HPIM0049

No 993 “En mi opinión” Julio 8, 2015

No 993    “En mi opinión”   Julio  8, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST”  Lázaro R González Miño Editor

“EMO” Hoy les tengo una proposición que deseo me respondan con su opinión: Desde hace 27 años que vivo en este condado de Miami desde que vine de las cárceles de Cuba y sin excepción los políticos que: Supuestamente han sido electos para cualquier cargo, para resolver los tremendos problemas de malversación de los fondos públicos, han frustrado las aspiraciones de la mayoría los ciudadanos. Puedo presentar miles de ejemplos descarados:  “El Estadio de los Marlins, El tunnel de puerto, El transporte, el descaro continuado y abusivo de la fantasma Autoridad de Carreteras de Miami, Problemas con la policía, aumento constante de impuestos en cualquier cosa, etc, etc, etc. Creo que somos el condado que más cara paga la gasolina. TODOS LOS POLITICOS HAN DEFRAUDADO LAS ESPERANZAS DE LOS CIUDADANOS.

TODOS LOS POLITICOS SIN EXCEPCIÓN SE HAN BURLADO DE LOS VOTANTES, NO IMPORTA SI SON COMISIONADOS, ALCALDES O LO QUE SEA TODOS HAN RESULTADOS UNOS VAQUETAS.

YO QUIERO DETENER ESTE DESPARPAJO Y CAMBIAR LAS COSAS PARA QUE SE HAGA LO QUE DESEAN LOS CIUDADANOS. Vamos a arreglar todos lo que debemos arreglar, empezando “eliminando al MXDX” “El medio centavo de Pénelas” y a todas las otras muchas porquerías que se han hecho.

Yo creo que soy la persona mejor que se pueden encontrar para resolver estos problemas. En la cárcel en Cuba aprendí a pelear aunque fuera imposible ganar, cosa que aquí si tenemos la posibilidad de ganar.

Yo les propongo que me elijan como Alcalde del Condado de Miami en las elecciones del 2016.

Todos saben que soy una persona “conservadora y respetuosa de las personas que lo merecen”

Yo les ofrezco arreglar todo lo más que se pueda desde mi posición como alcalde y le prometo que cualquier persona se interponga en la tarea de hacer un condado más funcional y honesto lo denunciare con pruebas de su trabajo en contra de que las cosas mejoren en Miami y que mejoren sustancialmente.

De la única forma que podemos hacerlo es si ustedes contactan a sus amigos o conocidos y le envían las informaciones que yo les envíe a ustedes y a su vez ellos también se las envíen a sus amigos. Y todos me envían sus criterios a mí para basar el trabajo sobre lo que consideran los votantes que son necesarios arreglar primero. De esa forma podemos establecer una red de comunicaciones sobre qué es lo que los votantes quieren resolver y cómo.

Llego el momento en que sean verdaderos los votantes los que decidan cuales son las prioridades. Si los Alcaldes y comisionados no representan las necesidades de los ciudadanos esos políticos no deben ser los que tomen las decisiones y despilfarren nuestro dinero en basura que solo los beneficia a ellos.

Para empezar me pueden enviar un resumen de todas las cosas que han funcionado más en el condado y cuál es la forma que ustedes creen se deben hacer.

Como muchos de ustedes saben, no soy una persona rica, ya me he retirado y no dispongo dinero para pagar campaña política. Por lo tanto pienso “Si recibo directamente su opinión de lo que aquí le planteo, sobre mi deseo de postularme para alcalde”

No recolectare dinero, No me postulare en la boleta de candidatos (Porque no tengo disponible los casi mil pesos que hay que pagar para ser un candidato oficial) Seré un candidato en  la boleta en blanco. ¿Qué es eso? Es un espacio que se deja en la boleta después de todos los nombre de los candidatos en el cual usted puede escribir el nombre de la persona que usted considera debe ser el alcalde electo. Aunque no sea un candidato oficial.

Si yo recibo de ustedes una buena respuesta, en calidad y cantidad pues empezaremos desde ya la campaña.

Les pido que me envíen una relación de todas las cosas que ustedes creen que están MAL y envíenme también una relación de cómo se pueden resolver todos los desastres que tenemos en el condado.

Envíenme su opinión sobre mi postulación de Alcalde para el 2016 y sus sugerencias para resolver los problemas que son muchos y muy difíciles de resolver pero juntos lo podemos hacer.  Por favor envíenme sus opiniones y sugerencias y esta idea no es buena la cantidad de personas que no participen será el índice que no soy la persona indicada para salir de este muladar.

Esta es una tarea muy importante y tenemos más de un año para hacer que podamos hacerlo.

Me recuerdo de cuando presentamos el RECALL Contra el Alcalde Carlos Alvares, con poquísimos recursos económicos y nos quedamos cortos por 3600 boletas para sacarlo en una elección. Después vino Brahman y con su super billetera y lo saco. Pero los que encendimos la mecha para sacarlo fuimos nosotros. Eso se lo podemos hacer a estos manganzones que tenemos sentados en las posiciones políticas para enriquecerse y exprimirnos. Y no lo podemos permitir.

Un abrazo a todos ustedes, muy buena suerte y que DIOS nos deje hacer lo que deseamos para que las cosas mejoren para todos, mis mejores deseos a todos.   

Lázaro R González Miño lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com Posible “si ustedes me apoyan”

Alcalde del Condado Miami.

Por favor envíenme su opinión sobre lo que les envió en esta exhortación. Díganme lo que crea, expresen su opinión libremente. Yo necesito saber qué es lo que todos ustedes piensan sobre lo que les he expresado en este mensaje.

Nota: Dice un amigo que si no llevamos el gallo a la valla, no sabremos nunca si puede ganar…  JMF.

 

 

AMENPER: Libertad de Expresión

George Takei, conocido por su franqueza política, levantó una roncha vena durante una entrevista en un afiliado local de Fox, llamando al magistrado de la a Corte Suprema de justicia Clarence Thomas “un payaso en con una cara negra”.

Dijo, “Es un payaso en la cara pintada de negro sentado en el Tribunal Supremo. Me hace sentir enojado. Él no pertenece allí.. Es una vergüenza. es una vergüenza para América”.

Las declaraciones se referían a la  disidencia del magistrado Clarence Thomas sobra la decisión del Tribunal sobre matrimonio homosexual

George Takei no es negro, para mí como cubano es Chino, todos los asiáticos son chinos para nosotros.

Pero si un chino puede decir esto a un negro como Thomas y no lo acusan de racista, ´porque dicen que  es simplemente una libertad de expresión sobre su manera de pensar.

Entonces me puedo tomar algunas libertades al hablar sobre Obama que regularmente no hago, siempre siguiendo el modelo del chinito maricón, Takei.

Obama es un negro mono viviendo en la Casa Blanca, me hace sentir enojado.  El no pertenece allí. Es una vergüenza, para américa.

Pero yo puedo decir esto en un E Mail desconocido, si alguien dice esto en un medio de comunicación seguro que las represalias a Donald Trump lucirían como unas nalgaditas suaves.

 

AMENPER: A Legacy of Cliches

BY THOMAS SOWELL

Thomas Sowell is black, like we Cubans are “Hispanics”.

Labels and clichés are the problem, not the reality.  The reality is that we are individuals and each individual is responsible for his actions. To use the slavery or past discrimination as an excuse for the minority problems is the problem. To have a community of children raised with only one parent and the great expansion of the welfare state or the violation of the existing immigration laws, those are the problem, not the immigration laws that worked for more of 100 years or the so called “legacy of slavery” 100 years after it ended.

Thomas Sowell understand history and knows were the problem resides.

A Legacy of Clichés

BY THOMAS SOWELLJULY 7, 2015, 6:00 AM

Discussions of racial problems almost invariably bring out the cliché of “a legacy of slavery.” But anyone who is being serious, as distinguished from being political, would surely want to know if whatever he is talking about — whether fatherless children, crime or whatever — is in fact a legacy of slavery or of some of the many other things that have been done in the century and a half since slavery ended.

Another cliché that has come into vogue is that slavery is “America’s original sin.” The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catch phrase could stop thinking for fifty years. Catch phrases about slavery have stopped people from thinking, even longer than that.

Today the moral horror of slavery is so widely condemned that it is hard to realize that there were thousands of years when slavery was practiced around the world by people of virtually every race. Even the leading moral and religious thinkers in different societies accepted slavery as just a fact of life.

No one wanted to be a slave. But their rejection of slavery as a fate for themselves in no way meant that they were unwilling to enslave others. It was just not an issue — until the 18th century, and then it became an issue only in Western civilization.

Neither Africans, Asians, Polynesians nor the indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere saw anything wrong with slavery, even after small segments of British nor American societies began to condemn slavery as morally wrong in the 18th century.

What was special about America was not that it had slavery, which existed all over the world, but that Americans were among the very few peoples who began to question the morality of holding human beings in bondage. That was not yet a majority view among Americans in the 18th century, but it was not even a serious minority view in non-Western societies at that time.

Then how did slavery end? We know how it ended in the United States — at a cost of one life lost in the Civil War for every six slaves freed. But that is not how it ended elsewhere.

What happened in the rest of the world was that all of Western civilization eventually turned against slavery in the 19th century. This meant the end of slavery in European empires around the world, usually over the bitter opposition of non-Western peoples. But the West happened to be militarily dominant at the time.

Turning back to the “legacy of slavery” as an explanation of social problems in black American communities today, anyone who was serious about the truth — as distinguished from talking points — would want to check out the facts.

Were children raised with only one parent as common at any time during the first 100 years after slavery as in the first 30 years after the great expansion of the welfare state in the 1960s?

As of 1960, 22 percent of black children were raised with only one parent, usually the mother. Thirty years later, two-thirds of black children were being raised without a father present.

What about ghetto riots, crimes in general and murder in particular? What about low levels of labor force participation and high levels of welfare dependency? None of those things was as bad in the first 100 years after slavery as they became in the wake of the policies and notions of the 1960s.

To many on the left, the 1960s were the glory days of their movements, and for some the days of their youth as well. They have a heavy emotional investment and ego investment in the ideas, aspirations and policies of the 1960s.

It might never occur to many of them to check their beliefs against some hard facts about what actually happened after their ideas and policies were put into effect. It certainly would not be pleasant to admit, even to yourself, that after promising progress toward “social justice,” what you actually delivered was a retrogression toward barbarism.

The principal victims of these retrogressions are the decent, law-abiding members of black communities across the country who are prey to hoodlums and criminals.

Back in the 19th century Frederick Douglass saw the dangers from well-meaning whites. He said: “Everybody has asked the question, ‘What shall we do with the Negro?’ I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us.” Amen.

 

Traduccion al Ingles por Google Translate:

 

POR Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell es negro, al igual que nosotros, los cubanos son “hispanos”.

Las etiquetas y clichés son el problema, no la realidad. La realidad es que somos personas y cada individuo es responsable de sus actos. Para utilizar la esclavitud o la discriminación del pasado como excusa para los problemas de las minorías es el problema. Para tener una comunidad de niños criados con un solo padre y la gran expansión del estado de bienestar o de la violación de las leyes de inmigración existentes, los que son el problema, no las leyes de inmigración que trabajó durante más de 100 años, o el llamado “legado de la esclavitud “100 años después de que terminó.

Thomas Sowell entender la historia y sabe eran el problema reside.

Un legado de clichés

POR THOMAS SOWELLJULY 7, 2015, 06 a.m.

Las discusiones sobre los problemas raciales, casi invariablemente, llevar a cabo el cliché de Pero cualquiera que esté hablando en serio, a diferencia de ser política, seguramente quieren saber si lo que está hablando “, un legado de la esclavitud.” – Si los niños sin padre, el crimen o lo que sea – es, de hecho, un legado de la esclavitud o de algunas de las muchas otras cosas que se han hecho en el siglo y medio desde que terminó la esclavitud.

Otro tópico que se ha puesto de moda es que la esclavitud es “pecado original de América.” El gran juez de la Corte Suprema de Oliver Wendell Holmes dijo que un buen eslogan podía dejar de pensar durante cincuenta años. Frases de captura sobre la esclavitud han impedido que la gente de pensamiento, incluso más que eso.

Hoy en día el horror moral de la esclavitud es tan ampliamente condenado que es difícil darse cuenta de que había miles de años, cuando la esclavitud era practicada en todo el mundo por personas de prácticamente todas las carreras. Incluso los pensadores morales y religiosos que llevan en diferentes sociedades aceptan la esclavitud como un hecho de la vida.

Nadie quería ser esclavo. Pero su rechazo a la esclavitud como un destino por sí mismos de ninguna manera significa que no estaban dispuestos a esclavizar a otros. Fue simplemente no es un problema – hasta el siglo 18, y luego se convirtió en un problema sólo en la civilización occidental.

Ni los africanos, asiáticos, polinesios, ni los pueblos indígenas del hemisferio occidental vio nada malo en la esclavitud, incluso después de pequeños segmentos de las sociedades británicas ni estadounidenses comenzó a condenar la esclavitud como moralmente incorrecto en el siglo 18.

Lo que era especial en América no era que tenía la esclavitud, que existía en todo el mundo, sino que los estadounidenses estaban entre los pocos pueblos que empezaron a cuestionar la moralidad de la celebración de los seres humanos en la esclavitud. Eso no era todavía una opinión mayoritaria entre los estadounidenses en el siglo 18, pero no fue hasta un punto de vista minoritario grave en las sociedades no occidentales en ese momento.

Entonces, ¿cómo terminó la esclavitud? Sabemos cómo terminó en los Estados Unidos – a un costo de una vida perdida en la Guerra Civil por cada seis esclavos liberados. Pero esa no es la forma en que terminó en otro lugar.

Lo que ocurrió en el resto del mundo era que toda la civilización occidental finalmente se volvieron contra la esclavitud en el siglo 19. Esto significó el fin de la esclavitud en los imperios europeos en todo el mundo, por lo general durante la amarga oposición de los pueblos no occidentales. Pero Occidente pasó a ser militarmente dominante en la época.

Volviendo de nuevo a la “herencia de la esclavitud”, como una explicación de los problemas sociales en las comunidades estadounidenses negros hoy, cualquier persona que era serio acerca de la verdad – a diferencia de puntos de conversación – querría revisar los hechos.

¿Estaban los niños criados con sólo un padre tan común en cualquier momento durante los primeros 100 años después de la esclavitud como en los primeros 30 años después de la gran expansión del estado de bienestar en los años 1960?

A partir de 1960, el 22 por ciento de los niños negros se plantearon con un solo progenitor, generalmente la madre. Treinta años después, dos tercios de los niños negros fueron criados sin un padre presente.

¿Qué pasa con los disturbios ghetto, delitos en general y, en particular, el asesinato? ¿Qué pasa con los bajos niveles de participación en la fuerza laboral y los altos niveles de dependencia del bienestar? Ninguna de esas cosas era tan malo en los primeros 100 años después de la esclavitud ya que se convirtió en la estela de las políticas y las nociones de la década de 1960.

Para muchos en la izquierda, la década de 1960 fueron los días de gloria de sus movimientos, y para algunos de los días de su juventud también. Tienen una inversión emocional pesada y la inversión ego en las ideas, aspiraciones y políticas de la década de 1960.

Nunca podría ocurrir a muchos de ellos para comprobar sus creencias contra algunos hechos acerca de lo que realmente ocurrió después de que sus ideas y políticas se lleven a efecto. Ciertamente no sería agradable para admitir, incluso a sí mismo, que después de prometer el progreso hacia la “justicia social”, lo que en realidad era entregado un retroceso hacia la barbarie.

Las principales víctimas de estos retrocesos son los dignos miembros de las comunidades negras en todo el país que son víctimas de matones y criminales, respetuosos de la ley.

Ya en el siglo 19 Frederick Douglass vio los peligros de buenas intenciones claras. Él dijo: “Todo el mundo ha hecho la pregunta:” ¿Qué vamos a hacer con los negros? “He tenido más que una respuesta desde el principio. No hacer nada con nosotros! Su haciendo con nosotros ya ha jugado el mal con nosotros. “Amén.

 

 

 

AMENPER: LA ISLA DEL ENCANTO

 

Oímos las quejas de los puertorriqueños de la situación en la isla. 

Citando el aumento de los impuestos, las escuelas inseguras, falta de servicios públicos y de control social beneficios sintiéndose abusados, muchos de los residentes de Puerto Rico huyen al continente.

Pero el problema no es Puerto Rico. La Isla del Encanto no se puede comparar a ninguna ciudad del continente, por su belleza y su clima, como por ejemplo Detroit.

Pero oímos que al mismo tiempo, que los residentes de Puerto Rico se están mudando al continente, los residentes de Detroit están mudándose a Puerto Rico en busca de mejores condiciones de vida y mejores beneficios.

Si a esto añadimos los Haitianos y Dominicanos que consideran la vida mejor en Puerto Rico que en sus países, nos vamos a encontrar que no quedarán puertorriqueños en Puerto Rico, pero una nueva nacionalidad.

El problema está en el sistema de estado de welfare que a la larga no funciona. No es cuestión de la idiosincrasia del puertorriqueños como muchos quieren atribuirle, se trata de una ideología que no trabaja y que causa los problemas que estamos viendo en la isla, este es el problema de Puerto Rico y es lo que estamos viendo en filtrándose también en el continente. 

La vida en ciudades como Detroit y otras grandes ciudades es mucho peor que en Puerto Rico, y por los mismos motivos.

Si se mantiene basada en la ayuda del gobierno federal el sistema en Puerto Rico llegará el momento que veremos una inmigración de otros países como Grecia que vendrán a disfrutar del sistema.  Después de todo Puerto Rico no tiene nada que envidiarle a Santorini.

 

 

 

US

Rudy Giuliani Responds to Trump’s Illegal Immigration Comments and Reveals Where He Believes America Has ‘Failed’

Billy Hallowell

  • Tweet This

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said in an interview with MSNBC on Monday that most illegals who come to the U.S. are “good people,” but that he believes Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump recently raised an important issue about crime.

Giuliani, who called Trump a friend and a “very good man,” said that he believes the businessman could have better stated his controversial comments about illegal immigrants during his June 16 campaign announcement, but that Trump did hit on a viable point.

“Most of the people who come in … come in to work,” Giuliani said. “Because people can come in illegally — terrorists, drug dealers, rapists, murderers, all of whom I’ve prosecuted at one time or another are able to get in, so I would have said it differently, but I do think he’s got on to an issue that is important, which is making our borders secure and we have failed at that.”

The ex-mayor said that this isn’t only President Barack Obama’s fault, as it’s been a problem for quite some time, though he added that the 400,000 illegals in New York City during his administration actually “committed crime at a lesser percentage than our own people do.”

But despite his belief that most illegal immigrants are good people who abide by the law, Giuliani said that there’s still much to worry about.

“If a few of them can set off bombs, if a few of them can kill people like one did over the weekend, if a few of them can rape people, then what are we doing? We’re doing something other countries don’t do,” he said. “You can’t get into Mexico without being identified, but you can get from Mexico to the U.S. without being identified.”

Watch Giuliani’s comments below:

Trump has done anything but back away from his comments about illegal immigration during his campaign announcement on June 16, doubling down in a statement that he issued on Monday.

As TheBlaze previously reported, Trump said, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.”

(H/T: Mediaite)

TRADUCCION AL ESPANOL POR GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

Rudy Giuliani responde a la de Trump inmigración ilegal Comentarios y revela donde cree Latina ha ‘Error’

Billy Hallowell

El ex alcalde de Nueva York Rudy Giuliani, dijo en una entrevista con MSNBC el lunes que la mayoría de los ilegales que vienen a los EE.UU. son “buenas personas”, sino que cree que el candidato presidencial republicano Donald Trump plantearon recientemente un tema importante sobre el crimen.

Giuliani, quien llamó a Trump un amigo y un “hombre muy bueno”, dijo que él cree que el empresario podría haber mejor dicho sus polémicas declaraciones sobre los inmigrantes ilegales durante su anuncio de campaña de 16 de junio, pero que Trump se ha golpeado en un punto viable.

“La mayoría de la gente que viene en … vienen a trabajar”, dijo Giuliani. “Porque la gente puede venir en forma ilegal – terroristas, narcotraficantes, violadores, asesinos, todos los cuales he procesado en un momento u otro, son capaces de entrar, por lo que habría dicho de otra manera, pero sí creo que tiene en a un tema que es importante, que está haciendo de nuestras fronteras seguras y hemos fallado en eso “.

El ex alcalde dijo que esto no sólo es culpa del presidente Barack Obama, ya que ha sido un problema desde hace bastante tiempo, sin embargo, añadió que los 400.000 inmigrantes ilegales en la ciudad de Nueva York durante su administración en realidad “delito cometido en un porcentaje menor que el nuestro gente propias hacen “.

Pero a pesar de su creencia de que la mayoría de inmigrantes ilegales son buenas personas que se rigen por la ley, Giuliani dijo que todavía hay mucho de qué preocuparse.

“Si algunos de ellos pueden detonar bombas, si algunos de ellos pueden matar a la gente como uno lo hizo el fin de semana, si algunos de ellos pueden violar a la gente, entonces ¿qué estamos haciendo? Estamos haciendo algo que otros países no lo hacen “, dijo. “No se puede entrar en México sin ser identificados, pero se puede llegar desde México a los EE.UU. sin ser identificados”.

Ver los comentarios de Giuliani a continuación:

Trump ha hecho otra cosa que alejarse de sus comentarios sobre la inmigración ilegal durante su anuncio de campaña el 16 de junio, doblar en un comunicado que emitió el lunes.

Como theblaze informó anteriormente, dijo Trump, “Cuando México envía su gente, no están enviando lo mejor posible. Están enviando las personas que tienen un montón de problemas. Están trayendo drogas. Están trayendo crimen. Son violadores “.

(H / T: Mediaite)

 

 

Hillary outright attacks GowdyThe Greek Drama & Your Feedback

BREAKING NEWS: *Greta BLASTS Hillary Benghazi ad for ‘dishonest’ Trey Gowdy quote; ‘You can’t cut corners like this*’ 

Jorge A. Villalón

Another day, another round of Greek drama. Attached is the Spanish and English version of the Welfare state in Greece, you may need to read it twice in order to understand this amazing Welfare State, is unbelievable but true and that is the reason they are in this predicament today,

Remember, “Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money. It’s quite a characteristic of them.” ~ Margaret Thatcher

So far, at least, things do not seem to be getting any smoother.

The newest round of bailout negotiations began today. However, reports say the Greeks showed up to talks with European creditors without any real concessions to put on the table.

The Euro group has basically told Greece that …

  • If they want a continued bailout, and …
  • If they want their banks to have enough money to remain solvent past the end of this week …

Then they had better come prepared to do what is necessary to get fiscally fit.

If they do not, then Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras could see his nation exit the euro currency union.

 

 

Taking away our freedoms

Jose Y Marcia Caula – Maricarmen

For Sake of ‘Inclusion,’ Saint Louis University Rips Out Statue of Fr. De Smet

By James Bascom   

Alert:  To appease the new dictatorship of political correctness, the statue celebrating Fr. De Smet’s heroic missionary zeal for the Indians was removed from the very Catholic campus where he once served as dean, treasurer and professor in 1829. 

Sign your urgent protest & tell the university to put it back 

 Saint Louis University
Dr. Fred Pestello, President
1 North Grand Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63103
PHONE: 
314-977-7777
pestello@slu.edu
More from 
The College Fix:

Complaints Prompt Catholic University to Remove Statue of Priest Praying Over Indians

by Nathan Rubbelke

Saint Louis University has removed a statue on its campus depicting a famous Jesuit missionary priest praying over American Indians after a cohort of students and faculty continued to complain the sculpture symbolized white supremacy, racism and colonialism.

Formerly placed outside the university’s Fusz Hall in the center of the private Catholic university, the statue will go to the university’s art museum, a building just north of the bustling urban campus.

 

The statue features famous Jesuit Missionary Fr. Pierre-Jean De Smet, S.J. praying over two American Indians dressed in traditional clothing. Last Monday, just two days after graduation, it was removed from the location it has called home on campus for decades.
Click “like” to support moral values!

A university spokesperson told St. Louis Magazine the statue will be placed within the “historical context of a collection that’s on permanent display in our SLU Museum of Art.” The statue is set for the museum’s “Collection of the Western Jesuit Missions.”

“In more recent years, there have been some faculty and staff who have raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive,” SLU spokesman Clayton Berry said.

Berry did not respond to The College Fix’s request for comment.

 The De Smet statue has long drawn the ire of progressive students and scholars at the Jesuit university who argue the statue was a symbol of racism and white supremacy, among other oppressions.

 In a recent op-ed published in SLU’s University News, senior Ryan McKinley stated the sculpture sent a clear, unwelcoming message to American Indians at Saint Louis University.

 “This message to American Indians is simple: You do not belong here if you do not submit to our culture and our religion,” McKinley wrote. McKinley called for the statue’s removal, while suggesting the university replace it with artwork made by American Indians.

 “The statue of De Smet depicts a history of colonialism, imperialism, racism and of Christian and white supremacy,” he penned.

But the history surrounding the statue is more nuanced than the statue’s opponents portray it.

 According to a SLU webpage, Fr. De Smet had an excellent rapport with American Indians. He was known to them “simply and affectionately as ‘Blackrobe.’” While converting thousands to Catholicism, Fr. De Smet also helped negotiate treaties among the Indians and the United States, ensuring their land and safety.

 Fr. De Smet also shares a connection to Saint Louis University, serving as its treasurer shortly after the university’s founding.

 Despite Fr. De Smet’s history, students still said the statue visually represents oppression.

 During a March town hall meeting with the university’s first-year president, Fred Pestello, a student told Pestello it was “necessary to take down the statue” since it “celebrates white supremacy and colonialism.”

Pestello – SLU’s first permanent lay president – told the student he would take her request “very seriously.”

Though according to university documents, Pestello was taking already taking such complaints seriously. 

Minutes from a December 2014 meeting of the President’s Coordinating Council at which the De Smet statue was discussed show Pestello asked a SLU’s provost to convene a group to review the university’s public art after another administrator noted complaints surrounding the statue. 

To be included in the group was English professor Steven Casmier. He told The College Fix he was never asked to join such a group. It’s unclear whether the group ever formed.

Casmier had offered his thoughts on the statue last year in an email to a high-level administrator. 

“I am not one for pulling down statues or effacing the evidence of history – even if that history is one we would like to forget. But mediating, transforming it into sites of reflection and discussion is intriguing to me,” his email read.

Casmier told The College Fix he’s unsure how to feel about the statue’s removal.

“I’m not sure what to think about the decision. But it’s good that it’s not entirely effacing the past, and perhaps (the museum is) as good a place as any for it,” he said in an email.

The statue’s removal comes just months after controversy broke out at the Jesuit campus over a proposed statue to commemorate a six-night sit-in that served as an extension of protests in nearby Ferguson.

After donors threatened to pull donations over the proposed statue, the university walked back the original intent of the statue, saying it would instead highlight the university’s values of diversity and inclusion.

 This article was written by College Fix reporter Nathan Rubbelke, a student at Saint Louis University, and is republished with permission. 

 

 

 

Sheriff Joe Just Used These 2 BOLD Words To Describe Obama’s Birth Certificate

“I’ve been in law enforcement for 55 years…”

Norvell Rose 

He’s 83 years old, running for reelection to a seventh term, battling federal contempt charges, and as feisty as ever — the peace officer often called “America’s Toughest Sheriff” — Joe Arpaio, chief lawman of Maricopa County, Az. And now Arpaio is proving once again just how tough and feisty he really is by jumping back into a controversy he helped kindle years ago — the argument over the authenticity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

One might think that, given his troubles with the Obama Justice Department, Sheriff Joe would steer clear of that long-simmering controversy. But as WND reports, Arpaio waded back into the treacherous political waters surrounding the president’s birth certificate in a weekend radio interview. Speaking with Aaron Klein Investigative Radio, Sheriff Joe matter-of-factly reiterated what he has frequently contended:

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

“I’ve been in law enforcement 55 years,” stated Arpaio. “I think I know a fraudulent, fake document. I’m not a computer expert. I rely on my people. But I’m pretty well convinced it’s a fake document.”

As WND points out, the radio interview was focused primarily on Donald Trump and the raging firestorm over the GOP presidential candidate’s statements about illegal immigrants. Arpaio and Trump have both claimed that Obama’s birth certificate — released by the White House in 2011 and indicating he was born in a hospital in Hawaii — may be a fake.

Sheriff Joe, you might recall, appointed an investigative “posse” to gather evidence on the document’s origins. The WND post notes that “Arpaio’s appointed lead investigator on the birth-certificate case, Mike Zullo, has been promising the release of ‘universe-shattering’ information regarding the document” — evidence that has not yet been presented.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

By clicking on the video above, you can listen to the relevant portion of the Aaron Klein interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in which the Maricopa County lawman first addresses the Trump brouhaha, then segues into the discussion of the Obama birth certificate.

 

 

Republicans Elites Are Lying To You…

Western Center for Journalism newsletter@wcjournalism.org via

mail87.atl51.rsgsv.net

Republican Leaders Are Lying To You. Congress CAN Nullify The Lawless Supreme Court Decree That Two Men Can Marry… And They Can Do It Tomorrow!


This news might come as something of a shock to some of you, but Congress has the CLEAR and UNDENIABLE authority and power, under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States, to NULLIFY the recent lawless decree by five unelected black-robed tyrants that elevates perversion to the status of marriage.

All it takes is a simple majority vote in the House and the Senate and, once it is done, the courts have no power to rule on it and Barack Obama has no authority to veto it. If Congress votes… IT IS DONE.

So why isn’t Congress taking a vote right now? … Why have so few in the media brought this simple Constitutional remedy to your attention? Senator Ted Cruz said it best: “Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing. That is unacceptable.”

Cruz is right. Their lack of action is UNACCEPTABLE, but you have the power to fix that right here and right now by calling our elected officials on the carpet. It only takes a simply majority of the House and the Senate to nullify this lawless Supreme Court ruling, and we want to see a vote NOW. 


A Tyrannical Supreme Court Is The Problem: The Checks And Balances Provided By The Constitution Is The Solution.


Now, some of you are already asking; if the solution to vacating this ruling is so simple, why isn’t Congress doing it right now? We’ll get to that, but first let’s talk aboutArticle III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States states: “[T]he Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.” [Emphasis Ours]

And yes, stripping the Supreme Court of jurisdiction on cases has been done, otherwise attempted and affirmed on countless occasions:

 After the Civil War, a newspaper publisher was jailed under the accusation of publishing “incendiary and libelous” articles and Congress moved in and stripped the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the matter. Nonetheless, the publisher asked the High Court to order his release and the Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY stated that it had no authority to hear the case. 

 Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafy points out: “When Chief Justice John Roberts was Special Assistant to the Attorney General during the Reagan Administration, he wrote a 27-page document defending the constitutional power of Congress to limit federal court jurisdiction.” 

 A former Supreme Court Justice, Owen Roberts, went so far as to push for a Constitutional Amendment that would limit Congress’ power under Article III, Section 2of the Constitution. It actually passed the United States Senate in 1953 but then died unceremoniously. 

 And back in 1981, Members of Congress proposed 22 bills seeking to remove the Supreme Court’s power to hear cases involving such issues as prayer in the schools and abortion. Unfortunately, the conservative revolution was just in its infancy and conservatives could not muster the votes in the Tip O’Neill-controlled House of Representatives to pass any of them. 

But now… Republicans control Congress. Getting the votes needed to executeArticle III, Section 2 isn’t the problem. The problem is that patriotic Americans aren’t calling them on the carpet to do it and you can change that right here and right now. 

So Why Aren’t Republicans In Congress Moving To Save Marriage?


Senator Ted Cruz’s statement bears repeating: “Sadly, the political reaction from the leaders of my party is all too predictable. They will pretend to be incensed, and then plan to do absolutely nothing. That is unacceptable.”

Why? … Perhaps they are secure in the knowledge that you do not know that they have the power under Article III, Section 2 to vacate this tyrannical ruling… after all, what you don’t know, won’t hurt them.

And to be totally frank, as wild as it may sound, many of them don’t even know that they have the power… they don’t read legislation and they’ve never bothered to read the Constitution.

Otherwise… you’ll hear lots of excuses. You’ll hear that Republicans fear taking on this issue because the media will paint them as bigots… you’ll hear that it’s a blessing that the Supreme Court took this issue off the table so they can campaign on other issues…

Don’t believe it. They don’t fear this issue and they don’t want it to go away… perish the thought, they plan to campaign on it… they plan to feign indignation for the next 18 months so you’ll gullibly give them your vote in 2016.

Barack Obama’s former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel use to say that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. The corollary to that theorem — one that our Republican leaders are following right now — is that one should never let a good campaign issue go to waste. Why bother SOLVING a problem when you can CAMPAIGN on a problem… and that’s exactly why those who are in the know are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. 

And yes… they’d love nothing more than for patriotic Americans to waste their time chasing windmills.

As The Hon. Bob Marshall with the Virginia House of Delegates noted: “Liberals, and faux conservatives who duck social issues, would love to send grassroots conservatives on a futile, wild goose chase in a multi-year pursuit of a Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Don’t get us or Marshall wrong, a Marriage Amendment is needed but pushing for a Marriage Amendment that can take years to pass, does not absolve our Republican leaders from failing to do what must be done TODAY.

As a matter of fact, Cruz has already put a Constitutional Amendment on the table in addition to legislation to invoke Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution on this very issue and now it’s up to folks like us to start drowning Congress with phone calls and faxes and force these yokels to bring Cruz’ legislation to the floor for an up-or-down vote. 

Every Member of Congress must go on record and answer the following question: Do you support the actions of five tyrannical and out-of-control Justices of the Supreme Court, or do you support the Constitution of the United States? We must not allow them to duck that question.

Checks And Balances Are In The Constitution For A Reason… It’s Time For Congress To Exercise Its Constitutional Authority.


Invoking Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution is not the only solution, but, unlike the others, it only takes a simple majority of Congress to pass and it is not subject to an Obama veto or court review… if it passes, it is done.

But more will need to be done because once Congress invokes Article III, Section 2, there will be a lot of unfinished business that needs the American people’s attention.

Undoubtedly, some localities and states will likely decide that they are going to honor a defunct SCOTUS ruling anyway, but states and localities who choose to defend the sanctity of marriage will be free to do so… and leftist black-robed tyrants won’t have anything to say about it.

At that point, patriotic Americans can then move forward. As previously stated, Senator Cruz is already moving forward with a Constitutional Amendment “to preserve the authority of elected state legislatures to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

But in the meantime, invoking Article III, Section 2 will send a clear message to Barack Hussein Obama and all the black-robed tyrants across the nation.

 They will know that Congress is willing to propose Constitutional amendments…

 They will know that Congress is willing to strip jurisdiction when necessary… 

 They will know that Congress is once again willing to use its power to wreak havoc on a noncompliant judiciary and redraw federal districts (as Congress did in the 60s in response to voting rights)… 

 They will know that Congress is willing to use its power of the purse (in this case, all it takes is an appropriations rider on all spending bills stating “no funds appropriated hereunder may be used to implement the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell”)… 

 And they will know that Congress is even willing to impeach… 

In short, they will know that Congress is ready, willing and able to exercise its Constitutional authority, and once that message is sent, you’ll start to see these social engineers and tyrants who wear black robes start to behave.The Rubicon Has Been Crossed… Tyranny Must Be Fought.


Make no mistake, 
when you start making calls and sending Blast Faxes to Washington, THE DYNAMIC WILL IMMEDIATELY CHANGE, and RINOs, leftists in Congress and media elites will counter and start telling you that what you are advocating is “extreme.” 

It’s not… Our courts are out of control. Their authority must be questioned by patriotic Americans because when tyranny rears its ugly head, it must be vanquished:

 “By redefining the meaning of common words, and redesigning the most basic human institutions, this Court has crossed from the realm of activism into the arena of oligarchy.” -Ted Cruz 

 “The Supreme Court’s twisting of the Fourteenth Amendment–enacted after the shedding of blood of over a half a million Americans for equal rights for black Americans–into a mandate for same-sex “marriage” must be challenged immediately and effectively. Many millions of Americans who voted to support and adhere to the millennia-old consensus on marriage must question the authority and judgment of the Court.” -Robert Marshall, Virginia House of Delegates 

 “During the past fifty years, the Court has condemned millions of innocent unborn children to death, banished God from our schools and public squares, extended constitutional protections to prisoners of war on foreign soil, authorized the confiscation of property from one private owner to transfer it to another, and now requires all Americans to purchase a specific product, and to accept the redefinition of an institution ordained by God and long predating the formation of the Court.” -Ted Cruz

To quote Cruz one more time: “Enough is enough. The time has come, therefore, to recognize that the problem lies not with the lawless rulings of individual lawless Justices, but with the lawlessness of the Court itself.” 

Radical black-robed tyrants are the disease. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution is the cure, but no one in Congress is going to administer this much-needed medicine unless you demand it. The time to demand it is now. 

Floyd Brown

“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