HPIM0049

No 912 “En mi opinion” Marzo 26, 2015

No 912 “En mi opinión”  Marzo 26, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”    Lázaro R González Miño    EDITOR

CAMPUS WELCOMES TERRORISTS: Cornell Dean Is Cool With ISIS Club On Campus [VIDEO]

This administrator at Cornell University thinks it’d be a great idea to start an ISIS club and bring in an ISIS member to speak, among other things.

In the latest undercover sting operation from investigative filmmaker James O’Keefe, an assistant dean at Cornell University has advised a journalist posing as a Moroccan student all about how to launch a campus club with the express intent of supporting ISIS.

The Ivy League administrator, Joseph Scaffido, also provides counsel on how to fund the pro-Islamist militant club so it can send “care packages, whether it be food, water, electronics” to ISIS and Hamas — both terrorist organizations, according to the State Department. http://clashdaily.com/2015/03/campus-welcomes-terrorists-cornell-dean-is-cool-with-isis-club-on-campus-video/

 

AMENPER: ¿Por qué Llora El Nativo Americano?

Los ambientalistas tienen razón en cuanto a debemos de mantener el planeta limpio, o sea no debemos de botar la basura en la calle, no debemos orinarnos ni defecar en la tierra, mucho menos hacerlo en los ríos ni botar la comida y la basura en los ríos o en huecos en la tierra . 

Pero creo que hemos hecho avances sobre todas estas cosas, vivimos protegiendo mucho más el medio ambiente que los nativos americanos que vivían antes de que llegaran los colonizadores y llevaban un estilo de vida como el descripto arriba. 

Entonces ¿Por qué dicen que contaminamos el medio ambiente que nos dejaron limpio los nativos americanos o cualquiera otra generación antes que nosotros?

La historia demuestra lo contrario, y decir algo diferente para avanzar una agenda política es negar la historia.

La basura ha sido un problema desde por lo menos 10.000 A.C. cuando los seres humanos comenzaron a alejarse de sus costumbres nómadas para establecer sociedades primitivas.

Las densidades de población mayor resultaron en más residuos de basura y defecación que se concentraba en una pequeña área en América del norte, estudios arqueológicos han demostrado que los americanos nativos, en lo que ahora es Colorado, pudieron haber producido un promedio de 5,3 kilos de residuos por persona por día en aproximadamente en 6.500 BC.  Aproximadamente, en 500 A.C., los atenienses desarrollaron uno de los primeros sitios de disposición municipal en el mundo occidental y requerían a los ciudadanos volcar sus residuos por lo menos una milla de los límites de la ciudad en los campos y bosques.

Alrededor 200 AD, los romanos establecieron una forma temprana del servicio de recogida de basura donde los equipos de dos hombres que caminaban por las calles recogiendo basura y residuos de defecación  y cargarlo en un vagón para botarlo en el río.

Los indios mayas de América Central (200-900 DC) tenía sus propios problemas; sus sitios de eliminación de residuos que a veces estallan y se quemaban.

Incluso para el Oklahoma prehistórico, algún conocimiento de las prácticas de eliminación de residuos como era recopilado a partir de un estudio del registro arqueológico si el registro se evalúa en ese contexto como recopilación. Por ejemplo, más de 2 mil años atrás, en una cultura nativa americana vivían en las cuevas de las montañas rocosas del noreste de Oklahoma, Arkansas y Missouri. En esas cuevas, los arqueólogos han descubierto evidencia de cocina antigua, y se encontraron, huesos de mamíferos, calabazas, semillas de calabaza y melón, tales hallazgos pueden sugerir que esta cultura prehistórica simplemente dejaban sus desechos en cualquier lugar, posiblemente porque cuando los desechos empezaban a apestar se iban a otro lugar, así que dejando los desechos  en su lugar no dio lugar a problemas.

Regulaciones sanitarias mínimas eran comunes en las colonias americanas por los finales del siglo XVII. Por ejemplo, en 1634, funcionarios de Boston prohibieron desechar de pescado y basura cerca de los caminos.

Los principales oficios de la época (curtidores y carniceros) mostraron poca preocupación con la eliminación del impacto de sus desechos extremadamente nocivos en la ciudadanía y el medio ambiente.

Las prácticas de recolección de basura eran principalmente imágenes espectaculares en Inglaterra. La basura era quemada o simplemente tirada en las calles, callejones y las vías navegables. Cerdos vagaban libremente por las calles. Alrededor de los mediados del 1700s, los hogares estadounidenses, en una medida limitada, comenzaron cavando pozos de basura para la eliminación de los residuos domésticos, pero muchos siguieron tirando la basura en las calles y callejones. Incluso a fines de 1800, los visitantes de la ciudad de Nueva York describen algunas partes de la ciudad como un “desastre nasal” debido a los olores que recuerdan a “huevos podridos que se disuelven en amoniaco”.

A fines de la Guerra Civil, cerdos, cabras y perros callejeros eran libres de vagar por las calles como “aspiradoras biológicas.” De hecho, la necesidad de tener animales disponibles para comer la basura era tal preocupación que Charleston, Virginia Occidental promulgó una ordenanza en 1834 para prohibir la caza de buitres ¡porque comían la basura de la ciudad!

El concepto de una “molestia pública” también entró en vigor a principios de 1800 en las ciudades americanas para aliviar, entre otras cosas, los problemas visuales así como las molestias de los olores y residuos pudriéndose en las calles y en propiedad privada.

Una epidemia de cólera en el valle del Mississippi en 1873 mató a alrededor de 3.000 personas, mientras que Nueva Orleans y Memphis tuvieron epidemias de fiebre amarilla. Luego, en 1878, el sur fue golpeado con la fiebre amarilla, la peor epidemia en la historia de la nación. La principal razon de las epidemias fue en gran parte por la falta de sanidad.

Hemos avanzado, tenemos limpieza, no tenemos epidemias de cólera o fiebre amarrilla. Tenemos quee sentirnos orgullosos de esto y tratar de mantener el medio ambiente limpio.  Pero que no nos digan que los nativos americanos o cualquier generación antes que nosotros cuidaban mejor el medio ambiente.

Ese nativo americano que nos enseñan llorando cuando mira a los automóviles en la civilización y las industrias que posiblemente están fabricando jabones, papel de inodoro, drogas para la salud para una vida mejor, ese indio posiblemente estaba llorando porque no lo dejaron cagar en el río o a lo mejor porque el negocio no está muy bueno en el casino de la reservación.

Buscamos un candidato decente que no sea un metiroso o un ladron, ni un descarado para para alcalde Miami Dade:

1-         Que no haya sido ni sea político profesional nunca.

2-         Que no se robe los dineros de los contribuyentes.

3-         Que se someta a un tribunal de cuentas al final de su mandato para que testifique que sus propiedades y peculio no sea mayor de los que represento su sueldo de alcalde u otras fuentes legales y agenas a su posición de alcalde.

4-         Que al final de su mandato se someta a una inspección de la diferencia de su dinero y sus propiedades.

5-          Que se comprometa a eliminar el MDX “Miami Dade XpresWay” (Departamento que ha puesto todos los peajes en las carreteras) Y a eliminar todos los Peajes.

6-          Que no engañe a los contribuyentes tratando de robarse dineros públicos diciendo que va a reparar el edificio de la corte.

7-           Que no engañe al contribuyente diciendo que el inversionista no van a pedir dineros públicos y luego le dan dineros públicos.

8-   Que no tenga ni hijos ni amigos “Cabilderos”

9-           Que no traiga amigos de el para que sean “Vice-Alcaldes” (Cargo que ni existía) Y luego les pague $100,000 o más mas gastos.

10-                     Que se comprometa que al final de cada trimestre se reúna con los ciudadanos del condado a responder las preguntas de los ciudadanos sobre su gestión durante este trimestre.

11-                     Que la deuda y los movimientos económicos, compras, gastos, del condado sean expuestos en un sitio público para que los electores puedan tener control de su administración. 

12-                     Que sea juzgado por los tribunales si favorece de forma económica a sus amigos o familiares.

13-                     Que no le tenga miedo a los gánsteres que hasta hora han desgobernado y desguazado el condado Miami Dade y casi todas las alcaldía de las ciudades.

 “EMO” Por favor envíenme todas las características que considera debe tener el alcalde que usted quiere que administre, fiscalice  y controle al Condado Miami Dade.

Envienme ambien los nombres de las personas que ustedes consideren que sea la persona que se puede enfrentar con esta difícil tarea.        

Lázaro R González Miño Editor  “En mi opinion”

 

 

 

The United States Removes Iran and Hezbollah from Worldwide Terror Threat List

In an unprecedented move, the United States Department of National Intelligence has declared Iran and Hezbollah no longer present a terror threat to the region and to our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel.

Now, more than ever, Israel and the Jewish people need to hear from us to know that we firmly stand with them. Both Iran as a state sponsor, and Hezbollah as an active terrorist organization, pose an imminent threat to Israel and all those in the region who embrace democracy and personal liberty.

This Should Not Be!

That is why I am calling upon you to add your name to the petition calling for reversal of this decision and the reclassification of Iran and Hezbollah, once again as a significant terror threat to the region and to the world.

This petition will be delivered, along with your name and that of thousands of friends like you, to the Director of National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, and the United States Senate Intelligence Committee.

With one voice, we who love Israel, sovereignty, and personal freedom, must voice our strong opposition to this change. We must demand that The United States support and stand with Israel and Jewish people, our allies, and millions who face the constant threat of terror and extremism globally.

Take action today and stand with us. Stand for Israel!

YES! Add My Name to the Petition to Reclassify Iran and Hezbollah as Direct Terror Threats!

 

 

 

 

Stunning! Obama Administration Declassifies Document on Israel’s Nuclear Power

Posted by Jim Hoft

Dimona nuclear plant in the southern Negev desert of Israel. (Alphabetics)

In a stunning move the Obama administration released 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear program.
Israel National News reported:

Obama revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear program released in unprecedented move.

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.

The timing of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with nuclear breakout capabilities.

The Hamas terrorist organization admitted last year that they attempted to hit the nuclear reactor in Dimona, Israel.

The Obama administration just made things easier for Israel’s enemies.

 

Scott Walker to ‘Tex-Mex’ Border
Walker: ‘Secure the Border’

Go HERE Right Now to Pledge Your Support for Scott Walker 2016

 

 

Dear Lazaro R,

 

Conservative Gov. Scott Walker is heading to the U.S.-Mexican borderon Friday with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott.  Bravo!

But on surface, one must think, “What is the big deal about a potential candidate for U.S. President traveling down to see the U.S.-Mexican border?” 

Americans already know the border is a mess — BUT DO THEY REALLY?

President Obama flat-out REFUSES to go to the border to see the mess of his own illegal “open borders” policy.

This is even more so a reason for Gov. Walker to go — to go often, and to bring with him lots of probing questions.

The bottomline truth is that Obama cares only about the metrics — the “head count” from the herd of new Democrat voters he hopes to corral with government dependency. 

Obama sees a trip to the border as totally counterproductive to his “ends”.

This is largely because the national media would be along for the ride — taking pictures and asking inconvenient questions.  

Obama is desperate to avoid so much as a speck of scrutiny.

Frankly, the Obama-invited invasion on the border — compounded by Washington’s cowardly refusal to challenge him — has the U.S.-Mexican border teetering on the brink of a humanitarian catastrophe, among other problems.

Already, there are reports of a new wave of tens of thousands of new unaccompanied alien children illegally crossing the border.

 

“The next explosion of illegal teen border crossing is in full swing, but just one-in-six are being sent home, with most of the rest settled in the United States,” reports the Washington Examiner.

“ICE ‘booked in’ 2,355 unaccompanied youths in December 2014, second only to the previous December’s 3,582.

‘And this is supposed to be the slow time of year,’ said expert Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. ‘Cities and towns that have already received large numbers of unaccompanied illegal alien minors should brace themselves to repeat the process again in the coming months,’ she added”…. (Washington Examiner, 3/23)

Obama and his ilk hate to be exposed by the truth. 

The more often Gov. Scott Walker — and the other potential Presidential candidates — travel to the border to witness the disaster for themselves, the better 

Earlier this year, Gov. Scott Walker changed his view on immigration policy — CORRECTLY. 

 “My view has changed. I’m flat out saying it,” Walker said in an interview that aired on Fox News Sunday.  “I don’t believe in amnesty.  We need to secure the border. We ultimately need to put in place a system that works—a legal immigration that works. Part of doing this is putting the onus on employers.”  

Let’s be clear — this was a very important step in the RIGHT directionfor Gov. Scott Walker — NO AMNESTY!  (anything other would be deal-breaker for conservatives, including this writer)

Of course, for wisely changing his position, Scott Walker was immediately derided with ‘name-calling’ by Jeb Bush supporters (who are pro-AMNESTY and pro-COMMON CORE to the death!)

When good Republican candidates “see the light” and do the RIGHT thing, they should be applauded — not derided

Team Bush and the “Open Borders” crowd can go ahead and say what they want, but Scott Walker has it RIGHT on immigration — “SECURE THE BORDER”.

Gov. Walker’s trip to the U.S.-Mexican border with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott will do even more to further entrench his resolve to fight for a secure American border.

 Go, Scott, Go!

Bob Adams. Treasurer. Go Big, Go Bold PAC
P.S. As you know, Scott Walker is considering a run for President. As conservatives, we must do everything we can to encourage Scott Walker to take the next immediate step.  
Please Pledge Your Support for Scott Walker by Clicking Here!

 

 

 

AMENPER: La Importancia de Ted Cruz

Para el que quiera entenderla

Todavía no sé si le daré el voto a Ted Cruz en las primarias, si es escogido, por seguro que sí en las elecciones generales.  Pero este no es el caso, hay tiempo y un camino largo todavía. 

La importancia de Ted Cruz es que es un ideólogo conservador ortodoxo.  Lo importante es para el que quiera entenderlo es la reacción de la izquierda en cuanto a la visibilidad que ha adquirido Ted Cruz con la inteligente estrategia de presentar su candidatura antes que los demás.

Vamos a ver la reacción de los liberales:

1.-’Primero llamarlo ignorante y estúpido.  Esto es importante porque si llaman ignorante a una persona los millones de personas que todavía piensan en esta nación, averiguan si es verdad. 

Entonces vemos que Ted Cruz Obtuvo su B.A. en la Universidad de Princeton y se doctoró en leyes, magna cum laude, en la Harvard Law School. Fue editor de la Harvard Law Review, editor ejecutivo del Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy y editor fundador de la Harvard Latino Law Review.   Bueenoo me gustaría ser tan ignorante como Ted.

2.-Después dice que no tiene experiencia para ser presidente porque sólo tiene dos años en el Senado.  Pero vemos que durante la tenencia de Ted Cruz en el senado ha sido agresivamente activo y con una visibilidad extrema por la manera en que ha expresado sus punto de vista, contrario a la tenencia del presente presidente que sólo mencionaba la palabra “presente” de vez en cuando como decimos en la pelota “calentando banco”-

Además en su agenda anterior no era precisamente un organizador comunitario, Cruz fue Ted Cruz trabajó como Procurador General de Texas, del 2003 al 2005, cargo que sirvió no sólo como el procurador más joven del estado sino también por ser hispano de padre Cubano.

3.-Que no tiene chance que no tiene apoyo con los hispanos que no puede ser presidente por no haber nacido en los Estados Unidos. Que su posición conservadora lo hace separarse de los votos moderados independientes.

Un tipo tan inteligente, un graduado de Princeton y Harvard, en leyes constitucionales, tiene que tener la seguridad de que es elegible por nacimiento, debido a nacer en un país extranjero de madre americana. Hay precedentes y hay ley. 

Los votos moderados independientes se mueven según la corriente política, y el ciclo electoral, y esta administración socialista está erosionada y gastada, y ha movido a los moderados independientes más a la a la derecha.

El apoyo latino hay que verlo en las urnas, los indocumentados no votan, y a los latinos establecidos legítimamente le molestan la entrada ilegal de los indocumentados.

4.-No tiene el menor chance, es ridículo. 

 Bueno seguro que cuando salgan a la palestra Huckabee y Santorum no vamos a ver tanta bulla de la izquierda.  Si no tiene el menor chance y es ridículo ¿Por qué tanta bulla y ataques? ¿Por qué no lo ignoran? ¿Por qué?

Cuando el enemigo hace bulla es porque le tiene miedo a lo que percibe.

Y lo más importante, la presentación de la plataforma conservadora se presenta más creíble y visible con la presencia de Cruz, los otros candidatos tendrán que apoyarla y compartirla ante el ciclo electoral que debe de inclinarse a la derecha después de 8 años de una desastrosa administración de la izquierda.

Ni Hillary ni los liberales podrán ocultarse más detrás de sus sofismas liberales.

 

 

 

AMENPER: AMENPER@aol.com

One of three articles published by the Wall Street Journal today. These editorials are so explicit in the issues that there is nothing to add, so I am just copying them to you. Sorry, I have not time to translate it.

The Bergdahl Desertion

Obama wanted to ‘whittle away’ the killers at Guantanamo.

March 25, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET

The United States Army intends to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. That wasWednesday’s news, but the bigger story is the extravagant price the U.S. has paid because President Obama wanted to score political points.

Readers will recall that then-Private First Class Bergdahl went missing from his post in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. Fellow soldiers suspected desertion, though the Army conducted a risky manhunt to recover him. The sergeant was quickly captured by the Taliban and held for five years.

The Associated Press has reported that an internal Pentagon investigation in 2010 found “incontrovertible” evidence that he had walked away from his post. Journalists also uncovered an exchange of letters in which the soldier wrote to his father “the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools,” that he was “ashamed to even be american,” and that “the future is too good to waste on lies.” Replied father Robert: “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!”

All of this would have been known to President Obama and National Security AdviserSusan Rice when the Administration decided to swap Sgt. Bergdahl for five Guantanamo Bay detainees—all top Taliban leaders—in May 2014. Mr. Obama even invited Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents to a Rose Garden ceremony to announce the swap, while Ms. Rice declared on aSunday talk show that the soldier had served his country with “honor and distinction.”

At the time of the release, Mr. Obama said he had a sacred obligation as Commander in Chief to do everything possible to bring the sergeant home. Maybe so, but the President made his real motives clear when he noted that the transfer was part of “the transition process of ending a war” and that he wanted to “whittle away” the number of Gitmo detainees. That, he told NBC, “is going to involve, on occasion, releasing folks who we may not trust but we can’t convict.”

This is the language of a President more concerned with pursuing his ideological fixations, and fulfilling a misbegotten campaign pledge, than winning a war or securing the country.

The Bergdahl swap unleashed a torrent of criticism at the time, including from Senate Democrats, so it’s not surprising that the charges against the soldier are only being unveiled now, five months after the midterm elections. There was no Rose Garden ceremony, and Ms. Rice issued no statement that we saw.

Meanwhile, the war in Afghanistan shows no sign of ending, while an emboldened Taliban can look forward to getting their old commanders back after their obligatory year in Qatar ends in June. Sgt. Bergdahl will now face a court martial, but we already know that the White House is guilty of deserting its obligations to U.S. security.

 

 

AMENPER: Published by the Wall Street Journal today. These editorials are so explicit in the issues that there is nothing to add, so I am just copying them to you. Sorry, I have not time to translate it.

Race After Obama

Redefining the issue to make solutions possible.

By DANIEL HENNINGER                                                               Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz took it in the neck from all sides for asking his baristas to chat up half-awake customers about race in America. Mr. Schultz, however, is merely one voice in the conversation on race, which since the Ferguson shooting and Selma’s 50th anniversary has settled on American politics like winter in the East, harsh and unending.

While much of it is predictable or discouraging, others are trying something really new—a positive point of view. We start with the discouraging words.

The nomination of Loretta Lynch, the black federal prosecutor from the Brooklyn district, has elicited comments about her delayed confirmation vote in the Senate.

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said, “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar.”

North Carolina’s Rep. G.K. Butterfield, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus: “I think race certainly can be considered a major factor in the delay.”

These two members of Congress are saying some Senate Republicans, five decades after a bipartisan vote passed the Civil Rights Act, are opposed to Loretta Lynch because she is black.

When the president of the United States was asked if race was playing a role in the delayed nomination, Mr. Obama replied, “I don’t know about that.”

Eric Holder said, “My guess is that there is probably not a huge racial component to this.” He added that “this is really just D.C. politics.”

A fair parsing of these comments by the president and attorney general also suggests the possibility of racism among Senate Republicans.

Mr. Obama could have said, “No. I do not believe race is an issue in the Lynch nomination.” Instead he said, “I don’t know about that.”

Mr. Holder could have said it was all about Washington politics. Instead he said the racial component “probably” isn’t “huge.”

Others, whose work doesn’t require them to look at all of American life through the keyhole of politics, have different ideas.

Appearing on “The Daily Show” a few weeks ago, the hip-hop singer and actor Common discussed race relations with Jon Stewart.Common had just won the Academy Award, with John Legend, for the title song to the movie “Selma.”

“We all know racism exists,” he said. Then he said, “Let’s forget about the past as much as we can and let’s move from where we are now. How can we help each other? Can you try to help us because we are going to try to help ourselves, too.”

The popular rapper ASAP Ferg said something along these lines in an interview with National Public Radio last week. Rephrasing ASAP Ferg’s words is a tricky proposition, so the interview itself remains the best source for his thinking on race. He did say he thinks the charge of racism has become a cult: “I think it’s a cult-like thing . . . Because whoever is pushing this agenda of people being racist, they like, ‘Yo. Keep doing it. Keep doing it. Yeah. Yeah.’”

In an interview with Oprah last April, music producer Pharrell Williams talked about a “New Black” movement, which he says “doesn’t blame other races for our issues.”

At Vanderbilt University last week, ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith said every black person in America should vote Republican in one election: “You [black voters] have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb. The other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.”

***

As the Obama presidency ends, the status quo on race is in a bad place.

If media coverage reflects reality (a limitless “if”), the country’s racial polarization is as bad as most people can remember. Ferguson, Staten Island, the Brooklyn cop killings, the Oklahoma fraternity—a visitor from Mars might conclude next to nothing good has happened since Selma. On the surface of politics, the left browbeats the right in a bleak, zero-sum standoff.

In some conservative circles, a school of reduction holds that the black vote is gone and the Hispanic vote is a waste of time. The future lies in reanimating the 1980s voting bloc of Reagan Democrats that Ted Cruz identified his campaign with this week.

But just as there is black opinion talking now about getting past the Sharpton race cult and extending a hand, some of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates are doing the same thing.

Rand Paul,Jeb Bush,Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, in words or with policies (such as Gov. Bush’s early school-choice program), have sought minority support. Gov. Christie has done a lot of town halls in black neighborhoods across New Jersey, and in 2013 got 21% of the state’s black vote. Shaquille O’Neal did commercials for Mr. Christie.

The race issue will remain after the Obama years. Emerging now is a desire to redefine this subject in ways that make it available to solution.

Write to henninger@wsj.com

 

 

AMENPER: Obama’s Mideast Realignment

AMENPER@aol.com

One of three articles published by the Wall Street Journal today. These editorials are so explicit in the issues that there is nothing to add, so I am just copying them to you. Sorry, I have not time to translate it.

Obama’s Mideast Realignment

His new doctrine: Downgrade ties to Israel and the Saudis while letting Iran fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat.

By MAX BOOT

March 25, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET

189 COMMENTS

 

Let’s connect the dots.

Data point No. 1: President Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011 and is preparing to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016, even while keeping a few more troops there this year and next than originally planned.

Point No. 2: The Obama administration keeps largely silent about Iran’s power grab in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, even going so far now as to assist Iranian forces in Tikrit, while attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with Tehran that would allow it to maintain thousands of centrifuges.

Point No. 3: Mr. Obama berates Benjamin Netanyahu for allegedly “racist” campaign rhetoric, refuses to accept his apologies, and says the U.S. may now “re-assess options,” code words for allowing the United Nations to recognize a Palestinian state over Israeli objections.

Taken together, these facts suggest that Mr. Obama is attempting to pull off the most fundamental realignment of U.S. foreign policy in a generation. The president is pulling America back from the leading military role it has played in the Middle East since 1979, the year the Iranian hostage crisis began and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He is trying to transform Iran from an enemy to a friend. He is diminishing the alliance with Israel, to lows not seen since the 1960s.

Call it the Obama Doctrine: The U.S. puts down the burden, and Iran picks up the slack.

Perhaps the least disputed of these points is the notion that Mr. Obama is stepping back from the Middle East. He has repeatedly said as much, promising to “rebalance” our commitments by shifting forces to the Pacific. The U.S. still maintains substantial forces in the Persian Gulf, as it has done since the early 1980s. But the number of troops in Iraq has fallen from 142,000 when Mr. Obama took power to fewer than 3,000 today, after an interregnum of zero between 2011 and 2014. The number of troops in Afghanistan tripled to 100,000 in 2010 but has since fallen to 10,000 and is supposed to hit zero before the president leaves office. This will be disastrous and destabilizing, but it will allow Mr. Obama to claim that he “ended” the war. In reality, pulling out U.S. troops will only fuel the conflict.

A corollary to Mr. Obama’s vow to make the “tide of war” recede is his determination, if forced to fight, to employ air power alone. The U.S. took part in the NATO air campaign to depose Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but afterward Mr. Obama refused to send a peacekeeping force, a decision that has consigned the country to anarchy. Now Mr. Obama is launching airstrikes against Islamic State while refusing to commit to any ground troops—even though they are essential to ensuring the success of airstrikes.

This brings us to the second part of the Obama Doctrine. The U.S. has regarded Iran as its enemy since our embassy in Tehran was stormed and our diplomats taken captive. The Iranians have sponsored numerous terrorist attacks on American targets, in Lebanon in the 1980s and Iraq in the 2000s.

The Bergdahl Desertion

In response, successive U.S. presidents have backed Israel and Sunni allies, notably Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama is bucking this foreign-policy consensus. He is offering Iran extraordinarily generous terms in the current negotiations, suggesting that he will lift sanctions if Iran merely slows down its nuclear-weapons program for a decade.

Mr. Obama is also doing little to contest Iran’s growing imperium in the Middle East, symbolized by the ubiquitous presence of Gen. Qasem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, which is charged with exporting Iran’s revolution. Tehran backs proxy militias such as Hezbollah, which has moved from its Lebanese base to support Iranian client Bashar Assad in Syria; the Badr Organization, which is leading the charge against Islamic State in Tikrit; and the Houthi militia that has taken over San’a, the capital of Yemen, and is now at the gates of Aden, a strategically vital port near the entrance to the Red Sea

All U.S. officials will say in response is that Iran’s actions are “helpful” as long as they are not too “sectarian”—akin to praising Al Capone for providing liquor to the thirsty masses while piously expressing the hope that his conduct isn’t too criminal. Now the U.S. is even supporting the Iranian-directed offensive against Tikrit by providing surveillance flights and airstrikes for attacking forces.

The flip side of this shift toward Iran is a move away from longtime allies, most notably Israel, which views the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat. The president vowed to put some “daylight” between Washington and Jerusalem, and boy has he delivered. His aides deride the Israeli prime minister as a “chickens—” and a “coward,” and Mr. Obama has exhibited more visceral anger at Mr. Netanyahu than he has at Vladimir Putin or Ayatollah Khamenei.

Mr. Netanyahu has sometimes played into Mr. Obama’s hands—for example, by agreeing to address Congress without first running it by the White House and then vowing, in the closing days of his campaign, that there will be no Palestinian state while he is prime minister. What Mr. Netanyahu meant, as he later explained, was that the Palestinians have not shown a commitment to peace that would make him comfortable giving up further land in the West Bank at the moment. But by appearing to flip-flop on his pledge to seek a two-state solution—a bedrock of U.S. policy under Mr. Obama and George W. Bush—Mr. Netanyahu has provided ammunition for those in the White House who maliciously insist on painting him as a crazed warmonger and ethnic cleanser.

Will Mr. Obama succeed in pulling off his sweeping diplomatic realignment? He still has almost two years in office and considerable presidential prerogative to reorient foreign policy as he sees fit. Ironically, the biggest obstacle in his path may be the Iranian mullahs. If they reject his extraordinarily generous offer for fear of doing any deal with the Great Satan, the folly of his foreign-policy revolution will be brutally exposed.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and author of “Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from Ancient Times to the Present” (W.W. Norton, 2013).

 

 

 

Muslims Demand Mayor Apologize For Texas Town’s ‘Islamophobic’ New Law…But She’s Not Backing Down

BY CHRIS ENLOE   

Thursday, Mayor Beth Van Duyne and the city of Irving, Texas supported Texas House Bill 563. According to CBS Dallas, the bill:

 “…forbids the use of foreign law and codifies the supremacy of U.S. and state law.”

The Dallas Morning News reports that Van Duyne says House Bill 563 has nothing to do with religion:

“‘This bill does not reference Shariah, Islam or even religion. It has nothing to do with preventing any tribunal,’ Van Duyne told the crowd. ‘Why anyone would feel this is hatred or bigotry is absolutely beyond me.’”

Many Muslims in the Dallas suburb believe the bill is in response to anIslamic tribunal opening its doors in the area last year.

CBS Dallas reports that Omar Suleiman, an Irving resident, expressed his misgivings at a city council meeting:

“I think it’s the most disgraceful day in the city of Irving.”

“The elephant in the room is that it’s the anti-Shariah bill.”

In a Facebook post last month, Mayor Van Duyne wrote that she is working with state representatives on strengthening current Texas laws that would prohibit the implementation of any foreign law:

“Currently, Texas Supreme Court precedent does not allow the application of foreign law that violates public policy, statutory, or federal laws. However, now that this issue has emerged in our community, I am working with our State Representatives on legislation to clarify and strengthen existing prohibitions on the application of foreign law in violation of constitutional or statutory rights.”

During a city council meeting, Mayor Van Duyne voiced her position regarding U.S. local, and national, laws:

“Respect them, obey them, embrace them.”

The Blaze’s Jason Howerton asked Van Duyne if she had any reservations over her recent stance:

“No. As an elected official, I took an oath that I would fight for and defend the constitutional rights of residents and I’m going to continue doing that.”

According to The Blaze, the local mayor met with the Irving Islamic Center several times following her Facebook post. Islamic leaders asked her to apologize for “stirring up Islamophobia,” but Van Duyne denied their requests.

 

 

 

MEDIA

The Huge Move Scott Walker Says He’d Make on ‘Day One’ If Elected President

Jason Howerton

Share This

  • Tweet This

Though he has yet to formally announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday that as president he would void any deal President Barack Obama makes with Iran if it allows the country to continue uranium enrichment.

In this May 3, 2014 file photo Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker speaks in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Phelps, File)

His answer was clear when asked if he would reject that deal as president: “Absolutely. Day one.”

“The concept of a nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran and certainly for Israel, but it opens the doors,” he added. “I mean, the Saudis are next, you’re going to have plenty of others in the region. … There is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians. And so they are going to want to have a nuclear weapon if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon. This is something that just escalates before our eyes.”

Walker also said the fact that the Obama administration went into negotiations with Iran “conceding that they are going to allow enrichment to go forwards” indicates the administration doesn’t share his same concerns about a nuclear Iran.

“A nuclear Iran is a problem for the entire world, not just for Israel,” the governor concluded.

Listen to the segment via “The Hugh Hewitt Show” below:

 

URGENT: Trey Gowdy Just Sealed Hillary’s Fate With the Move We’ve Been Waiting For

Rep. Trey Gowdy sent a letter last week to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David Kendall, setting a deadline of April 3 for her to turn her emails and private server over to some neutral third party, or he would pursue litigation.

There has been quite an uproar from the pundits and politicians this month over the revelations that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email account on a private server to conduct official public business.

However, for all of the noise, not much of substance has been done about it, at least by the purported leaders of the major political parties.

That being said, there is at least one politician that remains firmly focused on holding Hillary Clinton accountable for her likely criminal activity, and that man is Trey Gowdy.

The Republican chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee has long sought the former secretary’s emails, as they relate to the 2012 terrorist attack in Libya.

Obama will not finish his second term…

 

Sponsored by RevContent

Now the congressman from South Carolina is through playing around. He apparently doesn’t have the patience to wait much longer for an adequate response to his repeated requests for Hillary’s emails.

In essence, Gowdy is still searching for answers to the same questions he has been asking for two years.

“The Committee must have objective assurances it, and by extension the House of Representatives as a whole, has received all relevant information requested and necessary for a thorough investigation into what happened before, during and after the attacks in Benghazi, Libya,” the letter read, in part, according to IJ Review.

Gowdy was also sure to note in his letter that this whole email scandal was much larger than just Benghazi, most likely alluding to numerous allegations swirling around potentially improper foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation.

“More broadly, the equities in these emails extend beyond this Committee,” he explained. “The House of Representatives and the American people are entitled to a complete accounting of the Secretary’s official record during her time as Secretary of State.”

Gowdy makes it quite clear that his committee doesn’t have police powers, and he can’t force Hillary to comply with his demands.  However, he can refer her to the floor of the House of Representatives, where she could be charged with contempt of Congress, a serious mark on her credibility going forward.

As an aside, before anyone makes the claim that the focus on Hillary Clinton’s private email is some sort of right-wing hit job, it should be noted that the story originally broke in the liberal The New York Times, possibly as the result of a leak from the White House.

Moreover, the fairly liberal Associated Press is already suing Hillary for access to the emails.

But that won’t stop the left from claiming that the whole scandal is a put-up job by the vast right-wing conspiracy.

 

 

Venezuela recorta a la mitad la asistencia petrolera a Cuba y el Caribe

Jorge A. Villalón

Nota míaesto es muy interesante, vamos a oír la “bravura” de Raul, esto creo agiliza la gestión con los EE.UU. lo podrán leer en el Nuevo Herald en la mañana.
Venezuela recorta a la mitad la asistencia petrolera a Cuba y el Caribe
ANTONIO MARIA DELGADO 
ADELGADO@ELNUEVOHERALD.COM
Venezuela ha recortado a la mitad los despachos subsidiados de crudo a Cuba y los países miembros de Petrocaribe y hoy representan cerca de 200,000 barriles diarios en lugar de los 400,000 barriles enviados en el 2012, indicó un informe de Barclays.

Además, el banco de inversión calificó de “irónico” que Venezuela siga manteniendo los despachos de crudo, resaltando que mientras el país donante sufre dificultades extremas, está subsidiando a países que gozan de una mejor salud económica.

Debido a los recortes en los envíos de petróleo a los países de El Caribe, la firma recortó su pronóstico de déficit en moneda extranjera de Venezuela a $22,600 millones desde los más de $30,000 millones que preveía anteriormente para el 2015.

“Los acuerdos petroleros han sido una pesada carga para Venezuela. Estas entregas alcanzaron los 400,000 bpd en su punto más alto en el 2012, pero Venezuela solo obtuvo pagos por 200,000 bpd”, dijo Barclays citando cifras de Petrologistics, firma que hace seguimiento de los movimientos de buques tanqueros.

“En la última década los acuerdos le han costado a Venezuela hasta $50,000 millones”, agregó el informe titulado “Reduciendo la Generosidad”.

Sorprendentemente, Cuba –el más importante aliado del régimen de Nicolás maduro- no ha sido exonerada de los recortes, que se profundizaron después de agosto del 2014, cuando los precios del crudo comenzaron a disminuir.

“Cuba a recibido alrededor de 55,000 barriles diarios desde septiembre, casi la mitad de lo que recibió en el 2012”, señaló el informe.

La reducción de las entregas a Cuba es más importante que las de los otros países beneficiarios de la generosidad venezolana, dado que a diferencia de los países miembros del programa Petrocaribe, que al menos pagan una porción de las entregas, el régimen de La Habana no desembolsa pagos en efectivos por el intercambio.

Bajo los pactos de cooperación vigentes entre los dos países, Cuba paga el crudo que obtiene enviando médicos y entrenadores deportivos para los programas sociales emprendidos por el chavismo y a través de los servicios del aparato de inteligencia de la isla.

Sin embargo, los envíos a los países miembros de Petrocaribe también han disminuido significativamente.

Los despachos a la República Dominicana y a Jamaica, que abarcan aproximadamente la mitad del total del programa, han caído 56 por ciento y 74 por ciento respectivamente frente los niveles del 2012.

Los recortes reducen a solo 80,000 barriles diarios la porción del crudo que envía a sus aliados sin recibir a cambio pagos en moneda dura.

Es un mayor ingreso que mejora el cuadro financiero del país en cerca de $7,500 millones, dijo el informe.

“Nosotros ahora estimamos que el déficit del flujo de caja en moneda dura aumentará a $22,600 millones este año desde los $15,000 millones del 2014, lo cual reduce significativamente nuestro estimado previo de más de $30,000 millones”, dijo Barclays.

“Nosotros estimamos que el gobierno podría obtener financiamiento de $17,500 millones, lo que significa que su posición en activos tendrá que disminuir en cerca de $6,300 millones para poder cerrar la brecha”, agregó.

Venezuela, país que acaba de salir de una de las más pronunciadas y prolongadas bonanzas petroleras de su historia, ahora se encuentra inmersa en uno de sus peores crisis económicas debido a la sistemática destrucción del aparato productivo nacional y la drástica caída de los precios del crudo, sostienen economistas.

Los venezolanos, que hoy enfrentan un índice de escasez mayor al 50 por ciento, se están viendo obligados a pasar horas haciendo cola para poder ingresar a supermercados con anaqueles medio vacíos.

La drástica caída en los precios del crudo aunada a las pesadas obligaciones externas contraídas bajo el chavismo han dejado a la nación petrolera con menos de la mitad de los $33,000 millones que utilizó para importar productos en el 2014, año en que el país ya comenzaba a sufrir la crisis de desabastecimiento.

Además, los problemas económicos por los que hoy atraviesan los venezolanos también pueden ser atribuidos a la asistencia que brindó a Cuba y a otros países del Caribe.

“Si Venezuela hubiese vendido ese crudo bajo condiciones de mercado y ahorrado esos ingresos, tendría actualmente más de tres veces de las reservas internacionales que tiene hoy día”, dijo el informe de Barclays.

Siga a Antonio María Delgado en Twitter:@DelgadoAntonioM

 

 

Action Alert: Your lawmaker may approve $500 billion of debt

 

 

Russ Vought

 

Doc Fix will Cost America $500 Billion

Lazaro R.,

JUST OUT: A report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms the doc fix deal negotiated by Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi is a budget buster. It could drive America $500 billion further into debt.

It’s irresponsible, unsustainable, and worse than we originally thought.

Even President Obama has publicly said he’s ready to sign this so-called doc fix. If Barack Obama is eager to sign it and Nancy Pelosi has blessed it, you know it can’t be good.

The House is scheduled to vote on the Doc Fix deal TODAY – and many lawmakers are still on the fence.

> > Don’t let your Representative cave into pressure and approve $500 billion of debt. Call them today.

Conservatives have a principled plan that solves the problems of Medicare. But Boehner and Pelosi are trying to take the easy way out: adding hundreds of billions to our nation’s already massive debt.

Make the urgent call to your lawmaker today and tell them to vote “NO” to the Doc Fix plan.

Sincerely,

 

Russ Vought
Vice President
Heritage Action for America

 

UST IN: ARMY SGT. BOWE BERGDAHL WILL BE CHARGED WITH DESERTION

ENTERTAINMENT What happened to Michelle Obama’s hair? Mike Opelka

2.2K

It was supposed to be an opportunity for first lady Michelle Obama to promote healthy cooking.
Instead, her appearance on “Jeopardy!” became a spark for Internet rumors about her hair.

Thanks to the way her hair was styled and the lighting in the White House kitchen, some thought the first lady had shaved her head… http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/03/25/what-happened-to-michelle-obamas-hair/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%203-25-15%20FINAL

Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE

“En mi opinión”

 “FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

Blooger:  https://www.blogger.com/home

https://enmiopinionlrgm.wordpress.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s