUSA.

    

IMAGE: HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/33316/78CA689B2BD8CB8C1950E450B02D00CD-BPTHUMB.JPG

JAMES BEATTIE 

image: http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Illegals.jpg

On Monday, a liberal advocacy organization laid out a plan to strengthen the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) – colloquially known as Obamacare – that includes expanding Medicaid to low-income adults in every state, providing health insurance to undocumented immigrants, and giving universal dental coverage to every adult.

FamiliesUSA, an advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. rolled out Healthcare 2.0 Monday. In a blog post, executive director Ron Pollack outlines its four objectives:

 Securing health coverage for all

  1. Ensuring that health coverage means access to needed care
  2. Transforming our healthcare system to provide care that is appropriate, highest in quality, equitable, and patient-centered
  3. Reducing healthcare costs and making care more affordable

“Expanding to low-income adults in all states” was the first of 19 points outlined in the FamiliesUSA document. “Despite generous federal funding 23 states have not yet implemented the ACA’s Medicaid expansion for adults with incomes up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level.” it says.

This has left millions of low-income individuals and families with no coverage options. Many of these people cannot get job based coverage, either because it is not offered to them or because it is too expensive. And people with incomes below the federal poverty level cannot get tax credits that make private coverage much more affordable.

States must extend the medicaid lifeline so that all low-income individuals and families can get the care they need.

Another point in HealthCare 2.0 is extending coverage to undocumented immigrants. “At a time when Congress refuses to consider pathways to citizenship and scorns administrative proposals that would enable people to stay in the country, practical proposals to secure health coverage for immigrants are elusive,” the proposal states.

“However, immigrants – who often fill key jobs that disproportionately place them in harm’s way – should be able to obtain necessary health care.”

FamiliesUSA is also arguing for universal dental care, noting that dental coverage was made a required benefit for children’s plans, but not for adults. “To ensure that affordable dental coverage is available regardless of age, Congress should require all public programs (including Medicare and Medicaid) and private health plans in the health insurance marketplaces to cover adult dental care,” according to Healthcare 2.0.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/liberal-healthcare-group-wants-provide-healthcare-undocumented-immigrants-expand-dental-coverage/#Z7suryHcVm8ZtmzZ.99

 

 

Ted Cruz: Obama Presided Over An Assault On The American Dream

He also stressed the need for a strong conservative to represent Republicans in the 2016 presidential race.

IMAGE: HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/3289/3DA321B9693559DBB826187F825667C8-BPTHUMB.JPG

  1. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

As one of the speakers at this week’s South Carolina Tea Party Convention, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz indicted the Obama administration for its perceived assault on the American dream. The tea party favorite explained to a receptive crowd that the next generation of Americans is likely to lose hope that hard work and commitment will lead to personal advancement and success.

“The central challenge facing this country right now is that for millions of Americans, the American dream seems to be slipping away,” he said.

Cruz went on to cite recent surveys backing up his assertion. As Western Journalism reported last year, polling indicates about 60 percent of Americans now define the American dream as unattainable. An even greater majority believe children today will grow up to be worse off than their parents.

A subsequent survey found more than three out of four respondents believe the next generation will be less successful than they are.

“You know,” he continued, “today for the first time in our country’s history, a majority of Americans believe our kids will have a worse life than we did.”

He affirmed that such a sentiment “has never been true in over 200 years of our nation’s history until right now.”

Cruz further criticized the Obama administration’s foreign policy, stating that “America’s leadership in the world” has been damaged as a result.

“The Obama-Clinton foreign policy of leading from behind is a disaster.”

During the same address, Cruz, who has yet to announce whether he will seek the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential race, did weigh in on what the ultimate candidate will need to win in a general election.

“If we nominate another candidate in the mold of a Bob Dole or a John McCain or a Mitt Romney,” he cautioned, “all of whom are good, honorable, decent men, the same people who stayed home in ’08 and ’12 will stay home in 2016 and the Democrats will win again.”

Instead, he urged conservatives to back a candidate who shares their views.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/ted-cruz-obama-presided-assault-american-dream/#rbabzYhoeVVPBxmI.99

 

 

 

The European Union, Nationalism and the Crisis of Europe

Geopolitical Weekly

January 20, 2015 | 09:00 GMT Print Text Size

Stratfor

By George Friedman

Last week, I wrote about the crisis of Islamic radicalism and the problem of European nationalism. This week’s events give me the opportunity to address the question of European nationalism again, this time from the standpoint of the European Union and the European Central Bank, using a term that only an economist could invent: “quantitative easing.”

European media has been flooded for the past week with leaks about the European Central Bank’s forthcoming plan to stimulate the faltering European economy by implementing quantitative easing. First carried by Der Spiegel and then picked up by other media, the story has not been denied by anyone at the bank nor any senior European official. We can therefore call this an official leak, because it lets everyone know what is coming before an official announcement is made later in the week.

The plan is an attempt to spur economic activity in Europe by increasing the amount of money available. It calls for governments to increase their borrowing for various projects designed to increase growth and decrease unemployment. Rather than selling the bonds on the open market, a move that would trigger a rise in interest rates, the bonds are sold to the central banks of Eurozone member states, which have the ability to print new money. The money is then sent to the treasury. With more money flowing through the system, recessions driven by a lack of capital are relieved. This is why the measure is called quantitative easing.

The United States did this in 2008. In addition to government debt, the Federal Reserve also bought corporate debt. The hyperinflation that some had feared would result from the move never materialized, and the U.S. economy hit a 5 percent growth rate in the third quarter of last year. The Europeans chose not to pursue this route, and as a result, the European economy is, at best, languishing. Now the Europeans will begin such a program — several years after the Americans did — in the hopes of moving things forward again.

The European strategy is vitally different, however. The Federal Reserve printed the money and bought the cash. The European Central Bank will also print the money, but each Eurozone country’s individual national bank will do the purchasing, and each will be allowed only to buy the debt of its own government. The reason for this decision reveals much about Europe’s real crisis, which is not so much economic (although it is certainly economic) as it is political and social — and ultimately cultural and moral.

The recent leaks have made it clear the European Central Bank is implementing quantitative easing in this way because many Eurozone governments are unable to pay their sovereign debt. European countries do not want to cover each other’s shortfalls, either directly or by exposing the central bank to losses, a move that would make all members liable. In particular, Berlin does not want to be in a position where a series of defaults could cripple Europe as a whole and therefore cripple Germany. This is why the country has resisted quantitative easing, even in the face of depressions in Southern Europe, recessions elsewhere and contractions in demand for German products that have driven German economic growth downward. Berlin preferred those outcomes to the risk of becoming liable for the defaults of other countries.

The major negotiation over this shift took place between European Central Bank head Mario Draghi and German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Draghi realized that if quantitative easing was not done, Europe’s economy could crumble. While Merkel is responsible for the fate of Germany, not Europe, she also needs a viable free trade zone in Europe because Germany exports more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product. The country cannot stand to lose free access to Europe’s markets because of plunging demand, but it will not underwrite Europe’s debt. The two leaders compromised by agreeing to have the central bank print the money and give it to the national banks on a formula that has yet to be determined — and then it is every man for himself.

The European Central Bank is providing the mechanism for stimulating Europe’s economy, while the Eurozone member states will assume the responsibility for stimulating it — and living with the consequences of failure. It is as if the Federal Reserve were to print money and give some to each state so that New York could buy its own debt and not become exposed to California’s casual ways. The strangeness of the plan rests in the strangeness of the European experiment. California and New York share a common fate as part of the United States. While Germany and Greece are both part of the European Union, they do not and will not share a common fate. If they do not share a common fate, then what exactly is the purpose of the European Union? It was never supposed to be about “the pursuit of happiness,” but instead about “peace and prosperity.” The promise is the not right to pursue, but the right to have. That is a huge difference.

The anthem of the European Union is from Beethoven’s 9th Symphony, which contains these lines from the German poet Friedrich Schiller:

Joy, beautiful sparkle of the gods,

Daughter of Elysium,

We enter, fire-drunk,

Heavenly one, your shrine.

Your magic binds again

What custom has strictly parted.

All men become brothers

Where your tender wing lingers.

I wrote in my new book, Flashpoint: The Coming Crisis in Europe, that Europe is about:

“…the joy of joining men into a single brotherhood, overcoming the divisions of mere custom. Then there would be joy. Brotherhood means shared fate. If all that binds you is peace and prosperity, then that must never depart. If some become poor and others rich, if some go to war and others don’t, then where is the shared fate?”

A Crisis of Brotherhood

Europe’s crisis is not ultimately an economic one. Everyone — families and nations — has economic problems. The crisis is not war, which tragically is as common as poverty. Europe’s problem is that it promised a joy beyond custom, a joy yielding brotherhood and abolishing war, and a promise based on prosperity, which is a promise so vast it is beyond anyone’s hope to make perpetual. Neither perpetual peace nor perpetual prosperity can be guaranteed; therefore, the joy that would overcome custom and bind men in brotherhood is a base of sand.

In the European Central Bank’s compromise with Germany, we can see not only the base of sand dissolving but also the brotherhood of Europe falling apart. At the heart of this promise is the idea that Germany will not share the fate of Greece, nor France the fate of Italy. In the end, these are different nations. Their customs can be overcome by the joy uniting them in brotherhood, but absent that joy, absent peace and prosperity, there is nothing binding them together.

The test of the American Republic came when the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights was juxtaposed with the brutishness of slavery. Prior to the revolution, these United States were divided into sovereignties so profound that many states saw themselves as individual nations not bound by the promises of the Declaration of Independence. They believed themselves free to withdraw from the federation if displeased by others’ moral interpretations of the Declaration. What ensued was the Civil War, which was fought, as Abraham Lincoln put it, to test whether a nation so constituted could long endure.

That is precisely the question of the European Union. Can an entity, founded on nations of wildly different customs, expectations and economies long endure and share a common fate? In the dry technicalities of quantitative easing, Europe has defined its limits of brotherhood. One of those limits is prosperity. Each nation determines how it will plot its own course, its money distributed by the European Central Bank, but under the rules of the individual states and without any nation being compelled to share the fate of another. The euro is a common currency that has no one’s picture on the front because the histories of Eurozone countries are so divided that there are no common heroes. The United States knows that Washington, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson, Grant and Franklin are our common heritage. There is no such commonality in Europe, and, therefore, no transcendence of the customs of nations.

The strategy proposed for quantitative easing is a great compromise, and it may solve the economic problem. But at its first test, hardly on the order of slavery and the American Civil War, Europe has failed a more profound test: brotherhood, which is men bound together by a joy-transcending culture.

Some will say that I am making too much over a useful political compromise — that the basic institutions of Europe remain, and we therefore have a useful solution to the problem. I think this argument misses the deeper point. Europe never expected to face this crisis because it thought peace and prosperity would endure. It has not because it could not. Quantitative easing is not merely the desire to avoid responsibility for prosperity. There is no unity in Europe over the fears of Romania or Russia about Ukraine. There is no real unity over how to face terrorism in the name of Islam. There is simply no unity.

If Europe can parse the common search for prosperity in this way and calmly consider the secession of one of the brotherhood, Greece, over malfeasance far from terrible on the order of human things, then what is to keep any of the Europe’s institutions intact? If you can secede or be expelled from the Eurozone, and if you might choose to close your border to Slovaks, seeking jobs in Denmark, then perhaps you can choose to close your borders to German products. And if that is possible, then what is the fate of Germany, which relies on its ability to sell its goods anywhere in Europe? After all, it is not only the poor and weak in Europe whose fates are at risk.

In the end, Europe becomes not so much a moral project as it does a convenience, a treaty, which is something a country can leave at, will if it is in its interest to do so. When the South seceded from the United States, Northern men were prepared to die to preserve the Union. Is there anyone who would give his life to preserve the European Union, block secession and demand a permanent, shared fate?

I predicted that a decisive moment would arrive in Europe, but the speed at which it did surprised me. I expect that its institutions will survive a while, and I expect that most people will think I am overreacting. That is possible, but I do not think so. Regardless of the technical and political purpose behind the decision to implement quantitative easing, and however defensible it is on its own grounds, the moral lesson is that Europe ultimately is a continent, not an idea.

Last week, the question was why Europe found it so difficult to assimilate immigrants and why it resorted to multiculturalism. The answer was that the customs of the nation-state made it impossible to imagine someone born outside the customs of the nation-state to truly become part of its brotherhood. This week, the question is why the European Central Bank cannot distribute the money it prints but will give it to national banks to manage. The answer is that no country wants to be responsible for the debts of anyone else in Europe. That is not a foolish position, but it makes a union impossible, certainly not one that can overcome custom.

In Flashpoints, I wrote the following:

“We are now living through Europe’s test. As all human institutions do, the European Union is going through a time of intense problems, mostly economic for the moment. The European Union was founded for “peace and prosperity.” If prosperity disappears, or disappears in some nations, what happens to peace? That is what this book is about. It is partly about the sense of European exceptionalism, the idea that they have solved the problems of peace and prosperity that the rest of the world has not.”

But if Europe is not exceptional and is in trouble, what comes next? The history of Europe should give us no comfort.

Editor’s NoteThe newest book by Stratfor chairman and founder George Friedman, Flashpoints: The Emerging Crisis in Europe will be released Jan. 27. It is now available for pre-order.

 

Read more: The European Union, Nationalism and the Crisis of Europe | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook

 

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

3044 S.W. 27 Ave

 

 

 

Reporte conversaciones congresistas/disidentes en CUBA

Gatria@aol.com

EXTRACTO DEL INFORME DE MARTHA BEATRIZ ROQUE CABELLO SOBRE LA REUNION DE DISIDENTES CON CONGRESISTAS NORTE-AMERICANOS .

La reunion de 4 senadores y 2 congresistas con 12 disidentes cubanos se efectuó el pasadoDomingo 18 de enero en la casa del Jefe de la Sección de Intereses de EU., en Cuba. Esta reunion comenzó a las 4 de la tarde y terminó un poco después de las 6 pm. Por la parte Americana estuvieron presents los senadores demócatas: Patrick Leahy (Vermont); Debbie Stabenow(Michigan); Richard Durbin(Illinois) y Sheldon Whitehouse(Rhode Island).

Por la oposición: Antonio G. Rodiles, Berta Soler, Eliécer Åvila, Elezardo Sánchez, Héctor Maseda, José Daniel Ferrer, Laritza Diversent, Manuel Cuesta Morúa, Miriam Celaya, Miriam Leyva, Yoani Sánchez y Martha Beatriz Roque Cabello. Los disidente expresaron sus criterios y en algunas ocasiones surgieron preguntas de los congresistas que fueron repondidas.

Para todos quedo bien claro que las opinions con respect a las medidas del Presidente Obama, no tienen consenso en la oposición. Hay quienes no están de acuerdo con ese paso diplomáticoy así l hicieron saber; otros que consideran que es algo bien hecho y un tercer grupo no opinó al respect.

Lo que ha causado mucha molestia en la oposición es la excarcelación de los presos. Casi el 30% de los de la lista habian salido de prisión antes de que se anunciara que iban a ser “liberados”.

Por mi parte deje claro que estas conversaciones comenzaron con el Pie Izquierdo, falta de transparencia y sobre todo sin permitir que la sociedad civil participara. Es dificil saber con exactitude la cantidad de presos ya que a lo largo del país hay muchos que ni siguiera han ido a juicio y ya llevan hasta 4 años presos por Peligrosidaad Predelictiva que es lo mismo decir que no cometieron ningún delito, pero están presos “ Por Si Acaso “.

Poco lograrán hacer los que nos visitaron , incluso cuando se van sabiendo que no todos estánde acuerdo. “este es un problema de la nación cubana”. Si el Gobierno de los EU. Comete los mismos errors con los que se ha empezado todo este proceso, estará DESTINADO AL FRACASO TOTAL.

 

 

 “En mi opinión”

No 854  Enero 21, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

http://enmiopinionlazarorgonzalez.blogspot.com/

No 853 “En mi opinion” Enero 20, 2015

enero 20, 2015

No 853 “En mi opinion” Enero 20, 2015.

No 852 “En mi opinion” Enero 19, 2015

enero 19, 2015

No 852 “En mi opinion” Enero 19, 2015.

No 852 “En mi opinion” Enero 19, 2015

enero 19, 2015

No 852 “En mi opinión”  Enero 19, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

Amenper: Martin Luther King

No les voy a hacer como los demócratas, que durante su vida atacaban a Ronald Reagan virulentamente y se burlaban de él y ahora hablan sus grandezas como si hubieran sido sus colaboradores.

Yo nunca fui un admirador completo de Martin Luther King.  Tuve un pensamiento mixto en cuanto a su persona y a su gestión pública. 

Creo que Martin Luther King, cómo lo dijo y probó con fotos y documentación Edgar Hoover, fue un simpatizante comunista. 

Puede haberse arrepentido y puede haber cambiado sus simpatías, pero donde hubo fuego, cenizas quedan. 

Y King enseño sus cenizas muchas veces, en cuanto a diferentes declaraciones económicas y sobre dodo en cuanto a la guerra de Vietnam.

Dicho esto, considerando el contexto de la historia, le debemos a Martin Luther King, que fue una bendición el tener alguien que con una filosofía pacifista fuera el líder del movimiento para acabar la desgracia de la segregación que era una situación embarazosa domésticamente y sobre todo ante el mundo.  

Si no hubiera sido por Matin Luther King, el cambio hubiera podido ser violento y muy sangriento.

Sin en vez de haber tomado el control del núcleo del movimiento King, este hubiera sido dirigido por las panteras negras y la nación islámica del Honorable Ministro Louis Farachan, ¿Se imaginan lo que hubiese sucedido?.  Los primeros querían matar a todos los blancos, los segundos dividir los Estados Unidos en dos naciones, una de negros seguidores del Islam y otra de blancos infieles. Es triste pensar que todavía están entre nosotros, apoyados y apoyando a elementos de la presente administración.

Martin Luther King luchó contra estos grupos violentos, que lo amenazaron de muerte muchas veces, y que quizás fueron un elemento en su muerte, aunque no es políticamente correcto el pensarlo y mucho menos decirlo.

La lucha de King y su victoria, nos salvó de una guerra civil y con su habilidad política, la transición fue sin mayores problemas.

King era republicano, pero hay que realmente ver lo que eso significaba en el sur en aquellos tiempos. 

El negro no tenía más disyuntiva que ser republicano, los demócratas era el partido segregacionista. 

Pero según los demócratas del norte, los “Yankicrats”, comenzaron a moverse hacia la izquierda empezando con la administración de FDR, comenzó una lucha interna con los demócratas del sur, los “Dixiecrats”, sobre el problema de la segregación.

Cuando los líderes negros de ahora dicen que le deben el fin de la segregación a los demócratas, no saben o no quieren saberlo, que los demócratas eran los que tenían que terminar con la segregación porque era los que la sostenían. 

Cuando los Yankicrats tuvieron suficiente fuerza con Kennedy y Johnson, con la anuencia tácita y la colaboración de los republicanos, pudieron derrotar a los Dixiecrats y lograr la aprobación de la ley de los derechos civiles.

King hubiera podido ser el primer presidente negro.

 Esto nos hace preguntarnos cuál hubiera sido la diferencia con el primer presidente negro, mulato o musulmán, como quieran definir al actual mandatario.

King no lucho por la integración por motivos políticos, no aspiraba a un puesto político, nunca fue un candidato a un puesto público, su sincero objetivo era lograr la igualdad racial y terminar con la vergonzosa segregación. Eso hay que aceptarlo como una verdad evidente.

Obama usa el racismo como propaganda política, cada paso es para avanzar su agenda personal y la raza es simplemente un instrumento.

King se opuso a la violencia de las Panteras negras y de la nación del Islam, si hubiera sido presidente se hubiera opuesto a las manifestaciones violentas. La prueba es que su hijo ha apoyado con declaraciones a la policía y ha condenado la violencia en las últimas manifestaciones negras.

Obama usa las manifestaciones violentas para justificar sus políticas racistas y sus leyes de bienestar social dirigidas a crear la dependencia de los negros como bloque de votantes..

King no fue un pastor del tipo de Al Sharpton o Jesse Jackson, fue un pastor de iglesia, un clérigo de segunda generación, su padre fue también pastor,  y King fue graduado de una universidad con un doctorado en teología.  Se opuso a la loca idea de Farrakhan de que los negros son islámicos, dijo que aunque en algunas regiones negras existió la religión islámicas, la mayoría no lo era, y que los descendientes tienen una formación cristiana.

Que las iglesias cristianas son el origen cultural del negro americano.

Lo cual lo puede apreciar cualquiera  que haya visitado el sur rural, o que observe el origen de la música negra que viene de la música “gospel” de las iglesias negras.

Nunca he visto música popular negra que se haya originado de un cántico árabe.

Obama, bueno, para que tener que perder tiempo en explicarle sobre Obama y el Islam, ya todos ustedes lo saben, no ha que elaborar.

Nunca hubiera votado por King para presidente, si hubiera salido, creo que hubiera sido en primer presidente socialista, pero creo que hubiese sido mucho más moderado y mucho mejor que Obama. creo que como presidente, si lo comparamos con Obama hubiera sido como en su vida, el mejor de dos males.

En la comparación Obama sería la pantera negra islámica contra el moderado King. 

 

 

Amenper: 2 + 2 = 5

Que la Administración nos haya dicho que tomará todas las acciones ejecutivas que considere necesarias durante estos dos años con la mayoría republicana en ambas cámaras legislativas, y que ya lo está cumpliendo, nos hace pensar sobre, la cuestión central que es ¿hasta dónde puede ir?

El Senador Ted Cruz invoca a Cícero y llamó al Presidente “un monarca irresponsable que impone sus propias políticas desafiando al pueblo americano”; El líder de la mayoría John Boehner, dijo que “Obama Está actuando como… un dictador”.

Pero los dos años pasarán y no tendremos más a Obama, igual que posiblemente no tengamos más a Fidel Castro en Cuba. Pero realmente vamos a extrañarlos.

Los dictadores ya sean de la variedad totalitaria como Fidel Castro, o autoritaria como se está presentando la administración de Obama son una parte muy importante de la vida de todos. Incondicionalmente distribuyen incautan las riquezas de otras personas para administralas mejor,  aun cuando nadie realmente se lo pida, ni tengan una idea de donde se mete el dinero, y todo lo que quieren a cambio es nuestra aprobación y obediencia total.

Si estamos en casa, en el trabajo, o relajándonos con los amigos, nuestro querido dictador siempre está amablemente administrando nuestra vida, cada, en cada paso que damos, protegiéndonos de nuestras propias malas decisiones-

Nos explica con números como su gobierno ha enriquecido al país, ha bajado el desempleo.  Si los números do dan, pues simplemente se cambian los números.

Porque ¿Qué importancia tienen los números cuando pensamos en la salud mental de la nación?

No nos podemos sentir mal con las decisiones del gobierno.  No podemos dejarnos engañar por los pocos medios de comunicación que traten de decirnos lo contrario.

La frase “dos más dos es igual a cinco” (“2 + 2 = 5″) es un lema usado en muchas formas diferentes de los medios de comunicación, pero más específicamente en el libro 1984 de Orwell,  como un ejemplo de un dogma que un gobierno puede emplear.  Se contrasta con la frase ” dos más dos cuatro”, que puede parecer obvia (por definición) — pero políticamente inoportuna — así que ahora no es verdad.

El estado puede declarar “dos más dos es igual a cinco” como un hecho; por ley en el gobierno totalitario o por acción ejecutiva en el caso de Obama.

Reflexionen esto, si todo el mundo lo tiene que aceptar y los medios de comunicación dicen que es verdad, ¿No se convierte en algo verdadero?

El control del dictador sobre la realidad física y matemática, es importante; mientras uno controla sus propias percepciones hacia lo que quiere el partido, entonces cualquier acto corpóreo es posible, con arreglo a los principios de las disposiciones del gobierno.

Fidel Castro lo ha logrado por más de medio siglo, es posible y conveniente.

Pero inevitablemente, llega un momento para decir “Adiós”. La pérdida de un tirano deja un hueco enorme en nuestras vidas y el dolor puede ser abrumador.

¿Cómo vamos a sentirnos cuando las cosas sean cómo antes?  ¿Cuando se vuelva a las ideas arcaicas del pasado?

Por eso el partido demócrata no está muy conforme con Hillary Clinton, quieren alguien todavía más radicalmente socialista para podernos sentir bien con la continuación del poderoso gobierno federal.

¿Por qué vamos a aceptar de nuevo la noción cavernícola de que 2+2 son 4?

Hay que aceptar las cosas modernas que nos presentan nuestros líderes.

 

 

OBAMA BANNED THIS VIDEO – GEE, I WONDER WHY! it’s time to uncover the coverup impeach the imposter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5CsrTMZAhA

 

 

 

Jorge A. Villalón

Reverend Al Goes to Hollywood

I don’t know about you, but I think Al Sharpton gets a bad rap.

The guy can’t do anything without conservatives jumping all over him. Even when he does something clearly worthwhile, all he gets is grief from Whitey.

Take Sharpton’s latest attempt to make America a better place. He’s called for an “emergency meeting” to deal with the lack of diversity in Hollywood. Everybody knows Hollywood liberals hate black people but apparently, Al Sharpton is the only one who has the guts to say it out loud.

The issue is the Academy Awards, where each year beautiful white people get all dressed up and tell each other how wonderful they are. Turns out that all the nominees for best actor this year are white; all the nominees for best actress … white; all the nominees for best director – white again. In the past two decades, this has only happened one other time.

As Sharpton – President Obama’s go-to man on race — so elegantly put it: “”The movie industry is like the Rocky Mountains, the higher you get, the whiter it gets.” There are rumors that Sharpton soon will hold another “emergency meeting,” this time in Aspen, to deal with another issue involving diversity. The working title of the meeting is “Why the hell is snow always white?”

Sharpton might have called for an emergency meeting to deal with fatherlessness in Black America, where the out-of-wedlock birth rate is north of 70 percent. He might have called for an emergency meeting to deal with the disproportionately high number of black kids who drop out of high school. He might have called an emergency meeting to deal with black crime, whose victims are overwhelmingly black people.

But there are just so many hours in the day, so Al had to prioritize.  Memo to Whitey:  Lay off the Rev, a man who never lets an opportunity (to stoke racial tensions) go to waste.

– See more at: http://bernardgoldberg.com/reverend-al-strikes/?utm_source=BernardGoldberg.com+Newsletter&utm_campaign=77dfad1bcd-NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c1903183b6-77dfad1bcd-298423349#sthash.AUyZJgCF.dpuf

 

Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.

 

 

Amenper “La tuya”

Siempre en las disputas entre las personas, la respuesta a la ofensa verbal de mentar la madre, usualmente es contestada con la respuesta igualmente ofensiva de “la tuya”. 

La respuesta con un golpe hoy en día no ocurre muy a menudo, ya que la violencia siempre es condenada por la ley, al no ser que la persona haya sido agredida físicamente primero.

Las discusiones de todo tipo que llevan a veces en momento acalorado, a ofensas, son comunes sin que exista la violencia, esto es algo que el hombre ha logrado durante su evolución como ser civilizado.

Digo esto por un caso curioso en estos tiempos, sobre el caso del asesinato de unos caricaturistas satíricos, por unos musulmanes ofendidos por sus caricaturas.

El atentado que causó la muerte a los periodistas en Francia,  ha sido reivindicado por Al Qaeda, algunos medios de comunicación y otros líderes mundiales como algo que fue en protesta a una ofensa que no debiera de haber ocurrido. 

O sea que los asesinados son los culpables y los asesinos actuaron de una manera normal y esperada en respuesta a las ofensivas caricaturas que había difundido Charlie Hebdo sobre Mahoma y el Islam.

Pero lo que he leído hoy, colma el vaso del entendimiento.

Consultado por un periodista francés sobre el caso y su relación con la libertad de expresión, el Papa Francisco señaló que “no puedes provocar. No puedes insultar la fe de otros. No puedes burlarte de la fe” Tenemos la obligación de libremente tener esta libertad, pero sin ofender”. Si la libertad de expresión es usada para ofender, advirtió, uno puede esperar una reacción.

Francisco usó el ejemplo del Dr. Alberto Gasbarri, el organizador de los viajes papales, que estaba junto a él durante la conferencia de prensa. ”Es verdad que no puedes reaccionar violentamente. Pero, si el Dr. Gasbarri, mi gran amigo, dice algo contra mi madre, puede esperar un golpe. Es normal”. Aquellos que “giocatalizzano” o “hacen un juguete de la religión de otros… están provocando”, prosiguió Francisco.

Esta es una respuesta que yo hubiera podido esperar de un atorrante gaucho de las Pampas argentinas, que si le miento la madre, el gaucho me hubiera respondido con un golpe con una de esas boleadoras que usan en sus corridas para golpear al ganado o a sus enemigos en las peleas. 

Pero en un país civilizado si alguien te mienta tu madre, tienes que responderle verbalmente “La tuya” o lo que se te ocurra, porque dar un golpe sería una agresión condenable por la ley.

Pero eso no es sólo algo de la ley de los hombres, en su estancia en este mundo, según el evangelio de Lucas, dice que Jesús le dijo a sus discípulos

Oísteis que fue dicho: Ojo por ojo, y diente por diente.  Pero yo os digo: No resistáis al que es malo; antes, a cualquiera que te hiera en la mejilla derecha, vuélvele también la otra

El papa Francisco es el Pastor y guía de más de un billón de católicos romanos, la institución cristiana mayor del mundo.  Es considerado infalible en doctrina, y esto es un campo un poco frágil, porque cualquier cosa que diga el Papa, aunque no sea una doctrina tiene el valor de ser la persona que se supone que sea el representante de Dios en la Tierra.

¿Cómo puede un Papa olvidar una enseñanza cristiana y utilizar una costumbre gaucha para justificar un hecho criminal que tiene que ser condenado por Dios y por los hombres, cuanto más por el sumo pontífice?

Por otro lado, la respuesta a los asesinatos si puede y debe de tener respuesta, porque en Génesis lo afirma: “El que derramare sangre de hombre, por el hombre su sangre será derramada, porque a imagen de Dios es hecho el hombre.” Esto es lo que hubiera esperado oír decir al Papa.

La libertad de expresión solo puede ser limitada cuando se usa para crear un caos o una falsedad con una intención que pueda producir la muerte de otros.

Algo como gritar fuego en un local lleno de personas, o como la historia de Holanda en que se gritó que se rompió una represa y murieron personas en la estampida huyendo de la figurada inundación del pueblo.

En mi pueblo Sagua la Grande, también hubo personas que corrieron la noticia falsa que se había roto el dique del río Sagua, lo cual hubiera causado una inundación, pero gracias a Dios, no pasó nada.

No sé si sería porque no eran tantos los habitantes, o por la ecuanimidad y el entendimiento que guía la conducta de los Sagüeros.  Los Sagüeros no se excitan tan fácilmente, por ejemplo, cuando alguien hizo un escrito satírico diciendo que Barack Hussein Obama tenía raíces en Sagua la Grande, nadie amenazó al autor de esta sátira que hubiera podido considerarse ofensiva. Porque, dada la calidad de la persona de Obama, la sátira era una ofensa para la cuidad- Decir que Obama fuera Sagüero, era una ofensa para los otros nativos de Sagua. 

Entonces de acuerdo con el propio Obama, la prensa complaciente y hasta el Papa, los sagüeros tenían motivos para asesinar al autor de la sátira, que ya estuviera muerto. 

Pero Dios le ha conservado la vida sin ser asesinado, y espero que Dios le de mucha vida a ese difunto. Nada pasó porque los nativos de Sagua son personas civilizadas y no son capaces de matar a alguien por un escrito satírico que puediesen considerar ofensivo.

Cualquiera puede ser ofendido, pero la respuesta a una ofensa verbal de cualquier tipo no puede responderse ni con un golpe como dice el Papa o matando a una persona como hicieron los musulmanes en Francia.

Al Igual, Jesús predicó que la verdad nos hará libre, San Pablo dijo a los cristianos de Gálatas “Estad, pues, firmes en la libertad con que Cristo nos hizo libres, y no estéis otra vez sujetos al yugo de esclavitud.”

Los que sufrimos el yugo de la supresión de los derechos de expresión en Cuba, no podemos ni por un momento en considerar aceptable, ni siquiera discutible, la declaración Papal.

Pero lo que si esperamos es la respuesta de que los que derramaron la sangre de los hombres, por los hombres su sangre sea derramada en la misma abundancia con la que ellos derraman la sangre de otros.

 

Quiros: 8 DE ENERO DE 1959. LA PALOMA PROFETICA

El 8 de Enero de 1959 marco en la historia el dolor que ha sufrido el pueblo de Cuba a partir de ese momento. Fue en el Campamento Militar de Columbia, en La Habana, y allí hicieron alianza la mentira, la envidia, la represión y el odio para imponer el sistema que se nutre de toda esa gentuza: el marxismo.

Que lejos de pensar estaban los cubanos que aquel fatídico día,  aplaudían  delirantemente  promesas que jamás serian cumplidas. Castro prometía paz, justicia, libertad y respeto a las decisiones del pueblo.

Castro prometió respetar la Constitución de 1940 en su gobierno, promover elecciones libres en un corto periodo de tiempo y que él no tenía ambiciones personales de ningún tipo, a tal extremo, que en el ejército rebelde no había ningún grado superior al de Comandante; que el mismo, habiendo sido el que dirigió la guerra, no era general, sino que había sido nombrado por el Sr. Presidente, como Comandante en Jefe. Aclaro que entre los presentes no se encontraba Raúl, porque este, se encontraba en la Provincia de Oriente cumpliendo con su deber como jefe del Cuartel Moncada.

Mientras hablaba de la prometida paz, se le poso en el hombro una preciosa paloma blanca, todo el que estaba presente aplaudía por la coincidencia, la paloma es signo de paz. En este caso fue diferente, la paloma defeco sobre el uniforme del Comandante en Jefe, tal parece que le auguraba al pueblo lo que sería aquella revolución.

Mientras Fidel hablaba toda esta bazofia en La Habana, Raúl ya estaba asesinando sin juicios a los que consideraba contra-revolucionarios, después con la misma crueldad lo hizo sádicamente el Che Guevara y sucesivamente la matanza en el paredón de fusilamientos fue nacional hasta convertir la Isla  en un charco de sangre.

La única promesa que se ha cumplido en esa maldita revolución, ha sido la hecha por Fidel Castro en su guerra imaginaria contra los Estados Unidos, al asegurar que el día que los Estados Unidos invadieran la Isla, solamente iban a encontrar polvo. Esto es cierto, no ha necesitado ninguna guerra para que aquellas bellas ciudades, hoy se encuentren en ruinas y todo se ha convertido en polvo, basura y miseria.

Los hermanos Castro llegaron al poder a través de una guerrilla en la que ellos no pueden mostrar si quiera una cicatriz, no ya de un balazo, sino, ni un arañazo con un bejuco en el monte.

Llegaron al poder con el pretexto que derrocaban una dictadura de 7 años, una dictadura que no voy a defenderla en estos momentos, pero no existían las brigadas de respuesta rápida, ni los comités de barrio, ni ninguno de los cuerpos represivos que mantiene al pueblo amordazado.  Ellos en cambio ya llevan 56 años y cada día en lugar de mejorar, empeoran la situación para ese pueblo triste, silencioso y hambriento.

Como todos los regímenes marxistas, mantienen a los pueblos engañados  con estúpidas consignas y falsos argumentos. Cuba está en la miseria, pero en los 56 años de tiranía, LA FAMILIA CASTRO ha acumulado una fortuna, robándose  billones de dólares que le correspondían al pueblo, invertidos en corporaciones por diferentes países, utilizando testaferros que aun se arrastran como lame botas del amo opresor.

LA FAMILIA CASTRO ha disfrutado lo que anhelaba: Poder y Fortuna fáciles, ambos conocen el dolor y el luto que han causado sus antojos, ellos tienen la lista de los miles de mártires que hay por su maldita revolución y seguramente no les gustaría provocar la ira popular en un estallido de violencia civil por continuar la dinastía en el poder. La lista de mártires alcanzaría altos niveles.

Cuba ya está cansada, agobiada y humillada por el pisoteo sufrido a través de tantos años y de pie ante una trayectoria que se desconoce el desenlace final.

Cada pueblo es responsable de sus destinos, para exigir LIBERTAD, no hay que esperar la compasión de alguien. Hay muchos pueblos que tendrán que reclamar sus derechos porque cada día son más los gobernantes que humillan a sus naciones al convertirse ellos en caciques. ¿Es que la mayoría no cuenta?

Para Cuba ya es demasiado. En este momento crucial, cuando ya estén los diplomáticos acreditados, sería muy conveniente para la LIBERTAD, una buena demostración de descontento nacional con la obsoleta tiranía marxista rompiendo ordenadamente los carnets del partido y depositando los trajes de la milicia en la puerta de la Embajada, al mismo tiempo que portan banderas cubanas.

Ha llegado el momento que la Patria espera, İİİ LIBERTAD!!! İİİ LIBERTAD!!!  İİİ LIBERTAD!!!

 

Diego Quiros, Sr.

 

 

“La voz de Galicia Espana: Un grupo de congresistas estadounidenses llega por primera vez a Cuba.

La delegación oficial está encabezada por el senador Patrick Leahy, uno de los legisladores más activos en los temas de política exterior con la isla

EFE

Una delegación de congresistas demócratas de Estados Unidos ha llegado hoy a Cuba, en la primera visita de legisladores de ese país a la isla desde que el pasado 17 de diciembre se produjo el histórico anuncio del restablecimiento de relaciones entre La Habana y Washington.

El grupo está encabezado por el senador Patrick Leahy, uno de los legisladores más activos en los temas de política exterior con Cuba.

Leahy, al frente de otro grupo de congresistas, ya visitó la isla en febrero del 2013 para, entre otros, pedir la liberación de Alan Gross, el contratista norteamericano encarcelado allí y que fue liberado y devuelto a EEUU el 17 de diciembre de 2014, en virtud de los acuerdos para el restablecimiento de relaciones entre La Habana y Washington. En aquella visita de hace casi un año, estos legisladores fueron recibidos por el presidente cubano, Raúl Castro.

En esta ocasión, los congresistas tienen previsto pulsar tanto las expectativas estadounidenses como las cubanas con respecto al nuevo cambio de política y ayudar a desarrollar un mensaje concreto sobre lo que ambos países están dispuestos a hacer para lograr una relación constructiva.

Estos legisladores estarán hasta el próximo lunes en Cuba donde prevén reunirse con funcionarios del Gobierno cubano, con la Sección de Intereses de EEUU en la isla, así como con otras legaciones internacionales en suelo cubano, como las de España, México, Noruega y Colombia.

La delegación la completan los senadores Richard Durbin (Illinois), Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) y Sheldon Whitehouse (Rhode Island); junto a los representantes Chris Van Hollen (Maryland) y Peter Welch (Vermont).

Esta visita precede a la primera reunión que celebrarán la próxima semana en La Habana representantes de los gobiernos de Cuba y Estados Unidos para tratar sobre el restablecimiento de relaciones diplomáticas.

La secretaria de Estado para Latinoamérica, Roberta Jacobson, liderará la delegación diplomática estadounidense, que el día 21 celebrará con funcionarios de la isla una nueva ronda de diálogos migratorios. Será el jueves 22 cuando ambas partes comenzarán a discutir sobre los pasos para la normalización de relaciones diplomáticas entre dos países que han estado enemistados desde 1961.

La delegación cubana en esas conversaciones estará encabezada por la directora para EEUU del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores (Minrex), Josefina Vidal.

 

 

U.S. Supreme Court Considers Presidential Eligibility Requirement Case

The petition wants to ensure the proper entity is tasked with verifying a candidate’s qualifications.

IMAGE: HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/3289/3DA321B9693559DBB826187F825667C8-BPTHUMB.JPG

  1. CHRISTOPHER AGEE

image: http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2175936409_9160929c00_o-e1421257512730-1140×641.jpg

 

On behalf of former presidential candidates John Dummett and Ed Noonan, the U.S. Justice Foundation recently submitted a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court to determine what safeguards are constitutionally mandated in ensuring a candidate is qualified to run. The action is in response to two previous court rulings suggesting California’s secretary of state does not have a responsibility to verify a presidential candidate’s status as a natural born citizen.

The USJF petition cites the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II, Section 2, which says state legislatures are tasked with determining eligibility. Given the nation’s current electoral process, the court document holds these lawmakers must provide voters with a choice between candidates who meet constitutional requirements for the position they seek.

The petition chronicles the court history of the issue, including appeals court decisions the petitioners conclude were based on faulty logic. The appeal provides three reasons that, through the role of California’s chief elections officer, the secretary of state should be tasked with verifying a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

First, USJF argues that no sufficient pathway to challenging a candidate’s qualification exists on the federal level. The petition describes the arduous process needed to complete such a challenge through the U.S. Congress, concluding that since the remedy is “so limited in its scope, the question of whether a candidate for President is eligible for the office cannot be effectively address, much less resolved, under current constitutional or statutory law.”

That argument leads to the second point, namely that both the Electoral College and U.S. Congress lack any authority to determine a presidential candidate’s eligibility.

Finally, the petitioners contend that current statutes compelling the California secretary of state to place major political parties’ nominees on the state’s ballot is in direct conflict with the duty to comply with existing election laws.

In its conclusion, the petition asserts that the appellants represented “have demonstrated that questions of eligibility are not properly before any entity other than the court or the chief elections officer of the State of California” and “that the Secretary of State has a ministerial duty to verify a candidates [sic] eligibility.”


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/california-supreme-court-considers-presidential-eligibility-requirement-case/#LkrsRZef8gviBLtE.99

 

 

 

Up to 180 Sleeper Terrorists Prepping for Attacks

By Sandy Fitzgerald

Up to 20 sleeper cells comprising 120 to 180 people may be ready to strike targets in several European countries, intelligence source say in the wake of the discovery of an “imminent threat” of an attack in Belgium this week.
More than two dozen people with suspected ties to Islamic extremists were 
arrested in a sweep Friday,  and an unnamed Western intelligence source told CNN that as many as 20 sleeper cells are ready to strike targets in France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands.
“There is a tremendous amount of concern over sleeper cells in Europe,” said the official, who CNN reports has direct knowledge of the evolving situation.

Authorities are concerned about copycat attacks through Europe following the incidents that unfolded in Paris earlier this month, said the official, comparing the terror threat to a “slow-motion car accident happening right in front of us.”
Intelligence officers have been monitoring men who have returned to Europe after fighting in Syria, as it is believed the Islamic State group, also known as ISIS, has directed attacks to retaliate against airstrikes against its forces in Syria and Iraq, a senior European counterterrorism official said.
The United Kingdom, Belgium, the Netherlands, and France are all part of a U.S.-led coalition conducting airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.
On Friday, 17 suspected terrorists were arrested, with 13 captured in Belgium and the other four in France.
Meanwhile, it’s suspected that the accused Islamist terrorists involved in Thursday’s shootout with police in Belgium have links to terror cells throughout Europe, according to a senior counterterrorism source in Belgium. Further, two of the suspects killed are believed to have part of the ISIS forces in Syria.

The attacks at the office of Charlie Hebdo and other locations in Paris do not appear to have come from specific instructions beyond “go forward and do something,” the Western source told CNN.
It is also believed that Yemen’s turmoil is helping boost al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula’s (AQAP) recruitment, adding to the network the United States has described as
the most dangerous affiliate of the terrorists’ network.
But despite the threat, the Netherlands said Friday it will not raise its terror threat level, which is at “substantial,” the second-highest level.

“That means there is a realistic threat, but no concrete or specific information of an attack,” said government spokesman Edmond Messchaert Friday.
In Belgium, the current security level will remain for at least one month and will be evaluated to see if it needs to be modified, Prime Minister Charles Michel told CNN affiliate RTL.
“From the time we are confronted with an increase in the threat, we went to level 3 on a scale of 4; we must mobilize the resources available,” Michel told CNN.
Counterterrorism experts are still tracking people associated with brothers Said and Cherif
Kouachi and another man Amedy Coulibaly, who were killed after the Paris attacks.
Neetin Karasular, an accused Belgian weapons trafficker who reportedly met with Coulibaly’s widow, Hayat Boumeddiene, has been arrested, but his attorney claims his client was not picked up as part of the raids in Belgium.

Special: Seniors Scoop Up Unclaimed $20,500 Checks? (See If You Qualify)

Karasular was charged with association with wrongdoers and firearm offenses, in Charleroi, Belgium. But his attorney said the arrest was not connected to the other Belgian raids.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/sleeper-cells-threats-europe/2015/01/17/id/619194/#ixzz3PCNWVnpQ 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

For State of Union, Obama Faces GOP Congress for First Time

For the first time in his presidency, Barack Obama will stand before a Republican-led Congress to deliver his State of the Union address and try to convince lawmakers newly empowered to block his agenda that they should instead join with him on education, cyberprotection and national security proposals. 

With Obama firmly in the legacy-building phase, his address is expected to be as much about selling a story of U.S. economic revival as it is about outlining initiatives. The approach reflects the White House’s belief that it has been too cautious in promoting economic gains out of fear of looking tone deaf to the continued struggles of many Americans.

White House advisers have suggested that their restraint hindered Democrats in the November elections and helped Republicans take full control of Congress for the first time in eight years. But with hiring up and unemployment down, the president has been more assertive about the improving state of the economy in the new year and his prime-time address Tuesday will be his most high-profile platform for making that case.

“America’s resurgence is real, and we’re better positioned than any country on Earth to succeed in the 21st century,” Obama said Wednesday in Iowa, one of several trips he has made this month to preview the speech.

Tuesday is the second-to-last time Obama will take part in the pageantry of the annual presidential address to Congress and a televised audience of millions. By the time he stands before lawmakers next year, Americans will have begun voting in the primary campaigns that will determine his successor.

Mindful of Obama’s fading share of the spotlight, the White House has tried to build momentum for his address by rolling out, in advance, many of the proposals he will outline. Among them: making community college free for many students; ensuring paid sick leave for many workers; cutting the cost of mortgage insurance premiums for some home buyers; pressing for cybersecurity legislation in the wake of the hacking on Sony Pictures Entertainment, which the U.S. has blamed on North Korea.

Some proposals are retreads. Most stand a slim chance of getting congressional approval.

The real battle lines between Obama and the Republican-led Congress will be on matters long fought over.

Buoyed by their new majority, Republicans are moving forward on bills to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline, change Obama’s health care law and dismantle his executive orders on immigration. The White House has threatened vetoes.

Republicans say that’s a sign of a president who didn’t get the message from voters trying to relegate his party to minority status in the November election. New Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the president still has a chance to change his tone.

“Tuesday can be a new day,” McConnell said. “This can be the moment the president pivots to a positive posture, this can be a day when he promotes serious realistic reforms that focus on economic growth and don’t just spend more money we don’t have. We’re eager for him to do so.”

Obama isn’t expected to make any major foreign policy announcements. He is likely to urge lawmakers to stop the pursuit of new penalties against Iran while the U.S. and others are in the midst of nuclear negotiations with Tehran. In a news conference Friday, Obama said legislation threatening additional penalties could upend the delicate diplomacy.

“Congress should be aware that if this diplomatic solution fails, then the risks and likelihood that this ends up being at some point a military confrontation is heightened — and Congress will have to own that as well,” he said.

The president also is expected to cite his recent decision to normalize relations with Cuba, as well as defend the effectiveness of U.S. efforts to stop Russia’s provocations in Ukraine and conduct air strikes against Islamic State fighters in Iraq and Syria.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com 
http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-sotu-state-union/2015/01/17/id/619191/#ixzz3PCORhlHC 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed?
 Vote Here Now!

 

 

What The Lead Searcher Just Said About Missing Jet MH370 Brings The Mystery Back Into Focus

…despite the fact that there has been no sign of the jet and its hundreds of lost souls…

IMAGE: HTTP://WWW.WESTERNJOURNALISM.COM/WP-CONTENT/UPLOADS/AVATARS/31397/F6C9B4D7853ECD68E9F67127DF8C111A-BPTHUMB.JPG

NORVELL ROSE  

image: http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/missing-flight-MH370-1140×641.jpg

Questions about what caused the recent crash of AirAsia Flight 8501 may soon be answered as divers locate and recover more and more wreckage from the plane that crashed December 28th last year en route from Indonesia to Singapore.

In addition to the flight data recorder, search officials say they have located what appears to be the doomed plane’s fuselage, as well as the cockpit and an engine, according to a post at AOL.

But while the “whys” of that tragedy could be put to rest before long, the long-standing mystery continues for the other major jetliner that was lost in that part of the world.

Malaysia Airlines MH370 is still missing without a trace. And the effort to find the plane that disappeared on March 8, 2014 is still underway, with a fourth large vessel said to be joining the search of a 23,000 mile underwater area in the Indian Ocean.

The Daily Mail reports that despite the fact that there has been no sign of the jet and its hundreds of lost souls after an exhaustive air and sea operation, the official in charge of the search remains optimistic.

Missing airliner MH370 is ‘very likely’ to be found and is probably in good condition despite being submerged for ten months, according to the Australian leading the search.

Martin Dolan said he is confident of finding the aircraft – which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8 with 239 people on board – but admitted it would take a while.

Dolan explained that the deep-sea conditions where the sunken aircraft is likely resting would help preserve the wreckage.

The post by The Daily Mail added that the search chief expects the scan area will have been completely covered no later than May.

It’s interesting to note that the mapping of the search area has provided details of previously unknown underwater features and formations, including mountains, volcanoes, and deep ravines.

Western Journalism has carried a handful of posts on the mystery surrounding the disappearance of MH370 — posts that include a fair amount of speculation as people are still attempting to uncover the truth.

Our most recent feature on the flight concerned the belief of a former airline boss and current author who says the U.S. military shot down the plane because it flew unexpectedly close to a secret base on the island of Diego Garcia.


Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/lead-searcher-just-said-missing-jet-mh370-brings-mystery-back-focus/#UWLxbWzZaGLYIpQK.99

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

ADMIRALS, GENERALS, INTEL: BENGHAZI INQUEST COMPROMISED

‘I think Gowdy has been warned away or threatened’

 JEROME R. CORSI 

The independent Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi, or CCB, has been doing its own investigation and working behind the scenes for the past year and a half to make sure Congress does the job the executive branch has failed to do: namely, to get to the truth of what happened and to hold people accountable.

A major step forward took place last May when Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced the creation of a House Select Committee to investigate after about 190 House Republicans, under the leadership of then-Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., co-sponsored legislation for just such action.

The CCB’s members include former military commanders and Special Forces operatives; former CIA and intelligence officers; well-known experts in international terrorism; and experts in media and government affairs.

In exclusive interviews conducted with 11 of the 17 members of the commission, it is clear that while the CCB is still enthusiastic to work with Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, and hopeful that Boehner is serious about the investigation, various members of the CCB, speaking on their own behalf and not as spokesmen for the commission, are expressing concerns, wanting to make sure the Gowdy investigation is not compromised by elements within the GOP.

It was a lack of trust in the congressional investigation of Benghazi that prompted the formation of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi in 2013. The founding members of the CCB were U.S Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Navy four-star Adm. James Lyons, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (all retired) and Accuracy in Media Editor Roger Aronoff.

Vallely told WND that he believes Gowdy “has received much pressure not to get to the truth, and we are now coming to the conclusion that there is no longer any intention in Washington, by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican Parties, to get to the truth.”

“An honest investigation into Benghazi would prove treasonous acts at the very top of the White House and the State Department, and a continuing cover-up in Congress that now involves the Republican leadership and especially House Speaker John Boehner,” Vallely said.

Among the CCB’s most significant findings, released last April in an interim report, was that “the U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to Al Qaeda-linked rebels in Libya” and that “on the day of the attacks in Benghazi, whether or not there was an official order to stand down, the result was the same.’

“There were military assets, for example, at the U.S. base in Sigonella, in Sicily, Italy, that could have been brought to bear, and perhaps could have saved the lives of the two men killed at the CIA Annex, the scene of the second attack that night,” the report said. “The failure to attempt to rescue these Americans amounts to a dereliction of duty.”

The commission has found evidence that there was a stand-down order given to the security guards at the CIA annex after the attack began at the special mission compound, one mile away, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and information officer Sean Smith were killed.

The purpose of the mission in Benghazi appears to have involved a scheme managed by Stevens, first to supply weapons to al-Qaida-related groups and others who sought to overthrow Moammar Gadhafi and later to Syrian rebels.

Republican leaders are covering up the White House’s offenses, some commission members believe, because the White House made them aware of the gun-running and they gave assent to it.

Gowdy proceeding ‘at glacial speed’

Vallely explained that the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi was formed “after we saw all the stumbling and deception that was going on” with the initial round of Benghazi hearings held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013.

The commission, he said, meets every couple of weeks, and “we’ve gone in and investigated on our own, conducting interviews and uncovering facts.”

The other founding members of the commission share Vallely’s concern.

“Trey Gowdy’s Select Committee is proceeding at glacial speed,” said Lyons, former commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. “It is unclear where Gowdy is going, and the signs are not good.”

Aronoff believes that Gowdy might yet conduct a thorough investigation into Benghazi that would produce the trut and was encouraged by closed-door meetings that were held last week between the Select Committee and both the State Department and the Justice Department. But he also expressed some concerns.

“At the time Gowdy was picked, all of us were ecstatic,” Aronoff said. “Gowdy was the one guy that, if we were asked, the Citizens’ Commission would have said was the right guy.”

He said that after the first meeting of the House Select Committee, Gowdy was saying the right things, suggesting he would hold a public hearing within a month.

“Whether there was some sort of a deal cut at the beginning of Gowdy heading the select committee we don’t know,” he said.

“We’ve been publicly hesitant to criticize Gowdy, because we’re still hopeful he’s going to be the right guy,” Aronoff emphasized. “We’re trying now to pressure them from the sidelines, and we don’t want to come out blasting Gowdy, saying that the ‘fix is in.’ We still feel the select committee is there, and we want to give Gowdy the benefit of the doubt to see what he does.”

Aronoff explained he was disappointed that Gowdy chose to devote his first two public hearings to examining the State Department Accountability Review Board process.

“Those hearings were pretty bland, not really getting to the heart of the matter,” Aronoff said.

Citizens’ commission member Pete Hoekstra, who served for 18 years as a congressman from Michigan, and who was chairman of the House Intelligence Committee before retiring from Congress, told WND he retains confidence Gowdy will produce a good investigation.

“I’m not anywhere close to giving up on the work of Gowdy’s committee,” Hoekstra said. “The good thing is that Gowdy and his select committee have jurisdiction across all the different departments and agencies of government that are or might be involved in the Benghazi attack.”

Hoekstra said he still believes Gowdy’s committee “will be the first to give the entire Benghazi incident a complete and thorough look.”

Next hearings classified, closed to public

Jamal Ware, communications director for the Republican majority on the House Select Committee investigation of Benghazi, explained to WND in an email the next hearing likely will be closed and classified.

He said it’s possible that the subsequent hearing will be open to the public, but he has no details to release, because the decision-making is still in progress.

Retired U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones, another commission member, also expressed concerns about Gowdy’s investigation.

“I think Gowdy is serious, and I think he is a real patriot, but I think he has been warned away from the final conclusion or he’s been threatened,” Jones told WND.

“I’ve been working very closely with the Citizens’ Commission, and I think Gowdy, if he doesn’t go any further than he has, has either been warned within the Republican Party or threatened externally.”

Jones said he has concerns whether Boehner is enthusiastic about supporting Gowdy’s investigation, despite the instrumental role the House speaker played in constituting the select committee and his public insistence that Gowdy will get to the truth of what happened in Benghazi.

Jones said he called his local congressman, Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., and said that if he was interested in the Benghazi issue, he had some information for him. Heck responded with a couple of handwritten notes indicating he was very interested, according to Jones.

Jones then set up a meeting with Aronoff, Lyons and a couple of other people at Heck’s House office in Washington.

“But at the meeting, Heck became very arrogant and basically not interested, so he cut the meeting short and left,” Jones said.

“That concerned me, because Heck is on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, and here was a chance for him to hear from Roger (Aronoff) and some information not many people knew,” Jones said. “But he wasn’t willing to listen; yet I have two notes here from Heck that said he was interested and to keep him informed regarding what was going on.”

Heck’s turnabout caused Jones to question how serious the Republicans in Congress were about an honest search for the truth.

“The truth is Boehner only agreed to appoint the Select Committee after a lot of pressure from a lot of people and to put Gowdy in to head it, which is something we all recommended,” Jones said. “But I think Boehner has either given Gowdy the word that enough is enough, or it’s gone above Boehner, and Gowdy’s been threatened.”

Asked directly, Jones agreed with Vallely that traitorous deeds at the highest level of government were committed regarding Benghazi and that the Republicans in Congress have joined the Democrats in a continuing cover-up.

“I’m concerned there is something going on between the establishment Republicans in Congress and the Obama administration of not wanting to get to the truth,” Vallely said. “If you look at the first two public hearings that Gowdy held, they were primarily some very low-level people that weren’t necessarily involved in what happened in Benghazi. But, really, those first two hearings have been very ineffective in getting to the truth of what really happened.”

Vallely said he and his colleagues worked 10 months after their first press conference to get Boehner to appoint a select committee.

“Boehner really did not want a select committee. He delayed. He was pressured, and he didn’t think it was necessary,” Vallely said. “For some reason, we believe, Boehner understood from the Obama administration that they did not want to press it, because what we feel now is that Boehner and the Republican leadership in Congress really don’t want to get to the truth.”

‘Protecting his wife’

Fueling the suspicions of various citizens’ commission members was the severely criticized unanimous report on Benghazi issued in November by Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., as chairman of the Republican-led House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The report “found no evidence” to support allegations the Obama administration blocked attempts to send rescue operations to Benghazi during the assault or sought to mislead the public afterwards.

Citizens commission member John Shaw – a senior partner in the Cambridge Consulting Group, formerly with the Department of Defense from 2001 to 2005, where he served as deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security – explained why he agrees with others on the committee that Boehner and Republicans in Congress are stonewalling the Benghazi investigation.

On June 23, 2014, Micah Morrison, the lead investigative reporter at Washington-based Judicial Watch, wrote an article suggesting Rogers had been compromised in the intelligence committee’s Benghazi investigation because of his wife’s business interests.

“A seven-term Republican from Michigan, Mike Rogers climbed the political ladder to become chairman of the Intelligence Committee in January 2011,” Morrison wrote. “Kristi Rogers, after years of government service in mid-level administrative positions, moved to the private sector, joining the British-based security contractor Aegis Defense Services to help open its U.S. subsidiary. The newsletter Intelligence Online noted that thanks to Ms. Rogers’ efforts, ‘Aegis won several major contracts with the U.S. administration.’”

Shaw pointed out that Aegis in the U.K. had a connection with the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the Islamic militia given the contract in Libya to provide security at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli and the diplomatic compound in Benghazi.

“There’s no question in my mind that Rogers compromised the intelligence committee report on Benghazi in order to protect his wife,” Shaw said.

“Once the connections come out between Aegis and the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the information will fry Rogers and his wife publicly in the process,” he said. “I had followed Aegis both in the United States and in England for two years, because I thought the leadership of the group was a problem. The fact is that soon after it became clear there was a connection between Aegis and Benghazi, a notice came on the Aegis wire claiming Aegis in Washington had nothing to do with any security contract in Libya.”

Shaw explained the connections.

“There was a three-way switch,” he said. “First, Aegis in the U.K. gave the contract to provide the U.S. security services in Libya to another security company called Blue Mountain, based in Wales. Blue Mountain in turn subcontracted the State Department contract to provide security at the U.S. consulate in Libya to the bad guys, the February 17 Martyrs Brigade, the same group that ended up abandoning their posts and joining the bad guys who attacked the CIA compound at Benghazi where Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed.”

Ansar al Sharia, the al-Qaida-linked militia group that led the Benghazi assault on the CIA compound, is believed to include former members of the February 17 Martyrs Brigade.

“Ms. Rogers’ rise at Aegis was swift,” Judicial Watch’s Morrison wrote.

“A former press aide to Ambassador Paul Bremer in Iraq and an assistant commissioner for public affairs at U.S. Customs and Border Protection, she was named executive vice president when the U.S. branch opened in 2006,” Morrison continued. “She was promoted to president in 2008 and added the position of CEO in 2009. In 2011, Ms. Rogers was named vice chairman of the company’s board of directors. In December 2012, she left Aegis and joined the law firm Manatt as a managing director for federal government affairs.”

Morrison wrote: “On March 28, Mr. Rogers announced he was stepping down from his safe Congressional seat and committee chairmanship to become a talk radio host. Two weeks earlier, on March 14, Ms. Rogers quietly left Manatt, after a tenure of only thirteen months. Her departure was not announced and her association with the firm has been scrubbed from its website.”

Gang of 8 ‘compromised’

Shaw said he shares the concerns of others on the commission about “the slowness of the Gowdy investigation.”

“Several of us have raised the question of whether the Republican ‘Gang of Eight’ in Congress somehow think that if the truth about Benghazi ever comes out, they will be found to be somehow liable, if it ever comes out that they knew in advance about Obama administration secrets over what really happened in Benghazi and did nothing to reveal this information to the public,” he said.

The “Gang of Eight” is a reference to eight leaders in the House and Senate who are regularly briefed by the White House on intelligence matters: the speaker of the House and the House minority leader; the Senate majority and minority leaders; and the chairmen and ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

In the recently completed 113th Congress, the following Republicans were in the “Gang of Eight”: House Speaker Boehner; then-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell; Rogers, as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., as ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“Why would Gowdy have only one public hearing a month?” Shaw asked. “Once he started, the select committee public hearings should have been relentless, day-after-day, the way the Watergate hearings were, so we would have a buildup.”

Shaw said Gowdy “has all the information we assembled in the citizens’ committee, and we have no sense what he is really about.”

“I thought Gowdy, given his demeanor, was going to go full for the jugular investigating Benghazi, but it’s clear he’s been held back.”

Members of the CCB (alphabetical):

  • Roger Aronoff, editor, Accuracy in Media
  • Larry Bailey, (SEAL) USN (Ret.)
  • Col. Kenneth Benway, U.S. Army Special Forces (Ret.)
  • Dick Brauer Jr., USAF (Ret.)
  • Steve Emerson, executive director, Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Col. Dennis B. Haney, USAF (Ret.)
  • Pete Hoekstra, former congressman and senior fellow, Investigative Project on Terrorism
  • Gen. Charles Jones, USAF (Ret.)
  • Clare Lopez, former CIA officer
  • l James Lyons, USN (Ret.)
  • Gen. Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.)
  • Wayne Morris, USMC (Ret.)
  • John A. Shaw, former official of Department of Defense
  • Kevin Shipp, former CIA officer
  • Wayne Simmons, former CIA officer
  • Gen. Paul Vallely, U.S. Army (Ret.)
  • Former congressman and retired Army Lt. Col. Allen West


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/military-veterans-benghazi-inquest-compromised/#jeWSqxV7wFMSVJXy.99

 En mi opinión”

No 852  Enero 19, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

http://enmiopinionlazarorgonzalez.blogspot.com/

No 851 “En mi opinion” Enero 17, 2015

enero 17, 2015

No 851 “En mi opinion” Enero 17, 2015.

No 850 “En mi opinion” Enero 16, 2015

enero 16, 2015

No 850 “En mi opinion” Enero 16, 2015.