HPIM0049

No 947 “En mi opinión” Mayo 13, 2015

No 947   “En mi opinión”  Mayo 13, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” LAZARO R GONZALEZ MIñO EDITOR

Si nosotros queremos podemos regresar a unos Estados Unidos fuertes y respetados, eso es si queremos.  Lázaro R González Miño.

 

AMENPER: El fin del Ciclo Socialista…

La política viaja en ciclos, los que hemos vivido los suficientes años para ser testigos de esto, podemos identificar los cambios de las tendencias en los pueblos.

El historiador escocés Alexander Tytler  escribió un artículo sobre esto hace tiempo, que  ahora está recibiendo mucha atención debido a su vinculación con  Wikipedia.

Teoría de Tytler establece un ciclo que recorre todas las democracias. Tytler dijo que el ciclo comienza con una sociedad en la esclavitud.

Luego dice que sigue en esta secuencia: Esclavitud, Fe espiritual, Valor, libertad, abundancia, Egoísmo, Complacencia, Apatía, Dependencia-  

Para a continuación, volver a la esclavitud. Tytler había organizado estos elementos en un círculo que pueden ver en el dibujo.

Hemos estado en un estado de dependencia que nos ha llevado a la esclavitud socialista como en el pasado en muchas partes del mundo.  Pero estamos viendo también como vimos en el pasado una mayoría silente que está volviendo a la fe espiritual que llevan al valor y la libertad que eventualmente nos llevará a la abundancia-

Quizás porque esto no ha sucedido todavía en Latinoamérica hay entre nosotros un estado de pesimismo.  Pero Latinoamérica siempre ha sido la última región en tener los cambios de opinión.

Vemos que el conservador Partido Bharatiya Janata de la India ganó una victoria abrumadora en las elecciones nacionales, llevando  un mensaje del gobierno limpio y responsable, esta victoria  con una histórica mayoría parlamentaria  podría cambiar profundamente el sentido de la democracia más grande del mundo. 

El primer ministro británico Cameron del partido conservador  obtuvo una mayoría absoluta del Parlamento, en las elecciones

Lo que nos trae a las elecciones del 2016 en los Estados Unidos que todavía es el faro del mundo.

El apoyo decreciente ae los demócratas. que se ha convertido en un partido socialista, se puede notar entre los blancos de clase media, y los votantes de clase obrera de todas las razas, grupos que eran antes la base anterior del partido.  Este cambio comenzó hace décadas, y la fruta está madura para estas elecciones. A los obreros votantes les molesta pagar por programas federales que  dicen que desalientan trabajo duro y responsabilidad individual.

Lo que queda en el partido demócrata es la clase que se siente dependiente del gobierno de corte socialista paternalista, o los que han sido victimas de la doctrina de la lucha de clases.

El principal obstáculo a que se enfrentará cualquier candidato demócrata es resistencia a la instalación de un presidente del mismo partido en la casa blanca por tres mandatos consecutivos lo que confirma la teoría de los ciclos, o sea que a los ciudadanos le gusta variar el sistema establecido porque el poder gasta creando descontento.

Si usted mira los presidentes desde la II guerra mundial, cuando el mismo partido ocupó la casa blanca durante tres mandatos consecutivos,  el candidato de ese partido perdido en las próxima elecciones seis de siete veces. Hay  razones el por qué ha prevalecido el obstáculo de tres períodos. La primera y más obvia ha sido porque el titular se ha vuelto impopular durante su segundo mandato, y su impopularidad ha llevado al candidato de ese partido a perder las elecciones.

Las elecciones de 2016, no  serán solo esto. En este caso en particular Obama y su administración es probables que permanezcan muy impopulares entre los votantes. Ya hay una acumulación de agravios entre Obama y los independientes y hasta demócratas que se trasladará a la candidata. Estos incluyen el Obamacare, que ha alienado a muchos jubilados (que consideran que la ley socava el Medicare), dueños de pequeños negocios y empleados y los dirigentes sindicales y trabajadores cuyos beneficios serán gravados ahora. Hay que añadir los reclamos por las regulaciones en la industria energética por los ambientalistas, la inmigración, las armas y los derechos civiles, incluyendo más recientemente su apoyo a los manifestantes en Ferguson y Baltimore que ha causado preocupación de una guerra racial.

Este tono del partido en temas sociales ha alienado a algunos votantes independientes.

Además, hay, por supuesto, muchos votantes que votarían por un republicano independientemente de quién había estado en la oficina, pero hay muchos votantes en el medio (especialmente en los años presidenciales) para los cuales votar o no votar depende de estos factores.

El cambio de tendencia que estamos viendo en el mundo recientemente, apoya las oportunidades del partido republicano.

Si optan por un candidato experimentado y calificado en 2016, y hay una mayoría de buenos candidatos entre los aspirantes, esta es una buena oportunidad de recuperar la casa blanca, confirmando la reticencia de los norteamericanos a mantener el mismo partido la casa blanca tres mandatos consecutivos

A pesar de que en la superficie vemos una distención entre las tendencias políticas de los candidatos republicanos, todos están en mayor o menor grado con una filosofía conservadora, al final, uno sólo será el candidato en las elecciones generales, y con la estrategia adecuada podrían tomar ventaja del clima político.

Una estrategia que podría determinar el resultado de la carrera por la Presidencia en el año 2016, es aprovechar que en la actualidad, que el candidato presidencial que gana el voto popular en todo el estado lleva todos los votos electorales en cada estado menos en Maine y Nebraska, donde los electores se dividen por distritos congresionales.

Añadir unos cuantos Estados azules que pueden volverse más rojizos al modelo de asignación proporcional, estados donde los distritos ahora pueden estar orientados a maximizar las victorias republicanas, haría posible grandes cambios en el resultado de las elecciones.

Los esfuerzos republicanos deben de concentrarse en, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, y sobre todo en Wisconsin y Florida (por eso la candidatura perfecta sería Walker-Rubio) Estos estados fueron la fuente de 106 de 332 votos electorales de Obama-

Si por fin Hillary Clinton es la candidata demócrata, con sus problemas insumergibles que la perseguirán durante la campaña, el partido republicano sólo puede perder si se suicidan con luchas internas, no presentan a los votantes una plataforma coherente o no salen a votar.

Obama Has Just Thrown His Own Country Under The Bus At The UN, Inviting International Ridicule

Once again the Obama administration screams to the world about the supposed sins of America.

Norvell Rose 

When President Obama launched what critics widely called his “apology tour” shortly after his first inauguration, he made highly publicized speeches in a number of other countries in which he repeatedly pointed the finger of blame at the United States for its supposed past transgressions. For instance, he traveled to another country and chastised his own nation for having “shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.

As Karl Rove wrote in an April 2009 commentary for The Wall Street Journal, “President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors.”

RELATED STORIES

Now, once again, the president has shown he is more than willing to paint the U.S. in a very bad light. He has put his stamp of approval on a report from the State Department to the United Nations in which the administration cites what it claims are widespread human rights violations within the U.S. itself. Breitbart News notes that the alleged violations cited in the report to the U.N. Human Rights Council include a number of so-called abuses which many say Obama and his radical policies have caused or worsened:

– Police brutality, including the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri
– Discrimination against Muslims who want to build or expand mosques
– Voter identification laws in Texas and elsewhere
– Predatory lending in home mortgages
– Suspension of black children in schools
– Women earning “78 cents on the dollar” (a false statistic)

And what’s been the reaction from other member countries of the United Nations — countries in which human rights abuses have often been documented? Breitbart says the U.S. has come under withering criticism from a “variety of dictatorships,” including Pakistan, Russian, China, and Iran.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

“Iran, for example, complained about racial discrimination in the United States, among other criticisms, calling on the U.S. to ‘protect the rights of African-Americans against police brutality.’”

Following the Obama administration’s report to the U.N., the headline on the Middle East-based Al Jazeeranetwork blared: “US cited for police violence, racism in scathing UN review on human rights.” In fact, as the Al Jazeera report does not make clear, it was the President of the United States himself, through his own State Department, who condemned his own country’s human rights record and subjected America once again to scorn and ridicule in a troubled world where Obama’s “apology tour” supposedly elevated other nations’ opinion of the United States.

 

Chiste del futuro 

Una mujer que está embarazada va a su parroquia a hablar con el párroco….
“Padre, como usted puede notar, estoy encinta, es una hembra… y la fecha

del parto es el 4 de noviembre, dí­a de las elecciones”.
El padre le dice: “Hija mí­a estás segura?- “Sí , padre”.
“Y… qué te sucede? – “Es que tengo un gran dilema sobre como llamar a mi hija”
“Por qué  Hija mía? – “Pues vea padre, si gana Marco Rubio, la llamarí­a GRACIAS DE DIOS
“Pero si gana Hilary….qué hago ? – El padre con lágrimas en los ojos le contesta… “Tendrá que llamarse … SOCORRO !

 

 

 

Washington Post Gives Clinton ‘Four Pinocchios’ for Illegal Immigration Claim

“As a former senator, Clinton should know better.”

Randy DeSoto 

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made the claim last week at a roundtable discussion in Las Vegas that: “…in New York, which I know a little bit about because I represented it for eight years and I live there now, our undocumented workers in New York pay more in taxes that some of the biggest corporations in New York.”

The Washington Post sensed that her statement did not pass the sniff test and decided to do some digging.

RELATED STORIES

First, the paper noted that Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. She was grouping together primarily the estimated state and local taxes illegal immigrants pay and comparing that figure with federal income taxes corporations may or may not pay in a particular year based on their earnings.

When the Post reached out to the Clinton campaign for facts to back up her claim, her staff pointed to an op-ed piece which appeared in the New York Daily News.

The op-ed’s author, Albor Ruiz, claimed that illegal aliens paid $1.1 billion in state taxes in 2012. That figure came from the liberal Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, which made some generous assumptions in deriving that figure which the paper accepted for comparison’s sake.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

But even taking this figure at face value, Clinton’s assertion does not add up. The op-ed her staff cited offered the examples of Verizon and Citigroup, among others.

In 2012, Verizon paid $1.7 billion in property and other taxes and $1.3 billion in employment taxes. The income tax bill in 2012 was a relatively low $351 million, due to lower earnings.

In other words, the more apples-to-apples comparison found that one New York-based corporation alone paid over three times as much in taxes ($3.4 billion vs. $1.1 billion) as the estimated total of what over 870,000 illegal immigrants in New York paid that same year.

The illegal immigrant tally came close to the 2012 Citicorp total of the approximately $1 billion in state and local taxes and employment taxes (the company paid no corporate federal income taxes that year due to still recovering from significant losses during the recession). This figured does not include the sales taxes the company paid. Further, in 2014 Citicorp paid $1 billion in corporate income tax alone.

Clinton spokesman Josh Schwerin told the Post: “The point she was making is that undocumented immigrants pay more in state and local taxes alone than some of our biggest companies pay in either state or federal corporate income tax.” He added, “That is a striking fact. And that’s why she raised it.”

A 2013 Heritage Foundation report found that overall, illegal immigrants cost the United States over $54 billion more in benefits received versus taxes paid. That deficit would soar to over $100 billion by the end of the decade if illegal immigrants were allowed to become citizens.

The Post’s final assessment of Clinton’s claim:

[C]omparing the taxes of hundreds of thousands of people to the tax bill of one corporation is a stretch and fairly misleading. Even the companies that pay little or no federal income taxes end up paying lots of other taxes. So it’s a nonsense comparison.

We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios, but ultimately settled on Four. As a former senator, Clinton should know better.

 

 

Hillary Clinton/ WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? 

There are many unanswered questions surrounding the September 11, 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya. Because of the coming Presidential elections, an effort was made to incorrectly characterize an obvious terrorist attack for a reaction to an obscure video. America was misinformed by members of the government. A total disclosure of what happened is long overdue to the American people.

Hay demasiadas preguntas sin respuesta en relacion al ataque del 11 de septiembre de 2012 en Benghazi, Libia.  Debido a la cercania a las elecciones presidenciales del 2012, el esfuerzo fue hecho para justificar incorrectamente un obvio ataque terrorista como resultado de un oscuro video.  El pueblo americano fue desinformado por miembros del gobierno.  La total explicacion de los sucesos debe ser revelada al pueblo americano.

To view the 2-min short visit / para ver este corto de 2 minutos apriete aqui:  www.YouTube.com/JAUMS

EMO: {Hay que tener la gandinga cocinada para escuchar a esta comunista} LRGM

 

 

WND EXCLUSIVE

EX-CIA DIRECTOR FLIPS OUT ON BENGHAZI

Claims attackers demonstrated ‘little or no advance planning’

 AARON KLEIN 

Mike Morell

TEL AVIV — In a new account, former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, who has been implicated in the Benghazi talking-points scandal, claimed the Sept. 11, 2012, attack against the U.S. Benghazi mission took place with “little or no advance planning.”

Morell’s theory does not explain how hundreds of militants arrived with weapons, erected armed checkpoints surrounding the compound and demonstrated insider knowledge of the facility while deploying military-style tactics to storm the U.S. mission.

Nor did he attempt to resolve how the attackers knew the exact location of a secretive CIA annex, including the specific coordinates of the building that were likely utilized to launch precision mortar strikes.

Morell’s latest claims also do not explain how militants with “little to no advance planning” could be capable of mounting a fierce, hours-long gun battle with highly experienced U.S. forces stationed inside the Benghazi mission and CIA annex.

Aaron Klein’s “The REAL Benghazi Story: What the White House and Hillary Don’t Want You to Know” is available at the WND Superstore.

Seeking to promote his new book on the war on terrorism published this week, Morell turned a section of the forthcoming work into a piece at Politico titled “The Real Story of Benghazi: A CIA insider’s account of what happened on 9/11/12.”

In the piece, Morell writes, “I believe that, with little or no advance planning, extremists in Benghazi made some phone calls, gathering a group of like-minded individuals to go to the TMF (Temporary Mission Facility in Benghazi). When they attacked, at about 9:40 p.m. local time, the assault was not well organized — they seemed to be more of a mob who intended to breach the compound and see what damage they could do.”

Continued Morell:

When you assess the information from the video feed from the cameras at the TMF and the Annex, there are few signs of a well-thought-out plan, few signs of command and control, few signs of organization, few signs of coordination, few signs of even the most basic military tactics in the attack on the TMF. Some of the attackers were armed with small arms; many were not armed at all.

Many of the attackers, after entering through the front gate, ran past buildings to the other end of the compound, behaving as if they were thrilled just to have overrun the compound. They did not appear to be looking for Americans to harm. They appeared intent on looting and conducting vandalism. When they did enter buildings, they quickly exited with stolen items.

Morell concluded, “Clearly, this was a mob looting and vandalizing the place—with tragic results. It was a mob, however, made up of a range of individuals, some of whom were hardened Islamic extremists. And it was a mob that killed two Americans by setting fires to several buildings.”

Morell’s account of “little to no advance planning” stands in contrast to a number of factors.

Fox News previously reported late Republican Florida Rep. Bill Young said he spoke for 90 minutes with David Ubben, one of the security agents severely injured in the assault. Young said the agent revealed to him the intruders knew the exact location of late Ambassador Chris Stevens’ safe room while demonstrating insider knowledge of the Benghazi compound.

“He (Ubben) emphasized the fact that it was a very, very military type of operation [in that] they had knowledge of almost everything in the compound,” stated Young. “They knew where the gasoline was, they knew where the generators were, they knew where the safe room was, they knew more than they should have about that compound.”

Morel’s description further doesn’t jibe with the State Department’s Accountability Review Board investigation into the Benghazi attack.

The ARB described a well-orchestrated attack with militants who apparently had specific knowledge of the compound. It doesn’t focus on looters but rather on “men armed with AK rifles” who “started to destroy the living room contents and then approached the safe area gate and started banging on it.”

In another detail suggesting a plan, the ARB states the intruders smoked up Villa C, likely to make breathing so difficult that anyone inside the safe room where Ambassador Stevens was holed up would need to come out.

It may be difficult for keen observers to swallow Morell’s claim of largely unplanned attackers and looters in light of events that demonstrated the attackers knew the location of the nearby CIA annex and set up checkpoints to ensure against the escape by Americans inside the special mission.

Further, the perpetrators attacked the CIA annex with mortars that reportedly landed on the roof of the building. Security experts stress the attackers would likely have had to possess exact coordinates of the CIA complex to calculate the precise trajectory and distance from which to fire.

Muhammad video

Meanwhile, in his Politico piece, Morell linked the Benghazi attack to an attack against the U.S. Embassy in Cairo that same day. Morell claimed the Sept. 11, 2012, Cairo attack was motivated by an infamous anti-Islam YouTube video mocking Muhammad.

“We know from having monitored social media and other communications in advance that the demonstration and violence in Cairo were sparked by people upset over a YouTube video that portrayed the Prophet Muhammad negatively,” he wrote at Politico.

Morel continued, “We believe that in Benghazi — over six hundred miles away — extremists heard about the successful assault on our embassy in Egypt and decided to make some trouble of their own, although we still do not know their motivations with certainty.”

However, the Cairo protest Sept. 11 was announced days in advance as part of a movement to free the so-called “blind sheik,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, held in the U.S. over the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

The State Department’s 39-page ARB said a group acting to free Rahman was involved in previous attacks against diplomatic facilities in Benghazi.

The anti-U.S. protest movement outside the Cairo embassy was a long-term project to free Rahman. As far back as July 2012, Rahman’s son, Abdallah Abdel Rahman, threatened to organize a protest at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and detain the employees inside.

On the day of the Sept. 11, 2012, protests in Cairo, CNN’s Nic Robertson interviewed the son of Rahman, who described the protest as being about freeing his father. No Muhammad film was mentioned. A big banner calling for Rahman’s release can be seen as Robertson walked to the embassy protests.

Regarding his attempt to connect the Muhammad film to Benghazi, Morell fails to mention an independent investigation that found no mention of the video on social media in Libya in the three days leading up to the attack. A review of more than 4,000 postings was conducted by the leading social media monitoring firm Agincourt Solutions, finding the first reference to the video was not detected on social media until the day after the attack.

“From the data we have, it’s hard for us to reach the conclusion that the consulate attack was motivated by the movie. Nothing in the immediate picture – surrounding the attack in Libya – suggests that,” Jeff Chapman, chief executive with Agincourt Solutions, told Fox News.

Morell does concede, “I should note that our analysts never said the video was a factor in the Benghazi attacks.”

Still, it would be strange for the public to have gathered outside the Benghazi mission to protest a Muhammad film. The U.S. special mission was not a permanent facility, nor was its existence widely known by the public in Libya.

Indeed, State’s ARB report on the Benghazi attack itself documented the facility was set up secretively and without the knowledge of the new Libyan government.

“Another key driver behind the weak security platform in Benghazi was the decision to treat Benghazi as a temporary, residential facility, not officially notified to the host government, even though it was also a full-time office facility,” the report states.

Morell and talking points

A 46-page House Republican report from last April probing the Benghazi attack detailed how lawmakers who led the investigation were given access to classified emails and other communications that prove the talking points were not edited to protect classified information – as Morell had originally claimed – but instead to protect the State Department’s reputation.

“Contrary to administration rhetoric, the talking points were not edited to protect classified information,” states the ‘Interim Progress Report for the Members of the House Republican Conference on the Events Surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, Terrorist Attacks in Benghazi.’”

“Evidence rebuts administration claims that the talking points were modified to protect classified information or to protect an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),” the report continues.

The report charges that the talking points were “deliberately” edited to “protect the State Department.”

States the report: “To protect the State Department, the administration deliberately removed references to al-Qaida-linked groups and previous attacks in Benghazi in the talking points used by [United Nations] Ambassador [Susan] Rice, thereby perpetuating the deliberately misleading and incomplete narrative that the attacks evolved from a demonstration caused by a YouTube video.”

As WND reported, the tale of the talking points began when U.S. intelligence officials testified behind closed doors in early November 2012 and were asked point blank whether they had altered the notes on which Rice based her comments about the Benghazi attack.

On Sunday, Sept. 16, 2012, Rice appeared on five morning television programs to discuss the White House response to the Benghazi attack. In nearly identical statements, she asserted that the attack was a spontaneous protest in response to a “hateful video.”

Other Obama administration officials made similar claims.

Two congressional sources who spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity said Morell, then acting CIA director, along with Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and National Counterterrorism Center Director Matthew Olsen, each testified behind closed doors that they did not alter the talking points.

On Nov. 16, 2012, former CIA director David Petraeus testified before the same congressional intelligence committees and also replied no to the question of whether he had changed the talking points, three congressional sources told Reuters.

Then, on Nov. 27, the CIA reportedly told lawmakers that it had in fact changed the wording of the unclassified talking points to delete a reference to al-Qaida, according to senators who met with Morell that day.

The Nov. 27 meeting was between Morell, Rice and Republican Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte.

The three senators said in a statement that Morell told them during the meeting that the FBI had removed references to al-Qaida from the talking points “and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation” of the attack on the U.S. mission.

The senators’ joint statement reads: “Around 10:00 this morning in a meeting requested by Ambassador Rice, accompanied by acting CIA Director Mike Morell, we asked Mr. Morell who changed the unclassified talking points to remove references to al-Qaida.

“In response, Mr. Morell said the FBI removed the references and did so to prevent compromising an ongoing criminal investigation. We were surprised by this revelation and the reasoning behind it.”

Morell’s claim of changing the talking points for security reasons is contradicted by the April Republican probe.

Further, on Nov. 28, 2012, CBS News reported the CIA then told the news agency that the edits to the talking points were made “so as not to tip off al-Qaida as to what the U.S. knew, and to protect sources and methods.”

That same report quoted a source from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence who told Margaret Brennan of CBS News that the source’s office made the edits as part of the inter-agency process because the links to al-Qaida were deemed too “tenuous” to make public.

Meanwhile, a few hours after his meeting with the senators, Morell’s office reportedly contacted Graham and stated that Morell “misspoke” in the earlier meeting and that it was, in fact, the CIA, not the FBI, that deleted the al-Qaida references.

“They were unable to give a reason as to why,” stated Graham.

“CIA officials contacted us and indicated that Acting Director Morell misspoke in our earlier meeting. The CIA now says that it deleted the al-Qaida references, not the FBI. They were unable to give a reason as to why,” said the senators’ statement.

“This was an honest mistake and it was corrected as soon as it was realized. There is nothing more to this,” an intelligence official said about Morell’s briefing to the senators.

The official said the talking points “were never meant to be definitive and, in fact, noted that the assessment may change. The points clearly reflect the early indications of extremist involvement in a direct result. It wasn’t until after they were used in public that analysts reconciled contradictory information about how the assault began.”

However, the intelligence community clearly at first portrayed the edited White House talking points as a bid to protect classified information.

White House blames Morell

Morell’s involvement in the talking points was further called into question in a New York Times article in May 2013 quoting administration officials who said Morell deleted a reference in the draft version of the talking points to CIA warnings of extremist threats in Libya, which State Department officials objected to because they feared it would reflect badly on them.

The officials said Morell acted on his own and not in response to pressure from the State Department.

According to the interim House report on Benghazi, after a White House deputies meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, the administration altered the talking points to remove references to the likely participation of Islamic extremists in the attacks.

The administration also removed references to the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaida in Benghazi and eastern Libya, including information about at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi.

Charged the report: “Senior State Department officials requested – and the White House approved – that the details of the threats, specifics of the previous attacks, and previous warnings be removed to insulate the department from criticism that it ignored the threat environment in Benghazi.”

The report authors said that they went through email exchanges of the inter-agency process to scrub the talking points. They wrote that the emails do not reveal any concern with protecting classified information.

“Additionally, the bureau itself approved a version of the talking points with significantly more information about the attacks and previous threats than the version that the State Department requested. Thus, the claim that the State Department’s edits were made solely to protect that investigation is not credible.”

In a particularly stinging accusation, the report states that when draft talking points were sent to officials throughout the executive branch, senior State Department officials requested they be changed “to avoid criticism for ignoring the threat environment in Benghazi.”

“Specifically, State Department emails reveal senior officials had ‘serious concerns’ about the talking points, because members of Congress might attack the State Department for ‘not paying attention to agency warnings’ about the growing threat in Benghazi.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/ex-cia-director-flips-out-on-benghazi/#MSiqQiewZD7kxq7W.99

 

 

 

Jorge Villalon: CUBA: Poder y Negocios

By Jorge Ros 

Hay muchas personas que piensan que el cambio de política de Estados Unidos hacia Cuba, responde a un intento de lograr la libertad de Cuba. La realidad es que los norteamericanos, de todas las tendencias entendieron que la política de aislamiento no funcionaba, que no perjudicaba en nada al gobierno cubano y que podría afectar un poco el nivel de vida del pueblo cubano. Pero sobre todo vieron, que al mantener una política que no funcionaba para el fin que fue diseñada, estaban perdiendo negocios, estaban dejando de vender productos, y decidieron cambiarla.

El mismo Obama ha dicho que no espera ninguna mejora en el aspecto de los derechos humanos, lo cual quiere decir que no espera la democratización de Cuba. La mafia castrista continuará su gobierno represivo, y muchas empresas norteamericanas podrán hacer negocios con el vecino, que hasta diciembre pasado era el enemigo.

Y como en Cuba hace falta de todo, porque hay una escasez general sobre todo de alimentos, medicinas y bienes de consumo, las empresas norteamericanas están listas para vender desde papas hasta computadoras, desde aspirinas hasta medicamentos de ultima generación, sin dejar de pasar por automóviles y maquinaria para hospitales.

Asimismo, Cuba se está abriendo a la inversión extranjera, y muchas de las mismas empresas que hace más de 50 años perdieron lo que habian invertido en cuba por las expropiaciones castristas, están ahora deseosas de volver a invertir. Para los negocios, Cuba está de moda, y en oferta.

Y en el aspecto turístico pasa algo similar. Las empresas navieras, las aerolineas y los prestadores de servicios en general, ven una mina de oro en el potencial turístico de Cuba y no quieren perderse su pedazo del pastel. Todos los días una aerolínea anuncia una nyeva ruta a la habana, los Universitarios se peleán por ir en viajes de estucio a Cuba, y no cabe la menor duda que el turismo será uno de los sectores que más rápidamente se verá beneficiado.

El único elemento que falta en la ecuación es cómo Cuba va a pagar por las inversiones, como se va amanejar el aspecto financiero y si se permitirá a los bancos extranjeros, léase norteamericanos, operar en Cuba. Eso se seguirá discutiendo y a la postre se resolverá. Y sin duda, muy pronto se verá la Bandera Norteamericana ondear en la embajada norteamericana, y seguramente la mismísima águila volverá a posarse en su alto pedestal del monumento al Maine.

El efecto para Cuba será económico, y en la medida que el gobierno se abra más, se acelerará la creación de una clase media y una sociedad civil. Del pasado, poco o nadie hablará, y así llegará el momento en que la biología, a pesar de los efectos milagrosos que le atribuyen a la Moringa, actuará sobre los hermanos castro y pasará lo que Silvio Rodríguez dijo hace un par de años: Antes de morirse, Raúl Castro debe arreglar es desastre económico que hay en Cuba, y así será.

Lo más difícil será la eliminación de la doble moneda, y la eliminación del estado como intermediario laboral, para permitir la libre contratación de personas. Esto último, será lo que realmente permitirá la recuperación del poder adquisitivo de los ciudadanos, para que puedan comprar los bienes que estén llegando y se eleve el nivel de vida. Nivel de vida es equivalente a capacidad de consumo.

Entonces una nueva generación nacida después de la revolución heredará el poder y la capacidad de represión que lo sostiene. Lo que esa generación haga, marcará la vida política futura de Cuba. Ojalá y esa nueva generación que puede llegar al poder tan pronto como en 2018, actúe pragmáticamente y no dogmáticamente. Ojalá que el poder no lo herede nadie de apellido Castro, sinio un Miguel Díaz Canel o cualquier otro.

Pero no nos confundamos. Las medidas tomadas, no buscan la libertad de Cuba, y son apoyadas mayoritariamente por ambos partidos porque en todos los estados hay empresas que buscan hacer negocios con Cuba, y la única excepción son algunos políticos que todavía dependen del voto de un sector radical de la emigración cubana para ser electos.

Que pasará cuando falten los Castro que son el único elemento de cohesión política en Cuba. Eso no se puede saber, pero sin duda alguna se perderá la unanimidad, habrán divisiones y diferencias, y una lucha por el poder, porque al fin y al cabo eso es lo que más les importa a los integrantes del gobierno cubano: Tener el Poder.

Pero la política actual hacia Cuba, está claramente marcada por esos dos elementos: Negocios y Poder. 

Jorge A Villalón 

Direct line 305-297-5167 

 

 

Obama Just Made A Surprising Move That Environmentalists Hate

Environmentalists are not happy…

Heather Laskin

On Monday, the Obama administration gave Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. conditional approval to start drilling for oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea this summer.

Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, said in a statement: “We have taken a thoughtful approach to carefully considering potential exploration in the Chukchi Sea, recognizing the significant environmental, social and ecological resources in the region and establishing high standards for the protection of this critical ecosystem, our Arctic communities, and the subsistence needs and cultural traditions of Alaska Natives.”

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

This is good news for Shell, which for years has been seeking approval to drill in the remote waters of the Chukchi Sea in the Arctic Ocean, believed to hold vast reserves of oil and gas. Curtis Smith, a spokesman for Shell, said: “[t]he approval of our Revised Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan is an important milestone and signals the confidence regulators have in our plan.”

Environmentalists, though, were not happy with the news. Many have been pressing the administration to reject proposals for offshore Arctic drilling, saying a drilling accident in the icy and treacherous waters of the Arctic Ocean would have far more devastating effects than the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, which killed 11 and spewed millions of barrels of oil into the water.

It has also been noted that the Chukchi Sea is one of the most dangerous places to drill in the world. The weather is extreme and the area is extremely remote, which would make it difficult for any clean-up or rescue workers to get there in case of an accident.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

A New York Times article notes that, while in some ways Obama has pursued a more ambitious environmental agenda than any other president, he “has also sought to balance those moves by opening up untouched federal waters to new oil and gas drilling.” The opening of the Chukchi Sea comes just four months after Obama opened a portion of the Atlantic coast to new offshore drilling.

The Interior Department’s approval of the drilling is conditional — Shell will have to obtain approval on a series of remaining drilling permits for the project; but as long as they pass a final set of permit reviews, they can proceed to drill this summer.

 

 

 

 

‘Judgment Has Begun’: Billy Graham’s Daughter Explains How America Resembles Days Of Noah

In part, she blamed an increase in secularism.

  1. Christopher Agee

According to Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, the United States – and the world in general – is actively incurring the wrath of God in much the same way as it did prior to the great flood of the Old Testament.

During a recent speech, Lotz paraphrased Jesus Christ’s prophesy regarding the state of a sinful world during its final days:

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Men and women eating, drinking, marrying, giving in marriage; and they had no idea that judgment was coming until it came and swept them all away.

She went on to draw parallels between that period and modern society.

“It was as though God was just speaking into the wind,” she said of those living in the days of Noah. “No one was paying any attention to Him at all; and then the flood came. And today, people are eating, drinking, giving in marriage. Nothing wrong with those things; they’re just normal everyday activities, right? Except when they’re all done with no acknowledgment of God at all – complete indifference to God.”

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

Lotz cited a “rising atmosphere of secularism and atheism” as a direct contributor to the dire moral straits in which humanity currently finds itself.

“I believe judgment has begun in the world and in this nation,” she said, “but we’re eating and drinking and marrying and giving in marriage. And I think the malls are packed and the stadiums are packed and people talking about what happened on the latest sitcom and worried about all their entitlement; and they have no idea they are living on an abyss and judgment is getting ready to fall.”

 

 

 

 

‘Asylum’ Status Increases Dramatically Under Obama

Source: Congressional Research Service

China (PRC) 25%

Mejico 21%

El Salvador 7%

Guatemala 6%

India 4%

Honduras 3%

Ecuador 2%

Nepal 2%

Haity 1%

Egipto 1%

Otros 28%

“It isn’t border security if all you need is a story.”

Randy DeSoto 

There has been a dramatic increase under the Obama administration in the total number of those who are granted “asylum” status and permitted to stay in the United States.

According to a House Judiciary Committee report, there has been a 586 percent increase in the total of those staying in the country from 2007 to 2013. The Executive Office for Immigration review stated as of Dec. 31, 2014, there are 415,060 non-detained asylum cases (i.e. released into the United States) awaiting review on the immigration court docket.

RELATED STORIES

Asylum status is supposed to be granted to those who face a “credible fear” of persecution or torture in their country of origin.

“Unfortunately our generous asylum policies have become subject to ever increasing levels of abuse largely due to the Obama Administration’s pattern of rubber stamping ‘credible fear’ claims and asylum cases,”said Bob Goodlatte, R.-Va., chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary. “Instead of detaining asylum seekers while the government determines whether their cases are legitimate, the Obama administration simply releases them into the United States.”

Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., agrees. “It changes the standards. It’s breathtaking in its liberalities in regard to what a refugee is.”

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

Fox News reports:

Under current policy, aliens caught crossing the border illegally can claim asylum, and with it receive authorization to work in the United States. Once a work permit is conferred, then comes a social security card and a variety of taxpayer funded benefits such as are Supplemental Security Income, SNAP/Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Medicaid.Some of which even legal, permanent residents do not receive.

Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies says it is a second bite at the apple. “You just have to be on the docket to derive the benefits. But before 2009, there wasn’t an incentive. People don’t come here to sit in detention, they come here for the work permits.”

The House Judiciary Committee recently voted a bill out of committee hoping to tighten the definition for asylum seekers, but critics argue it does not go far enough because it still leaves all the incentives in place.

 

 

“FREEDOM IS  NOT  FREE”

“En mi opinión”

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