No
1119 “En mi opinión” Diciembre 31, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST”
Lázaro R Gonzalez Miño Editor
Lázaro R González Miño para Alcalde
de Miami Dade
|
“EMO” Estamos
terminando un año más de nuestra existencia terrenal, espero que haya otra en
otro lugar donde no me encuentre una basura de presidente como algunos que
hemos tenido, como Batista, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Krushof, etc. y Para
mí el peor, Husein Barack, espero que todos se encuentren en la paila más
caliente del infierno. Esperamos que no nos empuje una porquería más del partido
falsamente llamado demócrata. (No sé cómo se le puede llamar demócrata un
partido que tiene casi 100 miembros del Partico Comunista de Estados Unidos y
otros que actúan como comunistas de hecho sin ser miembros) Pero bueno le queda
un año y trataremos de sacar a toda esa porquería que nos gobierna. Es
curioso cuando tenemos un buen gobernante casi nunca hablamos de el y sin
embargo cuando tenemos una porquería en cualquier país, entonces hablamos
constantemente de ellos y lo que más me intriga como esas porquerías
políticas andantes, puedan tener tantos que los apoyan. Parce que les gusta
darse mandarriasos en el prepucio. Nada que como dicen: “En todas partes
siembras cactus”
Ya no voy a malgastar
su tiempo… Les deseo a todos que el nuevo año que empieza hoy a las 12 de la
noche sea uno muy bueno económicamente, lleno de felicidad, amor y que
tengamos una muy buena salud y que DIOS nuestro mejor amigo y padre siempre
este con nosotros y nos proteja de toda las malas personas que no nos puedan
hacer nada malo.
DESEO
PARA NOSOTROS, TODA NUESTRA FAMILIA Y USTEDES NUESTROS AMIGOS: DESEO UN ANO
NUEVO LLENA DE VENTURAS, SALUD, PROPERIDAD Y MUY BUENA SUERTE. DONDE SE HAGAN
REALIDAD NUESTROS DESEOS Y LOS DE NUESTRAS FAMILIAS Y AMIGOS DONDE TENDREMOS
UN MUNDO MEJOR CON PAZ Y FELICIDAD. AMEN.
Amenper:
Causa
y Efecto
Todos
los efectos de lo que pasa en la historia y en la vida tiene una causa que es
lo que provoca el efecto.
Pero
hay veces que no podemos detectar esto especialmente en la historia, porque
lo que vemos es a través del relato de una persona no estamos realmente
viviendo la realidad.
Es
como ver una película en blanco y negro. A lo mejor ese hombre que
vemos con un sobrio traje negro y corbata gris, lo que tiene es un traje rojo
chillón oscuro y corbata rosada.
Los
que hemos vivido a través de los años el problema de Cuba, que vimos la
cadena de causa y efecto con los populismos y la corrupción de la era
republicana que trajo el efecto de la dictadura de Batista, que trajo como
efecto el comunismo comprendemos bien la ley de la causa y el efecto mucho
mejor que un extranjero o un cubano que por su edad no vivió el proceso.
Lo
mismo pasa con el problema racial negro que vemos en los Estados
Unidos. Es simple para los negros en usar los estereotipos
históricos para culpar simplísimamente a la esclavitud y el racismo de los
problemas que existen, y para muchos creen en esa simple
premisa. Pero para los que hemos vivido en el sur durante la
segregación y hemos conocido las causas y los efectos que nos han llevado a
esta situación racial actual, conocemos que la percepción simplista del
problema no es la real, este es un problema más complicado que lo que parece.
El
problema racista en Estados Unidos es simplemente una larga cadena de casusa
y efecto. La esclavitud, que es el comienzo no tiene causa, es un
efecto global que existió desde el principio de la humanidad.
Existió
en los Estados Unidos cómo existió en todas partes del mundo. La
causa que comienza la cadena fue todo lo contrario, fue el final de la
esclavitud.
Los
problemas raciales de hoy en día en Estados Unidos empiezan con los problemas
políticos al final de la esclavitud.
La
guerra civil hubiera podido ser un final que hubiera acabado con la
esclavitud en una transición pacífica en que se hubieran integrados las
razas, cómo pasó en Cuba y otros países donde existía esclavitud negra en la
no existió una segregación oficial como sucedió en Estados Unidos por razones
socio-políticas con visos económicos y reacción de causa y efecto.
Siempre
hubiera habido en normal proceso del prejuicio, pero eso existe también como
condición humana y no es tan dañino como la institución de la discriminación
segregante.
El
problema racial desde aquel momento fue un problema esencialmente político y
económico de causa y efecto.
Al
terminar la guerra y hasta antes de la guerra, había en el partido
republicano factores que tenían una visión diferente en cuanto a la política
a seguir con el sur. De hecho, esto fue lo que causó la guerra, y
lo que causó las diferencias ideológicas de la postguerra.
Abraham
Lincoln quería una verdadera Unión del Norte y el Sur, sin oprimir al sur
derrotado como una nación ocupada militarmente. Otros como su
ministro de Guerra Stanton y el político Thadeus Stevens querían un sur
oprimido y castigado políticamente y económicamente. La
conveniente muerte de Abraham Lincoln, con la mayoría de los radicales
haciendo la débil administración de Andrew Johnson insostenible cuando quiso
seguir la política de unión honrosa del sur, causó que cuando tomaron el
poder total tres años después, comenzaron una reconstrucción que fue una
ocupación.
Lo
peor fue que usaron a los negros para humillar a los dueños de las
plantaciones
Los
carpetbaggers o cobradores de impuestos que destruyeron la economía del sur
casi siempre eran negros, y negros ocuparon posiciones de poder.
Esta
fue la primera causa en la cadena de sucesos que nos han llevado hasta
ahora. Estos negros humillando a los blancos con el apoyo del
norte, creó la guerra de guerrillas y el movimiento político que llevó a la
reconquista política del sur con los demócratas, los dixiecrats, logrando
recuperar el poder político como económico y creando el nuevo efecto.
El
efecto fue la segregación. Cómo el lógico, la segregación que cómo
vemos más que racial fue por una causa política, aunque como es lógico tenía
como motor el racismo, trajo un nuevo efecto que fue la lucha por los
derechos humanos para suprimir esta situación política que hacía una raza
inferior a otra.
El
racismo fue un motor usado por los radicales del norte y por los
segregacionistas del sur, pero todo fueron jugadas políticas, como son
jugadas políticas los problemas raciales que vemos ahora.
El
triunfo de la de-segregación, fue una causa para un efecto que fue el abuso
de los recipientes de la justicia, abusando la justicia. Fueron
políticos usando a los negros para sus agendas, provocando reclamaciones y
movimientos radicales que están creando un efecto negativo en los afectados
por estos movimientos que pudiera traer un nuevo efecto, igual que en la
época de la reconstrucción. Quizás no será un efecto igual que la
segregación, pero será un efecto que no será beneficioso para la raza negra
en general, resultando todos los de la misma raza injustamente perjudicado
por las conductas de algunos.
La
política según la describía Aristóteles, es el efecto de una causa, que es la
sociabilidad natural del hombre, el hombre es un animal social, y por lo
tanto un animal político según Aristóteles. Esto es la realidad, todo es
causa y efecto, y todo es por el problema político, por eso los que dicen que
no les interesa la política, no se dan cuenta que el problema es que a la
política si le interesa su vida, por esto si queremos saber lo que va a pasar
en nuestro futuro y de nuestros hijos tenemos que ver a los políticos.
Es pues manifiesto que
la ciudad es por naturaleza anterior al individuo, pues si el individuo no
puede de por sí bastarse a sí mismo, deberá estar con el todo político en la
misma relación que las otras partes lo están con su respectivo todo. El que
sea incapaz de entrar en esta participación común, o que, a causa de su
propia suficiencia, no necesite de ella, no es más parte de la ciudad, sino
que es una bestia o un dios. (Aristóteles, Política, libro 1,1),
Amenper:
Sobre Tarros y Chulerías
¿Recuerdan el cuento de la discusión de las dos mujeres en que una
llamó puta a la otra y esta le respondió tú también eres una puta?
Descubrimos que ambas eran putas, aunque posiblemente todos los que
presenciaron el hecho lo sabían.
En este caso estamos viendo la misma versión en
masculino. Hay una discusión entre Donald Trump y Bill Clinton
para ver cuál de los dos ha sido el más mujeriego y chulón.
Donald Trump la semana pasada utiliza un lenguaje típicamente grueso
para describir a Hillary Clinton, con unos adjetivos que pudiéramos resumir
cómo que era una cornuda que le aguantó por motivos políticos los tarros que
le ha pegado el resbaloso Willy a través de los años. Hillary
respondió acusando a Sr. Trump de sexismo mientras que anuncia que está
desatando a Bill Clinton para hacer campaña para ella.
Esto era demasiado flojo para Trump, que está atacando ahora a Hillary
por consentirdora mientras habña sobre la depredación sexual en su
proyecto de ley a favor de las mujeres.
El Sr. Trump es grosero y crudo, por no usar palabras mayores que se
las dejamos a ellos, pero en este caso está levantando un tema en que lleva
la razón en la campaña para las de 2016 y la posibilidad de un
tercer mandato de Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton quiere usar su género como espada y escudo para ganar
la casa blanca.
La primera mujer presidente, es un lema en todos los discursos.
El propósito es que los políticos hombres menos dispuestos a
atacarla porque es una mujer que representa a las mujeres. Lo que ellos
quieren presentar y es su tema de campaña principal y no tan sutilmente que
es el momento de elegir a la primera mujer Presidente.
Así que ella y sus aliados intentarán girar cualquier crítica a ella
como sexista. Incluso el políticamente correcto socialista Bernie Sanders
agarro su andanada después de que él dijo durante un debate de este otoño que
"todos los gritos del mundo" no mantienen las armas fuera de las
manos equivocadas.
La señora Clinton dijo más adelante que "yo no he estado
gritando, pero a veces, cuando una mujer habla, algunas personas piensan está
gritando." Contra los republicanos, juega la "guerra contra las
mujeres" como un tema sin parar. Siempre su condición de mujer está
presente.
Sin embargo, nadie en la política estadounidense mejor personifica una
guerra sobre la mujer que el marido de la señora Clinton. Y no hay mujer que
ha defendido más a un esposo infiel atacando a las mujeres con que su marido
tuvo las aventuras que Hillary Clinton.
Para algunos de ustedes demasiado jóvenes o que no se encontraban en
el país para recordar la década de 1990, simplemente todo el mundo conoció
que el resbaloso Willy fue un verdadero acosador sexual en la definición
clásica de explotar su poder como un superior de lugar de trabajo, para sus
aventuras sexuales. Yy cuando las mujeres contaban sus historias, y la
comitiva de Clinton trabajó duro para manchar y desacreditar a sus acusadores
de muchas de las mujeres, incluyendo a Hillary.
No hay dudas que lo que están hablando de Donald Trump es verdad, él
tiene su historia de numerosas aventuras con muchachitas veinteañeras entre
sus múltiples matrimonios, pero al menos, aunque usaría sus millones cómo
atractivo económico y de poder, no usó la posición política de oficial electo
ni el dinero de los contribuyentes
Y su dinero le costó porque hay una gran diferencia entre las esposas
tarreadas por Trump que recibieron su compensación económica y la complicidad
de Hillary Clinton que se unió a su marido para insultar a las mujeres que se
atrevieron a contar sus aventuras con su marido
Hillary Clinton describió a Monica. Lewinsky como "una narcisista
loquita", según los papeles personales de Diane Blair, amigo de la Sra.
Clinton de Arkansas. Este septiembre la señora Clinton declaró que "cada
sobreviviente de agresión sexual" tiene "el derecho de ser oído.
Usted tiene el derecho a ser creído". Pero cuando su propio acceso al
poder político estaba en juego, acusó a las mujeres y defendió a su marido.
Digo todo esto no para reforzar o justificar los reclamos de Trump de
las respuestas de Hillary Clinton como doble estándar.
El punto es las normas que prevalecerían en otra Presidencia de
Clinton si tuviéramos esa desgracia.
Ya sabemos cómo actúa Hillary Clinton.
No es de extrañar que Ruth Marcus, el columnista del Washington
Post que es un liberal, ha llamado el recordar la historia de Clinton con las
mujeres como un tema político justo.
Por lo menos si Hillary Clinton quiere que todos nos olvidemos sobre
el acoso del resbaloso Willy con las mujeres, ella debería dejar de jugar la
tarjeta del sexismo. No puede tirar piedras al vecino cuando tiene un tejado
de vidrio.
Exposed: What Obama Is Doing EVERY DAY Of His
Hawaii Vacation Is Shocking Americans
"That's not leadership. That's not going to
happen."
President
Barack Obama once told Americans they cannot have everything they want.
Meanwhile,
the presidential vacation to Hawaii is burning a hole in the federal budget
to the tune of about $470,000 a day, according to federal documents provided
to the taxpayer
watchdog group Judicial Watch.
“We
can’t drive our SUVs and
eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and
then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said in
2008 while campaigning for office. “That’s not leadership. That’s not going
to happen,” he added.
·
Jerry Lewis Just
Broke Hollywood Code And Dropped A Bomb On Obama, Uttered 2 Huge Words About
Trump
However,
according to documents just received by the watchdog group after two years of
waiting, the Obama family vacation to Hawaii two years ago cost nearly $8
million. The group, which has filed Freedom of Information requests to
ascertain how much the Obamas spend while on vacation, estimates that
Americans may have spent over $50 million for the seven winter vacations
taken by the first family to date. One more vacation is on tap for next year,
when Obama will be a lame duck president.
“It seems
our lawsuits finally got the attention of the Secret Service. It is easy to
see why the Secret Service, reeling from its own scandals, covered up these
outrageous expense numbers for just one of Obama’s luxury Christmas
vacation,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The $317,000 in Secret
Service expenses are only the tip of the iceberg for the true cost of Obama’s
2013 vacation in Hawaii, which has now skyrocketed to $8,098,060. It is nice
to know that Obama’s ‘tradition’ of Christmas vacations in Hawaii comes
courtesy of overburdened taxpayers.”
Judicial
Watch found that in 2013-14, the Obamas spent $91,751.78 in car rental
expenses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Quintin
George: The surprising
birthplace of America’s new populism
December 29, 2015 | 8:48pm
Populism is typically born in
places like Nebraska, Louisiana, Kansas and the other places given short shrift
in that famous Saul Steinberg New Yorker cartoon showing the view of the world
from 9th Avenue.
It’s not supposed to hail from
Brooklyn or Queens, never mind Burlington, Vt., or Midtown Manhattan. But
that’s where the two reigning populists of the 2016 cycle call home.
You could say that Donald Trump,
the son of a rich real-estate developer in Queens, was always a populist at
heart. All his life he wanted to break into the fancy-pants world of Manhattan
real estate. Despite his wealth, he still has that bridge-and-tunnel chip on
his shoulder. And that chip explains the garishness of his publicity-seeking lifestyle,
as well as his politics.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders grew up
in Brooklyn, the son of Polish-Jewish immigrants. He followed a somewhat
familiar path to politics. As Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina quipped in
one of the recent Republican debates, Sanders went to the Soviet Union on his
honeymoon and never came back.
In reality, he ended up in
Burlington and became the socialist mayor of one of the very first latte towns.
Looked at through a historical
lens, a billionaire Manhattanite from Queens and a Jewish socialist from
Brooklyn should be standing at the pointy end of the pitchforks, not leading
the mobs holding them. Nearly all of the famous populists hated the East Coast,
the super-rich and the big cities. A good number — but not all — of them
disliked Jews.
And yet, what you might call “blue
state populism” is here.
It’s a fantastic moment to compare
and contrast, as they used to say in school.
If you can ignore the fact that
he’s a billionaire who brags about having been part of the corrupt political
system he promises to overthrow, Trump resembles some of the great populists of
yesteryear.
He’s a nationalist who promises to
restore the country to the greatness his followers nostalgically desire. He’s a
nativist whose one core issue is stopping illegal immigration — and now any
immigration of Muslims, temporarily.” And he’s a consummate panderer — or, if
you prefer, “fighter” — who channels and validates his supporters’
frustrations.
As the fictionalized Huey Long
character Willie Stark says in the novel “All the King’s Men,” ‘‘Your will is
my strength. Your need is my justice.” Long promised to make “every man a
king.” Trump promises to make everyone a winner.
Sanders, meanwhile, is all about
populist economics — literally. With the exception of his pacifism, he’s almost
incapable of talking about anything else.
But his worldview would be totally
recognizable to William Jennings Bryan or Long or even Father Charles Coughlin.
According to populist economics, the rich exploit the poor and the middle class
intentionally. They leech off their hard work, and they send them to war.
Our economy is “designed by the
wealthiest people in this country to benefit the wealthiest people in this
country at the expense of everybody else,” Sanders insists.
The “billionaire class” has rigged
it all, and he’s so angry about it, he often seems more interested in tearing
down the rich than building up the poor. (To borrow a Seinfeldian phrase,
Sanders sounds like an old man sending back soup at a deli.)
This is one place where Sanders and
Trump overlap. They want to make the people ruining this country pay. Sanders
wants to impose a cartoonish “speculation” tax on Wall Street; Trump wants to
make the Mexicans pay for the wall that will keep them out.
The one area where Trump and
Sanders break totally with populist practice, other than geography, is
religion. Nearly all of the famous heartland populists of yore were steeped in
Christianity and spoke its language fluently. Long’s “Share the Wealth” plan,
for instance, was vaguely derived from the Bible.
Sanders is a “not particularly
religious” Jew who hates to talk about religion. Trump, because he’s seeking
the GOP nomination, has had to work hard at faking religious sincerity. But
even if he were serious that he won’t share his favorite Bible verse because
“that’s personal,” his reluctance would distinguish him from traditional
populists.
That may be a sign of the times. Or
it may just be the kind of politics you get when you start a populist prairie
fire so far from the prairies.
Supreme Court Rules: U.S. Seniors Not
Entitled to Social Security?
|
||
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Marzo Fernández: Un poco de Deporte en Cuba???
 |
|
Charles
Santos-Buch: Disarming the
Navy Through Bureaucratic Bloat
Too few ships on longer deployments is sapping the service, even as the
civilian staff has hugely expanded.
By
JOHN LEHMAN
Dec. 30, 2015 6:09 p.m. ET
The U.S. Navy, with 280 ships, is
now far too small to effectively protect this country’s vital interests in the
Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea. Yet on Dec. 14
Defense Secretary Ash Carter ordered the Navy to cut additional ships
it was planning to build and instead to buy more missiles and airplanes.
The shortage of missiles, torpedoes
and spare parts that concerns Mr. Carter is real. But by not rebuilding the
fleet, the Obama administration is repeating the blunders of the
1970s—sending sailors and their too few ships on much longer deployments, now
trending toward eight and 10 months instead of six. In response, the most
experienced sailors and their families, as in the ’70s, are starting to leave
the Navy, worsening the other corrosive result of longer deployments: ships and
airplanes that break down from a lack of skilled maintenance. The Persian Gulf
was recently left without a carrier for two months.
Is the solution to the problem
simply a significant increase in the defense budget? No. The source of the
problem is not primarily the amount of money, but how that money is spent, or
misspent, by the military bureaucracy.
The U.S. currently spends $598
billion on defense, slightly more in inflation-adjusted dollars than in the
Reagan administration in 1987, when its defense budget peaked. Reagan-era
spending produced a fleet of 594 ships, 15 carriers, 35 Air Force fighter
wings, 220 strategic bombers and 20 Army divisions, all with full stocks of
missiles and weapons, along with adequate maintenance. Today’s spending has
produced a force from a third to half the size, with depleted weapons and low
readiness.
The administration’s feeble answer
is that our weapons are better, so we need fewer of them. That’s not true in
many major categories. For example, the Navy’s primary strike aircraft, the
F-18E, is slower, less maneuverable, has a shorter range and carries less
payload than the F-14D it replaced. The littoral combat ship (LCS) is faster
but has far less capability than the Perry class frigates it is supposed to
replace. The LCS has its uses but has too short a range to deploy with battle
groups, which renders the fleet increasingly vulnerable to enemy submarines.
There are two principal reasons for
this unilateral disarmament by runaway costs. First is the explosive growth of
bureaucracy. The Defense Business Board puts the number of civilian defense
employees at 970,000, up several hundred thousand from the Reagan years. The
board notes that roughly half of all uniformed personnel serve on staffs that
spend most of their time going to meetings and responding to tasks from the
hundreds of offices that have grown like mold throughout the vast Defense
Department, the 17 independent Defense agencies, the nine Unified Combatant
Commands, and the 250 joint task forces. This bloat has completely reversed the
historic tooth-to-tail reforms that Sens. Sam Nunn and John
Warner achieved in the 1980s.
With so many layers and offices
needed to concur on every decision, it now takes an average of 22½ years from
the start of a weapons program to first deployment, instead of the four years
it took to deploy the Minuteman ICBM and Polaris submarine missile system in
the Cold War era. Yet the U.S. intelligence community estimates that it takes
only seven years for Chinese and Russian procurement systems to produce the
advanced ships and fighters of the so-called fifth generation.
The procurement process is the
second reason defense spending is so inefficient. In the 1980s, when a program
was ready for full production, two qualified defense contractors generally
competed annually for fixed-price contracts to build surface ships, submarines,
fighters, fighter engines and virtually all tactical missiles. Today’s
procurement consists of beauty contests to see who gets a 30- to 50-year
competition-free monopoly.
Worse, today’s “customer” is
multi-service and multi-bureaucratic, meaning endless delays and numberless
design changes. Such a system can only be accommodated by paying contractors a
profit as a percentage of their costs. These cost-plus contracts provide every
incentive for spending to grow.
The five Nimitz-class nuclear
carriers built in the Reagan administration cost an average of $3.5 billion
each, or $7 billion in today’s dollars. The new Ford-class carriers, built on
the Nimitz hull with added technology, are expected to cost $14 billion, but
they will carry the same number of airplanes.
The
good news is that some now understand the mortal threat this bureaucratic mess
represents. John McCain, the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, and Mac Thornberry, his House counterpart, passed,
and President Obama signed, the 2016 Defense Authorization Act. The new law
mandates many deep changes, including the reduction of the Pentagon bureaucracy
by 25%. Next year Sen. McCain is determined to tackle the hydra-headed
procurement system.
Secretary Carter made his
reputation as an effective cost-cutter and enabler of common sense in his
earlier tour at the Pentagon. With equally savvy procurement leaders in the
Navy, there is a huge opportunity to provide the next president with a Defense
Department that can rapidly provide the tools to protect this nation’s national
security.
Mr.
Lehman was secretary of the Navy in the Reagan administration and a member of
the 9/11 Commission.
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Donald Trump’s
Apprenticeship
The GOP primaries are close, and someone is going to get fired.
By
DANIEL HENNINGER
Dec. 30, 2015 6:29
p.m. ET
Days before
Christmas I received an unusual gift: the five DVDs that make up Season One
of Donald Trump’s reality TV show, “The Apprentice.” No, they were
not sent by my pal Donald Trump but by a friend who shares my opinion that an
understanding of the Trump presidential phenomenon sits inside the phenomenon
of reality television.
Evidence this might be true may be found in the “bonus
features” on disc five. In an interview, the executive producer and creator of
“The Apprentice,” Mark Burnett (yes, you may thank Mr. Burnett) said
the idea for the program came to him one day when he was doing “Survivor” in
the Amazon jungle. He was “watching ants devour a carcass.” Voilà, “The
Apprentice.”
Now if you think about it, this essentially has to be
what the producer and current manager of Mr. Trump’s presidential
campaign, Corey Lewandowski, must have thought as he watched conservative
activists chew on the carcass of the Republican Party the past year. Voilà, the
Trump candidacy, which premiered in June.
“The Apprentice” began in 2004. Six years later,
the show morphed into “Celebrity Apprentice,” whose contestants were relatively
famous people. From 2004-15, a long run for any program on TV, the weekly
audience ran between five million and more than 20 million viewers.
Those millions
watched because they liked Donald
Trump. Most people don’t like politicians. As Donald Trump himself notes at one
point: “All I do is fire people all the time, and people think I’m really a
nice guy.” That’s the miracle of television.
I watched the first season, or as much of it as I
could.
In the program’s opening moments, Donald Trump meets
with the program’s 16 contestants and tells them, “I’m the largest real-estate
developer in New York.” Though he was “billions of dollars in debt, I won big
league.” Now he is “the master” and “I want to pass along my knowledge to
someone else.”
Today, the master is passing along his knowledge to
his biggest audience ever. “Trump” the presidential candidate is pretty much
the same guy as the real-estate developer from Queens who in 2004 sat down in
the red leather “boardroom” chair on his show for the first time.
In Trumpian reality, all of life is divided into two
categories: for and against. The inevitable product is conflict. He leans in on
Sam, a contestant no one likes: “Sam, they are killing you.” When an
“Apprentice” project manager criticizes a colleague who had just praised his
leadership, Donald Trump is appalled: “Wow, he was very nice to you.”
He says he
wanted to do “The Apprentice” so that “the toughness, the viciousness of
business could come out.” The program is compulsively adversarial. Donald Trump
is doing politics for the same reason and in the same way he did reality
television. Ask Hillary or Bill Clinton. Or, as the 42nd president
once told his defeated opponent, Bob Dole: “You gotta do what you gotta do.”
But I was taken aback when Donald Trump fired Troy:
“Troy, there’s no question in my mind you’re a loose cannon. You’re fired.”
Fired by Donald Trump for being a loose cannon?
“The Apprentice” celebrated two All-American
values—aspiration and winning on the merits. “I’m gonna earn the American
Dream,” says a contestant. But the program also celebrated a rank materialism
that makes the Gilded Age look like a monastery.
After the women beat the men selling lemonade on the
street, Donald Trump invites them “to see the nicest apartment in New York.”
The vast Trump apartment is caked in gold and said to be based on Versailles,
though Louis XIV, the original Sun King, must be spinning in his grave. Donald
Trump tells the agog women, “I show this apartment to very few
people—presidents, kings.”
Moments of historical amusement appear in the 2004
season. At the end two contestants are left, Bill and Kwame. Donald Trump
assigns them real, apprentice-like assignments. Bill’s challenge is to run the
“Chrysler-Trump golf tournament.” And “Kwame, you’ll be in charge of the
Jessica Simpson concert in Atlantic City.” Five years later, every taxpayer in the country bailed out
Chrysler and, needless to say, Kwame lost with the Atlantic-City
assignment.
It may be true that reality TV taught Donald Trump the
public has an infinite appetite for outrage and contrived authenticity. But
anyone can conjure those effects, and it’s only half the story here.
The original
“Apprentice” picked young contestants with on-screen charisma. But none had
more charisma than Donald Trump. And none of the presidential
candidates—not Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or Hillary Clinton—has anything close to Donald Trump’s mysterious
charisma. That’s the real gold standard in public life. How you defeat charisma
in politics can be hard to figure.
The first person ever fired on “The Apprentice,” after
the lemonade project, was a doctor-entrepreneur named David. Riding away from
Trump Tower, David reflects that he obviously has a higher IQ than the
others—“which goes to show there’s little correlation between IQ and success in
lemonade sales.” Raising the question of whether this presidential election is
going to be just an action-filled lemonade sale.
The primaries await. Someone is going to get
fired.
Marco Rubio Endorsement Brings Trey Gowdy’s Radical
History on Immigration Into Spotlight
Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo/John Locher
Rep.
Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
86%
’s
endorsement of
Sen.
Marco Rubio (R-FL)
79%
may shine an unwanted
spotlight on the South Carolinian’s record of past radical statements on
immigration and his aggressive support for donor class policies embraced by
Sen. Rubio.
Gowdy’s
extreme immigration declarations come in addition to his
long-standing support for donor-class Republican lawmakers. For instance,
in a closed-door GOP leadership election in November of 2014, Gowdy seconded
Rep. John Boehner
(R-OH)
24%
’s nomination as
House Speaker. Similarly, Gowdy was the Congressman who nominated Paul Ryan for Speaker.
According to Politico, Boehner “secretly urged Gowdy to run” for House
Majority Leader.
At the height
of the Rubio-Ryan amnesty push in 2013 — in the aftermath of President
Obama’s profoundly controversial 2012 executive amnesty for DREAMers
and at a time when illegal minors were continuing to pour across
the border — Gowdy delivered a blanket pardon to the world’s alien youth
to enter the country illegally. Gowdy declared: “When children wander into
neighborhood yards, we don’t call that trespassing.” Gowdy elaborated on his
position, stating:
What I prefer to do is look at the
11 million in natural subgroups. You have what are called the DREAM children. I
would think most people would advocate for an accelerated path to citizenship
for children who, through no fault of their own, were brought here at an early
age. I would have a shortened path to citizenship for those who serve in
our armed services. And then you can have a sliding scale [to determine
which illegals get citizenship] based on your years in the
country and contributions you made to society.
Gowdy’s prior statements on
immigration won him effusive praise from Congressional open borders advocate,
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
19%
. “What I think
Trey has is a fundamental sense of fairness,” Gutierrez said, “Bigotry and hate are an affront
to his core values. Once you can set that aside, vis-a-vis immigration, you can
devise a world of justice and fairness. It’s clear he has a set of values.”
Gowdy
has been equally effusive of Gutierrez in return. “If you listen to Luis, he
sounds like a prosecutor, talking about respect for the rule of law and how to
balance the compassion with the respect for the rule of law,” Gowdy said. While
Gutierrez has previously declared, “I have only one loyalty…
and that’s to the immigrant community,” Gowdy has said, “Luis is impossible not
to like.”
Despite historic immigration highs,
Gowdy has asserted that businesses—including prominent manufacturers—are
suffering crippling labor shortages, even as record numbers of Americans
are not working.
Gowdy has similarly aligned himself
with Rubio-Ryan donor class Republicans by giving his full-throated
support for granting President Obama fast-track trade authority.
Yet the absence of this deep well
of prior Gowdy statements from establishment media’s coverage of his
endorsement of Rubio, seems consistent with the media’s larger failure to
grasp the full meaning of the narrative underpinning the 2016 election.
The running theme of the 2016
election has been the deep divide splitting the Republican Party. This divide
emerges between a base that opposes large-scale immigration and
internationalist trade deals, and a governing elite that is determined to
continue and expand the mass importation of cheap foreign labor and cheap
foreign imports.
Gowdy’s recent endorsement of Rubio
seems to underscore that conventional labels of “conservative” vs. “moderate”
are increasingly ill-suited to describe the divisions within the Party. Instead
those divisions are better understood as a conflagration between populist
nation-state Republicans and globalist donor-class Republicans.
For instance, Gowdy’s endorsement
struck the media as a cross-over endorsement for Senator Rubio (i.e. a less
“conservative” presidential candidate snagging the endorsement of more
“conservative” lawmaker). This false dichotomy—in which Gowdy
represents a cross-over “conservative” endorsement—is only possible when
one either ignores or is unaware of Gowdy’s lengthy record of statements
supporting donor-class immigration policies, which make him and Rubio a near
perfect ideological pair.
Among
those treating Gowdy’s endorsement through the prism of “conservative” vs.
“moderate” is Fox News contributor and Townhall’s political editor Guy Benson.
Bensonwrites:
Gowdy—widely admired as a
principled fighter among many grassroots conservatives—will join Sen. Marco
Rubio on the campaign trail in Iowa next week… This is a good get for Team
Rubio. Gowdy is well regarded by the base… Rubio must be pleased to have
secured the conservative Congressman’s backing, and to have boxed out his
presidential competitors for Gowdy’s semi-splashy, potentially-impactful
endorsement.
Yet Benson fails to disclose to his
readers that Gowdy has made a series of immigration statements that places him
firmly in the donor-class camp.
A review of Gowdy’s prior
statements on immigration and trade suggests that he and Rubio are near
ideological soul mates.
Gowdy Supports Cantor-Style Amnesty for
So-Called DREAMers
In
2013, Eric Cantor and Bob Goodlatte were planning a bill that would grant
amnesty for illegal immigrants allegedly brought to the country as minors.
As Politico reported at the time:
Two top House Republicans are
writing legislation that would craft a path to legalization for young
immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children.
Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the second-ranking House Republican, and
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) are working on the
legislation, tentatively titled the Kids Act.
At
the same time that Cantor and Goodlatte were pushing for a DREAMer
amnesty, Gowdy leant, what could only be interpreted as,
whole-hearted support for their cause. In a quote, which has been absent
from virtually all reporting about Gowdy’s endorsement of Rubio, Gowdy declared during a 2013 Congressional
hearing:
When children wander into
neighborhood yards, we don’t call that trespassing. When children cry and yell
and scream at restaurants or on airplanes, we don’t call that a violation of
the noise ordinance. When children eat a grape at the grocery store or eat
a piece of candy waiting in line before mom or dad pays for it we don’t have
them arrested for petty larceny.
“Children can’t sign contracts,
vote, purchase certain items, or even work in some instances because the law
treats children differently,” Gowdy said.
Ironically, if
Gowdy’s philosophy were put into effect, illegal alien children could vote
in U.S. elections as soon as they turn 18.
The logical implication of Gowdy’s
remarks — declaring alien youth should be spared from any consequence of
violating America’s borders — is that these youths similarly should not be
punished by being deprived of their parents’ company — thereby meaning
that their parents will receive deportation immunity as well. In effect,
Gowdy’s statement is an advertisement to all of the world’s could-be illegal
aliens that you can violate America’s borders so long as you bring your
children with you, and your child will be rewarded with citizenship and
lifetime welfare for your family.
Gowdy’s
declaration prompted swift condemnation from conservative talk radio host Mark
Levin, who told his audience, “Many of you like
this Trey Gowdy, right. You’ve seen him at the IRS hearing. He’s a former
assistant U.S. attorney, I believe. Very effective, but sadly turns out he’s a
RINO. Yes he is. Mr. Gowdy, yes you are.”
Conservative
columnist and best-selling author Ann Coulter mocked Gowdy in a February 2014 column, placing Gowdy side by side with
Eric Cantor and
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
56%
:
Why are Republicans like Trey
Gowdy, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and John Boehner making fools of themselves in
order to spot the Democrats three more [electoral] touchdowns?… The
once-respected Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., compared illegal aliens brought here as
kids to children who steal a grape or scream in a restaurant… But in those
cases [Gowdy cites], both the child and his parents had a right to be where
they were — the yard, restaurant or grocery store — when the child suddenly
behaved like a child. With illegal aliens, the parents are more like gypsies
teaching their kids to beg and pick pockets. The parents forced the kids into
being lawbreakers.
Similarly, Palestinians use their
children to commit acts of terrorism against Israel, so that when Israel
responds, the parents can wail, “They’re bombing children!”
(I thought only liberals couldn’t
do analogies.)
Interestingly, most media reports
covering Gowdy’s endorsement of Rubio omitted these conservative icons’ very
public condemnations of Gowdy—in which Levin and Coulter respectively denounced
Gowdy as a “RINO” and “fool” of the Democrats.
However, Gowdy did receive
high praise in some quarters.
Luis
Gutierrez found Gowdy’s position on the subject encouraging. As Gutierrez said
in a recent PBS Frontline documentary, which aired in October:
There’s going to be a legalization
component, and Gowdy said for those who arrived as children— I mean, if you
listen to them, they’re obviously talking about other components of a
legalization program… They went from the party of “We’re for enforcement only,”
to “Oh, don’t worry, we’re getting around to the other part.” In other words,
there’s good stuff coming.
Gutierrez
and Gowdy seem to have a developed a close relationship. As USA Today reported in
2013: “In separate interviews, Gowdy and Gutierrez gushed about their
mutual respect and trust.” USA Today wrote:
“Luis is impossible not to like,”
Gowdy said… “There are people I agree with on everything politically that I
don’t go eat dinner with.”
Gutierrez expressed similar
sentiments.
“I think some things just happen
because it’s meant to be,” he said. “The chemistry is there.”
The
report notes that the two “hit it off almost
instantly” after Gutierrez learned that Gowdy was not a “hardliner” on
immigration:
Immigrant
rights groups assumed Gowdy was a hardliner who would block reform. But Gowdy
told the Greenville (S.C.) News in
January he empathized with people who had left their country to find a better
life in the U.S. He ruled out deporting the nation’s 11 million undocumented
immigrants, saying such a roundup would “shock the conscience” of Americans.
Gutierrez, a leading advocate of offering illegal immigrants a path to
citizenship, was pleasantly surprised and predicted he and Gowdy would work
well together. The newspaper story was the subject of their first-ever
conversation on Capitol Hill a few days later.
Although
Gutierrez had previously declared that his “only one loyalty”
is to the immigrant community, Gowdy said that he would never question
Gutierrez’s motives. “I’m trying to get to heaven,” Gowdy said. “You
do that by doing what you think is right after you consider everybody else’s
opinion. Luis and I could actually wind up voting differently, but I’ll never
challenge his motives and he will never challenge mine.”
According
to USA Today, “Gowdy said he once wrote a note to
Gutierrez that said, ‘If I ever needed an advocate, a passionate advocate, I
would want somebody like you.’”
USA
Today reported that Gowdy described immigration reform as a
“journey” that he wants to take with Gutierrez. “This is a step in what will be
a longer journey and one that I will look forward to making that journey,
frankly, with you,” Gowdy said.
“I do trust you,” Gutierrez told
Gowdy. “I have reason to do that.”
“I
look forward to the moment there is a Gowdy-Gutierrez proposal,” Gutierrez
said, according to USA Today.
Like
Gowdy, Marco Rubio has been a longstanding supporter of DREAMer amnesty.
Despite campaigning in 2010 in opposition to amnesty
and attacking Charlie Crist specifically for
his support of the DREAM Act, upon arriving in the U.S. Senate, Rubio quickly
began work on a plan to legalize so-called DREAMers.
In 2012, Rubio’s plan unraveled
after President Obama went around Congress to unilaterally enact DREAMer
amnesty through executive fiat (known as Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals, or DACA). Yet, Rubio so strongly supports legal status for the
world’s illegal alien youth that he has repeatedly said that he would not
immediately revoke DACA.
In
fact, Rubio has said that his “ideal” plan would be to
keep DACA in place as he pushes Congress to pass a legislative amnesty: “The
ideal way for [DACA] to end is that it’s replaced by a reform system that
creates an alternative.” This is the same position as President Obama, who has also
said that he regards the executive amnesty as a temporary placeholder
until Congress gives in and codifies it legislatively.
Because Congress has repeatedly
voted down the DREAM Act, in effect both Rubio and Obama are implying that
voters’ decisions through their representatives to defeat the DREAM Act
on multiple prior occasions should be overridden and disregarded.
Experts have explained that the
DREAM Act principle—i.e. that alien youth should be exempted from
America’s immigration law—effectively creates an open border. As former
USCIS union president Ken Palinkas asserted during his tenure, this DREAM
amnesty principle represents a promise of “perpetual amnesty.”
Legislators, including Cantor
and Goodlatte, have suggested that it is improper to apply immigration law
to younger illegal aliens. But if it is improper to apply immigration law
to one specific group of illegal aliens, then why should we expect future
illegal aliens in this group to be treated any differently?
“This
seems like an argument for extending birthright citizenship in the future to
include the foreign citizens of other countries,” Palinkas said.
Although
Cantor did not go as far as Gowdy in likening
illegal immigration to children misbehaving in grocery stores,
Cantor similarly expressed the sentiment that the nation
would be morally defective if alien youths smuggled into the country were
turned back. Cantor declared, “One of the great founding principles of our
country was that children would not be punished for the mistakes of their
parents.”
This prompted Cantor’s then-primary
challenger—now Congressman—
Rep. Dave Brat (R-VA)
100%
to describe Cantor’s declaration as “one of the
most radical pro-amnesty statements ever delivered by a sitting
representative.” Brat wrote, “In what was billed as a new agenda for the
Republican Party, Cantor declared that citizenship for illegals was required by
‘the great founding principles of our country.’ With this remark, Cantor
declared his support not only for amnesty now, but amnesty forever.”
Gowdy Supports Rubio-Style Immigration
Expansions
Marco Rubio’s immigration bill
would have tripled the nation’s dispensation of green cards and doubled the
nation’s issuances of guest worker visas.
As
a result of a 1965 Ted Kennedy-backed immigration rewrite, which removed
immigration caps enacted by Calvin Coolidge in the 1920s, the foreign born
population has surged to today’s record high of 42.4 million—meaning that today
one in every four U.S.
residents is either an immigrant or the child of an immigrant.
Today,
as a result of this law, approximately 9 in 10 green cards are issued to
non-Western countries: Latin America, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Analysis from the Senate Immigration
Subcommittee reveals that over the next few
decades between 2015 and 2065, unless Congress pauses or reduces visa
issuances, immigration will add seven new people for every one net U.S. birth
produced by today’s population—a ratio of seven-to-one.
Yet
Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Trey Gowdy have all pushed for higher levels of
foreign worker importations. The Rubio-Schumer immigration bill would have
issued 33 million green cards in ten years—or 33 new immigrants for every one South Carolina GOP voter—easily canceling out the entire
electoral impact of all South Carolina Republicans.
Yet
despite these turbo-charged immigration rates, Gowdy has argued that even more
foreigners should be allowed into the country. In a 2013 interview with nationally syndicated
talk radio host Laura Ingraham, Gowdy—in arguing for changes to the nation’s
visa programs—echoed the concerns of employers who claim that they need
more foreign workers.
Ingraham
told Gowdy that neither of Congress’ chief GOP advocates for expanded
immigration—Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan—have been able to come on her show and
make a compelling case for increasing immigration beyond all known historical
precedent at a time when so many American are unemployed and are struggling to
make ends meet. “Nobody has come on this show from Paul Ryan to Rubio on
down and successfully argued that case here — none of them,” Ingraham said.
Gowdy told Ingraham that he would
try to make that case. “Let me try,” Gowdy said. “All the guys you just named
[i.e. Rubio and Ryan] are a lot smarter than I am, but let me try.” In
explaining why even more foreign workers should be admitted on top of today’s
autopilot visa dispensations, Gowdy cited the complaints of business owners:
I will go on another plant tour
this afternoon. And Laura, I wish you would come to South Carolina and
go on plant tours with me, and ask the very first question I ask: “Do you
have any openings?” And the answer nine times out of ten is yes.
However, as
a 2014 Center for Immigration Studies report based on census data
found, the number of working-aged native-born Americans not working grew
by 17 million between 2000 and 2014.
Ingraham pressed Gowdy on the
question of wages for American workers. Gowdy replied by explaining that
there are jobs Americans simply will not do.
Well, it’s not just “What are you
paying?” It’s what are we as a culture paying people to do nothing. If you can
make more money not working then that becomes a moral issue and it depends on
whether your policies incent the inherit value of work… Look at agriculture.
Come talk to my farmers about—look at the current visa—you have to offer it to
an American worker. It is actually costlier to hire an immigrant and yet almost
invariably the workforce is immigrant. Why is that? Why will Americans not pick
blueberries, or peaches or lettuce? Talk to Jeff Denham in California.
Asparagus is rotting in the field. I think there are certain jobs we just don’t
bring our children up to do.
Yet
a recent Buzzfeed exposé revealed how guest worker programs
for agriculture have had a devastating impact on black American workers and has
fueled racism against black workers in favor of foreign nationals who will work
for lower wages. In an exposé titled “All You Americans Are Fired,” Buzzfeed writes:
Last year, thousands of American
companies won permission to bring a total of more than 150,000
people into the country as legal guest workers for unskilled jobs, under a
federal program that grants them temporary work permits known as H-2 visas…
many businesses go to extraordinary lengths… deliberately denying jobs to
American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead…
Companies across the country in a variety of industries have made it all but
impossible for U.S. workers to learn about job openings that they are supposed
to be given first crack at. When workers do find out, they are discouraged from
applying. And if, against all odds, Americans actually get hired, they often
are treated worse and paid less than foreign workers doing the same job, in
order to drive the Americans to quit.
Buzzfeed specifically addresses the
alleged abuses of some farmers in Gowdy’s state of South Carolina. Buzzfeed
writes:
Last year, the South Carolina
watermelon and blueberry producer Coosaw Farms was sued in federal
court by black workers who allege their bosses told them “colored people just
don’t work as fast as Mexicans.” The suit charges that Coosaw officials called
its American employees “niggers” and made it easier for Mexican workers to meet
production quotas. The farm also gave its H-2 [guest] workers access
to nicer bathrooms, letting them wash their hands before lunch, the
lawsuit claims.
During the interview, Gowdy also
appeared to criticize
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)
73%
for not wanting to expand immigration rates:
Tom Cotton I think would be kind of
the anti-Paul Ryan… Tom, whose a very bright young Congressman from Arkansas,
kind of makes the case that you [i.e. Ingraham] made, which is do nothing. And
in my conversations with Tom, I’ve said: “Ok, Tom, you’re a brilliant lawyer,
make the case for why the status quo, which includes some crops rotting in the
field.”
Gowdy went even
further implying there’s a foreign worker shortage afflicting
manufacturing plants. Gowdy said:
I represent a district that has
BMW… [and] Michelin, make the case that our current visa structure is
sufficient.
In other words, Gowdy is saying
that the U.S. does not issue enough visas despite the fact that when
Trey Gowdy was born in 1964, approximately 1 in 20 U.S. residents
was foreign-born, and today that figure is rapidly nearing 1 in 7.
Gowdy
has also been a supporter of the controversial H-2B guest worker program.
The H-2B visa is used to fill jobs in maintenance, theme
parks, construction, food processing, restaurants, and hospitality. When
the program was briefly and temporarily frozen, Gowdyjoined
Rep. Raul Labrador
(R-ID)
95%
and Goodlatte to praise the H-2B program and
to “applaud” the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to resume
processing applications. “We are happy to see DHS and Labor heard the concerns
of businesses in South Carolina and across the country that depend on the H-2B
visa program for reliable, seasonal workforce,” Gowdy said.
Paul
Ryan is similarly a proponent of the H-2B visa. In defending a recent
H-2B visa expansion, Ryan declared earlier this month that without
more guest workers, many American businesses would be forced to “shut down
because they couldn’t get the labor.”
However in his interview with
Ingraham, Gowdy went further still to imply that it’s too hard for
non-citizens to bring their spouses into the country.
Make the case that waiting ten
years for a husband and a wife to join one another when the husband is a legal
permanent resident, make the case of the status quo.
Given the unprecedented amount of
exclusively family-based immigration stemming from Kennedy’s 1965 immigration
rewrite, it’s remarkable that Gowdy argues that it is still too hard for family
members across the globe to come together in the United States.
In
2013, there were 650,000 green cards issued in the family categories. To put
that number in perspective, Trey Gowdy received around 126,000 votes in his
last election. That means that in 2013 alone, the U.S. permanently
admitted five times more family-based migrants on green cards — which confer
access to welfare and eventually citizenship — than there are Gowdy voters in
South Carolina.
Gowdy’s
focus on the alleged difficulties of legal permanent residents—who are not U.S.
citizens—to bring in their foreign spouses appears especially noteworthy in
hindsight, now that concerns have been raised that it’s far too easy for people
to bring their brides into the country. For instance, Syed Farook— the U.S.
born child of Pakistani immigrants—reportedly met his jihadi bride on an online
dating service, went on the Hajj with her, and then brought her into the
country on a fiancé visa where they set about their terror attack.
Interestingly, Rubio’s immigration bill would have expanded the fiancé program to allow non-citizen legal
permanent residents to bring in their intended spouses.
Gowdy’s
emphasis on the interests of non-citizens is reminiscent of comments made
by Paul Ryan, who has similarly been showered with praise by Gutierrez. Interestingly, in his
2013 interview with Ingraham, Gowdy defended Paul Ryan’s decision to push
immigration through Congress:
I do want to say this in defense of
Paul because I have the luxury of being able to talk to him in the hallways
when there’s nobody else around. I think he’s got a strategy that is more
nuanced than sometimes what is reported, even though I don’t agree with him on
everything. I’m a huge fan of his and I think his heart and head are in the
right place.
In
2013, while stumping for Rubio’s immigration agenda, Paul Ryan told a crowd that it is the job of a
U.S. lawmaker to put oneself in the shoes of foreign nationals and work to find
legislative solutions to improve their quality of life:
Put yourself in another person’s
shoes, which if you’re in elected office, that’s what you kind of have to do
that almost every single day. The job we have — and what we do is we take
different people’s perspectives. The gentleman from India who’s waiting for his
green card. The DREAMer who is waiting. We take all these different
perspectives… And then we come up with the answer to try and solve this
problem. That’s basically what we do in our jobs.
Similarly,
during the first GOP presidential debate, Rubio delivered the expansionist
refrain about the alleged wait times for foreign nationals despite the nation’s
historic immigration rates. Rubio said that the people who don’t get
enough attention and “who never ge[t] talked about in these debates” are the
foreign citizens “who have been waiting for 15 years to come to the United
States.”
Gowdy Supports Ryan-Championed Globalist
Trade Deals
Another area where Gowdy finds
common intellectual grounds with Rubio and Ryan is his support of fast-track
authority to ink international trade deals.
Gowdy
was vocal in his support for granting President Obama fast-track trade powers.
In fact, in a joint op-ed with
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
88%
titled “Trade promotion authority
fears are unfounded,” Gowdy denounced conservative concerns about giving
Obama fast-track trade authority.
Gowdy writes, “While in the past
TPA has been called ‘fast-track,’ this new, muscular version of TPA is designed
very differently from past versions. It reins in presidential authority and
places much needed oversight and scrutiny on any potential trade agreements.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions
(R-AL)
80%
—who fought
aggressively against fast-track, warning that it would have a calamitous impact
on American workers and sovereignty—pointed out that this talking point was
“ridiculous.”
Sessions mocked the Gowdy-Ryan
talking point. If fast-track authority were to rein in Obama’s
authority, “why does he [Obama] even want the thing?” Sessions asked.
Indeed, President Obama had
been whipping Democrats to support a measure, which Gowdy contends would curb his
executive authority.
“That’s, of course, ridiculous,”
Sessions said.
This enhances the ability of the
President to negotiate, it enhances his ability to create a new trade and
economic union, and political union, throughout the entire Pacific region, it
is something that he wants for that reason. And, it says in its name, Trade
Promotion Authority. It grants authority to the chief executive of the United
States to do more than he would otherwise be able to do.
Marco
Rubio and Paul Ryan have been two of the most vocal supporters of
internationalist trade deals and granting President Obama fast-track authority
to usher those deals through Congress. As Chairman of the House Ways and
Means Committee, Ryan was essential to Congress’ passage of fast-track. At the
time, Politico described passing fast-track as “the fight of
Paul Ryan’s career” writing:
Over the past several months, the
Wisconsin Republican has worked — almost single-handedly, and quite stealthily
— to build support to give Obama additional authority to negotiate a massive
trade deal with Pacific Rim nations.
Similarly, in
a May 13th address to the Council on Foreign
Relations, Rubio explained that: “It is more important than ever that Congress
give the president [Barack Obama] trade promotion authority so that he can
finalize the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Rubio also cast the 60th and deciding
vote for fast-track.
Polls show that among the
American electorate, Republican voters are the group most skeptical of free trade—with a nearly
five-to-one margin of Republican voters believing that free-trade deals slash
wages rather than raise them. Only a minuscule 11 percent of GOP
voters, according
to Pew,
believe that so-called free-trade deals will be good for wages.
***
Trey Gowdy’s record on immigration
and trade underscores that while establishment media may try to put Jeff
Sessions and Trey Gowdy together in a broad “conservative” bucket, Gowdy’s
statements on immigration and trade represent the antithesis of Jeff Sessions’
populist platform.
Sessions has led the fight in
Congress for immigration reduction, he worked with Donald Trump to develop
the GOP frontrunner’s immigration platform, and he fought against the
Rubio-Ryan push for fast-track trade authority. At a recent Alabama event,
Sessions defended
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
97%
from Rubio’s immigration attacks — warningthat the Gang of Eight is gearing
up for another immigration push:
This election is going to decide–
did the crowd who pushed that bill, are they in the White House? And will they
be able to continue their agenda? Or will somebody else be there who will say,
“No.”
Less
than 10 days after Sessions issued this warning, Gowdy, from the nearby state
of South Carolina, endorsed the architect of the Gang of Eight
immigration plan—whose candidacy is funded, in part, by
some of the wealthiest backers and immigration
expansionist in the country including Paul
Singer and Oracle’s Larry Ellison.
One
political analyst, who has keyed in the on the divide in the GOP between
the Party’s base voters, who want greater protections from open door trade
and immigration policies, is David Frum. In a recent piece, Frum suggested that this
burgeoning divide has become an existential threat to the Republican Party:
The
angriest and most pessimistic people in America are the people we used to call
Middle Americans. Middle-class and middle-aged; not rich and not poor; people
who are irked when asked to press 1 for English, and who wonder how white male became an
accusation rather than a description. You can measure their pessimism in polls
that ask about their expectations for their lives—and for those of their
children. On both counts, whites without a college degree express the bleakest
view. You can see the effects of their despair in the new statistics describing
horrifying rates of suicide and substance-abuse fatality among this same group,
in middle age. White Middle Americans express heavy mistrust of every
institution in American society: not only government, but corporations, unions,
even the political party they typically vote for—the Republican Party of Romney,
Ryan, and McConnell, which they despise as a sad crew of weaklings and
sellouts…
[Republican
Main Street] rejected the hardening ideological orthodoxy of Republican donors
and elected officials… [but] as a class, big Republican donors could not see
any of this, or would not. So neither did the politicians who depend upon them.
Against all evidence, both groups interpreted the Tea Party as a mass movement
in favor of the agenda of the Wall
Street Journal editorial page. One of the more dangerous
pleasures of great wealth is that you never have to hear anyone tell you that
you are completely wrong.
According to Pew, 92 percent of the
GOP electorate—and 83 percent of the American electorate as a whole—would like
to see future immigration growth curbed rather than increased. The polling data
suggests that Gowdy, Rubio, and Ryan’s support for higher rates of foreign
worker importations places them far outside the mainstream of Republican
thought. Yet despite the data, one hill operative put it to Breitbart
News thusly: “The clique running the show in Congress are the Ryan-Rubio
radical Republicans.”
As
Rush Limbaugh warned earlier this year, with Rubio in
the White House and Paul Ryan as Speaker, in the “first 12-to-18 months, the
donor-class agenda is implemented, including amnesty and whatever else they
want.”
Breitbart News asked Gowdy several
questions about his endorsement and the expected impact a President Rubio would
have on the nation’s immigration policies. Gowdy’s
office has not responded.
Elecciones en
noviembre, 2016
LAZARO R GONZALEZ
Para Alcalde del Condado Miami 2016
Escriba el nombre de Lázaro R González en
el espacio de la boleta electoral en blanco
Hágalo para acabar el relajo, el robo, el abuso, el descaro, la mala
administración y haga que el gobierno le
responda a usted y no que sea un feudo de los políticos ladrones y descarados inescrupulosos,
no permita más abusos.
Envie nuestros mensajes a sus amigos y conocidos.
“NO Queremos Donaciones de Dinero”
Lázaro R
González, Candidato a Alcalde
del Condado
Miami en la boleta en blanco.
“Que DIOS nos
ilumine en este empeño”
lazarorgonzalez@gmail, 305 898 4146
“Nuestro Plan”
> Eliminar las
cosas incorrectas: Abusos contra los ciudadanos, Reparar las cosas malas de
este gobierno y otros gobiernos anteriores, estupideces, derroche de dinero público malas decisiones,
favoritismo, amiguismo, prácticas nefastas.
>El actual Alcalde y sus comisionados apoya a los
Tolls y las cámaras de los semáforos. Y ahora quieren poner otras cámaras en la
parte no incorporada. A pesar que ya se sabe que los accidentes en las esquinas
donde hay cámaras han subido en un 22%
Regresar las carreteras a los ciudadanos. Se han apoderado de las
carreteras locales y nuestras calles explotando a los ciudadanos ilegalmente,
porque todo esto se construyó con nuestro dinero. No solo le da apoyo al MDX
sino que también quiere que lo nombren presidente del MDX. QUE DIOS NOS COJA
CONFESADOS. Si ahora los miembros del MDX tienen salarios de más de 100,000
dólares imagínense cuando el este ahí y lleve con el a todos los vice alcaldes
y toda su ralea. Esto es un abuso y un
descaro. La historia de Giménez en eso de sacarles dinero a los ciudadanos es
un experto.
>Hace
unos cuantos meses se nos pidió nada más que 30,000 millones de dólares
para reparar el sistema del alcantarillado de Miami y yo por lo menos no he
visto hacer un hueco para reparar ningún alcantarillado todavía pero el dinero
ya si está ahí sacándonos en formas de taxes adelantados para gastarlo. ¿Qué
paso donde está el dinero cuando van a empezar a hacer el nuevo alcantarillado
de oro de Miami? ¿A dónde fue a parar todo el dinero que nos cobran por
servirnos el agua y los impuestos que cobran para mantener los alcantarillados?
>También
nos pidieron “Los intocables de la Comision de Educacion” al el pueblo de Miami aprobó que se le dieran
Doce mil Millones de dólares para el Departamento de Educación para
reparar las escuelas. También me pregunto a donde se fue todos los millones que
recaudan de impuestos a los ciudadanos todos los años La comisión de Educación.
Yo no he visto ni siquiera una persona con una brocha pintando una escuela o
cogiendo una gotera en los techos.
>Giménez
no hablo nada mas de los autos de la policía que recientemente se encontraron
un edificio de parqueo con cientos o miles de carros para el condado o la
policía, supuestamente destinados a la policía, que se estaban pudriendo en un
parque porque nadie los uso. La prensa formo el escándalo y todo el mundo se
disgustó y protesto. Pero nada paso. Quién es el culpable de que esto
ocurriera. A quien despidieron? ¿A quién
han puesto en la cárcel?
>Tampoco
Gimenes no hablo nada del el Jefe de la policía de Miami apareció muerto en su
propia casa; primero dijeron que había sido asesinado, y después entonces lo
suicidaron y de pronto la prensa no hablo más del asunto y todo el mundo se
quedó “El dinero cierra las bocas” Por
fin se suicidó o lo suicidaros. Y aquí
paz y en el cielo gloria: Sun
Centinel. Tuesday Oct. 6, 2015.
>Otro de los problemas más acuciantes es la locura
del incremento de los taxes de la propiedad. En esto hay algo que es repugnante
por parte del departamento de taxes a las propiedades de Miami, han tenido el
desparpajo de decir que los taxes no han sido aumentados. Que falta de respeto
a la inteligencia de los ciudadanos porque SI
SE SUBIEROSN LOS TAXES. EL VALOR DE LA PROPIEDAD SI FUE ELEVADO “Y
MUCHO ESTE ANO” ALGO QUE LO HACEN TODOS LOS Años. Así que eso de decir que los
taxes no fueron aumentados, es mentira… Comparen lo
que pagan este 2015 con lo que pagaron en el 2014 y vean si les cobraran más
que el año pasado. Yo considero que cuando usted compra una casa. Esa casa mantine por
siempre ese valor. A menos que usted le haga mejoras o adiciones esa casa no
cambia de precio. Y es asi como yo considero que deben hacer las cosas. “Ningún
aumento de taxes de la propiedad a menos que se le hagan obras que ameriten
subir su precio.
>En el condado hay demasiadas personas
“Trabajando” y Cobrando muchísimos más dinero que los que normalmente ganan los
ciudadanos que no trabajan en el condado. ¿Por Qué? Porque es muy fácil gastar el dinero de los
ciudadanos que tontamente se dejan quitar el dinero en taxes y toles por los
políticos. Tenemos “5 nuevos vice alcaldes”. Unas posiciones que nunca habían
existido en el Condado Miami. Solo teníamos un administrador y ya!!! Que
invento es ese. ¿O es que los Virreyes son amigos del alcalde y el los acomodo?
Sabían
ustedes que el hijo del alcalde es uno de los CABILDEROS más influyentes en el
Condado Miami en que su papa es el alcalde. Dice un vecino mío que todo queda
en casa. Es legal que el hijo de un alcalde sea cabildero donde su papa es el
que “ordena y manda”. Es esto ilegal o legal???
>El
crimen es altísimo en Miami, Creo es más alto que en toda la historia de Miami.
Y todos los días aumenta mucho más. Los noticieros de la televisión todos los
días llenan los espacios con noticias
“Sangrientas” de asesinatos y todos los días es así. Los casos de
tráfico de drogas son cada vez más populares y más dañinos y terribles. ¿Qué
pasa la policía está de vacaciones permanente?
El transito es un verdadero infierno en las calles y carreteras. Decenas
de accidentes son el pan nuestro de cada
día. Muertes y personas mutiladas es el saldo de todos los días. Las autopistas son sucursales de las
funerarias y los Hospitales. Las calles están más atiborradas de autos y cada
día hay más accidentes. (Nada) Dicen en
la TV que el tiempo de la luz amarilla le han quitado tiempo para poder ponerle
un ticket a los que doblan a la derecha en los semáforos y eso ha creado más
accidentes. (Un 22% mayor de accidentes)
En Hialeah
se ha terminado hace más de un año una purificadora de agua y nadie se ha
podido tomar todavía un vaso de agua porque no sirve lo que purifica. Quien
estuvo a cargo de esto, cuando van a meter a un político en la cárcel y le van
a quitar todo lo que se robó. Pero no aquí no pasa nada.
>Aquí
se encontró un grupos de personas que se dedicaban a recoger boletas ausentes y
luego llenarlas fraudulentamente y colocarlas en el Departamento de Elecciones
y así llenaban las posiciones de los políticos pésimos que ahora tenemos. Y las
boleteras aparecieron retratadas con el alcalde, muy sonriente todos. No hubo
ninguna boletera ni el alcalde preso.
>Tenemos
una fuente de saqueo a los ciudadanos de Miami y de todo el estado de la
Florida que es la que es La lotería de La Florida, donde nadie sabe quién es el
que se gana el premio. Alguien me puede decir porque solamente aquí hay tres
casinos en que se juega: Los Micosuky, Los Perros y El hipódromo de Hialeah.
Porque estas tres entidades son los UNICOS que tienen derecho a expoliar a los
jugadores. Estas entidades que yo sepa no contribuyen a nada en el Condado.
Porque no se aprobó un casino ahí en donde estaba El Herald. POR QUE? Porque no
dejan que los casinos sea una empresa abierta para todos los que paguen
taxes??? Eso se llama
¡FAVORITISMO! ¡o COBRAR La Gabela”. Nosotros
podemos tener un sistema como el de las Vegas… Miami es más, mucho mejor plaza.
Podemos invitar a La mujer del Raton Mike de Orlando, a que su esposa se bañe
en tanguitas en la playa mientras Mickey Mouse juega en un casino como los de
Las Vegas y que tengan que dejar impuestos en Miami y así disminuir los
abusivos taxes del gobierno condal de Miami. De todas maneras nos están
saqueando con la Lotería de La Florida, donde nunca se quién se la saca.
Mientras que en todos los mercados de Miami y gasolineras etc. Te venden los
tickes de la Lotería Saqueadora de los bolsillos de los trabajadores. >Nadie me puede justificar porque
aquí se cobran todos esos asfixiantes taxes, Tolls y otros cobros que son
muchísimos, tan exagerados y asfixiantes contra los ciudadanos del Condado
Miami. Porque con los miles de millones que genera el Puerto de Miami y los otros
miles de millones que genera el aeropuerto de Miami. Estos dos solos
colosos Generan dinero más que suficiente para mantener las calles de Miami
pavimentadas con Plata Mejicana. ¿En que se gasta ese dineral? Porque no se presentan en público todo el
dinero que generan estas dos entidades y en que se malgastan.
>El
transporte de pasajeros en Miami es una porquería, las guaguas están sucias y
desvencijadas, vienen cuando les da la gana y casi siempre vienen atrasadas y
medio bacías. Porque el pueblo no las usa. PORQUE SON INEFICIENTES E
INSUFUCIENTES PARA TODO EL QUE DESEARIA USARLAS. El un dinero que se derrocha y
que no resuelve ningún problema. Yo propongo que se venda el sistema a quien lo
va a explotar mucho mejor que estos ineptos. Ademas toda esa GIGANTESCA NOMINA
DE TRABAJADORES DEL TRANSPORTE. Ustedes se recuerdan cuando algunos
particulares pusieron guaguas a dar servicio por donde los Miamenses
necesitaban ir y aquello se hizo muy popular. Creo que le decían “La Conchita”
Lo que pasa que como siempre el gobierno es inepto y eso tiene que cambiar.
>Aquí
tenemos una organización que se lama “El Children Trust” que no se puede saber
dónde van todos los dineros que le sacan a los propietarios de casas. La forma
en que esa organización despilfarra el dinero no es posible de auditar y ver
donde se usa todos los millones que les sacan en los taxes de la propiedad a
los ciudadanos. Porque no se puede auditar las finanzas del “Children Trust”
donde se despilfarra nuestro dinero. Este es otro de los canceres económicos
que padecen los contribuyentes de Miami.
>Nosotros
tenemos el mejor lugar del MUNDO para vacacionar, playas, restaurantes, podemos
hacer casinos, cabaret’s y Parques temáticos, Tenemos los moles más bonitos y
mejor surtidos del mundo. Pero no hacemos nada porque estamos rodeados de
enanos anormales que son electos. Y el pueblo duerme el “Sueño eterno” ¿Y nadie
despierta? Parece mentira que la industria permite al gobierno manteniendo a
Miami como una aldea retrograda. Porque no se ha invitado y se les da
facilidades a las grandes corporaciones de producción de películas de Hollywood
a que vengan aquí a hacer películas y que establezcan estudios aquí. Las
Películas de playas no podrán ser mejores que aquí porque el frio del agua de
California le pone los pelos de punta a cualquiera que se meta en el agua. Aquí
el agua es calientica y las playas no puedes ser más bellas.
>Los
noticieros de la TV y Los periódicos
diariamente están llenos de cadáveres (Parecen cementerios todos los
días) porque los accidentes. La ciudad es un expendido de drogas de todos los
colores y sabores. Y la policía bien
gracias. Los Miembros de los algunos gobiernos de los diferentes municipios han
terminados en las cárceles porque son unos delincuentes, Las oficinas de los
gobiernos es una extensión de la familia de los Alcaldes y otros
funcionarios. Otros terminan en manos de
la policía porque hacen cosas locas en Motos o automóviles borrachos
conduciendo a mucha más de la velocidad permitida. Otros se dedican a robar los
bienes de los ciudadanos. Tenemos una falta de moral, decencia y legalidad.
Pudiera estar escribiendo cientos de páginas más de miserias y violaciones y
burlas a los ciudadanos por los gobernantes.
>Yo siempre he estado esperando que el
pueblo de Miami forme un “motín” como el
que ocurrió en el pequeño pueblo de Bell en California, donde el pueblo tomo la
alcandía y llevo hasta la cárcel a patadas por los fondillos a los comisionados
y al alcalde donde todavía están ahí por ladrones y descarados. El problema del despilfarro de los gastos del
gobierno condal en Miami. El 60% de los ingresos del condado se gastan en
pensiones y salarios. El alcalde actual recibirá una pensión de $150,000.
Tenemos demasiadas personas cobrando altos salarios y pensiones.
> Todos los candidatos a cargos públicos por elecciones como
Comisionados, alcalde, Jueces etc.
a) No les será permitido presentarse a ser reelectos más de una
vez.
b) El máximo de tiempo para servir para políticos electos será
de 8 años.
c) Deben presentar prueba de que no tienen antecedentes penales.
d) Hacer una declaración jurada de todos sus bienes, dinero y
propiedades al comenzar su perido electo..
e) Entregar un currículum laboral, experiencia y académico que pruebe su capacidad y
experiencia.
f) Tienen que entregar un plan de las mejoras que se comprometen
a implementar en el ejercicio de la posición a que son candidatos. Este plan
será Jurado, notariado y entregado ante el Clerk de la Corte un mes antes de
las elecciones. El candidato podrá ser impugnado en la corte por no cumplir con
su documento de compromiso.
> Todos los candidatos a cargos públicos por elecciones como
Comisionados, alcalde, Jueces etc.
a) No les será permitido presentarse a ser reelectos más de una
vez.
b) El máximo de tiempo para servir para políticos electos será
de 8 años.
c) Deben presentar prueba de que no tienen antecedentes penales.
d) Hacer una declaración jurada de todos sus bienes, dinero y
propiedades al comenzar su perido electo..
e) Entregar un currículum laboral, experiencia y académico que pruebe su capacidad y
experiencia.
f) Tienen que entregar un plan de las mejoras que se comprometen
a implementar en el ejercicio de la posición a que son candidatos. Este plan
será Jurado, notariado y entregado ante el Clerk de la Corte un mes antes de
las elecciones. El candidato podrá ser impugnado en la corte por no cumplir con
su documento de compromiso.
> El proceso de RECALL o REFERENDUM se facilitara con los
siguientes cambios:
a) 20 firmas de apoyo por planilla,
b) No necesidad de afidávit por el Circulador.
c) El circulador si debe firmar la hoja recolección de firmas de
apoyo; al final del documento una sola vez. Sirviendo de testigo como que sí
estuvo presente en el momento de que los ciudadanos firmaron dicha hoja de
recogida de firmas de apoyo al referéndum.
d) No será necesario que la hoja de firmas de apoyo sean
notarizadas.
e) Prohibida la persecución o acoso a las personas que
participen en el proceso como voluntarios.
El gobierno tiene que proteger a los ciudadanos y no protegerse
de los ciudadanos.
>
Reducir el presupuesto del condado Miami Dade,
en un 10% anualmente hasta que lleguemos al nivel del presupuesto del año 2000.
Este presupuesto tiene que ser balanceado de acuerdo con una razonable
colección de impuestos.
> La policía y los servicios de seguridad tienen que mejorar sus
técnicas, entrenamiento y protocolos. El criminal y el delincuente tienen que
ser perseguido y castigado ejemplarmente, sea quien sea y viva donde viva. Se
fomentara un plan en el cual la ciudadanía puede y debe participar activamente
en la persecución de los criminales y ayudando a la policía y los servicios de
seguridad ciudadana.
>
Los Taxes sobre la propiedad inmobiliaria no
podrán elevarse mientras el desempleo en el condado Miami Dade sea mayor al 8%.
Se debe eliminar la posición de Tasador de la propiedad y crear un departamento
mucho más pequeño y menos costoso; que realice los ajustes en los taxes de
acuerdo con esta enmienda.
> La administración del condado actuara de una forma mucho
más enérgica ante casos de mala administración, errores, corrupción o abusos
con los empleados o el público como los pasados ocurridos en Los departamentos
de Transporte, Viviendas, DERM, Aeropuerto, Puerto, ETC. Se despedirá desde el
Director del Departamento en problemas hasta la tercera línea de ejecutivos. Y
en los casos que se amerite se les pondrá a disposición de la corte.
> a-Reducción de los distritos del condado Miami Dade de 13 a 5
Cada distrito tendrá igual número de votantes.
b-Asalariar a los comisionados a $72,000.00
c- Está prohibido prohibirles a los comisionados o a cualquier
político electo o empleado del Condado Miami Dade de por vida que puedan
cabildear o hacer negocios, o ser parte de una compañía que haga negocios con
el condado de Miami Dade durante o después de terminar su empleo o servicio.
d-Los comisionados tendrán una sola oficina con 3 empleados.
e- El presupuesto total de su oficina será de $322,000 anual en
total.
f-Se elimina radicalmente la asignación de $800,000 anuales para
usar como gastos discrecionales por el comisionado.
> El alcalde y/o los comisionados del condado no podrán aprobar y
ordenar la ejecución de proyectos nuevos de la magnitud del túnel de la Bahía o
el Estadium de los Marlins. Todos los proyectos de gran magnitud del condado
deben ser consultados electoralmente con los ciudadanos y aprobados por los
votantes mediante votación secreta y directa.
> El alcalde y/o los comisionados del condado no podrán aprobar y
ordenar la ejecución de proyectos nuevos de la magnitud del túnel de la Bahía o
el Estadium de los Marlins. Todos los proyectos de gran magnitud del condado
deben ser consultados electoralmente con los ciudadanos y aprobados por los
votantes mediante votación secreta y directa.
> Se tiene que nombrar una comisión de personas ajenas al condado
Miami Dade o un gran jurado para que investigue todo lo relacionado Los
despilfarros que han quedado impunes como en El Aeropuerto, el Puerto de Miami,
el departamento de Transporte, DERM, Viviendas, El Túnel de la bahía, El
Estadium de los Marlins, etc. para saber quién se benefició y después
encauzarlo legalmente en la corte correspondiente.
>
El condado está en la obligación de publicar
en un sitio del internet creado al efecto Las subastas de trabajos públicos a
contratar por los diferentes departamentos. Deben publicarse también los nombre
de los lobistas que atienden a la subasta y a las empresas o personas que
representan y los detalles de la oferta incluido las cantidades que ofrecieron
cada participante. Y después de adjudicado el trabajo, tendrán que publicar
quien fue el ganador y porque razones. En la subasta debe estar presente un
oficial de la Oficina del Inspector General que certifique la legalidad del
proceso.
> Toda persona “político u Oficial” que sea despedido de su
cargo por alguna razón legal como: fraude, cosa mal hecha o delito, lucro
indebido, mal desempeño de su función por estar por incumpliendo sus
obligaciones o renuncia personal por el motivo que sea. No debe recibir ninguna
pensión ni compensación de ninguna clase por parte del condado. En caso de que
se esté haciendo algún pago en estos momentos proceder a presentar demanda en
corte para detener estos pagos.
> a-Se elimina la posición de Jefe de Policía y se sustituye por
la de Sheriff este ejercerá todas las funciones del actual Jefe de Policía.
b- El Sheriff, El Inspector General, El Jefe de la Oficina anti
corrupción y El Jefe de la Oficina de control de ética. A partir de la
aprobación de esta enmienda serán posiciones elegidas por los votantes del
condado Miami Dade en elecciones. c-Tendrán todas las funciones que tienen
ahora pero serán absolutamente independientes del alcalde y los comisionados y
rendirán cuenta directamente a los votantes.
> a-A partir de la fecha en que estas enmiendas sean aprobadas por
votación en elecciones secretas y directas por los ciudadanos del Condado Miami
Dade. Estos cambios serán incorporados a la Carta Constitucional del Condado
Miami Dade inmediatamente.
b-Los próximos cambios que se le proponga en el futuro a dicha
carta solo podrán efectuarse mediante la acción de un Referéndum que aprueben
estos nuevos cambios mediante elecciones por los ciudadanos del condado Miami
Dade.
c-Los comisionados del condado Miami Dade, no tendrán el poder
de modificarlas, agregar, sustituir o cambiar ninguna de las regulaciones en la
Carta del Condado..
>
21
>En
el condado casi nada funciona bien. Existen 50,000 personas que están esperando
en la lista del programa Plan 8. Varios edificios que están semi abandonados y
que se están cayendo a pedazos fabricados y carecen de estacionamientos. “Ahora
mismo hay uno en West Kendall que los construyeron pero está vacío porque
tienen que dar casi $4,000 dólares para poder vivir ahí. “El alcalde Giménez en
los últimos dos años se ha enfocado en lo que se llama “Workforce Housing” el
ha dado propiedades de Miami Dade, terrenos de Miami Dade para construir casas
que se están ofreciendo a $170 mil dólares y esas casas no se le están
vendiendo a las personas que están en listas de espera y no tiene un proceso
aprobado por el departamento de vivienda a nivel de Washington”, ahora están
hablando de gastarse más de $70 millones de dólares en el proyecto Liberty
Squere. Hay una crisis en el departamento de viviendas de Miami Dade. Actualizar
la lista de las personas que esperan por vivienda sería un buen paso para
comenzar a reparar el daño, el sistema
de computadoras que tiene el condado, señalando “que es anticuado”. “Hace
aproximadamente 6 meses el gobierno federal encontró que el departamento de
viviendas públicas de Miami Dade, había dado más de $2 millones de dólares
erróneamente a compañías que no cumplieron con el requisito federal, y que
decidió Carlos Giménez “pues Giménez decidió pagar la multa, no con el dinero
que tenemos ahora, sino con el dinero que vamos a recibir para las viviendas en
dos años”. De acuerdo con el alcalde Giménez, “en Washington no hay dinero y
que el estado no le quiere dar dinero al condado Miami Dade”.
>Quieren
vivir en un lugar decente, donde no malgasten su dinero ni le cobren taxes
donde el dinero no se usa para el bienestar de los ciudadanos y la
comunidad y vivir con tranquilidad y
legalidad. Si ustedes me apoyan estoy dispuesto hacerlo. Los que quieren votar
por mi tendrán que hacerlo en la boleta en blanco. No habrá propaganda en TV o
periódicos ni pasquines. No recogeremos dinero para campaña, ni para nada. Lo
que podemos haremos es poner los anuncios en mi sitio Web y en mi página “En mi
opinión” Ustedes pueden copiar mis mensajes y ponerlos en sus sitio web y en
Facebook. Coméntenlo con sus amigos y familiares. Así es que le vamos a ganar a
los que no se merecen ser sus representantes en el gobierno.
Lázaro R
González Miño
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
