No 963 “En mi opinión” Mayo 30, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR
“En mi opinión” "Cuando
adviertas que para producir necesitas obtener autorización de quienes no
producen nada; cuando compruebes que el dinero fluye hacia quienes no trafican
con bienes sino con favores; cuando percibas que muchos se hacen ricos por el
soborno y por influencias más que por su trabajo, y que las leyes no te
protegen contra ellos sino, por el contrario, son ellos los que están
protegidos contra tí; cuando descubras que la corrupción es recompensada y la
honradez se convierte en un auto-sacrificio, entonces podrás afirmar, sin temor
a equivocarte, que tu sociedad está condenada."
AYN RAND (1950)
|
AMENPER: Oficina de Correos, ejemplo de socialismo
del Siglo XXI
El libre comercio es el corazón de la economía de
mercado que ha hecho de Estados Unidos la vitrina del mundo cómo una economía
para el bien de todos sus ciudadanos.
Si podemos tomar un ejemplo entre las variaciones de
los diferentes ensayos de sistemas que han tratado de suplantar al libre
mercado, el mejor ejemplo del híbrido del socialismo del siglo XXI con su
ensayo de capitalismo de amiguismo, es la oficina de correos de Estados Unidos.
Durante los últimos años hemos visto cómo la gestión
ineficaz y el servicio deficiente del Servicio Postal de los Estados Unidos han
perdido sus clientes a UPS y FedEx aumentando sus problemas fiscales.
El Servicio Postal estatal espera perder tanto como $
288,5 millones este año a causa de "servicio al cliente menos que
satisfactorios", la oficina del inspector general de la USPS escribió en
su informe semestral al Congreso esta semana.
En total, los investigadores encontraron $ 1,4
billones en fondos que podrían ponerse a un mejor uso y $ 7,5 millones en
costos cuestionados en los últimos seis meses.
El USPS insiste en no anular gastos superfluos en una
agencia ya enterrada en deuda, esta empresa híbrida es un ejemplo de
desperdicio, fraude y abuso a expensas del contribuyente.
Expertos están preocupados de que si el correo estatal
no puede cambiar su situación financiera, los contribuyentes estarán
enganchados para seguir pagando por las deudas millonarias del Servicio Postal.
Esto es lo que siempre pasa en este ensayo
del híbrido de empresa “privada” con mantenimiento estatal, en algún lugar
abajo de la línea todo esto se convierte en problema de los contribuyentes por
mal servicio y rescate a la empresa con el dinero de sus impuestos .
Cualquier organización realmente privada y
responsable, estaría haciendo los cambios necesarios para mantener
su existencia, pero el Servicio Postal no tiene responsabilidad por lo que
hace, y cuáles son las consecuencias para el fracaso
Tarde o temprano alguien tiene que rescatarlos, y
quienes mejor que el papá gobierno, léase los contribuyentes.
Los analistas dicen que la principal razón del fracaso
del USPS es que no tiene que competir con otros clientes de correo,
gracias al Gobierno, que impone el monopolio legal de correo de primera clase y
correo estándar. La economía de mercado se basa en la competencia,
si no puede competir tiene que desaparecer como empresa, por eso lucha por su
supervivencia. Cuando sabe que los fondos perdidos serán llenados
por sumas del estado, pierde el incentivo de la competencia.
El USPS no tiene ningún incentivo financiero para
hacerlo mejor porque no sufren pérdidas como resultado de la competencia y
puede confiar en el gobierno para obtener ayuda.
Todos sufrimos por la ineficiencia del correo, para el
público en general por la contrariedad de la demora de las entregas de sus
cartas. Pero a los que más afecta esta demora es a los pequeños
empresarios que luchan para su supervivencia y dependen de los cheques de pago
de sus clientes que muchas veces demoran semanas en llegar descansando en los
cuartos burocráticos de las oficinas de correos.
Los métodos alternativos como giros bancarios y
agencias privadas cómo UPS, Fedex y otros están llenando este vacío, si el USPS
fuera una empresa privada, ya hubiera declarado bancarrota, y sería la solución
para todos. Compañías privadas compitiendo entre sí suplantarían
completamente el desacreditado sistema postal, y los contribuyentes no estarían
sufriendo pagando por esta oficina parasitaria. Pero esto no es una
solución políticamente correcta para los proponentes de la economía estatal del
socialismo del siglo XXI.
AMENPER: Miami Marlins ¿Ivy League? ¿Major League?
Ivy League, se trata de un término colegial americano utilizado en libros,
películas y televisión.
Como en Estados Unidos, sólo un selecto grupo Universidades forman parte de
esa élite. El término "Ivy League" es apropiado para
describir la excelencia académica; haciendo referencia a los procesos de
admisión altamente selectivos, popular, asociados con la élite social.
Las Universidades Ivy League son altamente selectivas, también son muy
costosas asistir, con tasas promedio de $40.000 al año.
No podemos entonces culpar a los padres por querer que sus hijos asistan a
esas universidades y hacen sacrificios personales para poder pagar los costos
que esto infiere.
Pero vamos a suponer que usted logra hacer este sacrificio y cuando su hijo
o hija comienza en la universidad, le asignan un profesor de escuela secundaria
para que sea su maestro, seguro que tiene razón y motivos suficientes para
protestar.
Esto es lo que nos ha pasado a los fanáticos de los Marlins, nos prometen
un equipo de Major League con categoría de Ivy League, nos han hecho
pagar por un estadio millonario de lo que pudiéramos sentirnos
orgullosos, nos vendieron la idea de un equipo ganador, y después nos ponen a
un manager que nunca ha jugado en un equipo profesional y cuya experiencia como
director se limita a un año en un equipo de escuela secundaria
Nos han hecho pagar una matrícula de Ivy League, hemos pagado por un
edificio de Ivy League, y nos han dado un equipo de la calidad de una escuela
primaria de Liberty City. Compramos una liga de Ivy y nos han dado
un equipo con una liga de substancias excrementicias y un logo sugestivamente
marica..
AMENPER: Seis
años de Obama y quedan Dos.
Hoy recibimos la noticia de que Cuba no es un país terrorista según la
administración de Obama.
Esto como noticia nacional no ha sido recibido con la importancia que nos
atañe a nosotros los cubanos, pero ha sido recibido sin lugar a dudas por
muchos como un paso más del entreguismo del legado de Obama.
Ha habido presidentes cómo Clinton y Carter que habían jugado con la idea
de reanudar las relaciones con Cuba, y vimos como Nixon reanudó las relaciones
con China, pero fueron políticas aisladas.
En el caso de Obama el número de estas acciones han sido numerosas y
variadas. La Presidencia de Obama ha sido de un carácter diferente a éstos
antecesores – ha alterado profundamente la relación entre estado y sociedad en
América, así como la estructura de la economía estadounidense y su
posicionamiento geopolítico. Los efectos de estas intervenciones se sentirán
durante muchas generaciones.
¿Cómo juzgamos a una Presidencia? Lo hacemos mejor si comenzamos mirando lo
que es que un presidente puede hacer, y cual es la visión de su mandato como
presidente.
La visión de Obama, es que el Presidente es Supremo, y que puede
usar el poder a su antojo, domésticamente y en particular la política exterior
y política de defensa a través de su rol como comandante en jefe.
La Presidencia dice tener el apoyo del público, esto es lo que nos trata de
decir la prensa tramitada, pero la administración de Obama realmente no lo ha
logrado. Desde 2009 hasta la actualidad, las cifras encuestadoras de Obama han
sido muy consistentes – menos el 80% de los demócratas aprueba lo que hace; por
lo menos el 90% de los republicanos e independientes desaprueban. Esto es
irregular en el contexto más amplio de una Presidencia
estadounidense, sugiere que un presidente que es incapaz o reacio a
buscar posiciones de compromiso fuera de sus dogmas e incapaz de comunicar el
fundamento para sus ideas de una manera que sea comprensible más allá de la
base del núcleo de su administración, no es realmente un presidente popular.
El tema constante de toda rendición de cuentas y de información
privilegiada de la Presidencia de Obama ha sido su combinación de arrogancia
intelectual y sentido mesiánico del destino de su presidencia.
Existen numerosos ejemplos de esta incapacidad al consenso de su modo de
acción:
El cierre del techo de la deuda gobierno (completo con lo que lo confinó en
una presentación malévola en que los republicanos se presentarían como
responsables de cualquier muerte asociada), la debacle de la intervención de
Siria, los cinco años pasados en un paquete de asistencia sanitaria, el
Obamacare, que parecía imposible de modificar, y estos son sólo tres casos para
empezar..
Siria es, de hecho, un buen ejemplo del cambio en el enfoque bajo el señor
Obama.
Para bien o mal, las intervenciones de Bush en Afganistán e Irak sólo
vinieron sobre por el esfuerzo que lo hizo captar el apoyo doméstico de
prominentes demócratas y también a nivel internacional.
Vimos el fracaso de Obama para garantizar una coalición nacional y vimos el
fracaso con las relaciones con el Reino Unido para tirar el que a
través de los años había sido un socio automático en tiempo de guerra
Los Estados Unidos, abandonaron países aliados humillándolos con
un esfuerzo diplomático ruso que comenzó como una trama de negociaciones entre
revoltosos y descarados y se intensificó en la respuesta internacional de Rusia
que terminó con la ocupación de Crimea y la guerra civil en Ucrania.
El efecto que ha tenido en la política presidencial es abyecto. Sin la
capacidad para construir puentes, señor Obama siempre era probable que girara
entre el triunfo y el desastre sin la influencia moderadora del escrutinio
razonable. Así lo ha demostrado. Porque las reformas de la administración Obama
carecen de una base pensada en común , o incluso un reconocimiento de las
preocupaciones más amplias, que son por definición más extrema y perjudicial
para los patrones existentes de la vida cívica estadounidense, distinto a lo
que veíamos en las reformas de los gobiernos anteriores.
Cuando un presidente está limitado en gran medida por su incapacidad de
hacer tratos con otros titulares usando su voto de veto en política exterior y
doméstica lo que realmente vemos es el reinado de un emperador, un comandante
en jefe, jefe de estado y negociador de los Estados Unidos con el mundo. Podría
decirse que es en la política exterior donde generalmente veíamos anteriormente
a los presidentes más restringidos más preocupados por sus limitaciones de la
división de poderes.
La política exterior de Obama siempre ha sido revolucionaria... Su
estrategia de "Pivote" cambió el foco de atención de Estados Unidos
desde el Atlántico al Pacífico, hasta el Medo Oriente, produciendo todo tipo de
consecuencias no deseables. La teoría detrás de este cambio de enfoque tiene
sentido en los términos de estilo de campaña de Obama. En busca de posicionarse
como el candidato de cambio en su primera victoria en las elecciones, Obama
tomó el manto de los “progresivos” con visión de futuro. Abandonando Europa
para Asia mostró que estaba teniendo en cuenta el futuro del continente como
contraparte económica importante de los Estados Unidos
En realidad, la ejecución y el efecto de esta política han dejado mucho que
desear.
Lejos de ser felicitado, China se ha sentido incómoda por el creciente
interés de Estados Unidos en la región, mientras que una mayor participación de
Obama en la región, se puede enredar pronto en cuanto a la disputa escalada
entre China, Japón y Taiwán sobre las Islas Senkaku
Obama ha sacrificado por estas políticas que considera su legado las
alianzas más confiables de los Estados Unidos e Israel. El entusiasmo con el
que se ha propuesto por alienar a Gran Bretaña e Israel ha tenido
consecuencias. Por alienar deliberadamente de los Estados Unidos a sus más
consistentes y leales aliados, Obama se ha puesto contra la pared.
El enfoque de Obama en Oriente Medio y África del norte significa que su
Alianza China es en gran parte inútil. No sólo no están interesados en estas
regiones los chinos, pero carecen de la red logística a implicarse incluso si
ellos desearan. A menudo la influencia real es de Rusia, siempre
implacable contra objetivos estadounidenses en la región que percibe como
fuentes de energía y las antiguas potencias coloniales de Gran Bretaña y Francia
ahora no le ayudarán. Los británicos, cansados de ser tratados con desprecio,
votaron contra los ataques militares a Siria en las Naciones Unidas. Como tal,
Siria está cerrada efectivamente a Estados Unidos, ya que, sin una alianza
digna de ese nombre, está perdida Siria y toda la región sin ningún beneficio
correspondiente, Obama ha destripado la influencia global de Estados
Unidos.
Patrones similares aparecen en otros lugares. La Alianza de Israel, de
nuevo, uno de los aliados más fuertes en la era pre-Obama de los Estados
Unidos, se ha debilitado por un acuerdo con Irán sobre el enriquecimiento
nuclear una asociación que se ha traducido en una carnicería en Afganistán e
Irak.
Es difícil ver el imperativo estratégico en preferir un enemigo a un
amigo, y América aparece disminuida como resultado.
Así que ¿dónde esto nos deja el legado de Obama, si analizamos el legado
doméstico y las escenas internacionales? La respuesta es que
estamos en un lugar significativamente peor que en 2008.
El legado del señor Obama será difícil deshacer. Es un legado de
faccionalismo y discordia en el hogar, de infidelidad y debilidad en el
extranjero.
América está más débil y más dividida que en cualquier punto de su
historia, su mandato no funciona en las porciones semi-civilizadas del mundo
que necesitan ayuda estadounidense y la intervención americana en caso
necesario. Estados Unidos nunca actuará con una sola voz el legado es muy
venenoso para eso.
¿Un presidente transformador? Nos lo podemos jugar al Canelo que lo es,
pero dudo que el legado transformador de Obama es el cambio que prometió y que
algunos en América estaban esperando.
AMENPER: La Dictadura del Ateísmo
Cuando la semana pasada Marco Rubio habló de cómo la
creencia cristiana estaba siendo atacada como un mensaje de oído, lo cual
pudiera ser el camino para la abolición de los libros relativos a estas
creencias y la represión de las personas que las expresaran, esto no se debiera
tomar solamente en referencia al cristianismo por sí, pero a la libertad de una
creencia religiosa.
Lo implícito en las palabras de Marco, es que se está
formando una dictadura intelectual que sólo acepta el ateísmo. Si no
eres ateo, eres ignorante y lleno de odio a los demás.
Lo curioso es que el ateísmo representa una fracción mínima
de la población. Estudios sobre la demografía del ateísmo han
concluido que los que se identifican
como ateos comprenden en cualquier lugar del 2% al 8% de
la población mundial. Los ateos se defienden diciendo que muchos de los que se
llaman religiosos tienen sus dudas sobres sus creencias y que estos estudios
dicen que los individuos irreligiosos representan un 10% mayor al
20%. Pero es que el punto de vista de los ateos y de estos estudios
de lo que están hablando de religiosidad institucional, y lo que tenemos que
mirar es la creencia espiritual. Si nos referimos a las personas que
piensan que tenemos un espíritu inmortal aparte de nuestro cuerpo físico, los
números son aún mayores del 98%, ya que no solo los religiosos tradicionales
pero los espiritistas, los santeros, los que creen en la astrología o cualquier
creencia que acepta a un ser supremo y un espíritu como parte del individuo, no
es un ateo.
Y lo más interesante es que muchos de los ateos
también tienen sus dudas sobre su materialismo.
Estudios globales han indicado que el
ateísmo Mundial puede estar en declive después de la desaparición de la Unión
Soviética, debido a que en los países irreligiosos por política bajo el
comunismo todavía existente como en China tienen las tasas de natalidad
más bajas del mundo por estar controladas por el gobierno totalitario, y países
que aceptan la libertad de religión tienen más altas tasas de
natalidad en general
Si llevamos esto a números, lo que Marco Rubio estaba
diciendo es que podemos caer bajo una dictadura que representa a menos del 1%
de la población de los Estados Unidos y del resto del globo.
El problema es que este 1% es políticamente
militantemente efectivo y no pierde oportunidad para atacar y ridiculizar a
todo lo que no sea ateísmo, porque el ateísmo se quiere convertir en una
dictadura teocrática, en que la nueva religión del estado sea el ateísmo.
Para establecer una dictadura hay que crear una base
que sustente una filosofía que por lo general es sofista, parece ser una
realidad razonada, cuando por lo general es una mentira inventada para lograr
el objetivo final.
Pero si analizan las filosofías modernas que se están
apartando de lo espiritual para caer en el más profundo materialismo ateo desde
los tiempos del difunto imperio Soviético, el alerta de Marco Rubio, no debe de
caer en el vacío, sea cual sea nuestra afinidad política o nuestra creencia
espiritual.
Pepe Cansío Sr.
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
pacificosdisidentes, como mensaje de que todo sigue igual. Dicen que esta
orden vino directadel 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.
AMENPER:
Hablando de Circuncisión
Me gusta leer y compartir las noticias. Hay veces que los temas
son un poco engorrosos en compañía mixta, pero si es noticia hay que comentarla
y si la noticia se trata de algo con relación al pene, pues hay que hablar
sobre el pene.
La extirpación del prepucio del pene, la circuncisión, está en las noticias
otra vez porque dos padres en Florida están en desacuerdo sobre si se debe
realizar el procedimiento en su hijo. Lo lo que puedo decir que pienso al
respecto, es que creo que lo que esto es en realidad es una guerra de poder y
la verdadera cuestión es cuánto mamá y papá absolutamente y completamente se
odian, no es cuestión realmente del pene del pobre muchacho.
Pero mucha gente se pone nerviosa acerca de la circuncisión una vez más
cuando lee noticias como esta, sobre todo en los círculos
judíos. Una cosa es la circuncisión por un cirujano, otra es la que
se hace por un viejo rabino al que le puede temblar la mano y cortar
de más.
El pene no es un copo de nieve perfecto, especial. Existen normas objetivas
de belleza para los hombres, así como hay para las mujeres con sus tetas.
Su cuidado debe ser para la edificación y disfrute de sus parejas
femeninas, sin mencionar la calidad del sexo oral que obtendrá a lo largo de su
vida. Bill Clinton podría ilustrarnos sobre esto, pero sus discursos son muy
caros y mejor no le pedimos consejo, aunque estoy seguro que nos
recomendaría que todas las personas debieran circuncidarse. Si no lo
hicieron a tiempo deben hacerlo a sus hijos recién nacidos, tan temprano en sus
vidas como sea posible.
Pero ahora algunos nos salen con que el prepucio no es una aberración o un
error sino una parte esencial de la anatomía masculina. Bueno, está bien, pero
permítame decirle dos cosas: una, nunca decimos que los cuerpos de las mujeres
no pueden ser mejorados con tetas falsas, sacándose las cejas, maquillaje y
tacones vertiginosos la otra, ¿Por qué no podemos mejorar el pene de nuestros
hijos?.
Pero siempre tiene que haber un grupo político para todo en estos Estados
Unidos, donde tanta gente disfruta de tanto ocio recibiendo beneficios sociales
del gobierno, que tienen que crear asociaciones por todo para entretenerse. Ha
surgido un grupo que se llaman “América Intacto” que se opone a la
circuncisión.
Estos tipos de "América intacto" necesitan educarse. Siento ser
tan explícito, pero la circuncisión es sólo una buena preparación para el
futuro del hombre. Empecemos con el obvio: ¿qué es lo que las
mujeres – y los hombres – prefieren? Los números según una encuesta de 1.000
mujeres hasta cuatro de cada cinco: 71-83 por ciento de las mujeres en esta
encuesta dijo que preferían circuncidado, los mismos números aplican para los
hombres.
¿Qué tiene de malo que el hombre use la circuncisión por fines estéticos?
¿Por qué no debería mejorarse dando lo mejor de sí mismo a través de un pequeño
procedimiento quirúrgico?
¿Por qué no hacerlo si es que así que sube su valor en el mercado
sexual?, ¿No se corta el pelo por la misma razón? Bueno, ser
recortado algo abajo también puede ser bueno.
No es como si las mujeres no van bajo el cuchillo mutilando o agrandándose
las tetas para complacer a los hombres. Y eso es después que durante cada día
del año durante toda la vida de una mujer gasta tiempo y dinero
aplicándose maquillaje y visitando la peluquería para atraer a los
hombres.
No voy a llorar por lo terrible que es que las mujeres tienen que usar
zapatos de tacón altos, pero vamos a recordarlo mientras estamos en el tema de
sacrificios.
Esto no debería ser una sorpresa para nosotros siempre los sexos han hecho
cambios para atraer más a la pareja. La circuncisión no es una invención
reciente de sádicos o fanáticos religiosos, hace 15.000 años, los hombres se
dieron cuenta que haciendo sus salchichas más atractivas mejoraba sus
posibilidades atracción sexual.
Luego está la materia médica. La circuncisión reduce el riesgo de
infecciones del tracto urinario, algunas enfermedades de transmisión sexual
incluyendo VIH y el cáncer de pene y cáncer cervical en parejas sexuales
femeninas. Previene toda una galaxia de horribles enfermedades que vienen de
tener un cuello de tortuga con esa materia que llaman cebollín llena de
bacterias.
La circuncisión baja el riesgo de adquisición del VIH heterosexual por
cerca de 60 por ciento. Baja el riesgo de VPH, herpes y otras cosas por
cantidades similares. Y el riesgo de infección del tracto urinario en el primer
año de vida disminuye en un 90 por ciento asombroso. La Clínica
Mayo y el NHS publican una lista de grandes ventajas, junto con la
lista de desventajas por razones legales obligatorias y tacto diplomático.
La Academia Americana de Pediatría está de acuerdo en que los beneficios de
la circuncisión masculina superan los riesgos, pero los beneficios no son lo
suficientemente grandes como recomendar la circuncisión universal como ley.
Bien, pero eso es porque no es trabajo de la AARP considerar los
beneficios de hacer el trabajo sexuales o estéticos de los miembros de sus
miembros. Así que hay que dejar a los viejos incircuncisos
tranquilos por ahora.
Los griegos pensaban penes pequeños eran atractivos. Así que
estaban equivocados dos veces, como pueden apreciar en el
incircunciso pene minúsculo del David de Miguel Ángel, que demuestra que
ni siquiera la supuesta personificación de la perfección masculina puede ser
perfecta.
Sin embargo, el lobby contra la circuncisión es poderoso y creciente. En
los Estados Unidos, menos recién nacidos cada año tienen la operación
realizada. Según un sitio web "intactivist", la tasa de circuncisión
en los Estados Unidos está ahora por debajo de 40 por ciento, mucho más baja en
algunas partes del país, abajo del 81 por ciento en 1981. En otras palabras, se
está perdiendo el argumento.
Por lo menos algunos de los nuevos remilgos respecto es conducido por
movimiento por los derechos de los hombres, que publica fotos espeluznantes de
desastrosas operaciones con palabras como violación en letra negrita en rojo, y
que en ocasiones recrea en una historia antisemita sobre los orígenes del
procedimiento.
Esta gente se basa en que dicen que la sociedad se está convirtiendo en
hostil a los hombres. Creo que tienen razón estoy de acuerdo con eso, pero no
específicamente en esta tonta e histérica protesta acerca de la circuncisión
como "violación" o "mutilación" es absurda. A
los hombres los "violan," las mujeres si lo desean, en los tribunales
sobre custodia de hijos y pensión alimenticia, estoy totalmente de acuerdo en
eso. Pero realizando una cirugía médica que mejora la vida de sus parejas
sexuales no es remotamente la misma cosa.
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!
|
Obama Not Offended Enough by
Anti-Semitism
What to make of President Obama's interpretation of
the Iranian leadership? Challenged by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg to
account for the seeming inconsistency of relying on the rationality of a regime
that holds a profoundly anti-Semitic worldview, the president denied that the
"venomous anti-Semitism" (his words) of the mullahs is a barrier to
rational decision making:
"Well, the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn't
preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn't preclude you from
being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn't preclude
you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the
fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn't mean that this overrides
all of his other considerations. You know, if you look at the history of
anti-Semitism, Jeff, there were a whole lot of European leaders -- and there
were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country."
Walter Russell Mead of The American Interest made an important
observation:
"It seems clear from this exchange that the president either
doesn't understand or flatly disagrees with the point Goldberg has in mind.
Goldberg's point is that serious anti-Semites (that is, people whose worldviews
are shaped and informed by Jew hatred as opposed to people who have, for
example, a social prejudice against associating with Jews) don't understand
reality the way that other people do. They see a world dominated by Jewish
plots and secret cartels, and believe that the Elders of Zion rule the world
behind a screen of deception and misdirection."
Exactly. The anti-Semitism of the Iranian regime is not remotely
comparable to the prejudice you can still find in America. With a knee-jerk
reliability, Obama cannot permit any acknowledgment of the evils of other
nations to pass without mentioning our own sins ("there are deep strains
of anti-Semitism in this country"). This is both an intellectual and moral
failing on Obama's part.
It's an intellectual failing because Obama has clearly failed to grapple
with the nature of the Iranian theocrats. Iran's leaders are infected by a
disease of the mind that prevents them from perceiving the world accurately.
Their anti-Semitism is Nazi in intensity. They believe, as Hitler did, in a
worldwide Jewish conspiracy that is responsible for wars, sectarian conflict
among Muslims (!), disease and oppression. The regime hosts Holocaust denial
conferences. They ceaselessly refer to Israel and Jews as "cancers"
or "rabid dogs." What do you do to cancers and rabid dogs? You kill
them.
The regime has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map and has
referred to Israel as a "one-bomb country" and a "threat to the
world."
Is such a regime rational? During the Iran/Iraq war, the mullahs sent
children as young as 12 to the front lines with promises of Heaven if they died
in battle (some say they were issued plastic keys to paradise to wear around
their necks).
It's profoundly worrying that Obama can shrug off the abundant evidence
that the Iranian regime is in the grip of dangerous illusions about Jewish
power and Jewish evil, and casually compare it to the kind of anti-Semitism
found in modern-day Europe and America.
It's also morally offensive. The mullahs' anti-Semitism, along with
their threats, should be enough to cause Obama, or any decent person, to recoil
in disgust. Instead, he has made it the cause of his second term to reach a
rapprochement with Iran. He has invited the regime to take the "path"
he's offering to become "a very successful regional power."
Obama claims that he first became inspired to enter politics by the
plight of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. At Mandela's funeral, he said,
"Over 30 years ago, while still a student, I learned of Nelson Mandela and
the struggles taking place in this beautiful land, and it stirred something in
me. It woke me up to my responsibilities to others and to myself, and it set me
on an improbable journey that finds me here today."
How would Obama have felt about an American president who minimized the
nature of apartheid South Africa, or failed to prevent that regime from
acquiring nuclear weapons, or invited the racist state to become a "very
successful regional power"?
The analogy is imprecise, because South Africa, though brutal and
reprehensible, did not nurture genocidal ambitions, but it's enough to
demonstrate that Obama's morality is always in service of his politics, not the
other way around.
Marleneilen…
This is alarming & scary stuff! Beer contains female hormones !
Yes, that's right, FEMALE hormones!
Last month, Montreal University scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.
Yes, that's right, FEMALE hormones!
Last month, Montreal University scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.
(A) The theory is that Beer contains female hormones (hops contain
Estrogen's) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women.
(B) To test the theory, 100 men each drank 8 large drafts of beer within a
one (1) hour period.
(C) It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects - yes, 100% of all
these men —
1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally,
and
8) Had to sit down while urinating.
No further testing was considered necessary.
Send this to the men you know to warn them about drinking too much beer.
1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally,
and
8) Had to sit down while urinating.
No further testing was considered necessary.
Send this to the men you know to warn them about drinking too much beer.
|
DISABLED MARINE
SUSPENDED FROM COLLEGE BECAUSE HE REFUSED TO DO THIS WITH A MUSLIM WOMAN
Most everyone knows
the men and women who are coming back from violent, overseas deployment are
likely to suffer from various forms of PTSD.
It’s what happens
when you see violent terrorists blow your buddy up right next to you.
That’s why they’ve
been encouraged to seek counseling when they get back to the states.
When one Marine was
assigned to seek treatment with a Muslim woman in full Muslim regalia, he
declined and asked to seek treatment elsewhere.
What happened next is
insulting.
Disabled student
veteran Jeremy Rawls, who served two combat tours in Iraq, was allegedly suspended
from Mississippi College in Clinton, Miss. and labeled a threat to himself
and other students. Why? The former Marine, who is diagnosed with
combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), says the suspension
came after he requested to meet with a different counselor in the school’s
Office of Counseling and Disability Services. During his initial visit to the
office, he was paired with a female counselor who wore traditional
Muslim dress.
“It’s not that I
didn’t want to participate… I didn’t want to traumatize her and it wasn’t a
good environment to be talking about [my disabilities] with that specific
person,” Rawls said.
Rawls’s original
reason for visiting the school’s counseling office was to pick up paperwork
intended for his professors, a task that had been delayed because of a lengthy
recovery from knee surgery.
“Every semester I
have to identify with the school as disabled and they give me letters to give
to my professors,” Rawls explained. “This semester I had a surgery at the
beginning which caused some issues in getting some letters.”
According to Rawls,
his attempts to meet with staff members to discuss the school’s policy about
changing counselors were repeatedly ignored and it wasn’t until a recent
meeting with administrators that he was able to speak with staff.
“Their response was
suspending me pending a mental evaluation which I provided and then they put me
on further restriction and a reintegration program,” Rawls said.
Associate Dean of
Students Jonathan Ambrose notified Rawls of his suspension in an email, which
read, in part, administrators and the Student Intervention Team have a “due
diligence in not only the protection of yourself, but also the campus community
as a whole from potential harm or the threat there of.” Another email
notified Rawls that he is not permitted to be on campus for any reason or
attend class during the duration of the Interim Suspension unless he
has written permission.
“To have been a
marine and to tell us we’re a threat…that’s actually a compliment,” said Rawls.
“But telling me I’m a threat to others was extremely offensive”…
“The college itself
is very supportive, there is just an ignorance toward veterans with PTSD and
they are demonized so much by the media which led to confusion about what they
[MC administrators] were dealing with,” Rawls said.
Rawls was
granted permission to “reintegrate back into academics” after fulfilling
the school’s request for an independent mental evaluation, but he’s still
unable to attend on-campus events or participate in student organizations. As
recently as last Thursday, Rawls met with administrators hoping to fully
participate in both academics and extracurricular activities in the coming
school year. The issue still has not been resolved at the time of this
publication.
You can be sure if
this was a Muslim saying no to treatment with a Christian they would have bent
over backwards for them, highlighting the insane double standard present here
in the U.S.
The fact the school
is being so obstinate proves there’s an agenda to normalize Islam while
castigating Christiainity.
It’s got to stop.
Freedom is the
ability to choose. And when schools receiving tax funding are allowed to
discriminate like this you’re seeing the exact opposite is being displayed.
Quintin George…
Barack Obama's Anti-Semitism Test
This question has lingered in the air since his first presidential bid
in 2008. It first arose due to the anti-Semitic sermons that Jeremiah Wright,
his pastor for more than 20 years, made as Obama and his family sat in the
pews.
Throughout the six-and-a-half years of his presidency, Obama has laughed off the concerns.
But he has not dispelled them. And this failure has hurt him.
So last week, Obama went to significant lengths to answer the question about his feelings toward Israel and the Jewish people once and for all.
The timing of his charm offensive wasn’t coincidental.
Obama clearly believes he has to dispel doubts about his intentions toward Jews and Israel in order to implement the central policy of his second term in office. That policy of course is his nuclear deal with Iran.
Obama’s agreement with the mullahs is supposed to be concluded by the end of next month.
See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
Obama argues that his deal will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his address before the joint houses of Congress in March, from what has already been revealed about the nuclear deal Obama seeks to conclude, far from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, the deal will provide several pathways for Iran to at a minimum become a threshold nuclear state, capable of developing nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat. If Iran cheats on the deal, it can develop nuclear weapons while the agreement is still in force. If it abides by the agreement, it can develop nuclear weapons as soon as the agreement expires.
Beyond his desire to conclude a nuclear deal that will empower a regime that has pledged to destroy Israel, there are Obama’s reported plans for changing the way the US relates to Israel at the UN Security Council.
For the past half-century, the US has used its veto power at the Security Council to prevent substantive anti-Israel draft resolutions from passing. But Obama and his top advisers have hinted and media reports have provided details about his intention to end this 50-year policy.
Obama reportedly intends to enable the passage of a French draft resolution that would require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.
As these two policies, which bear directly on Israel’s ability to defend itself and indeed, to survive, near implementation, Obama is faced with the fact that he has a credibility problem when it comes to issues related to the survival and existence of the Jewish state.
In a bid to address this credibility problem, last week he invested significant time and effort in building up his credibility on Jewish issues. To this end, he gave an extensive interview to Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic, and he gave a speech before Adas Israel, a large, liberal Conservative synagogue in Washington, DC.
To a degree, Obama was successful. He did put to bed the question of whether or not he is anti-Semitic.
In his interview with Goldberg, Obama gave a reasonable if incomplete definition of what anti-Semitism is. Obama said that an anti-Semite is someone who refuses to recognize the 3,000-year connection between the Jews and the Land of Israel. An anti-Semite is also someone who refuses to recognize the long history of persecution that the Jewish people suffered in the Diaspora.
According to Obama, an anti-Semite is someone who refuses to understand that this history of persecution together with the Jews’ millennial connection to the Land of Israel is what justifies the existence of Israel in the Land of Israel.
Moreover, according to Obama, anti-Semites refuse to understand that Israel remains in mortal danger due to the continued existence of anti-Semitic forces that seek its destruction.
And that isn’t all. As he sees it, even if you do understand the legitimacy of Israel’s existence and recognize the continued threats to its survival, you could still be an anti-Semite.
As Obama explained to Goldberg, there is still the problem of double standards.
In his words, “If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”
To his credit, Obama provided a clear, well-argued and constructive definition of anti-Semitism.
But there’s a bit of a problem. Right after Obama provided us with his definition of anti-Semitism, he endorsed and indeed engaged in the very anti-Semitism he had just defined.
As Goldberg, who is sympathetically inclined toward Obama, put it, Obama “holds Israel to a higher standard than he does other countries.”
Both in his interview with Goldberg and in his speech at the synagogue, Obama judged Israel in accordance to what he defined as Jewish values.
According to Obama, Jewish values require Jews to prefer the interests of others over their own interests in order to “repair the world.”
As Obama reads Israeli history, the state’s founders didn’t only seek to build a Jewish state.
They set out to build Utopia.
Obama explained, “I care deeply about preserving that Jewish democracy, because when I think about how I came to know Israel, it was based on images of... kibbutzim, and Moshe Dayan, and Golda Meir, and the sense that not only are we creating a safe Jewish homeland, but also we are remaking the world. We’re repairing it. We are going to do it the right way. We are going to make sure that the lessons we’ve learned from our hardships and our persecutions are applied to how we govern and how we treat others. And it goes back to the values questions that we talked about earlier – those are the values that helped to nurture me and my political beliefs.”
In his address at the synagogue, Obama made his expectations of Israel explicit. As he sees it, Israel’s concerns for Palestinians should outweigh its concerns for itself.
“The rights of the Jewish people... compel me to think about a Palestinian child in Ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity. That’s what Jewish values teach me.”
In other words, when Obama thinks about Israel, he cannot avoid blaming Israel for the feelings he assumes Palestinian children feel.
It is important to mention that in neither of his attempts to address concerns about his perceived biases regarding Jews did Obama note the behavior of the Palestinian Authority. He ignored its endemic corruption and authoritarianism.
He ignored the wild anti-Semitic incitement and indoctrination practiced at all levels of the Palestinian governing authority. He ignored the longstanding Palestinian refusal to accept an independent state that would peacefully coexist with the Jewish state.
So in the end, Obama’s charm offensive did provide a clear answer to the question of whether he is anti-Semitic.
It bears noting that the fact that Obama failed his own test of anti-Semitism doesn’t necessarily mean that he hates Jews. It is certainly possible that he likes Jews.
But loving Jews and being an anti-Semite are not mutually exclusive.
Consider anti-black bigots. Over the years, plenty of racists have professed, and perhaps even felt, love for black people.
They discriminated against blacks not because they hated them but because they believed that blacks were inferior to whites. It was due to their “love” for blacks that they insisted on holding them to lower standards than whites, or on segregating them from whites, lest they be embarrassed or set up for failure.
In other words, the fact of their “love” didn’t make them less bigoted.
Likewise, the possibility that Obama loves Jews doesn’t make his compulsion to judge Israel by a separate standard from other states and nations, including the Palestinians, any less bigoted.
On the other hand, both in his interview with Goldberg and in his speech at Adas Israel, Obama gave reason for concern that he harbors little goodwill for Jews or sensitivity to the unique dangers they face.
Goldberg raised the concern that the anti-Semitism at the heart of the world view of Iran’s dictator Ali Khamenei makes him irrational. Obama didn’t merely reject the notion, while denying the long history of eliminationist anti-Semitism, Obama rejected the notion that anti-Semitism can outweigh rational interests like regime survival and economic prosperity.
In his words, “Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”
If that wasn’t enough to show that Obama rejects the notion that anti-Semitism can and often does serve as the deranged anchor of policy- making by anti-Semites, he proceeded to equate Iran’s annihilationist anti-Semitism with the country club anti-Semitism American Jews once were subjected to by their fellow Americans.
“If you look at the history of anti-Semitism...there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country,” he said.
By rejecting the policy significance of anti-Semitism for the Iranian regime, Obama exhibited yet another anti-Semitic behavior. Obama asserted that if you fail to recognize the danger that anti-Semitism constitutes for Israel’s survival, then you are an anti-Semite.
Obama’s statements about the Palestinians also indicate that he feels little love for Jews. As has been his consistent practice since assuming office, in his charm offensive last week, Obama continued to ignore the fact that if the Palestinians were primarily interested in a state, rather than in the destruction of the Jewish state, they could have had one at almost any time since the release of the Peel Commission report in 1937 that first suggested partitioning the land west of the Jordan River between a Jewish and an Arab state. His consistent refusal to deal with this simple fact, and his insistence on blaming Israel for the Palestinians’ expressed misery despite Israel’s repeated offers to partition the land in exchange for peace raise serious questions about his intentions toward the Jewish state.
As Obama rightly understands, in the coming months, as he tries to sell his nuclear deal with Iran and his anti-Israel positions at the UN to the American public, the question of whether or not he is an anti-Semite will become more salient than ever before.
Now that he has answered the question, Israel needs to act in accordance with Jewish values, and choose life even at the expense of good relations with the Obama administration.
Throughout the six-and-a-half years of his presidency, Obama has laughed off the concerns.
But he has not dispelled them. And this failure has hurt him.
So last week, Obama went to significant lengths to answer the question about his feelings toward Israel and the Jewish people once and for all.
The timing of his charm offensive wasn’t coincidental.
Obama clearly believes he has to dispel doubts about his intentions toward Jews and Israel in order to implement the central policy of his second term in office. That policy of course is his nuclear deal with Iran.
Obama’s agreement with the mullahs is supposed to be concluded by the end of next month.
See the latest opinion pieces on our Opinion & Blogs Facebook page
Obama argues that his deal will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained in his address before the joint houses of Congress in March, from what has already been revealed about the nuclear deal Obama seeks to conclude, far from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, the deal will provide several pathways for Iran to at a minimum become a threshold nuclear state, capable of developing nuclear weapons at the drop of a hat. If Iran cheats on the deal, it can develop nuclear weapons while the agreement is still in force. If it abides by the agreement, it can develop nuclear weapons as soon as the agreement expires.
Beyond his desire to conclude a nuclear deal that will empower a regime that has pledged to destroy Israel, there are Obama’s reported plans for changing the way the US relates to Israel at the UN Security Council.
For the past half-century, the US has used its veto power at the Security Council to prevent substantive anti-Israel draft resolutions from passing. But Obama and his top advisers have hinted and media reports have provided details about his intention to end this 50-year policy.
Obama reportedly intends to enable the passage of a French draft resolution that would require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.
As these two policies, which bear directly on Israel’s ability to defend itself and indeed, to survive, near implementation, Obama is faced with the fact that he has a credibility problem when it comes to issues related to the survival and existence of the Jewish state.
In a bid to address this credibility problem, last week he invested significant time and effort in building up his credibility on Jewish issues. To this end, he gave an extensive interview to Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic, and he gave a speech before Adas Israel, a large, liberal Conservative synagogue in Washington, DC.
To a degree, Obama was successful. He did put to bed the question of whether or not he is anti-Semitic.
In his interview with Goldberg, Obama gave a reasonable if incomplete definition of what anti-Semitism is. Obama said that an anti-Semite is someone who refuses to recognize the 3,000-year connection between the Jews and the Land of Israel. An anti-Semite is also someone who refuses to recognize the long history of persecution that the Jewish people suffered in the Diaspora.
According to Obama, an anti-Semite is someone who refuses to understand that this history of persecution together with the Jews’ millennial connection to the Land of Israel is what justifies the existence of Israel in the Land of Israel.
Moreover, according to Obama, anti-Semites refuse to understand that Israel remains in mortal danger due to the continued existence of anti-Semitic forces that seek its destruction.
And that isn’t all. As he sees it, even if you do understand the legitimacy of Israel’s existence and recognize the continued threats to its survival, you could still be an anti-Semite.
As Obama explained to Goldberg, there is still the problem of double standards.
In his words, “If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.”
To his credit, Obama provided a clear, well-argued and constructive definition of anti-Semitism.
But there’s a bit of a problem. Right after Obama provided us with his definition of anti-Semitism, he endorsed and indeed engaged in the very anti-Semitism he had just defined.
As Goldberg, who is sympathetically inclined toward Obama, put it, Obama “holds Israel to a higher standard than he does other countries.”
Both in his interview with Goldberg and in his speech at the synagogue, Obama judged Israel in accordance to what he defined as Jewish values.
According to Obama, Jewish values require Jews to prefer the interests of others over their own interests in order to “repair the world.”
As Obama reads Israeli history, the state’s founders didn’t only seek to build a Jewish state.
They set out to build Utopia.
Obama explained, “I care deeply about preserving that Jewish democracy, because when I think about how I came to know Israel, it was based on images of... kibbutzim, and Moshe Dayan, and Golda Meir, and the sense that not only are we creating a safe Jewish homeland, but also we are remaking the world. We’re repairing it. We are going to do it the right way. We are going to make sure that the lessons we’ve learned from our hardships and our persecutions are applied to how we govern and how we treat others. And it goes back to the values questions that we talked about earlier – those are the values that helped to nurture me and my political beliefs.”
In his address at the synagogue, Obama made his expectations of Israel explicit. As he sees it, Israel’s concerns for Palestinians should outweigh its concerns for itself.
“The rights of the Jewish people... compel me to think about a Palestinian child in Ramallah that feels trapped without opportunity. That’s what Jewish values teach me.”
In other words, when Obama thinks about Israel, he cannot avoid blaming Israel for the feelings he assumes Palestinian children feel.
It is important to mention that in neither of his attempts to address concerns about his perceived biases regarding Jews did Obama note the behavior of the Palestinian Authority. He ignored its endemic corruption and authoritarianism.
He ignored the wild anti-Semitic incitement and indoctrination practiced at all levels of the Palestinian governing authority. He ignored the longstanding Palestinian refusal to accept an independent state that would peacefully coexist with the Jewish state.
So in the end, Obama’s charm offensive did provide a clear answer to the question of whether he is anti-Semitic.
It bears noting that the fact that Obama failed his own test of anti-Semitism doesn’t necessarily mean that he hates Jews. It is certainly possible that he likes Jews.
But loving Jews and being an anti-Semite are not mutually exclusive.
Consider anti-black bigots. Over the years, plenty of racists have professed, and perhaps even felt, love for black people.
They discriminated against blacks not because they hated them but because they believed that blacks were inferior to whites. It was due to their “love” for blacks that they insisted on holding them to lower standards than whites, or on segregating them from whites, lest they be embarrassed or set up for failure.
In other words, the fact of their “love” didn’t make them less bigoted.
Likewise, the possibility that Obama loves Jews doesn’t make his compulsion to judge Israel by a separate standard from other states and nations, including the Palestinians, any less bigoted.
On the other hand, both in his interview with Goldberg and in his speech at Adas Israel, Obama gave reason for concern that he harbors little goodwill for Jews or sensitivity to the unique dangers they face.
Goldberg raised the concern that the anti-Semitism at the heart of the world view of Iran’s dictator Ali Khamenei makes him irrational. Obama didn’t merely reject the notion, while denying the long history of eliminationist anti-Semitism, Obama rejected the notion that anti-Semitism can outweigh rational interests like regime survival and economic prosperity.
In his words, “Well the fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival. It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”
If that wasn’t enough to show that Obama rejects the notion that anti-Semitism can and often does serve as the deranged anchor of policy- making by anti-Semites, he proceeded to equate Iran’s annihilationist anti-Semitism with the country club anti-Semitism American Jews once were subjected to by their fellow Americans.
“If you look at the history of anti-Semitism...there were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country,” he said.
By rejecting the policy significance of anti-Semitism for the Iranian regime, Obama exhibited yet another anti-Semitic behavior. Obama asserted that if you fail to recognize the danger that anti-Semitism constitutes for Israel’s survival, then you are an anti-Semite.
Obama’s statements about the Palestinians also indicate that he feels little love for Jews. As has been his consistent practice since assuming office, in his charm offensive last week, Obama continued to ignore the fact that if the Palestinians were primarily interested in a state, rather than in the destruction of the Jewish state, they could have had one at almost any time since the release of the Peel Commission report in 1937 that first suggested partitioning the land west of the Jordan River between a Jewish and an Arab state. His consistent refusal to deal with this simple fact, and his insistence on blaming Israel for the Palestinians’ expressed misery despite Israel’s repeated offers to partition the land in exchange for peace raise serious questions about his intentions toward the Jewish state.
As Obama rightly understands, in the coming months, as he tries to sell his nuclear deal with Iran and his anti-Israel positions at the UN to the American public, the question of whether or not he is an anti-Semite will become more salient than ever before.
Now that he has answered the question, Israel needs to act in accordance with Jewish values, and choose life even at the expense of good relations with the Obama administration.
This is alarming & scary stuff!
Beer contains female hormones !
Yes, that's right, FEMALE hormones!
Last month, Montreal University scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.
Beer contains female hormones !
Yes, that's right, FEMALE hormones!
Last month, Montreal University scientists released the results of a recent analysis that revealed the presence of female hormones in beer.
(A) The theory is that Beer contains female hormones (hops contain
Estrogen's) and that by drinking enough beer, men turn into women.
(B) To test the theory, 100 men each drank 8 large drafts of beer within a
one (1) hour period.
(C) It was then observed that 100% of the test subjects - yes, 100% of all
these men —
1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally,
and
8) Had to sit down while urinating.
No further testing was considered necessary.
Send this to the men you know to warn them about drinking too much beer.
1) Argued over nothing.
2) Refused to apologize when obviously wrong.
3) Gained weight.
4) Talked excessively without making sense.
5) Became overly emotional.
6) Couldn't drive.
7) Failed to think rationally,
and
8) Had to sit down while urinating.
No further testing was considered necessary.
Send this to the men you know to warn them about drinking too much beer.
Cops Had No
Idea She Had Camera. She Summed Up Their Actions In 7 Perfect Words
...the narrative that emerged in Ferguson and
Baltimore.
Considering the level
of animosity between certain segments of the black and law enforcement
communities, stories highlighting more positive interactions are poised to
capture the public’s interest. One such anecdote emerged recently from an
Orange County, Fla., community in which two Sheriff’s deputies helped bridge
the cultural divide – one kid at a time.
According to the
mother of one of the children involved, the officers approached an ice cream
truck in front of an Orlando apartment complex and bought several local
children a frozen snack.
RELATED STORIES
The Orange County
Sheriff’s Office shared the post on its Facebook page, attracting unanimous praise
from those who responded.
“I wanted to share
this,” the mother wrote upon uploading images of the encounter to Facebook,
“because it’s the best thing I have seen in a long time.”
Former
House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been indicted on banking crimes. Did he steal money from the bank? No. Did he fail to pay his taxes? No.
So what was his
‘crime’? He withdrew his own money from his bank because he was being
blackmailed over alleged sexual misconduct that took place more than 35 years
ago. The following is from the LA Times:
“The indictment
alleged Hastert had agreed to pay a total of $3.5 million to ‘compensate for
and conceal his prior misconduct.’
“He made several cash
payments beginning in 2010, after being contacted by the individual, the
indictment said.
“Hastert allegedly
began by withdrawing $50,000 at a time, but when the activity was questioned by
banking officials, he reduced the withdrawals to under $10,000, the indictment
said.
“That caught the
attention of financial regulators, who suspected Hastert was trying to evade
federal reporting requirements.”
The government isn’t
concerned about the sex charges being leveled against the former Speaker of the
House. The Feds are going after Hastert because (1) he’s a Republican and (2)
because he broke some made up law about how a person can't withdraw his own
money from his bank.
The Clintons are
raking in hundreds of millions of dollars coming from foreign nations. The
entire Clinton Foundation looks like a scam as a way to pay the Clintons
extraordinary amounts of money for political favors.
Instead of
investigating the Clintons, the government is going after Hastert for using his
own money to pay someone to keep quiet about what happened decades ago.
And the media are
complicit in the double standard.
You might be asking,
“Where did Hastert get $3.5 million?” to use as hush money. That’s the better
question. Hastert made his money as a lobbyist after leaving Congress. A
lobbyist uses his connections to get Congress to appropriate money from tax
payers to benefit business interests. It’s a 'legal' to steal from tax payers.
Also, there were some
shady deals while Hastert was in Congress. The
following is from Ben Shapiro at Breitbart:
“In his New York Times bestseller Throw Them All Out, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer
revealed how former Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) entered Congress with modest
means and emerged a millionaire by brokering crony deals to increase the value
of his land.
“Initially, Hastert’s
farm was worth between $50,000 and $100,000. In 2002 and 2004, Hastert bought
up Illinois farm land for $15,000 an acre before inserting a $207 million
earmark into the federal highway bill to build critical roads near the land to
increase its worth as a prospective residential community. The land’s value
shot up to $36,000 an acre, a 140% profit.
“‘According to
Haster’s personal financial disclosure, these sales amounted to transactions of
between $2 million and $10 million for his personal stake,’ writes Schweizer.
‘Not a bad return for a short-term investment.’”
Hastert isn’t the
only person who did and does things like this. It’s what politicians do. It’s
called crony capitalism, but it doesn’t have anything to do with the principles
of capitalism.
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/22712/dennis-hasterts-real-crime-was-how-he-made-his-money/#FKBVExOtDp0Tq8ql.99
“FREEDOM IS
NOT FREE”
