No 572 “En mi opinión” Jueves, Enero 16, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

“En un mundo de mentiras defendemos la verdad”

Amenper: La Hora del Supositorio

Los titulares de la prensa hoy dicen que hay “temor” de que haya un “Bailout” de la industria de seguros por el Obamacare.

No creo que nosotros los contribuyentes, conscientes de lo que el Obamacare representa, tengamos “temor”. Desde que se aprobó la ley lo que tenemos es “resignación”.

Todos sabemos que el Obamacare es una mala ley por diseño, todos saben que no iba a funcionar. De hecho creo que se creó para que no funcionara. El Obamacare es simplemente una ley que no puede funcionar y que fue creada como un paso hacia la socialización del sistema del cuidado de la salud.

Un “bailout” es simplemente que los contribuyentes que pagan sus impuestos y que pagan por sus seguros, financien temporalmente el programa y paguen por los seguros de los que no quieren pagar por los suyos, hasta que eventualmente el gobierno sea el pagador único por los servicios de salud.

Sabíamos que todo era cuestión de tiempo, lo único sorprendente es que está llegando más pronto de lo que nos imaginábamos.

No hay nada nuevo bajo el sol, no hay nada que los que conocemos el sistema socialista nos sorprenda, y tanto la oposición como el gobierno saben que es lo que significa el Obamacare, las discusiones son una cuestión de semántica demagógica por parte del gobierno.

Por el costo de los seguros de salud del Obamacare, considerando el costo de las primas y las deducciones de los seguros, los asegurados de poco riesgo no van a comprar las pólizas, los asegurados de alto riesgo que compren las pólizas, crean un desnivel que no es costeable a las compañías de seguros. Esto no deja más disyuntiva que el “bailout” o la quiebra de las compañías de seguros.

Esto en conjunto con las pólizas que fueron canceladas, más de 5 millones de personas sin seguros, hace una situación insostenible.

El resultado es que progresivamente llegaremos a un punto en que el gobierno nos tendrá que “resolver” el problema con una nacionalización del sistema de salud.

Esto es lo que el Hillarycare nos ofreció, y esto es lo que el Obamacare será.

Es cuestión en que en el caso del Hillarycare era una píldora difícil de tragar, y el Obamacare es un supositorio lubricado que no lo están introduciendo con lentitud pero más fácilmente.

Senate report: Benghazi attackers tied to Al Qaeda groups. Published January 15, 2014 FoxNews.com

A comprehensive report by the Senate Intelligence Committee definitely declared that individuals tied to Al Qaeda groups were involved in the Benghazi attack, challenging recent claims that the terror network was not a factor.

The report was released Monday, nearly one year after then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, under congressional questioning over the nature of the attack, shouted at lawmakers: “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

The administration initially claimed the attack sprung out of a protest, but has since given a more complicated assessment. Still, administration officials all along have downplayed Al Qaeda involvement, recently seizing on a New York Times report that supported those claims.

While the report does not implicate Al Qaeda “core” -- the leadership believed to be in the Pakistan region -- it does blame some of the most influential Al Qaeda branches, including Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).

“Individuals affiliated with terrorist groups, including AQIM, Ansar al-Sharia, AQAP, and the Mohammad Jamal Network, participated in the September 11, 2012, attacks,” the report said. The militant Ansar al-Sharia was, separately, labeled by the State Department as a terror group last week, in part over its alleged involvement in the Benghazi strike.

The Senate committee report stressed that the intelligence still suggests the attack was not “highly coordinated,” but rather “opportunistic” – possibly put in place in “short order” after protests over an anti-Islam film elsewhere in the region.

“It remains unclear if any group or person exercised overall command and control of the attacks,” the report said. The report, though, reiterated that there was no protest in Benghazi before the attack.

The Senate panel report also dove extensively into what went wrong at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before the attack. The committee determined the attack was “preventable” and the administration failed to respond to “ample” warnings that security was deteriorating before Sept. 11, 2012.

The report faulted the State and Defense departments. It also cited the failure of the Obama administration to "bring the attackers to justice."

Specifically, the report said the intelligence community provided “ample strategic warning” that security in eastern Libya was deteriorating and U.S. personnel “were at risk.” The report said multiple “tripwires” were crossed signaling security problems, and the State Department should have increased its security posture in response. This included an Aug. 16, 2012, cable from Ambassador Chris Stevens raising security concerns, and prior attacks on westerners in Benghazi.

The report also detailed a possible failed ambush, where attackers tried to lure the CIA into the hospital where Stevens' body was being held.

The CIA did not take the bait.

"The committee worked on a bipartisan basis to investigate the various allegations that have come out since the terrorist attacks in Benghazi in September 2012 and to get to the truth about what happened leading up to, during and after the attacks,” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said in a statement, adding she hopes the report puts “conspiracy theories” to rest.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., top Republican on the panel, also said the report provides “needed and deserved answers.”

“In spite of the deteriorating security situation in Benghazi and ample strategic warnings, the United States Government simply did not do enough to prevent these attacks and ensure the safety of those serving in Benghazi,” he said.

Illinois Signs Up For Obamacare! Well, Only 61,000 out of 12.8 Million.

A little more than 61,100 Illinoisans selected new health insurance policies created under President Barack Obama’s health care law through Dec. 28, as a last-minute surge in enrollment helped the marketplaces recover from an embarrassing Oct. 1 launch.

The Illinois enrollments are up nearly nine-fold from November, when little more than 7,000 selected policies, according to federal data released Monday. Nationwide, nearly 2.2 million selected a plan, with the vast majority coming in December.

But early data suggest the marketplaces are far more popular among older and potentially less healthy consumers, a trend that threatens to push up premiums in the future unless the law’s supporters can persuade more young, healthy Americans to sign up for insurance.

About 58 percent of those who signed up for coverage in Illinois were age 45 or older, and women outnumbered men, according to the new data, the first time demographic information about people signing up for coverage has been made available.

Just 23 percent in Illinois and about a quarter nationally were between ages 18 and 34 — well below the 40 percent goal set by administration officials — a key demographic that will help offset the cost of insuring older, sicker consumers who tend to ring up more health care costs. The numbers underscore the challenge that remains to drive more so-called young invincibles into coverage with 11 weeks remaining in open enrollment.

Nonetheless, officials expressed optimism that more young people will sign up in the months ahead and said the early figures squared with their expectations rooted in experience from Massachusetts, which launched its health insurance expansion in 2006.

“We think more and more young people will sign up,” said Gary Cohen, who is overseeing the new marketplaces at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

That seems realistic, given that many young people would be unlikely to sign up right away, said Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation who studies insurance markets.

“I would expect enrollment to surge in second half, particularly in March,” he said.

Coverage started Jan. 1 for those who selected plans before Christmas. But Americans have until the end of March to choose a plan before they risk being penalized under the new law for not having coverage.

Continue Reading on www.chicagotribune.com
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2014/01/14/illinois-signs-obamacare-well-61000-12-8-million/#P7o7MVGJaXxSpOWi.99

Amenper: ¿Problema Migratorio, Realidad, Xenofobia o Xenofogia?

Cuando viajábamos entre nuestro país y los Estados Unidos, antes de Castro, notábamos la diferencia, a pesar de los adelantos que teníamos en Cuba.

Todavía cuando viajamos al extranjero vemos la diferencia entre otros países y los Estados Unidos.

El tiempo nos hace olvidar de ciertas cosas que establecen esas diferencias.

Cuando hoy nos escandalizamos porque encontramos una hormiga en el paquete de celofán con la carne, y llamamos rápidamente al encargado del departamento para quejarnos, nos olvidamos de la plaza del mercado de nuestro pueblo..

Cientos de moscas volaban y se posaban en nuestra carne, y no nos preocupábamos.

Cuando vemos unas latas de cerveza en el cuidado césped de la salida de la carretera, nos escandalizamos, y no recordamos de las cunetas llenas de malezas y basura de todo tipo en nuestras carreteras.

No es chauvinismo, es una realidad que el sistema americano es más pragmático y eficiente que el de nuestros países.

Esto no sólo es hace cincuenta años, todavía cuando vamos a una plaza de mercado en países de la américa latina y hasta en países Europa, como Grecia, nos recuerda a las de Cuba en los años cincuenta.

No es tampoco xenofobia el pensar que este sistema americano está siendo minado por la influencia extranjera en masa.

Cuando la inmigración es controlada, el inmigrante en la minoría se ajusta a la nueva sociedad.

Pero cuando los inmigrantes entran en oleadas y sin control, infiltran por su número la cultura del país que invaden sobre todo cuando la cultura de los inmigrantes que se infiltran es diferenta a la cultura infiltrada como en el caso de la inmigración de Méjico,o de la degradada cultura de la Cuba de hoy entrando a Estados Unidos.

El orgullo de la higiene y limpieza en la comunidad desaparece paulatinamente.

Vemos en nuestros parques públicos como a pesar de haber suficiente recipientes para la basura, tiran los desperdicios en el suelo, y hasta vemos residuos de “trabajos de santería”.

¿Xenofobia? bueno puede culparme de esto, pero no me pueden negar lo que mis ojos ven o mis oídos oyen en las calles con el sonido de claxon que antes eran usados por ley únicamente en casos de emergencia. Hoy no podemos estar parados en una intersección ni por una fracción de un segundo en un semáforo que cambia sin sentir el largo sonido de un claxon.

Y no me digan que es una costumbre también de los americanos, porque esto no existía antes y sólo tienen que ir a la costa oeste de la Florida, simplemente a unas horas de distancia para que puedan apreciar la diferencia.

Cuando se oye a las estaciones de televisión en español continuamente hablando sobre inmigración, y cambia a una estación en inglés, pueden notar que en la última no se habla mucho sobre el tema.

Es que es una realidad, el americano promedio, no importa la persuasión política no quiere más inmigrantes a pesar de ser una nación de inmigrantes.

La xenofobia aumenta por el abuso de la inmigración ilegal, y pagamos justos por pecadores.

Los liberales hablan de que los republicanos son anti-inmigrantes y dicen que ellos son compasivos con los inmigrantes.

Pero tenemos la administración más liberal de la historia americana, y las deportaciones están al nivel más alto de la historia. La matemática de la demagogia no cuadra.

Para que se resuelva el problema migratorio todo está en cumplir las leyes de la nación, en cuanto a cómo se entra al país y cómo se comportan cuando estén residiendo en la nueva cultura.

No importa las manifestaciones, exigiendo “derechos” migratorios, y menos si las manifestaciones tienen símbolos y rótulos anti-americanos, porque esto lo que hace es crear más xenofobia, no resolver el problema.

Los políticos tienen que adaptarse a las demandas de la mayoría. Puede decir demagógicamente que apoyan a los inmigrantes, los liberales esconden su xenofobia bajo una “xenofogia” una xenofobia escondida bajo la demagogia. Pero hasta que no desaparezca esta xenofobia, creada por la conducta de la inmigración y los inmigrantes, no se puede resolver el problema.

Amenper: Chris Christie Is an Amateur

The left's political methods make Gov. Christie look like Little Bo Peep.By DANIEL HENNINGER Jan. 15, 2014 7:16 p.m. ET

There haven't been so many reporters chasing a story in Trenton, N.J., since Washington crossed the Delaware. But compared with the methods the Democratic Party is using now to take down its opponents, Chris Christie looks like Little Bo Peep.

Gov. Christie's hyper-political aides ordered traffic jams in neighborhoods near the perpetually backed-up George Washington Bridge to annoy the mayor of Fort Lee. And they may have canceled meetings with the mayor of Jersey City because he wouldn't endorse Mr. Christie. Oh my.

The Christie bonfire has burned for a week. In that same week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI found nothing in the IRS's targeting of conservative political groups that warrants criminal charges.

This conclusion struck lawyers Jay Sekulow and Cleta Mitchell as fairly amazing. Both represent conservative groups targeted by the IRS, and they say the FBI only recently got in touch with a few of their clients.

Thus, two of the most powerful public institutions in the U.S.—the FBI and the IRS—have concluded no harm, no foul, and the memory hole swallows the Obama administration's successful kneecapping of the GOP's most active members just as they prepared to participate in the 2012 presidential campaign. Many—ruined or terrified by the IRS probes—shut down. Mr. Obama won.

One may be thankful that corners of the U.S. judiciary remain intact and unintimidated. Late last week, a judge in Wisconsin slowed down what was essentially a Democratic prosecutor's star-chamber investigation of conservative groups that supported Republican Gov. Scott Walker. A special prosecutor armed with subpoena power had been poring over the groups' finances, while a gag order stopped the groups from saying they were his targets.

On Friday, a court quashed some of the subpoenas for lack of probable cause. That's good, but don't expect to see Friends of Scott Walker going on offense any time soon. Legal pistol-whippings by state prosecutors can have that effect, win or lose.

Worth noting is what the IRS's political audits and the attempted takedown of the pro-Walker groups have in common: Both took place essentially out of public view.

An event like Chris Christie's traffic jam is the Internet's version of bread and circuses. What the Democrats' left-wing activists have learned is that most of the time the Web's political media beasts are sleeping. It's most opportune during those periods of non-attention to use modern media technology not just to hit one's opponents, but to drive them from politics.

Ask ALEC.

ALEC is the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-of-center group of state legislators who gather to compare notes on public-policy issues. The group's ultimate goal is to create templates for bills to enact their policy ideas, such as reforming state public-pension obligations.

Because this process gets laws passed, the left has created organizations whose job is to take down ALEC by frightening its financial supporters.

In December, articles appeared on progressive websites attacking Google, GOOG -0.07%Facebook FB -0.24% and Yelp for participating in ALEC's annual conference last year. The Web giants wanted to explore various Internet legal issues with the state legislators.

A coalition that included the Sierra Club, RootsAction and the Center for Media and Democracy said it outputted 230,000 petition signatures in a "Don't Fund Evil" drive to separate Google from "right-wing extremists" at ALEC, whose sin is "climate denial." The Sierra Club's site says Kraft, GE and McDonald's MCD +0.25% pulled away from ALEC in the past under pressure. To date, none of the Web companies have done so.

In coverage of the effort on a FastCompany website, one activist remarked: "It's definitely a reputational risk for these forward-looking companies like Google and Facebook and Yelp to keep their membership in ALEC."

Reputational risk? That's right.

In 2012, when ALEC got caught up in the controversy over the Trayvon Martin shooting and stand-your-ground laws, progressives saw a chance to brand the legislative group's corporate supporters as anti-black.

Here's the audio transcript of a radio ad created by ColorOfChange about CVS CVS -0.29% pharmacies, which supported ALEC: "CVS, when you hear that name, do you think of the law that protected Trayvon Martin's killer? Or laws that suppress the black vote." The ad never ran. But copies of the ad were mailed to CVS, John Deere, HP,Walgreens, WAG -0.85% Best Buy, BBY +1.40% BP and a dozen others. All disassociated from ALEC.

This is the Democratic left's modus operandi. In early December, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) sent a letter to the heads of J.P. Morgan, JPM +3.03% Bank of America,BAC +2.27% Goldman Sachs, GS +1.22% Citigroup, C +1.93% Wells Fargo WFC +1.78% and Morgan Stanley, MS +3.60% asking them to reveal any contributions to "private think tanks." Her goal, she said, was "transparency."

No, the purpose is to surface any such association so the cadres can move in and use the Web, mass Twitter TWTR +5.77% feeds, shareholder resolutions and media campaigns to drive private companies out of the political arena, leaving politics in the control of public-sector interests—i.e., the state rules.

Threatening companies that participate in politics with reputational destruction is the American left's version of Maoist shaming sessions. Modern Red Guards don't hang signs around your neck. Their weapon of choice is modern media. In this league, a political traffic jam is the work of amateurs.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

Amenper: How Big Government Drives Inequality. Stifling economic growth and benefiting insiders with Washington access do not help the middle class. By DAVID MALPASS Jan. 15, 2014 7:11 p.m. ET

Inequality is the wedge issue that Democrats hope will carry them through the 2014 and 2016 elections, neutralizing the ObamaCare fiasco. The issue has popular appeal because median incomes (after inflation) have been falling throughout the recovery, while high-end incomes are increasing rapidly.

For progressives, this situation seems made to order: If you want a flatter income distribution, don't you need bigger government to get it? Yet experience shows the opposite: Washington's increased size and power has concentrated income and wealth in fewer hands. Making government bigger will exacerbate this problem—it is already too big, intrusive and expensive to allow a robust economy that benefits everyone.

President Ronald Reagan rejected class warfare, advocating sound money and lower tax rates to boost growth and living standards. His policies worked. The economy grew faster than 7% in real terms for five quarters in a row starting in the second quarter of 1983. Gross domestic product grew on average 4.6% per year in real terms during the 1983-88 expansion, while real median incomes grew 2.1%. His policies were such an economic success that appeals to class warfare gained relatively little political traction for 25 years.

Since the Reagan years, growth policies have faded while the government has increased its control over the economy and national income. Top marginal federal income-tax rates have risen to nearly 44% today from 28% in 1988. The dollar has weakened while consumer prices have doubled in 25 years. Federal nondefense spending has nearly quadrupled to $2.8 trillion in 2013 from $750 billion in 1988, adding a huge burden on taxpayers as national debt grows.

Today, almost five years after the recession officially ended in June 2009, job growth from new business formation is running one-third below average, according to the Labor Department's Employment Dynamics report. Real GDP growth has averaged a weak 2.3% over the past three years, while real median incomes have fallen 0.6% per year. This disastrous economic result sets up a political confrontation between those who believe that a bigger government makes things better and those who believe that it concentrates power and income in fewer hands, undercutting the middle class.

Progressives may concede the weakness of the economic recovery. Yet they urge more government spending and higher taxes, claiming that their policies will achieve higher growth and a fairer distribution of income.

Conservatives need to champion economic growth as Reagan did, but they also need to make a more forceful connection between the government's centralization of power and income inequality.

Big government expansions in recent years have harmed individuals with modest incomes while exempting or benefiting people with higher incomes. These include the federal takeover of the mortgage industry, and the Federal Reserve's decisions to keep interest rates near zero and buy some $3 trillion in bonds. Both of these expansions channel credit to the government and the well-connected at the expense of savers and new businesses.

Middle-income earners used to be the primary beneficiary of the rise in the value of their houses. Housing gains now lift Washington, allowing the government to pay itself huge "dividends" from Fannie Mae, FNMA +0.32% Freddie Mac FMCC -0.33% and the Federal Reserve, which owns nearly $1.5 trillion in the government's housing-related bonds. The government promptly spends the windfalls, fueling a further accumulation of wealth and income for those with Washington access.

The financial industry is making billions in profits fueled by the government's provision of zero-rate loans for those with connections and collateral. Wall Street's upper crust is the epicenter for financing the contractors, lobbyists and lawyers that help the government spend money. Meanwhile, government grabs a huge share of the profits generated by small businesses. It piles on opaque regulations, complex tax rules and countless independent agencies, producing a system that works against small businesses and the middle class. The Affordable Care Act takes pains to exempt Congress, government, corporations and unions, but leaves the rest severely exposed, adding to inequality.

This week's congressional budget deal saw a narrow group of Washington's elite legislators and lobbyists working over the weekend to divvy up nearly $1.1 trillion in discretionary spending for 2014. Much of the spending and all of the lobbying and debt underwriting costs will benefit those with high incomes while the extra debt falls heavily on the middle class.

There is nothing wrong with an appropriate level of government services—it's necessary. But we are long past that level. Growing the government shrinks the rest of the economy and after-tax paychecks.

The next debt limit increase is approaching fast, probably in March. Fiscal conservatives are likely to argue along traditional lines for a few spending cuts or some votes to highlight the ObamaCare calamity. That leaves Democrats with the inequality argument to use as a bludgeon against Republicans.

The debt-limit debate should be a national referendum on the size of the federal government and the need for new controls on its growth and power. That will be a critical step in restoring income growth, but as currently written, the debt-limit law forces votes in favor of more debt.

I've advocated strengthening the debt limit by adding a declining debt-to-GDP ceiling that, when exceeded, triggers extra controls on spending and a hair shirt for Washington. Extra debt should trigger a slowdown in automatic entitlement growth, pay cuts for senior officials and reductions in their subsidized benefits until they resolve the spending crisis.

A new debt law offering spending restraint would boost confidence among investors and entrepreneurs. Most important, it would allow median incomes to begin rising again once Washington leaves private enterprise more room to breathe and grow.

Samitier: La historia es el mejor maestro…

Los Que No Aprenden De La Historia Son Los Tontos

Los “Pieles Rojas” Entregaron Las Armas Y El Gobierno A Cambio Los “Mantendría.” La Mayoría Fueron Felices En El Otro Mundo... El 98% Murieron...

THE WESTERN CENTER FOR JOURNALISM.

"The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email... urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can't impeach President Obama. ... The email, subject line 'Impeachment,' was sent to Obama for America supporters..." -Daily Caller

Pay no heed to the media blackout. The far left knows that the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama is on the table. As WorldNetDaily (WND) notes: "Suddenly, millions of Americans talking about ousting [Barack Obama]."

But whether or not impeachment happens sooner, rather than later, is up to you and we want to start the New Year off on a country-saving note and send the spineless, self-proclaimed leaders in Congress a message from grassroots Americans like you. The American people want Barack Obama removed from officeNOW.

It's Not A Question Of "If" Obama Will Be Impeached... It's A Question Of "When" Obama Will Be Impeached.

       The implementation of ObamaCare is a man-made disaster. A dictatorial imposter has usurped the constitutional authority an office he should not hold one too many times and he plans to keep usurping the authority of the highest office in the land.

       Tyranny and insanity reign. We now live in a country in which an illegal alien is allowed to practice law in the State of California. It's now "legal" to smoke marijuana in Colorado and a dictatorial regime fights tooth-and-nail to force an order of nuns to either violate their religious convictions and support abortion or close up shop and go out of business.

       Make no mistake, the law has been turned on its head and is becoming a farce. A tyrannical regime is out of control and their is only one constitutional remedy for restoring our great Republic.

       And this solution is inevitable. As the "paranoid" email from the DNC illustrates, even Barack Obama's allies see the handwriting on the wall; and, at some point, our elected officials are going to be forced to face the eventuality that Barack Obama must be removed from office, and they must face that eventuality sooner, rather than later.

       Aaron Klein with WND points out: "The White House and progressive machine clearly have failed in their attempt to paint the impeachment movement as fringe and out of touch with reality. The general American public views with increasing concern Obama’s illicit extension of executive authority, his repeated bypassing of Congress and the many serious scandals that have plagued this administration from Fast and Furious through Benghazi through the IRS fiasco and now ObamaCare."

       Klein added: "The time has come for the country and our elected representatives to have a serious discussion about the constitutional ramifications of Obama’s highly questionable actions."

How Long Must We Wait?

       How long must we wait... how long should we sit back and permit Barack Hussein Obama to continue to rip apart the fabric of this country before we take action?

       You don't have to wait. Starting right now, you can fire a shot across the bow... a shot that will be heard around the world... and send Barack Hussein Obama a clear and unmistakable message that he does not have carte blanche to ruin the United States of America.

       Like so many on the far-left before him, going all the way back to Karl Marx, Barack Hussein Obama believes that it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" (in a just world, the misery of the few must be shared by all) over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must learn to live in chains to make it happen.

       And that worldview makes Barack Hussein Obama a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to your personal liberty today.

       What can we do to stop this monomaniac... this American dictator? There’s only one answer.

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

       ObamaCare is only a symptom. The Obama presidency is the disease, and Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, is the cure.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent Blast Faxes to each and every Member of the Republican Leadership of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives.

If button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.

Can We Actually Remove Barack Obama? Should We Remove Barack Hussein Obama?

       To answer those questions, we really need to address the often misunderstood subject of what exactly constitutes an removeable offense, in order to illustrate that Barack Hussein Obama's actions are grave enough to warrant removal.

       As former President Gerald Ford, while serving in the House of Representatives, put it: a removeable offense is,"whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

       Let's look at Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution again:"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

       The key phrase here is "high crimes and misdemeanors," a phrase grounded in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is grossly misunderstood in this day and age.

       "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.

       Here's a passage from C-Span.org which succinctly and beautifully summarizes the historical significance surrounding the inclusion of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:

       "'High crimes and misdemeanors' entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough... so Mason then proposed 'high crimes and misdemeanors,' a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a 'misdemeanor' meant 'mis-demeanor,' or bad behavior."[Emphasis Ours]

       In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a 'high' or 'lofty' criminal act (as some would lead you to believe).

       It refers to a misdeed committed by a person occupying a high office and the Founders fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... well... simply put... egregious... grossly incompetent... grossly negligent... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show malevolence toward this country, which is unabated.

       Make no mistake, for those who mistakenly hold the illusion that removing Barack Hussein Obama would be a simple matter of "playing politics," our Founders not only intended that the removal of a sitting President be a "political act" but set the bar extremely low for the removal of a sitting president.

       As C-Span.org notes: "The Framers of the Constitution deliberately put impeachment into the hands of the legislative branch rather than the judicial branch, thus transforming it from strictly a matter of legal definition to a matter of political judgment."

       The Obama Administration exemplifies maladministration. It qualifies as the poster-child for bad behavior. Obama and those around him are ravaging this great country and adding a sorry chapter to a noble history, andremoval, as written in the Constitution, was tailor-made for Barack Hussein Obama and our Founders placed it in our Constitution for such a time as this.

       It could be easily argued that we have a duty to remove Barack Hussein Obama. Of course, our elected officials won't have the back-bone to go it alone. That's where you come in.

       Help us spread the word far-and-wide and our elected officials will come to know that the removal of Barack Hussein Obama is the will of the American people and that if they ignore the will of the people. they do so at their own political peril.

       The question is not whether we should remove Barack Hussein Obama. Rather, the question is, can we remove Barack Hussein Obama before it is too late?

Fresh Ink: Class warfare is the liberal election strategy in 2014. By Washington Times (DC) January 15, 2014 6:54 am

President Obama has all but announced that this fall's House and Senate campaigns should focus not on the collapse of American influence abroad, or on the continuing disaster that we know as Obamacare, or even on the apparent inability of his policies to create jobs, but on "income inequality."

The mantra from the administration, like the rantings of the "Occupy" crowd and the new finger-pointing quasi-Marxist mayor of New York City, is that in today's United States, it is impossible to get ahead unless one is born rich, works on Wall Street or finds some other way to profit from the misery of others. Their rhetoric and proposed policies play on envy and remind one of the class warfare that has dominate European politics for so long.

Historically, betting on class warfare as a way to win a U.S. election is a bad bet. The United States is not Europe, and Americans have never been envious of the success of others. Americans have always believed in what almost from the beginning has been known as the American dream. The president is betting this is no longer true.

The belief that a political focus on "income inequality" and the politics of class envy will work is, in reality, a challenge to the very concept of the American dream. Class envy and class warfare have never appealed to many Americans for the simple reason that most Americans of every background have always believed that through hard work, they or their children and grandchildren would achieve a freer, happier and more prosperous life than that enjoyed by their parents and grandparents.

It is this perception that attracts immigrants to the United States. They come seeking opportunity - economic opportunity and the freedom to make both economic and non-economic choices for themselves and their families. They come from countries that offer little in the way of social mobility. Class is the great determiner in most of the world. Working-class and peasant parents produce working-class and peasant children. Those fortunate enough to be born into the upper classes are coddled, largely secure and uncomfortable with the specter of men and women with ambition, drive and talent joining them at the top.

It's been different in the New World. Class has always counted for far less. Sure, the wealthy had a head start, but yeoman farmers, folks who came as indentured servants and who arrived penniless believed in their bones that their dreams could come true. For millions over two centuries, they did. As a result, Americans didn't envy the family down the block or in the next neighborhood for their nicer homer or better car. They applauded its success, because they knew that sooner or later, they too would have a house as nice and a car as comfortable as they desired - all it would take would be hard work, discipline and the optimism of a people looking forward to a better and more prosperous tomorrow.

The politics of class worked in the countries from which many of these families came because it was extremely difficult in their native countries to rise on the basis of merit and hard work. The affluence of one's neighbors wasn't something to which one could reasonably aspire. It was out of reach to most because of a system that virtually forced generation after generation to accept the fate of those who came before. Under such circumstances, envy and even hatred of those who were born into better circumstances became almost natural and could be exploited by politicians of the left and right.

Democrats this year are betting that they may today be able to exploit envy in ways that have never worked here in the past. They are betting, in effect, that the average citizen's belief in the American dream has weakened and, unfortunately, there is evidence to suggest that they might be right. A number of recent studies have concluded that it is more rather than less difficult to rise to the top or even to escape what we call poverty for the comfort of the middle class in the United States than it is in Canada and many nations of Old Europe. Some recent polls indicate that this reality has led many Americans to doubt the reality of the American dream. A 2013 poll, for example, found that 41 percent of Americans think it is now "impossible for most to achieve the American dream." If Americans come to believe that the hope and optimism that have been a part of the American psyche since the nation's founding are no longer justified, many will respond to the populist redistributionism championed by Mr. Obama and others.

The irony is that it has been the policies of these "progressives" that have made it more and more difficult to succeed in America. Individual initiative is stymied by regulations that make it more difficult to start or grow a small business. Tax policies are designed not to grow the economic pie, but to divide up the wealth already created and make it difficult for business to expand or create jobs.

If the American dream is in trouble, it is because of the policies advanced by those who now argue that it is no longer valid. Lengthy unemployment benefits that actually encourage people to drop out of the workforce and minimum-wage laws that make it more difficult for the young and poor to reach for the first step on the ladder of success are, like the rhetoric of progressive populists, attacks on the American dream.

To counter the politics of envy, Republicans must urge breaking down the barriers blocking upward mobility by encouraging policies that free the initiative and optimism of a people unique in world history. To do less would amount to the acceptance of a fundamental change in what this nation represents.

David A. Keene is opinion editor of The Washington Times. A service of YellowBrix, Inc.

CAPITOL HILL DAILY. “ THE WESTER CENTER FOR JOURNALISM’

Can We Actually Remove Barack Obama? Should We Remove Barack Hussein Obama?

Negotiating With Space Nazis. By Ben Shapiro January 15, 2014 6:55 am

On Tuesday, the Iranian government announced that it had reached a secret agreement with the West on its nuclear development. The details of the agreement were not released, but suffice it to say that the Iranians could not contain their glee. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani celebrated the deal with an English-language tweet claiming that the "world powers surrendered to Iranian nation's will"; Iranian Army Commander Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi said the diplomatic breakthrough resulted from American military "weakness"; and the Iranian foreign minister laid a wreath at the tomb of the Beirut Marine barracks bomber.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama urged the United States Congress to "give peace a chance." After weeks of sending out his pacifist minions, including faux pro-Israel group J Street, to tell Americans that support for sanctions meant support for war, Obama himself echoed that message. "My preference is for peace and diplomacy," the apparent flower-child-in-chief stated. "And this is one of the reasons why I've sent the message to Congress that now is not the time for us to impose new sanctions. Now is the time for us to allow the diplomats and technical experts to do their work." He said that a rational, reasonable Iran would be "willing to walk through the door of opportunity that's presented to them."

Only Iran is not rational or reasonable. It is delusionally anti-Western and anti-Semitic, which means that America is now in negotiations not just with a terror-supporting state but radicals with more than a hint of insanity.

To prove this point, on Sunday, the Iranian semiofficial news agency FARS, which bills itself as independent but is effectively regime-run, ran a news article explaining that since the end of World War II, America had been run by a shadow government of Nazi space aliens. Seriously.

Basing its report on documents supposedly culled from National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden, FARS reported that there was no "incontrovertible proof" that the American foreign policy agenda was driven by an "alien/extraterrestrial intelligence agenda."

Not "alien" as in foreigner. "Alien" as in little green men from Mars. FARS quotes Snowden as stating that there "were actually two governments in the U.S., one that was elected, and the other, secret regime, governing in the dark." This shadow regime had been run by space aliens -- also known as "Tall Whites" -- who were operating their regime from Nevada after emigrating from Nazi Germany after World War II. These space aliens, FARS stated, built the Nazi war machine's submarines.

This would be hilarious were it not part of a piece. Large swaths of the Islamic world also buy the myth that Jews use the blood of non-Jewish children in both their Passover matza and Purim hamentashen. "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" remains a best-seller throughout the Islamic world. Iranian television routinely broadcasts Holocaust denial, while Iranian press outlets proclaim that the Zionist regime is producing another Hitler.

Assume for a moment that the Iranian regime actually believes the propaganda it spouts. Why, then, would it negotiate in good faith with space alien Nazis who drink Muslim blood?

Many pacifists in the West, including Obama, apparently assume that no one rational would continue to develop nuclear weapons in the face of world opposition, especially when offered a way out. What Obama fails to recognize is that Iran is far from rational -- and, more importantly, Obama's own assumptions about Iranian intentions put America and the West in a position of weakness. This weakness will be on display for all the world to see when Iran goes nuclear.

Ben Shapiro, 30, is a graduate of UCLA and Harvard Law School, a radio host on KTTH 770 Seattle and KRLA 870 Los Angeles, Editor-in-Chief of TruthRevolt.org, and Editor-At-Large for Breitbart News. He is the New York Times bestselling author of "Bullies: How the Left's Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America." To find out more about Ben Shapiro and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

Damas de Blanco golpeadas. La Iglesia Católica calla | Cubanet

La Iglesia calla porque ellos tampoco tienen moral. QUE VERGUENZA!!!
Un día, no muy lejano, ellos también les tocara rendir cuentas...
http://www.cubanet.org/?p=54877

Samitier: Los Magnates que mangonean a Cuba y a los Cubanos en Cuba y aqui.

Los Rockefeller y Todos Los Magnates CAPITALISTAS...

Envidian A Estos Magnates Cubanos

Pues Tienen Además Del Disfrute De Las Riquezas... El

Poder De Matar… Esa Es La Razón; Por La Cual Los

Magnates Capitalistas Están A Favor Del Comunismo...

Lista De Los Magnates Cubanos

Military in the Communist Party’s Politburo (15 members – 9 military)

General Raúl Castro (1931- ): 82 year old Commander-in-Chief of the Armed forces, First Secretary of the Politburo and President of the Council of Ministers and Council of State. He has developed an inner circle of power; loyal and trusted military veterans.

Jose Machado Ventura (1930- ): 83 year old Second Secretary of the Politburo of the Communist Party and Sierra Maestra veteran. A hard line Marxist and member of the inner circle of power.

“Comandante Histórico” Ramiro Valdés (1932- ):the 81 year old participated in the Moncada attack, disembarked in Granma, guerrilla warfare veteran, founding member of State Security, member of the Politburo, Vice-President of the Council of Ministers and Council of State.

General Abelardo Colome “Furry” (1939- ): the 74 year old is Minister of the Interior (MININT), member of the Politburo, Council of Ministers and Council of State. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. The most trusted and powerful member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle.

General Leopoldo Cintras Frias (1941- ): the 72 year old is Minister of the Armed Forces (MINFAR), member of the Politburo, Council of Ministers and Council of State. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle of power.

General Álvaro López Miera (1943- ): the 70 year old is First Vice-Minister of the MINFAR, Chief of the General Staff, member of the Politburo, Council of Ministers and Council of State. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Raised by Raul Castro and Vilma Espin like a family member. López Miera is the second most powerful figure in Gen. Castro’s inner circle.

General Ramón Espinosa (1939- ): the 74 year old is a member of the Politburo, Vice-Minister of the MINFAR. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle of power.

Jorge Marino Murillo (intelligence officer, retired) (1961- ): member of the Politburo, Vice-President of the Council of Ministers, President of the VI Party Congress’ Commission for the Implementation of Economic Policies.

Adel Onofre Yzquierdo (retired military) (1945- ):member of the Politburo, Minister of the Economy, Vice-President of the Council of Ministers and Council of State. African wars veteran.

Important FAR Members

General Joaquín Quinta Solas (1938- ): the 75 year old is the MINFAR Vice-Minister. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee. Member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle of power.

General Luciano Morales Abad (1946- ): Chief of the Western Army (includes Special Troops and Armored Division). African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee.

General Raúl Rodríguez Lobaina: Chief of the Central Army (includes Tank Regiment La Paloma Base). African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee.

General Onelio Aguilera Bermúdez (1953- ): Chief of the Eastern Army (includes Division 50 and Border Brigade at Guantanamo’s Naval Base). African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee.

General Ramón Pardo Guerra (1939- ): the 74 year old is the Civil Defense National Chief of Staff. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee. Member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle of power.

Note: The Air and Naval force have been extensively reduced due to the economic crisis. Their units are under the Armed Forces.

Intelligence and Security Services

General Carlos Fernández Gondin (1938- ): the 75 year old is MININT’s First Vice-Minister, Chief of State Security. African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee. Member of Gen. Castro’s inner circle of power. He oversees the various intelligence departments such as Latin America (M-2); Europe (M-32); Solidarity Movements (M-18); Industrial Espionage (M-6); Florida (M-19) designed to infiltrate the Cuban exile’s political groups and news agencies; United States (M-1) which includes federal agencies, academic centers, congressional offices and military intelligence. Notable operatives of the MININT’s Intelligence are the five spies in the “Wasp Network” and Ana Belen Montes, who infiltrated the highest levels of the Pentagon.

Vice Almirante Julio Cesar Gandarilla: Chief of Military Counter-Intelligence. In charge of Cuban State Security and counterespionage in the Armed Forces. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee

Alcibiades Muñoz Gutierrez: Director General of Intelligence for the MININT. Former Chief of MININT’s Database Bank. He has been a MININT prominent officer since the early 1980s, when he held the rank of Colonel.

General Eduardo Delgado (1955- ): former Director General of Intelligence for the MININT (1994-2013). He was the Chief Investigator during the Arnaldo Ochoa trial and execution. Presently Delgado is the Director of the “Instituto Superior del MININT.”

General Humberto Francis Pardo (1947- ): Chief of MININT Personal Security Division. He commands the elite troops.

Colonel Alejandro Castro Espin (1965- ): Chief of Intelligence Coordination for the MINFAR and MININT. Son of Raul Castro and Vilma Espin.

Military Involved in Economic Activities

Currently, the military holds the highest positions in vital sectors of the economy and politics, dominating over 65% of the island’s economic activities. The military officers involved in the economy manage the means of production, economic institutions and financial activities.

General (retired) Ulises Rosales del Toro (1942- ): the 71 year old Vice-President of the Council of Ministers in charge of agriculture and the food industry. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Former MINFAR Chief of Staff. He has clashed with Gen. Colomé in the past. He is still trusted by Gen. Raul Castro.

General (retired) Samuel Rodiles (1932- ): the 81 year old is the Chief of Physical Planning (urbanization- industrial installation, military zoning, etc.), President of the War Veterans Association. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African veteran. Member of Gen. Raul’s inner circle of power.

General (retired) Antonio Enrique Lusson (1930- ): the 83 year old is the Vice-President of the Council of Ministers in charge of transportation and its infrastructure. Cuba’s guerrilla warfare and African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee and of Gen. Raul’s inner circle of power.

General Salvador Pardo Cruz (1947- ): Minister of Heavy Industry. He held various responsibilities in the Anti-Aircraft Missile units in Africa. Former Director of state companies in the Union of Military Industries. African wars veteran.

General Ricardo Cabrisas Ruiz (1937- ): the 76 year old is the Vice-President of the Council of Ministers. Former Minister of Foreign Trade.

General Maimir Mesa Ramos (1962- ): Minister of Communications. Former President of ETECSA- state owned company with monopoly over communication services. Graduated from the FAR’s Academy in Communication.

General Homero Acosta Alvarez: Secretary of State Council. Started his law career in the FAR. Former Military Judge in the MINFAR’s Military Tribunals. Graduated from the FAR’s Academy in Communication.

Colonel Manuel Marrero (1964- ): Minister of Tourism (MINTUR). Architect and former Director of Gaviota S.A.

Colonel Luis Alberto Rodríguez López Calleja (1960- ): Raul Castro’s son-in-law. Director of the Ministry of Defense’s GAESA (Enterprise Administration Group, S.A.). GAESA controls and supervises different sectors of the Cuban economy. Responsible for the Port of Mariel project and investments. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee.

General Leonardo Ramón Andollo (1945- ): Second Chief of General Staff, Chief of Operations for the MINFAR, Second Chief of the VI Party Congress’ Commission for the Implementation of Economic Policies, in charge of reorganizing government structures. African wars veteran. Member of the Communist Party Central Committee.

Colonel Héctor Oroza Busutin: in charge of CIMEX S.A., company under GAESA’s control since 2011, that oversees more than 80 businesses (operating in US dollars and Cuban Pesos) including banks and jewelry stores.

General Luis Perez Rospide (1940- ): Veteran of the guerrilla wars. Director of Gaviota Group S.A., business that manages the most luxurious hotels in Cuba, over 13,000 hotel rooms, 150 restaurants and thousands of employees.

Businesses Operated by Cuba’s FAR and GAESA S.A.

• Gaviota S.A.: hotel and tourism industry marketing and sales.
• CIMEX (Comercio Interior, Mercado Exterior): largest commercial corporation in Cuba. Manages businesses in the areas of real estate, banks, retail stores (over 250), shopping centers, fast food restaurants, gas stations, etc.
• Servicio Automotriz S.A.: car rental services for tourists, car repair and gas stations.
• Aero Gaviota: manages tourism and airlines.
• Tecnotex: import/export of technology and services.
• Almacenes Universal: warehouses located in Wajay, Mariel, Cienfuegos and Santiago.
• Almest: real estate and tourism services.
• Antex: customer service and commercial operations in Africa.
• Agrotex: agriculture and livestock.
• Sermar: exploration of Cuban waters and naval repair (shipyard).
• Servicio la Marina: provides security and support to GAESA (some employees are operatives of the MININT’s Intelligence department M-6).
• Geocuba: geodesy and cartography.
• Cubanacán: tourism.

Principal Government Institutions

Cuba’s Communist Party: according to Cuba’s 1992 Constitution, Chapter I, Article 5 “the Communist Party of Cuba, a follower of Marti’s ideas and of Marxism-Leninism, and the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organizes and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society.”

Communist Party Politburo: 15 member committee. The Politburo is the State and society’s highest power as designated by the Communist Party supremacy. The First and Second Secretary of the PPC represents maximum authority.

Council of Ministers: according to Cuba’s 1992 Constitution, Chapter X, Article 95, “The Council of Ministers is the highest ranking executive and administrative body and constitutes the government of the Republic.” Article 96 points out that: “the Council of Ministers is composed of the head of state and government, as its president, the first vice president…and the other members that the law determines.”

Council of State: according to Cuba’s 1992 Constitution, Chapter X, Article 74, “the National Assembly of People’s Power elects, from among its deputies, the Council of State, which consists of one president, one first vice president, five vice presidents, one secretary and 23 other members.”

National Assembly of the People’s Power: Cuba’s congressional body approves, without dissent, laws and decrees issued by the Council of State.

PARANOID PRESIDENT: Obama Was ‘Suspicious’ of Military Leaders, Gates Says By Clash Daily

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he always felt President Obama was respectful of senior military leaders, but at the same time was “suspicious of their motives” and seemed to feel pressure to from them to adopt their recommendations.

However, Gates said he also admired what he called Obama’s “courageous” decision to order the troop surge in Afghanistan in 2010, saying the president did so against the advice of all of his advisers because Obama believed it would work.

In an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday night the former Pentagon boss spoke at length about his time serving under Obama and President George W. Bush, on the same day his controversial memoir “Duty” hit stores.

Gates said on “Hannity” he felt there was a difference between how Obama and Bush viewed meeting with senior military leaders. Bush, he said, seemed to genuinely enjoy meeting with them, but Obama did not seem to feel the same.

“He always gave the military leaders as much time as they wanted, listened carefully, was never nasty to them,” Gates said. “But I always had the feeling with him, that first of all he was suspicious of their motives and second that time spent with them was an obligation rather than something he enjoyed…

FOX NEWS: Investigate the investigators? GOP lawmakers urge probe of IRS scandal review. Published January 16, 2014 FoxNews.com

Republican lawmakers, frustrated by the Justice Department's slow-moving probe into the IRS targeting scandal and "conflict of interest" concerns, are now calling for the investigators to be investigated.

Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, on Wednesday formally requested that the Justice Department's inspector general launch his own probe into the department's review of IRS activities.

The request marks a serious escalation of their complaints about the department's conduct and, specifically, a decision to have a President Obama backer lead the investigation.

"The Department has created the appearance that it is not taking seriously its responsibility to conduct a thorough investigation of IRS misconduct," Issa and Jordan wrote in a letter to Inspector General Michael Horowitz.

Such complaints have come to a head this week, as conservative groups and lawmakers worry that the investigation is fizzling -- eight months after the agency first acknowledged it singled out conservative groups for extra scrutiny when they applied for tax-exempt status.

In their letter, Issa and Jordan cited a litany of concerns, including recent claims from administration officials that criminal charges in the case are unlikely. But they centered on the decision to appoint Barbara Kay Bosserman to lead the FBI probe. Campaign finance records show Bosserman has given more than $6,000 to Obama's two presidential campaigns.

"Publicly available information suggests that Ms. Bosserman may have a conflict of interest in this matter," they wrote, also citing a Fox News report that she attended a bill-signing ceremony at the White House in 2009.

Separately, the lawmakers wrote to Labor Secretary Thomas Perez asking him about any possible involvement, given his prior position as Bosserman's boss in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

The Justice Department, though, has pushed back hard on those questioning Bosserman's fitness for the role.

One official said last week that simply because a trial attorney exercised her constitutional right to make a political donation does not mean she's not acting professionally. Officials stressed that they cannot consider political affiliation when handing out case assignments.

"It is contrary to Department policy and a prohibited personnel practice under federal law to consider the political affiliation of career employees or other non-merit factors in making personnel decisions," the department said in a statement.

On Monday, a DOJ official also said that the ceremony Bosserman attended in 2009 -- for the signing of hate crimes legislation -- was attended by the Civil Rights Division team, which was described as "typical" given their "technical support" on the bill.

WND: Is the biggest Obama scandal yet about to hit? Major new development in eligibility case promised by investigators

Every day brings a new shocking headline:

• Is Obama misleading U.S. on NSA surveillance?

• The Obama administration states it can launch a strike on Syria without congressional approval.

• The Obama administration provided U.S. firearms to the drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the deaths of two U.S. law enforcement agents and countless American and Mexican citizens, apparently in an effort to make a political case for gun control.

• The Obama administration covered up a debacle in Benghazi that cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.

• The Obama administration used the Internal Revenue Service as an attack dog against its political adversaries, including, but not limited to, the tea party movement.

• The Obama administration even targeted its friends in the media by spying on journalists at the largest news-gathering operation in the world, the Associated Press, along with a reporter from Fox News.

Could this be just the tip of the iceberg?

Have the media begun to turn?

Why are even some of Barack Obama's most loyal supporters beginning to have their doubts?

Why did the first post-scandal poll show some 50 percent of Americans supporting impeachment of Obama?

What would happen, in this climate, if Obama's biggest secret ever were blown wide open for the public to see?

What is that biggest secret? It's that Obama's Hawaii "birth certificate" is, beyond any shadow of a doubt, a forgery – a fraud.

That scandal, too, is about to break wide open, according to investigators working within Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse. They say some new earth-shattering developments will soon be announced.

***But the Cold Case Posse investigation, headed by Mike Zullo, desperately needs financial support to complete its work. ***

"To the public, it may appear that we dropped off the radar screen – that we went silent," said Zullo. "It's true that we did. But we did this out of strategic necessity. We went silent because the investigation needed silence to continue its work."

Zullo says that work has progressed to the point that the investigation believes it can prove to any unbiased authority that Obama's birth certificate is fraudulent – which suggests he may not even be constitutionally eligible to serve in the White House.

Would that be the ultimate shocker?

Would that not send a shockwave through Washington and the rest of the country?

***There's just one problem: The Cold Case Posse needs private contributions to complete its groundbreaking work.***

The Zullo and the Cold Case Posse have prepared an exhaustive affidavit that will be introduced for the consideration of the Alabama Supreme Court in a case brought by attorney Larry Klayman on behalf of behalf of 2012 Constitution Party presidential nominee Virgil Goode and Alabama Republican Party leader Hugh McInnish, who are seeking to force Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman to verify that all candidates on the state's 2012 ballot were eligible to serve.

The case, dismissed at a lower level, is now before the Alabama Supreme Court, where strict constitutionalist Roy Moore was elected chief justice last November. The case becomes all the more intriguing because Moore is on record previously questioning Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president.

Last year, Arpaio held a press conference at which he and Zullo outlined their initial findings.

"At that time, we announced that we had concluded that there was probable cause that forgery and fraud had been committed in respect of two documents: 1) the long-form or original birth certificate computer image presented by Mr. Obama, which contained multiple errors and anomalies, many of them serious and: 2) the selective-service document for Mr. Obama, which contained a two-digit year-stamp. This was contrary to specifications issued by federal regulations to the effect that the year of issue should be expressed as four digits on the stamp, and also contrary to any other selective-service registration document that we had been able to examine," Zullo wrote in his affidavit to the Alabama court.

The result of the evidence, he said, is one conclusion.

"Accordingly, Sheriff Arpaio continues to recommend that the Congress of the United States open an immediate investigation, including the appointment of a select committee, as regards to the authenticity of Mr. Obama's documentation, whether any crimes have been committed, and to determine Mr. Obama's eligibility for the office of president of the United States," he said.

Zullo continues: "Mr. Obama has in fact not offered any verifiable authoritative document of any legal significance or possessing any evidentiary value as to the origins of his purported birth narrative or location of the birth event."

At issue is the U.S. Constitution's requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," something a foreigner likely would not be able to qualify as, he said.

"One of our most serious concerns is that the White House document appears to have been fabricated piecemeal on a computer, constructed by drawing together digitized data from several unknown sources," Zullo wrote.

Are you among the millions of Americans who think Obama has so far gotten away with defying the constitutional requirements of his office?

Would you like to see this matter adjudicated once and for all?

Will you support Zullo and Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Cold Case Posse as they pursue justice in the courts and before Congress?

“TE FREEDON NEVER IS FREE”

“En mi opinión” Lázaro R González Miño Editor “IN GOD WE TRUST”

La Misinguillaperipendica

Thursday, January 16, 2014

No 572 "En mi opinion" Enero 16, 2014