No 776
“En
mi opinión”
Octubre 25, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
“The miracle of the Vote Machines
at Illinois” “EMO” You Vote
For Republicans and Automatically Changed To Democrats. LRGM.
Jim
Moynihan, Republican candidate for the Illinois State House, went in today to
vote early, and to vote for himself. But when he touched the screen mark his
name, it was his Democratic opponent’s name that registered the vote.
“While
early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for
myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan told Illinois
Review. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number
of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a
vote for a Democrat.”
Every time he touched the screen for a
Republican the machine registered it as a vote for the Democrat. “Clearly, I am
concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice,
especially if they are in a hurry and do not double check their ballot,”
Moynihan said.
He notified the election officials and
demonstrated the problem for them. He was eventually able to vote for himself
and other Republicans.
Jim Scalzitti, Cook County Clerk’s Office
Deputy Communications Director, told Watchdog
Illinois, “This was a calibration error of the
touch-screen on the machine. When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it
improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”
Scalzitti reiterated that the votes were not
counted, they did not register and encouraged every voter to double-check their
ballot before hitting submit. Continue Reading on dailycaller.com
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/34260/rise-machines-vote-republicans-chicago-automatically-changed-democrats/
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/34260/rise-machines-vote-republicans-chicago-automatically-changed-democrats/
Illegals Registered To Vote…
Our
election is so filled with fraud. Disgusting.
Check it out:
Check it out:
With the North Carolina U.S.
Senate race in a dead heta, state election officials say they have discovered
145 names on the voting rolls who are ineligible to vote because they are
illegal immigrants who have been granted President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status.
According to a Winston-Salem
Journal report, the State Board of Elections
discovered the potential illegal voters Tuesday night when the N.C. Division of
Motor Vehicles ran a search for DACA licenses. The 145 DACA recipients whose
names appear on the SBOE’s voting rolls will be sent letters requesting
documentation that they are citizens, the report noted.
DACA beneficiaries in North
Carolina are able to obtain drivers licenses, but they are not able to
vote.
Nearly
10,000 names on the rolls are tagged by the DMV as “legally present,” according
to elections and transportation officials. But that doesn’t mean that all
10,000 are ineligible to vote at this time. These are license holders who were
not U.S. citizens when they got a license. They may have been green-card
holders, foreign workers or foreign students, for example.
Most have
become U.S. citizens since getting a license, according to an estimate by
elections officials based on a sample of the overall list.
Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/10/illegals-registered-vote/#ZML9ckqAHEJWeg34.99
Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here: http://patriotupdate.com/2014/10/illegals-registered-vote/#ZML9ckqAHEJWeg34.99
“El
Crimen Abrazando a la Maldad”
Obama
Caught Covering Up Emails In Fast And Furious Scandal For Eric Holder And His
Family
"Asserted
executive privilege to block emails sent between Attorney General Eric Holder
and..."
A government watchdog group announced Thursday,
after receiving information about the Fast and Furious operation, that
President Obama asserted executive privilege to block emails sent between
Attorney General Eric Holder and family members.
Early during President Obama’s tenure, the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) launched “Operation Fast and
Furious,” allowing thousands of firearms to be illegally
sold in the hopes of tracking Mexican drug cartels. United States Border
Patrol Agent Brian
Terry was killed with
one of those firearms in December of 2010.
Judicial Watch, a right-leaning legal advocacy
organization, announced Thursday it received from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughn
index” — a more than 1,307 page draft document with details about
Fast and Furious. Among the information the group received is disclosure of 20
emails between Holder and his wife, Sharon Malone, as well as his mother.
The contents of the emails are being withheld
“under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim
of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act.”
Judicial Watch writes that the exemption is ordinarily only used for “public
disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.”
Other information in the ‘Vaughn index’,
according to Judicial Watch, included:
–Numerous emails that detail Attorney General
Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public
disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious
matter.
–DOJ communications (including those of Eric
Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
–Communications to and from the United States
Ambassador to Mexico about Fast and Furious.
The scandal required the attention of virtually
every top official of the DOJ and ATF. Many of the records are already
publicly available, such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical
agency communications. Ordinarily these records would, in whole or in part, be
subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records
seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be
subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/president-obama-covered-emails-fast-furious-scandal-eric-holder/#cuRmikH1G6j5lUwv.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/president-obama-covered-emails-fast-furious-scandal-eric-holder/#cuRmikH1G6j5lUwv.99
Amenper: El presidente
Obama firma orden ejecutiva para proteger a votantes Republicanos del Virus de
Ébola.
El
Presidente Barack Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva que hoy para
el día 4 de noviembre de 2014 como un día nacional de cuarentena
para aquellos estadounidenses que están en mayor riesgo de contraer el virus
del Ébola.
"No
pueden contagiarse del Ébola por contacto casual como sentarse al
lado de alguien en un autobús," dijo el Presidente en una conferencia de
prensa poco después de firmar la orden ejecutiva. "Sin embargo pueden
cogerlo mientras esperaban en la cola para votar."
La orden
ejecutiva sólo se aplica a los republicanos registrados que tienen actualmente
menos probabilidades de recibir atención sanitaria del gobierno
proporcionada por el Obamacare y por lo tanto son más susceptibles a contraer
el virus Ébola.
La
cuarentena entrará en vigor en la medianoche del 3 de noviembre y durará hasta
que cierren las urnas el 4 de noviembre. Los republicanos podrán moverse
libremente en toda la sociedad, siempre y cuando no se acerquen a 1000 metros
de una cabina de votación.
Muchas
agencias de gobierno han sido bien armadas en los últimos seis años y serán
movilizadas el día de las elecciones para hacer cumplir la cuarentena.
Antes de
salir para una relajante ronda de golf, el Presidente concluyó su conferencia
de prensa para tranquilizar a los estadounidenses de que tendrán un día de las
elecciones seguro. "Aunque hemos tenido nuestros desacuerdos, yo más que
nadie quiero a los republicanos y cuido de ellos para que sobrevivan. Tal vez
no como un partido político, sino como contribuyentes pagando los
impuestos de nuestra gran nación."-
Letterman’s ISIS Joke Hits the Nail on the
Head and Proves Liberals Are Tired of Obama, Too
Left-wing comedian and talk show host David
Letterman is winding down his years as the late-night king, and it looks as
though he’s ready to tell some hard truths. On Friday night’s show,
Letterman offered his own hilarious insights about ISIS, beginning
with the new name he says the administration has coined for the terror group:
Every military operation has to have a name so people can get behind
it. And they now have a name for the war against ISIS: Operation Hillary’s
Problem.
As is always true in the best jokes, this
one has a kernel of reality. It appears Obama is not planning to move
ahead in any real confrontation with ISIS, and the next president — which
Letter assumes will be Hillary Clinton — will certainly have to deal with the
consequences of that choice. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/14943bad2ae767e9
Obama “A Candidate
For Impeachment” If He Gives Illegals Green Cards
I’m still waiting to see how Obama tries and stay in office after
2016.
Check it out:
Check it out:
Former
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano hit out at the President this
week over revelations that the Obama administration is overseeing a federal
order for 34 million blank work permits and green cards, an indication that
Obama is set to issue an executive order on amnesty after the midterm election.
Speaking on Fox News, the libertarian analyst said “He can’t make
illegals legal. But he can do the following: he can open the borders, arguably
he did that a few months ago with the Central American children in Texas; he
can issue green cards to whoever he wants; he can stop deportations for the
rest of his presidency.”
“…both Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses have given
to Republican and Democratic presidents extraordinary authority.” Napolitano
clarified.
The
order for the blank cards, to be delivered over the course of five years, was
actioned by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) department,
which posted a draft solicitation earlier this month announcing its intention
to seek a vendor capable of delivering “an estimated 4 million cards annually
with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total.”
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/obama-candidate-impeachment-gives-illegals-green-cards/
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/obama-candidate-impeachment-gives-illegals-green-cards/
Amenper: Los Nuevos Inteligentes… [¿?]
Con la subida de Obama, y la
campaña de lucha de clases, el ser decente se ha convertido como cuando tomó
poder la revolución en Cuba, en algo malo. La persona educada y
trabajadora, pasa a ser estúpido y malo para la sociedad. Los
jóvenes influenciados por la propaganda del gobierno comienza a
tener una vida que los distinga como listos, lo que en inglés llaman
"street smart" que se supone que tengan un grado de inteligencia
superior a los estúpidos que son "book smart" o "establishment
smart"
Es mi idea personal que esto
no es algo que ha surgido en una etapa social que pasará, porque esto pasó en
Cuba y no pasó hasta que se consolidó la revolución, y se mantuvo mientras se
estaba estableciendo el nuevo sistema, hasta que ya consolidados se
establezca una nueva estructura de clases, una nueva clase social.
Creo que es algo ideado para
cambiar a las personas como un medio para cambiar el sistema.
Hollywood y la televisión son
los cómplices complacientes, y podemos ver esto en sus películas y programas.
Crean un personaje como alguien que es un inadaptado social, una persona
sin educación o título académico, de bajos recursos económicos o un vagabundo,
un desamparado como le dicen, y que en la mayoría de las veces es de la raza
negra. Este personaje es antisocial, pero lo presentan como un
excelente "street smart", es capaz de pensar más inteligente que los
demás y a menudo es muy bueno para solucionar la mayoría de las veces, los
problemas de los demás. El villano es siempre un profesional, un
empresario o una persona de un estrato social alto, el cual es presa permitida
para robarle, vejarlo y hasta matarlo, porque es un parásito que causa daño a
la sociedad.
Y lo más importante, en el transcurso de la trama, logra convencer a otros
que el sistema social como ellos lo viven es malo y hay que cambiarlo a los
conceptos del personaje.
De lo que se trate es de implantar la lógica opuesta a lo establecido y
usarlo como una crítica del sistema americano. afirmando que los que piensan
como se pensaba antes son idiotas incompetentes que no saben de inteligencia
cuando la ven, o que el sistema social establecido está diseñado
deliberadamente para sofocar la innovación y el libre albedrío para que estas
inteligentes personas se vuelvan esclavos asalariados en el sistema.
Lo que Marx llamó la explotación del hombre por el hombre.
Nosotros los cubanos sabemos lo que viene después, la explotación del
hombre por el estado.
Pero la historia no enseña, la
historia se repite, porque el hombre es el único animal que tropieza dos veces
con la misma piedra
Leahy:
Some Americans ‘Never Want’ Another Black President
Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said
Thursday that some Americans “never want to have” another black president.
The Hill reports that Leahy made the comments
during an appearance on PBS’ “Tavis Smiley” show.
“Get out and move around America. You’ll find
plenty of examples of racial prejudice,” Leahy said. “There are those who never
want to have another African-American president, and that would be another
very, very bad thing for this country.”
Leahy, who took office in 1975, supports President
Barack Obama — who in 2008 became the first black president in the nation’s
history.
But Leahy, according to The Hill, said Obama
getting elected to the Oval Office is just the start of a trend that needs to
happen.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/leahy-americans-never-want-another-black-president/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/leahy-americans-never-want-another-black-president/
Amenper: About Government, Freedom,
Responsibility and Leadership
Freedom is our most precious commodity and if we
are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away. But individual freedom demands
individual responsibility. Lyn
Nofziger
No matter
the era, no matter which side you are on, and no matter where you live, the
government will find ways to break your life. We are here because the
governments in our country, because of the corruption and authoritarian
arrogance of our politicians.. And we are here and we are now living
under a corrupt, arrogant and authoritarian administration.
Quality in
a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the customer
gets out and is willing to pay for. A product is not quality because it is hard
to make and costs a lot of money, as some manufacturers typically believe. This
is incompetence. Customers pay only for what is of use to them and gives them
value. Nothing else constitutes quality.
In politics
the government is the manufacturer and the citizen is the customer, and as
customers, we expect a quality product form our elected officials. But government is inherently
incompetent, and no matter what task it is assigned, it will do it in the most
expensive and inefficient way possible
Government
just gives us a product that cost a lot of money, this product is bureaucracy.
The purpose
of bureaucracy is to punish the responsible citizens to compensate other for
they incompetence irresponsibility and lack of discipline. They just don't have
time to distinguish between the unfortunate and the incompetent and
irresponsible.
We see that
this happens in any government, but the socialist system with they pursue of
equality has created a new mark on human incompetence.
In a
socialist system, equal opportunity means everyone will have a fair chance at
being incompetent.
Today I
feel equality has arrived, the socialist ways has arrived, they tell us that we
can elect to office a woman who is as incompetent as the man who is already
here. This will fulfill the dream of a socialist government in America. We won't have Obama anymore, we will
have Hillary.
President
Obama is a gifted politician. He is gifted with rhetoric virtuosity. He is
gifted with the ability to lie directly to camera without blinking. And he is gifted with always doing the
wrong thing and never been accountable or responsible
for his errors.
Hillary is
also gifted to look directly to the camera and say things like these quotes:
“God bless the America we are trying to create." Or calling the people of
Arkansas, “Bimbos, sluts, trailer trash, rednecks, and sh*t-kickers “…(American
Evita, p. 139).
Socialists
tell us that it is wrong to think that people are different because they have
penis or genitalia or because the color of their skin, white, black, red or
brown. So it is reasonable not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would
not discriminate against someone on the grounds of 'race' or 'gender' alone,
then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for
the identical reason.
But it is
accepted today by the left, that this is the time for a woman to be president,
so they want us to elect Hillary, for the same reason that we elected Obama for
being black.
Seeing the
name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved
real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Please,,,
perhaps you poisoned your mouse, but mine is alive, and remember the Hillary that tried
to socialize medicine, the Hillary that lied about her achievements and was
exposed by the Obama campaign during the primaries, the Hillary of Bengasi and
then the cover up. The
Hillary that would do anything for power, even stay married to a man that has
dozen of public infidelity episodes known for everybody and ignore by Hillary
for political convenience. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single
episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it
a little bit more serious? For Hillary Clinton, something is true if it
validates the myth of her striving and her 'greatness' (her overweening
ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves
that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the
bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in
1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him
eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely
as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor
by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely
asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is
thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part:
trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an
equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they
thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us
wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family
drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?”
Those of us
who remember Hillary life, rather than view it as a game show does not look at
Hillary Clinton and simply think 'first woman president.' We think—for
example—'first ex-co-president' or 'first wife of a disbarred lawyer and
impeached former incumbent' or 'first person to use her daughter as photo-op
protection during her husband's perjury rap
That is not
the character of a person for the office of the presidency of the United
States.
The world
needs us to go back the traditional American type of leadership. Let it be not
discredited by those who are out of sympathy with it, who don't understand it
or are incompetent to administer it. In America, the demand for power to compel
is a confession of incompetence to lead.
GAME OVER? Official Autopsy Suggests Michael Brown Was Not
Surrendering, Attempted to Take Officer’s Gun…
Forensic
evidence seems to lean in favor with Ferguson police officer Darren Willson’s
story. Check it out.
It
appears that the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” chant of the local protestors, outside
agitators, and violent rioters that have plagued Ferguson, Missouri, since early
August is based on fiction, according to experts who have reviewed Michael
Brown’s official autopsy.
The St.
Louis Post-Dispatch report this morning that the official
autopsy of Michael Brown supports the version of events told by Ferguson police
officer Darren Wilson, and flatly contradicts the claims of many of the
eyewitnesses.
One of
the results was apparent confirmation that Michael Brown attacked Officer
Wilson in his police Tahoe SUV, and was
attempting to take Officer Wilson’s gun when he was first shot.
Michael
Brown was shot at extreme close range in the thumb.
[St. Louis medical
examiner Michael] Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from
the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an
absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at
relatively short range.
But Graham said,
“Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no
stipple, just smoke.”
The report on a
supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign
matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a
firearm.”
Dr. Judy Melinek, a
forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that
this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in
the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s
going for the officer’s gun.”
The autopsy and
forensics collected inside and outside Officer Wilson’s Chevrolet Tahoe shows
that there was a significant struggle inside the vehicle as the 6’4′, 292 lbs
Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. Roughly half of
all police officers killed in the line of duty were killed by suspects
disarming officers and using the gun against the officer.
Clemente Sanchez: La Amenaza Bergoglio… César Uribarri
Reproducimos a continuación un acertado y valiente artículo publicado
originalmente en "El Blog de César Uribarri" del Portal amigo
"InfoVaticana".
Desde el inicio de su Pontificado el Papa Francisco ha buscado un giro
copernicano no sólo en la vida de la Iglesia, sino en la vivencia de la fe.
Desde un subjetivismo camuflado en misericordia,
ERC ETC-- TODAS NECEDADES CON INTERNCION DESTRUCTIVAS
Bergoglio ha izado a lo más alto de la Iglesia un equipo de leales que
tienen en común la capacidad de destrucción subrepticia de la doctrina.
Francisco no se ha servido nunca de declaraciones directas sino de
construcciones lingüísticas en las que late una continua invitación a abandonar
los rigorismos dogmáticos para abrirse a la realidad moderna, pero todo en una
clave moralista en la que se apela a la subjetividad del oyente. Motivo por el
cual ni se perciben enfrentadas las verdades doctrinales ni se apela a ellas
para establecer un suelo desde el que juzgar el mensaje. Tal moralismo en el
lenguaje, acompañado de gestos existenciales en el mismo Papa, son el campo
abonado para la siembra del giro copernicano que se pretende. Y en esa
estrategia el Sínodo Extraordinario de octubre de 2014 se quiso como la primera
y fundamental piedra en esa demolición, pero no está tan claro que lo hayan
conseguido.
La primera pregunta es si hay o no una batalla en el seno de la Iglesia. Y
de haberla en qué términos y de qué alcance. A esto la respuesta es sí. Sí hay
una batalla crudelísima entre los que tratan de adaptar el Evangelio a la
realidad de un mundo que ha apostatado y los que pretenden salvar el núcleo del
dogma. El sínodo está siendo clara evidencia de su alcance. Pero los sucesos
que llevan ocurriendo más de un año obligan a una segunda pregunta: cuál es el
papel del Papa en esta batalla. Y atreverse a responder exige dejar de lado toda
construcción mental previa para ceñirse a los hechos. Y los hechos son tozudos:
es el Papa Francisco quien está impulsando estos cambios. Y cambios que se
acercan peligrosamente no sólo a un cisma, tal es la fricción que está causando
en esas dos posturas enfrentadas, sino a la validación de la herejía. La
comunión a los divorciados vueltos a casar no sólo puede ser una espita que
haga saltar toda la antropología y moral cristiana sino que es la terrible
puerta a la negación de las enseñanzas de Cristo.
Pero el Papa, el mismo que ha hecho gala de una dureza total contra los
elementos que considera enemigos de sus planteamientos (como es el caso de los
Franciscanos y Franciscanas de la Inmaculada o de Mons. Livieres) parece querer
jugar al doloso juego de que sea la voz universal de la Iglesia la que
"demande" los cambios aperturistas, para que él sea, solamente, el
obligado instrumento que deba dar el placet-de-hecho al recorrido pastoral que,
vox populi vox Dei, dinamite el dogma de la Iglesia.Esta estrategia de nuevo ha
sido reconocida por el Cardenal Kasper cuando afirma que "es claro lo que
(el Papa) quiere y eso es evidente. El quiere una parte importante del
Episcopado con él y lo necesita. Él no puede hacerlo en contra de la mayoría
del Episcopado".
Los motivos del porqué Bergoglio no quiere imponer su autoridad
directamente, dando la cara, en este tema solo parece encontrar una explicación
plausible: llevar la contraria a Cristo es más fácil cuando la mayoría del
cuerpo Episcopal te apoya. Psicológicamente no se está solo ante tal paso y si
muchos hablan siempre habrá quien vea la voz de Dios en el barullo.
Este mecanismo defensivo y perverso, para ser evitado, exigiría obligar al
Papa a que se pronuncie directa y expresamente sobre todos estos temas puestos
en la mesa de la discusión pública. Ya el Cardenal Burke ha reclamado
recientemente al Santo Padre que salga de ese silencio omisivo. "El Papa
no tiene faringitis y debe hablar". Pero en vano. Al contrario, diversas
personalidades de la Iglesia -impulsoras, o condescendientes, de esas medidas
aperturistas- trasladan la perfecta sintonía del Papa con ellos y, por ende,
con esas posturas aperturistas. "Es el Papa quien lo quiere" dirá el
presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina [NdE: Mons. José María
Arancedo], "y nosotros estamos con él".
Por ello el Sínodo era la estación más importante en la red que lleva al
giro perverso de la Iglesia, porque de él debía emanar un documento de trabajo
que recogiera todas las "bondades" del cambio pastoral, de la
apertura, de la tolerancia. Porque no debía ser el Papa quien comprometiera su
oficio, sino que la totalidad de los Padres Sinodales, en ese abstracto y
doloso sustantivo de totalidad que no se sabe cuántos la componen, habría de
marcar las directrices educativas con las que habrían de trabajar los Obispos,
Pastores, Catequistas y Medios de Comunicación, para vender a las abandonadas
almas de los ingenuos fieles que ya existe un "a partir de ahora", un
nuevo paradigma de cristiandad no sometida a la moral exógena y falaz de unos
fariseos rigoristas que se empeñan en poner pesados fardos.
Y si bien el discurrir del Sínodo está siendo más contestatario de lo que
se quería, el largo brazo del Papa aún sigue maniobrando para que no todo se
pierda en su estrategia de confusión y pueda ver la luz un documento
aperturista y favorecedor de las nuevas andaduras pastorales.
Sin embargo ya es notorio que la primavera pretendida se ha convertido en
una Primavera de Praga. Los tanques puede que pasen, pero en la retina quedará
la imagen de algunos valientes defendiendo la Verdad.
¿Qué hará el Papa ante esa contestación? El tiempo juega a favor del Santo
Padre. Acabado el Sínodo, cada cual irá a su lado, y dispersado el enemigo
caerá su fuerza. Desde la Santa Sede bastará con elevar la voz unida de
aquellos que estén con él, con sus reformas aperturistas a fin de que durante
este año próximo la labor educativa de esa catequesis perversa pueda concluir
en un verdadero documento programático de apertura, pero no por decisión del
Papa reinante, sino por concesión a las Conferencias Episcopales a las que
habrá de dotarse de potestades doctrinales para decidir el alcance de la
apertura. Y esto, nuevamente, nos situaría ante un Cisma de hecho al crearse
tantas Iglesias como Conferencias Episcopales decidieran.
Lo terrible de todo esto es que la situación actual nos está obligando a
estar vigilantes, tal es la cercanía de los pasos Papales al borde del abismo
de lo herético, porque de dar tal paso, nuevamente no sólo rompería un hito en
la Iglesia bimilenaria sino que abriría la espita a todo lo peor. Por ello, en
mi modesta opinión, lo correcto no es esconder el ruido de sables en aras de
una falsa piedad y amor a la Iglesia, sino poner el foco en tal escándalo no
vaya a ser que al verse el Santo Padre continuamente iluminado no haga por
vergüenza lo que haría por agrado.
LOS PREJUICIOS IDEOLÓGICOS DEL
NEW YORK TIMES. Por Alfredo M. Cepero. Director de www.lanuevanacion.com Sígame en: http://twitter.com/@AlfredoCepero
El New York
Times es un gran periódico que durante 163 años, en el curso de los cuales ha
ganado 106 Premios Pulitzer, ha proporcionado información fidedigna y detallada
a miles de millones de lectores. Sus departamentos de investigación y de
análisis, unidos a la calidad profesional de sus diseñadores y redactores, le
han ganado merecida fama como el mejor periódico de los Estados Unidos y uno de
los mejores del mundo. Pero hasta ahí llega mi admiración por el rotativo junto
al Hudson. Porque
su forma de presentar los temas sobre asuntos políticos e ideológicos ha sido
la excepción de la que debe ser la regla de oro de cualquier empresa
informativa: la objetividad en la presentación de sus informaciones y el
equilibrio en sus páginas de opinión.
La izquierda
obsesiva y vitriólica que determina el contenido político del New York Times
sufre de una especie de virus ideológico que paraliza sus procesos mentales y
para el que no parece existir cura ni antídoto conocidos. Por eso Francisco
Franco, Augusto Pinochet y Fulgencio Batista fueron calificados en su tiempo, y
lo siguen siendo hasta este momento, de dictadores. En increíble contradicción, Joseph Stalin, MaoTse Tung y Raul
Castro, mil veces más represores y asesinos que los antes mencionados, son
calificados, y lo serán por la eternidad, como líderes, gobernantes y hasta
presidentes. Un flaco servicio a la objetividad periodística y un verdadero
insulto a la inteligencia de sus lectores.
De ahí que
no me haya extrañado en lo más mínimo el último atentado del New York Times
contra la compasión humana, la verdad histórica y hasta el sentido común. Con
el fin de promover su agenda de izquierda, y a sabiendas de que prolonga el
martirio de 12 millones de cubanos, ha propuesto que el Presidente Barack Obama
levante de manera unilateral el embargo contra la tiranía de los vándalos de
Birán. Dejemos, sin embargo, que sean los ideólogos del Times, abdicando de su
misión periodística, quienes se expresen: "Por primera vez en más de medio
siglo, cambios en la opinión pública estadounidense y una serie de reformas en
Cuba han hecho que sea políticamente viable reanudar relaciones diplomáticas y
acabar con un embargo insensato".
En este
sentido, podría ser aceptable, aunque reprochable, que los estados actúen
dentro del contexto de lo que sea políticamente viable.
Pero que un periódico que se proclama defensor de la libertad, de la democracia
y de los derechos humanos proponga semejante claudicación ante tiranos que han
esquilmado a su pueblo por más de medio siglo es una soberana canallada. El
Times llega incluso a dar certificado de validez a las maniobras de los tiranos
para aferrarse al poder cuando afirma: "El proceso de reformas ha sido
lento y ha habido reveses. Pero en conjunto estos cambios demuestran que Cuba
se está preparando para una era post-embargo".
Pero ahí no
termina la conducta del Times como celestina de la tiranía castrista. En el
colmo del cinismo, presenta a los asesinos de miles de seres humanos en Cuba y
en cuatro continente como paladines en la lucha contra el ébola. En este
sentido afirma: "Cuba es una isla pobre y relativamente aislada. Queda a
más de 7,000 kilómetros de los países africanos donde el ébola se está
esparciendo a un ritmo alarmante, pero podría terminar jugando el papel más
destacado entre las naciones que están trabajando para refrenar la propagación
del virus". Llega incluso a citar una referencia indirecta a Cuba del
Secretario de Estado, John Kerry, cuando éste elogió la semana pasada el
“coraje de todo profesional médico que está asumiendo este desafío”.
Abundando
sobre el tema, y en la cima de la hipocresía y del descaro, el New York Times
afirma: "Es lamentable que Washington, el principal contribuyente
financiero a la lucha contra el ébola, no tenga vínculos diplomáticos con La
Habana, dado que Cuba podría terminar desempeñando la labor más vital. En este caso, la enemistad
tiene repercusiones de vida o muerte, ya que las dos capitales no tienen
mecanismos para coordinar sus esfuerzos a alto nivel". Una
mórbida y deleznable explotación de la desgracia humana para promover una
agenda ideológica.
Por otra
parte, el Times no está interesado en los hechos históricos incontrovertibles que determinaron la ruptura de
relaciones diplomáticas entre Washington y la tiranía castrista en 1962. El
déspota que bajó ensoberbecido de su madriguera en la Sierra Maestra decidió
expropiar sin compensación alguna las propiedades de corporaciones y ciudadanos
norteamericanos residentes en Cuba. En los próximos 50 años, cerca de 6,000
corporaciones y ciudadanos norteamericanos han establecidos demandas contra la
tiranía comunista por un monto
superior a los 7,000 millones de dólares.
Como
apuntamos al principio, el New York Times no está siquiera interesado en las
condiciones aterrantes y miserables en que subsisten actualmente los cubanos.
Condiciones que ha destacado hasta un organismo corrupto y complaciente con la
tiranía cubana como la Organización de Naciones Unidas. En reiteradas ocasiones
la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas ha adoptado la medida
extraordinaria de designar un Relator Especial para investigar los abusos
contra los derechos humanos. El Gobierno cubano ha negado sistemáticamente el
acceso al Relator Especial y ha expresado de forma oficial su decisión de no
"aplicar ni una coma" de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas por
las que se designa el Relator.
Si en vez de
parcializarse con la tiranía el Times quiere solidarizarse con la tragedia del
pueblo cubano no tiene que dirigirse a Obama sino a los Castro. Ellos son
quienes mantienen un embargo interno y son los responsables del embargo
externo. Todo lo que tienen que hacer es irse con sus arcas llenas de dinero
más allá del alcance de la justicia que, de no irse, un día no lejano les
aplicara su pueblo.
La Ley de la
Libertad Cubana y Solidaridad Democrática, más conocida por los nombres de sus
principales promotores, el senador por Carolina del Norte, Jesse Helms, y el
representante por Illinois, Dan Burton, especifica con claridad las condiciones
para el levantamiento del embargo. En tal sentido, estipula: "Cuando el
Presidente de los Estados Unidos determine que se encuentra en el poder un
gobierno cubano de transición, y notifique esa determinación ante los comités
pertinentes del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, tras celebrar consultas con el
Congreso, quedará autorizado a tomar medidas destinadas a suspender el embargo
económico de Cuba".
Por
desgracia, las decisiones humanas no siempre son tomadas a la luz de la razón o
determinadas por la justicia. Los tiranos cubanos están empecinados en morir en
el poder y el New York Times no está dispuesto a reconocer su error de publicar
la entrevista en que Herbert Mathews resucitó a un Fidel Castro que muchos
creían muerto y lo presentó como un Robin Hood que sacaría a los cubanos de la
opresión y de la miseria. Pero la opresión de Batista devino en la represión de
Castro y la miseria anterior a la tiranía castrista, cuando se le compara con
la existencia miserable y paupérrima del 95 por ciento de los cubanos en la
actualidad, es recordada hoy como una época de opulencia y de relativa
libertad.
No puedo
cerrar este artículo sin hacer referencia al logo altisonante del New York
Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print."
("Todas las noticias dignas de ser impresas".) Palabras que no son
capaces de encubrir los prejuicios de su línea editorial y la manipulación de
sus informaciones. Se me ocurre que un lema más descriptivo de su forma de
enfocar los acontecimientos del mundo sería; "Toda la basura que aguante
el papel".
La Nueva Nación es una
publicación independiente cuyas metas son la defensa de la libertad, la
preservación de la democracia y la promoción de la libre empresa. Visítenos en : http://www.lanuevanacion.com
Amenper: Práctico
es mejor que Decorativo.
Imagen sobre substancia, como
a Rush Limbaugh le gusta describir la corrección política o escoger lo
funcional sobre superfluo, como nos gusta razonar a los que preferimos una vida
pragmática sobre una decorativa, todo es lo mismo, todo se puede resumir en el
prosaico dicho cubano:
“No te puedes tirar el peo más
alto que el culo”.
Lo principal para
responsabilidad económica es el simple axioma de
que no podemos gastar más de los que ganamos, que tenemos que crearnos un
presupuesto ajustando nuestros gastos a nuestros ingresos, ya se trate de algo
individual, comercial o el gobierno.
Pero cuando el gobierno da el
ejemplo keynesiano de pedir prestado sin parar los gastos, no es de extrañar
que los ciudadanos piensen que ellos pueden hacer los mismo, y que el dinero
que le falte lo pueden conseguir pidiendo más prestado y recibiendo ayuda del
gobierno, porque después de todo el gobierno siempre tiene dinero, si no lo
tiene lo pide prestado o sube los impuestos. Además, si eso lo hacen
los "inteligentes" del gobierno, ¿Por qué no lo van a hacer ellos?
Claro que nuestros problemas
económicos se deben a los vientos socialistas. La burbuja
hipotecaria fue causada por los bancos creados para dar hipotecas as personas
que no estaban calificadas y no las podían pagar, y la flojera de Bush para
oponerse a los liberales que habían creado el problema contribuyó a la
explosión de la burbuja.
Esto igual que cuando vemos personas con vestidos de modas y joyas pagando con sellos de alimentos en los mercados, es un problema del tipo de medidas socialistas con la dependencia irresponsable, que se han ido implantando en la nación progresivamente por muchos años.
Esto igual que cuando vemos personas con vestidos de modas y joyas pagando con sellos de alimentos en los mercados, es un problema del tipo de medidas socialistas con la dependencia irresponsable, que se han ido implantando en la nación progresivamente por muchos años.
Pero no puede el gobierno
crear esta situación sin la complicidad del ciudadano. No puede haber
fraude al Medicare o el Medicaid sin la complicidad del recipiente, no puede
haber una hipoteca que miran a otro lado con las calificaciones falsas, sin que
haya personas que falsifican sus calificaciones. No nos tendríamos
que enfrentar a la próxima burbuja de las tarjetas de crédito, sin que haya
personas que quieren vivir un estilo de vida por arriba de sus ingresos pagando
con un dinero plástico que no tiene substancia si después no lo puedes pagar..
Hay un dicho español que dice
que “Si el pillo supiera las ventajas de ser honrado, sería honrado por
pillería”. Creo que es lo mismo con la responsabilidad, si la
persona irresponsable, supiera las ventajas de vivir con la tranquilidad de
vivir de acuerdo con sus medios, sin los costosos ornamentos de la vanidad,
serían responsables por vanidad.
¿No es mejor vivir en una casa
funcional que esté pagada o con un pago que se ajuste a nuestros ingresos, que
vivir en zozobra en una casa millonaria ostensosa en la que no podemos pagar la
mensualidad al banco?
Según el centro de
investigación nacional de quiebras, las declaraciones de bancarrota de habían
duplicado desde a finales de 2008. Nos dicen que quiebra alivia la ansiedad de
la carga del deudor.
Pero esto no sólo es injusto
para el vendedor o el prestador, pero para la persona que se declara en
bancarrota, porque la culpa y la ansiedad persiste, generalmente continuará los
malos hábitos de la persona y el problema del dinero volverá a aparecer otra
vez.
La ansiedad opresiva a que nos
enfrentamos hoy también nos está diciendo algo, pero a diferencia de la
situación de lucha o huída relativamente breve, se activa en respuesta a un
estresor externo que no podemos controlar con los mecanismos de defensa a
nuestra disposición.
La verdad es que la ansiedad
de una persona, un negocio o un gobierno le está diciendo algo acerca de su
estilo manejar sus finanzas que debe y puede cambiar.
Para un individuo, el refrán
"sólo se vive una vez" puede ser trivial, pero es cierto. Si la
ansiedad es causada por vivir más allá de sus posibilidades, un préstamo, un
programa de gobierno, una solución de un fármaco o una droga
escapista, no son la mejor solución..
La ansiedad es la forma del
cuerpo de decirnos que no se puede sostener la forma en que actualmente vivimos
nuestras vidas que hay que cambiar, que tenemos que llevar una conducta
responsable, que tenemos que vivir de acuerdo a un presupuesto que si gastamos
más que lo que entra, eventualmente, tarde o temprano nuestra vida explotará
como una bomba y la ansiedad que sentimos hoy en día se justificará por la
debacle. Realmente deberíamos empezar a escuchar, tanto los individuos como
nuestros gobernantes..
Hay un consejo que oí
hace tiempo y que resumen la conducta que nos evitaría muchos problemas
económicos:
"No compres cosas que no puedes
pagar, con dinero que no tienes para impresionar a personas que no te
gustan".
Contrary to Obama Constitution Does Not
‘Guarantee’ Same-Sex Marriage
by Gary
DeMar, Christianity, Constitution, Email Featured, Ethics, Evolution, Homosexuality, Law, Liberalism, Marriage, Morality, Politics, Religion
In an interview with the New
Yorker, President Obama said he
thinks “the Equal Protection Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does guarantee
same-sex marriage in all 50 states.” He better think again.
It
seems that every new law that’s being imposed on us is built on the foundation
of the Fourteenth Amendment, the most litigated part of the Constitution. It’s
a legal wax nose easily shaped to fit every liberal cause.
Any
group, real, imagined, or manufactured can appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment
for the creation of a new set of rights.
These
renegade judges are making laws out of thin air. There is no moral basis for
their decision regarding sexual behavior which is fundamentally different from
a person's skin color.
How
is it rationally possible to think that same-sex couples, when compared to
heterosexual couples that were designed to procreate and live together as a
couple made one (Gen 2:24), are in the same definitional category? The
Constitution does not say a thing about same-sex marriage. In fact, it doesn’t
say anything about marriage. It doesn't say anything about murder, rape,
stealing, etc. the Constitution rests on something more morally foundational.
There
is no discrimination taking place when a statute says that people of the same
sex cannot marry since the law applies to everyone equally. There is no special
class called homosexuals. The entire LGBTQIAA alphabet soup is a social
construct. People may want to identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender,
Queer, Intersex, and Asexual as well as be an Ally of the movement, but making
up designations does not change the fundamentals that make marriage what
marriage is by Someone's design.
But
how do we arrive at a definition of marriage? Lawyers who have tried to defend
“traditional” marriage have done a poor job since neither they nor the courts
have a moral pou sto, a moral
place to stand. What basis for morality are judges using today as the
foundation for their rulings? There was a time when there was a prevailing
worldview where it was agreed that God was the “Supreme Judge of the world,” as
the Declaration of Independence states.
Lawyers
trying to defend against same-sex marriage go before judges are ill-equipped
since they, like the judges they face, have made a back room deal that there is
no higher law than man. Humanistic law has been the foundation for
jurisprudence since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
The
first book-length critique of Darwinism was written by Charles Hodge
(1797–1878), professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological
Seminary. Hodge’s What Is Darwinism? ((Charles
Hodge, What is Darwinism? And Other
Writings on Science and Religion, eds. Mark A. Knoll and David N.
Livingstone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994).)) was published in 1874
and expanded his earlier assessment of the theory that appeared in his
multi-volume Systematic Theology[1] that was ublished in
1873. His critique of Darwinism was “based on his central objection that
Darwin’s theories excluded intelligent design from any part of natural selection or
evolution. Therefore, to Hodge, Darwinism was in effect atheism and by its very
nature incompatible with Christianity.”[2]
With
God out of the frame, everything is permissible and flexible. If an inert
chemical bath that spontaneously appeared billions of years ago can evolve into
you and me, then people with incompatible sex organs can get married.
It’s
here that today’s judges stand, and it’s here that defenders of so-called
traditional marriage also stand. They have no defense.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield “was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, a skeptic
of all things Christianity, and in a committed lesbian relationship. Her
academic specialty was Queer Theory, a postmodern form of gay and lesbian
studies. Today Butterfield is a mother of four, a homemaker, and wife of a
Presbyterian pastor named Kent. They live in Durham, North Carolina.”
What
made the difference? It came by way of a letter in response to an article she
had written in a local newspaper. The letter was written by Ken Smith,
then-pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church:
“It
was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of
questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know
you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather,
he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know
how to respond to it, so I threw it away.
“Later
that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk,
where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that
demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical
materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken’s
letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”[3]
We
need to puncture the integrity of the courts’ basis for determining what is
morally right or wrong. Judges need to face a Higher Court of appeal, but this
will never happen if we try to make our arguments with the same materialist
worldview they are using.
Given
the materialist foundation for law in our society, there is no moral basis for
anything in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the abolition of slavery found
in the Thirteenth Amendment.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/17927/contrary-obama-constitution-guarantee-sex-marriage/#4uYf5yh6XqQifIER.99
Video: Father Helps ISIS Militants Stone Daughter as per
Sharia
A young Syrian woman, accused of adultery, was
sentenced to be stoned to death. Her father zealously helped carry out the
death sentence.
Islamic State militant standing next to the father of
the woman about to be stoned.
Islamic State militants in Syria stoned to death a young woman
who they had accused of committing adultery.
According to the Arabic language news site Al-Arabiya, the
stoning took place in the eastern part of the Hama province. A gruesome video
of the execution was published by the media sources of the Islamic State (see
below).
The video shows the victim’s father standing next an Islamic
State member while facing his daughter. Using a pleasant, gentle tone, the
militant explains to the woman that she is being punished for the crime of
adultery.
The Islamic State member then asks the father if he’s willing to
forgive his daughter. The father refuses adamantly. Turning to his daughter he
adds, “I’m not your father.”
The
militant again tries to convince the father to forgive his daughter before she
is stoned to death, but he refuses. The daughter pleads with her father to
forgive her, only to be told by him, “Don’t call me father.” In the end, the
father only agrees to say, “Allah will forgive.”
The video then shows the
central militant from the Islamic State turning to the woman and saying, “My
sister, I want to tell you a few words. You are about to receive a punishment that
Allah commanded.”
He
then turns to the Muslim men, telling them that they should not leave their
wives for more time that is allowed according to (Islamic)sharia law.
The woman is then covered
in a blanket, with her face left exposed. Her father ties her arms at her waist
and then led her to a pit. He proceeds to tie her legs together after which the
Islamic State militants, together with the father, start pummeling her head
with large stones.
At this point the image is
blurred by the Islamic State’s video editor, however the act of the stoning can
still be seen.
Towards the end of the
video, music -- added by the Islamic State’s editors – accompanies the scene of
the father hurling, at point blank range, one stone after another at his
daughter’s head.
Warning, very graphic, disturbing images
To learn more about the Islamic State and its brutal system of
sharia-based governance see Clarion Project's Factsheet: The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL)
$40
Million for 6 Years of Presidential Vacations
President
Barack Obama’s last three vacations cost
$6.2 million.
As
a friend made me think, when he sent me this story, if this man ever opens his
mouth again about “income inequality” and “economic injustice,” someone needs
to tell him to shut up. A Secret Service agent would be perfect. The next two
years can’t be over soon enough. I’m sure he’ll add another $5-$10-million to
this obscene bill to shove down our throats before he’s done.
According
to the Washington Examiner,, “Taxpayers get stuck with $6.2 million tab
for just 3 Obama vacations; $40m over 6 years.”
Three
recent and lavish vacations by the first family cost taxpayers more than $6.2
million just for transportation and security, bringing the pleasure price for
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama’s trips to tens of millions of
dollars since taking office, according to federal documents.
Taxpayer
watchdog group Judicial Watch told Secrets that new cost calculations for
security showed that the first family’s 2012-2013 vacation to Honolulu and the
first lady’s 2014 ski trip to Aspen, Colo., reached nearly $1 million.
The
Feds also coughed up the cost for flying the first lady to Aspen this year:
$34,962.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/40-million-6-years-presidential-vacations/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/40-million-6-years-presidential-vacations/
10 Things About The U.S. News Media That They Do Not Want You To Know
Do you trust the news media? Do you believe that
the information that they are giving you is true and accurate? If you
answered yes to either of those questions, that places you in a steadily
shrinking minority. Yes, on average Americans watch approximately 153 hours of television a month, but for their news they are
increasingly turning to alternative sources of information such as this
website. Big news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are losing
hordes of viewers, and they are desperately searching for answers. Things
have gotten so bad at CNN that they have been forced to lay off hundreds of workers. The mainstream media is slowly dying, but they
will never admit it. They are still convinced that they can find some way
to turn this around and regain the trust of the American people. But it
simply is not going to happen. The following are 10 things about the U.S.
news media that they do not want you to know...
#1 The level of trust
in the U.S. news media is at an all-time low.
According to a Gallup survey that was conducted last
month, only 40 percent of all
Americans have a "great deal/fair amount" of confidence in the mass
media. That ties the lowest level that Gallup has ever recorded.
#2 The news media is
far more liberal than the American people.
We hear much about the supposed "conservative
bias" of Fox News, but the truth is that overall the U.S. public considers
the news media to be extremely liberal. Gallup found that 44 percent of all
Americans consider the news media to be "too liberal", and only 19 percent of all
Americans consider the news media to be "too conservative".
And it is a fact that "journalists" are far
more likely to give money to Democrats than to Republicans. The following
comes from an MSNBC report...
MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made
political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign,
according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the
newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal
causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
#3 Fox News is not
nearly as "conservative" as you think that it is.
Fox News may be constantly promoting a
"Republican agenda", but that does not mean that it is
conservative. This is especially true when it comes to social
issues. Some of their anchors are extremely socially liberal, one of the
top executives at Fox News is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, and 21st Century
Fox/News Corp. has given the Clintons more than 3 million dollars since 1992.
#4 MSNBC is in a death
spiral.
After years of lying to the American people, the
credibility of MSNBC is absolutely shot. Pretty much all MSNBC does is
endlessly spew establishment propaganda. One study found that MSNBC only
engages in 15 percent "factual
reporting" and the other 85 percent is
"commentary/opinion".
So it should be no surprise that only 6 percent of Americans consider MSNBC to be their most trusted source for
news...
NBC News and sister cable network MSNBC rank at the
bottom of media outlets Americans trust most for news, with Fox News leading
the way, according to a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy
Polling.
In its fifth trust poll, 35 percent said they trusted
Fox news more than any other outlet, followed by PBS at 14 percent, ABC at 11
percent, CNN at 10 percent, CBS at 9 percent, 6 percent for MSNBC and Comedy
Central, and just 3 percent for NBC.
#5 Americans are
increasingly turning to Facebook and other Internet sources for their news.
At least that is what one recent survey
discovered. It found that an astounding 48 percent of Americans
got news about government and politics from Facebook within the past
week. The numbers for CNN and Fox News were just 44 percent and 39 percent respectively.
#6 Over the past year
or so the big three cable news networks have lost an unprecedented number of
viewers.
According to a Pew Research
study, the number of prime time viewers for all three networks combined
declined by 11 percent in 2013...
In 2013, the cable news audience, by nearly all
measures, declined. The combined median prime-time viewership of the three
major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the
smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the
biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its
prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third
place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers
(1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000
at CNN).
The decline was even more dramatic for the critical 25
to 54-year-old demographic. From November 2012 to November 2013, CNN's
ratings for that demographic plunged by a whopping 59 percent, and MSNBC's ratings for that demographic plummeted
by 52 percent.
#7 The big news
networks have a love affair with the Obama administration.
Yes, there are reporters that get annoyed by the petty
press rules that Obama makes them follow and by their lack of access to the
president, but overall there is a tremendously incestuous relationship between
the Obama administration and the mainstream news media.
For example, did you know that the president of CBS
and the president of ABC both have brothers that have served as top officials in the Obama
administration?
And needless to say, Barack Obama does not care for
the alternative media much at all. The following is an excerpt from a WND article...
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd says President
Obama was making it “clear” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the
weekend how he feels about the rise of Internet news sites like Politico,
Buzzfeed and … well, WND.
“He hates it.”
Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning following
Saturday night’s media, politics and celebrity soiree, Todd explained the
president’s disdain for independent online news sources was showing during his
speech.
“It did seem … I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and
then the serious stuff about the Internet, the rise of the Internet media and
social media and all that stuff – he hates it, OK? He hates this part of the
media,” Todd said. “He really thinks that the, sort of, the buzzification –
this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that
sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it.
And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.”
#8 Newspaper ad
revenues are about a third of what they were back in the year 2000.
Yes, you read that correctly. As Americans have
discarded the print versions of their newspapers, newspaper ad revenues have
experienced a decline that is absolutely unprecedented...
It took a half century for annual newspaper print ad
revenue to gradually increase from $20 billion in 1950 (adjusted for inflation
in 2013 dollars) to $65.8 billion in 2000, and then it took only 12 years to go
from $65.8 billion in ad revenues back to less than $20 billion in 2012, before
falling further to $17.3 billion last year.
#9 News magazines are
also experiencing a dramatic multi-year decline in ad revenues.
Once upon a time, news magazines such as Time,
Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report were must reads.
But those days are long gone.
Ad revenues are way down across the entire industry,
and any magazine that can keep their yearly losses to the single digits is applauded for it...
For a third year in a row, news magazines faced a
difficult print advertising environment. Combined ad pages (considered a
better measure than ad revenue) for the five magazines studied in this report were
down 13% in 2013, following a decline of 12.5% in 2012, and about three times
the rate of decline in 2011, according to the Publishers Information Bureau.
Again, hardest hit was The Week, which suffered a 20% drop in ad pages. The
Atlantic fell 17%, The Economist 16%, and Time about 11%, while The New Yorker
managed to keep its ad pages losses in single digits (7%).
#10 Even though the
mainstream media is dying, they still have an overwhelmingly dominant position.
What would you say if I told you that there are just
six enormous media conglomerates that combine to produce about 90 percent of
all the media that Americans consume?
If you do not believe this, please see my previous
article entitled "Who Owns The
Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch,
Hear And Read"?
This is why "the news" seems to be so
similar no matter what channel you watch.
But we aren't just talking about control of the news
media. These giant media corporations also own movie studios, newspapers,
magazines, publishing houses, video game makers, music labels and even many of
our favorite websites.
So we should be thankful that their media monopoly is
finally crumbling.
Nobody should have that much power over what the
American people see, hear and think about.
What is your perspective on all of this? Please
feel free to share your thoughts on the U.S. news media by posting a comment
below...
Obama
Insists ‘I’m Doing Pretty Good’ as President
President Obama — who just came off a poll that showed his favor
with America had dropped to an all-time low — nonetheless told a high-dollar
fundraising crowd that he’s doing “pretty good” and that all’s well on the
White House front.
“Whenever people ask me how I’m going, I say,
‘Actually, I’m doing pretty good,’ ” Mr. Obama said, The Hill reported. “I love
the work. It is an extraordinary privilege to every single day work on behalf
of the American people.”
The president did recognize that the Islamic State
situation had created a “sense of urgency overseas,” along with Ebola and
Russia’s aggression into Ukraine, The Hill said. But despite all, his outlook
was positive — especially since Ebola has only claimed one life on U.S. soil,
he said.
“So far, we’ve only got one person dying of Ebola,
but people are understandably concerned in part because they’ve seen what’s
happened in Africa,” Mr. Obama said, The Hill reported. “This is a virulent
disease and it is up to us to once again mobilize the world’s community to do
something about it — to make sure that not only we’re helping on a humanitarian
basis those countries, but we’re not seeing a continued epidemic and outbreak
that can have a serious impact here.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/obama-insists-im-pretty-good-president/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/10/obama-insists-im-pretty-good-president/
Dem to Obama: Ineptitude Has
Sunk from Annoying to Embarrassing
The relationship between the
White House and Senate Democrats hit a new low Tuesday evening after the
administration’s press office released a transcript of first lady Michelle
Obama’s appearance in Iowa on behalf of Democratic Senate candidate Bruce
Braley. The problem: The subject line of the e-mail referred to Braley as the
“Democratic candidate for governor.”
The botch came after the first
lady repeatedly referred to the Democratic Senate nominee as “Bruce Bailey” in
a campaign appearance earlier this month—and it took an attendee in the crowd
to correct her mistake. On Tuesday, she made light of the incident, reminding
the audience she messed up his name last time and joking that she sometimes
calls Barack Obama “Bo.” But the self-inflicted
errors continued after her speech with the White House press shop’s email. At
midnight, two hours after the initial press release, the White House issued a
corrected e-mail that reflected his accurate title.
Indicating the sensitivity of
the mistake, top Senate Democratic officials wasted no time lashing out at the
Obama administration’s political team in response, suggesting it was acting
like a junior varsity operation two weeks before the midterms. The slipup comes
one day after President Obama told Rev. Al Sharpton on
his radio show that Senate Democrats keeping their distance from him are still
“folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress.” That
alarmed Senate Democrats up for reelection this November, most of whom are
working hard to distance themselves from an unpopular president.
“The ineptitude of the White
House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing,” one senior
Senate Democratic aide told National Journal. Another Senate official told the
Washington Post that Obama’s comments were “not devised with any input from
Senate leadership.”
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/dem-obama-ineptitude-sunk-annoying-embarrassing/
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2014/10/dem-obama-ineptitude-sunk-annoying-embarrassing/
Ebola Can Be Transmitted
Via Infectious Aerosol Particles: Health Workers Need Respirators, not Masks
CIDRAP Editor’s Note: Today’s commentary was submitted to CIDRAP by
the authors, who are national experts on respiratory protection and infectious
disease transmission. In May they published a similar commentary on MERS-CoV. Dr Brosseau is a Professor and Dr Jones an Assistant
Professor in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.
Healthcare workers play a very important role in the
successful containment of outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola. The
correct type and level of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures that healthcare
workers remain healthy throughout an outbreak—and with the current rapidly
expanding Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it’s imperative to favor more
conservative measures.
The precautionary principle—that any action designed
to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty—compels the use of
respiratory protection for a pathogen like Ebola virus that has:
·
No proven pre-
or post-exposure treatment modalities
·
A
high case-fatality rate
·
Unclear
modes of transmission
We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic
evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious
aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which
means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1
The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings
should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A
powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many
advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more
protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.
We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for
the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently
fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa—and beyond.
There has been a lot of on-line and published
controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most
scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have
been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by
direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only
modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed “droplet”
and “contact.”
These statements are based on two lines of reasoning.
The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has
contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must
have had) “direct” contact with the body fluids of an infected person.
This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding
of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language,
culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below.
Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may
be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious
person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited
throughout the respiratory tract.
The second line of reasoning is that respirators or
other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in
developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such
measures are lacking.4
Although there are some important barriers to the use
of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers
everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of
protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a
precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.
If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare
workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of
the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the
resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive
respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.
How are
infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?
Medical and infection control professionals have
relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases
based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the
data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other “aerobiologists”
employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates)
and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the
movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work,
though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.
Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small
particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed
only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol
transmission (termed “airborne”) can only do so at around 3 feet or more from
the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present
near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large
“droplets” on their face, eyes, or nose.
Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and
analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract
contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small
enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles
will be present near an infectious person.
The chance of large droplets reaching the facial
mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded
by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit
large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol
inhalation.
As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray
aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly
evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small
particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of
these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.
The current paradigm also assumes that only “small”
particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the
respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps
even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are
deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while
smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions.
And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size
or deposition site.
It’s time to abandon the old paradigm of three
mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full
range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need
to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a
pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the
likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious
particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal
tract.
We recommend using “aerosol transmissible” rather than
the outmoded terms “droplet” or “airborne” to describe pathogens that can
transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.
Is Ebola
an aerosol-transmissible disease?
We recently published a commentary on the CIDRAP site discussing whether Middle East respiratory
syndrome (MERS) could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, especially in
healthcare settings. We drew comparisons with a similar and more well-studied
disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
For Ebola and other filoviruses, however, there is
much less information and research on disease transmission and survival,
especially in healthcare settings.
Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an
aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental
and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease
transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.
What do
we know about Ebola transmission?
No one knows for certain how Ebola virus is
transmitted from one person to the next. The virus has been found in the
saliva, stool, breast milk, semen, and blood of infected persons.8,9 Studies
of transmission in Ebola virus outbreaks have identified activities like caring
for an infected person, sharing a bed, funeral activities, and contact with
blood or other body fluids to be key risk factors for transmission.10-12
On the basis of epidemiologic evidence, it has been
presumed that Ebola viruses are transmitted by contaminated hands in contact
with the mouth or eyes or broken skin or by splashes or sprays of body fluids
into these areas. Ebola viruses appear to be capable of initiating infection in
a variety of human cell types,13,14 but the primary portal or
portals of entry into susceptible hosts have not been identified.
Some pathogens are limited in the cell type and
location they infect. Influenza, for example, is generally restricted to
respiratory epithelial cells, which explains why flu is primarily a respiratory
infection and is most likely aerosol transmissible. HIV infects T-helper cells
in the lymphoid tissues and is primarily a bloodborne pathogen with low
probability for transmission via aerosols.
Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting
and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of
macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the
epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the
body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from
carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial
inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site.
The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse
consequences far beyond the initial infection site.
The potential for transmission via inhalation of
aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our
knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea,
blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the
immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases
in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and
coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17The act
of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne
transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding
diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden
aerosol that disperses in the air.20-22
Experimental work has shown that Marburg and Ebola
viruses can be isolated from sera and tissue culture medium at room temperature
for up to 46 days, but at room temperature no virus was recovered from glass,
metal, or plastic surfaces.23 Aerosolized (1-3 mcm) Marburg,
Ebola, and Reston viruses, at 50% to 55% relative humidity and 72°F, had
biological decay rates of 3.04%, 3.06%. and 1.55% per minute, respectively.
These rates indicate that 99% loss in aerosol infectivity would occur in 93,
104, and 162 minutes, respectively.23
In still air, 3-mcm particles can take up to an hour
to settle. With air currents, these and smaller particles can be transported
considerable distances before they are deposited on a surface.
There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola
and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route. Jaax et al24 reported
the unexpected death of two rhesus monkeys housed approximately 3 meters from
monkeys infected with Ebola virus, concluding that respiratory or eye exposure
to aerosols was the only possible explanation.
Zaire Ebola viruses have also been transmitted in the
absence of direct contact among pigs25 and from pigs to
non-human primates,26 which experienced lung involvement in
infection. Persons with no known direct contact with Ebola virus disease
patients or their bodily fluids have become infected.12
Direct injection and exposure via a skin break or
mucous membranes are the most efficient ways for Ebola to transmit. It may be
that inhalation is a less efficient route of transmission for Ebola and other
filoviruses, as lung involvement has not been reported in all non-human primate
studies of Ebola aerosol infectivity.27 However, the
respiratory and gastrointestinal systems are not complete barriers to Ebola
virus. Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect
non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols.25-27
Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data
offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be
opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission.28 That is,
other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right
conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.
Guidance from the CDC and WHO recommends
the use of facemasks for healthcare workers providing routine care to patients
with Ebola virus disease and respirators when aerosol-generating procedures are
performed. (Interestingly, the 1998 WHO and CDC infection-control guidance for
viral hemorrhagic fevers in Africa, still available on the CDC Web site, recommends the use of respirators.)
Facemasks, however, do not offer protection against
inhalation of small infectious aerosols, because they lack adequate filters and
do not fit tightly against the face.1 Therefore, a higher level
of protection is necessary.
Which
respirator to wear?
As described in our earlier CIDRAP commentary, we can use a Canadian control-banding approach to select the most
appropriate respirator for exposures to Ebola in healthcare settings.29 (See this document for a detailed description of the Canadian control banding
approach and the data used to select respirators in our examples below.)
The control banding method involves the following
steps:
1. Identify the organism’s risk
group (1 to 4). Risk group reflects
the toxicity of an organism, including the degree and type of disease and
whether treatments are available. Ebola is in risk group 4, the most toxic
organisms, because it can cause serious human or animal disease, is easily
transmitted, directly or indirectly, and currently has no effective treatments
or preventive measures.
2. Identify the generation
rate. The rate of aerosol generation reflects the
number of particles created per time (eg, particles per second). Some
processes, such as coughing, create more aerosols than others, like normal
breathing. Some processes, like intubation and toilet flushing, can rapidly
generate very large quantities of aerosols. The control banding approach
assigns a qualitative rank ranging from low (1) to high (4) (eg, normal
breathing without coughing has a rank of 1).
3. Identify the level of
control. Removing contaminated air and replacing it with
clean air, as accomplished with a ventilation system, is effective for lowering
the overall concentration of infectious aerosol particles in a space, although
it may not be effective at lowering concentration in the immediate vicinity of a
source. The number of air changes per hour (ACH) reflects the rate of air
removal and replacement. This is a useful variable, because it is relatively
easy to measure and, for hospitals, reflects building code requirements for
different types of rooms. Again, a qualitative ranking is used to reflect low
(1) versus high (4) ACH. Even if the true ventilation rate is not known, the
examples can be used to select an appropriate air exchange rate.
4. Identify the respirator
assigned protection factor. Respirators
are designated by their “class,” each of which has an assigned protection
factor (APF) that reflects the degree of protection. The APF represents the
outside, environmental concentration divided by the inside, facepiece
concentration. An APF of 10 means that the outside concentration of a
particular contaminant will be 10 times greater than that inside the
respirator. If the concentration outside the respirator is very high, an
assigned protection factor of 10 may not prevent the wearer from inhaling an infective
dose of a highly toxic organism.
Practical
examples
Two examples follow. These assume that infectious
aerosols are generated only during vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, or
similar high-energy emissions such as some medical procedures. It is possible
that Ebola virus may be shed as an aerosol in other manners not considered.
Caring for a patient in the
early stages of disease (no bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing,
etc). In this case, the generation rate is 1. For any
level of control (less than 3 to more than 12 ACH), the control banding wheel
indicates a respirator protection level of 1 (APF of 10), which corresponds to
an air purifying (negative pressure) half-facepiece respirator such as an N95
filtering facepiece respirator. This type of respirator requires fit testing.
Caring for a patient in the
later stages of disease (bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, etc).If we assume the highest generation rate (4) and a
standard patient room (control level = 2, 3-6 ACH), a respirator with an APF of
at least 50 is needed. In the United States, this would be equivalent to either
a full-facepiece air-purifying (negative-pressure) respirator or a
half-facepiece PAPR (positive pressure), but standards differ in other
countries. Fit testing is required for these types of respirators.
The control level (room ventilation) can have a big
effect on respirator selection. For the same patient housed in a
negative-pressure airborne infection isolation room (6-12 ACH), a respirator
with an assigned protection factor of 25 is required. This would correspond in
the United States to a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece or with a helmet or
hood. This type of respirator does not need fit testing.
Implications
for protecting health workers in Africa
Healthcare workers have experienced very high rates of
morbidity and mortality in the past and current Ebola virus outbreaks. A
facemask, or surgical mask, offers no or very minimal protection from
infectious aerosol particles. As our examples illustrate, for a risk group 4
organism like Ebola, the minimum level of protection should be an N95 filtering
facepiece respirator.
This type of respirator, however, would only be
appropriate only when the likelihood of aerosol exposure is very low. For
healthcare workers caring for many patients in an epidemic situation, this type
of respirator may not provide an adequate level of protection.
For a risk group 4 organism, any activity that has the
potential for aerosolizing liquid body fluids, such as medical or disinfection
procedures, should be avoided, if possible. Our risk assessment indicates that
a PAPR with a full facepiece (APF = 50) or a hood or helmet (APF = 25) would be
a better choice for patient care during epidemic conditions.
We recognize that PAPRs present some logistical and
infection-control problems. Batteries require frequent charging (which requires
a reliable source of electricity), and the entire ensemble requires careful
handling and disinfection between uses. A PAPR is also more expensive to buy
and maintain than other types of respirators.
On the other hand, a PAPR with a loose-fitting
facepiece (hood or helmet) does not require fit testing. Wearing this type of
respirator minimizes the need for other types of PPE, such as head coverings
and goggles. And, most important, it is much more comfortable to wear than a
negative-pressure respirator like an N95, especially in hot environments.
A recent report from a Medecins Sans Frontieres
healthcare worker in Sierra Leone30 notes that healthcare
workers cannot tolerate the required PPE for more than 40 minutes. Exiting the
workplace every 40 minutes requires removal and disinfection or disposal
(burning) of all PPE. A PAPR would allow much longer work periods, use less
PPE, require fewer doffing episodes, generate less infectious waste, and be
more protective. In the long run, we suspect this type of protection could also
be less expensive.
Adequate
protection is essential
To summarize, for the following reasons we believe
that Ebola could be an opportunistic aerosol-transmissible disease requiring
adequate respiratory protection:
·
Patients and
procedures generate aerosols, and Ebola virus remains viable in aerosols for up
to 90 minutes.
·
All sizes of
aerosol particles are easily inhaled both near to and far from the patient.
·
Crowding,
limited air exchange, and close interactions with patients all contribute to
the probability that healthcare workers will be exposed to high concentrations
of very toxic infectious aerosols.
·
Ebola targets
immune response cells found in all epithelial tissues, including in the
respiratory and gastrointestinal system.
·
Experimental
data support aerosols as a mode of disease transmission in non-human primates.
Risk level and working conditions suggest that a PAPR
will be more protective, cost-effective, and comfortable than an N95 filtering
facepiece respirator.
Acknowledgements
We thank Kathleen Harriman, PhD, MPH, RN, Chief,
Vaccine Preventable Diseases Epidemiology Section, Immunization Branch,
California Department of Public Health, and Nicole Vars McCullough, PhD, CIH,
Manager, Global Technical Services, Personal Safety Division, 3M Company, for
their input and review.
Estamos Completamente Preparados
Para Mantener a los Floridanos y Visitantes Seguros. Governor Rick Scott
To: LazaroRGonzalez@hotmail.com
|
Sugerencias para las próximas elecciones Noviembre
Martes 4:
Consideren
a los siguientes candidatos y a las explicaciones que los acompañan en la mayoría
de los casos. También les sugiero que consideren como votar en las
enmiendas y las explicaciones que las acompañan. Pero cada uno de Uds.
sabrá cómo quieren votar ese día.
1. Para
gobernador y vicegobernador: Rick Scott y Carlos López Cantera. Rick
Scott tomó las riendas del estado en un momento en que el desempleo estaba
sumamente alto y miles de familias tenían sus propiedades en foreclosure.
Charlie Cris fue republicano, independiente y ahora demócrata. Dice
que va a subir el salario mínimo y ésto suena muy lindo, pero eso es una
función del gobierno federal y no el de un estado. Ninguno de los
candidatos son santos pero hay veces que hay que elegir el menos de dos
males.
2.
Para fiscal general: Pam Bondi
3.
Para Funcionario Principal de Finanzas: Jeff Atwater
4.
Para Comisionado de Agricultura: Adam Putnam
5.
Representante ante el Congreso, Distrito 23: Joseph "Joe"
Kaufman
6.
Representante ante el Congreso, Distrito 24: Carlos Curbelo.
José "Joe" García es su oponente. Esta en estos momentos
siendo investigado por un caso federal y no olvidemos que el dice que
"Communism works."
7.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 100: Martin a. "Marty"
Feigenbaum
8.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 103: Manny Díaz, Jr. No tiene
nada que ver con el que fué alcalde de la Ciudad de Miami y terminó siendo
millonario en pocos años.
9.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 105: Carlos Trujillo
10.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 110: Jose Oliva
11.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 111: Votar por uno
12.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 112: Daniel Díaz Leyva
13.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 114: Erik Fresen
14.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 115: Michael Bileca
15.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 116: Jose Felíx Díaz/Carmen Sotomayor
16.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 118: Frank Artiles
17.
Representante Estatal, Distrito 119: Jeanette M. Nuñez
18:
Tasador de Inmuebles: Pedro J. García. El ha estudiado toda su vida
para esa posición. Gracias a el, nuestros impuestos a la propiedad
bajaron cuando el estaba en ese cargo. Su contrincante es Eddy Gonzalez,
no luce una mala persona, pero no sabe mucho sobre la posición de tasador ya
que por años fué un Representante Estatal.
19.
Enmienda #1-Water and Land Convervation-Conservación de Aguas y Tierras:
No. (Suena bonito, sobre todo cuando dicen que no nos subiran
nuestros impuestos. Aqui es para que el gobierno sigan comprando tierras
y más tierras y hacer más y más regulaciones. ¿Sabian que apróximadamente
el 80% de las tierras del estado de Nevada han sido compradas por el gobierno?
Todo en nombre del calentamiento global, etc.- Esto se pica y se
extiende!!!) Tengan mucho cuidado porque el lobo viene vestido de obeja.
20.
Enmienda #2-Marihuana: No. Ya el estado de la Florida tiene la ley
Charlotte Webb firmada por el gobernador Rick Scott que permite la venta de la
marihuna medicinal a personas que de verdad lo necesitan. Lean lo que ha
pasado en el estado de Colorado después que ellos votaron a favor. Ahora
la mayoria de los usuarios son jovenes entre los 20 y los 35 años. Ya
estan haciendo galleticas de marihuana y hasta un aceite de cocinar de
marihuana. La marihuana es adictiva, afecta al cerebro y es el primer
paso al uso de drogas mas fuertes. Suena muy bonito como no las quieren
vender.
21.
Enmienda #3-Nombramiento Eventual para Ciertos Cargos Judiciales
Vacantes: No. Esta perfecto de la manera que se hace. No hace
falta que cambien el proceso que esta en vigencia hoy en día. Eso le
daria un poder a los gobernadores de poner a sus amigos ya Uds. saben para que.
22.
Preguntas del Condado-Enmienda para permitir bibliotecas en parques:
No. Ya tenemos suficientes bibliotecas y con las que tenemos ellos
tienens problemas asi que como ahora ellos quieren bibliotecas en los parques.
Parece que le esta patinando el coco.
23.
Preguntas del Condado- Eximir al Parque Regional de Fútbol de
Miami-Dade del Articulo 7: No. Esto es un arma de doble filo.
24.
Preguntas del Condado- Permitir terrenos para acampar y
alojamientos/cabañas en el Parque de Matecumbe: No. Esto también
esta dudoso.Ya tenemos bastantes lugares de alojamientos y para acampar.
Esto impactaria negativamente el medio ambiente de la zona. ¿Quién
sera el contratista y el dueño de esos alojamientos y lugares de acampar?
25.
Enmienda para eximir del Articulo 7 la ampliación de la Universidad
Internacional de la Florida en los predios de la Fería de la Juventud:
No. FIU ya tiene bastante tierra. Ya estan tomando tierras
del otro lado de la Calle 8. Tienen un Campo Universitario en el Norte
que hay que decirle Ud. Quiere tomar los mangos bajitos con el hecho de
que le den esos terrenos. En esos terrenos se llevan a caba muchas
actividades para nuestra comunidad. Pienso que lo mudarian para
Homestead. ¿Cuantas familias pueden ir a Homestead? También FIU ha
hecho muchas cosas en contra de los estudiantes. Cursos lo dividen en dos
sesiones para cobrar más, se quedan con parte del dinero de Florida
Pre-paid,etc. En fin, son un pulpo que lo quiren acaparar todo.
26.
Imponer otro impuesto a la propiedad para cubrir el gasto de construir
una Corte que reemplaze el edificio del Cielito Lindo: No. Ya no
podemos con otro impuesto mas. Si el edificio de la corte esta asi es
porque el Condado la dejo ponerse asi. ¿Dónde han estado los inspectores
todos estos años? Solo piensen lo que le pasaria a Uds. si pusieran algo
fuera de codigo en su propiedad o no cortaran el pasto por un tiempo. . . Si,
le iban a poner una tremenda multa. Recuerden lo que paso con el impuesto
al Jackson Hospital. Ahora tenemos que pagar ese impuesto y el dinero que
el hospital recibia del estado se lo han quitado y se los han dado a otros hospitales
alrededor del estado.
27.
Juez del Condado, Grupo 19: Frank Bocanegra
28.
¿Se deberian retener en sus cargos los tres jueces del Tribunal de
Apelaciones: Thomas Logue, Barbara Lagoa, y Vance E. Salter? (He
tratado de encontrar información sobre ellos y la poca información que esta
disponible dice que han desempeñado bien su cargo).
Piensen
en todos los puntos antes mencionados. Recuerden, la decisión es suya.
Compartan cualquier información que piensen que es importante con sus
familiares y amigos. Pidanles que voten por cualquiera de los candidatos
que ellos merecen que se merecen su voto, pero que voten.
“FREEDOM
IS NOT FREE”
Lázaro R. González
Miño
https://twitter.com/lazarorgonzale2
“En mi opinión”
No 776
“En
mi opinión”
Octubre 25, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
No comments:
Post a Comment