No 518 “En mi opinion” Nov. 11, 2013

No 518 “En mi opinión” Noviembre 11, 2013
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño  Editor

Image
“DIA DE LOS VETERANOS DE GUERRA”
“EMO” NUESTRO SALUDO MAS RESPETUOSO Y AGRADECIDO A TODOS LOS VETERANOS DE GUERRA ESTADOUNIDENSES.
GLORIA A TODOS QUE FUERON CAPACES DE OFRENDAR SUS VIDAS EN DEFENSA DE LA PATRIA.
QUE DIOS LOS ACOJA EN SU SANTO SENO.
LAZARO R GONZALEZ MINO.

amenper: Cortejando a nuestros enemigos

En toda la región del Medio Oriente, Obama está ayudando  a nuestros enemigos y dando la espalda a partidarios de EEUU y aliados.
Abiertamente cortejando a nuestros enemigos implacables como los ayatolás de Teherán y la hermandad musulmana, y permitió la penetración China para alcanzar niveles sin precedentes en la región y a Rusia restaurar su influencia a proporciones pre-1979.
Arabia Saudita está tan frustrada con Obama y sus políticas de Siria e Irán que recientemente rechazó una posición en el Consejo de seguridad de la ONU, una bofetada sin precedentes a Washington y las Naciones Unidas.
Las políticas de Obama sobre Irán, se han convertido en algo tóxico. En definitiva, es el acercamiento de Obama a Irán lo que más preocupa a los sauditas, otros Estados árabes del Golfo y definitivamente a Israel.
Negociar con Irán sobre su programa de armas nucleares es o un acto de ingenuidad monumental o una política inconsciente de que un Irán nuclear puede ser contenido y disuadido.
Ningún observador responsable puede legítimamente concluir que hay la más mínima posibilidad de que los ayatolás renuncien al desarrollo de armas nucleares. Y esa es la política declarada de Obama desde antes de ser electo presidente- Posiblemente los vendedores de carros de uso, notorios por vender carros a los ingenuos, estarán pensando en vender sus taxis de uso a la Casa Blanca, como carros usados por viejitas solamente para hacer los mandados al supermercado
El apoyo de Obama a la Hermandad Musulmana — e indirectamente, sus subsidiarias como los terroristas de Hamas en la franja de Gaza — refleja o una interpretación estratégica errónea de las fuerzas políticas en el mundo árabe o un deseo evidente de alinear a Washington con agenda revolucionaria de la hermandad.
Los estadounidenses deben darse cuenta que estamos viendo no sólo una serie de fracasos de las políticas estadounidenses en el Medio Oriente. Obama preside la pérdida de prestigio y la influencia estadounidense porque piensa que somos demasiado poderosos, demasiado dominantes en el mundo y por extensión, también lo son nuestros aliados en la región, sobre todo Israel.
Primer ministro israelí Benjamín Netanyahu, dijo el viernes que “absolutamente rechaza” el acuerdo nuclear entre las potencias occidentales e irán, llamándolo un “mal negocio” y prometiendo que Israel hará todo lo necesario para defenderse
La indiscutible evidencia demuestra que la  ideología  de Obama es tan radical en las relaciones internacionales como en la política interna. Tal como él quiere “Redistribuir la riqueza” en el país, así  también quiere la “difusión” del poder de Estados Unidos alrededor del mundo.
Pagaremos por el radicalismo de Obama en los años venideros.

amenper: The Liberal View of Ronald Reagan: Taxes
By Douglas V. Gibbs

Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest Presidents of the United States. Not the greatest, but one of the greatest. George Washington, James Madison, and Calvin Coolidge rank higher, in my opinion, but Reagan does well if those are his competitors for the title.
Reagan proved that conservatism wins elections, conservatism creates prosperity, and peace through strength is a truth that not only keeps the peace, but brings down tyranny and the walls that imprison a people.
The legacy of Ronald Reagan lives on in the hearts and minds of conservatives worldwide.
As expected, the liberal left is working to revise history, and change who Reagan was. They are like sheep all bleating the same nonsense, but since the liberal left has control over the media and education system, their myths about Reagan have a potential to take hold.
Problem is, like most of what comes out of the mouths of the liberal left, they are nothing more than politically charged lies.
One of the most recent ones is how Ronald Reagan increased taxes, not lowered them, and that in fact the largest tax increase in history came by the hand of Reagan.
As Governor of California Reagan also raised taxes, though this came shortly after his years as a liberal, and believe it or not, early in his life he was a staunch supporter of Franklin Delano Roosevelt – a president no conservative can even consider harboring a good thought about.
But wasn’t Reagan a big tax cutter? Yes.
Confused yet?
Right off the bat, once Reagan took office, he enacted a 25 percent across-the-board tax cut (The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981). After Reagan’s economic policies took effect family incomes rose by 11 percent. This followed a 9% drop during the Carter years, which were the result of liberal policies.
Reagan entered the White House with a U.S. economy that was in very bad shape. He needed to move quickly, and he did. Runaway inflation, an auto industry in peril, and the American way of life in jeopardy, led Reagan to attack the top tax rate, which was at 70%. He cut the rate in half to 35%, while also eliminating many tax shelters that the rich routinely relied on to avoid paying taxes altogether, forcing them to invest in the free market and actually pay taxes. Immediately, the economy began to respond, taking off for an unprecedented period of peacetime growth. Inflation slowed down, unemployment rates fell, interest rates dropped, and the following decade of prosperity was the result.
Ronald Reagan also made a serious mistake in 1982. He trusted the Democrats to stick to their word, and the deal seemed too good to pass up, even though conservatives of the day were not supportive of it. I am referring to the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA). The deal was that Congress, which was dominated by Democrats at that time, would approve three dollars in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Reagan considered TEFRA to be a pretty good “70 percent” deal, if the Democrats kept to their end of the bargain.
Surprise! The Democrats lied. Congress wound up cutting less than twenty-seven cents for every new tax dollar. What had seemed to be an acceptable 70-30 compromise turned out to be a 30-70 sword in the side. Although the deal left the individual tax rate reductions approved the previous year untouched, with a series of tax deferments and rule changes through a series of business and excise taxes plus the removal of business tax deductions, it wound up becoming the largest peacetime tax increase in U.S. history
Only the fact that his individual tax rate reductions were larger saved the Reagan era of prosperity from becoming a disaster.The problem was that Reagan believed that members of Congress wouldn’t lie to him. He should have known better. That is what liberals do: they lie. As a result of TEFRA, Reagan learned to “trust but verify,” whether he was dealing with a Speaker of the House or the communist leader of the Soviet Union.
The prosperity from Reagan’s tax cuts reached all the way into Bush 43’s presidency. Had the spending cuts also ensued as hoped for, the prosperity would have lasted longer. Unfortunately, Reagan had a Democrat-led Congress to deal with, and spending cuts were not on the table.
We have an opportunity again to turn our country around and create another era of prosperity. Spending cuts, entitlement reform, and a reduction in taxes will lead us once again in a direction of prosperity. But, like always, the Democrats are working on their own plans to deceive, and destroy.
The Republicans only have to stand their ground. To cave would result in a devastating loss for the GOP, as happened after Bush 41’s betrayal when he reneged on his “No New Taxes” pledge.

amenper: ¿Es Chris Christie la solución 70-35?

Ronald Reagan fue la solución 70-35 del partido Republicano, un conservador fiscal y social,  listo a negociar que consiguió el apoyo de los “demócratas por Reagan” (Reagadems) que lo llevó a la monumental victoria contra Jimmy Carter.  Ganó con el sólido del voto conservador mientras ganó el voto de mas de un 30% de los moderados demócratas y republicanos.  Recuerdo como algunos criticaban que Reagan había sido demócrata y jefe de un sindicato de la Unión de Artistas, pero él supo comunicar su mensaje conservador y sin lugar a dudas supo implementarlo durante sus administraciones- Reagan bajó los impuestos del 70% que nos habían implantado los demócratas a un 35%.. Fue la solucion 70-35 que llevó a la recuperación económica del país.
Los que vivimos las primarias del 1980, recordamos los ataques de George H. Bush a Reagan.
Fue Bush el que creó la palabra “Regaenomics” como burla a las teorías económicas de Reagan. 
Sin embargo una vez que ganó las primarias, Reagan escogió a George H. Bush como su vicepresidente.  Este era Ronald Reagan, alguien que sabía lo que quería, que era ganar las elecciones generales con todas las vertientes conservadoras y moderadas.
Pero la situación no es la misma, ninguno de los candidatos posible de los demócratas es tan impopular como Jimmy Carter, y decir que Chris Christie aunque ha demostrado ser un conservador fiscal, no tiene ni la mitad del carisma y la habilidad de comunicar de Ronald Reagan es todavía quedarse muy corto en la comparación
Los extremos políticos hoy sin más profundos que en 1981.  Los demócratas son realmente un partido socialista hoy en día, y el partido republicano está más dividido que nunca. 
Nos hace falta un Ronald Reagan, no me parece que Chris Christie sea el Ronald Reagan, a pesar de ser un conservador fiscal como Reagan no tiene lo que se necesita para ganar las elecciones, ojalá me equivoque.
Lo que nos deja con la división que tenemos, los conservadores queremos alguien como Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio o Rand Paul, pero ¿Puede ser Ted Cruz calificado como ciudadano nativo para aspirar?
Y si lo es, ¿puede tener el apoyo necesario de los independientes y demócratas moderados?
Lo que nos deja con la esperanza de que de aquí al 2016 nos salga un Ronald Reagan en el partido republicano. 
Marco Rubio es una posibilidad, todo depende de que haya adquirido la madurez en estos años para enfrentarse a la publicidad negativa a la que cualquier candidato republicano recibirá de la prensa complaciente de la izquierda y que pueda lograr que los conservadores extremos voten por un presidente hispano.  Rand Paul asusta por ser hijo de su padre, sin lugar a dudas es un conservador fiscal, pero no sabemos realmente hasta donde el pensamiento libertario de su padre influiría en su presidencia, y no creo que el país votaría por un candidato que tuviera ideas libertarias. El único chance sería que declarara su oposición a las políticas sociales y de política exterior libertarias publicamente. .
Los candidatos demócratas son vulnerables, Hillary Clinton no es carismática al contrario tiene una personalidad desagradable,y no tiene la simpatía incondicional de los demócratas no socialistas. Su fracaso cuando trató de implantar el Hillarycare lo demostró.
 Joe Biden es una excusa a un político, es un chiste como persona.  Así que hay la oportunidad de que cualquiera de los dos pueda ser derrotado en unas elecciones presidenciales.
Todo depende de que en las primarias los republicanos escojan al candidato que pueda presentarse como una opción a la mayoría de la nación que realmente quiere volver a las políticas domésticas tradicionales y la restauración de los Estados Unidos como líder del mundo libre.
Las primarias decidirán qué partido ganará las elecciones, el pragmatismo es esencial en el partido republicano, es una oportunidad que no se puede dejar pasar. 
Una elección que nos deje a Hillary Cinton como presidente puede resultar en que los Estados Unidos se conviertan en un país socialista europeo.
Los republicanos a pesar de sus divisiones no están tan mal como nos quiere hacer ver la mediática Obamista.
Chris Christie tuvo una victoria decisiva en Nueva Jersey, Virginia fue una pérdida honorable. Los demócratas dieron apoyo económico al candidato libertario que ganó el 6% de los votos y a pesar de ser superado  $34 millones a $14 millones en un estado que Obama ganó el año pasado, Cuccinelli pudo haber ganado si no se hubiera concentrado tanto  en temas sociales que ya no resuenan tanto por la prioridad de un electorado que está en el cuarto año de una recuperación económica a paso de tortuga.
Pero mientras la lección es clara para los republicanos — que se concentren en cuestiones económicas — tienen que aprender las lecciones de estas elecciones de medio término. Las cuestiones sociales se resuelven con un candidato que tenga la trayectoria conservadora, después que sea presidente, como lo hizo Reagan, pero si no es electo, no puede implementarlas. Los republicanos tienen que concentrarse en el lema secreto de la campaña de Bill Cinton que le dio la victoria contra Bush Sr. “Es la economía estúpido”.
Los republicanos tienen que estar claro que el objetivo es ganar las elecciones, no presentar una batalla intestina de filosofías que los autodestruya y desaliente al electorado.
Chris Christie como Reagan ha sabido ganar con los moderados, sin embargo su gestión de gobierno ha sido de gobierno pequeño y balancear el presupuesto fue flexible sin ceder en sus principios.
Pero de nuevo, Chris Christie no es Ronald Reagan, aunque hay que recordar que en un momento pasado Chris Christie era un favorito del Tea Party.  Creo que sin lugar a dudas su trayectoria lo hace presentarse legítimamente como un conservador fiscal y puede ser el 70-35 que fue Reagan.
Pero su abrazo a Obama va ser difícil de olvidar, todo depende de lo que haga durante su campaña, le hace falta una denuncia enérgica y articulada de estos años de desgobierno de Obama.
Su carácter volátil que algunos critican, no es un problema, hace falta alguien que se presente como genuino, no un individuo de carácter pasivo.
El partido Demócrata no ha podido realizar competentemente sus funciones ejecutivas; el desastre de Obamacare proporciona el ejemplo más reciente de muchos. Tenemos que presentar un candidato viable para aprovecharse de la debilidad de los demócratas.

 

amenper: MENSAJERO DE LOS DIOSES

Últimamente he estado confundido acerca de lo que yo pensaba eran las inconsistencias en los discursos de Obama.
Pero después de analizar a Obama y su discurso, llegué a la conclusión de que estaba equivocado.
La situación es que para entender a Obama tenemos que comprender lo que es la persona de Obama.
Obama es divino, un simple mortal como yo, no puede realmente entender  a Obama, para entender los discursos de Obama tenemos que ir a la ley Herméutica.
La ley Hermenéutica –harma´njuctiks – es la teoría de la interpretación del discurso, tiene su origen con Hermes, la Deidad griega que fue el ‘mensajero de los dioses’. Además de ser un mediador entre los dioses los hombres,
Hermes también era considerado el inventor de la lengua y discurso, aunque también tenía la licencia como un dios de tener el poder de la trampa, la deshonestidad y la mentira. Estas múltiples funciones hizo de Hermes una ideal figura representativa de la hermenéutica. Como señaló Sócrates, las palabras tienen el poder de revelar o disimular y puede enviar mensajes de forma ambigua según la voluntad de los dioses.
La visión griega del lenguaje como compuesto de señales de que podrían conducir a la verdad o falsedad era la esencia de Hermes, quien se dice que disfruta la intranquilidad de aquellos que recibieron los mensajes que le entregó.
Pero lo que yo, como muchos no vemos, que bajo el uso de la “hermenéutica” Obama se coloca dentro de los límites de lo sagrado. No debemos de recibir un mensaje divino con incertidumbre en cuanto a su verdad. Esta ambigüedad es una especie de locura que se inflige en el receptor del mensaje. Una emoción  que yo he sentido últimamente.
Hay que aceptar el mensaje del nuevo Hermes, Obama, el único que posee un método racional de interpretación (es decir, una hermenéutica) el único que puede  determinar la verdad o la falsedad del mensaje-
Cuando nos dijo que podemos mantener nuestro seguro y mantener a nuestro médico, y después él dice que lo que dijo que podríamos mantener nuestro seguro si nuestro seguro antes de Obamacare era substándar, y en cuanto a mantener a nuestro médico lo malinterpretamos, pero que dijo que era que podíamos mantener a nuestro médico solamente si el médico acepta los pagos de las pólizas del Obamacare, y luego dijo que le pedía disculpas a los perdieron el seguro pero a continuación dijo que no él pero las compañías de seguros los responsables de todo este caos.
Nosotros no pudimos entender el mensaje que nos parecía ambiguo.
Pero cuando nosotros no entendemos a Obama, no es su culpa, es nuestra, somos humanos, Obama es divino, Obama es el nuevo Hermes, el libertador del mensaje de los dioses, así que debemos dejar de cuestionar sus discursos y aceptarlo sin discutir la verdad de la falsedad del mensaje

 

amenper: Ley de Esposa Asequible

El Presidente Obama afirmó hoy que está muy molesto con alta tasa de solteros de Estados Unidos y ha anunciado una nueva política de gobierno, AWCA,  Wife Affordable wife Care Act. (Ley de Esposas Asequible)
Al anunciar este programa nuevo y emocionante, el Presidente afirmó, si usted actualmente tiene una esposa y le gusta como es ella, pueden quedarse con ella, ¡punto!
Si te gustan tus hijos, pueden quedarse con ellos, !punto!,
Pero para aquellos actualmente sin esposa o hijos puedes ir a la Página Web de AWC.
El AWCA le ofrecerá una esposa con o sin hijos a un precio asequible- Tenemos tres planes de esposas Bronce, Oro y Platino. Usted podrá comprar la esposa que se ajuste a sus necesidades y a su economía.
El anillo de bodas está incluido en el plan.
Lo importante es que todos los hombres tendrán esposas e hijos.
Pero si su esposa o sus hijos son subestándar entonces tendrán que divorciarse y comprar la esposa e hijos que le ofrecemos.
 Hay muchas esposas que son inadecuadas y no llenan los requisitos del matrimonio de la ley de esposa asequible.  Si usted es una de esas personas con esposas e hijos subestándars  tendrá una vida mejor con una esposa e hijos asequibles con los beneficios de AWCA.
Vaya a nuestro website o llamen a nuestra línea gratis para inscribirse en el AWCA.
Si prefiere seleccionar a tu esposa asequible en papel, usted puede llamar a un número telefónico gratuito y le enviarán los formularios
El sitio web está teniendo dificultades técnicas, pero está siendo  arreglado y trabajará en un futuro cercano
El sitio web está teniendo dificultades técnicas, pero anunciaron que está siendo arreglado y trabajará en un futuro cercano. En estos momentos  el teléfono está fuera de orden, pero estará en condiciones de trabajo en un futuro cercano.

Amenper: Sindrome de Musulmanes Ofendidos

Abdullah Sharif acababa de cumplir los 35 cuando de repente estalló la polémica caricatura de Mohammed. Le dejó cicatrices emocionales tan profundas que desarrolló una aversión a arte representativo en todas sus formas. A menudo se encontró gritando mientras por descuido veía un libro de muñequitos  en una ventana de la librería, o al ver las tiras cómicas en la prensa local. Pero mientras que Abdullah anteriormente hubiera sido considerado alguien extraño, gracias a las redes sociales, es ahora un líder exitoso de una organización caritativa internacional trabajando para el mejoramiento de la humanidad a través de la imposición de la Sharia en los infieles. Su grupo abarca una amplia gama de actividades, desde los disturbios ocasionales, manifestaciones, bombardeos y golpiza a infieles hasta escribir cartas amenazadoras a las publicaciones de tiras cómicas.
“Un verdadero creyente aislado puede ser considerado antisocial, pero juntos somos la religión de más rápido crecimiento en la tierra, haciendo el cambio cultural importante para una sociedad más dominada por el Islam que beneficie tanto a los  creyentes comunes, como al humilde kufir, que recientemente se mudó a una nueva casa en Malibú y está recorriendo el mundo en un Jet privado.
Estudios realizados por profesionales de la salud mental han demostrado que las mujeres y los hombres musulmanes se ofenden a menudo cuando se enfrentan a los elementos más inesperados. En la lista de diez de las cosas más ofensivas están los termómetros rectales “, que muchos musulmanes consideran un insulto solapado a Alá y al Islam por su implicación con el homosexualismo.
Cada tal agravio está siendo minuciosamente documentado y se actúa en consecuencia por los grupos de apoyo y proveedores de salud mental , tales como CAIR,(Countil for American-Isalmic Relations) que ayudan a las víctimas a superar su estrés y la ansiedad por presentación de costosas demandas contra instituciones privadas y agencias gubernamentales.
La Organización Mundial de la salud (OMS) ha pedido a los gobiernos nacionales ayuda para proporcionar apoyo financiero para la red de grupos de autoayuda musulmán,  programas curativos y campos de entrenamiento, creando un entorno de más apoyo y empoderamiento para los enfermos del síndrome de musulmanes ofendidos (SMO).
“Ser un musulmán hoy significa estar siempre consciente de que siempre hay algo, en alguna parte, que de alguna manera es ofensivo para el Islam,” dijo en un informe publicado por la SMO, un organismo especializado de las Naciones Unidas que actúa como una autoridad de coordinación sobre la salud pública internacional del mundo musulmán. “Es una lástima que las naciones más ricas del mundo se mantengan pasivos ante la epidemia más grande de la historia inducida por desorden psicológico por la discriminación al Islam y no le presten la ayuda financiera que merecen.”.
El informe de la SMO proporciona una lista de los síntomas del síndrome musulmanes ofendidos, sugiriendo que la condición sea reconocida oficialmente como una discapacidad, con los consiguientes costos cubiertos por los gobiernos occidentales, incluyendo sellos de alimentos que cubran la dieta del Islam y tiempo libre en su empleo para que puedan orar 5 veces al día en la mezquita más cercana al centro de trabajo.
Síntomas del síndrome de musulmanes ofendido (SMO)
Irritabilidad, agitación, ansiedad ante la vista de las mujeres que no están totalmente cubiertas
Furia prolongada por el pecado de lujuria incitado por esas mujeres provocando un impulso de  poner una bomba.
Cambios significativos en los patrones de inmigración y deseos de la universalidad del Islam.
Cavilar sobre el pasado de gloria del califato
Frustración por los ataques en el centro de trabajo por la disminución de la eficacia y la productividad laboral mínima por las demandas de los empleadores que interfieren con los tiempos de oración 
Sentimientos de desesperación o desesperanza sobre la existencia de Israel
Pensamientos recurrentes de muerte a los infieles

Samitier: Cada dia me asusta mas El Baticano:

Ordena el “Nuevo Papa Francisco”
Hacer Una Encuesta Preparatoria
Para El Sínodo Del Año Entrante…
Lo Mismo Que Hacen Los Partidos Políticos
Antes De Sus Convenciones Para Hacer Una
Plataforma Que Sea Aprobada Por Todos…
Los Justos y Pecadores…   
 
Creo que con la cantidad de HOMOSEXUALES que la Iglesia
Acepto y consagró como curas… a pesar de saberse que
todos son PEDÓFILOS… pues todas las primeras experiencias
homosexuales De los niños están comprobadas que son
\INSINUADAS y realizadas por ABERRO SEXUALES más viejos…
 
Todo buen CRISTIANO debe de estar ASUSTADO… pero seguro
Estoy que el MAS PREOCUPADO ES “LA TRINIDAD” DIOS Padre
Hijo y Espíritu Santo…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/09/world/europe/with-survey-vatican-seeks-laity-comment-on-family-issues.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20131109

Samitier: Minimum Wage Hikes: The Nail in the Coffin for Small Business.
Además de ir contra los pequeños negocios… va a crear la INFLACIÓN… PUES es la forma de poner dinero en el BOLSILLO de la gente que saldrán a GASTARLO… creando la inflación…

 

Minimum Wage Hikes: The Nail in the Coffin for Small Business

Dear Conservative,
The saying goes that each of the 50 States are “Laboratories of Democracy.” This adage comes from former-Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who suggested that the States could try out “novel social and economic experiments” without endangering the rest of the country.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where Liberal States have become Laboratories of Socialism, and these failed liberal policies are routinely thrust on the American people.
While everyone was eyeing the gubernatorial races around the country, the “Laboratories” churned out a new product that threatens to destroy the U.S. economy if enacted at the Federal level.
Pundits are cheering Chris Christie’s reelection as a model for how to make Conservatism palatable for Independents and Democrats. But while the state reelected the Governor, just as many people voted in favor of a ballot measure to amend the constitution to raise the minimum wage and a tie it to the rate of inflation for yearly increases.
To summarize: NJ voters just killed small business (and many likely voted themselves out of a job).
Minimum wage workers in New Jersey will now receive a $1 pay-raise, and their pay will increase every year as the dollar becomes devalued. Unfortunately, many of them will lose their jobs because of this measure.
You might think this is just New Jersey’s problem. For now, it is.
But Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and President Barack Obama have both publicly stated that raising the minimum wage to over $10/hour is one of their goals for the month of November.
Coincidentally, there is already legislation drafted, ready to raise the minimum wage, and Obama has made it no secret that he will sign it into law if it reaches his desk.
Tell Congress that the last thing our struggling economy needs is increasing the burden on Small Business!
?As you probably know, small businesses operate with a very small profit margin. Yet the Democrats have convinced their followers that small business owners are hording all of the profits. This is taken straight from the Socialists’ Playbook and is contributing to class warfare in this country. With all of the burdens placed on small business, whether it’s rising healthcare costs or minimum wage hikes, don’t be surprised when businesses start laying-off employees or closing shop all together.
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA) has introduced the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013. If enacted, the minimum wage would climb to over $10/hour by 2015, and would be raised every year based on the Consumer Price Index. Basically, as goods become more expensive, the minimum wage will rise.
This gets particularly dangerous when you recognize that the Government is printing $85 Billion every month and dumping into the economy, drastically devaluing our currency in the process.
Apparently since things get more expensive due to cost of living increases, the minimum wage workers deserve to make more money. But as businesses are forced to pay employees more, the price will increase on the goods they sell. Then at the end of the year, the minimum wage increases again because… wait for it… the minimum wage made everything more expensive to begin with!
If the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 becomes law, it will destroy the American small businesses that have been hanging on by a thread ever since Obama entered office.
Tell Congress that the Fair Minimum Wage Act will destroy Small Business!
The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. No one can afford to live on such a low wage. The minimum wage was designed for low-experience employees first entering the work force. If the Democrats had their way, every minimum wage worker would receive a golden watch when they retire!
There is nothing wrong with wanting to ease the burden on the working-poor among us. But raising the minimum wage accomplishes nothing when it also causes the price of EVERYTHING to increase as well. Only 2.9% of Americans work for the Federal minimum wage. Yet Democrats want to make everything more expensive for the other 97% of Americans! 
If the government really wanted to help American families, they would reduce federal tax burden. Not just on low-income families, but on EVERYONE! The government could easily reduce the already-low tax burden on minimum wage workers, but that would mean less tax revenue for the tax-and-spend politicians. A higher minimum wage means more income tax and payroll tax revenue for the gluttonous Federal Government.
President Obama and his colleagues on Capitol Hill have already made it public that they plan to put this legislation up for a vote during the month of November. Don’t wait for the news media to pick up on this. By that point, it will likely be too late! We need to make sure that this horrible legislation never even sees the light of day!
Fax Congress and tell them that raising the minimum wage in this fashion would be foolish and fiscally irresponsible!
There are many ways to increase take-home pay and ease the financial burdens that American families face. Unfortunately, the Democrats ignore the tax-cutting policies that have worked so well in the past. Instead, they choose time after time to redistribute the country’s wealth from the makers to the takers.
This wealth is not infinite. As you know, there is only so much wealth to redistribute. Even if the government took 100% of everyone’s income, that still wouldn’t even pay off Obama’s $17+ Trillion debt!
Now the Obama Democrats want to perform a social experiment and milk small business owners for all they’re worth, all in the attempt to increase entitlements and create more Democratic voters.
Stand up to Obama and Reid! Tell them to stop playing games with the U.S. economy!
Let your voice be heard! Tell Congress that raising the minimum wage in this fashion is unacceptable and fiscally insane!
Sincerely,
Joe Otto
Conservative Daily

 

Elizabeth Warren Could Threaten Hillary from Left in 2016
By Greg Richter

It isn’t Republicans such as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie or Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should fear if she chooses to run for president in 2016, writes Noam Scheiber of The New Republic. 

Instead, she should keep a wary eye on fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, currently serving as U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, represents the more socialist wing of the party, which is growing in popularity among Democrats under 30, Scheiber writes, citing a recent Pew poll. 

Clinton represents the “Democratic elites” associated with her husband’s presidency, who moved left in support of the economic stimulus and larger unemployment benefits of President Barack Obama, though they still think the economy needs a “large, powerful, highly complex financial sector.”

But socialists have held the upper hand recently, Scheiber says. He cites New York City Public Advocate and former Sandinista activist Bill de Blasio’s capturing of the New York City mayor’s race, Larry Summers’ forced withdrawal from consideration as chairman of the Fed, and former Obama chief of staff and JP Morgan executive Bill Daley’s dropping out of the Illinois governor’s race over bad polls.

These are bad omens for Clinton, Scheiber argues.

He describes Clinton’s likely Democratic challenger as someone from the socialist wing of the party who likely would be a woman, since Democrats would want to follow up the historic election of the nation’s first black president with another historic first. She would also need to be able to raise vast sums of money.

“As it happens, there is precisely such a person,” Scheiber says. “Her name is Elizabeth Warren.”

But Warren also strikes fear into the hearts of her fellow Democrats, he says. Clinton is a team player, and is therefore predictable. For that matter, Cruz, on the Republican side is also predictable as he bucks his party’s leadership. With Warren, they never know what they’ll get.

She entered the Senate seeming to defer to party leaders, but at her very first hearing as a member of the Senate Banking Committee, she pounced on bank regulators, saying, “Tell me a little bit about the last few times you’ve taken the biggest financial institutions on Wall Street all the way to a trial.”

“The question, though eminently reasonable, violated an unstated rule of committee protocol, in which members of Congress are allowed to rant and rave at length but generally abstain from humiliating appointees, especially from their own party,” Scheiber writes.

Schieber notes that most presidential race watchers don’t expect Warren to run, as it would most likely be a suicide mission. But her past has shown that, like Cruz, she cares less about her own political ambition than she does about her mission. In her case, she wants to advance her economic agenda for what she believes will ease the burden on the middle class.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/elizabeth-warren-hillary-2016-new/2013/11/10/id/535866?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1545563_11112013&promo_code=158FE-1#ixzz2kLYo0WhV 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

 

 

‘Vive La France!’ Say US Opponents of Iran Nuclear Deal. Sunday, 10 Nov 2013 02:36 PM

Conservative leaders, fond of finger-pointing at France in recent years, lavished praise on Paris Sunday for blocking an agreement between Western powers and Iran over Tehran’s nuclear program.
“Vive la France!” Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, an outspoken voice on national security issues, wrote on his Twitter account.
“France had the courage to prevent a bad nuclear agreement with Iran,” he said, after the weekend announcement of the failed agreement with the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany, known as the P5+1.
During three days of intense negotiations in Geneva, France repeatedly voiced concerns over various points in a possible deal and its lack of guarantees, a position that had Iran calling it a negotiations spoiled sport.
“Thank God for France and thank God for push back,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina on CNN’s “State of the Union” program.
“The French are becoming very good leaders in the Mid East,” Graham said, also suggesting he would be in favor of more sanctions against Iran.
“My fear is that we’re going to wind up creating a North Korea-type situation in the Mideast, where we negotiate with Iran and one day you wake up… and you’re going to have a nuclear Iran,” Graham said.
The turnabout could not be more stark.
It was just one decade ago Franco-US ties hit a low over differences on Iraq and then president Jacques Chirac’s opposition to the Anglo-US offensive against Saddam Hussein’s regime.
So deep was the animosity — led by conservatives for the most part — that French fries were renamed “freedom fries” in some American restaurants — including those serving the House of Representatives office buildings.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-nuclear-politics-talks/2013/11/10/id/535849?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1545524_11102013&promo_code=158F5-1#ixzz2kLYEPCPp 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

 

RUBEN NAVARRETTE: CHRISTIE’S HELPING HAND

By The Washington Post Writers Group
5 p.m.Nov. 9, 2013
Is it possible that the winning ticket for Republicans in 2016 was on display during the New Jersey gubernatorial campaign? The pairing has a nice ring to it: Christie-Martinez.
Having been elected the first female governor of New Mexico and the first Latina governor of any state, Susana Martinez must be accustomed to racking up impressive titles. And while campaigning in the Garden State for a fellow Republican governor, she may have staked a claim to another one — kingmaker.
Gov. Chris Christie, who cruised to re-election last week with 60 percent of the vote, made a point of getting out of the GOP’s comfort zone and going after voters who typically don’t vote for Republicans. In contrast to Mitt Romney’s pitiful strategy of writing off “47 percent” of Americans as too dependent on government largesse to even consider voting Republican, Christie pursued every vote.
This includes Hispanics, which is probably why Christie invited Martinez to New Jersey to campaign with him. News outlets have reported that it was the only such offer he made to any out-of-state elected official during the campaign.
What a smart choice. Like Christie, the 54-year-old Martinez is amazingly popular in her state. According to a recent poll of New Mexico voters, Martinez’s approval rating is a staggering 66 percent — which includes high marks from 64 percent of independents and 44 percent of Democrats. She is even more popular among Hispanics, including many who are lifelong Democrats.
And, like Christie, Martinez has three tremendous assets: her authenticity, her willingness to tackle controversial issues, her ability to relate to everyday folks. All of these things have paid dividends in the Land of Enchantment, and they could pay off on the national stage as well.
In New Jersey, the two governors did eight campaign stops together, including one in the heavily Hispanic enclave of Union City. According to the 2010 Census, 85 percent of that city’s residents are Hispanic, which is the highest percentage of any municipality in New Jersey. This is not exactly friendly territory for the GOP; about 65 percent of the voters in Union City are registered Democrats. Martinez showed up, worked the crowd, and sprinkled in some Spanish, which she speaks flawlessly, having grown up in El Paso, and lived much of her life in southern New Mexico — a part of the country where they take seriously the need to preserve one’s culture and language.
Both Martinez and Christie have been vocally critical of their party’s boneheaded and mean-spirited approach to the immigration issue, and both have expressed support for a comprehensive reform that combines border security with a path to citizenship for the undocumented.
And for those on the right who maintain that any plan that allows illegal immigrants to remain in the United States would weaken the rule of law, let’s remember that these are two former prosecutors we’re talking about. Christie is a former U.S. attorney, and Martinez is a former district attorney.
In her remarks, Martinez looked past immigration and focused instead on what is for many Hispanics the No. 1 issue facing their community: education.
Christie has said that in his second term, he wants to follow the lead of states such as Florida and bring school choice to New Jersey. This will inflame Democratic-leaning teachers unions that are comfortable with the status quo, a powerful constituency that Christie has already tangled with over other reforms. But, at the same time, he is likely to find support for his crusade among Hispanics, who want better schools, greater accountability and more options. Many of them have started to figure out that the mostly non-Hispanic teachers unions that claim to have their best interests at heart really only care about protecting their own interests.
Martinez seized on that theme.
“Here in New Jersey,” Martinez told the mostly Hispanic crowd about Christie, “it is important for him to fight for the little ones.”
Here’s the thing about Hispanics. If you fight for them, they’ll fight for you.
The result? According to exit polls, at a time when Republicans are delighted if they can get as much as 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, Christie got 50 percent.
If you missed the chance to see this impressive tag team in action, don’t despair. When the 2016 campaign unfolds, you might catch a repeat performance.
Navarrette is a Carlsbad-based columnist syndicated by The Washington Post Writers Group. His email address is ruben@rubennavarrette.com

 

M ALEMAN: SS CHECKS ANOTHER HIDDEN (BENEFIT??) TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !!    It’s not only SS checks, read the message… I have to share this possibility before it becomes a probability! READ  THIS TO THE END !!!  THEN  KEEP  YOUR  EYES  &  EARS  OPEN &  REMEMBER  READING THIS      ON JANUARY 1, 2014, THE US GOVERNMENT WILL BE REQUIRING EVERYONE TO HAVE DIRECT DEPOSIT FOR SS CHECKS.

WONDER WHY?

Subject: HR 4646
Be sure to read entire explanation
Watch for this AFTER November elections; remember this BEFORE you VOTE.
A 1% tax on all bank transactions is what HR 4646 calls for.  

Do you receive a paycheck, or a retirement check from Social Security or a pension fund and have it direct deposit??
This bill was put forth by Rep . Chaka Fattah (D-PA).

YES, that is 1% tax on all bank transactions – HR 4646, every time it goes in and every time money goes out.

Ask your congress person to vote NO.

FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!

1% tax on all bank transactions ~ HR 4646 – ANOTHER NEW OBAMA TAX SLIPPED IN WHILE WE WERE ASLEEP. Checked this on snopes , it’s true! Check it out yourself ~ HR 4646.

This is a 1% tax on all transactions at any financial institution – banks, credit unions, savings and loans, etc.. Any deposit you make, or even a transfer within your own bank from one account to another, will have a 1% tax charged.

If your paycheck or your Social Security or whatever is direct deposit, it will get a 1% tax charged for the transaction.

If your paycheck is $1000, then you will pay the government $10 just for the privilege of depositing your paycheck in your bank. Even if you hand carry your paycheck or any check in to your bank for a deposit, 1% tax will be charged.

You receive a $5,000 stock dividend from your broker, the government takes $50 just to allow you to deposit that check in the bank.

If you take $1,000 cash to deposit at your bank, 1% tax will be charged.

Mind you, this is from the man who promised that, if you make under $250,000 per year, you will not see one penny of new tax.
Keep your eyes and ears open, you will be amazed at what you learn about this guy’s under-the-table moves to increase the number of ways you are taxed.

Oh, and by the way, if you receive a refund from the IRS next year and you have it direct deposited or you walk in to deposit that check, you guessed it. You will pay a 1% charge of that money just for putting it in your bank.
Remember, any money, cash, check or whatever, no matter where it came from, you will pay a 1% fee if you put it in the bank.

Some will say, oh well, it’s just 1%. Are you kidding me? It’s a 1% tax increase across the board. Remember, once the tax is there, they can also raise it at will. And if anyone protests, they will just say, “Oh,that’s not really a tax, it’s a user fee”!

Think this is no big deal? Go back and look at the transactions you made from last year’s banking statements. Then add the total of all those transactions and deduct 1%. Still think it’s no big deal?

 

The following is copied from Snopes :  

1. snopes . com: Debt Free America Act â¤¢â¤¢â¤¢Is the U.S.government proposing a 1% tax on debit card usage and/or banking transactions?…It is true. The bill is HR – 4646 introduced by US Rep Peter deFazio D- Oregon and US Senator Tom Harkin D- Iowa . Their plan is to sneak it in after the…….moved beyond proposing studies and submitted the Debt Free America Act (H.R. 4646 ), a bill calling for the implementation of a scheme to pay down the……[2010] by Rep . Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.). His “Debt Free America Act” (H.R. 4646 ) would impose a 1 percent “transaction tax”  on every  financial transaction… Wed, 02 Nov 201111:27:37 GMThttp :// www . snopes . com /politics/taxes/ debtfree .asp

Gov. Rick Perry: Teamwork Needed if GOP to Win White House By Sandy Fitzgerald

Texas Gov. Rick Perry is spending time in Iowa, possibly in hopes of seeking support for another run at the presidency and calling for Republicans to “find our middle ground” so the party can retake the White House in 2016.

“I don’t think somebody’s going to stand up and say, ‘send me to Washington, D.C. and I’ll fix everything, unless fixing everything means we’re going to try to make Washington as inconsequential as we can in your life,” Perry said in a wide-ranging interview with The Des Moines Register this week. 

Perry in 2012 was considered a “conservative’s conservative,” and was a favorite among tea party supporters, evangelical Christians and others. But there are plenty of people with that description among the 2016 Republican possibles, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul,and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio. Perry’s new strategy, The Register reports, seems to center around rebranding himself as an economic policy savior who will transfer power to the states.

But Iowans have a long memory, including that of Perry not being able to remember the third cabinet agency he sought to eliminate, said Carol Crain, vice chairwoman of the Scott County, Iowa Republicans.

“If he can make us forget that gaffe and offer new enthusiasm and inspiration, he may rekindle his base of support, which originally was pretty strong,” she said.

Perry hasn’t backed down from most of his stances over the past four years, especially where gun control issues are concerned. He’s been traveling the country for most of this year in an attempt to lure weapons businesses away from states where strict gun control laws are in place, and any presidential bid will likely keep him strongly on the side of gun rights.

And he hasn’t officially decided if he’ll seek the presidency, but instead told The Register that he wants to reconnect with people who didn’t get his message the first time around.

“I don’t think we had enough time to go have that thoughtful conversation where people could really absorb, ‘Here are these policies and here are the results of these policies, and is that how you make your family happier?’ ” he said.

Perry also said he’s not concerned about a potential split between the GOP’s tea party side and more mainstream Republicans.

“This isn’t a purity test,” said Perry. “I think that most Republicans do fall into the camp of, ‘Listen, if you don’t win, you can’t govern,’” he said. “Let’s win the elections.”
Perry said he doesn’t think a politician from either side of the Republican fence has a better chance in 2016.

“I think it takes all of them working together,” said Perry. “I’d rather have a half a loaf than no loaf. And so, finding our middle ground — listen, I’m a big believer that most Republicans, most conservatives don’t think that the answers are going to be found in Washington, D.C.”

Perry said Washington does need to address energy, the tax code, and jobs.

“It wouldn’t just kick-start, I think it would explode the American economy,” Perry answered. “People are ready to invest, but we’ve got tax policies and regulatory policies in place that are very onerous to our country right now.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rick-perry-texas-gop/2013/11/09/id/535767?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1545500_11092013&promo_code=158F1-1#ixzz2kLRs8TxL 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

M Aleman: Hillary for President…  AN ANALYSIS WORTH READING: by Dick Morris, former political advisor to President Bill Clinton

If you happen to see the Bill Clinton five minute TV ad for Hillary in 
which he introduces the commercial by saying that he wants to share 
some things we may not know about Hillary’s background . .
Beware

As I was there for most of their presidency and know them better than 
just about anyone, I offer a few corrections;

Bill says: “In law school Hillary worked on legal services for the 
poor.” 

The facts are: Hillary’s main extra-curricular activity in law school 
was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing 
and killing a federal agent. She went to court every day as part of a 
law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations 
and develop grounds for appeal.

Bill says: “Hillary spent a year after graduation working on a 
children’s rights project for poor kids.”

The facts are: Hillary interned with Bob Truehaft, the head of the 
California Communist Party. She met Bob when he represented the 
Panthers and traveled all the way to San Francisco to take an 
internship with him.

Bill says: “Hillary could have written her own job ticket, but she 
turned down all the lucrative job offers.” 

The facts are: She ‘flunked’ the DC bar exam, yes, ‘flunked’, 
it is a matter of record, and only passed the Arkansas bar. 
She had no job offers in Arkansas, none, and only got hired 
by the University of Arkansas Law School at Fayetteville 
because Bill was already teaching there. She did not join 
the prestigious Rose L aw Firm until Bill became Arkansas Attorney General 
and was made a partner only after he was elected Arkansas Governor.

Bill says: “President Carter appointed Hillary to the Legal Services 
Board of Directors and she became its chairman.”

The facts are: The appointment was in exchange for Bill’s support 
for Carter in his 1980 primary against Ted Kennedy. Hillary then 
became chairman in a coup in which she won a majority away from 
Carter’s choice to be chairman.

Bill says: “She served on the board of the Arkansas Children’s Hospital.” 

The facts are: Yes she did. But her main board activity, not mentioned 
by Bill, was to sit on the Wal-mart board of directors, for a 
substantial fee. She was silent about their labor and health care 
practices.

Bill says: “Hillary didn’t succeed at getting health care for all 
Americans in 1994 but she kept working at it and helped to
create the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) that 
provides five million children with health insurance.”

The facts are: Hillary had nothing to do with creating CHIP. 
It was included in the budget deal between Clinton and 
Republican Majority Leader Senator Trent Lott. 
I know; I helped to negotiate the deal. 
The money came half from the budget deal and half from 
the Attorney Generals’ tobacco settlement. 
Hillary had nothing to do with either source of funds.

Bill says: “Hillary was the face of America all over the world.” 

The facts are: Her visits were part of a program to get her out of town 
so that Bill would not appear weak by feeding stories that Hillary was 
running the White House. Her visits abroad were entirely touristic and 
symbolic and there was no substantive diplomacy on any of them.

Bill says: “Hillary was an excellent Senator who kept fighting for 
children’s and women’s issues.” 

The facts are: Other than totally meaningless legislation like changing 
the names on courthouses and post offices, she has passed only four 
substantive pieces of legislation. One set up a national park in Puerto Rico. 
A second provided respite care for family members helping their relatives 
through Alzheimer’s or other conditions. And two were routine bills to aid 
911 victims and responders which were sponsored by the entire NY delegation. 
Presently she is trying to have the US memorialize the ‘Woodstock’ fiasco of 40 years ago.

Here is what bothers me more than anything else about Hillary Clinton. 
She has done everything possible to weaken the President and our 
country (that’s you and me!) when it comes to the war on terror.

1. She wants to close GITMO and move the combatants to the USA 
where they would have access to our legal system. 
2. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of suspected Al Qaeda 
phone calls to/from the USA. 
3. She wants to grant constitutional rights to enemy combatants 
captured on the battlefield.
4. She wants to eliminate the monitoring of money transfers between 
suspected Al Qaeda c ells and supporters in the USA.
5. She wants to eliminate the type of interrogation tactics used by 
the military & CIA where coercion might be used when questioning 
known terrorists even though such tactics might save American lives.

One cannot think of a single bill Hillary has introduced, or a single 
comment she has made, that would tend to strengthen our country 
in the War on Terror.

But, one can think of a lot of comments she has made that weaken 
our country and makes it a more dangerous situation for all of us.

Bottom line: 
She goes hand in hand with the ACLU on far too many issues 
where common sense is abandoned.

[M Aleman] milton: They continue to abuse the office

Obama Daughters are Michelle’s ‘Senior Staffers’ 
Michelle was caught cheating on her expense report. What a show of arrogance! 
This information was obtained by Judicial Watch March, 2012. The administration had to be sued to get this through the FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. 
Michelle Obama listed daughters as ‘Senior Staffers’ to justify her expensive African vacation and safari. 
October 5, 2011, Judicial Watch said the U.S. Air Force provided a C-32 ( a Boeing 757 ), modified by the military for the purpose of flying big-wigs around the world, to fly the First Lady and her entourage to and from Africa , at a cost of $424,142. Another $928.44 was listed as ‘bulk food’ costs per meal for the192 on board meals for the 21 people who made the trip. Lobster ain’t cheap when you fly it around the world. 
The Obama daughters were listed on the manifest as senior staff. ‘This trip was as much an opportunity for the Obama family to go on a safari as it was a trip to conduct government business,’ said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. ‘This junket wasted tax dollars and the resources of our over extended military. No wonder we had to sue to pry loose this information.’ The nation is suffering with the economy sputtering, the national debt soaring and Obama’s economic rescue policies not only failing, but actively making things worse. 
Meanwhile, the First Lady justifies an expensive trip to Africa to take a vacation and safari with her daughters by saying it’s ‘official business’ and even going so far as to list her children as staffers. The level of arrogance and dishonesty on display here is nothing short of shocking. 
But, ‘hope for change’ – when? 
It’s a true. Check out these links and read it for yourself: 
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-documents-detailing-the-cost-to-taxpayers-for-michelle-obama-s-family-trip-to-africa/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-obtains-documents-detailing-the-cost-to-taxpayers-for-michelle-obama-s-family-trip-to-africa/ 

Tengan todos muy buenos dias y buena suerte.
QUE DIOS LOS BENDIGA ABUNDANTEMENTE.
“EN MI OPINION” Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com, lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s