No 931 “En mi opinión” Abril 25, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR
obama put America en un
toilet.
Vote for hilary and she’ll
pull the handle…
AMENPER: El Problema de Inmigración…
Inmigración es el movimiento de una persona o grupo de
personas a través de fronteras administrativas y políticas, que desean
establecerse definitiva o temporalmente en un lugar distinto a su lugar de
origen.
La literatura sobre migración contiene afirmaciones
generales, incluyendo: “La migración es una
de las fuerzas históricas que han moldeado el mundo”;
“La migración siempre ha sido parte de la conducta humana”; “la migración
es un fenómeno natural tan viejo como la historia misma”. Estas amplias
generalidades tienen alguna validez, pero no están basadas en una definición
clara de la migración y no explican las causas y efectos del fenómeno de
la migración.
Aunque no hay duda de que las personas siempre han
“migrado”, en el más amplio sentido de la palabra, de un asentamiento a
otro, de caserío a caserío, y de pueblo a pueblo, sería un error
asumir que la migración, tal como se practica o experimenta actualmente,
es la misma que en el pasado. La palabra “migración” podría incluir muchas
sombras y complejidades de significado.
El término genérico “migración” cubre un amplio rango
de conductas que pueden o no ser
relevantes al concepto de migración tal como es
comprendido actualmente por muchas personas o tal como está definido en el
derecho internacional y otras regulaciones
Si vemos la historia de la inmigración moderna en los
Estados podemos ser testigos de los diferentes tipos de inmigración a través de
los tiempos.
Los Estados Unidos son un país de inmigrantes desde su
fundación con la llegada de los primeros inmigrantes en el
Mayflower. Los primeros inmigrantes en la continuación de la
historia fueron europeos.
Después vinieron los otros inmigrantes de Europa
de la inmigración en el siglo XIX, y los del siglo XX.
Vinieron por la legítima motivación personal de buscar
un mejor medio de vida.
También vimos los inmigrantes que vinieron escapando
por motivos políticos en su país de origen y las personas que entran al país
invitados por su capacidad en profesiones técnicas y científicas.
El alemán y el italiano fue parte de las
lenguas de los primeros inmigrantes como lo fue el inglés y después lo
fue el español de los inmigrantes de latinoamérica.
Toda esta inmigración estaba regida por las
restricciones definidas en el derecho internacional y las regulaciones
migratorias en el país. Esta es la inmigración que se fundió en el crisol
americano para constituir la nación que es los Estados Unidos.
El fenómeno de la actual inmigración es que se trata
de una inmigración impuesta sin regulaciones ni restricciones, que cruzan las
fronteras sin permiso ni orden, son personas que entran violando los derechos
establecidos universalmente para una inmigración ordenada.
La situación es clara y fácil de apreciar, la
diferencia de la actual inmigración de la ordenada inmigración del pasado es
evidente, y necesita una reforma de acuerdo con los hechos.
Si bien es verdad que no se puede deportar a todos los
que han entrado ilegalmente en el país, por su número, una reforma que incluya
antes que nada el control a las fronteras es necesaria.
Después es ejercer el derecho nacional de seleccionar
quienes tienen el derecho por su conducta durante su estancia para ser
deportados o admitidos como residentes legales.
Esta es la única solución
pragmática, sería fácil con una administración que quisiera resolver el
problema sin agendas políticas.
El problema inmigratorio no es un
problema de inmigración, es un problema socio-político de fácil solución
si se siguen los parámetros de un sistema migratorio como siempre ha existido
en todos los países del mundo desde el principio de la civilización en Grecia y
el imperio Romano.
.
Look What
Happens When You Close A ‘Good Nuclear Deal’ With A Rogue State
We all know what happened with Bill Clinton’s “good” deal.
More than 20 years
ago, on October 21, 1994, President Bill Clinton announced that the United
States had reached a Framework Agreement with North Korea on its nuclear
program. Clinton assured the American public that it was a “good deal.”
You can watch
Clinton’s statement here:
Advertisement
RELATED STORIES
“This agreement is
good for the United States, good for our allies, and good for the safety of the
entire world. It reduces the danger of the threat of nuclear spreading in the
region. It’s a crucial step toward drawing North Korea into the global
community,” Clinton said.
Sound familiar? Obama
used similar language when he announced the Framework
Agreement with Iran earlier this month.
Advertisement
TRENDING STORIES
We all know what
happened with Clinton’s “good” deal. On April 23-25, 2003, during trilateral
talks in Beijing, North Korea told the U.S. delegation that it possessed nuclear
weapons. This constituted the first time that Pyongyang made such an admission.
More than two years later, on October 9, 2006, North Koreaconducted an underground
nuclear test near the village of P’unggye.
Last night, news broke that Chinese nuclear
experts have informed their American counterparts they have increased their
estimates of North Korea’s nuclear weapons production well beyond most previous
U.S. figures. They now suggest Pyongyang can make enough warheads to threaten
regional security for the U.S. and its allies.
Wall Street Journal
reporters Jeremy Page and Jay Solomon reported that China had informed U.S.
nuclear specialists that North Korea will have 40 nuclear warheads by the end
of 2016 and potentially over 75 by the end of the decade. North Korean
engineers have apparently miniaturized them and can mount them on their KN-08 long-range missiles,
which can reach California.
The news has alarmed
U.S. lawmakers, who say that it must have implications for the current talks
with Iran about its nuclear program. Republican lawmakers said the pending deal
with Iran could mirror the 1994 nuclear agreement with North Korea.
“We saw how North
Korea was able to game this whole process,” Ed Royce, chairman of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, said in an interview. “I wouldn’t be surprised if
Iran had its hands on the same playbook.”
In fact, it goes
further than Iran having its hands on the same playbook.
In every meaningful
sense, the North Korean nuclear program is an Iranian nuclear program, albeit
beyond Iran’s territorial borders. The Iranians pay for the program. The
Iranians receive knowledge and technology from the program. The Iranians are on
hand to observe every major nuclear and missile test.
But there is more.
Take, for example,
the parallels between the deal with North Korea and the current negotiations
with Iran. The Agreed Framework with North Korea was negotiated by Wendy
Sherman, and the Iran deal is being negotiated by the same Wendy Sherman. The Agreed
Framework lasted a decade, and the Iran deal is slated to last a decade. The
agreement with North Korea relied on IAEA verification, and the Iran deal
relies on IAEA verification.
But now, the North
Koreans have a full-blown nuclear arsenal that the Americans didn’t even know
about. U.S. officials reportedly expressed surprise when they were briefed on
the Chinese information.
Defiant Iranian Statements
Meanwhile, Iran
continues to issue defiant statements about the Framework Agreement with the
six world powers and the current negotiations about a final agreement.
“Not only will we not
grant foreigners the permission to inspect our military sites, we will not even
give them permission to think about such a subject,” the Fars News Agency
quoted Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the second-in-command of the Islamic
Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), as saying on a live television broadcast last
Saturday.
“They will not even
be permitted to inspect the most normal military site in their dreams,” he
added.
He also said that a
harsh response awaits anyone who talks about such inspections.
“Visiting a military
base by a foreign inspector would mean the occupation of our land because all
our defense secrets are there. Even talking about the subject means national
humiliation,” he added.
Iran’s Supreme
Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, said that U.S. officials should “stop their silly
demands from Iran.”
Fars News reported
that Khamenei blasted the US and Europeans
and their “puppet regimes'” media hype and allegations that Iran had sought to
acquire nuclear weapons, and said: “Today, the most vital threat posed to the
world and the region is the US and the Zionist regime which meddle (with other
nations’ affairs) and kill people anywhere they deem to be necessary without
any control or commitment to conscience or religious principles.”
Ali Akbar Velayati,
Khamenei’s top adviser for international affairs, demanded again that sanctions
imposed on Iran should be immediately lifted when an agreement is signed, not
when Iran’s compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) demands
is certified.
The IAEA reported earlier that no
significant progress had been made in the talks with Iran about access for
inspectors to military sites.
During a military
parade on Army Day in Iran last Saturday, a truck carrying a massive banner
reading “Death to Israel.” was seen. A televised broadcast of the parade was
punctuated by repeated cries of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel.”
Warnings to Obama
Dr. Mahmoud
Moradkhani, an Iranian expat and a nephew of Ayatollah Khamenei, wrote an open letter to
President Obama in which he warned not to trust the Iranian regime. He told
Obama that Khamenei is lying in negotiations, practicing the Shia doctrine of
taqiyya in which it is permissible for Muslims to lie to the infidel for the
advancement of Islam, and asked the President not to pursue his nuclear deal
with the regime but to focus on Iran’s expansion policies and abysmal human
rights record. Moradkhani is the son of Sheikh Ali Teherani, who married
Khamenei’s sister.
Former U.S. Secretary
of State James Baker joined George Schultz and Henry Kissinger in demanding a
much better deal with Iran. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote that the current
Framework Agreement “needs lots of work.”
“Our P5+1 partners
should understand that if we can’t trust Iran to stick to its promises during
negotiations, we cannot trust that it won’t resume its nuclear-weapons program
after a final deal is reached.
“Only after we have
the necessary support from the P5+1 should we resume our discussions with Iran.
And then, only after the Iranians have been told in no uncertain terms that we
have reasonable specific demands they must meet. Let Iran and the world know what
those demands are. If Iran balks at such an arrangement, then it will be that
country’s fault that the talks broke down,” Baker wrote.
AMENPER: Los Clinton, Héroes de los
Dixiecrat
Es una idea generalizada que los Dixiecrat no existen, que son cosa del
pasado, pero mi experiencia personal es que todavía existen, si no los
originales, aunque michos todavía viven, al menos sus descendientes.
Creo que esta es la razón del que Hillary Clinton a pesar de que tiene una
trayectoria de corrupción política y económica, todavía está por arriba en las
encuestas.
Tengo amigos Dixiecrat de mis años de estudios en Virginia, y en Miami por
tener un hijo casado con una nuera de una familia de Dixiecrats.
El Dixiecrat no votó por Obama porque era negro, pero todavía tiene el odio
al partido Republicano por los años de la reconstrucción que todavía vive en su
cultura. Cuando votan republicano en muchas ocasiones lo hacen con
renuencia y todavía idealizan a los Clinton porque lo recuerdan con su
administración que tuvo una política doméstica moderada con una política de
compromiso con los republicanos y Gingrich cuando el “Contrato con América”
republicano que fue aceptado por Clinton..
Lo ven como que no es un liberal intransigente, pero como un Demócrata más
tradicional.
Pero Clinton hizo esto porque no le quedaba más remedio por tener los
republicanos la mayoría en aquel entonces, y sin lugar a dudas, el resbaloso
Willy, es un político más taimado que Obama.
Sin lugar a dudas, Obama hubiera vetado con su pluma alegre el
"Contrato con América".
Pero lo que no quiere reconocer es que a pesar de su moderación política
doméstica Clinton ha sido unos de los políticos más corruptos de los últimos
tiempos y que su política internacional y su conducta moral, no fue de las
mejores durante su administración. Hay que recordar que Clinton pudo
haber eliminado a Osama Bin Laden que no hubiera hecho el daño que hizo
después, y no lo hizo, y nosotros somos testigos y víctimas de su débil
reacción al ataque de los Aviones de Hermanos al Rescate. Y si no hubiera sido
por ese ataque hubiera reanudado las relaciones con Cuba que ya estaban en
proceso.
Clinton fue el segundo presidente en toda la historia de Estados
Unidos como nación en ser sometido a juicio de impugnación por mentir bajo
juramento al congreso. Fue realmente el único presidente de la
historia fue juzgado con motivos reales, ya que el otro, Andrew Jackson,
fue simplemente una víctima política de los Republicanos radicales y de
Stanton, (el Ministro de Guerra, Edwin Stanton, no Giancarlo el pelotero),
que querían una política para el sur como nación ocupada, lo cual lograron más
tarde de hecho con la llamada "reconstrucción".
Anoche ví un programa en Fox News sobre el libro “Clinton Cash” con la
participación del autor, Peter Schweizer.
Empezaron con Haití donde la “reconstrucción” de Haití que nunca se ha
realizado, que ha sido un fracaso, fue un negocio de Clinton con los
privilegios otorgado a compañías de amigotes de los Clinton que han hecho
millones en Haití. Esto recuerda a la “reconstrucción” del Sur con los
carpetbaggers.
Después nos habla el libro del escándalo en “Cash para Clinton de
Colombia"— el que involucra un partidario de la Fundación Clinton Frank
Giustra y sus intereses en Colombia: Este fue el primer caso divulgado y que
sirve de prototipo a los posteriores con los países de Medio Oriente.
Piensen los siguientes hechos, que han sido públicamente presentado y cuya
verdad no se puede disputar: (1) como candidato a la Presidencia Hillary
Clinton se opuso a un acuerdo de libre comercio con Colombia, (2) como
Secretario de estado también lo apoyó (3) en el ínterin, Frank Giustra hizo
grandes contribuciones a la Fundación Clinton y sus intereses de (4) Giustra se
benefició cuando Hillary cambió su posición y apoyó el acuerdo. Todo
esto es algo público y verdadero, no hay discución posible, no se puede negar.
Después vienen los acuerdos más recientes con los países árabes, los que
enumera en el libro, con más de 10 casos en el medio oriente, que como en
el caso de Giustra cambió su posición para apoyar a contribuyentes y a los que
le pagaron por sus discursos. Todo esto también es público y comprobable.
A todo esto además tenemos que añadirle los escándalos de los E Mails y
Bengasi.
Si la evidencia apoya cada una de estas proposiciones, entonces esto es
evidencia que Clinton cambió su posición como recompensa por las donaciones a
la Fundación o por pago a discursos por los que cobra de $500,000 a $750,000
para no decir nada de importancia, y que destruyó evidencia potencial y
que no admite verificación de la que pudiera existir.. Y muchos de
esto mientras ocupaba la Secretaría de Estado.
Sin duda, la evidencia es circunstancial, no directa. Pero tanto es decir
circunstancial, como inferencial, que es prueba común en los
litigios civiles.
No he leído el libro pero estoy esperando que lo pongan a la venta porque
parece que desnuda la reputación de los Clinton. Aún no hay
evidencia directa los hechos son palpables por inferencia, por lo menos lo que
he visto en el programa.
Cualquiera en un caso similar estuviera, al menos, como mínimo, bajo
investigación del departamento de Justicia, pero no creo que con la nueva
secretaria de Justicia la veremos esto. Aquí no ha pasado nada.
No puedo pensar que los Dixiecrat que todavía se aferran a su amor y
lealtad al partido demócrata, y su odio al partido republicano y los
independientes, ambas fracciones que son partidarios de los principios
políticos y morales tradicionales de los Estados Unidos, puedan aceptar el votar
por presidente por una persona que sería el presidente más corrupto en la
historia de Estados Unidos.
Creo que las encuestas variarán con el tiempo, creo que los Republicanos
tienen la mejor oportunidad de recuperar la Casa Blanca que han tenido en los
últimos años.
AMENPER: ¿Cuál es el
futuro del conservadurismo?
Este artículo es de
nuestra edición simposio enero, en el que 53 principales escritores y
pensadores responden a la pregunta: "¿Cuál es el futuro del
conservadurismo a raíz de las elecciones de 2012?" Haga clic aquí para
leer todo el simposio. PETER WEHNER
El futuro del
conservadurismo en Estados Unidos es brillante, ya que ofrece las mejores
perspectivas sobre la naturaleza humana, la relación entre el ciudadano y el
Estado, y la forma de lograr un orden social más justo.
Los que viajan bajo
la bandera del conservadurismo necesitan hacer algunos trabajos de reparación y
abrazar una verdadera actitud conservadora. Lo que esto significa es apreciar
la complejidad de la sociedad humana y la importancia de la experiencia humana
en la conformación de nuestro acercamiento a los desafíos contemporáneos, y
reconociendo que la política implica juicios prudenciales e imperfectos. Lo que
quiere decir que el conservadurismo es herido cuando sus adherentes lo tratan como
una ideología diamantina, que es bastante diferente de la puesta a tierra en
principios duraderos.
Un ejemplo: durante
una 2012 GOP debate de las primarias, de Fox News Bret Baier hizo una pregunta
a los ocho candidatos en el escenario. "Supongamos que tenía un acuerdo,
un acuerdo real de gasto cortes, cortes de 10 a 1 de gasto a la subida de
impuestos.?.?.?.? ¿Quién en esta etapa sería alejarse de ese acuerdo? ¿Puedes
levantar la mano si usted se siente tan fuertemente acerca de no aumentar los
impuestos, usted camina lejos en el acuerdo de 10 a 1? "
Cada uno de los ocho
candidatos levantó su mano.
Este fue, para mí,
una señal de peligro. No lo digo porque estoy a favor de impuestos más altos
(yo no). Pero habíamos llegado a un punto en el que ninguno de los candidatos a
presidente en una plataforma conservadora podría admitir a cualquier escenario
en el que él, o ella, aumentaría los impuestos, incluso si como resultado
hacerlo podría hacer retroceder el estado del bienestar moderno.
"No hay nuevos
impuestos" está bien como una meta. Sin duda, es un punto de partida
razonable en las negociaciones. Incluso puede ser el punto extremo derecho. Sin
embargo, para elevarlo a un principio inviolable-e insistir en que los
políticos toman promesas opuestas aumentos de impuestos en virtud de cualquier
y todas las circunstancias me-golpea como equivocada. La fiscalidad es siempre
un proceso de equilibrio, una que tiene que ser visto en el contexto de las
condiciones económicas específicas y otras ganancias posibles. Por ejemplo,
ningún conservador responsable sería renunciar a la reforma de Medicare (que es
el principal motor de nuestra crisis fiscal) mediante la inyección de
competencia y la elección en el sistema a cambio de impuestos ligeramente más
altas en las personas con ingresos superiores en América.
Cada movimiento
político, incluyendo el conservadurismo, se enfrenta al peligro de elevar
ciertas políticas en catecismos y no tener en cuenta las nuevas circunstancias.
Cuando eso ocurre, se pierde la capacidad de corregirnos. Conservadurismo, al
menos como yo lo entiendo, debe ser caracterizado por la apertura a las pruebas
y la búsqueda de la verdad, no el apego a una ortodoxia rígida. "Si hay
algún punto de vista político en este mundo que está libre de adhesión servil a
la abstracción", dijo Ronald Reagan en 1977, "es el conservadurismo
americano."
Lo que estoy
hablando, entonces, es un temperamento conservador, que afecta a todo, desde el
tono de la investigación intelectual para el compromiso. Que defiende los
principios de manera razonablemente flexibles que incluyen una evaluación
directa de los hechos.
Para poner las cosas
en una forma ligeramente diferente: Los conservadores necesitan reencontrarse a
sí mismos con el verdadero espíritu del conservadurismo, que es reformista,
empírica, anti-utópico, y algo modesto en sus expectativas. No tiene el
perfecto enemigo de lo bueno. No se trata opositores políticos como enemigos. Y
no es en un estado de agitación constante. Winsomeness va un largo camino en la
política.
Desde 1965, sin duda
el político conservador más importante después de que Ronald Reagan es Newt
Gingrich. Logró algunos notables, cosas impresionantes. Pero él practica un
estilo de hacer política que era muy diferente de la de Reagan. Se caracterizó
por la retórica apocalíptica e incendiario, la ira, la impaciencia, y el celo
revolucionario. Mientras que sus posiciones sobre temas eran a menudo
conservador, el temperamento y el enfoque de Gingrich no lo eran. Sin embargo,
es la Gingrich, no la de Reagan, el estilo que caracteriza a gran parte del
conservadurismo hoy. Sería mejor para el conservadurismo, y mejor para Estados
Unidos, para recuperar parte de la gracia, generosidad de espíritu, y de la
política de principio del presidente número 40 de Estados Unidos.
Peter Wehner es un alto miembro del Centro de Ética y
Política Pública que sirvió siete años en el W. Bush de la Casa Blanca de
George. Tiene un blog diario para Comentario.
English:
AMENPER:What Is the
Future of Conservatism?
This article is
from our January symposium issue, in which 53 leading writers and thinkers
answer the question: “What is the future of conservatism in the wake of the
2012 election?” Click here to read the entire symposium. PETER WEHNER
The future of conservatism in America is bright, since
it offers the best insights into human nature, the relationship between the
citizen and the state, and how to achieve a more just social order.
Those who travel under the banner of conservatism need
to do some repair work and embrace a genuine conservative disposition. What
that means is appreciating the complexity of human society and the importance
of human experience in shaping our approach to contemporary challenges, and
recognizing that politics involves prudential and imperfect judgments. Which is
to say that conservatism is hurt when its adherents treat it as an adamantine
ideology, which is quite different from grounding it in enduring principles.
An example: During a 2012 GOP primary debate, Fox
News’s Bret Baier posed a question to the eight candidates on the stage. “Say
you had a deal, a real spending-cuts deal, 10-to-1 spending cuts to tax
increases.?.?.?.?Who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Can you
raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes, you’d walk away
on the 10-to-1 deal?”
Each of the eight candidates raised his or her hand.
This was, to me, a danger sign. I say that not because
I favor higher taxes (I don’t). But we had reached a point where none of those
running for president on a conservative platform could admit to any scenario in
which he, or she, would raise taxes, even if as a result doing so might roll
back the modern welfare state.
“No new taxes” is fine as a goal. It is certainly a
reasonable starting point in negotiations. It may even be the right end point.
But to elevate it to an inviolate principle–and to insist that politicians take
pledges opposing tax increases under any and all circumstances–strikes me as
misguided. Taxation is always a balancing process, one that needs to be seen in
the context of specific economic conditions and other possible gains. For
example, no responsible conservative would forgo reforming Medicare (which is
the main driver of our fiscal crisis) by injecting competition and choice into
the system in exchange for slightly higher taxes on the top income earners in
America.
Every political movement, including conservatism,
faces the danger of elevating certain policies into catechisms and failing to
take into account new circumstances. When that occurs, we lose the capacity to
correct ourselves. Conservatism, at least as I understand it, ought to be
characterized by openness to evidence and a search for truth, not attachment to
a rigid orthodoxy. “If there is any political viewpoint in this world which is
free from slavish adherence to abstraction,” Ronald Reagan said in 1977, “it is
American conservatism.”
What I’m talking about, then, is a conservative
temperament, which affects everything from tone to intellectual inquiry to
compromise. It champions principles in reasonably flexible ways that include a
straightforward evaluation of facts.
To put things in a slightly different way:
Conservatives need to reacquaint themselves with the true spirit of
conservatism, which is reform-minded, empirical, anti-utopian, and somewhat
modest in its expectations. It doesn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.
It doesn’t treat political opponents as enemies. And it isn’t in a state of
constant agitation. Winsomeness goes a long way in politics.
Since 1965, arguably the most important conservative
politician after Ronald Reagan is Newt Gingrich. He achieved some remarkable,
impressive things. But he practiced a style of politics that was quite
different from Reagan’s. It was characterized by apocalyptic and incendiary
rhetoric, anger, impatience, and revolutionary zeal. While his positions on
issues were often conservative, Gingrich’s temperament and approach were not.
Yet it is the Gingrich, not the Reagan, style that characterizes much of
conservatism today. It would be better for conservatism, and better for
America, to recapture some of the grace, generosity of spirit, and principled
politics of America’s 40th president.
Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center who
served seven years in the George W. Bush White House. He blogs daily for
Commentary.
Gatria: NO
CULPEMOS A OBAMA DE TODO, OBAMA SOLO NADA PODRIA HACER, CULPA ES TAMBIEN
DE LOS QUE LO RESPALDAN, AQUI VERAN LOS NOMBRES DE 10 SENADORES REPUBLICANOS
QUE BRINCARON LA LINEA PARA UNIRSE A OBAMA Y A ERIC HOLDER.
RELATED STORIES
Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor
of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend
the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.
As Western Journalism
reported, the Senate approved
Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and
supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan
Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah),
Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader
Mitch McConnell (Ky… “EMO” Entre
ellos tambien salto la cerca Jeb Bush… LRGM.
Wall Street Journal on Barack Obama.
|
Wall Street Journal Names Barack Obama As The Most
Unprepared Man of the...
This is not a ‘hate piece’, but it IS a brutally frank article from the
Wall Street Journal.
Please read and share. It looks longer than it is. It’s a
quick read.
Wall Street
A "deadly" article regarding Obama, at the Wall Street Journal, which today is the most widely circulated newspaper in America.
Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Alan
Caruba:
"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think
he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were
opened because at some point early on somebody or some group (George Soros,
maybe? or Frank Marshall Davis??) took a look at this tall, good looking,
half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and
concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile
speaking skills could even put him in the White House.
In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very
big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45?
"Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years
old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did
write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill
Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c' was the real
author.
His political skills consisted of rarely voting on
anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the
Illinois House to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune
of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.
He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for
the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some
greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the
Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at
the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had
ever even heard of him before?
He out maneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He
took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very
small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture
was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of
volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.
And then he had the great good fortune of having the
Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since
Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an
unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket
that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they
went down to defeat.
The mainstream political media fell in love with him.
It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning
then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular,
Palin, was extraordinary.
Now, 6 full years into his presidency, all of those
gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be
President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong
thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver
even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.
Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to
"wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the
Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of
history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of
Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain.
The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his
campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the
slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad
people with really bad intentions. Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his
political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat
Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the
Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from
family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and
colleagues.
Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about
a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard
professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to
conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu
Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded
this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to
have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.
He is a man who could strive to close down our
detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have
returned to the battlefield against America. He could even instruct his
Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one
else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait
three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another
terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the
following day because his first statement was so lame.
The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any
problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.
Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama
exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have
maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.
When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth
certificate, this man spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most
other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been
sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts
remain hidden.
Even his wife has mentioned they visited the country
of his birth, Kenya. You did note she did not accompany him on the trip to
Saudi Arabia on which he actually bowed to the king. Being a muslim required
him to do so and that same faith prevented him from taking her with him .
"
We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you
do when the dummy is President of the United States.
We the people are coming!
Only 86% will send this on. Should be a 100%.
Please send it on if only to one person.
ALLEN WEST:
Obama’s Shocking Admission of US Hostage Killed in Pakistan Reveals Far Greater
Scandal
Run, Obama. Allen
West is coming after you!
Back during the
Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was directing bombing strikes from the
White House. For those who understand the three levels of warfare — strategic,
operational, and tactical — you realize this is a complete violation of
principles of warfare. Now, I have no issue with the utilization of drones as a
means to attack Islamic terrorists.
However, this is a
weapon system best employed by the theater operational commander who has
intelligence cognizance — not approved at the strategic level, especially as
directed from the White House. What could be the unintended consequences of
such action?
Deadly.
As reported by USA Today, “President Obama
expressed “grief and condolences” Thursday for a January drone strike against
suspected terrorists in Pakistan that accidentally killed two hostages,
including an American aid worker. Obama said he took full responsibility for
the operation and apologized to the families of the hostages. “I profoundly
regret what happened,” he said. The two Western hostages — one American, one
Italian — were killed during a drone strike that targeted members of al-Qaida,
the White House said. They were Warren Weinstein, 73, an aid worker from
Maryland who was a contractor for the U.S. Agency for International
Development, and Giovanni Lo Porto, 39, an Italian citizen working for a German
aid agency. Both were kidnapped by al-Qaida in Pakistan — Weinstein in 2011 and
Lo Porto in 2012. The White House said the counterterrorism operation, and
another this year in the same region, also killed two other Americans believed
to be working with al-Qaida. In an extraordinary eight-minute statement to
reporters, a solemn Obama halted at points during his brief remarks, looking
down at notes. “I cannot begin to imagine the anguish that the Weinstein and Lo
Porto families are enduring today,” he said.”
The first issue has to be, why is the family just now finding out about
this fratricide by drone strike, which occurred in January? I thought this was
supposed to be the most transparent administration in American history.
Of course there will
be those who challenge the use of drones to target Americans – a la Anwar
al-Awlaki who was killed along with his son in Yemen. It is imperative that we
establish a policy addressing Americans who depart these shores and take up
arms or propagandize against America supporting Islamic terrorists and
jihadists. I assert that any American who leaves this country to do such and is
engaged in operations against America on this battlefield, abdicates his
citizenship and should be seen as an enemy. But, without a clear designation of
this current conflagration — war on terror is a horrific misnomer — we are
operating in murky waters. We need a definitive rule of engagement for these
circumstances.
The two Americans
killed supporting al-Qaida were Ahmed Farouq, an American who was an al-Qaida
leader, and Adam Gadahn, who was also killed in a separate operation in
January. Earnest said Gadahn was not the specific target of that strike.
President Obama
stated, “It is a cruel and bitter truth that in the fog of war generally, and
our fight against terrorism specifically, that mistakes, and sometimes deadly
mistakes, can occur”.
I understand Clausewitz’s “Fog of War” but I also realize that something
went terribly wrong in the decision-making authorizing this strike.
“The site of the
attack had been under surveillance for hundreds of hours, and that surveillance
was “near-continuous” in the days just before the attack, White House Press
Secretary Josh Earnest said. The spying used a variety of methods, including
drone imagery, and discovered a known al-Qaida operative driving into the
compound, said U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity. Based on that
intelligence, Earnest said, intelligence analysts concluded with “near
certainty” that al-Qaida leaders were present and that civilians were not.”
ARMANDO LOPEZ-CALLEJAS” EXPULSADA
POR ESPIA Y AHORA BIENVENIDA.
POCA MADRE TIENEN LOS QUE AUTORIZAN.
"CACHITA
O FINITA"
JOSEFINA
DE LA CARIDAD VIDAL FERREIRO:
PROXIMA
EMBAJADORA DE CUBA EN LOS EEUU.
Recuerden
bien, en Cuba Comunista todo se planifica, absolutamente todo. Todo
esta sujeto a un plan. Fuimos testigos de la infamia, de
honrar y glorificar a los asesinos recien liberados, el mismo
dia del crimen imperdonable, del asesinato de nuestros "Hermanos
al Rescate" un 24 de Febrero. Dia
inolvidable para los cubanos. No hay casualidades asi actuan.
Pronto
veremos, la designacion de Josefina Vidal Ferreiro como Embajadora en EEUU,
donde mismo fue "expulsada"
por actividades ajenas ["espionaje"] a sus actividades
como 1er Secretaria de la Seccion de Intereses de Cuba en
EEUU.
LA
REVANCHA
Solo
falta por ver si el Departamento de Estado DE LOS EE.UU le da el "agreement" a
esta connotada y reconocida espia cubana.
Y
mas aun, la violenta represion desatada el 24 de febrero [en toda Cuba] a
pacificos disidentes, como
mensaje de que todo sigue igual. Dicen que esta orden vino directa del
Infierno, donde se encuentra de visita el Tirano Mayor preparando su pronta
estancia por esos lares.
Y
RECUERDEN BIEN: LA MUERTE DEL TIRANO MAYOR, TAMBIEN ESTA
PLANIFICADA.
NO TENGAN DUDAS.
PERO... QUIEN
ES REALMENTE JOSEFINA VIDAL FERREIRO?
Brevemente:
· Josefina nació
el 18 de febrero de 1961.
· Tiene 54
anos.
· Domina
perfectamente el Español, Ruso, Francés y por supuesto el Inglés.
· ¡Una obra de
los comunistas!
· En su juventud
era "Cachita", cuadro de la Juventud Comunista, muy
activa.
· En 1979: con
solo 18 años, (gracias a su padre, viejo cuadro del Partido Socialista
Popular), fue fue enviada a Moscú a estudiar al Instituto de
Relaciones Exteriores de la KGB.
· En 1984:
se graduó con honores.
· Aprendio el
Francés y fue entrenada para luchar contra Francia.
· Durante su
estancia en Moscú, presto servicio como "pirobochi" [traductora]
de las delegaciones de alto nivel de Cuba que visitaban oficialmente
Moscú.
· Ademas
era "informante" para la
Inteligencia cubana.
· Aquí dejo de
ser "Cachita" y se convirtió en "Finita".
· En 1984: es
designada Funcionaria de Inteligencia de la Embajada de Cuba en Francia.
· Se casa con
Anselmito, un funcionario de bajo perfil en la Inteligencia.
· Cuando los
sucesos del narcotrafico, el fusilamiento de Ochoa y Tony la Guardia, se
produce una "limpieza total" en la Dirección General
de Inteligencia (DGI).
· De 1,800
Agentes que son "botados", cerca de 600 (incluso el
Coronel Funes, Jefe de Finita) es expulsado.
· La mayor
limpieza se realiza en la dirección de Norte America,
· Su jefe un
exprimentado oficial, Homero Saker Shaffic [Rolo], es sustituido y
enviado como Custodio a la TV del programa "La Mesa Redonda".
· Finita es
reasignada a la Dirección Norteamerica.
· Comienza una
meteorica carrera como Analista Senior.
· En 1999: es
designada 1er Secretaria de la Sección de Intereses de Cuba en Washington,
D.C., hasta 2003 que fue expulsada.
· Ya tiene acceso
directo a Fidel Castro.
· En el 2011:
alcanza su consagración cuando es electa miembro del Comite Central del
Partido Comunista.
· Ya es un cuadro
del primer nivel de dirección del gobierno.
· Goza de todos
los privelegios de la Nomenclatura.
· Sólo nos falta
ver como sigue la película.
· Cachita, o
Finita, como quieran llamarle... es una fiera, ¡corta con la respiracion!
· ¡Ya sabe
Roberta Jacobson con quien tiene que batirse!
Could MSNBC Bite The Dust Because Of The
Proposed Big-Money Mega-Merger That Just Collapsed?
Is it sign-off time
for Sharpton, Maddow, Matthews, and Schultz?
With its
ratings in a virtual death spiral and its position among cable news networks
diminishing by the day, MSNBC could be facing a very bleak future, if not an
outright existential crisis. That’s because its parent, Comcast, just pulled
the plug on a proposed merger with Time Warner Cable. So says the digital
managing editor for the Washington
Free Beacon, Andrew Stiles, in his analysis of the proposed
big-money media marriage that never made it to the altar.
In an
editor’s blog entitled “MSNBC’s Future In Doubt After Failed Comcast Merger,”
Stiles notes that “the network’s future was in doubt long before the merger
fell apart.” However, now that the telecom giants have abandoned their
expensive effort to grease the Washington skids to try to win official
approval of their plan to combine forces, Comcast may be compelled to
take a long, hard look at the viability of the far-left news net that
viewers are abandoning in droves.
Advertisement
RELATED STORIES
Politico reports that Time Warner Cable and Comcast
— which not long ago bought a controlling interest in NBCUniversal from General
Electric — pumped tens of millions of dollars, reportedly more than $32 million, into
lobbying firms and other means of regulatory influence to persuade the
powers that be to bless the $45 billion merger. It was, as Politico notes, a
strategy that had worked in the past.
“Comcast
and its Washington chief, David Cohen, followed the company’s tried-and-true
playbook, hoping free-flowing campaign donations and a ground assault could
quiet congressional critics and win over the Federal Communications Commission
and Justice Department — much as it had in 2011, when it bought NBCUniversal.
Instead, opponents are hailing Comcast’s failed strategy as a welcome sign that
money can’t buy everything in Washington.”
Regarding
that Comcast acquisition of control in NBCUniversal, Western
Journalism published
a post in December of last year detailing how Al Sharpton got his show on MSNBC
after he helped to promote the deal among his political connections, including
some in the White House. With virtually no professional TV broadcast
experience, but with links to power and a no-holds-barred loyalty to
Barack Obama and the Democrats, Sharpton was chosen to anchor Politics Nation. And
despite a well publicized string of goofs and gaffes and controversies over his
outside activism, Reverend Al survives in the anchor chair.
Clinton
Foundation Caught Straight-Up Lying To New York Times Reporter
Seems that everything they say is a lie. How does one keep all the lies
straight?
Check it out:
Check it out:
In
a preview of Fox News’ upcoming special on the allegations that Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton traded political favors for donations to the Clinton
Foundation, The New York Times reporter Jo Becker revealed that the Clintons
straight-up lied to her about whether Bill Clinton had attended a key meeting.
One of the revelations in the Times piece is that Bill Clinton played a
key role in the insuring acquisition of key uranium mines from the Kazakh
state-owned uranium mining company Kazatomprom to Canadian millionaire Frank
Giustra. After the transaction, Giustra gave over $30 million to the Clinton
Foundation.
But
when Becker asked for details about a meeting between the three men, the
Clintons denied it ever happened. “When I first contacted both the Clinton
Foundation, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman and Mr. Giustra they denied any such
meeting ever took place,” she told Fox News.
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/04/clinton-foundation-caught-straight-up-lying-to-new-york-times-reporter/
Michelle Obama
Freezes When Asked A Question Every Married Woman Should Be Able To Answer
She stammered before
asking her aides for the answer.
Addressing a group of
parents and children at the White House Wednesday, Michelle Obama discussed a number of issues
central to her ideology. She talked about the importance of eating vegetables
and assured kids in the audience that the government is “taking care” of their
parents.
Though her remarks
might have otherwise been considered inconsequential, it was during a
question-and-answer period that the first lady’s gaffes began.
Fox’s Hannity Expertly Shuts Down Muslim
Guest Trying To Control The Conversation
"I'm allowed to ask any questions I want."
In a recent on-air conversation with Islamic leader
Hassan Shibly, Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity sought details about the case of a young American
woman, Hoda Muthana, who left her family last year to join forces with ISIS.
Shibly, who heads the Council on American Islamic Relations in Florida,
explained that his organization is advocating on behalf of Muthana’s family and
shared his thoughts on the story.
“Words can’t describe
the utter shock and trauma and horror that the family is facing,” he said, “and
the pain and anguish they’re facing at having lost their daughter to
brainwashing and recruitment by this terrible extremist violent gang of
monsters, really.”
RELATED STORIES
Hannity wondered why
CAIR, which he described as a “controversial group,” would be involved. This
prompted Shibly to accuse the host of changing the subject.
“I’ll ask any
question I want,” Hannity shot back, “this is my show. But you are a
controversial group.”
Shibly ultimately
answered the question. “The reason we’re involved is because we have
been working in that community for a long time; and her father actually
attended a lecture I gave to counter extremists and to delegitimize ISIS,” he
stated. “So, when he heard I gave a lecture at his mosque delegitimizing ISIS
and condemning that terrorist organization, he reached out to me when Hoda
first left; and the first thing I told him is, ‘We have to contact authorities
and we have to do the best we can to make sure no other child is lost in the
way your daughter was lost.’”
Hannity then pivoted
to another topic, asking Shibly if he believes Hamas is a terrorist
organization. After some back-and-forth between the two men, the guest
ultimately conceded that the group is classified as a terrorist organization by
the U.S. State Department.
He then attempted to
castigate Hannity, though, for daring to ask such a question.
“Shame on you for
asking every Muslim what he thinks of terrorist organizations,” he responded.
“No shame on me,”
Hannity said. “I’m allowed to ask any questions I want.”
Though it was fairly
clear Shibly had more he wanted to say, Hannity opted to move on, cutting that
interview off and introducing his next guest.
Conozcamos los Republicanos por Obama.
Gatria@aol.com
NO CULPEMOS A OBAMA DE
TODO, OBAMA SOLO NADA PODRIA HACER, CULPA ES TAMBIEN DE LOS QUE LO
RESPALDAN, AQUI VERAN LOS NOMBRES DE 10 SENADORES REPUBLICANOS QUE BRINCARON LA
LINEA PARA UNIRSE A OBAMA Y A ERIC HOLDER.
RELATED STORIES
Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor
of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend
the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.
As Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans
disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.),
Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham
(S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman
(Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment