Levin: "Media have blood on their hands"...Venezuela torturadora continua...Why we love Trump!

Mark Levin: The Media 'Have Blood On Their Hands'

"Because they encourage this activity. Because Hamas watches them." 

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

ByJACOB AIREY

May 16, 2018 

 14.7k views

Conservative author and radio host Mark Levin blasted the mainstream media’s coverage surrounding Israel's response to the Palestinians' violent protests following the opening of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem. The media, Levin said, "have blood on their hands" for continuing to fall for the tactics of Hamas, who use human shields as props for the cameras so the press will unfairly blame the Israeli government for the violence.

"But they force children into these actions. Remember the last war with Gaza? Where do they put their headquarters? Under elementary schools. Remember? Where do they put their missile inventory? Under hospitals," he said. "You see, what our media do not understand or do not care to understand is that for Hamas every human being is expendable. Because it’s a war. Every one of their citizens, expendable. Children and women first!

"Why? I'm gonna tell you why," he continued. "And I don’t mean to be provocative, but I'm gonna tell you why.

"The media in our country — hell the worldwide media and the Democratic Party in our country, just like all the left European parties… You know what? They have blood on their hands! You know why they have blood on their hands? Because they encourage this activity. Because Hamas watches them. The more children that are killed, the more the media turn on the Israelis. The more women killed, the more the media turn on the Israelis. So they push the women to the front. They push the children to the front."

The host condemned Hamas for the violence the perpetrate on their own people. "You and I look at this and say holeeeee…these terrorists are unbelievable, what they do to their own people!" he said. "The media, they say the Israelis are unbelievable, look what they do to these people."

Link to Article

You can listen to the audio on The Right Scoop. 

Asi Torturan en Venezuela a quienes piensan diferente!

The Real Donald Trump

Want to understand why Trump keeps winning? Look at Democratic hysteria

If you want to understand why Donald Trump is president today (and why he could very well win a second term), look to the Democrats' hysterical response to two of Trump's major foreign policy achievements over the past week.

Last Thursday, the president traveled to Joint Base Andrews to greet three American hostages whose release he had secured from North Korea. Unlike his predecessor, Trump did it without sending the offending regime an unmarked plane loaded with hundreds of millions in hard currency. The return of these American captives should have been a moment of celebration and bipartisan unity.

A Message from My Snoring Solution

CPAP Makers Running Scared After New Snoring Cure Unveiled

End Your Nightly Snoring Nightmare With This Simple Solution

So how did Democrats respond? By blasting Trump for the way he welcomed the U.S. hostages home. The pretext for their outrage was Trump's comment thanking Kim Jong Un, who he said "really was excellent to these three incredible people" -- by which Trump obviously meant releasing them. No matter. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., took the Senate floor to attack Trump for his "troubling" remarks. "Kim Jong Un is a dictator" who "capriciously detained American citizens," Schumer declared, channeling Captain Obvious, and warned that, by praising Kim, Trump "weakens American foreign policy and puts American citizens at risk around the world."

Seriously? How do Democrats take a positive event such as the release of American hostages and turn it into an excuse to attack Trump? Apparently, Trump Derangement Syndrome is so debilitating that Democrats can't bring themselves to say "Good job, Mr. President," even when he brings our hostages home. Before, Democrats complained that Trump was too belligerent toward Kim; now, they're upset that he is too effusive. This is absurd. Trump is laying the groundwork for a high-stakes nuclear summit with Kim; of course the president is not going to publicly criticize him. People in Middle America listen to the Democrats' reactions and think: Can Trump do nothing right in these people's eyes? Keep reading :

What Crazy things Obama supporters will do if Romney wins?...Last Poll shows Romney Wins...Media Task: Save Obama on Benghazi...Mientras El Gobierno Despilfarra nuestro Dinero!!!

50 Crazy Things That Obama Supporters Are Threatening To Do If Romney Wins

Michael Snyder
American Dream
Oct 19, 2012

Will cities all over America erupt in violence if Mitt Romney wins the election?  Right now we are probably witnessing the most divisive campaign in modern U.S. history, and both sides truly hate one another.  Even CNN is running articles about how polarized politics in America has become and how vicious both sides can be.  There is a lot of anger and frustration out there that has been bottled up for a long time, and this election could end up being a trigger event that releases a lot of it.  Both sides are entirely convinced that they can win this tightly contested election, and one side is going to feel bitterly disappointed when it does not happen.  Both sides are talking as if it is going to be “the end of America” or “the end of the world” if they lose this election.  This is particularly true when it comes to Obama supporters.  On social networking sites such as Twitter, many of them have actually been proclaiming that Mitt Romney wants to “exterminate black people” and many of them have been openly threatening to harm him if he does win the election.  This is a very dangerous sign, and these threats should be taken very seriously.  Of course a lot of Romney supporters are also likely to go absolutely insane if Obama ends up winning.  In fact, one Romney supporter apparently put a bullet through the window of an Obama campaign office in Denver the other day.  But when it comes to threatening to do crazy things if the election does not go their way, Obama supporters definitely take the cake.
The following are 50 crazy things that Obama supporters are threatening to do if Romney wins…

1. if romney wins i will cry in the fetal position every day (Source)
2. I’m serious: if Mitt Romney wins the presidency I’m moving to La Jolla to live in his vacant mansion #election (Source)
3. #IfObamaDontWin ima be walking around playing #2Pac with a 38 on my hip every where i go” (Source)
4. Best believe if Romney wins I’m dropping out and selling drugs (Source)
5. If romney win ima start bac robbin white folks.! (Source)
6. if Romney actually wins, I’m starting a riot (Source)
7. If Romney take away weave & my yams(foodstamps) . Ima get his White Asz (Source)
8. If Mitt Romney wins , I’m never having sex again! (Source)
9. if Romney wins and there’s a riot, I’m participating! (Source)
10. #IfObamaDontWin hell yeah America should riot and kill Romney!!! (Source)
11. if #Romney becomes president ima find away to be in the black panthers so we can take that mf out. (Source)
12. If Mitt Romney wins the election, I volunteer as tribute for the Hunger Games (Source)
13. If Romney Get Elected , The Only Hope Ima Have Is Sellin Dope ! #Gshit (Source)
14. Why ppl say if Romney win it’s back to the feilds? Lol if he win ima blow the white house up (Source)
15. If mitt Romney gets elected then ima buy all the tampons in the store!!!!!!!! And probably buy them in bulk from Sam’s club (Source)
16. If Romney takes away food stamps 2 Chainzz in this bit IMMA START A RIOT (Source)
17. If romney do win.. This riot is gon help out my christmas shoppin alot lol (Source)
18. I think we are all being too kind as Dems. If Romney wins see how kind he will be to our Middle class disappearing pockets. This is war! (Source)
19. If Romney wins I’m moving out of the country.. (Source)
20. If Romney wins who’s moving to Canada with me? (Source)
21. #IfObamaDontWin Im moving to mexico lol (Source)
22. I swear if #Romney wins Im legit packing up my stuff and moving to england!! I cant stand him! He always changes his mind! (Source)
23. #IfObamaDontWin Why hello Italy.. I’m going back. (Source)
24. If Romney wins the election I’m fleeing to Brazil after graduation. (Source)
25. #IfObamaDontWin Im Moving To Ghana (Source)
26. #IfObamaDontWin I’m Moving to Zimbabwe. (Source)
27. I’m an undecided voter. I haven’t decided where I’m moving if Romney wins. (Source)
28. My mom said if Romney wins we’re leaving the country ^.^ (Source)
29. #IfObamaDontWin people are gunna move to a different country were they can get financial help (Source)
30. I think ima start a riot if romney win. (Source)
31. Maybe workers should stand together and tell bosses if Romney wins they’re walking off the job. (Source)
32. If I see another “Romney” sign I swear ima knock it down… -_- #Obama2012 (Source)
33. Ima start stealing Romney signs for a bonfire lol (Source)
34. if romney wins our ppl will riot…. (Source)
35. If Romney became President and took away welfare Downtown Cincinnati would become a riot (Source)
36. If Mitt Romney wins come Nov. I’m becoming an Atheist Nun, just to shut-down those dickheads that want take control over me. (Source)
37. If romney becomes president just know it’s gone be a RiOT ! People can’t stand him. (Source)
38. Guys if Romney wins that means no more food stamps. The hood is about to have its own hunger games… (Source)
39. Oh wow! I heard there is gunna be a big riot if Romney wins! (Source)
40. When Romney wins, deys arl gonna riot and kill the cwacker, and da rest of da whiteys too. (I CAN’T F$KING WAIT!) I need a target rich envir (Source)
41. @FloggerBarb LMAO! Naw, my homeboy paged me. Say he gots to axe me a question about rioting #ifobamadontwinholla, jig! (Source)
42. If mitt Romney wins instead of ridin round wit da Nina we Gonn be ridin round wit dat pistol (Source)
43. Dear American pro-lifers, if Mitt Romney becomes president, I will personally abort one foetus for every vote he wins.#tryme (Source)
44. I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .”IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT” (Source)
45. If Romney wins Ima start a riot ill burn the whole White House down (Source)
46. If Romney wins then ima take it upon myself to assassinate his ass!! (Source)
47. IF MITT ROMNEY WINS THERE WILL BE A CIVIL WAR (Source)
48. If Romney wins, I think I’ll kill myself. Can’t live through the indignity of that on top of a really crappy year. (Source)
49. I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power (Source)
50. If Mit Romney win ima start a fucking riot str8 burning shit down (Source)
So do you believe that violence will erupt if Romney wins?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

The Perfect Shake

REACH OUT TO THE HISPANIC MARKET: INN REACH KNOWS HOW

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney

Among likely voters : Romney 52% Obama 45%

• Download complete trend

All registered voters are asked: "Suppose the presidential election were held today, and it included Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's candidates and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the Republican Party's candidates. Who would you vote for [ROTATED: Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the Democrats (or) Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the Republicans]?" Those who are undecided are further asked if they lean more toward Obama and Biden or Romney and Ryan and their leanings are incorporated into the results.

These results are for likely voters, who are the respondents Gallup deems most likely to vote based on their responses to a series of questions asking about current voting intentions, thought given to the election, and past voting behavior. Each seven-day rolling average is based on telephone interviews with approximately 2,700 likely voters; margin of error is ±2 percentage points.
See registered voter results here.

For a complete explanation of Gallup's likely voter procedures, please click here.

IN NEED OF TEMPORARY CASH ASSISTANCE? BANCO SOCIAL...$500 @ 2 Mos.

To Save Obama, Democrats Renew Criticism of Intelligence Community

by Joel B. Pollak 19 Oct 2012

A Republican member of the House intelligence committee is vigorously disputing a new claim by Democrat and fellow committee member Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois that intelligence officials told the committee there had been a “demonstration that was going on” during an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 that killed four Americans.

Jonathan Allen of Politico reported early Wednesday morning that Rep. Schakowsky had blamed faulty intelligence for the Obama administration’s repeated insistence that the attack had been motivated by outrage at an anti-Islamic video. She had added that the House intelligence committee, too, had received the same incorrect information:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, called Romney’s criticism of the president “an obvious miss and a politicization” of the Libya situation. She also said the president was clear in his Rose Garden remarks, even if the cause of the attack was not yet known.

”We were told the same thing that turned out to be wrong, that there was this demonstration that was going on,” she said of the Intelligence Committee. “The president’s reaction at that time was, regardless of the circumstances, that this was an act of terror. … I don’t agree with that analysis that just technically the president was correct. I think that’s what he meant,” Schakowsky said.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), who serves with Schakowsky on the intelligence committee, said that Schakowsky’s memory of what the committee had been told was incorrect. “If anybody is trying to politicize this thing, it’s Rep. Schakowsky by twisting the intelligence to help the president’s reelection chances,” he told Breitbart News.  “That’s very dangerous.  Her comments do not reflect what we were told.”
The State Department had no evidence of a protest at the U.S. consulate, and the Central Intelligence Agency had reported to Washington within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was an assault by terrorists, not a spontaneous demonstration against a video.

Schakowsky’s new claim about faulty early intelligence reports renew an attempt by Democrats to lay blame upon the intelligence services. During his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) last week, Vice President Joe Biden had claimed that the “intelligence community told us that” the video had been the cause of the Benghazi attacks.

Yet a new report by Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers suggests that the Obama administration changed its story about the Benghazi attack after the first 48 hours, moving away from suggestions of terrorism and embracing the idea that the deadly assault was a response to an anti-Islam video made in the U.S.

And as Breitbart News reported earlier this week, it was only once the video story began to fall apart that the Obama administration pointed to the president’s Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden, in which he had used the term “acts of terror” in a generic sense.
Photo credit: Evanston Now

Diez ejemplos de desperdicio del dinero del contribuyente en 2012

Emily Goff

Bailarinas exóticas, ardillas robot y un programa de reality televisivo en la India. Todo lo anterior se pagó este año con dólares de sus impuestos.

Dos informes recién aparecidos –Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012 (El Gasto Federal 2012 en cifras) de la Fundación Heritage y Waste Book 2012 (Libro del Despilfarro 2012), informe de la Oficina del senador Tom Coburn (R-OK)– arrojan luz sobre estos y otros ejemplos de gasto irresponsable llevado a cabo por Washington.

Si Ud. valora los dólares de sus impuestos, seguramente se sentirá enfurecido ante estos proyectos de desperdicio. A continuación le presentamos los 10 principales ejemplos de despilfarro, cinco de cada informe. Aunque no son necesariamente los conceptos que suponen un mayor costo, sin duda suponen un derroche y son representativos de la adicción al gasto de Washington, algo que debe acabar ya.

El Presupuesto Federal de 2012 en Cifras:

1. Un reality televisivo en la India. El Programa de Acceso al Mercado del Departamento de Agricultura gasta $200 millones anuales para ayudar a que las asociaciones y cooperativas agrícolas de Estados Unidos publiciten sus productos en los mercados extranjeros. En 2011, financió un reality televisivo en la India que promocionaba el algodón de Estados Unidos.

2. Estudiando el excremento de los cerdos. En cumplimiento de la ley del Aire Limpio, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) concedió una subvención de $414,450 para la financiación de un estudio chino sobre el excremento de los cerdos y una subvención de $1.2 millones a las Naciones Unidas para la promoción del combustible limpio.

3. Los aperitivos de Amtrak. Amtrak, la compañía de trenes de Estados Unidos y  subsidiada por el gobierno federal, perdió en 2011 $84.5 millones en servicios de comida y bebida y $833.8 millones durante los últimos diez años. Y nunca ha cubierto los gastos por ofrecer estos servicios.

4. Usar ejercicios militares para impulsar los biocombustibles. La Armada de Estados Unidos compró 450,000 galones de combustible por valor de $12 millones (a casi $27 el galón) para llevar a cabo unos ejercicios con el objetivo de promocionar dicho combustible y hacer más fácil su comercialización. Se trata de la mayor compra de biocombustible que jamás haya hecho el gobierno.

5. Conferencias para empleados públicos. Sólo en 2008 y 2009, el Departamento de Justicia gastó $121 millones para celebrar o participar en 1,832 conferencias.

El Libro del Despilfarro de 2012:

1. La “Roboardilla”. Se gastaron $325,000 en una ardilla robot llamada “Roboardilla”. Este subsidio de la Fundación Nacional para la Ciencia se usó para crear una ardilla robótica de apariencia real con la finalidad de estudiar cómo reaccionaría ante ella una serpiente cascabel.

2. Pastelitos. Las tiendas de pastelitos están de moda en Washington DC y en el resto del país. Sin embargo, los 10 propietarios de tiendas de pastelitos que recibieron $2 millones en garantías para préstamos de la Administración de Pequeños Negocios, no pueden presumir mucho de su ingenio empresarial, pues son los contribuyentes quienes los están manteniendo a flote.

3. Cupones de comida para licor y comida basura. Aunque estaban pensados para garantizar que los niños que pasen hambre reciban una alimentación saludable, los cupones de comida financiados por el contribuyente se gastaron sin embargo en comida rápida en establecimientos como Taco Bell y Burger King, en alimentos no nutritivos como caramelos, helados y refrescos y por unas 2,000 personas de Nueva York y Massachusetts ya fallecidas. Los beneficiarios de los cupones de comida gastaron $2,000 millones sólo en gaseosas. Los pagos improcedentes del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) sumaron $2,500 millones de despilfarro, incluida una bailarina exótica que estaba ganando $85,000 anuales.

4. Elaboración de cerveza en Nuevo Hampshire. A pesar del éxito financiero y la popularidad de la cervecera Smuttynose, esta empresa aún sigue recibiendo $750,970 del Programa de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario (CDBG) para poder construir sus nuevas instalaciones que comprenden una fábrica de cerveza y un restaurante.

5. El puente cubierto a ninguna parte. ¿Qué lista del despilfarro del gobierno estaría completa sin un infame “puente a ninguna parte”? En este caso, son $520,000 para arreglar un puente cubierto Stevenson Road en el condado de Green, Ohio, que se usó por última vez en 2003.

Parte de este derroche apenas si alcanza para justificar un error de redondeo según los actuales parámetros presupuestarios federales. Sin embargo, ninguna rebaja del gasto es demasiado pequeña. El Congreso debería erradicar hasta los más pequeños ejemplos de despilfarro. Hacer eso creará el impulso necesario para que se atajen los complicados retos presupuestarios a largo plazo, tales como la reforma del programa de derechos a beneficios.

El ejercicio fiscal 2012 es el cuarto ejercicio consecutivo con más de un billón de dólares de déficit. El total de la deuda federal ha sobrepasado los $16 billones. El gasto federal alcanzó en 2012 los $3.6 billones (es decir, el 22.9% de la economía). A pesar de estas aterradoras cifras, que van camino de empeorar, el Congreso continúa ampliando las estructuras de gobierno.

El desperdicio es intrínseco a un gobierno omnipresente debido a que el gobierno se preocupa principalmente de eludir los controles y, sólo de forma secundaria, de gastar el dinero adecuadamente.
Como advierten los dos informes, ya es hora de que el Congreso ponga freno a este desperdicio del dinero del contribuyente. Punto.

Why "Democrats" oppose Voter ID?...Jobless claims hit Four-Month high...Media Ignores Jobless claim rise...Y ahora que hace el Ejercito de USA?....

71 % of Voters Favor Voter ID

by William Bigelow 17 Oct 2012 

The support for voter ID in the United States remains strong, but it is clear that Democrats, who are gullible enough to buy into expletive-laden videos like Sarah Silverman’s or faux comedy video’s like Rainn Wilson’s, are more convinced that illegal voting should be here to stay.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of voters think voters should be required to show ID before they vote. 66% of likely U.S. voters believe voter fraud is a serious problem, and 33% say it is a very serious problem.

Yet 34% think voter ID laws discriminate against some voters, which is up from 22% at the end of last year. 87% of GOP voters think voter ID doesn’t discriminate, while 60% of Democrats think it does.
The bottom line is this: 94% of Republicans and 76% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor voter ID; only about 50% of Democrats do.

When it comes to support for illegal voting, the Democrats win the election hands down.

The Perfect Shake

CLEAR AND CONSISTENT HISPANIC MARKETING CAMPAIGNS...INN REACH

Jobless Claims Hit Four-Month High: Increase 46K to 388K

by John Nolte 18 Oct 2012

Now that Obama's down 51-45% in the latest Gallup poll, maybe the bureaucrats behind the jobs numbers decided it no longer made sense to juice their results to benefit a president who might go down in flames? I kid. I kid. Kinda.

It was strange, though, to see last week's jobless claims hit a four-year low right after a counter-intuitive drop in the September unemployment rate -- all of this coming just weeks before a presidential election. But according to the corrupt media, only "truthers" dare question the government, so let's just get to this week's numbers:

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

The Labor Department says the four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, fell slightly to 365,500, a level consistent with modest hiring.

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008.

This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.

Oh, I see what happened. Through some crazy coincidence, the left-wing state of California which is run by a left-wing government and left-wing bureaucrats wasn't able to process all of its unemployment claims just weeks before a presidential election and the week after that bizarre drop in unemployment. And as a result, a left-wing president in reelection trouble got quite the boost.

Like I said … coincidence.

Question my government?

Me?

Go on.

 IN NEED OF TEMPORARY CASH ASSISTANCE? BANCO SOCIAL

Media Suddenly Muted on Jobless Claims

by Joel B. Pollak 18 Oct 2012

Last Thursday morning, the headlines on National Public Radio were jubilant. "Jobless Claims Drop To Lowest Level In More Than Four Years," they crowed. NPR's anchors repeated the news in their hourly and half-hourly updates. The sudden, seasonally-adjusted drop--from 369,000 to 339,000 new claims--was touted by NPR and the rest of the mainstream media as timely evidence of economic recovery under President Barack Obama.

This week, jobless claims have soared to 388,000--a four-month high. NPR explained, correctly, that both changes were largely the result of the fact that California failed to process all of its jobless claims last week and therefore submitted an incomplete report that was rectified this week. But it did not bother to revisit its cheerleading from the week before, nor did it try to imply broader conclusions about the direction of the economy under Obama. The headline is: "Jobless Claims Take Sharp Jump: Rose By 46,000 Last Week."
Imagine if there were a conservative equivalent to NPR. The headlines this morning would have been full of dire conclusions of economic decline under Obama. But there is no media outlet that twists the truth to the right as much as NPR and other mainstream outlets twist it to the left. Fox News is muted this morning: its headline is "Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise to 388,000," a nod to the mainstream media narrative--for the last four years--that Obama is improving the economy and that any setbacks, no matter how large, are "unexpected."

That is the success of mainstream media bias--it has re-framed discussion to the extent that even conservative outlets feel an obligation to report the news in the left's terms. That is why everyone is discussing the jobless claims as a one- or two-week phenomenon rather than a four-year burden, which is what they have been.

 NECESITA AYUDA TEMPORAL: $500 a 2 Meses

El siguiente paso para el Ejército de Estados Unidos

Steven Bucci

Este mes, la Asociación del Ejército de Estados Unidos se reunirá para su encuentro y exposición anuales. Cuando se considere el final del conflicto iraquí y la retirada de Afganistán, habrá una pregunta en la mente de todos: ¿Adónde vamos a partir de aquí?

Durante los últimos 11 años, el Ejército ha llevado la mayor parte de la carga de las guerras en Irak y Afganistán. Los Marines han estado allí con ellos, pero el tamaño y la composición del Ejército hizo de él el mayor contribuidor de tropas para el conjunto de acontecimientos conocido como “Guerra contra el Terrorismo”. Y ha sido un camino largo y difícil.

Cada rama de las fuerzas armadas se está posicionando de cara al futuro. Eso es lo que sucede siempre que amaina un conflicto. Pero para la Fuerza Aérea, la Armada y el Cuerpo de Marines la decisión es más fácil. El nuevo “pivote” estratégico hacia Asia de la administración Obama les ha dado un rumbo que seguir. Las inmensas extensiones de aire y agua que conforman el teatro de operaciones Asia-Pacífico son sus elementos naturales. Sin embargo, el ejército contempla dicho “pivote” así como la ausencia de declaraciones de grandes o largas guerras en tierra o de conflictos debidos a la creación de nuevas naciones y no tiene más remedio que preguntar: “¿Para qué quieren que nos preparemos?”

El Ejército se está dejando el alma buscando una estrategia y devanándose los sesos para decidir cómo dimensionarse, cómo equiparse y cómo preparar a sus tropas. En las escuelas del Ejército, los instructores ya están declarando ciertos escenarios como fuera de los límites de una discusión productiva. Y los comandantes les están diciendo a los capitanes y tenientes frases como: “Nunca volveremos a hacer eso” y “Esa ya no será la misión del Ejército”.

Aunque el Ejército nunca ha sido muy bueno pronosticando. Después de Vietnam, se deshizo deliberadamente de sus conocimientos acumulados en contrainsurgencia. En mitad de la intervención en Kosovo, los coroneles que estudiaban en la Escuela de Guerra del Ejército de Estados Unidos declararon que al Ejército no le correspondía ni siquiera pensar en la creación de naciones y en otras complejas contingencias y que su única función legítima era ser un gigantesco puño que la nación enviaba para combatir en sus principales guerras. Sin duda, unos bonitos pensamientos.

BIDEN: We Deserve BETTER!...The Media in Damage Control....Mientras las mujeres en pakistan son atacadas por querer estudiar!

Fact Check: Top Ten Worst Lies by Joe Biden in VP Debate

by Joel B. Pollak 12 Oct 2012

Once again, Joe Biden lied his way through a Vice Presidential debate--just as he did in his contest with Sarah Palin in 2008. This time, the media caught a few of Biden's worst "malarkey" moments--as did his opponent, Paul Ryan, when he could get a word in edgewise. 

Here are the top ten worst lies told by Biden during the debate:
10. "With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey....not a single thing he said is accurate." At the outset of the debate, Biden tried to paint Ryan as a liar--when Biden, in fact, was the one lying. Ryan had pointed out: 1) that the White House had distanced itself from the Cairo embassy's apologies on 9/11; 2) that Obama had failed to speak up for Iranian protestors in 2009; 3) that the Obama administration called Syria's dictator a "reformer"; 4) and that the Obama administration is imposing defense cuts and projecting weakness. All of that is true.

9. "The president has met with Bibi [Netanyahu] a dozen times....This is a bunch of stuff." While they have met several times--not a dozen--that includes a meeting at which Obama made the Israeli prime minister enter the White House through a back entrance, refused to take a picture with him, and left him on his own for dinner. Specifically, Ryan had criticized Obama's refusal to meet Netanyahu in New York last month, and to tape talk show interviews instead--a clear snub that sent the wrong signal, again, to Israel's enemies.

8. "Just let the taxes expire like they’re supposed to on those millionaires." Biden's "millionaires" are actually households earning more than $250,000 a year, which includes many middle-class families with two earners, and small business owners in particular who report business earnings as personal income. Biden and Obama have repeatedly labeled those earning over $250,000 as "millionaires and billionaires," distorting the actual impact of their tax plan on the non-millionaires it would hit hardest, who create a vast proportion of small business jobs.
7. "You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems that every vice presidential debate, I hear this kind of stuff about panels." Biden's cheap shot against Palin was an attempt to diminish both her and the man sitting across from him. But Palin never talked about "death panels" in her debate with Biden, for the simple reason that Obamacare had not yet been proposed. Nor did Ryan mention "death panels"--he had addressed the undeniable fact that Obamacare proposes a board to impose cost controls.
6. "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for." Biden's lie about Ryan's budget was an attempt to dodge responsibility for lax embassy security--and to cover up that the Obama called for new cuts to embassy security just days after the 9/11 attacks. Ryan's proposal, which called for a 19% overall decrease in non-defense discretionary spending, does not even mention embassy security--the Obama campaign merely made up that number by applying 19% across the board.

5. "No, they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon." Biden's attempt to lie about the glaring reality of the Iranian nuclear program fell flat. Iran is indeed four years closer to a nuclear weapon, and the Obama administration--believing it knew better than its predecessors--tried to reinvent the wheel on talks with Iran, causing frustration to our allies in Europe and the Middle East. Meeting after meeting this year has failed to produce results, and the loophole-filled sanctions, while hurting Iran somewhat, are not stopping its nuclear program.

4. "No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise...has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact." No, it is not a fact--it is the opposite of a fact, and saying "that is a fact" does not make it any less a blatant lie. The Obama administration is forcing religious institutions to provide contraceptive and abortion drugs through their insurance policies. That is the reason several dozen religious institutions are suing the administration to defend their First Amendment freedom of religion.

3. "It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card...I was there. I voted against him." Biden voted for both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. He did not vote for George W. Bush's plan to extend coverage of Medicare to prescription drugs (though he voted for an earlier, similar proposal), nor did he vote for the Bush tax cuts. But he voted for both of the wars he derided last night. To quote Bill Clinton's speech to the Democratic National Convention: "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did."

2. "What we did is we saved $716 billion and put it back -- applied it to Medicare." Biden repeated the lie the Obama administration has been telling since before Obamacare passed in 2010: that cuts to Medicare today were savings that extend the life of the program. They would be--if the same $716 billion wasn't also being used to pay for Obamacare. As Ryan pointed out in 2010, and again last night, you can't double-count the same cuts. Taking $716 billion out of Medicare means exactly that--and hurts, not helps, the program's solvency.

1. "Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again." Biden lied through his teeth about the fact that the administration--specifically, the State Department--had been told again and again that security on the ground in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular, was inadequate. The day before, in Congressional hearings on the Libya attacks, former regional security director Eric Nordstrom described his frustration with having those requests turned down by the government bureaucracy: "For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

Wayuu Purse

 

Damage Control: Obama Campaign Tries to Spin Biden's Bizarre Debate Behavior

by Joel B. Pollak 12 Oct 2012

The Obama campaign is struggling to respond to mounting criticism of Vice President Joe Biden's bizarre behavior during last night's debate with Rep. Paul Ryan. 

Biden not only interrupted Ryan frequently--82 times, according to Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus--but frequently laughed, smirked, and snorted at serious moments, showing contempt for his opponent and disturbing even friendly observers.

A CNN poll conducted after the debate, which handed Ryan a narrow 48%-44% victory, also showed that Ryan had beaten Biden by an even wider margin when it came to "likeability." Viewers in the poll--with an admittedly small sample-- also said Ryan "expressed his views more clearly," "was more in touch with the needs and problems of people like you," and "did a better job of defending his running mate."
The only category in which Biden defeated Ryan? "Spent more time attacking his opponent."

Amidst mounting criticism, the Obama campaign has tried to push back. Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, claimed that Biden was "a happy warrior." Biden may have been trying to compensate for Obama's perceived passivity in last week's debate. He may also have been trying to cover gaps in his own argument--he referred to Obama by name only once, and told several characteristic untruths when pressed on the Obama administration's record. But Biden's interjections and body language left a lasting impression with voters.

Women, in particular, seem to have reacted negatively. Writer Mollie Hemingway thought that Biden had done well but remarked: "Tonight, Joe Biden is embodying everything that women hate about talking with men."

She later added: "I'm even willing to give this debate to Biden, in the very short term. But in the long term, I bet he lost it. Think about what will stay with people after the debate. They'll remember a rude, interrupting man."

Peggy Noonan, a conservative who has not been shy about criticizing Romney and Ryan in the past, said that Biden lost the debate by "confusing strength with aggression."

She elaborated: "Did Mr. Biden look good? No, he looked mean and second-rate. He meant to undercut Mr. Ryan, but he undercut himself. His grimaces and laughter were reminiscent of Al Gore's sighs in 2000—theatrical, off-putting and in the end self-indicting."

It wasn't just conservatives who took offense. Piers Morgan of CNN repeatedly tweeted his alarm about Biden's smirk during the debate. Erik Wemple, the left-leaning media critic at the Washington Post, criticized Biden during the debate as well: "Biden really pushing it with his interruptions."
And the criticism continued to build the morning after, with NBC's Tom Brokaw telling Morning Joe that Biden "shouldn't be laughing" when discussing the prospect of thermonuclear war with Iran. "However amused you are, it's about tone," he said.

That is the impression that has lasted--and which Biden and Obama will likely regret in the days ahead.

 

NECESITA ASISTENCIA TEMPORAL?...$500 a 2 Meses en el Banco Social

Pakistán: La historia de Malala contra los talibanes

Laura Trueman

Malala Yusafzai tenía 11 años cuando se convirtió sin quererlo en la voz de millones de niñas musulmanas de Pakistán y Afganistán que quieren acudir la escuela.

En un conmovedor vídeo aparecido en 2009 en el New York Times y mediante su blog sobre cómo es la vida bajo la ocupación talibán en el valle de Swat, en Pakistán, Malala se atrevió a compartir su más profunda aspiración: tener libertad para aprender.

Ahora, Malala, con 14 años, se está aferrando a la vida porque militantes talibanes le dispararon en la cabeza y en el cuello hace unos días al noroeste de Pakistán. Cuando ella y otras chicas de octavo curso volvían a casa en el autobús de la escuela, varios hombres detuvieron el autobús y preguntaron “¿Cuál es Malala?”. Sacaron un arma y le dispararon, así como a otras dos chicas.

Inconcebible. Una joven convertida en el objetivo de hombres adultos cuyo esquema religioso de algún modo se traduce en matar niños a tiros porque estos quieren estar en la escuela. Su único “crimen” fue defender abiertamente la educación de las niñas y querer ayudar a que otras chicas pakistaníes ejerciten su derecho a asistir a la escuela. Malala y su familia son devotos de la fe musulmana, pues existen imágenes con la cara de Malala enmarcada por el tradicional pañuelo para la cabeza y arrodillada sobre su alfombra rezándole a Alá. No es un caso de apostasía. Sino un simple deseo de recibir una educación.

Como madre de dos hijas, encuentro desgarrador el horror de este suceso. Y me resulta igualmente incomprensible. El mismo día que dispararon a Malala, mis hijas estaban remoloneando para no ir a la escuela, deseando que su fin de semana de tres días hubiese sido más largo. Pero la trágica historia de Malala seguía viva en mi cabeza; quería llamarles la atención por quejarse de tener que ir a la escuela. Sin embargo, seguramente lo oirían de la misma forma que nosotros escuchábamos a nuestros padres decirnos que “limpiáramos nuestros platos” porque muchos niños pasan hambre en el mundo. Simplemente, hace mucho tiempo que los niños de este país no tienen que vivir esas experiencias. Morir por la educación sencillamente no se entiende y estoy agradecida por eso.

Todo lo cual me lleva hasta la excepcionalidad de Estados Unidos. De alguna manera, muchos americanos se han empezado a sentir incómodos con la idea de que la sociedad americana es mejor que otras. Así que en cambio promocionamos la tolerancia americana. Pensando que estamos educados, que viajamos mucho y que tenemos una mente abierta, tenemos vagas nociones de que cada sociedad tiene sus propios valores, su religión y su cultura y que ningún modo de hacer las cosas es superior a otro.

Pero ahí tenemos a Malala. Ella cristaliza el debate y, de momento, estamos en silencio. Las conocidas ideas del “Si yo estoy bien, tú estás bien” y de que se han de respetar y apreciar todos los códigos morales y normas culturales en su vasta variedad ahora me parecen huecas.

Estados Unidos es muchas cosas. Y no siempre lo ha hecho todo bien. Pero, como explica el experto de la Fundación Heritage Matthew Spalding, “Estados Unidos es excepcional porque, a diferencia de cualquier otra nación, está dedicado a los principios de la libertad humana, basada en las verdades de que todos los hombres son creados iguales y están dotados de los mismos derechos”.

Tenemos esperanza y rezamos por Malala. Tenemos esperanza en los ideales que encarna su sencilla voz. Tenemos esperanza en que los líderes de Estados Unidos abandonen el enfoque de que “todas las naciones son socios en igualdad” y que, como observó la analista de la Fundación Heritage Lisa Curtis en el evento de ayer sobre Pakistán en la sede de la Fundación, “se comprometan a respaldar a los miembros de la sociedad civil pakistaní que están arriesgando sus vidas por abandonar las ideologías extremistas y por defender los derechos y libertades de todos los pakistaníes”.

Más allá de todo eso, nuestro deber como ciudadanos americanos es recordar que las libertades que disfrutan nuestras hijas y que disfrutamos todos nosotros son, de hecho, excepcionales. Decir eso no es fruto de un confuso egoísmo nacional. Es la realidad.

THE PERFECT SHAKE $49.99

 SB.DR is a new and exclusive service aside from the formal consulting. You as a Business Manager are the expert in your field and want to reach out to the Hispanic Community...Inn Reach Communications is the Solution

Are we in Bankrupcy already? Is the Obama-Biden plan the right track?

The Obama Bankruptcy

Aug 17, 2012 • By IRWIN M. STELZER

       

The end of Medicare and Medicaid as we know them—through reform, the Ryan way, or -bankruptcy, the Obama way. The direction of the country—via the Romney-Ryan right track, or the Obama-Biden wrong track. Those are the choices, made stark by the addition of Paul Ryan to the Republican ticket.

Anyone who thought that the selection of Paul Ryan would force the president and his team to abandon purely negative campaigning had better think again. The presence of Ryan on the ticket has merely changed the target of Obama’s negative campaign from Mitt Romney’s performance at Bain Capital to Paul Ryan’s plans to make sense of our fiscal condition and preserve Medicare, unchanged for those 55 years old and over, reformed for other Americans. The Obama campaign remains stuck on negative, claiming that Ryan would destroy Medicare and Medicaid “as we know them.” How Obama would preserve these programs “as we know them” remains a deeper secret than his well-publicized cyberattacks on Iran. The simple fact is that existing entitlements, gobbling ever-larger portions of our GDP, cannot survive “as we know them.”
I am reminded of a wonderful scene in an Elaine May movie (A New Leaf) in which Walter Matthau’s attorney is trying to explain to him that he has squandered his entire huge inheritance. To which an uncomprehending Matthau, waving a check that has bounced, replies that his check must be honored, a position he maintains despite his lawyer’s repeated explanation that, having spent more than the income from his inheritance for many years, he has no more capital: “You don’t have any money.”

President Obama certainly cuts a more elegant figure than the late, rumpled Walter Matthau, but he, too, has no money to back his spending plans. Which is why the Democrats are sticking to their negative campaign rather than saying just how they propose to save these entitlements as we know them. Matthau solved his problem by marrying an extraordinarily wealthy heiress; Obama has solved his problem—our problem—by borrowing almost 40 cents to cover every dollar he spends. That can’t go on, and won’t be solved by soaking the rich: Squeeze them dry and he won’t affect the rounding error in his deficits. Read More

 

 

NBC, CBS, ABC Lead Evening Broadcasts with Romney Tax Returns, Again

by Tony Lee 17 Aug 2012 at Breibart

On Thursday, the FBI revealed that the man who shot a guard at the Family Research Council's Washington, D.C. building had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his bag, worked for an LGBT organization, told his parents he had  "strong opinions with respect to those he believes do not treat homosexuals in a fair manner," and uttered, "I don't like your politics" before opening fire. FRC President Tony Perkins accused the Southern Poverty Law Center, which had labelled the FRC a hate group, of giving the shooter "license" to carry out his actions. 

Further, rumors were swirling that President Barack Obama would replace Vice President Joe Biden with Hillary Clinton. These rumors became more intense in light of a litany of gaffes by Vice President Joe Biden, the most prominent of which was when he told an audience in which half the attendees were black in a Virginia city known for its history of racial tension that Republicans were "gonna put y'all back in chains."
One would think the mainstream media networks would have struggled over which of these two significant stories they would lead their Thursday evening broadcasts with.
Yet, since these two stories hurt Obama, the evening broadcasts of NBC News, ABC News, and CBS News (all three!) led with stories about Romney's tax returns, further proving that the mainstream media, far from being the neutral arbiters they so desperately claim to be, wears the same jersey as the Obama campaign.

Wayuu Bag  

DREAM: Hay que resolver los retos de la inmigración

Jessica Zuckerman

0 Comments

El día 15 de agosto entró en vigor la normativa de la administración Obama de acción diferida para los denominados “soñadores” (DREAMers) , es decir, personas que entraron el país siendo menores de edad y que se hallan en situación ilegal.
La normativa, anunciada por el presidente Obama el 15 de junio, permitirá que hasta 1.7 millones de inmigrantes ilegales que fueron traídos a Estados Unidos cuando eran menores soliciten permanecer en Estados Unidos durante dos años sin tener que enfrentarse a una deportación.
Aunque elogiado por algunos como “uno de los cambios más radicales en la política de inmigración en décadas”, el programa (llamado Consideración de la Acción Diferida para los Llegados durante su Infancia) hace poco por solventar realmente los retos migratorios de la nación.
Más que unir a la nación con soluciones para un importante problema de este país, el presidente Obama escogió eludir el proceso legislativo y abusar de la libertad que el presidente tiene con la actual ley, en un intento de implementar de modo efectivo amplias secciones de la legislación de la ley DREAM, que ha sido estudiada y rechazada por Congresos controlados tanto por los demócratas como por los republicanos.
Como cuestión de normativa, hay formas razonables de abordar los casos de los niños que fueron traídos ilegalmente por sus padres a Estados Unidos a una edad muy temprana, unas formas que son coherentes con los principios conservadores de reforma de la inmigración. De hecho, el sistema migratorio de Estados Unidos está deshecho y con una necesidad extrema de reforma. Los líderes de nuestra nación deberían trabajar juntos para encontrar soluciones efectivas, razonables y proinmigración para salvaguardar las fronteras de la nación, fomentar el estado de derecho y administrar un sistema de inmigración y naturalización justo y positivo. Read More

Tiene una Emergencia Económica...Banco Social, Un Verdadero Banco