No 699    “EN  MI  OPINIóN”   Junio 27, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

REVEALED: Top Secret Memo Gives Obama Authority To Kill American Citizens

We are now truly living under a dictatorship.


top secret memo written in 2010 gives Obama the authority to kill U.S. citizens without due process. Released on June 23, 2014, mandated by a court order, the forty-one page memo ostensibly provided the legal basis to kill al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and his sixteen-year-old son in Yemen in 2011.

The memo, however,  according to insiders, gives Obama the authority to kill any American citizen anywhere in the world, including the United States! 

Obama can legally, without due process, fire a hellfire missile on a Tea Party rally—as long as he calls it a terrorist event. And there is no court in the land, according to Obama’s reasoning, that will challenge him.

When a President acts as judge, jury, and executioner, we call him a dictator. As this video shows, as shocking as it sounds, we are now truly living under a dictatorship. Read more at




OBAMA’S ENFORCER: ERIC HOLDER. By: John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky

In our new book, “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department,” we provide the first investigative look at the Justice Department under the tenure of Attorney General Eric Holder. Holder is at the center of a growing list of scandals and congressional investigations, and is the first attorney general in history to be held in contempt for refusing to turn over information to Congress about Operation Fast & Furious. That is probably the most reckless law enforcement operation ever conducted by the Justice Department and led directly to the death of an American border patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizens.

In the middle of the recent revelations about the destruction of two years of emails of Lois Lerner and six other key IRS employees, notice what was not reported – any involvement by the FBI and the Justice Department in trying to obtain those records or trying to reconstruct the supposedly destroyed files. Yet Eric Holder announced that he had supposedly opened a criminal investigation in May of 2013 that was put under the charge of an Obama campaign donor and he is has resisted all calls to appoint a special counsel to investigate IRS wrongdoing. A year after the investigation had been “opened,” neither the FBI nor the Justice Department had yet spoken to the victims of the IRS targeting.

This is just another example of how Holder has completely politicized the enforcement process at the Justice Department. In fact, one DOJ veteran who was hired during the Clinton administration told us that Holder is the worst attorney general since John Mitchell under Richard Nixon, when most Justice Department observers believe the Department reached its nadir.

An unprecedented contempt for the rule of law pervades today’s Justice Department. Attorney General Eric Holder considers himself a member of President Obama’s political team first, and attorney general a distant second. Unlike past attorney generals who have upheld the highest ethical and professional standards, and have understood that their first duty is to the Constitution and the rule of law, Holder has demonstrated that he is driven by progressive ideology and loyalty to Barack Obama, not the interests of fair and impartial justice.

We have covered the Justice Department since the start of the Obama administration. But even we were shocked by the behavior of the Department we uncovered, including numerous accusations of prosecutorial abuse by federal judges. This included Justice Department employees posting anonymous blogs attacking defendants and their lawyers in a DOJ prosecution, as well as the intimidation and bullying of employees perceived as conservatives.

We catalogue everything from how Holder got to the Justice Department to his transformation of DOJ into a stronghold of progressive legal activism. This includes abusing federal environmental laws to pursue frivolous lawsuits like the unjustified prosecution of Gibson Guitar and the settlement of the second Pigford claim against the Department of Agriculture, which an employee of the Department called the biggest scam perpetrated on American taxpayers in our history.

Holder has selectively prosecuted national security leaks, going after low-level employees and reporters while studiously ignoring leaks of classified information coming out of the White House obviously intended to make President Obama look tough on terrorism and help his election prospects. Holder has exhibited a contemptuous attitude towards the oversight responsibilities of Congress, refusing to turn over information and documents and misleading and lying to Congress on numerous occasions.

In the area of civil rights, Holder has attacked the exercise of religious freedom, abused federal law to restrict the free speech of pro-life activists, gone after school districts for having dress codes that don’t allow boys to come to class in drag or for implementing voucher programs to help poor students get out of bad schools, and waged  a war on election integrity. A current employee of the Department told us that Holder has “racialized and radicalized” the Civil Rights Division “to the point of corruption.” As in other areas of Justice, he has “embedded politically leftist extremists in the career ranks who have an agenda that does not comport with equal protection or the rule of law; who believe that the ends justify the means; and who behavior unprofessionally and unethically.”

It has been Eric Holder who has advised and counseled the president on how to ignore, twist, break, and change the law, ignoring the constitutional requirements that devolve on both the president and the attorney general. In essence, Eric Holder has acted as Obama’s enforcer and his heat shield, protecting the president’ flank on numerous occasions and pushing his dream of transforming America into a progressive utopia .

John Fund is the national affairs correspondent at National Review Online and Hans A. von Spakovsky is a former Justice Department official and contributor at National Review Online.  This is excerpted from their recently released book “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside  2014).



Marco Rubio Delivers “Game Changing” Speech

By Onan Coca

Ever since Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) ill-considered foray into immigration reform he has been a bit of a pariah with the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Since the failure of the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform attempts, Rubio has been working hard to get back into the good graces of conservative voters. He’s worked hard on pro-life issues, he’s pushed back against President Obama’s many scandals, and he’s even apologized for his part in the Gang of Eight (with Republicans John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ). For many conservatives however, he still can’t be trusted.

But a recent speech he gave at Hillsdale College has many conservatives paying attention to the young Florida Senator again. He recently delivered the kind of speech that folks on the right have been waiting for; some called it “excellent” and others might even say it was a “game-changer.”

So it should be no surprise that disapproval of our government and pessimism about the direction of our country have reached an all-time high. Because the inability of our leaders to respond to the challenges and the opportunities of the 21st century is denying a growing number of people access to the American Dream…

To restore the American Dream, we need a new policy agenda designed specifically for the 21st century. A limited government and free enterprise movement that applies the principles of our founding to the challenges and opportunities facing Americans in their daily lives.

Transcript of prepared remarks:

Both of my parents were born into difficult circumstances. My father lost his mother as a young boy and had to quit school so he could go to work. My mother was raised by a disabled father who struggled to provide for his seven daughters.

When they were young, they had dreams for their future. My father wanted to be a successful businessman. My mother wanted to be a famous movie star. But like most people who have ever lived, they were born into societies where the dreams of people like them didn’t stand a chance.

They felt trapped in their circumstances, frustrated by the inability to improve their lives. And so they came to the one place on earth where how you start out in life does not determine how you end up: the United States of America.

They never became wealthy here either; they worked service jobs at hourly wages. They never had a maid at their house; my mother was one for a living. And they didn’t have fancy cars; my father drove the same ‘73 Chevy Impala for 20 straight years. Yet I consider my background to be one of great privilege.

I was privileged to be raised in a stable family. Privileged that my parents had jobs that allowed them to provide for their children. And I was privileged to be born in a land of equal opportunity, the one place on earth where the son of a bartender and maid could achieve the same things as a son of a president or a millionaire.

I come from privilege because – while the hope of a better life is a universal one – it is also one few people ever get the chance to achieve. We are blessed to live in a country on whose cornerstone is etched the principle that all people have a God given right to go as far as their talent and effort will take them. And because here, so many people have been able to achieve the universal dream of a better life, this dream has come to bear our name: The American Dream.

For most, this Dream has never been about becoming rich or famous. It is about having a good job that pays enough to own a home, feed your family, and save for retirement; the flexibility to work and spend time with your family; the freedom to worship as you please and live without fear for your family’s safety; and ultimately, it’s about giving your children the opportunity to have a life better than your own.

The American Dream holds us together as one people. It defines us as a special nation. We can overcome bad presidents, tough economies and divisive issues. But if we lose the American Dream, we will lose our identity. There cannot be an America without the American Dream. That is why the greatest crisis before us today is that millions of our people feel that this Dream is slipping away.

The American Dream is still attainable. But it has gotten increasingly difficult to achieve for far too many. Wages have stagnated; everyday costs have risen; industries that once flourished have dried up, their jobs shipped overseas or lost to automation; and millions go to sleep each night overcome with the sense that they are one bad break from financial ruin.

Over the last six years, this insecurity has coiled itself around people from all walks of life. 

You can read the rest of Marco Rubio’s Hillsdale speech “Finding Economic Security in an Insecure Time” at Rubio’s Senate website.





AMENPER: El Servilismo de la Prensa y los Centros Educacionales

Estoy leyendo la historia de la dictadura de Stalin.  Este quizás sin proponérselo,  divulgó el peligro para la libertad de medios de comunicación serviles. “La Prensa”, dijo, “es el arma más afilada y más fuerte de nuestro partido”.

Los periódicos controlados por el partido, para a Stalin, eran como armas. Un tirano tenía más posibilidades de mantener una población esclavizada y dócil si el gobierno controla tanto las armas como el flujo de ideas.

El mensaje de la censura y el control central sobre la información era el mismo también en el líder comunista chino Mao Zedong. ¿Por qué dejar leer algo más que el libro rojo a las masas? “Leer muchos libros, explicó Mao, “es perjudicial”- Fidel Castro comenzó con el semanario Zigzag, porque la sátira es un arma efectiva contra las dictaduras, pero antes del año ya había intervenido la totalidad de los medios de comunicación controlando la información y adoctrinando a las masas..

Lamentablemente, el problema en América es más profundo y más ancho- Por la historia de libertad de expresión en la tradición Americana, Obama no puede hacer declaraciones como esos dictadores de pueblos que nunca habían conocido la democracia. Pero sutilmente implementa una excesiva obediencia y uniformidad que claramente, por desgracia, va más allá,  no se limita a los medios de comunicación.

Parece haber una igualdad y precaución en educación superior en América, unos profesores tan serviles al socialismo, como lo es la prensa servil — En un sector donde uno esperaría encontrar una apreciación de la diversidad intelectual, paradigmas no convencionales y la libertad de pensamiento, donde se debieran celebrar características innovadoras, pero lo que vemos represión a los profesores y estudiantes que tratan de exponer sus ideas, y un adoctrinamiento brutal en las clases, donde el estudiante que quiera tener ideas propias son suspendidos en sus exámenes y no pueden avanzar en sus carreras..

Los comunistas son profesionales de la política, dedican su vida a ella, así que no debemos sorprendernos como de una manera sucinta, pero efectiva, hayan superado el control de los medios de comunicación y los centros de educación a un nivel superior al de sus antecesores, para tratar de crear una población dócil, con ideas preconcebidas por ellos, manteniéndola esclavizada en la dependencia y docilidad

Los pocos medios de comunicación que se mantienen independientes son incesantemente atacados por la prensa servil al gobierno…

Cuando pensamos en Cuba que la rebeldía del cubano no aceptaría la docilidad de la población esclavizada por los dictadores totalitarios, subestimamos la capacidad política de la efectiva doctrina comunista.  El cubano no se callaba ante los dictadores autoritarios, pero ante la dictadura totalitaria comunista, ha sucumbido a la docilidad que crea el control total de los medios de comunicación y la educación.  Esto es mucho más efectivo que las armas, y es el camino que estamos viendo en Estados Unidos





NELSON HORTA REPORTA… Entre 500 y 600 menores entran ilegalmente diariamente a Estados Unidos. • La alarmante cifra fue dada a conocer en una Conferencia sobre migración celebrándose en Nicaragua.

MIAMI 27 DE JUNIO DE 2014,—Las cifras dadas a conocer sobre la migración de menores de edad que  diariamente pasan hacia los Estados Unidos, son alarmantes.

En el XIX Conferencia Internacional de Migración celebrándose en Managua, Nicaragua,  se reveló que entre 500 y 600 menores de entre un año  a 17 años ingresan ilegalmente todos los días en Estados Unidos, según afirmó la viceministra para los Salvadoreños en el Exterior, Liduvina Magarín.

Por su parte el comisionado nacional de los Derechos Humanos, Roberto Herrera Cáceres, exhortó a las familias hondureñas a abstenerse de promover y a evitar la migración de niños y niñas no acompañados porque se ha demostrado que la ruta de la migración está plagada de peligros que los convierten en víctimas de abusos de autoridades o delincuencia común u organizada, actos de extorsión, abuso físico y sexual, secuestro, trata de personas, explotación, discriminación y otros.

“Tenemos entre 500 y 600 niños entrando a la frontera todos los días en las últimas 4 a 5 semanas, y que estamos atendiendo con nuestro cuerpo consular”, dijo Liduvina Magarín a periodistas.

El secretario de Seguridad Nacional estadounidense Jen Johnson anunció recientemente que los niños centroamericanos que crucen ilegalmente la frontera del país norteamericano serán deportados.

Sin embargo la Viceministra salvadoreña Magarín aparentemente no esta de acuerdo con las declaraciones de Johnson, ya que dice que las autoridades de los países centroamericanos esperan que “se respete el debido proceso legal que tiene Estados Unidos para que se privilegie la reunificación familiar”, señaló la funcionaria. Al contrario de los adultos, los menores no viajan ilegalmente a Estados Unidos en busca del sueño americano , sino que aspiran a reencontrarse con sus padres o escapan de la violencia, afirmó Magarín




Enrique Enriquez: Ted Cruz to Eric Holder: Appoint Prosecutor for IRS Scandal or Face Impeachment

By Greg Campbell

On Thursday, Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz called for the impeachment of Attorney General Eric Holder if he refuses to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS’ targeting of Tea Party and other conservative groups. 

Sen. Cruz called for unanimous consent to demand that the Department of Justice (DOJ) appoint a prosecutor to investigate the IRS scandal, the years-long campaign of harassment aimed at suppressing Tea Party influence in politics by delaying tax-exempt status to nonprofits by requiring the submission of multiple invasive questionnaires and information that far surpassed any reasonable requests for tax-exempt considerations. 

“Americans need a guarantee that the IRS will never be used again to target an Administration’s political enemies,” Sen. Cruz said. “It saddens me that there is not one Democrat in this body who has had the courage to stand up to his or her own party and say that using the IRS to target citizens for their political beliefs is wrong. We need a special prosecutor with meaningful independence to make sure justice is served and our constitutional rights to free speech, assembly, and privacy are protected.” 

“If Attorney General Eric Holder does not appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the IRS,” Cruz added, “the House should use its power to impeach him. Impeding justice is intolerable and he should not be permitted to refuse the American people a true investigation into the actions of those who used the machinery of government to target, intimate, and silence them for politically driven reasons.” 

The constitutional scholar-turned senator claimed that should Holder refuse to appoint a special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s crime would make him guilty of a high crime or misdemeanor, which would allow for his impeachment. 

A press release from Sen. Cruz’s office concluded, 

The failure to fully investigate and prosecute individuals for the illegal targeting of political organizations is just one of many offenses committed by Attorney General Holder. While he has been Attorney General: 

DOJ was at the center of the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal that led to the death of a U.S. Border Patrol agent. The House of Representatives voted him in contempt of Congress two years ago.


DOJ has refused to enforce federal immigration laws, federal healthcare laws, federal welfare laws, and federal drug laws as written by Congress. 

DOJ attempted to bring the 9/11 terrorist Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Manhattan to be tried on U.S. soil.

DOJ gave the Obama Administration the green light to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay without giving proper notice to Congress.

DOJ helped secretly obtain the phone records of journalists at Fox News and the Associated Press. 

On Wednesday, TPNN reported that the IRS scandal includes the targeting of more than Tea Party citizens, but that Lois Lerner, the head of the department at the center of the scandal, had called for an IRS investigation into conservative Senator Chuck Grassley after obtaining an invitation meant for Grassley to a speaking event.





Trey Gowdy Brings the Thunder at the IRS Hearings

By Onan Coca

Who doesn’t love watching Trey Gowdy (R-SC) get all fired up? I know I do.

Well, the fiery prosecutor from South Carolina was in full display a couple of days ago when he took on the head of the IRS, Commissioner John Koskinen.

In his questions and comments for the IRS head, Gowdy continually pushes the theory that some kind of criminal action seems to likely be taking place at the IRS. An assertion that IRS head Koskinen repeatedly denies. But Koskinen’s denials only aggravate Rep. Gowdy further – because Koskinen has no way of knowing whether a crime has taken place or not… he can only hope that it hasn’t!

Gowdy seemed especially fired up when he delivered these lines…

When Koskinen said that nothing illegal had happened Gowdy shouted,“You don’t have any idea of criminal wrongdoing or not!”

When Koskinen implied that any conspiracy was simply a Republican fantasy, Gowdy fired back, “You’re repeating a talking point by our colleagues on the other side!”

Trey Gowdy was not pleased with John Koskinen.

The internet was also not pleased with Koskinen… but they sure did love Gowdy’s performance!







AMENPER: Me Gusta la Vagina porque soy Cavernícola.

La verdad absoluta es que me gusta la vagina, y es algo natural porque soy un hombre casado con una mujer con vagina y  formamos una familia..

Este pensamiento antes era una cosa normal y una verdad absoluta por muchos años. Era algo que no había ni siquiera necesidad de mencionarla por lo obvio que era.  Pero ahora no es así.

Un artista de género ambiguo dijo ayer  en un escenario  dijo que no le gustaba la vagina, y su público respondió con un estruendoso aplauso que parecía que no iba a terminar. 

Para el que no piensa como ellos, es triste ver el punto a que ha llegado la degeneración o mejor dicho la desaparición de los valores.  No hay valores, todo es relativo, todo es aceptable

La verdad absoluta no existe, la verdad es relativa, es potestad de cada persona, cada persona tiene su verdad, y no importa lo que sea, por muy absurda o aberrante  es la verdad privada de él y tiene que ser respetada como verdad.

El que a una persona que es hombre tenga que gustarle la vagina, no es natural.  Lo natural es que pueda escoger por su estilo de vida si le gusta otro órgano sexual o si escoge como familia una alternativa que no incluya a una persona del sexo opuesto eso es la nueva normalidad. 

Puede crear una fantasía de familia comprando hijos para dar aspecto de familia tradicional, pero esto se supone que sea bueno, sin considerar el futuro de esos niños.

Es aceptable que escogan su estilo de vida, pero es aberrante que en su afán de crear un matrimonio donde no lo hay, envuelvan a inocentes en sus fantasías..

 Pero es lo correcto, segun muchos que incluyen a nuestro presidende.  Oponerse a esto es ser cavernícola.

Si uno expresa algo contrario a estas ideas, entonces uno es un cavernícola vetusto.. 

Bueno, hasta cierto punto es verdad. Yo estoy seguro que al hombre de las cavernas le gustaba las vaginas.   Me acuerdo que Trucutú tenía una novia que no recuerdo como se llamaba.  Pero yo no iría tan lejos, mi pensamiento aunque antiguo se remonta solamente hasta el principio de la civilización Greco-Romana.  Los filósofos de la antigüedad estaban de acuerdo que había una verdad absoluta, que existía, y que era nuestro deber para nosotros mismos y para la sociedad, buscarla y seguirla.  La familia era el núcleo de la sociedad, y el matrimonio era entre un hombre y una mujer procreando de una manera “natural” los hijos que perpetúan la especie.

Pero llegaron los Hippies, primero como subcultura y ahora como gobernantes, y nos imponen su cultura hippie por arriba de la cultura tradicional primero de la civilización Greco-Romana y después de la Judea-Cristiana que fue la evolución cultural sin variar los valores.

Ellos dicen que tienen razón, que los nuevos valores son los naturales, porque son si hipocresía.  Pero en los valores tradicionales, lo que ellos llaman hipocresía es el respecto por el semejante.  No me creo hipócrita porque no me ponga a mearme o cagar en la calle como fueran mis instintos primitivos, no lo hago por el respeto que me merecen mis semejantes.

Pero veo que en las sociedades en que se implanta estas filosofías, la vida empeora y la sociedad degenera en algo sub-humano.  

Cuando uno visita Ámsterdam y visita a Tel-Aviv en Israel, es como si estuviéramos en dos planetas de diferentes galaxias.  Creo que para mí vivir en Ámsterdam sería un castigo como vivir en una cárcel de inmundicia y abuso.

Saludos de Trucutú



Obama Will Act Unilaterally on Immigration Reform?

Posted on June 27, 2014 by Cowboy Byte

More executive orders to come…
Check it out:

Top Senate Democrats are sick of waiting for the House to take up comprehensive immigration reform. If Republicans don’t act in July, President Obama will, they warn. After all, he still has a pen and phone, right?

Via The Hill:

“We’re at the end of the line,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.

“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Continue Reading on




Obama’s Effort to Dismiss IRS Scandal Backfires. Peter Wehner

The Internal Revenue Service headquarters stands in Washington, D.C., on April 9, 2014. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)

Bloomberg News

President Barack Obama assured us earlier this year that the IRS targeting of conservatives has “not even a smidgen of corruption.” The American people, in overwhelming numbers, disagree.

According to a new Fox News poll, more than three-quarter of voters –76% — think the emails missing from the account of Lois Lerner, the ex-IRS official at the heart of the scandal, were deliberately destroyed. Broken down by parties, we find 90% of Republicans believing the emails were intentionally destroyed, 74 % of independents saying that’s the case, and fully 63% of Democrats saying Ms. Lerner’s emails were destroyed. (Only 12% of voters believe the emails were destroyed accidentally.)

In addition, nearly three-quarters of those surveyed – 74%–say lawmakers should investigate the IRS “until someone is held accountable.” (Among Democrats, 66% feel that way.)

These numbers are quite problematic for the president for several reasons. One is that the effort to dismiss this scandal as a conspiracy thought up in the fevered minds of Republicans just isn’t working. The amassing circumstantial evidence is simply overwhelming: What we’re seeing is a criminal coverup done to hide the abuse of power by the government’s most feared agency.

A second problem for the president is that this kind of thing will eat away at his credibility and trustworthiness, two of the most important qualities a president must retain. When they go — when the public begins to think the chief executive sits atop an administration that is duplicitous and mendacious — the entire presidency begins to collapse on itself.

Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He served in the last three Republican administrations and blogs regularly for Commentary magazine.

Obama’s Effort to Dismiss IRS Scandal Backfires – Washington Wire – WSJ

Obama’s Effort to Dismiss IRS Scandal Backfires – Washin…

Americans disagree with President Barack Obama’s assurances that the IRS scandal has “not even a smidgen of corruption.”





Supreme Court unanimously slams down Obama’s illegal “recess” appointments‏.Mark Mix. To: Lazaro R Gonzalez

Dear Lazaro, 

“This is a constitutional crisis,” I warned when Barack Obama announced his illegal “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in January 2012.
Your National Right to Work Foundation has fought back against Obama’s egregious violation of the U.S. Constitution ever since.
Foundation staff attorneys filed the first legal challenge against the power grab, and later filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court for a Rhode Island nurse. 
Today, the High Court unanimously ruled the “recess” appointments were invalid.
You see, Article II of the Constitution requires the President to obtain the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate for appointments to most critical positions in the executive branch. 
The Advice and Consent Clause allows the Senate to ensure that Presidential appointments are qualified and not beholden to special interests like Big Labor. 
But when Congress is “recessed” — not in session — the President may fill vacancies to ensure the continued functioning of government. 
There is just one problem with President Obama’s NLRB appointments: Congress was still in session! 
But Obama was determined to fill the NLRB with handpicked forced-dues allies, the United States Constitution be damned, candidly proclaiming, “I refuse to take no for an answer.” 
The U.S. Constitution, and now the Supreme Court, say otherwise.
Our country’s constitutional balance really was in jeopardy, and I’m proud we were able, with your help, to be a part of this vital fight to defend the Constitution. 
But the fight is far from over. 
Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with Foundation attorneys that the “recess” appointments were constitutionally invalid, any of the more than 1,000 orders and decisions the NLRB released during that time can be challenged!
That includes the case of Jeanette Geary, the nurse I mentioned earlier.
In Geary’s case, the rogue Obama NLRB blatantly IGNORED the Supreme Court’s Foundation-won 1988 Beck decision, which states that union bosses cannot force workers in non-Right to Work states to pay for union lobbying or political activities.
Foundation staff attorneys must be prepared to keep up the fight — and be ready to re-litigate any null and void cases.
That’s why I hope you’ll consider chipping in with a tax-deductible contribution of $10 or more today.

Our Founding Fathers brilliantly devised a system that empowers the different branches of government to hold each other in check — a system Barack Obama defiantly violated to pay back his Big Labor benefactors.
Today, that system prevailed.
Thank you again for helping us fight to preserve the Constitution.

Mark Mix



Liberals Hate Indians

By David Lawrence

The Washington Redskins are convinced that they will overturn the ruling against their trademark.  Why is it that liberals hate Indians so much that they don’t want to allow them to have an identifying trademark? They feel the same way about blacks.

On the one hand the liberals are your friends.  On the other they despise you and don’t want to allow you to be who you are.

No one has been able to figure out what percentage of Indians are against the name “Redskins.”  But based on numbers it seems that the Democrat liberals are the main complainers.

Federal trademark law does not allow registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups. But removing the name Redskins disparages them more by stripping them of their pride and their identity.

Liberals hate any race different from them, even though they put up a big, fake song and dance about how accepting and all-encompassing they are. Bigots are prejudiced people dressed in the Klu Klux Clan robes of academia and hipster jeans.  They are hatred hidden beneath false love.

I asked a black friend of mine at Gleason’s Gym why people are against “Redskins.”  He said it’s like blacks being against the “N” word.  But the “N” word has a long tradition of being demeaning and insulting, whereas redskins does not have the same negative connotations.

The cancellation of the Redskin’s trademark will not hold.  What’s wrong with Redskin’s identifying themselves with Indians.  Do liberals want to put yarmulkes on Indians’ heads and represent them as genteel liberal Jews?

Let the Indians be Indians.  Let them be proud in being a strong football team.  Let the liberals get off their backs and quit being ideological shoulder pads against rationality.

Liberals feel that the Washington Redskins disparages North American Indians.  That’s because liberals can’t accept their identities and won’t allow them to be what they are.

I’d rather be a proud Redskin than a Panther or a Bull.  Should we now be worried about animal pride?

I have two tattoos.  One of boxing gloves and one of rap music.  I was both.  I want to be what I want to be.  If Indians represent a strong race, let them be used as an identity for a football team.

Give me a break.  Whatever happened to that saying, “Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never harm me.”  Especially when they are friendly names like Redskins.

Celebrate the warrior Redskins; don’t demean them as if they were never courageous.

Shame on liberals.  They did produce the greatest failure as President, Obama. Now if we called him chief, that would be an insult.  Commander is a joke.  He is the perfect failure.

And all the little progressives are changing the language because they are afraid that it will somehow ricochet and hurt their failed leader.




GOP Spends $9.7 Million to Attack Republicans – But Only $3.7 Million to Attack Democrats

If you needed more proof that the Establishment is hell-bent on attacking Tea Party candidate, a report on campaign expenditures confirms it. Or as comedian Bill Engvall says, “Here’s your sign.”

A recent study by the Center For Public Integrity revealed that from January 1 through May 6, Republican PACs and outside groups have spent about $9.7 million attacking Republican candidates in advertisements and other communications, and only around $3.7 million to attack Democrats. Democratic groups have only spent $67,000 attacking other Democrats.

What’s caused this turbocharged increase in campaign spending? Political animosity between the Tea Party and GOP Establishment and a Supreme Court decision. In January 2010, the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts of money on ads and other communication to advocate for the election (or defeat) of a political candidate. Campaign spending was ruled to be a form of speech, protected by the Constitution for both individuals and corporations.

The decision didn’t affect contributions, as it’s still illegal for unions and corporations to make direct contributions to candidates for federal office. However, it’s opened the financial floodgates for SuperPACs and other groups to raise money and make independent expenditures for federal races across the country.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent $1 million on attack ads targeting Tea Party challengers. This includes $500,000 against Chris McDaniel, the opponent of six-term Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran and $200,000 against attorney Bryan Smith, who’s taking on incumbent Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho.

The U.S. Chamber spent another $300,000 targeting attorney Woody White, who lost his race against former state Senator David Rouzer in North Carolina’s 7th Congressional District primary.

It’s also spent another $3.6 million through early May on ads to boost the image of several GOP Establishment candidates, including McConnell, Simpson and North Carolina primary winner Thom Tillis who faced, or are facing, competitive primaries.

SuperPACs Club For Growth Action and FreedomWorks for America targeted Thad Cochran in Mississippi, bashing his record on taxes and financial matters.

While Republican groups will most likely rally to defeat Democrats in November, the intra-party attack ads and spending will continue through the final GOP primaries in September.




Steve Forbes Predicts U.S. Will Return to Gold Standard

The U.S. has not used the gold standard since the Nixon Shock of 1971 when the gold window was officially closed. Since that time, the U.S. dollar has been a pure fiat currency.

But Steve Forbes seems to believe the U.S. willreturn to the gold standard out of necessity…

Business mogul Steve Forbes says that not only is a return to the gold standard a realistic option, but “circumstances” in our economy will necessitate it.

“We were on the gold standard for 180 years in this country’s history — did very well with it,” Forbes told J.D. Hayworth, John Bachman and Miranda Khan on “America’s Forum” on Newsmax TV on Monday.

“Gold gives money… stability just like the ruler measures length, the clock measures time, a scale measures weight,” Forbes added. “A dollar measures value and when the value is stable, you get a lot more investment, a lot more growth, a lot more opportunity.”

Forbes claims there is enough gold in U.S. vaults to return to the gold standard right now. On that point, I strongly disagree. The evidence indicates the U.S. government has little gold left.

In January 2013, Germany’s Bundesbank announced their intent to repatriate 300 tons of gold that they had deposited at the Federal Reserve. Rather than return all of it at once, the Fed said they would send back 37.5 tons a year until 2020.

A year later, the Fed had managed to return just 5 tons. And even more disturbing, the bars they returned were not the original ones that Germany had deposited.

Why so long? And why different bars? Because the Fed doesn’t have Germany’s gold anymore. It’s gone.

This problem does not just affect Germany, but many other countries that have deposited gold with the Fed.

Furthermore, some experts say gold paper derivatives exceed the amount of gold that could be delivered by 10 to one. That means for every one ounce of gold, there have been 10 paper contracts sold against it. Technically, 10 different people all have a legitimate claim to that one ounce of gold.

This is the reason why so many investors believe gold will eventually surpass its previous highs by a large margin. When all the smoke and mirrors disappear, the price of gold will have nowhere to go but up.

But getting back to Forbes’ belief that the U.S. will return to a gold standard… will it actually happen?

At some point, I believe it will. But the U.S. isn’t going to make this change voluntarily. The Powers That Be have grown accustomed to creating money out of thin air whenever they want. They will not give up this power easily.

But eventually they’ll be dragged back to the gold standard when Russia and China begin backing their own currencies with gold.

Russia and China are aggressively pursuing honest money policies. Some believe they’ll switch to gold-backed currencies within the next 1-2 years. The U.S. would then be forced to back the dollar with gold to preserve their economic power on the world stage.

TIP: One of the best ways to invest in gold (or silver) is to buy it incrementally over timeusing a service like Silver Saver.


Supreme Court Supports ATF in Strange Anti-Gun Decision that Hurts Guns Owners Everywhere

Build Your Own AR-15 ‘Off The Books’?

Watch this. Click now.

 Gun Owners of America suffered a loss in the Supreme Court when they attempted to reverse a decision that forbids law-abiding citizens to buy guns for other law-abiding citizens.

When former police officer James Abramaski went to buy a gun for his elderly uncle, he wanted to make sure he was within the law to buy a gun for his relative.

Two separate FFL dealers said that he was.

And when he went to purchase the firearm, both he and his uncle passed a NICS background check, which meant they were both allowed to own weapons.

But the ATF claimed that Abramski lied on his Form 4473 when he claimed he was the “actual buyer” of the firearm.

This kind of purchase — the legal purchase of a firearm and then the legal transfer of said firearm to another individual — is included in “straw purchase” doctrine.

Though straw purchases are not a crime as defined by the Congress, the ATF and courts have ruled them to be in violation of law.

Gun Owners of America wrote on their website:

This case involves one of the greatest instances of regulatory and prosecutorial abuse that we have ever seen.

The concept of a “straw purchase” is a “doctrine” created by ATF and the courts, rather than a “crime” enacted by Congress.

The Abramski decision throws gun laws into great confusion. After all, even Sarah Brady has admitted — on pp. 223-224 of her book, A Good Fight (2002) — that SHE BOUGHT a hunting rifle for her son for Christmas one year.

She did exactly the same thing that James Abramski did, who has been viciously prosecuted by an anti-gun Obama administration!

Maybe the Obama Administration should now open a case against Sarah Brady, who is the founder of the Brady Campaign — an organization which is, ironically, championing yesterday’s Supreme Court decision.

They should prosecute her, too, but don’t hold your breath.

The Supreme Court and most others in Washington D.C. are obviously out of touch with the true desires of American citizens.

Obama has done gun owners no favors and has actually added two more new anti-gun judges to the Supreme Court bench.

And not to be outdone, even some Republicans have helped to elect anti-gun politicians, including Lindsey Graham (R-SC).




Gracias a Jose Noda:
Al Profesor de Derecho Luis Marín quien me envía sus correos desde Caracas, lo conozco hace tiempo a través de la Red. Sus opiniones son de extraordinario interés y su percepción de eventos históricos es siempre analítica y brillante. Espero disfruten este ensayo de su autoría.
Saludos cordiales,

Hugo Byrne: GOLPES DE ESTADO:La expresión se atribuye a Gabriel Naudé por su obra “Consideraciones políticas sobre los golpes de Estado”, Roma, 1639. Irónicamente, su edición castellana implica una suerte de “golpe de estado”, visto que la muy respetable editorial Tecnos de Madrid nos informa que “en castellano no ha habido ninguna edición anterior a la presente”. Enfatizando: “La presente traducción, primera en lengua castellana”, data del año 1998. No obstante, expresión idéntica puede leerse en una humilde edición de la Imprenta Universitaria de la UCV de septiembre de 1964, ¡un tercio de siglo antes! Naudé no hace una teoría sobre los golpes de Estado, sino que expone una larga serie de ellos para mostrar con el ejemplo; no obstante, siguiendo sus palabras, podríamos definirlos como acciones audaces y extraordinarias ejecutadas por el soberano o sus ministros, contrarias el derecho común, sin guardar ningún orden ni forma de justicia, arriesgando el interés particular por el bien general. Con el transcurso de los siglos, la idea se restringió a las acciones violentas que tienen como finalidad la conquista, conservación o ampliación del poder soberano. Finalmente, por razones que deben ser idiosincráticas o históricas, particularmente en el ámbito latinoamericano, se reducen aún más a las intentonas militares para tomar el poder, deponiendo por la fuerza al gobierno establecido.Como se ve, la idea original era más amplia, abarcando desde el veneno y la puñalada, a los ardides y triquiñuelas para engañar o confundir al pueblo, pasando por toda clase de emboscadas y perfidias para deshacerse de rivales políticos, que no involucran necesariamente una intervención militar. La idea es el zarpazo, la acción súbita que sorprende al enemigo y le impide toda respuesta, el rayo que cae antes de que se oiga el trueno, el ataque fulminante. El golpismo es la médula del régimen impuesto en Venecuba, los integrantes del comando supremo de la revolución son golpistas y sus ejecutorias, golpes de Estado.



Fidel Castro puede prestarnos un excelente muestrario para dar una idea bastante aproximada de lo que se considera golpe de Estado en sentido clásico. 

Un ejemplo, la desaparición de  Camilo Cienfuegos el 28 de octubre de 1959. El hecho es que le ordenaron someter a Huber Matos que criticaba en Camagüey la interferencia comunista en las Fuerzas Armadas, con el cálculo muy maquiavélico de ponerlo en el dilema de traicionar al amigo o exponerse a que lo acusaran de traicionar la revolución. Si alguno de los dos resultara muerto en un posible enfrentamiento, sería ganancia para Castro.

Como quiera que haya resuelto el dilema, no le gustó la solución: Huber Matos estaba vivo y Camilo de regreso a La Habana, en un trayecto corto, con un experimentado piloto. Entonces, el avión desapareció sin dejar rastros, presumiblemente derribado por un caza de la Fuerza Aérea en un confuso incidente nunca esclarecido. Todas los relacionados directa o indirectamente con el caso desaparecieron en forma violenta. No sobreviven testigos, nadie vio, nadie oyó, nadie dice nada.

Quizás el error de Camilo fue subirse al carro en que Fidel Castro entraba triunfante en La Habana, como se dice, robar cámara y aparecer en el primer plano eclipsando en alguna medida la imagen única del gran líder; quizás su origen popular, la influencia que se le atribuye entre el pueblo y la tropa; quizás el afán de corregir a Castro que lo llevó a preguntarle sardónicamente en medio de un discurso: “¿Voy bien, Camilo?”

Otro, el ajusticiamiento del Che Guevara el 8 de octubre de 1967 en Bolivia. Para este caso basta detenerse en la carta de despedida del Che leída por Castro en un discurso exactamente dos años antes: “Hago formal renuncia de mis cargos en la dirección del partido, de mi puesto de ministro, de mi grado de comandante, de mi condición de cubano. Nada legal me ata a Cuba…”. Y más adelante: “Digo una vez más que libero a Cuba de cualquier responsabilidad…”.

En ese momento Guevara se encontraba perdido en el Congo de donde logró evacuar al personal cubano y salvarse milagrosamente en lo que consideró el mayor desastre de su vida. Execrado por la URSS después de su discurso de Argel criticando al bloque soviético, la lectura de aquella carta sin fecha, que se suponía podría ser usada sólo en caso de muerte, la consideró como una puñalada por la espalda.

El hecho es que estaba despedido, botado, en desgracia. No podía volver a Cuba sino clandestinamente, de la misma manera en que luego ingresó a Bolivia. Allí lo alcanzó la proscripción del Partido Comunista Boliviano que lo consideraba un aventurero y el anatema a sus teorías foquistas por el comunismo científico soviético. 

Guevara fue entregado por agentes estalinistas del PCB y luego ajusticiado. Al igual que en el caso anterior, todos los participantes y testigos sufrieron una muerte violenta. Un dato curioso es que incluso extremistas europeos creyendo que estaban vengando al Che eliminaron a los únicos que podían desenredar la tramoya que lo expulsó de Cuba y lo llevó a un cerco del que no pudo escapar. 

El hecho imprevisto fue que se convirtiera en un ícono revolucionario mundial, una impactante imagen propagandística, que los comunistas han explotado hasta el día de hoy, dejando sin despejar los oscuros nubarrones que eclipsaron su trágico destino.

Último, el general Arnaldo Ochoa, fusilado el 13 de julio de 1989. También vinculado a la aventura cubana en África; pero al contrario de Guevara, su maldición no fue la condena soviética sino ser el elegido como hombre de Moscú para la sucesión en Cuba. 

Él hizo lo que le mandaron a hacer, alinearse con la URSS en todo, como correspondía a un comunista obediente y disciplinado. Lo que no podía preverse es que Moscú tomara el camino de la perestroika, el glasnost y que La Habana no lo siguiera, se rebelara y optara por seguir la ruta en solitario, algo absolutamente impensable segundos antes de que ocurriera. ¿Cómo es posible que los Castro se atrevieran a desafiar a la URSS?

Lo cierto es que los cubanos en el exterior se acostumbraron a decir que si Castro se ponía “chocho” habría que sustituirlo en la dirección del partido y del Estado. Ochoa era una de las pocas personas de la nomenklatura que tenía el privilegio de tutear a Castro. En una oportunidad, viendo que buscaba infructuosamente un tabaco, tuvo la osadía de decirle que se estaba poniendo “chocho”: esas fueron sus verdaderas últimas palabras.

 El juicio de Arnaldo Ochoa es un modelo de lo que significa la justicia revolucionaria y muestra gráficamente en qué ha devenido la justicia en Venecuba. Se llama “tribunal de honor” a un monumento a la deshonra. Los abogados defensores eran de inferior jerarquía militar que jueces y fiscales, en sentido estricto, sus subordinados. Lo más patético es que reclaman más reconocimiento para sí porque la tarea que se les había  impuesto era más difícil, teniendo que defender a estos traidores, su sacrificio por la revolución era mayor que el de todos los demás. 

Las autoinculpaciones de AO son más devastadoras que las acusaciones de la fiscalía; admite todos los supuestos crímenes, exculpa expresamente a Fidel Castro y al gobierno de sus actividades criminales y pide la pena de muerte para sí mismo.

La lógica estalinista sigue funcionando: un comunista debe adherir en forma irrestricta las decisiones del partido, sino es un traidor. Si el partido decide que él es un traidor, entonces tiene que aceptarlo porque sino confirma que lo es. Si lo admite, es un leal comunista, pero está condenado, mejor  aún, auto condenado.

AO murió gritando: “¡No soy un traidor!” Fidel Castro, que observaba su ejecución en circuito cerrado de televisión sólo comentó: “Murió como un hombre”. 

Podríamos agregar el caso de Oswaldo Payá, pero eso nos llevaría a otro terreno.



¿Quién puede decir semejante cosa? Su sucesor, que lo siente en su corazón. El cáncer, dice, se puede “inocular”; pero, ¿cómo? Si HC estuvo todo el tiempo en manos de los cubanos, incluso mucho antes de caer supuestamente enfermo, ¿quién podía tener acceso a él para inocularle el cáncer? Aquí el dilema obvio es: o los círculos de seguridad cubanos no funcionan o fueron ellos mismos quienes le inocularon el cáncer.

¿Qué dice Fidel Castro luego de la muerte de HC? Silencio. ¿Qué dice el gobierno cubano? Nada, en absoluto. ¿Qué hace el gobierno venecubano? ¡Condecora a los médicos cubanos que supuestamente atendieron al paciente hasta su muerte!

¿Por qué no los condecoran sus jefes en Cuba? Se vería mal, muy mal. La pregunta es: ¿Por qué condecorarlos si el paciente murió? ¿Será que esa era la verdadera “misión cumplida”? Si la misión hubiera sido curarlo o mantenerlo con vida, no la cumplieron,      entonces no cabe el premio porque universalmente se condecora a quien va más allá del simple cumplimiento del deber. Pero el régimen cubano cuando esconde los cachos muestra el rabo: ellos autorizan a sus nacionales para recibir condecoraciones de otros  países, luego, consienten en que estos supuestos médicos cumplieron su tarea más allá de lo que era razonablemente exigible, son héroes. Pero, ¿por qué? ¿Qué hicieron?

Eva Golinger, que se sepa, es la única que brinca al ruedo a respaldar esta teoría ultra conspirativista de la inoculación; pero como le corresponde, acusando a EUA, su país de origen. Esta es una de esas cosas extrañas que los americanos y sólo los americanos pueden hacer sin consecuencias, desde que desapareció el Comité Investigador de Actividades Antiamericanas. 

En una larguísima reláfica que no resiste el menor análisis de estilo y que más parece redactada por el comité que fabrica las “Reflexiones” del comandante, EG suscribe la tesis de la inoculación del cáncer, pero se desbarranca hacia la idea de que podría ser una consecuencia lateral de actividades de espionaje electrónico, mediante radiaciones de microondas y cosas así. 

Pero como la competencia técnica de Eva Golinger en física nuclear es equivalente a su virtud moral, la única credencial que le resta es ser gacetillera a sueldo del chavismo, así, lo único rescatable de sus numerosísimas y fatigantes intervenciones es que nunca es desmentida, refutada, corregida, ni descalificada por el interesado directo que es el gobierno de Cuba, ni por su filial en Venecuba. 

Lo único bueno del totalitarismo es que cuando uno habla ya puede saberse lo que han convenido todos, puesto que su aspiración más celebrada es la unanimidad. 

El gobierno de Cuba, el único directamente implicado en el asesinato de HC se delata con su silencio. Nunca hablan directamente sino a través de otros, conocidos empleados. 

Pero, ¿por qué hacen tanta bulla con el tema? Parece que si ellos no lo hacen, otros podrían hacerlo y se dirigirían hacia el único sitio donde tendrían que ir las sospechas, entonces sólo se anticipan acusando, como siempre, a Estados Unidos. 

Como en todos los ejemplos anteriores, quizás el error de HC fue pretender volverse el sucesor de Fidel Castro en la revolución continental; éste sería el móvil: Fidel Castro no tiene ni puede tener sucesores y todos los que lo han intentado han tenido el mismo fulminante final.

Buen ejemplo de Golpe de Estado, de estilo clásico, digno de Gabriel Naudé.





Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s