No 653    “En mi opinión”    Mayo 6, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

The Wall Street Journal: Standing to Sue Obama

Congress should challenge his refusal to enforce the law.

PRESENTANDO UNA DEMANDA LEGAL A OBAMA

La  izquierda legal y los medios de comunicación son siempre los último en enterarse, pero estos son los ingredientes de una corrección de cómo los tribunales regulan los conflictos entre los poderes políticos. Los abusos de poder ejecutivo en serie del Presidente Obama — salud, inmigración, marihuana y mucho más — pueden estar inspirando una saludable corrección.

Según la Constitución,  el trabajo del Congreso se supone que sea  crear y modificar las leyes y el Presidente de ejecutarlas fielmente, pero el Sr. Obama ha acaparado el artículo inherente, y  alimenta por suspensión o estatutos, se opone a la reescritura.

El Presidente ha usurpado los atributos del Congreso impunemente porque él asume que nadie tiene el estatus legal para desafiarlo.

La mayoría de las veces las personas que están exentos de las leyes no sufren las lesiones concretas que puede corregir el poder judicial, mientras que los tribunales mantienen una presunción de que los miembros del Congreso también carecen de tal situación.

En Raines de 1997 v. Byrd, la Corte Suprema rechazó una demanda contra el veto de elementos traídos por seis congresistas porque la pérdida del poder legislativo que desafiaron fue una lesión “totalmente abstracta y muy dispersa”.

Pero eso no significa que la conducta que margina la rama legislativa sea absuelta de revisión judicial. En un caso notable, el senador de Wisconsin Ron Johnson está demandando a la casa blanca sobre el Obamacare reglamentario que conjuró los subsidios especiales para los miembros y empleados que se suponen que tengan que renunciar a beneficios para la salud de  empleados federales para unirse a los intercambios seguros.

Johnson argumenta que porque los miembros deben designar a los empleados que hacer y que no participen, la regla impone un poder administrativo no trivial y cargado. Tiene presentada la demanda porque la regla daña a su oficina, no porque él es un senador de Estados Unidos.

Más al punto, el Sr. Johnson afirma que el estado le obliga a convertirse en cómplices personalmente en la ruptura de la ley y por lo tanto daña su reputación política. Varios precedentes de Tribunal de Apelaciones sostienen que los funcionarios elegidos que deben mantener la confianza pública sufren lesiones cuando su credibilidad se ve socavada, incluyendo una sentencia de 1993 C.C. el circuito ahora la justicia Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

La casa blanca afirma el Sr. Johnson carece de pie, pero eso es porque los abogados no quieren acercarse a los méritos. Las importaciones reales de su demanda es que invita a los tribunales para restaurar la correcta separación de poderes en medio de invasiones ejecutivo.

El abogado de Washington David Rivkin y profesor de derecho de la Universidad Internacional de Florida Elizabeth Foley sugieren un enfoque más amplio que no requiere a los legisladores a actuar como individuos. Están tratando de persuadir a los líderes de la casa para montar un desafío institucional a la casa blanca de reescritura del mandato de Obamacare empleador. Aquí el Presidente está desafiando la lengua llana de leyes y socavando el poder legislativo. Los tribunales deberían extender el pie al congreso casa como una institución para reivindicar esta lesión. Corto de acusación, es imposible para el Congreso defender sus prerrogativas constitucionales y el estado de derecho.

A principios de este año el décimo circuito utiliza esta teoría conceder legislativa permanente a un grupo de representantes liberales Colorado para desafiar contribuyente de derechos ese estado. El año pasado la Corte Suprema concedió también pie a Grupo Asesor Legal bipartidista del Congreso para defender la ley de defensa del matrimonio.

“La casa blanca se había negado a abogar por DOMA basado en una teoría constitucional que no tenía entonces ningún precedente judicial establecido. El Tribunal dictaminó en Windsor que deliberadamente haciendo un huérfano legal a la ley de defensa del matrimonio “plantea graves dificultades para la separación de poderes para el Ejecutivo en un momento determinado para poder anular la sanción del Congreso únicamente por su propia iniciativa y sin ninguna determinación de la corte.”

Todo esto recuerda el resurgimiento del federalismo en la Corte Suprema William Rehnquist. Desde el New Deal a finales del siglo XX hubo pocas protecciones tangibles de los poderes que la Constitución reserva a los Estados o las personas, y cualquier doctrina que limitaba la incursión federal fue asumida letra muerta.

Pero a partir del hito 1992 Nueva York v. Estados Unidos, la corte comenzó a redescubrir el gobierno de poderes enumerados que imaginaron los redactores. Una mayoría de 6-3 anuló una ley federal de 1985 que ordenó a los Estados para deshacerse de los residuos radiactivos dentro de sus propias fronteras porque “disminuye la responsabilidad de los funcionarios estatales y federales”.

Las urnas es el contrapeso constitucional más importante del gobierno, pero los votantes no saben quién para premiar o castigar si Congreso impresiona en servicio federal de los Estados. Los actores políticos deben “sufrir las consecuencias,” justicia Sandra Day o ‘ Connor celebró inN.Y. v. Estados Unidos, si sus decisiones resultan para ser “perjudicial o impopulares. Pero donde el gobierno federal dirige a los Estados a regular, puede ser funcionarios del estado que sufrirán el embate de desaprobación pública, mientras que los funcionarios federales que ideó el programa regulatorio pueden permanecer aislados de las ramificaciones de su decisión electorales.”

Esta jurisprudencia encendido la separación “vertical” de poder estatal y federal. Aventuras del señor Obama suspensión plantean precisamente las mismas preguntas acerca de la división de poderes “horizontal”, y se aplica la misma lógica. Si se permite al poder ejecutivo a reescribir o suspender los estatutos, es más difícil y en algunos casos imposibles para que los votantes que partidos y esferas del gobierno responsable. La responsabilidad política se ve socavada.

El establecimiento legal despedirá los Sres. Johnson y Rivkin como manivelas sin esperanza de éxito, esto ha sido un mal en el pasado. Ahora el Presidente cree que él puede hacer caso omiso de las leyes, pero los jueces son pagados para defendernos.

The legal left and media are always last to know, but there are the makings of a correction in how the courts police conflicts between the political branches. President Obama’s serial executive power abuses—on health care, immigration, marijuana and much else—may be inspiring a heathy rejoinder.

Under the Constitution, Congress is supposed to create and amend laws and the President to faithfully execute them, but Mr. Obama has grabbed inherent Article I powers by suspending or rewriting statutes he opposes. The President has usurped Congress with impunity because he assumes no one has the legal standing to challenge him.

Most of the time people who are exempted from laws do not suffer the concrete injuries that the judiciary can redress, while the courts maintain a presumption that Members of Congress also lack such standing. In 1997’s Raines v. Byrd, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against the line-item veto brought by six Congressmen because the loss of legislative power they challenged was a “wholly abstract and widely dispersed” injury.

But that doesn’t mean that conduct that marginalizes the legislative branch is absolved of judicial review. In one notable case, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is suing the White House over the ObamaCare regulatory carve-out that conjured up special subsidies for Members and staffers who were supposed to give up federal employee health benefits to join the insurance exchanges.

Mr. Johnson argues that because Members must designate which staffers do and don’t participate, the rule imposes a nontrivial administrative burden—i.e., he has standing to sue because the rule harms his office, not because he is a U.S. Senator. More to the point, Mr. Johnson claims that the rule forces him to become personally complicit in law breaking and thus damages his political reputation. Several appeals court precedents hold that elected officials who must maintain the public trust suffer injuries when their credibility is undermined, including a 1993 D.C. Circuit ruling by now-Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The White House claims Mr. Johnson lacks standing, but that’s because the lawyers don’t want to get near the merits. The real import of his lawsuit is that it invites the courts to restore the proper separation of powers amid executive encroachment.

The Washington lawyer David Rivkin and Florida International University law professor Elizabeth Foley suggest a broader approach that doesn’t require legislators to act as individuals. They’re trying to persuade House leaders to mount an institutional challenge to the White House rewrite of ObamaCare’s employer mandate. Here the President is defying the plain language of laws and undermining legislative power. The courts ought to extend standing to the House as an institution to vindicate this injury. Short of impeachment, there is no other way for Congress to defend its constitutional prerogatives and the rule of law.

Earlier this year the Tenth Circuit used this theory to grant legislative standing to a group of liberal Colorado representatives to challenge that state’s taxpayer bill of rights. Last year the Supreme Court also granted standing to Congress’s Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to defend the Defense of Marriage Act.

The White House had refused to advocate for DOMA based on a constitutional theory that then had no established judicial precedent. The Court ruled in Windsor that deliberately making the Defense of Marriage Act a legal orphan “poses grave challenges to the separation of powers for the Executive at a particular moment to be able to nullify Congress’s enactment solely on its own initiative and without any determination from the Court.”

All this recalls the revival of federalism under the William Rehnquist Supreme Court. From the New Deal to the late 20th century there were few tangible protections of the powers the Constitution reserves to the states or the people, and any doctrine that limited federal incursion was assumed a dead letter.

But beginning with the 1992 landmark New York v. United States, the Court began to rediscover the government of enumerated powers that the framers envisioned. A 6-3 majority overturned a 1985 federal law that ordered states to dispose of radioactive waste within their own borders because “the accountability of both state and federal officials is diminished.”

The ballot box is the most important constitutional check on government, but voters can’t know whom to reward or punish if Congress impresses states into federal service. Political actors must “suffer the consequences,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor held inN.Y. v. U.S., if their decisions turn out to be “detrimental or unpopular. But where the federal government directs the states to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.”

This jurisprudence turned on the “vertical” separation of federal and state power. Mr. Obama’s suspension adventures pose precisely the same questions about the “horizontal” division of powers, and the same logic applies. If the executive branch is allowed to rewrite or suspend statutes, it is harder and in some cases impossible for voters to know which parties and spheres of the government to hold responsible. Political accountability is undermined.

The legal establishment will dismiss Messrs. Johnson and Rivkin as cranks with no hope of success, but it has been wrong before. The President thinks he can disregard the laws, but judges are paid to defend them.

Amenper:Cuando escribo mis E Mails, son una descarga emocional que es bueno para los que están a mí alrededor y no son víctimas directas de mí estado de ánimo. 

Pero realmente me doy cuenta que son de una inconsecuencia evidente. ¿Qué puede resolver que un comemierda como yo envíe unos E mail agarrando el rábano por las hojas frente a la maquinaria de los medios de comunicación del enemigo?

Pero gracias a Dios, todavía tenemos al Wall Street Journal. El Journal es periódico de más circulación en el mundo entero, desde China hasta Singapur, desde España hasta Rusia, pasando por el medio oriente  desde Alaska hasta la Patagonia, ahí podemos leer el Journal.

Por eso, cuando el Journal escribe un editorial, como el editorial principal del día, y este editorial tiene un lenguaje de los que el enemigo llama radical, un editorial que dice al pan, pan y al vino, vino, sin pelos en la lengua, recordando lo evidente, que ya es hora de enfrentarse legalmente a un presidente que se toma atribuciones inconstitucionales, hay que reproducirlo, hay que traducirlo para que llegue a todos, porque gracias a Dios, no todo está perdido.

Aquí arriba está el editorial, en el inglés original y en español.

 

He is crazy or what??? Did Obama Just Declare Himself King On Twitter?

Looks like the power of the Presidency may have gone to Obama’s head. F. PETER BROWN — MAY 5, 2014

 

The White House tweeted this picture of Obama seated on the Iron Throne from the hit HBO series “Game of Thrones.”  In the fantasy books by George R.R. Martin (on which the HBO series was based), various characters jockey for power over the Iron Throne.

Oddly enough, the picture of President George Washington, “The Man Who Would Not Be King”, is shown behind “King Obama.”
Read more at 
http://www.westernjournalism.com/white-house-tweets-picture-obama-throne/#olASPusBqtQqLtO7.99

 

 

 

Julio M. Shiling:

Con gran placer los invitamos a asistir a otro evento, parte de nuestro ciclo de “Simposios por un mundo libre”, diseñado para promover una mayor concienciación política con apego a la libertad y la democracia. Su presencia se le agradecerá.

Cordialmente, 

Patria de Martí

Alianza Democrática

Se complacen en invitarlos al Simposio

Democracia en la era del despotismo electivo

Explorando fórmulas políticas para liderar con dictaduras disfrazadas de democracia

Sábado, 10 de mayo 2014. 9:30 am – 12:30pm

Universidad Internacional de la Florida (FIU)

Facultad de Leyes Edificio Rafael Díaz-Balart Salón 1000

11200 SW 8 Street Miami, Florida 33199

Ayúdanos a promover una cultura de libertad

Programación de Evento

Moderador

Julio M. Shiling

Director

Patria de Martí

Panelistas                                                                                           Ponencias

Gustavo Lemos                     Ecuador en la dictadura de Correa

Analista Político y Presentador

Judith Flores                          Nicaragua y el sandinocomunismo

Periodista e Investigadora

Enrique Encinosa         Cuba y alternativas viables de liberación

Escritor e Historiador

Vilma Petrash “Venezuela: Colonia del comunismo imperial cubano”                        

Catedrática y Productora

Habrá una sesión de preguntas y respuestas.

La entrada es gratis y abierta al público.

Instrucciones para llegar al pie 

Entrar a la Universidad por la entrada de la 112 Avenida y la Calle 8 (entrada con unos arcos), proceder hasta el primer “Stop” y ahí doblar derecha. A unos pocos pasos, en la primera entrada de estacionamiento a la mano izquierda, entrar y estacionarse en cualquier espacio que no esté asignado (en azul). Proceder al Edificio de Leyes Rafael Díaz-Balart. El Salón 1000 está en el primer piso.  

 

BUSH $1.84<GASOLINA>obama $3.89

 

CAPITOL HILL DAILY

obama FORCE TO ANSWER FOR BENGHAZI

  • Secret Shipment Found Hiding in 20 Railcars [Full Story]
  • Why is Oklahoma’s Rig Count Exploding? [Full Story]
  • Pure, Unbridled C.H.A.O.S. Ripped From Silicon Valley [Full Story]

 

John Boehner silenced his critics last week by finally allowing the House of Representatives to launch a real investigation into the tragic American deaths at the Benghazi, Libya consulate.

Boehner has been blocking a full investigation for months, which makes his complete turnaround truly shocking. But the Speaker of the House doesn’t appear to be pulling his punches anymore, accusing the Obama regime of a “flagrant violation of trust.”

He went on to ask publicly, “What else about Benghazi is the Obama administration still hiding from the American people?”

“Americans learned this week that the Obama administration is so intent on obstructing the truth about Benghazi that it is even willing to defy subpoenas issued by the standing committees of the People’s House,” Boehner said. “These revelations compel the House to take every possible action to ensure [that] the American people have the truth about the terrorist attack on our consulate that killed four of our countrymen.”

An Abrupt About-Face 

Boehner’s turn is directly related to an email released to the watchdog organization, Judicial Watch, which exposes President Obama and Hillary Clinton as unrepentant liars.

The email is tied to Susan Rice’s notorious Benghazi talking points, and it reveals the script she was given by the White House immediately after the crisis. As we know, her talking points were largely successful. The media offensive convinced the press corps that the Obama administration had been honest and forthright in describing the circumstances surrounding the attacks.

But now that the White House email has been released, even the left-leaning media is truly outraged.

CNN’s Jake Tapper described the White House’s version of events as “dissembling, obfuscating and insulting.”

Ron Fournier, from the National Journal, said, “As someone who… wants to see my White House succeed, it was painful yesterday to watch that briefing and get ‘Baghdad Bob’ flashbacks. It was embarrassing.”

But the coup de grâce was an exchange on Fox News. While interviewing former spokesman for the National Security Council, Tommy Vietor, anchor Bret Baier ignited a firestorm. The exchange went like this:

BAIER: “Did you also change ‘attacks’ to ‘demonstrations’ in the talking points?”

VIETOR: “Maybe. I don’t really remember.”

BAIER: “You don’t remember?”

VIETOR: “Dude, this was two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane thing.”

BAIER: “Dude, it’s what everybody is talking about.”

Besides being laugh-out-loud funny, the exchange shows just how devious the White House’s manipulation of the Benghazi story really is. The administration claimed it wasn’t terrorism, but we now know it was, in fact, a highly coordinated terrorist attack, and Obama’s immediate intelligence described it as such.

The White House didn’t want to admit to suffering a devastating terrorist attack weeks before the presidential re-election, so they simply lied… And they’ve been covering up the real events ever since.

Of course, as most of us realize, the tragedy wasn’t just suffering the attack. The tragedy was not reacting to save the stranded Americans when there was still hope of rescuing them.

Retired U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Robert Lovell, who was on duty during the attack, told Congress that he and other military commanders actively discussed “what we should do” as they waited for orders.

“There are accounts of time, space and capability, discussions of the question, ‘Could we have gotten there in time to make a difference?'” Lovell testified. “The discussion is not could or could not… The point is we should have tried.”

Which leads us to the one question that needs to be asked: Did presidential politics actually kill these Americans when there was a chance that they could’ve been rescued?

Your eyes on the Hill,

Floyd Brown

 

 

 

THE BRAVE MILITARY/EMBASSY PERSONNEL OF THE COUNTRY 

Benghazi is most important to every military personnel serving overseas, specially to those in the front lines. Also embassy personal now serving in very dangerous places in world. When Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said “ what good does it make now” was an outrageous remark to make. The personnel serving overseas must have leaders that will always look after them with the most care and sense of responsibility and obligation possible to protect them and provide to them with the essentials to defend them-self. If that was not the case “is most important that this act of derelict of duty is never repeated and that actions are taken to avoid any future event of this kind. 

It is my opinion that a handful of leaders  failed the brave four men now dead. It is incomprehensible that so many people at the top could have acted in a total derelict manner . Others simple put political interest and even personal interest over and above of their duties.  President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, even General Petraeus ( with a possible mistress cover up at that time) and Leon Panetta . Each one of them played a roll of some kind in the scandal . The before, during and after the act of the Benghazi Embassy/annex is one of the most despicable acts of derelict duty ever made by government officials at the highest level. 

Maybe someone will write a book with the evidence now available using the many facts on record and put in  a way that the average American can understand. For the ignorant or naive let me mention some historical facts . The United States government has quite a number of acts of betrayal. Some include  Hungarian revolt , the Bay of Pigs and now Benghazi abandoning in this case their own service people.

In my opinion a person has to be pretty ignorant  to go overseas and serve our country with the people we have running the country in many key positions now. 

Jorge Aguiar
Doral, Florida

 

 

 

APRAENTEMENTE EL RELAJO EN EL CONDADO MIAMI DADE CONTINUA A TODA VELOCIDAD EN LAS MANOS DE GIMENES. QUE DESGRACIA QUE NO TENEMOS UNA PERSONA CORRECTA NUNCA EN LA SILLA DEL ALCALDE…

Reportero Ross Palombo, descubre gastos excesivos en salarios autorizados por el alcalde Carlos Giménez

• El reportero del Canal 10 hace interesantes revelaciones

MIAMI 1 DE MAYO DE 2014, nhr,com—La investigación llevada a cabo por el periodista del canal 10 de Miami, Ross Palombo sobre el derroche millonario de la administración de Miami Dade  pagando salarios a empleados, sin trabajar, ha preocupado al comisionado Xavier Suarez quien en las últimas horas envió un memorándum al alcalde Carlos Giménez pidiéndole todos los documentos que presentó Palombo en sus reportajes especiales.

De acuerdo con la investigación, los números son impresionantes, millones de dólares han sido pagados a empleados del condado que ni siquiera trabajan en los puestos que han sido asignados. La mayoría han sido aprobado por el alcalde Carlos Giménez, y cuando se le preguntó al alcalde si esto había sido derrochador, solo dijo, “de ninguna manera”, absolutamente no”.

Los documentos obtenidos demuestran que $21’046,916 dólares fueron gastados en “licencias administrativas” en el año 2013, Las reglas del condado definen  esas licencias administrativos como “permiso de ausencia del trabajo con sueldo”.

Algunas de estas ausencias eran simplemente para asuntos personales como ir a un funeral o actividades del sindicato, la mayoría de los salarios “gratuitamente”—alrededor de $11’261,073–fueron pagados y utilizados a discreción del alcalde Giménez.

De acuerdo con Giménez “este tipo de licencia con pago, generalmente es dada a aquellos empleados que realmente han trabajado por adelantado, trabajando horas extras sin haberlas cobrado”.

El alcalde profundizó mas en el tema diciendo que “Si alguien que, en otras palabras, que trabaje 60 horas en una semana y no se le paga extra por eso, luego se le da algún tiempo libre para equilibrar su trabajo”.

Sin embargo, los registros del condado demuestran que Giménez autorizó $2’518,120 el pasado año 2013  por ausencias los días antes de la navidad y año nuevo y no por pago de horas extras. Adicionalmente autorizó  los nueve días feriados del año que legalmente se les otorga a esos empleados.

A la pregunta de por qué ordenó pagar por los días feriados, Giménez respondió que ha sido una política del condado y no cree que se trata de un desperdicio de los fondos, “absolutamente no”, respondió.

Giménez no cree que es un derroche de dinero, pagarle al vice alcalde Ed. Márquez quien ha sido el que más pago sin trabajar ha recibido por licencias administrativas en su equipo. Los registros demuestran que Márquez recibió 168 horas de licencia  pagadas durante los años 2012 y 2013 equivalente a $21,566 dólares, además de su salario anual de $267,000 dólares, más dos semanas de vacaciones.

En el memorándum el comisionado Xavier Suarez le pide al alcalde Giménez,

“Por favor, identifique todos los documentos obtenidos por el Canal 10, utilizados en su reportaje investigativo,  en el que se menciona el pago total de $21, 045,916 millones por concepto de pagos de “Licencia Administrativa” a empleados del Condado Miami-Dade.

Tengo entendido que las cifras fueron proveídas en una hoja de cálculo (spreadsheet), titulada “Licencia Administrativa” del año calendario 2013.

Le agradecería la respuesta a estas preguntas antes de la Sesión Ejecutiva pautada para el Jueves, 8 de mayo del 2014.” Concluye texto.

Según nelsonhortareporta.com, otros comisionados están molestos con este derroche de fondos a los miembros del equipo del alcalde Giménez, mientras que el mismo quiere cerrar bibliotecas y amenaza con hacer recortes  a programas sociales y cesantías.

“EMO” HAY QUE TENER CONCRETO EN LA CARA… LRGM

 

 

GEORGINA LOPEZ: INERCIA Y FALSEDAD

Por Hugo J. Byrne

 

Hace unos minutos tuve el desagrado de oír a nuestro egregio líder en Washington decir que la mejor manera de no cometer errores es no hacer nada. ¿Oí mal? Creo que no necesitaba su ayuda para entender eso. No es la primera ni la mejor defensa de la inercia.

 

Si el lector quiere engordar y eventualmente enfermarse, no se mueva. Si quiere que su sistema circulatorio mejore, ejercítese. ¿Realmente necesita alguien de mí para enterarse de eso? Tengo la impresión que el presidente Obama, a pesar de toda su arrogancia, ni siquiera se respeta mucho a sí mismo.

 

Obama trataba de justificar su política exterior, si es que tiene una, cortando pelos por el medio para explicar su inquietante, fracasada gradualidad en respuesta a la brutal política agresiva de Vladimir Putin en Crimea y otras áreas de Ucrania oriental. Bien. Prefiero oír perogrulladas que mentiras. Obama miente con una desfachatez increíble en cada oportunidad que lo considere necesario o incluso conveniente a su interés político.

 

Al hacer referencia a su interés político no aludo al interés nacional, el que sería legítimo defender sin necesidad de mentir. Me refiero al interés de mantener una base electoral doméstica por definición ignorante y en consecuencia indiferente al interés nacional allende los mares. Miren las encuestas, dicen los ganapanes:“nadie se preocupa por la política exterior”. Creo que tienen razón, pero quizás sea porque ignoran que lo que ocurre allá nos afecta aquí. El aislacionismo no es ya una opción viable. ¿Recordamos el 11 de septiembre? ¿Pearl Harbor? ¿Que pagamos más de $4.00 por galón de gasolina en California?

 

Para poder avanzar cualquier agenda política es imprescindible primero obtener y mantener el poder. En una república con sufragio universal, esa meta sólo se alcanza siendo electo o, en su caso, reelecto. Obama fue reelecto en 2012. ¿Justificaba ese éxito mentir al pueblo? No lo creo. Aunque todos hemos mentido sobre algo en algún momento de nuestras vidas, la mentira en ningún caso es virtud y cuando se utiliza para obtener favores políticos, es infamante.   

 

Tengo evidencias de que Obama miente. Abundantes. Usted también las tiene, amigo lector. Están al alcance de todos. Especialmente desde ayer (4-30-2014). En ese día se hizo público un E-mail al staff de Obama ordenando ocultar la verdad. El mensaje estaba firmado por un operativo de la Casa Blanca llamado Ben Rhodes, asistente del Presidente y vicedirector de comunicaciones estratégicas para seguridad nacional.

 

Esa posición requiere la absoluta confianza del Presidente por 24 horas al día. Nadie en su sano juicio podría pensar que Rhodes se atreviera a dictar instrucciones a otros operativos de Washington sin la correspondiente orden ejecutiva, no importa quién fuera presidente. En el caso de Obama, micro manipulador por excelencia, esa suposición sería peor que orate, imposible. De considerar tal noción, ofendería la inteligencia de quienes leen.

 

¿Qué fecha tiene el mensaje de la Casa Blanca? Septiembre 14 del 2012, menos de tres días después que cuatro ciudadanos norteamericanos fueran asesinados durante un ataque terrorista de siete horas de duración en la sede del Consulado de Estados Unidos en Benghazi, Libia. Uno de los muertos era nuestro embajador en ese país. El ataque no pudo ser resultado de una protesta popular que se tornara violenta. La precisión de las granadas de mortero responsable por dos de las muertes, delata sin duda una previa y cuidadosa preparación bélica.

 

¿Contenido del correo de Rhodes? El E-mail enfatizaba un número de objetivos políticos, pero voy a mencionar sólo uno y traducirlo literalmente: “Reforzar que estas protestas (apócrifas “demostraciones populares” supuestamente degenerando en un ataque al consulado)se originan en un video de la red y no en un amplio fracaso de nuestra política”.

 

Poco después la presente Embajadora de Estados unidos a la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas y antigua representante de la Secretaría de Estado, Susan Rice, cotorreó esa mentira en cinco importantes estaciones de televisión. Después el propio Ejecutivo, descargando ante la misma Asamblea General, hizo referencia a la fábula de la protesta provocada por el video anti islámico de Yotube.

 

En la solemne ocasión del recibimiento de los restos de los mártires de Benghazi a suelo americano, la entonces Secretaria de Estado Clinton, posible futura presidenta de Estados Unidos, utilizó la misma cantinela desalmada y venenosa en su elegía a las víctimas. ¿Votaría por esta señora el amigo lector?

 

Otro interesante elemento de juicio es quién ha obtenido primero copia del notorio E-mail. Quien diera a la publicidad este mensaje electrónico no ha sido la comisión bicameral investigando el siniestro en Benghazi. Esa comisión ha demandado con insistencia y sin éxito la entrega de todos los correos y otros documentos relacionados al escándalo. Las demandas de la Cámara de Representantes han caído en saco roto durante casi dos años. El agente revelador ha sido la organización conservadora Judicial Watch.

 

¿Cómo es ello posible? ¿Una organización particular con más poder legal que un subcomité del congreso? J.W. obtuvo la entrega del mensaje mediante orden judicial. La separación de poderes es hasta hoy la única excusa aducida por la Casa Blanca por su morosidad respondiendo al pedido insistente de la Cámara. Cuidado. ¿Es legal negar documentación demandada por el poder legislativo? 

 

El vocero oficial de la Casa Blanca, Jay Carney, fue uno de los destinatarios del mensaje. De otra forma ¿para qué escribirlo? ¿Quién puede usar esas órdenes con mejor utilidad para el Presidente que su Secretario de Prensa? Ahora Carney se hace el “loco”, “cantinfleando” ante la inquisición implacable de Ed Henry, reportero de Fox News y otros corresponsales asignados a la Casa Blanca.

 

Ahora el Vocero de la Cámara se prepara a nombrar un Comité Especial como el usado en el caso del “cover-up” en Watergate. Debió hacerlo hace varios meses. Sin embargo, el problema parece que en vez de disiparse se va complicando y la bola “pica y se extiende”.

 

Hay dos diferencias fundamentales entre este encubrimiento y el de “Watergate”. La primera es que no hubo desgracias personales en Watergate: nadie sufrió el menor arañazo. La otra es que el “cover-up” de Nixon mereció justificadamente una extraordinaria cobertura de prensa y el probable encubrimiento de Obama, hasta ahora sólo el “silencio de las ovejas”.

 

Es una contradicción evidente que Obama critique la perfidia de Putin y haga referencia a la imposibilidad de una legítima protesta popular que resulte en el allanamiento de propiedad municipal en Ucrania del este: Obama denuncia que todo es el resultado del trabajo encubierto de agentes provocadores rusos, como si nadie lo supiera.

 

Por supuesto, Obama tiene razón. Lo inaudito es que ahora condene en Ucrania lo mismo que hipócritamente negara en Benghazi. Como le decíamos en Cuba a quien tenía un ojo amoratado por un buen puñetazo: esto no se queda así. ¡Se hincha!

 

 

Alarming Gov’t Plan to Confiscate Your Savings. by Damon Geller

Governments have been confiscating citizens’ savings for decades through deficits, inflation and outright theft, and it’s about to get worse.  Bankrupt governments will do whatever is necessary to survive and feed the welfare state, and they have never been more bankrupt than they are right now.  Look no further than Poland confiscating half of citizen pensions.  If you knew the government was going to steal your savings from you, would you do anything differently to protect your savings now?  It’s an important question to think about now, because they ARE coming for your money, and some newly-discovered facts prove it.

 

“In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation.  Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth.  Gold stands in the way of this insidious process.”  Alan Greenspan

The Fatter the Government, The Skinnier the People

DAMON GELLER: The U.S. Debt, not including unfunded liabilities, is over $17 trillion dollars.  The sociopaths who are driving the titanic will be arguing over raising the debt ceiling again soon enough.  If we look back to September of 2011, which was the last loud debt-ceiling argument, gold rose 21% in a period of three months while politicians caused a major corrosion of confidence in our leaders.  When governments are broke, everything is fair game.

Government officials don’t produce anything.  They only feed off of those who do.  As one person said, the fatter the government, the skinner the people.  And when government officials cannot meet their obligations or fulfill the promises they made to the public, they’ll figure out ways to appropriate the public’s money to fund their projects.  Government officials don’t produce wealth; they only redistribute your wealth.  Desperate government officials will always resort to expropriation, be it through inflation, debt accumulation or deficit.

If the Federal Reserve is currently buying 90% of the U.S. Treasury market and they are going insolvent, who do you think the government will lean on to pick up the slack?  The answer is YOU. Ten thousand Baby Boomers will turn 65 years-old every day until 2030.  And while the government has a debt problem of $17 trillion, not so coincidentally, our country’s IRAs, 401Ks and retirement accounts amount to that same number:  $17 trillion.  What a convenient resource for the Federal Government.

So here’s the plan: The government will nationalize retirement accounts like IRAs, 401Ks, pensions, 403Bs, etc.  so that you will be forced to use a portion of your retirement wealth to purchase U.S. government debt – debt that will ultimately default, as it is not possible to sustain our astronomical debt nor the deficits that create it.  This plan was set in motion during the 2014 State of the Union Address, when Obama suddenly announced the creation of the MyRA: Your Savings Pays for U.S. Debt!

 

The IRS Greases the Wheels of Confiscation

The IRS is refusing to issue tax ID numbers for single-member LLCs that are owned by an IRA, which is the specific structure that U.S. taxpayers create in order to ship their retirement savings overseas. Of course, the IRS simply decided using its sole discretion to stop allowing Americans to create this structure, and hence, force them to keep their retirement savings in the U.S.  Without getting into too much detail on these structures, the bottom line is that the methods by which you could manage your own IRA and keep it out of the hands of the too-big-to-fail banks, and thus away from the grabbing hands of government, are being blocked in an effort to keep all that wealth accessible to the government.

Many People Have Been Robbed Already

Detroit’s bankruptcy destroyed many people’s pensions.  In Cyprus, the government raided people’s savings accounts in an example of outright theft.  And right here at home our too-big-to-fail banks, like BofA, Citigroup, HSBC, Goldman, Wells Fargo, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and several others, are right now being investigated for robbing pensions via the rigging of interest benchmarks, among other investigations of fraud.  JP Morgan Chase, in the last two years, has paid $7 billion dollars in fines for fraud.

Yet these parasites remain in power, have had no further regulation placed upon them, and continue the same (or worse) risk tactics that led to the financial implosion of 2008 and subsequent taxpayer-funded bailouts.  These criminal organizations look more like organized crime syndicates than legitimate businesses.  Yes, these are the same folks  who are in charge and in possession of your wealth.  Whether you have your retirement funds in a money market, the stock market or the bond (debt) market, a bank or bank holding company hold and controls your wealth.  This means that when Wall Street, which relies on an incestuous relationship with the U.S. government, is asked to hand over access to your money, it’ll be a simple as a keystroke.

The Greatest Heist in Human History

In 1966, before Alan Greenspan became the Federal Reserve Chairman, he wrote an essay called “Gold and Economic Freedom.” In this essay, Greenspan explains, the gold standard limited government spending to the amount of gold held in reserve.  However, The gold standard was also unprofitable to the international bankers and the crooked government they collude with.  So the central bankers, in collusion with devious government officials, embarked on the greatest heist in human history, to repeal the gold standard.  Stopping at nothing, they attacked and crucified anyone who opposed them.  Eventually, the gold standard was repealed, the citizens’ gold was confiscated, and a debt-based economy was born.

All the subsequent government deficit-spending and money-printing that followed the abandonment of the gold standard led to the Great Wealth Confiscator:  Inflation.  Inflation raises the cost of goods, while reducing purchasing power.  And massive money-printing always ends in hyper-inflation, which typically causes the price of gold and silver to grow exponentially.

How to Free Yourself from This Monetary Corruption

Create a gold standard for your own money and take a portion of your wealth out of the system.  One self-directed IRA option that is still within your total control is the physically-backed gold and silver IRA.  Physical gold and silver in your IRA is held by a private custodian who is insured by a private insurer and is NOT controlled by the government.  A gold or silver IRA protects your wealth from being confiscated and also adds a strong measure of inflation-protection.  With a gold or silver IRA, you convert your wealth to the one asset that does not exist in the computer of an insolvent bank or broke government.

There is a finite window of opportunity to safeguard your wealth, preserve your freedom, and ensure your family’s future security.  And it’s important to take action now before that window of opportunity closes. (Call 800-226-8106 to receive your free copy of Damon Geller’s popular book, “Rescue Your Money from the National Debt Disaster,” or see below)

 

 

 

 

9 Obamacare Predictions That Have Come True. Robert Moffit

 

It directly affects the personal life of every American, and it controls or regulates a complex sector of the American economy that is slightly larger than the entire economy of France.

If you guessed Obamacare, you’ve been paying attention for the past four years.

Four years ago, many health policy analysts, including those at The Heritage Foundation, predicted some of the effects this law would have on Americans. These are all coming true.Here are nine of our predictions that have come to pass—and it’s not over yet.

1. The individual mandate is an enforcement nightmare.

As a candidate, President Obama worried that an individual mandate to buy insurance would be unenforceable. He changed his mind once he became president. This year—the first year that the mandate penalties are to be imposed—he has already started backtracking on the enforcement of the provision he signed into law.

2. The law will create new disincentives to work.

Between Obamacare’s higher taxes and its subsidies that drop off if you raise your income, there’s not a lot of incentive here to work harder and better your situation.

3. The law, particularly the employer mandate, will impose new costs on businesses that undercut jobs and wages.

The employer mandate has been delayed until 2015, but the uncertainty Obamacare has created—and its 18 new tax hikes—have put a huge dent in job creation.

4. The law undermines competition and further consolidates health insurance markets.

Heritage Foundation analysis of federal and state exchanges shows that the law has, in general, reduced competition and consolidated health insurance markets. Between 2013 and 2014, the number of insurers offering coverage on the individual markets in all 50 states has declined nationwide by 29 percent.

5. The law guarantees major premium increases.

As Heritage predicted, the average annual premiums for single and family coverage in 2014 are rising in the state and federal health insurance exchanges all around the country. In 11 states, premiums for 27-year-olds have more than doubled since 2013; in 13 states, premiums for 50-year-olds have increased more than 50 percent.

>>> Get more details on all of these Obamacare effects

6. The law discourages insurance enrollment among the young.

The law’s insurance rules and new benefit mandates will make it cheaper for many younger Americans simply to remain uninsured and pay the penalty fine. It’s not surprising that young people have been staying away.

7. The law’s Medicare savings would not financially strengthen Medicare.

The law’s proponents originally promised that “savings” from Medicare changes would be spent simultaneously in two places: helping Medicare and expanding Obamacare. But money can be spent only once, so that didn’t work.

8. The law’s Medicare changes will result in reduced benefits and threaten seniors’ access to care.

The law’s impact is fairly straightforward: Fewer Medicare providers, reimbursed at rates progressively reduced over time, will create access problems for patients. Medicare cuts have been underway for several years now.

9. The law compels taxpayers to fund abortion and weakens protections of the right of conscience.

Obamacare mandates health plans that include coverage of abortion. It also spawned the Health and Human Services regulatory mandate that forces American employers to provide coverage for abortion-inducing drugs. It is safe to say that four years ago, millions of Americans did not expect that the national health care law would become a vehicle for an aggressive government infringement of personal liberty or coerce Americans to fund medical procedures and drugs in direct violation of their ethical and religious convictions.

Is it any wonder public opinion is against this debacle? It’s unfair, unworkable, and unaffordable. We need real health reform that puts patients back at the center and increaseschoice for Americans.

Read the Morning Bell and more en español every day at Heritage Libertad.

Quick Hits:

 

Black River Petroleum’s (BRPC) Appalachian Oil Discovery Could Start Building Fortunes For Investors Who Act NOW!!

Greetings,

It’s hard to hide the amount of excitement that surrounds a stock that has the ability to change the course of any investor’s financial trajectory…

But Black River Petroleum (BRPC) is the exact kind of company that can do that and more. BRPC is the kind of stock that investors drool over – a tiny, unknown that has so much upside profit potential there’s practically ZERO risk.

Some people call these “sure things” – but we all know that there is no such thing as that…

However, if there’s ever been a company that comes close – BRPC could fit that bill. They have so many of the right kind of pieces in play that it’s hard to ignore…

Project located in the heart of America in an oil field that has made companies (and their investors) like Standard Oil and Ultra Petroleumalmost wealthy beyond measure!

Area geologically tested to hold up to 115 Million barrels of oil!

Surrounded by companies that are producing NOW – both Juniors and Majors!

Experienced management with a track record of success!

Direct access to shipping routes to take their top grade crude all over the United States!

 

Market cap is so low – they could immediately become a buyout target for some of the biggest names in oil!

And much, much more

In the following HOT special report, “How BRPC’s Appalachian Oil Could Help Make The US The #1 Oil Producer In The World” – you’ll get all the details on why Black River Petroleum may be the best stock you buy this year.

By sitting on up to $10 Billion in oil – early investors in BRPC could walk away with an astounding 5,941% gains! But that’s just the beginning…

As there are other elements in play that could make BRPC a 22,053% juggernaut before all is said and done! You could retire from buying just this one stock alone!

Sincerely,

 

David Moore
Editor, Rising Stock Advisor

 

AMENPER: El Retiro

Me gusta pasar unas horas en el parque del Retiro cuando voy a Madrid, pero nunca me ha gustado ir al retiro del trabajo, porque tengo la impresión que es el final de mi vida productiva, que sería el umbral de la muerte, y la realidad es que la muerte no me gusta mucho.

Pero llevando este pensamiento mío a la sociedad, me parece que cuando se empecinan en despreciar a las personas mayores, la sociedad se está perdiendo un enorme caudal de conocimientos que han tomado años en formarse. 

Todo en la vida es cuestión de percepción, quizás los adelantos de la ciencia que fueron descubiertos por personas que hoy en día son viejos, han sido como un boomerang que los ha destruido, porque con los descubrimientos de las enfermedades de la mente como la demencia senil de los ancianos, han creado una percepción que las facultades mentales se pierden con la edad, por lo que los viejos deben de retirarse, no “estorbar” a los más jóvenes de mente más clara.

Pero la persona humana no deriva sólo del nivel de erosión físico por  los años vividos , sino también de la interconexión entre el estudio empírico y la comprensión reflexiva del individuo lo cual se puede erosionar en algunas personas pero no en otras. 

Si observamos en el entorno social, vemos que hay tantos jóvenes y personas de edad mediana “desorientados” como viejos. Pero cuando se trata de los viejos se generaliza, y se considera la senilidad como algo aceptado por la edad, cuando se trata de los jóvenes se trata como debe de ser, según la capacidad mental del individuo.

Uno de los hallazgos más decisivos en la moderna neurobiología es la constatación de que las señales evocadas en las neuronas por estímulos externos provocan modificaciones en sus vías de transducción que llegan a penetrar en el núcleo neuronal; de este modo, los estímulos poseen la capacidad de desencadenar modificaciones en la expresión de los genes de la neurona, que llegan a ser de largo alcance tanto en magnitud como en duración. 

Esto nos lleva a la conclusión de que puede haber diferentes magnitudes y alcance en la duración según la persona, su modo de vida, sus estudios y sus experiencias. En otras palabras que el motto de “Cuerpo sano Mente Sana” tenía el sentido común que da la experiencia de la observación. 

No es lo mismo una persona que ha llevado una vida ordenada que alguien que durante su existencia abusa de su cuerpo y mente con drogas alucinantes para obtener un placer artificial.

Creo que las drogas nos han producido una modificación genética de las neuronas de una generación que creció abusando a sus neuronas con las drogas. 

Lo que es una desgracia para el mundo es que esa generación son nuestros gobernantes hoy en día.

Por eso creo que la idea de buscar a políticos jóvenes argumentando que estamos en una nueva generación, es una percepción equivocada.   No es mover aguas pasadas el acusar a un político de haber usado drogas en su juventud, como el caso de Kerry, Hillary Clinton y Obama, porque el uso de drogas afectan a las neuronas, y el daño es permanente. 

No es justo que estemos sufriendo el daño de las neuronas erosionada por la drogas, de esos individuos, jóvenes y viejos que están creando leyes socialistas anacrónicas y destructivas que están cambiando la estructura del país más próspero de todos los tiempos.

Creo que se le debiera de hacer un análisis neurológico a toda persona antes de retirarlo.  En el Oriente se atesora los conocimientos acumulados en las neuronas de los ancianos.  Si se analizaran las neuronas de las personas, creo que habría más jóvenes retirados que viejos.  Quizás no se haga porque entonces quebraría el Social Security más rápido. 

 

 

** IMPORTANT BENGHAZI UPDATE **
ACT FOR AMERICA ACHIEVES ANOTHER WIN!
SPEAKER BOEHNER ANNOUNCES CREATIONOF SPECIAL

BENGHAZI COMMITTEE
By Lisa Piraneo, Director of Government Relations

Dear Lazaro R,

Over the last year-and-a-half, ACT! for America mobilized a nationwide effort in support of a special Benghazi congressional committee to investigate the 9/11 attack that killed four Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador. Brigitte Gabriel had set this issue as a top priority for our organization.

We worked closely with Congressman Frank Wolf, who introduced resolution H. Res. 36, which creates such a special committee.

After over 18 months of sustained pressure on federal legislators by you and our other 280,000 grassroots activists – including thousands of office visits, phone calls and e-mails to members of the U.S. Congress – over 80 percent of House Republicans cosponsored this bill.

Last Friday House Speaker Boehner announced that he will convene a special Benghazi committee.

ACT! for America’s strength continues to grow on Capitol Hill and the U.S. Congress recognizes our impact on national security matters like this one. In fact, shortly after the Speaker’s announcement, Congressman Wolf issued the following public statement:

Today, Speaker Boehner announced that the House will vote on legislation to create a Select Committee to investigate the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi. Over the last year-and-a-half many voices have joined mine to see the achievement of this important milestone. One of the largest and loudest of those voices has been ACT! for America, whose 280,000 grassroots members worked tirelessly on this matter. Their efforts back home in their towns and communities resulted in a groundswell of congressional support for a special committee and today, over 80 percent of House Republicans support my Benghazi resolution as cosponsors. ACT! for America is a shining example of what can be achieved when individual Americans speak together with one voice.


As Ronald Reagan famously said, “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.” Thanks to you, we turned the Benghazi heat on HIGH and let me assure you, Capitol Hill has felt it. We consider the Speaker’s announcement last week to be one of our biggest victories, to date.

But what happens now?

While we applaud Speaker Boehner for listening to the American people, we also realize that, while we may have won this particular skirmish, the fight to get to the bottom of the Benghazi attack continues.

The specifics of the special committee will be determined during the coming days and I will carefully be watching as plans progress. I expect more political shenanigans and drama. There is still much work to do and it is important that our elected officials understand our continued resolve. They must know that ACT! for America will keep the heat on until those accountable for the Benghazi attack – both here in the U.S and abroad – are brought to justice. Further, that we will not rest until processes are put in place to assure that something like this never happens again. I will continue to keep you apprised of this constantly evolving issue, so please watch for future updates and action alerts.

Again, I thank you. I may be the “every day face” of ACT! for America on Capitol Hill, but I am powerless without you and without the other 280,000 patriots that make up the powerful engine of our organization.

Sometimes our victories will take time, as the creation of a Benghazi committee has, but you can be sure that if we continue to work together, more achievements are up ahead. Together we ARE making a difference. 

 

 

 

Florida Report:  Latvala, sheriffs take out Brandes’ NRA-backed gun bill

DATE:   May 3, 2014
TO:        USF & NRA Members and Friends
FROM:  Marion P. Hammer

USF Executive Director

NRA Past President

 

Thursday, 5/1/14, the Florida Sheriffs Association killed SB-296/HB-209 — the bill to allow citizens to carry their firearms with them (rather than leave firearms behind for looters) when they are under a mandatory evacuation during a declared state of emergency.  Please read the clipping below:

Latvala, sheriffs help take out Brandes’ NRA-backed gun bill | Naked Politics
 

Be perfectly clear, this was a straight up Second Amendment issue in its purest form.  And the Florida Sheriffs Association opposed your fundamental individual right to keep and bear arms at a time when you most need to be able to protect yourself and your family.

And indeed, the US District Court in NC in Baseman vs. Perjure struck down emergency declaration laws like the Florida laws we were trying to fix.

The Court said:

“The problem here is that the emergency declaration statutes, are not narrowly tailored to serve the government’s interest in public safety. They do not target dangerous individuals or dangerous conduct. Nor do they seek to impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions by, for example, imposing a curfew to allow the exercise of Second Amendment rights during circumscribed times. Rather, the statutes here excessively intrude upon plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights by effectively banning them (and the public at large) from engaging in conduct that is at the very core of the Second Amendment at a time when the need for self-defense may be at its very greatest….Consequently, the emergency declaration laws are invalid…”

Nonetheless, the Florida Sheriffs Association and a handful of Senate Republicans who joined Sen. Jack Latvala in abandoning the Second Amendment for the convenience of law enforcement, blocked restoration of your constitutional right.  Knowing that if the bill were amended it would have to go back to House where it would NOT come up again, they voted 23-15 for an amendment they knew would kill the bill.

We believe the intention, all along, of the Florida Sheriffs Association was to kill the bill.  They tried to kill HB-89 the so-called “warning shot” bill but failed.  They pulled out all the stops on the mandatory evacuation bill.  

Make no mistake, the Florida Sheriffs Association has declared war on the Second Amendment.  Their actions have made it clear their 2013 Proclamation Supporting the Second Amendment was nothing more than camouflage.  

Sheriffs repeatedly made it clear that the only thing they cared about was their convenience.  Rhetorical questions like,


“How are we supposed to know who has guns?”  
“How are we supposed to know if people are legally in possession of guns?”  
“How are we supposed to know they are actually evacuating?”
“How are we supposed to know when we shine flashlights in cars and see guns that they are legal?”  —  made it clear it was all about what they wanted and not about the rights and needs of the people they were elected to serve.  They also made it clear, they prefer to presume you are a criminal rather than an honest citizen trying to protect your family and your property. 

Also, please remember that not all Sheriffs agreed with the position taken by the top brass and lobbyists of the Association. You might ask your sheriffs which side they chose — yours or the Association’s.

Below is the Roll Call vote on the amendment. Passage of that amendment killed the bill, as it was intended to do.  Sometimes you need to lose in order to identify the real enemy.  This was one of those times.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2014/0296/Vote/SenateVote_s0296c3019.PDF

TRUE Second Amendment Supporters who voted to protect your rights were: 

Sen. Thad Altman (R)
Sen. Aaron Bean (R)
Sen. Lizbeth Benacquisto (R)
Sen. Rob Bradley (R)
Sen. Jeff Brandes (R)
Sen. Greg Evers (R)
Sen. Bill Galvano (R)
Sen. Andy Gardiner (R)
Sen. Tom Lee (R)
Sen. Joe Negron (R)
Sen. David Simmons (R)
Sen. Wilton Simpson (R)
Sen. Kelli Stargel (R)
Sen. John Trasher (R)
Sen. President Don Gaetz (R)

 

Those who voted for the Latvala amendment to kill the bill:

REPUBLICANS:
Sen. Charlie Dean
Sen. Nancy Detert
Sen. Miguel Diaz de la Portilla
Sen. Rene Garcia
Sen. Denise Grimsley
Sen. Alan Hays
Sen. Jack Latvala
Sen. John Legg
Sen. Garrett Richter

DEMOCRATS:
Sen. Joe Abruzzo
Sen. Oscar Braynon
Sen. Dwight Bullard
Sen. Jeff Clemens
Sen. Audrey Gibson
Sen. Arthenia Joyner
Sen. Gwen Margolis
Sen. Bill Montford
Sen. Jeremy Ring
Sen. Maria Sachs
Sen. Chris Smith
Sen. Eleanor Sobel
Sen. Darren Soto
Sen. Geraldine Thompson

Below is the link to another clipping on the issue.

Florida: Emergency concealed carry bill killed by last minute amendments
 

Finally, as always, we never quit.  The bill will be filed again next year and as many years as it takes to pass it.  Your rights are not just being violated, they are being denied.

 

 

-IN CASE OF GOVERNMENT TYRANY-

“USE THE SECOND AMENDMENT”

 “LA LIBERTAD NO ES GRATIS”

<IN  GOD  WE  TRUST>

“En mi opinión”    Lázaro R González Miño Editor.

Para contribuir con artículos, opiniones, sugerencias o recibir “En mi opinión”

e-mail a: LazaroRGonzalez@hotmail.com, o 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