No
1040 “En mi opinión” Septiembre 16, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R Gonzalez Miño Editor
Lázaro
R González Miño para alcalde de Miami Dade
NUESTRO PROXIMO PRESIDENTE DEBE
TENER: El CONSERVADURISMO, El RESPETO A
LA CONSTITUCION, LAS IDEAS, EL VALOR, LA
ENTERESA, EL PATRIOTISMO, LA MORAL, VALOR, Y AMOR POR NUESTRA NACION AMERICANA DE RONALD REAGAN
AMENPER: ¿PORQUE TENEMOS
ELECCIONES?
Oímos las voces de los genuinos
líderes conservadores, escandalizados por el falso profeta del conservadurismo,
el liberal con disfrazado con piel de oveja conservadora, Donald Trump, su
popularidad y su posición puntera en las encuestas.
Una de las voces más destacada
del conservadurismo, un conservador de la raza negra un profesor universitario
y pensador, que nunca ha ocupado un cargo político, pero que siempre ha sido un
puntal filosófico de la doctrina conservadora, Thomas Sowell, nos ofrece su
visión del fenómeno Trump y del fenómeno del nuevo votante americano.
Es difícil imaginar una manera
más tonta o más peligrosa de toma de decisiones que poner esas decisiones en
manos de personas que no pagan ningún precio por equivocarse,- Thomas
Sowell
¿Por qué
tenemos elecciones?
POR THOMAS SOWELLSEPTEMBER 15, 2015,
5:30
En un país con más de 300 millones de
personas, es notable cómo los medios de comunicación se han obsesionado con
un solo — Donald Trump.
Lo más notable es que, después de
seis años de desastres repetidos tanto nacional como internacionalmente, bajo
un egomaníaco superficial e insincero en la casa blanca, muchos posibles
votantes están recurriendo a otro egomaníaco superficial e insincero para ser
su sucesor.
Sin duda gran parte de la estampida
de los votantes republicanos hacia el Sr. Trump se basa en su aparente
indignación con el establecimiento republicano. El hecho de que los dos con
mayoría-de votos en las encuestas también son completos extraños — el Dr. Ben
Carson y Sra. Carly Fiorina, esto refuerza la idea de que se trata de una
protesta.
Es fácil entender por qué hay
resentimientos entre los votantes republicanos. ¿Pero se tienen las elecciones
con el propósito de expresión de las emociones?
Ningún líder nacional nunca despertó
emociones más fervientes que Adolf Hitler lo hizo en la década de 1930. Vemos
algunos viejos noticiarios de multitudes alemanas delirantes de alegría a la
vista de él. Lo único que en todo comparables en tiempos más recientes fueron
las multitudes extáticas que saludaron a Barack Obama cuando irrumpió en la
escena política en 2008. Nota mía, también lo
vimos en Cuba con Fidel Castro
Las elecciones, sin embargo, tienen
algo mucho más duradero y mucho más grave — o incluso sombrío — para ser
consecuencias de una ventilación emocional. La trayectoria real histórica de
los personajes, tenemos a Juan Perón en Argentina, Obama en Estados Unidos o
Hitler en Alemania, Nota mía
Fidel Castro en Cuba, debiera ser muy aleccionador, si no oprime dolorosamente.
Los medios de comunicación parecen
pensar que la participación en las elecciones es un gran problema. Pero la
participación a menudo se acerca a 100 por ciento en países tan rotos por
polarización amarga que todos tienen miedo al desastre muerte de lo que ocurrirá
si gana el otro lado. Pero los tiempos y lugares con baja afluencia de votantes
son a menudo tiempos y lugares cuando no hay esos temores y que por tener una
oposición gana un partido con pocos votos.
A pesar de muchas personas que nos
instan todos a votar como un deber cívico, el propósito de las elecciones no es
participación. El objetivo es seleccionar a personas para oficinas, incluyendo
el de Presidente de los Estados Unidos. Quien tiene esa oficina tiene nuestras
vidas, las vidas de nuestros seres queridos y el destino de toda la nación en
sus manos.
Una elección no es un concurso de
popularidad, o un premio por el espectáculo. Si quiere cumplir con su deber
como ciudadano, entonces usted necesita ser un votante informado. Y si no se
informa, entonces lo más patriótico que puedes hacer en el día de las
elecciones es estancia casera.
De lo contrario con su voto, basado
en caprichos o emociones, juega ruleta rusa con el destino de esta nación.
Todo el alboroto sobre Donald Trump
es distraer la atención de un gran campo de otros candidatos, algunos de los
cuales tienen un historial excepcional como gobernadores, donde demostraron
valentía, carácter e inteligencia. Otros tienen habilidades retóricas como
Trump o un dominio serio de problemas, a diferencia de Trump.
Aunque Trump mismo no termine como el
candidato republicano a la Presidencia, él habrá hecho un perjuicio importante
a su partido y al país, porque su palabrería nos ha costado una oportunidad de
explorar en profundidad el haber podido incluir a alguien mucho mejor
preparados para los retos complejos de esta coyuntura en la historia.
Tras el desastroso acuerdo nuclear
con Irán, estamos entrando en una época cuando pueden personas que viven en
este momento ver un día cuando queden ciudades americanas en las ruinas
radiactivas. Tenemos toda la sabiduría, coraje y dedicación en el próximo
presidente — y sus sucesores — para salvar a nosotros y nuestros hijos de tal
catástrofe.
Retórica y la teatralidad ciertamente
no nos salvará.
Donald Trump no es el único obstáculo
para encontrar líderes de tal carácter. El último peligro se encuentra en el
voto público mismo. Muchos todos los indicios apuntan a un electorado
incluyendo muchas personas que están muy desinformadas o, peor aún, mal
informados.
El hecho de que la edad de votación
bajó a 18 años, muestra el triunfo de la visión de las elecciones como rituales
participativos, más que a veces por decisiones fatídicas.
En todo caso, la edad podría se
habría podido plantear a 30 años, desde hoy millones de personas en sus 20s ni
siquiera han tenido la responsabilidad de ser autosuficiente, para darles algún
sentido de la realidad.
Sólo podemos esperar que los meses
que aún quedan antes de las primeras elecciones primarias del próximo año
permitir a los votantes sobre sus respuestas emocionales y concentrarse en las
implicaciones de la vida y la muerte de elegir al próximo presidente de los
Estados Unidos.
Carlos Miyares… IMPORTANTE: Muy importante: Lázaro R González Miño, Editor
de “En mi opinión” (Muy importante porque creo que el vaticano no está dando una
vez más gato por liebre… Este papa no es un papa es un boniato y podrido. Lamento
mucho si lastimo sensibilidades pero creo que esto está muy mal y se va a poner
peor)
EL PAPA
FRANCISCO Y LA MONJA: ARTICULO DE ANOLAN PONCE
Desde que ocupa el trono de San Pedro, el
papa Francisco se ha embarcado en una cruzada abierta contra el capitalismo,
dedicando más tiempo a atacarlo que a las funciones y problemas internos de la
Iglesia Católica como corresponde al máximo vicario de Jesús en la tierra. En
su reciente viaje a Sudamérica, y sobre todo en Bolivia, sus discursos fueron
de tono tan radical que pueden ser tildados de políticos y revolucionarios, y
ello no compagina con el carácter religioso y espiritual de su posición
eclesiástica.
La actitud del Papa me ha hecho recordar
la novela Historia
de una monja, un relato verídico de la escritora norteamericana
Kathryn Hulme, basada en la vida de la ex monja y enfermera belga Marie Louise
Habets, la cual fue llevada al cine en 1959 con Audrey Hepburn como
protagonista. La cinta acaparó 8 nominaciones al Oscar, llegando a ser en aquel
entonces el film más taquillero de la Warner Brothers.
Historia de una monja narra la lucha interna de Habets
–en la cinta la hermana Luke– por resolver el gran conflicto que se desarrolla
entre su amor a Dios, que la ha impulsado a aceptar los votos monásticos, y su
vocación verdadera, que es ayudar al prójimo y halla su objetivo en la
enfermería. En un recorrido espiritual de casi 18 años por el corazón y el alma
de esta joven belga, descubrimos, al igual que ella, que su deseo de ayudar al
prójimo la ha esposado erróneamente con Dios. La hermana Luke rectifica y
renuncia a los hábitos aunque no a Dios, escogiendo servirlo a través de su
labor humanitaria de enfermera en el frente de batalla durante la Segunda
Guerra Mundial.
La historia de Marie Louise Habets es un
ejemplo de una vocación canalizada a través de un medio equivocado. ¿Pudiera
ser esto lo que sucede con el Papa Francisco? Si tiene vocación de
revolucionario, ¿no debía ser en lugar de Papa un jefe sindical, un primer ministro
o un líder guerrillero? Es la pregunta que nos hacemos muchos católicos en el
mundo.
Nadie pone en duda su bondad, honradez,
sinceridad y sobre todo su humildad. Francisco habla con su corazón cuando
defiende a los pobres, a los explotados y a los marginados por la sociedad.
Pero, ¿es el suyo un corazón
mortalmente herido por prejuicios creados en su niñez o su adolescencia de los
cuales no ha logrado desprenderse, de la misma forma que Habets
comprende que no ha podido desprenderse del amor que siente por su padre al ser
incapaz de perdonar a los nazis que lo matan, lo que finalmente la impulsa a
abandonar los hábitos?
La
cruzada del Papa Francisco es justa e injusta a la vez. Justa es porque
defiende a los pobres, a los explotados y a los marginados por la sociedad.
Pero es injusta porque en lugar de atacar los excesos del capitalismo, ataca a
este en sí, ignorando que ha sido el capitalismo el que ha sacado a mayor
número de personas de la pobreza y que donde este no rige o se practica de
alguna forma, es donde existen los mayores porcentajes de miseria y escasez. Es
también injusto atacar al capitalismo y no dedicar una onza de crítica al
comunismo cruel y criminal que mantiene a Cuba con un nivel de pobreza de un
70% a un 80%, o al Socialismo del siglo XXI que ha sumido a Venezuela, a pesar
de la bonanza petrolera de los últimos 10 años, en una pobreza mayor que cuando
Hugo Chávez llegó al poder.
El
papa Francisco da a veces la impresión que abusa del privilegio de su alta
posición para influenciar a otros a que consigan por la fuerza lo que no puede
la prédica. En Bolivia instó a “los humildes, los explotados, los pobres, y los
excluidos” a buscar un cambio de sistema, “un cambio real, de estructuras”;
visitó a los prisioneros de Palmasola, la cárcel mas peligrosa del país; se
reunió con activistas de movimientos populares; y aceptó como arte un Cristo
crucificado en la hoz y el martillo.
Yo
propongo que el Papa haga lo mismo en su viaje a Cuba. El mismo discurso
radical llamando a cambiar las estructuras; que visite a los prisioneros
políticos que se pudren en las cárceles cubanas por luchar pacíficamente por lo
que él propone en su discurso; que se reúna con todos los disidentes y atienda
sus quejas; y que pida a Raúl Castro que libere a El Sexto y acepte “como arte”
su acción de soltar en el centro de La Habana a dos puercos con los nombres de
Fidel y Raúl.
Si el
Papa es un revolucionario, lo debe ser para todos. Ante mis ojos cubanos, solo
así quedará redimido.
AMENPER: Records Show Scant Reagan-Trump Ties
Reagan
Library files indicate real-estate developer was rebuffed in many entreaties to
former president
President.
Records indicate the two men were far from close.
By JAMES
V. GRIMALDI
Sept. 15,
2015 7:30 p.m. ET
SIMI
VALLEY, Calif.—Like many hopefuls before him, presidential candidate Donald
Trump has embraced Ronald Reagan, the icon of the modern Republican Party.
“I have
great respect for him,” Mr. Trump said on NBC. “I helped him. I knew him. He
liked me and I liked him.”
Mr.
Trump, on a variety of television shows, has compared himself to Mr. Reagan—“he
had a great heart, and I have a great heart,” he told Fox News—and has strongly
implied the two men weren’t only allies, but friends.
But a
peek inside the archives at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, host of Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, tells a different
story. Aides in the Reagan White House, peppered with invitations to Trump
events, mostly kept the real-estate mogul at arm’s length, except when they
were trying to stop his donations to Democrats or soothe his “large ego,” as
one memo put it.
Among the
few signs of a personal connection between the men are two photos of them
shaking hands in greeting lines, including one that the president mis-signed as
“Reagan Reagan.” Mr. Trump doesn’t appear in Mr. Reagan’s extensive diary.
The
records referencing Mr. Trump were opened to the public for the first time this
summer after a request by The Wall Street Journal.
“Everybody
says they knew Reagan now,” said Frank J. Donatelli, a former Reagan
administration official and author of the “ego” memo, who said he was irked by
the comparisons between the 40th president and Mr. Trump.
In an
interview Tuesday, Mr.
Trump said, “I didn’t know him well,” but added that friends close to the
president told him Mr. Reagan admired Mr. Trump. “He felt very good about me,”
Mr. Trump said. “Frankly, he liked my attitude.”
One Trump
supporter, Roger Stone, a former Reagan administration official who worked for
Mr. Trump’s campaign this year, said Mr. Trump was a longtime Reagan supporter.
Mr. Stone also noted that Mr. Trump and his father served on Mr. Reagan’s
1979-80 presidential finance committee and attended his launch announcement.
One month after Mr. Reagan announced his candidacy on
Nov. 13, 1979, Mr. Trump, his parents, sister and brother each made the maximum
federal campaign contribution allowed—but not to Mr. Reagan. The Trumps all
gave to the re-election campaign of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,
according to Federal Election Commission records.
FEC records show no donation from Mr. Trump to Mr.
Reagan for four more years. In fact, 10 months after Mr. Reagan’s 1981
inauguration, Mr. Trump made an early contribution to the political-action
committee for the presidential bid of former Vice President Walter Mondale, a Democrat.
Mr. Trump
said Tuesday he couldn’t recall, but thought he had donated to Mr.
Reagan. He suggested FEC records might be incomplete. “Keep checking,” he said.
As far as
the Reagan Library records show, the relationship between Mr. Reagan and Mr.
Trump began when the White House invited Mr. Trump to be one of 100 people
recruited in 1983 to sit on the President’s Council for International Youth
Exchange.
Mr. Trump
returned the favor by inviting President Reagan to events in New York,
including a fundraising dinner for a Vietnam veterans memorial and the opening
of Trump Tower in October 1983
In
response to the veterans memorial invitation, the White House sent regrets,
along with a “special message,” whose contents aren’t in the museum’s files.
Political aides suggested a telegram for the Trump Tower opening. “The Trump
family have been long time supporters of the President,” said a memo, written
by Mike McManus.
Mr.
McManus’s request was nixed by the White House Counsel’s Office. “NO,” was
scrawled on the memo found in the Reagan archives. “Commercial. Don’t do.”
In March
1984, Mr. Trump made his first political donation to Mr. Reagan, giving $1,000
to his re-election campaign committee. A year later, Mr. Trump snagged an
invitation to one of the most prestigious of Washington events, a state dinner,
this one in honor of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.
Mr.
Trump’s political giving showed no sign the Reagan White House was a particular
favorite. In 1986 he gave $1,000 to George H.W. Bush’s campaign for president,
followed later by donations to the campaigns of Republicans Bob Dole and Jack
Kemp, and Democrats Bruce Babbitt and Dick Gephardt.
“Donald
has been a Democrat much more than he has been Republican,” said Charlie Black,
who was Mr. Trump’s lobbyist and political adviser from 1987 to 2000.
Responded
Mr. Trump: “I lived in Manhattan. In Manhattan, everybody was Democrat.”
Mr. Trump
got the White House’s attention in late 1987 when he hired an advertising team
that had worked for Mr. Reagan’s 1984 re-election to produce full-page ads in
national newspapers blasting American foreign policy. “America should stop
paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves,” read the
“open letter from Donald J. Trump,” which went on to suggest, “There’s nothing
wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.”
In the
ads’ wake, then-House Speaker Jim Wright, (D., Texas) flew to New York to ask
Mr. Trump if he would sponsor the 25th annual Democratic Congressional Dinner,
one of the party’s biggest fundraisers. He said he would think about it.
When the
news leaked, Mr. Donatelli, the political aide in the White House, penned a
memo to Chief of Staff Howard Baker, asking him to call Mr. Trump that day. The
memo mentioned the Wright meeting and attached a copy of the ad. Of Mr. Trump,
Mr. Donatelli said, “He has a large ego and would be responsive to your call.”
A few
days later, Mr. Trump announced he wouldn’t be chairman of the dinner, in
deference to his GOP friends.
Mr. Trump
increased the volume of invitations to the White House in last two years of
Reagan’s second term, including one for a La Toya Jackson concert, “a world
premier event,” at Mr. Trump’s casino in Atlantic City, N.J., and a New Jersey
Hotel/Motel Association dinner where Mr. Trump received awards.
“There’s no question he was looking to promote himself
as much as he could, figuring out ways to get invited to things,” said Ken
Khachigian, a longtime aide to President Reagan. He said there is little
evidence that Mr. Reagan had affection for Mr. Trump.
In
December 1987, Mr. Trump was invited to a luncheon at the State Department for
Mikhail Gorbachev, premier of the Soviet Union. The next day, Charles Z. Wick,
the late-director of the U.S. Information Agency and an old Hollywood friend of
the Reagans, wrote a note to Nancy Reagan.
“Donald
Trump asked me to give you his best wishes,” Mr. Wick said. “In fact, he is
enchanted with you!”
That
fall, Mr. Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal,” was published and became a best
seller. It contains a photo of Mr. Trump shaking hands with Mr. Reagan. It is
stamped “To Donald Trump,” and signed, erroneously, “Nancy & Reagan
Reagan.”
A White
House staff member saw the photo in Mr. Trump’s book and requested a newly
signed one. “It was obviously signed either in a rush or with a large batch,”
Kathy Osborne said in a memo.
AMEMPER:
La parodia del Conservadurismo de hoy en día.
Soy conservador, siempre he sido conservador y seré conservador hasta
el último día de mi vida.
¿Cuáles son los valores del conservadurismo que se mantienen como los
valores fundamentales en cualquier momento cualquier lugar cualquier situación?
¿Cuál es el pensamiento común de Aristóteles, el apóstol Pablo,
Aquino, Locke, Adam Smith, Goldwater y Reagan?
Templanza, fortaleza. Justicia, fe, esperanza, y amor
Los cuatro primeros provienen de Aristóteles, los dos últimos el
apóstol Pablo (aunque yo diría que están implícitos en Aristóteles si leen
todas sus obras) y son la base para el sistema más perfecto de la ética jamás
creado.
Justicia. Los conservadores
creemos en el concepto de justicia, que la gente debe recompensada o castigada
por lo que se merecen. El mérito de ingresos es la base de la meritocracia del
capitalismo de libre mercado. Esto por supuesto se opone a la obsesión liberal
por la igualdad.
Prudencia. Mientras que un
concepto altamente complejo que la prudencia de palabra no es bastante para
transmitir la complejidad del concepto clásico, podría ser mejor definida como
el conocimiento de lo que debe ser valorado. Con prudencia viene el
entendimiento de que la cosa sólo verdaderamente valiosa es la felicidad
(claro, estoy usando la clásica definición de una vida bien vivida) y valorar
todo el bien subordinado que se necesita para la felicidad. Esto incluye la
libertad, porque la felicidad no puede alcanzarse sin libre albedrío, logro
real.
El liberalismo valora las cosas materiales y no ve ningún punto
superior a la vida que no sea vivir, los conservadores valoran la
sociedad y la visión de Dios, no es un conservador una persona que sólo ve
haber logrado la felicidad por el dinero acumulado.
Templanza, es tomar el
conocimiento del valor de la prudencia y decidir cuánto usted debe valorarlo, a
qué hora, en qué lugar y de qué manera. Arrogancia es el antónimo de Templanza.
Fortaleza de ánimo. Una
vez más a menudo mal entendido cómo valor o imprudencia, está más atada a las
tres virtudes anteriores como la voluntad de hacer lo sabemos que es correcto.
Imprudencia no es Fortaleza.
Para los propósitos aquí, voy a tener fe y esperanza juntas
porque esta es la principal diferencia entre el verdadero conservador y los
líderes que estamos teniendo usando la frustación del pueblo ante el avance del
socialismo para una agenda personal que no tienen nada que ver con la filosofía
conservadora, una filosofía sin fe y con una pormesa de una esperanza
fallida una y otra vez.
Amor, la última de las
virtudes teológicas y lo que debe ser para toda la sociedad estable. Es la
creencia de que otros seres humanos tienen valor y el valor y debe ser
respetados y ayudados cuando sea posible. Esta es realmente la base para el
capitalismo, repúblicas democráticas, amistad y progreso de todos. La creencia
de que todos los seres humanos valen la pena sin diferencia de raza, creencia o
diferencias económicas. Esta es una creencia que no encuentras en muchas de las
creencias políticas cómo el socialismo que se nutre de la lucha de clases.
No dudo que volveré a este tema una y otra vez... pero ha quedado
claro para mí que una o todas estas virtudes son lo que falta en cada
filosofía política que no sea propiamente conservadurismo.
Una persona cómo Donald Trump, que presenta cómo principal atributo su
riqueza, que no conoce la templanza y que destila odio y rechaza la esperanza
por el materialismo, no es conservador.
¿Pueden usar la palabra templanza y amor para describir a Donald
Trump? ¿Pueden usar la palabra justicia en una persona que hace alarde en haber
comprado a políticos para sus negocios, o el respeto a otros seres humanos?
Históricamente, los temas centrales en conservadurismo americano
incluyen respeto a las tradiciones americanas, apoyo del republicanismo y el
estado de derecho, valores Judeo-cristiana, el anticomunismo, defensa del
excepcionalísimo norteamericano y una defensa de la civilización occidental de
amenazas percibidas por el relativismo moral, multiculturalismo y oposición al
ridículo postmodernista de la cultura de nuestros tiempos.
Una persona que no sea moral en su vida, que practica el relativismo
moral y se opone al multiculturalismo como principio, no es un conservador.
"Libertad" es un valor fundamental, presentarse
autoritariamente contra los que no comparten sus ideas, no es promover la
libertad.
El conservadurismo es seguir las leyes establecidas, la
Constitución, no es retórica radical.
Donald Trump no es y nunca había sido un conservador, es asombroso que
aún corra como un republicano y se auto-titule conservador.
Trump es el candidato más liberal en la política fiscal en todo el
campo, con la posible excepción Bernie Sanders.
Su estilo enojado puede reflejar la profunda frustración que los
estadounidenses tienen con los dirigentes de Washington que no han podido
cumplir sus promesas. Pero las políticas que implementaría sólo
beneficiarían a sí mismo y sus propios intereses, no a los
estadounidenses.
Eso lo convierte en la peor clase de político. Por eso apoyaba el
pagador único en el sistema de salud, siempre que su empresa fuera este
pagador.
Pero Trump golpea en frustraciones que son muy reales, bajo esta
administración, y es un maestro manipulador de los medios de comunicación.
Los principios del presidente Ronald Reagan marcan la pauta
conservadora en la década de 1980; en el decenio de 2010 los líderes
republicanos suelen reclamar lealtad a sus principios
Reagan no recurrió a ninguna xenofobia como la que Trump utiliza al
hablar de los inmigrantes mexicanos.
Apeló a los mejores instintos de los votantes obreros. Él había sido,
como Presidente de la Screen Actors Guild, un líder sindical. Él entendía la
contribución de los sindicatos de entonces en los Estados unidos
a la derrota del comunismo.
La estrategia de Reagan fue incluir mano de obra, unir, no dividir al
pueblo americano.
Oh, él podría ser resistente como hierro con un sindicato radical,
como fue con los controladores de tráfico aéreo cuando se dirigían a una huelga
ilegal.
Pero él nunca demostró un odio al movimiento obrero organizado, fue
crítico cuando tenía que serlo pero no odiador.
Galardonó con la medalla de la libertad para el organizador de trabajo
el gran anticomunista Irving Brown de la AFL-CIO.
Porque hay de todo en el sindicalismo y como en todo no se puede
generalizar, ser específico es algo que Trump no nos enseña en ningún momento.
Pero la generalización es atractiva especialmente en estos tiempos en que
vivimos de sindicatos corruptos y politizados y una inmigración sin control.
El objetivo estratégico de Reagan fue conquistar — y mantener — lo que
vino a ser llamado los "demócratas de Reagan". El demócrata que no
les gusta ver América ridiculizada en el extranjero. Demócratas que querían una
economía que produce puestos de trabajo.
Reagan entendía y lo explicó una y otra vez, como puestos de trabajo
se producen por el crecimiento económico. Comprendió también que una vez que
tuvimos ese crecimiento, necesitamos la mano de obra inmigrante por lo que
muchos se quejaron.
No estaba a favor de la inmigración ilegal y sin control que tenemos
en estos momentos, pero estaba de acuerdo a la entrada de trabajadores con el
permiso de trabajo temporal, algo que también apoyó George W
Bush. Hay trabajos, sobre todo en la agricultura que sólo los
inmigrantes están dispuestos a realizar.
En la economía, la llamada “Reaganomics” por sus críticos, la
idea de Reagan, era un programa de pocos impuestos llamado
"arrastramiento del soporte" — ordinarios asalariados en soportes
diseñados para millonarios.
Ahora la manera casi cero las tasas de interés ha descarrilado lo que
debería haber sido un boom de puestos de trabajo.
La demagogia de Trump ha eclipsado por el momento, nuestros
gobernadores más acertados, incluyendo Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Scott
Walker, y senadores más brillantes, como Marco Rubio y Ted Cruz forasteros
políticos triunfadores en la vida privada como Ben Carson y Carly Fiorina.
Reagan habría considerado a Trump como un charlatán sobre economía.
Ser un millonario de nacimiento, comprar las prebendas de políticos,
usar la bancarrota para su beneficio económico no es el tipo de economía
conservadora, sin lugar a dudas no tiene nada que ver con la economía que
proponía Ronald Reagan.
Reagan evitó la grandilocuencia. Es difícil imaginárselo haciendo
alarde sobre ser rico o haber hecho bien en Wall Street. O hablar acerca de
nuestros propios líderes de su partido, llamándolos estúpidos.
Oh, él podría afirmarse a sí mismo en el debate. "Estoy pagando
por este micrófono," él dijo una vez sarcásticamente a un entrevistador. Y
una vez resumió su política de guerra fría contra los comunistas como
"nosotros ganamos, ellos pierden".
Pero tenía un mesurado sentido comunicador. Esto fue explicado por el
mismo después de su Presidencia en el libro "Reagan en su propia
mano," sobre cómo escribió sus propios comentarios.
Era un maestro de la entrañable homilía, la broma y de la autocrítica.
¿Han visto a Donald Trump autocriticándose?
Él era también un maestro del lenguaje visionario — "la ciudad
brillante en una colina".
Sobre todo, era un maestro de optimismo, de que los estadounidenses no
se debieran sentir peor acerca de otras personas, pero mejor acerca
de sí mismos.
Una diferencia abismal con Donald Trump cuando no considera a nadie
bueno menos el mismo y se siente enojado con todo el que lo critica y trata de
destruirlo. Y se siente orgulloso de su porcina insensibilidad.
¿Qué pudiéramos esperar de él si llega a ser presidente?
Reagan, por cierto, fue también un negociador principal y entendió el
equilibrio estratégico hasta el fondo. Por eso logró ganar la guerra fría a los
rusos sin disparar un cohete, pero era un negociador real, nunca hizo una
negociación cómo la de Obama en Irán, nunca cedió en las demandas de la
democracia y la libertad.
Todavía nadie en el partido republicano ha dicho mucho de este tema.
De nuevo algo que Donald Trump no toma en consideración.
La trayectoria del partido republicano tomó un curso diferente en
1992, cuando el millonario Ross Perot con una campaña parecida a la de Donald
Trump hoy separó suficientes republicanos y demócratas de Reagan para entregar
la victoria a Bill Clinton.
Una gran piedra en el camino, la misma piedra que vemos ahora cuando
vemos otro candidato millonario del partido republicano usando el mismo truco y
vemos que logra los mismos resultados.
Un candidato Incoherente, inútil, lleno de auto-elogios,
patinazos, completamente desprovisto de cualquier cosa parecida a un
pensamiento sustantivo. Esto era Ross Perot, eso es Donald Trump.
Está en primer lugar en las encuestas. Esto es América hoy.
Oremos por nuestro país esta noche, todo el
mundo. Oremos por nuestro país.
AMENPER: ¿Fanfarrón
o Agente?
Esta
es mi respuesta a alguien que me respondió a un E Mail sobre Donald
Trump, y me dice que no cree que es un fanfarrón, pero un agente de sus amigos,
los Clinton para destruir las oportunidades del partido en las próximas elecciones
generales.
Aquí está mi respuesta.
Ante todo saludos y cariños.
Me alegro que me expongas esto, porque no sé si lo
vistes en otros de mis E Mail, pero sugerí esa posibilidad.
No tengo tendencia a aceptar en esta sociedad abierta
las teorías conspirativas, pero tampoco me gustan las casualidades
convenientes.
Y sin lugar a dudas a quien más conviene Donald Trump
es al partido demócrata.
En unas elecciones en que cualquier republicano
hubiera tenido un chance mejor que en años anteriores, ha surgido este fenómeno
de un candidato autoritario, con una retórica incendiaria, que nunca podrá
competir en las elecciones generales, amenazando con ser el candidato del
partido y creando una lucha incruenta, divisiva y destructiva.
Trump tiene el 30% de votantes republicanos, de
personas infatuadas con sus promesas.
Tiene un 70% de republicanos, que prefieren otro
candidato, y que por razonamiento, no les gusta Trump, no cómo a un candidato
cualquiera, de una manera diferente. Es decir, que alguien que le guste
Scott Walker o inclusive Jeb Bush, no dejaría de votar por Ben Carson, Marco
Rubio, Carly Fiorina u otro candidato si es el que resulta electo en las
primarias, pero a los que no les gusta Trump, no votarían por él de ninguna
manera en las elecciones presidenciales.
Es un candidato emocional que crea emociones negativas
en sus contrarios. O
sea que con el porcentaje mayoritario de muchos republicanos que no votarían
por él en el partido y el 100% de los demócratas que no votarían por él, no
tiene la menor oportunidad de ganar en las elecciones generales contra
cualquier demócrata, sea quién sea el candidato, inclusive el socialista
Sanders.
Esto lo tiene que saber él, y hay solamente dos
disyuntivas, o es un ególatra que no le importa el país, o tenemos que ir
a la teoría conspirativa de que es un agente de los Clinton, que está
saboteando al partido republicano, lo que en este caso tiene bastante
credibilidad.
AMEMPER: Necesitamos Líderes
“Fuertes” O ¿Fanfarrones?
Creo que debemos exigir del
gobierno americano que invada la isla de Cuba y destituya al gobierno comunista
de Cuba que ha estado oprimiendo al pueblo por generaciones. Debemos salir
a la calle en manifestaciones y declarar huelga en nuestras comunidades hasta
que el gobierno escuche nuestras demandas. Debemos hacer oír
nuestras voces inclusive usar medios violentos, ya que con líderes blandos no
hemos logrado nada.
¿Qué
les parece? ¿Creen que esto solucionará nuestro problema? ¿Creen que un líder
que nos ofrezca esta retórica resolverá definitivamente el problema de Cuba? ¿O
esto simplemente es hablar una quimera que simplemente no resolverá nada,
porque es una situación irrealizable que no solucionará nada sino que
posiblemente la empeorará?¿No es esto en realidad protagonismo, no patriotismo?
Los
problemas de resuelven con soluciones específicas y articuladas.
Soluciones
en que se presente una trayectoria realista para llegar al objetivo final que
necesitamos. Hablar con un lenguaje bombástico y engolado de
bravatas sin lógica, no soluciona ningún problema, sino que lo empeora.
Esto es
lo que nos ha presentado algunos de nuestros líderes en el exilio, el camino
fácil de la fantasía, y han dejado a nuestro pueblo no en una fantasía pero en
un infierno.
Durante
un tiempo cuando fracciones con un tipo de estrategia fanfarrona tomaron el
camino del terrorismo y huelgas en Miami y New York, poniendo bombas, no en
Cuba, pero en la tierra que los acogió, nos vimos justamente rechazados hasta
por nuestros únicos aliados.
Oímos a
líderes que nos dijeron que violáramos las leyes de los Estados Unidos, y
oyéramos el llamado de Fidel Castro y nos lanzáramos en una flotilla de barcos
a recoger a cubanos oprimidos que Fidel nos ofrecía en el puerto del Mariel, y
Fidel nos envió conjuntamente con los familiares a la escoria y los espías que
todavía están entre nosotros. No usamos la lógica articulada, era mejor
oír la solución fácil de no mirar al respeto de las leyes y la estabilidad de
la nación que nos acogió.
Sin
embargo estos líderes que nos presentaron esta estrategia, fueron aceptados por
muchos, cómo que eran los líderes que realmente necesitábamos, cómo
que eran los “patriotas” desde el cómodo exilio.
No es
lo mismo tirar un cohete transportado en el maletero del carro en Hialeah y
tirarlo en Bayfront Park a un barco creando un incidente internacional que
tirar el cohete en la bahía de la Habana al hotel donde estaba un líder
comunista.
El
segundo es un luchador realizando patriótico acto de sabotaje, el primero es un
terrorista y un traidor a la causa de Cuba, porque traiciona a nuestro único
aliado desde su seguro exilio.
El
primero tiene abogados que lo defiendan si lo descubren, el segundo no hubiera
tenido abogados pero paredón si lo hubieran capturado. Esa es la
diferencia entre un acto de terrorismo y un acto de sabotaje, esta es la
diferencia entre un patriota y un protagonista fanfarrón..
Esto es
lo que ofrece El Donald al pueblo americano. Cómo en el caso de los
Cubanos, el pueblo americano está sediento de líderes que expresen su frustración,
y escuchan las fanfarronadas de un líder que nos ofreces fantásticas soluciones
sin una planificación específica y articulada.
Hay
entre los líderes republicanos quienes si la ofrecen para todos nuestros
problemas, tanto para los problemas del medio oriente, como para inmigración o
los problemas económicos. Pero se presentan flojos, porque es mejor
decir que tenemos que deportar a todos los inmigrantes, lo cual es bombástico e
irreal, que decir que tenemos que tener un plan articulado de cerrar las
fronteras y estudiar después el caso de los que están aquí, deportando a los
ilegales que han violado la ley, es más fácil botarlos a todos, pero no es
fácil es demagogia el decir eso, pero nos gusta oír a los
demagogos. Es muy fácil decir que vamos a tomar todo el Medio
Oriente y usar el petróleo de ellos para que nos indemnicen de las guerras,
pero la logística es fantasía, considerando la logística política de siglos de
los musulmanes, pero nos gustan las fantasías.
Claro
que teníamos que luchar por la libertad de Cuba, claro que tenemos que luchar
por la libertad de los Estados Unidos que se enfrentan al peligro
socialista. Pero si oímos los cantos de la demagogia populista de un
líder ególatra que tiene como principal objetivo su protagonismo personal, nos
veremos con el resultado que tuvimos los cubanos en el exilio, nos veremos cómo
el enemigo se mantendrá en el poder y se consolidará en su objetivo.
Esperamos
que este no sea el final de los Estados Unidos que admiramos y conocimos.
WJ: Obama’s
Biggest Lies: Obama Promised To Wait Five Days Before Signing Bills Into Law
|
|
10. Obama Promised To Wait Five Days Before Signing Bills Into
Law… To be fair, maybe he just
got caught up in the excitement of it all. Or maybe in his
rush to approve more federal
spending of tax money he simply forgot
his promise.
9.
“This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History” … This was a statement made by Barack Obama early in 2013 during a
Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout. He went to add that he could, “document that
this is the case.”
8.
Obama Lied About Broadcasting Healthcare Negotiations On C-SPAN… Going into the final negotiations of the now infamous ObamaCare health
care bill, Barack Obama chose to ignore an explicit promise made during his
campaign: to put the entire process out to the public via C-SPAN.
7.
Obama Promised That If Elected, He Would Close The Detention Center At
Guantanamo Bay In 2009. … After being voted
into the White House, he reiterated this promise in a television interview
with ABC. During campaigning he
called Guantanamo “a sad chapter in American history.”
6.
“Lobbyists Will Not Work In My White House.” … As a
presidential candidate he was quite
adamant about this promise.
It was a favorite target of his for
denigrating the outgoing administration.
5.
“It Was Not My Decision To Pull All The Troops From Iraq.” … Really? In a speech to the American people in October of 2011,
President Obama made the announcement that he was ending
the U.S. involvement in Iraq.
4.
“Not One Dime Of ObamaCare Will Go For Abortions.”…
This “PROMISE” was reiterated at
least 12 times during the
run-up to the passing of the ACA.
But apparently, most
Americans are not nuanced enough to
distinguish between
“not” and “it depends.”
3.
“I Cannot Pass Amnesty Through Executive Action…
I
Am Not A Dictator.” … Wow! Barack Obama was
able to
tell two separate and distinct lies
in that single 12-word
sentence. He is truly the master of
deceit.
2.
“With ObamaCare We Will Reduce Your Insurance Premiums
By
$2,500 Per Family, Per Year.” … Another healthcare
promise made by President Obama was that ObamaCare would reduce insurance
premiums by $2,500 per year on average. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the
exact opposite happened.
1. “If you Like Your
Health Care Plan, You Can Keep Your Health Care Plan.” … Will anyone ever forget this grand daddy of all
Obama lies? Will anyone
actually claim that they didn’t know
he was lying each and
every time it said it?
Google Translate:
WJ:
Las mentiras más grandes de
Obama: Obama prometió que
esperaría cinco días antes de firmar
proyectos de ley
10. Obama prometió que esperar cinco días antes de
firmar proyectos de
ley ... Para ser justos, tal vez sólo quedó atrapado
en la emoción de todo.
O tal vez en su apresurarse a aprobar un mayor gasto
federal del dinero
de los impuestos que simplemente se olvidó de su
promesa.
9. "Esta es la administración más transparente
en la historia" ... Esta fue
una declaración hecha por Barack Obama a principios
de 2013 durante un Hangout Google Plus "Fireside". Fue a añadir que
pudo, "documento que
este es el caso."
8. Obama mintió acerca de las negociaciones de
Difusión de la salud en
C-SPAN ... Al entrar en las negociaciones finales
del proyecto de ley de atención médica ahora infame ObamaCare, Barack Obama
optó por
ignorar una promesa explícita hecha durante su
campaña: poner todo el proceso a la opinión pública a través de C-SPAN.
7. Obama prometió que si era elegido, cerraría el
centro de detención
de la Bahía de Guantánamo en 2009. ... Después de
ser votado en la
Casa Blanca, reiteró esta promesa en una entrevista
televisiva
con ABC. Durante la campaña que llamó Guantánamo
"un capítulo
triste en la historia de Estados Unidos."
6. "Los grupos de presión no funcionará En Mi
Casa Blanca." ... Como
candidato presidencial que era bastante inflexible
acerca de esta promesa.
Era un blanco favorito de los suyos por denigrar la
administración saliente.
5. "No fue mi decisión de retirar todas las
tropas de Irak." ... ¿En serio?
En un discurso al pueblo estadounidense en octubre
de 2011, el presidente Obama hizo el anuncio de que estaba llegando a su fin la
participación
EE.UU. en Irak.
4. "No es un centavo de ObamaCare irá por
Abortos." ...
Esta "promesa" se reiteró al menos 12
veces durante el previo a
la aprobación de la ACA. Pero al parecer, la mayoría
Los estadounidenses
no son lo suficientemente matizada distinguir entre
"No" y "depende".
3. "I Can not Pass Amnistía través de la acción
ejecutiva ...
No soy un dictador. "... ¡Guau! Barack Obama
fue capaz de
decirle dos mentiras separadas y distintas en ese
solo 12 palabras
frase. Él es verdaderamente el maestro del engaño.
2. "Con ObamaCare vamos a reducir sus primas de
seguro
Por $ 2,500 por familia, por año ". ... Otra
promesa de la salud del
presidente Obama fue que ObamaCare reduciría las
primas de seguros
por $ 2,500 por año en promedio. Por desgracia para
el resto de nosotros, sucedió exactamente lo contrario.
1. "Si
usted tiene gusto de su plan de salud, usted puede mantener su
2. Plan de
Salud." ... ¿Va a nadie olvidará jamás este gran padre de todos
Los mentirosos Obama miente? ¿Alguien realmente puede
afirmar que no sabía que estaba mintiendo cada vez que lo hizo?
|
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
LAZARO R GONZALEZ
Para Alcalde del Condado Miami Dade
Elecciones de noviembre 8, 2016
Escriba el nombre de Lázaro R González en
el espacio de la boleta electoral en blanco
Por favor dígaselo a sus amigos y familiares si quiere que se acabe el
relajo, el robo, el descaro, la mala administración y que el gobierno le
responda a usted y no que sea un feudo de los políticos inescrupulosos, no
permita más abusos.
Recuerde que “NO Deseamos Donaciones de Dinero”
Les pedimos que comuniquen a todos sus amigos y familiares.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
Asunto: El Papa Francisco, ¿tan desinformados están los Obispos Católicos de Cuba y el mismo Papa? [¿Es papa o boniato?]lrgm
Francisco,
¿el cardenal Jaime Ortega no les informa a los Obispos
Católicos de Cuba de las denuncias que recibe sobre la violación a los derechos
humanos del pueblo cubano?
Francisco,
le digo esto porque la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de Cuba (COCC) expresó este viernes "profunda satisfacción" por la decisión del régimen de indultar a 3.522
presos con motivo de su visita a mi patria.
Francisco, aunque el cardenal Jaime Ortega recibió una lista con casi un centenar de presos políticos, entre los cuales figuran algunos con más de 15 años en el Archipiélago Gulag de Occidente, ni uno solo de ellos será indultado.
“En las
cárceles cubanas se han detectado, según organizaciones como el Comité
para la tortura de la ONU, varias deficiencias: maltrato a
algunos presos, muertes de presos no aclaradas, altas tasas de ocupación
carcelaria por metro cuadrado o falta de garantías de algunos detenidos.
También se han denunciado las detenciones temporales y los procesos por motivos
políticos”.
Francisco,
¿cuándo la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de Cuba (COCC) va
a condenar los tratos crueles, inhumanos y degradantes que sufren los presos en
la Cuba de los hermanos Castro?
Francisco,
lo invito a ver este documental, donde cuatro ex prisioneros políticos cubanos
denuncian los tratos crueles, inhumanos y degradantes sufridos en las prisiones
cubanas.
Francisco,
el grafitero Danilo Maldonado Machado
-conocido como El Sexto- retomó la huelga de hambre que por motivos de salud
abandonó a principios de septiembre. El Sexto está encarcelado desde hace 10
meses sin haber sido
sometido a juicio; fue arrestado en
diciembre de 2014 cuando intentaba realizar una performance con dos cerdos a los que había pintado los nombres
Fidel y Raúl. La organización Human
Rights Foundation (HRF) exigió la liberación de El Sexto.
“El
Sexto está preso por satirizar a una dinastía familiar que lleva 57 años arrogándose
el poder absoluto en Cuba, sin celebrar una sola elección democrática y
reprimiendo cualquier expresión crítica por más inofensiva que sea. Lo irónico
es que Fidel y Raúl Castro confirmaron la puntería del arte de El Sexto porque
reaccionaron exactamente igual que Napoleón, el cerdo dictador retratado en el
libro Rebelión en la granja, de Orwell”, dijo el presidente de HRF, Thor Halvorssen.
Francisco,
¿cuándo usted va a condenar la violación a los derechos
humanos que sufre el pueblo cubano?
“Es criminal quien sonríe al crimen; quien lo
ve y no lo ataca; quien se sienta a la mesa de los que se codean con él o le
sacan el sombrero interesado; quienes reciben de él el permiso de vivir”.
José Martí
Alguien me dijo una vez que
cuando el presidente de USA sea un negro y el Papa un Argentino, EL MUNDO SE VA
A ACABAR>>>> lrgm. emo>
WJ: The Pro-Islamic Policies
Of The Obama Doctrine
When will the
American people begin to wake up and realize that our government, our
politicians, and our own president represent the greatest threat to our nations
very survival?
Admiral James
“Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former
commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, noted the following in regards to
President Obama’s pro-Islamic policies during the Defeat Jihad Summit sponsored by the
Center for Security Policy. The Admiral stated that Obama’s policies
are “very simple, and any thinking American should be able to grasp it.
It’s anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim
Brotherhood.” Bold as these comments may seem today, one only needs to look at
Obama’s underlying belief that America has played a malign role in the world as
our sins have been both of omission and commission.
Thomas Sowell writes “Obama,
in his citizen-of-the world conception of himself, thinks that the United
States already has too much power and needs to be deflated.” In viewing Obama’s
repeated sacrifices of American national interests as deliberate, one can begin
to understand the administrations’ anti-American foreign policy. No one defined
Obama better than Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama’s view of America is one which we are
apart of a “multi-polar world.” This is a world in which, “the American era is
over as we become just one power in the great dining table of nations.” Seen
through this lens, Obama’s “successes” become just as dangerous, if not
more-so, than his failures.
Advertisement
RELATED
STORIES
In the early months
of Obama’s administration he made sure that people in foreign capitals
throughout the world knew he believed much was wrong with America as he went on
an apology tour beginning on April 3, 2009 in Strasbourg, France. In his
remarks to the people of France, Obama stated that, “America has shown
arrogance and been dismissive even derisive” throughout our nations existence.
He then explained that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was a
“sacrifice of [our values] for expedience sake” while announcing that this was
the reason he would be closing it. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose
sight of our values, and who we are. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of
Guantanamo,” stated Obama, further claiming that enhanced interrogation
techniques like those used at Abu Ghraib, “wasn’t good for our security — it was a
recruitment tool for terrorism.”
During the Question
and Answer session afterword, Obama then went on to explain his view that if
America would cut the size of its nuclear arsenal, Iran and North Korea would
be convinced to abandon their ambitions. This was an early indicator the
President always intended to bring Iran to the negotiation table with the
skewed view that if we cut our own nuclear arsenal, then Iran wouldn’t pursue
their own. Obama stated that America needed to “take serious steps to actually
reduce our nuclear stockpiles” because doing so “would give us greater moral authority to say to Iran, don’t develop a
nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don’t proliferate nuclear weapons.” The
obstacle to diplomacy for Obama was in fact, and has always been, America’s own
strength. If our strength could be reduced, then we would have the “moral
authority” to bring murderous regimes such as Iran into the “community of
nations” by pursuing diplomacy backed by no actual hard power.
Obama’s next stop in
his apology tour was in Cairo, Egypt in June of 2009 as he gave his infamous
speech to the “Muslim world.” Acknowledging a strain between the United
States and the Muslim world, Obama explained that the tension had been “fed by
colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War
in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without
regard to their own aspirations.” He then provided his perspective on a world
order that was not based upon America’s own interest nor our strength as he
noted that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over
another will inevitably fail. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership:
progress must be shared.”
Advertisement
TRENDING
STORIES
This “partnership”
was exemplified in Egypt with the Obama administrations support of the
terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood as they overthrew
Egypt’s President Hosni Murbark and put in place a member of the Brotherhood in Mohamed Morsi. It is
important to note that Murbark had upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for
over four decades until Obama came into office and supported his overthrow. In
2013, Egypt’s military ousted Morsi in the wake of massive protests by the
Egyptian people, who regard the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorists that they
are and despise Obama for his support of their plight. To show just how far
Obama is willing to support the Brotherhood, on New Years eve of this year,
Morsi’s successor, former defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, actually stood
before the same podium that Obama once did in Cairo and called for an “Islamic
reformation” throughout the world in response to the violence committed in the name
of Islam. Sisi then went on to attend a Coptic Christmas mass in a symbolic
show of unity with the Christian world as he was the first Egyptian leader to
ever appear at a Cairo cathedral. Obama’s response to this was silence.
Obama supported Morsi
and didn’t support the people of Egypt when the people themselves wanted to
combat the terrorism that Obama himself had help facilitate into a position of
leadership. This was also the case in Iran in 2009 when the leaders of the Green Revolution, an uprising by the
Iranian people against the rigged election that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back into office, plead for help to the Obama administration. In
November 2009, leaders of the Green party, which had staged a revolt on the
streets of Tehran in June of that year, sent a long memo through channels to
the Obama administration in documents obtained by the Washington Examiner. According to
the memo obtained by the Examiner, the Green party stated on November 30, 2009,
that “at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free
world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful
thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will
they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western
interests and world peace.”
The eight-page memo
described the current regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “brutal, apocalyptic theocratic
dictatorship”. The memo warns that Iran “with its apocalyptic constitution
will never give up the atomic bomb, nor will it give up its terror network,
because it needs these instruments to maintain its power and enhance its own
economic and financial wealth.” The administration claimed in 2009 that
the Green party in Iran did not want American help, a lie that was perpetrated
in order to secure the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama officially “secured”
last month. The point that cannot be underscored enough in this instance is
Obama’s willingness to ignore the opportunity to overthrow the radical Mullah’s
in Iran for the sake of securing a nuclear deal with said Mullah’s in the
future.
This finally brings
us to the Iranian ally in Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. When chemical
weapons were used in Syria by Assad and Obama’s infamous red line was crossed, the president’s response was hollow
and empty with a lack of resolve and conviction to back up the claim of holding
Assad responsible. Little did we know the reason for this at the time was due
to keeping the Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran alive. The repercussions of this
also had the effect of opening a new found door for Russia to play conciliator
and chief.
Vladimir Putin was able to
protect his mutual ally in both Syria and Iran while also presenting himself as
a “peacemaker” to the world by proposing a “diplomatic solution” in
announcing Russia’s support for helping and brokering the plan for Assad to
turn over his chemical weapons. The presidents stupefying walk-back from
that red line, as well as his retreat from his earlier statements that Assad
must go, “has sent an unmistakable message of American weakness to our foes,”
states Melik Kaylan in The Russia-China Axis.
Playing on the belief
that the international community feared Assad could target chemical weapons
inspectors acting in Syria, Russia was able to assert a deal in which Moscow
says it was provided with significant responsibility over the skies of Syria,
purportedly to insure against Assad’s air force acting against the
international disarmament effort. An effort that in fact was brokered by
Putin himself which has allowed him to “threaten
retaliation against the U.S.” under the pretense
that Syrian airspace is under Russian control. The vacuum that has been created
in not only Syria but also Iraq is precisely due to Obama lacking the
conviction and the fortitude to assert American power.
Leon Panetta, the president’s
former CIA director and defense secretary, confirmed that due to Obama’s
announcement of withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq without securing a status
of forces agreement, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that
country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began
to breed.” The terrorist group known as the Islamic State or ISIS, was in fact
created because of both the actions and inaction’s of Obama himself.
In fact, a recently
released Defense Intelligence Agency memo affirms that as early
as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but
instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the
terror group as a U.S. strategic asset. The DIA report makes the following
summary points concerning the general situation in an excerpt of the report
which can be viewed in full by clicking here.
B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI
ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE
OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ
(AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH
IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA.
8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE
POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN
EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING
POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS
CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
In an interview with
retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Flynn
dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind
eye” to the DIA’s analysis and affirmed his belief that the US government
didn’t listen to his agency on purpose. Flynn claimed that he thought “it was a
willful decision,” on behalf of the Obama administration to basically create
the Islamic State under the auspices of supporting the “Syrian rebels” in their
fight against Assad.
On the surface this
may seem complicating but underneath all the spin what this means is that Obama
is indirectly supporting al-Qaeda and the Islamic State by arming and training
what he labels “moderate
Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad, who is supported by both Russia and
Iran. Now that Obama has guaranteed that Iran will retain the ability to create
a nuclear weapon while he hands over more than $150 billion in frozen assets,
we see that the culmination of his anti-American, pro-Islamic foreign policy
has created a tinder box in the Middle East. And unfortunately for us here in
the United States, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost as tens of
thousands of Syrian “refugees” are about to be welcomed and resettled
throughout our country.
Yet, if you’re still
not convinced that Obama’s polices are not only pro-Islamic but outright
threatening to the safety of our country, consider what Obama has been working
on in the background under his Foreign Fighter Task Force established by the Department
of Homeland Security. This Task Force was created under the direction of Obama and according
to the May
2015 Interim Report it’s goals are to
rehabilitate and reintegrate into American society individuals who have
returned home after having traveled abroad to fight with terrorist
organizations such as ISIS. For example, one of the tasks outlined in the
report states, “If ideologically-motivated individuals cannot be
stopped from engaging in foreign fighter activity, what can the Department
of Homeland Security do to ensure these individuals do not engage
in violence within their communities upon re-entry into American
communities?”
The report further
notes “incidents involving returning foreign fighters will require a
comprehensive holistic community approach, to include families, educators,
faith-based organizations and networks, civic groups, health and social
professionals.” In short, this “Task Force” will be used as a justification by
Obama to not only succeed in fulfilling his goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, but
also in bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” who cannot be
properly vetted.
As Daniel
Greenfield of Front
Page Mag writes, “more Muslim
refugees mean more terrorist
attacks. It is an inescapable fact of history. We would not have Muslim
terrorism without Muslim immigration. And the Muslim refugee terror wave of the
past is even more likely to be repeated by groups of Muslim migrants coming
from a war zone.”
The question that we
need to be asking is not will Obama’s pro-Islamic policies kill Americans, but
how many will they kill until the American people begin to wake up and realize
that our government, our politicians, and our own president represent the
greatest threat to our nations very survival?
Carson And
Trump Just Got Huge News That’ll Make The Debate Even More Interesting
The two
will likely get to square off face-to-face.
A New
York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday finds Ben Carson pulling nearly
neck-and-neck with Donald Trump in the race for the Republican nomination.
In the
new poll, Carson makes the greatest gains of any of the candidates since the
last one taken by the news outlets prior to the last GOP debate in early
August. In that survey, Carson registered at just 6 percent, but now is coming
in at 23 percent. Meanwhile, Trump, who registered 24 percent before the last
debate, is now at 27 percent. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus
6 percent.
Advertisement
RELATED
STORIES
·
New
Hillary Ad Supports Sexual Assault Victims- Then A Ghost From Her Past Surfaces
With Truth Bomb
Carson
likely drew some of his gains from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former
Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, both of whom have fallen the most in the standings since
the last debate. Walker went from 10 to 2 percent, while Bush fell from 13 to 6
percent.
Additionally,
Carly Fiorina has seen significant gains following her standout performance in
the last debate moving from barely registering in the August poll to 5 percent
support.
As
reported by Western Journalism, Carson
and Trump got into a dust-up last week after the doctor called into question
The Donald’s faith. Carson said that he had not seen the “humility” and “fear
of the Lord” in Trump’s manner one would expect, if faith were an important
part of his life.
Advertisement
TRENDING
STORIES
Trump
responded saying he is a Presbyterian and that he barely knows Ben Carson.
“I happen to be a great believer in God and a great believer in the Bible,”
Trump said.
Carson
apologized for his remarks on Fox News on Friday saying: “There
is no reason ever to question anybody’s faith. That’s something between them and God.”
The two
will likely get to square off face-to-face at next Republican debate on
Wednesday, which is being hosted by CNN and the Reagan Presidential Library.
CNN has
indicated its moderators plan to pose questions to candidates in such a way
that they will be invited to directly address others on the stage.
“My goal
is more about: Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them
fight it out over these policies, over who has the best approach to Putin, over
who has the best approach to taxes, over who believes what over immigration
reform,” one of the debate’s moderators CNN’s Jake Tapper told the New York Times.
“That’s
how we’ve been crafting our questions, so that Senator X will respond to what
Governor Y said about him or a policy he proposed, and try to encourage them to
actually debate Lincoln-Douglas style as much as possible,” he added, referring
to the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in the
1858 Illinois U.S. senate race.
The first
debate on August 6th drew a record 24 million viewers. CNN is anticipating similar
numbers for Wednesday night’s event.
WND: Obama Now Flip-Flopping on Social Security
Dear Reader,
Recently, 70 Democrats delivered a letter to the White House, demanding that President Obama “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.”
President Obama echoed this belief in an address the following day when he stated, “Here’s the truth: Medicare and Social Security are not in crisis, nor have they kept us from cutting our deficit by two-thirds since I took office… We need to keep Social Security strong.”
But Obama’s new tune stands in stark contrast to his statements last year…
In the White House’s 2015 budget proposal, President Obama outlined a major Social Security cut, and the backlash from his party members was substantial.
On page 150 of the Obama Administration’s proposal, it explained the plan to “eliminate [the] aggressive Social Security claiming strategies” that some Americans are using to maximize their Social Security benefits.
Most Americans don’t realize this, but there are real and proven ways to dramatically boost your social security payments. And all of these options are still available- because Obama’s Social Security cut proposals never made it into law.
For example, one couple from Boston used a simple strategy that earned them an estimated $50,000 extra from Social Security in just four years.
One of the experts on these claiming strategies is Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff- a Boston University professor and Senior Economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers to Ronald Reagan from 1981-1982.
Dr. Kotlikoff says there are several totally legal and easy ways to boost your Social Security payments. You just have to understand how these strategies work, and how to put them to use.
Dr. Kotlikoff has written much more about this subject. To see our written summary of his findings, and learn more about the specifics on how to boost your own Social Security payouts, before Congress threatens to shut them down, go here.
Regards,
Michael Ford
Researcher, Stansberry Research
P.S. If you’re
already collecting Social Security benefits, it may not be too late for you to
“redo” your benefits and restart at a much higher rate. To visit the written summary of our
findings, go here.
How Many American Soldiers
has Iran Murdered?
·
by: Jonah Bennett
·
Roadside bombs manufactured by Iran took out 196 American troops in Iraq
between November 2005 and December 2011, rather than the figure of 500 cited by
military officials in July.
Out of 1,526 explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), nearly 200 Americans died and 861 suffered from injuries, Defense One reports.
EFPs, present on the scene in Iraq since 2005, wrought havoc on American forces, mostly because they are a much more advanced form of roadside bomb than regular IEDs and function as cannons, rather than simply sending shrapnel in all directions. The total cost to make an EFP is about $30.
While startling, the new number obtained by declassified U.S. Central Command documents is less than half the figure cited by military officials like Gen. Joseph Dunford, who stated that the number was “recently quoted as about 500″ during his nomination hearing for incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early July. Source: The Daily Caller
Out of 1,526 explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), nearly 200 Americans died and 861 suffered from injuries, Defense One reports.
EFPs, present on the scene in Iraq since 2005, wrought havoc on American forces, mostly because they are a much more advanced form of roadside bomb than regular IEDs and function as cannons, rather than simply sending shrapnel in all directions. The total cost to make an EFP is about $30.
While startling, the new number obtained by declassified U.S. Central Command documents is less than half the figure cited by military officials like Gen. Joseph Dunford, who stated that the number was “recently quoted as about 500″ during his nomination hearing for incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early July. Source: The Daily Caller
- See more at:
http://americanactionnews.com/articles/an-official-number-196-american-soldiers-dead-in-iraq-because-of-iranian-ieds#sthash.9rb9g8ka.dpuf
WESTERN JOURNALISM: Watch: Iran Just Spit In Obama’s Face With
This Stunning Video Threat- Will He Respond?
The
video closes with an American flag-draped coffin.
Iran’s
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei continued his heated, anti-U.S. social
media campaign on Sunday by releasing a video promising death and
destruction to American forces if any military action is taken against his
country.
RELATED
STORIES
The video
opens by quoting President Obama from an interview he gave assuring those
who have any doubts about the Iran nuclear agreement that the military option
is always on the table. “We could knock out their military with speed and
dispatch, if we chose to,” said Obama.
An image
of the White House appears next with the Ayatollah’s voice in the background
stating, “A U.S. official has said that he can destroy Iran’s army. I do
not want to say anything more in this regard.”
The video
then depicts two cowboys, apparently representing the United States,
with an Iranian fighter in the foreground pulling a knife on them. Khameni
says, “Our predecessors used to call such statements, ‘boasting among
strangers.’”
TRENDING
STORIES
Next, the
video shows images of Iran’s military arsenal, which it has at its
disposal to attack U.S. naval and ground forces.
“We
neither welcome nor begin any war,” the Ayatollah says, while animation shows
Iranian missiles being fired. “They must know that should any war break out,
one who will emerge humiliated out of it will be invading and criminal America,” Khamenei
promises as the dates of America’s involvement in Iraq appear on the screen:
2003-2011.
The video
draws to a close with a photo of soldiers carrying an American flag-draped
coffin.
The
Ayatollah’s threatening video comes on top of equally disturbing remarks he
made last week against the United States and Israel.
As
reported by Western Journalism,
Khamenei tweeted that Israel need not concern itself with the terms of the
Iranian nuclear agreement, because “You will not see the next 25 years.
God willing there will be nothing [left of the] Zionist regime….”
As for
the United States, Khamenei tweeted that the “‘US is the Great
Satan,’ some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”
The
Ayatollah promised in a speech last Wednesday that
his nation would no longer be negotiating with the United States. “The Iranian
nation ousted the Satan. We should not let it back through the window,” he
said, referring to the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed
shah.
In the
midst of this bellicose rhetoric, Senate and House Democrats by-in-large stood
with President Obama, voting to approve the Iranian nuclear deal at the end of last week, thereby blocking Republican
efforts to reject it.
A CNN/ORC poll released on Sunday finds that 59 percent of Americans
disapprove of the way President Obama is handling U.S. relations with Iran.
Further, 49 percent of Americans now view Iran as a serious threat, up 10
points from April. CNN reports:
Most
Americans think Iran will ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with
37% calling that extremely likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think
it’s not at all likely that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83%
likely) and independents (58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would
violate the agreement than are Democrats (44% likely).
If Iran
did violate the deal, 64% of all adults say the United States should respond
with military action, including majorities across party lines (57% of
Democrats, 64% of independents and 72% of Republicans). About a third, 34%, say
the United States should not take military action if the deal is broken.
WESTERN JOURNALISM: Watch: Iran Just Spit In Obama’s Face With
This Stunning Video Threat- Will He Respond?
The
video closes with an American flag-draped coffin.
Iran’s
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei continued his heated, anti-U.S. social
media campaign on Sunday by releasing a video promising death and
destruction to American forces if any military action is taken against his
country.
RELATED
STORIES
The video
opens by quoting President Obama from an interview he gave assuring those
who have any doubts about the Iran nuclear agreement that the military option
is always on the table. “We could knock out their military with speed and
dispatch, if we chose to,” said Obama.
An image
of the White House appears next with the Ayatollah’s voice in the background
stating, “A U.S. official has said that he can destroy Iran’s army. I do
not want to say anything more in this regard.”
The video
then depicts two cowboys, apparently representing the United States,
with an Iranian fighter in the foreground pulling a knife on them. Khameni
says, “Our predecessors used to call such statements, ‘boasting among
strangers.’”
TRENDING
STORIES
Next, the
video shows images of Iran’s military arsenal, which it has at its
disposal to attack U.S. naval and ground forces.
“We
neither welcome nor begin any war,” the Ayatollah says, while animation shows
Iranian missiles being fired. “They must know that should any war break out,
one who will emerge humiliated out of it will be invading and criminal America,” Khamenei
promises as the dates of America’s involvement in Iraq appear on the screen:
2003-2011.
The video
draws to a close with a photo of soldiers carrying an American flag-draped
coffin.
The
Ayatollah’s threatening video comes on top of equally disturbing remarks he
made last week against the United States and Israel.
As
reported by Western Journalism,
Khamenei tweeted that Israel need not concern itself with the terms of the
Iranian nuclear agreement, because “You will not see the next 25 years.
God willing there will be nothing [left of the] Zionist regime….”
As for
the United States, Khamenei tweeted that the “‘US is the Great
Satan,’ some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”
The
Ayatollah promised in a speech last Wednesday that
his nation would no longer be negotiating with the United States. “The Iranian
nation ousted the Satan. We should not let it back through the window,” he
said, referring to the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed
shah.
In the
midst of this bellicose rhetoric, Senate and House Democrats by-in-large stood
with President Obama, voting to approve the Iranian nuclear deal at the end of last week, thereby blocking Republican
efforts to reject it.
A CNN/ORC poll released on Sunday finds that 59 percent of Americans
disapprove of the way President Obama is handling U.S. relations with Iran.
Further, 49 percent of Americans now view Iran as a serious threat, up 10
points from April. CNN reports:
Most Americans think
Iran will ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that
extremely likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it’s not at all
likely that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and independents
(58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would violate the agreement than are
Democrats (44% likely).
If Iran did violate
the deal, 64% of all adults say the United States should respond with military
action, including majorities across party lines (57% of Democrats, 64% of
independents and 72% of Republicans). About a third, 34%, say the United States
should not take military action if the deal is broken.
WND: ON CAPITOL HILL
NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS
Compared to missing 18
minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes
Published: 1 day ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/03/gkant_avatar.jpg
WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning.
The revelation emerged after a court ordered the
release of State Department documents as part of Judicial Watch’s effort to
obtain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act.
Emails sent and received by Clinton on her private
server are missing over periods totaling five months, beginning when she took
office as secretary of state in 2009.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the gaps
indicate Clinton lied under oath when she said all her emails had been turned
over, and it suggested government officials had not turned over everything they
were required to deliver.
Fitton said other State Department officials,
including the one in charge of email production, Patrick Kennedy, previously
had been informed of the five-month gap.
The gap in emails received by Clinton run from Jan.
21, 2009, when she became secretary of state, to March 17, 2009. The gaps in
emails sent by Clinton from from Jan. 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, and from
Dec. 30, 2012, to Feb. 1, 2013.
Judicial Watch said the revelation of the email gap
casts doubt on whether Clinton told the truth when she declared under oath last
month, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody
that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of
State.”
Judicial Watch obtained that statement, made in
response to a court order, in separate FOIA litigation.
Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s
independent news network.
The announcement of the email gap was made at an event
in which many of the best minds in Washington came together to discuss what to
do about the many crises plaguing the country during the Obama era.
Judicial Watch is holding a day-long “Leadership
Summit on Washington Corruption and the Transparency Crisis.”
Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of the legal
battle to obtain Clinton’s emails and State Department documents concerning the
former secretary of state’s use of a private server to conduct all of her
official business.
Contrary to her denials, government inspectors
revealed Clinton did have classified information on her private server, which
security experts say was especially vulnerable to hacking by foreign
intelligence agencies.
The FBI is investigating Clinton's use of the server
and trying to retrieve 30,000 emails she deleted after her own staff deemed
them personal correspondence.
The State Department said it had received approximately
"60,00-70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in
twelve bankers boxes," which are "the only comprehensive set of
Secretary Clinton's email correspondence."
But the department was concerned there were other
Clinton emails that would not be found.
"However, of the sample examined, many of the
emails were from Secretary Clinton's personal email account to official
Department email accounts of her staff. Emails originating from Secretary
Clinton's personal email account would only be captured by Department systems
when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be
captured only in the email accounts of those recipients. Secretary Clinton's
staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of
Secretary Clinton's staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this
time."
Fitton said one State Department official indicated
she did not want a written record of the inquiry into Clinton's emails, noting
an email in which she said she preferred to discuss the matter on the phone.
Every email should have been turned over
Fitton also said that among the newly obtained
documents is an internal appraisal by the State Department that determined none
of Clinton's emails should have been excluded for examination as to whether
they were personal or government business.
The document, titled "Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton's Email Appraisal Report," dated Feb. 9, 2015, concluded: "As
the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message
maintained by or for the immediate use of the secretary of state is
'appropriate for preservation.' This record series cannot be considered
personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or
Department policy found in 5 FAM 443."
All of Clinton's emails should have been turned over
to the government for review, Fitton said.
That determination by the State Department is
significant, because Clinton said she deleted more than 30,000 emails that her
own staff had determined were personal.
Fitton emphasized that none of the Clinton emails were
made public voluntarily but were disclosed as the result of litigation.
He compared the five-month Clinton email gap to the
infamous 18-minute gap in the audio tapes turned over to Watergate
investigators by President Nixon.
The email gap was revealed in documents obtained under
court order in the FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State originally
filed by Judicial Watch on May 6, 2013.
The documents also revealed for the first time the
private email account that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills apparently used to
conduct government business, cherylmills@gmail.com
Classified info
The documents also show the State Department had
concerns months ago about classified information in Clinton's emails.
A letter on March 3, 2015, to longtime Clinton
attorney David Kendall said, "Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes
to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such
release and first review the document for information that may be protected
from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons."
Just last week, Justice Department lawyers told a
federal judge they had no reason to suspect Clinton had failed to produce any
emails requested by Congress or watchdog groups.
Monday's revelation of the five-month gaps in emails
turned over by Clinton would appear to cast doubt on the Justice Department's
assurance.
The State Department appraisal report that said
Clinton should have turned over all emails, including the 30,000 she deleted,
because they were deemed personal, also seemed to contradict the Justice
Department.
Top
Justice Department lawyers Benjamin
Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro said in papers filed in federal court Wednesday:
"Because personal records are not subject to [the Freedom of Information
Act], and State Department employees may delete messages they deem in their own
discretion to be personal, plaintiff's preservation argument reduces to an
unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or
intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal
records."
'Unprecedented assault'
Judicial Watch described the Monday event as a
symposium that will "examine how the Obama administration’s corruption and
abuse of power have undermined the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution."
Andrew McCarthy
The group contended the nation is "in the midst
of an unprecedented assault on its open records laws by the corrupt and
secretive Obama administration and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton, an
assault that we believe poses a serious threat to our country’s future."
The event was divided into three sessions, with
closing remarks and a question-and-answer period. The first session was
"Clinton Corruption Challenge from Benghazi to Clinton Cash."
Panelists:
·
Tom
Fitton, Judicial Watch president
·
John Fund, columnist for National Review Online and senior
editor at the American Spectator
·
Joe
diGenova, diGenova & Toensing
·
Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News
·
David Martosko – U.S. political editor for
DailyMail.com
During the first panel, Fund called it ironic that
Clinton began her career as a staffer on a House committee investigating the
18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes.
Fund recalled how her supervisor, a Democrat, had said
it would only be a matter of time before the Nixonian traits she had learned
would come back to haunt her.
The columnist also predicted that investigators would
get to the bottom of the email scandal because, he quipped, "I happen to
know that President Jarrett is not amused by the scandal" – a reference to
Obama's top adviser, Valerie Jarrett.
DiGenova claimed Clinton wanted a private email server
only to deny access to everyone who had a legal right to see her emails.
"If not for Judicial Watch, we would not be
sitting here today," he said.
DiGenova said Clinton "knew all of her electronic
devices were not encrypted," so the suggestions she did not know that she
would receive classified information was "ludicrous."
"And she knew if she turned over everything,
she'd be dead meat."
He added, "I know who has all of the emails – the
NSA."
DiGenova said every one of the emails would have been
captured by the spy agency as part of a counter-intelligence program.
"One phone call from the attorney general to the
head of the NSA would have produced them all," he said.
Fitton said he "guaranteed" all of Clinton's
emails were in the possession of her attorney, Kendall.
The second session was "Illegal Immigration
Crisis: National Security, Job Security, Election Integrity and Public
Safety."
Panelists:
·
Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch director of research and
investigations
·
Irene Garcia, Judicial Watch investigative reporter
·
Rep. Louis Gohmert, U.S. congressman, TX-1
·
Andrew C. McCarthy III, senior fellow at National
Review Institute
·
Robert Popper, Judicial Watch senior attorney and head
of Election Integrity Project
·
J. Christian Adams – president and general counsel of
the Public Interest Legal Foundation
The final session: "The IRS Attack on Free
Speech."
Panelists:
·
Paul Orfanedes, Judicial Watch director of litigation
·
Ramona Cotca, Judicial Watch senior attorney
·
Cleta Mitchell, partner and political law attorney,
Foley & Lardner LLP
Follow
Garth Kant @ DCgarth
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/5-month-gap-in-hillary-emails/#vr4B8ODC0iIf1SS5.99
Carlos
Miyares:
|
The Church, Pope Francis, and Cuba**
|
|
|||
|
|
Eight hundred years ago, the Magna Carta laid the
foundations for individual freedoms, the rule of law and for limits on the
absolute power of the ruler.
King John of England, who signed this great
document, believed that since he governed by divine right, there were no
limits on his authority. But his need for money outweighed this principle and
he acceded to his barons’ demand to sign the document limiting his powers, in
exchange for their help.
King John then appealed to Pope Innocent III who
promptly declared the Magna Carta to be “not only shameful and demeaning but
also illegal and unjust” and deemed the charter to be “null and void of all
validity forever.” Thus from the beginning of the conflict between individual
rights and unlimited authority, the Church sided with authority. It is a
position that, with notable exceptions has, and continues to characterize the
conduct of Church-State affairs.
In 1929, the Holy See signed with Benito Mussolini’s
Fascist government the Lateran Treaty which recognized the Vatican as an
independent state. In exchange for the Pope’s public support, Mussolini also
agreed to provide the Church with financial backing.
In 1933, the Vatican’s Secretary of State Eugenio
Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) signed on behalf of Pope Pius XI, the Reich
Concordat to advance the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany. The treaty
predictably gave moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime and constrained the
political activism of the German Catholic clergy which had been critical of
Nazism. Similarly, advancing the Church’s interests in Cuba is the
explanation given for the Church’s hierarchy coziness with the Castro regime.
For most of us the Catholic Church is simply a
religion, but the fact is that it is also a state with its own international
politico-economic interests and views. It is hard to discern the defense of
any moral or religious principles in the above historic undertakings of the
Church-State.
These doings of the Church, as a state in
partnership with authoritarian rule, are in sharp contrast with the Biblical
rendition, where Christ was persecuted for his political views by a
tyrannical regime acting in complicity with the leadership of His church.
Cubans today are also politically persecuted by a tyrannical regime. The
question arises as to whether the leadership of the Catholic Church will side
with the people or with the Castro regime.
Pope Francis probably, was not thinking of Magna
Carta, the Lateran Treaty or the Reich Concordat, when he warmly received
General Raul Castro in the Vatican earlier this spring, and he probably won’t
be thinking about that foundational document for individual freedoms, the
rule of law and for limits on the absolute power of the ruler or how the
medieval Church spurned it when he travels to Cuba in September. But the
questions of the Vatican’s support for authoritarianism and the Pope’s
political ideology will be in the background of his visit nonetheless.
In political terms, Pope Francis is himself the head
of an authoritarian state -an oligarchical theocracy where only the
aristocracy -the Princes of the College of Cardinals- participate in the
selection of the ruler. Most religions do not follow a democratic structure,
but the Catholic Church is unique in that it is also a state recognized by
international law.
Pope Francis may seem to be sailing against the
winds of this structure in some of his carefully publicized “iconoclasms,”
but clues he has left as to his political and economic thought regarding Cuba
show someone very comfortable with certain status quos.
In 1998, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Monsignor
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the Pope was then known, authored a book titled:
“Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro.” In my reading of the
Pope’s complex Spanish prose, he favors socialism over capitalism provided it
incorporates theism. He does not take issue with Fidel Castro’s claim that
“Karl Marx’s doctrine is very close to the Sermon on the Mount,” and views
the Cuban polity as in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine.
Following Church tradition he severely condemns U.S.
economic sanctions, but Pope Francis goes much further. He uses Cuba’s
inaccurate and politically charged term “blockade” and echoes the Cuban
government’s allegations about its condign evil. He then criticizes free
markets, noting that “neoliberal capitalism is a model that subordinates
human beings and conditions development to pure market forces…thus humanity
attends a cruel spectacle that crystalizes the enrichment of the few at the
expense of the impoverishment of the many.” (Author’s translation)
In his prologue to “Dialogues between John Paul II
and Fidel Castro,” Monsignor Bergoglio leaves no doubt that he sympathizes
with the Cuban dictatorship and that he is not a fan of liberal democracy or
free markets. He clearly believes in a very large, authoritarian role for the
state in social and economic affairs. Perhaps, as many of his generation, the
Pope’s understanding of economics and governance was perversely tainted by
Argentina’s Peronist trajectory and the country’s continued corrupt mixture
of statism and crony capitalism.
His language in the prologue is reminiscent of the
“Liberation Theology” movement that developed in Latin America in the 1960’s
and became very intertwined with Marxist ideology. Fathered by Peruvian
priest Gustavo Gutierrez, the liberation theology movement provided the
intellectual foundations that, with Cuban support, served to orchestrate
“wars of national liberation” throughout the continent. Its iconography
portrayed Jesus as a guerrilla with an AK 47 slung over his shoulder.
John Paul II and Benedict XVI censured Liberation
Theology, but after Pope Francis met with father Gutierrez in 2013 in “a
strictly private visit,” L'Osservatore
Romano, the Vatican's semi-official newspaper, published an essay stating
that with the election of the first pope from Latin America Liberation
Theology can no longer "remain in the shadows to which it has been
relegated for some years…”
The political ideology of the Argentinian Monsignor
Bergoglio may not have been of any transcendental significance. But as Pope
Francis, he is now the head of a state with defined international political
and economic interests. These state-interests and personal ideology will be
in full display in his upcoming visit to Cuba and the United States.
In “Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel
Castro,” Pope Francis speaks of a “shared solidarity” but, as with Pope
Innocent III’s rejection of the Magna Carta, that solidarity appears to be
with the nondemocratic illegitimate authority in Cuba and not with the
people. This is a tragic echo of the Cuban wars for independence when the
Church sided with the Spanish Crown and not with the Cuban “mambises”
fighting for freedom. No wonder that when Cuba gained its independence, many
Cubans saw the Church as an enemy of the new nation.
In his September visit Pope Francis will have a
chance to reverse this history and unequivocally put the Church on the side
of the people, especially with the black and mulatto majority in the Island.
If he does not, history will judge him as unkindly as it has Innocent III.
When the Castros’ tropical gulag finally fades into the past, Cubans will
remember that this Pope had a choice between freedom and authoritarianism,
just as his predecessor did eight hundred years ago, and picked the wrong
side.
Author's Note: I am
Indebted to Diego Trinidad, César Vidal, Andres Oppenheimer, Julio Shiling,
José Benegas, and others for ideas reflected in this article.
_________________________________________________
**Published in the World
Affairs Journal September/October
Issue, 2015.
_________________________________________________
*José Azel is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami and the author of the book “Mañana in Cuba.”
_________________________________________________
The CTP can be
contacted at P.O. Box 248174, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-3010, Tel:
305-284-CUBA (2822), Fax: 305-284-4875, and by email at ctp.iccas@miami.edu. The CTP Website is accessible at http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu.
VERY DISTURBING: What
You Need to Know About Europe’s Immigration Crisis
Things you need to know about Europe’s immigration
crisis.
1. They’re not refugees. They are insurgents.
A matter of semantics? Not really. An insurgent is one who uses force against legal authorities. A refugee seeks little more than safety. Watch the violent scenes I cobbled together in my short video, The Displacement of Western Civilization — In Real Time, then ask yourself, “Are these people insurgents or refugees?” 2. 90 percent have no IDs. Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald reported that 90 percent of those arriving in Serbia via Macedonia are undocumented. That is, they claim they are fleeing Syria, but they have no identification to support their claims. Authorities report finding discarded ID cards belonging to insurgents from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and elsewhere. 3. Legitimate Syrian insurgents are selective. Many insurgents are, in fact, fleeing Syria. However, they traverse through Macedonia, Greece, or Hungary and proceed to Germany, Sweden, and Britain where they are endowed with generous welfare benefits. 4. They’re not fleeing starvation. News images reveal well-fed and well-dressed insurgents toting smart phones and trendy backpacks. They hardly resemble the rag-tag refugees who fled Ireland’s 19th-century potato famine. Some media report insurgents using GPS enabled smart phones to navigate from Turkey to Western Europe. Many claim to have paid smugglers well over $1,200 to get them into Europe. Where do thousands of starving Syrians each get $1,200 expendable cash? 5. Left-leaning politicians welcome the insurgents. Largely uneducated, unemployable, and government dependent, the insurgents will bond with leftist politicians eager to exchange the tax dollars of ethnic Europeans for the votes of insurgent Muslims. As Democrats in the United States welcome illegal aliens from Latin America, leftist politicians understand the hordes of insurgents from the Middle East will support politicians who dole out government programs. The “far right” in Europe is surging. Leftists are desperate to take drastic actions to secure their control of governments, even if it means destroying Europe’s ancient culture. 6. Oil-rich Arab states are accepting no “refugees”. Are Arab nations shunning refugees? Or are refugees shunning Arab nations? While some Islamic nations have accepted legitimate Syrian refugees, many have received none. Why? Because there is no need for Islamic insurgents to invade Islamic nations. Among those Arab nations with no Syrian refugees crossing their borders are Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain. Europe is the primary destination. Germany, alone, is accepting 800,000 insurgents this year alone. 7. ISIS promised to infiltrate the “migrants” Are Islamic terrorists infiltrating the insurgent hordes? Of course they are. The acceptance of insurgents in the name of compassionate diversity makes airport screening moot. Terrorists don’t need to slip past airport security. They simply flood past helpless border guards. 8. Many are illiterate and have no concept of Western values. There is no plan for assimilation. Rather, Europeans are expected to be culturally sensitive to Islamic invaders. You may have noticed that, even in America, there are sensitivity classes designed to teach us to tolerate them, but no sensibility classes teaching them to assimilate with us. Australia may the sole exception. At least that nation requires immigrants to read a handbook on Western culture that reads, in part, “Australians use tongs to handle food, do not blow their nose on to the footpath and say ‘Yes please’ if they would like a cup of tea.” How odd. The far-left of Europe is embracing the most intolerant culture on earth in the name of tolerance. 9. The crisis is not new. The Middle East has been in a perennial state of turmoil since the founding of Islam 1,400 years ago. The current tsunami of insurgents is not due to conflict and poverty. Rather, it’s due to open borders, welcome mats, and politicians willing to sell votes in exchange for welfare benefits. Likewise, the constant status of crime, corruption, and poverty has existed in Latin America for generations. Only in recent years have aliens swarmed across our Southern border. 10. It’s by design. Clearly, the displacement of Western culture in Europe and the United States is neither accident or coincidence. Rather, it is a calculated effort to remove the economic disparity that exist between Western civilization and Third-world nations. The intent is to merge the two disparate cultures into one. The end game will be the displacement of Western culture and the introduction of a paleolithic dark ages from which humanity may never emerge.
Share to spread the truth about these ‘refugees’!
Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2015/09/very-disturbing-what-you-need-to-know-about-europes-immigration-crisis/ |
|||
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment