HPIM0049

No 1020 “En mi opinión” Agosto 10, 2015

No 1020 “En mi opinión”  Agosto 10, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor

Lázaro R González para Alcalde del Condado de Miami

 

No llores como mujer

Lo que tienes que defender como hombre

Sultana Aixa a su hijo Boabdil, ante la pérdida de Granada.

 

AMENPER:  La Relatividad del Conservador…

Conservadurismo Americano

Dentro de la convulsa arena política americana, vimos en el debate algo extraordinariamente positivo, todos los candidatos se autoproclamaron conservadores, los cual es positivo porque de lo que se debe tratar es de conservar la continuidad de los valores políticos, económicos y sociales que han hecho grande a esta nación.

Ser conservador no es en sí una filosofía, ser conservador es la persona o el partido político que es favorable a la continuidad de las formas de vida de la sociedad donde vive.

Filosofías son la economía de mercado que explicaron en sus escritos Adam Smith, y otros, también filosofía es el marxismo leninismo, y las religiones politizadas que cambian los valores de la sociedad. 

Por lo tanto conservador varía según donde vivas, si estás de acuerdo con el sistema donde vives, y si este sistema es el comunismo como en Cuba, si apoyas al régimen y desean la continuidad de este, en Cuba eres un conservador, si te opones al sistema, eres un liberal.

Como la denominación de conservador es relativa, tenemos que ir a las tradiciones del país para conocer a un verdadero conservador americano, tenemos que ir a la filosofía de los padres de la patria.

Básicamente, en la tradición americana concretamente podemos establecer que un partido o una persona conservadora considera que la religión es pilar fundamental de la sociedad, ya que gracias a la misma se establece un nexo de unión de todos los individuos y también es una necesidad espiritual del ser humano, pero que la libertad de practicar una religión es potestad del individuo y no debe de ser regulada por el estado..

A nivel económico, los conservadores se adhieren a la tradición económica del libre mercado y la oposición de un gobierno central que interfiera con las libertades del mercado.

Por lo tanto está de acuerdo con el orden establecido, tanto en materia política como social, está a favor de la propiedad privada, apuesta por lo que se conoce cómo prudencia fiscal, y no duda en respaldar en todo momento lo que es la ley natural, es decir, el Derecho sustentado en lo que es la costumbre.

Y esto es lo básico, si se ajusta a esos objetivos, una persona en los Estados Unidos, es conservadora, puede haber en el tiempo y la historia diferentes posiciones entre conservadores, como en el caso específico de inmigración un caso actual de la política americana, pero si un conservador difiere de otro en ciertas condiciones existentes, básicamente es una situación que podemos reclamar según pensemos, pero no podemos acusar a alguien de no ser conservador si su pensamiento es conservador porque se aparte de una posición adoptado ante una situación histórica, porque no existe una filosofía doctrinal conservadora. En el caso de inmigración estamos ante una situación histórica en que las tradicionales leyes migratorias se están violando, el conservador por definición tiene que estar de acuerdo en que se conserven las leyes existente, la manera de tratar de hacer que se cumplan las leyes pueden variar según la manera de pensar del conservador, pero un conservador no puede acusar a otro de no serlo porque tenga una idea particular de cómo resolver el conflicto histórico siempre y cuando sea para restituir las leyes tradicionales..   

Un político conservador, por definición, simplemente desea mantener el statu quo de las condiciones existentes. El dilema radica en la posición adoptada ante los cambios históricos. Por ejemplo: Cuando Batista dio un golpe de estado en Cuba, rompió la frágil continuidad democrática, Batista hizo un cambio revolucionario rompió el status conservador , pero después se convirtió en el status quo, y  la revolución comunista implantada por Fidel Castro en Cuba supuso una ruptura histórica en el modelo histórico y social del país. En la década de 1960, por lo tanto, los comunistas y socialistas eran revolucionarios que derrocaron el régimen conservador de Fulgencio Batista. Hoy, cincuenta años más tarde, dichos revolucionarios se han convertido en conservadores ya que defienden el mismo sistema desde hace medio siglo.

El Partido Conservador existe en diversos países para defender políticas como las ya mencionadas (nacionalismo, tradiciones, etc.). Uno de los más importantes es el Partido Conservador de Gran Bretaña(Conservative Party), que fue creado en 1830 y que es el partido británico con mayor cantidad de afiliados. Su líder es David Cameron, quien se desempeña como Primer Ministro desde mayo de 2010.

En el conocido partido Tory tiene su origen esta formación británica que en su país es la que más victorias electorales ha obtenido a lo largo de la historia.

El conservadurismo Británico ha influenciado al conservador americano, aunque el conservadurismo americano es algo diferente, porque, otra vez, tenemos que comprender que ser conservador es tratar de conservar lo establecido y no es lo mismo lo establecido en la Gran Bretaña que en el sistema americano.

El concepto de conservador en un país como los Estados Unidos, sujeto al Estado de derecho y normalmente moderado por una Constitución que la regula en la protección de los derechos, libertades individuales y colectivas. Estableciendo ésta Constitución restricciones tanto a los líderes demócratas como a la ejecución de las voluntades de una determinada mayoría social dentro de esa democracia.

Ser conservador simplemente es seguir esta democracia natural establecida y que ha dado resultado, y es agradable el ver cómo todos los candidatos republicanos se adhieren a este concepto. 

 

 

Hemos llorado y los dioses callan
Hemos confiado y sido traicionados
Hemos amado y el fruto fue cenizas
Hemos dado y el regalo fue medido.¨

El brindis de la desesperanza, 1892.
Voltairine de Cleyre

 

  

AMENPER:  Cambios en Cuba…

En unas declaraciones inesperadas, Raúl Castro anunció que de acuerdo con sus promesas al presidente norteamericano Barack Hussein Obama, empezará de inmediato los cambios prometidos en el sistema comunista.

El primer cambio será el sustituir la bandera cubana por una nueva bandera que refleje el nuevo gobierno de Cuba.

La bandera de Narciso López no representa ni nunca ha representado al pueblo cubano, tuvimos que usarla en un período de adaptación, pero ya es hora de cambiar esta bandera.

Narciso López era un lacayo del imperialismo yanqui de la época antes del gobierno del compañero Obama, que buscaba la anexión de Cuba a aquel país, dijo Raúl Castro.

La nueva bandera cubana representará a la nueva Cuba, una Cuba en que habrá la unidad y la igualdad de todos sin diferencia de género o preferencia sexual.  Todos tendremos libertad sexual para hacer y pensar como queramos.

Desde hace muchos años, antes de que existieran los buscadores de Internet, entre muchas anécdotas de la Cuba castrista se hablaba de la homosexualidad –en realidad, bisexualidad- de quien hace unos años se ha convertido  en el sucesor presidencial del retirado Fidel Castro.

Hace pocos años, Mariela Castro Espin –hija de Raúl Castro-, y la esposa del entonces Ministro de Defensa, Vilma Espin (ya fallecida),  pidio a su padre urgentemente un cambio en la Constitución Socialista de Cuba en un dramático pedido al Estado para que cesaran las persecuciones contra los homosexuales, travestis y lesbianas que viven en la Isla.  También asegura la hija de castro que la HUMANIDAD futura será bi-sexual, Y tiene un extenso artículo que se titula “Penetración anal, prueba máxima de poder sobre las persona” y “Una boda entre lesbianas y cambios en el código de la familia y banderas del Orgullo homosexual”.

No nos debe entonces sorprender que Raúl haya tomado esta determinación.

La nueva bandera tendrá las barras multicolores de la bandera gay, el triángulo será de color rosado con un círculo blanco en que irá la hoz y el martillo en rosado.  

La figura del guerrillero heroico el Che Guevara se hará más transgénica para representar la nueva Cuba.

Remembrando a cuando Fidel se declaró comunista, Raúl repitió las palabras de Fidel en esa ocasión adaptándola a este momento cuando dijo “somos maricones, hemos sido maricones y lo seremos toda nuestra vida”  Patria o Muerte, y ay..ay tu, venceremos

 

 

 

 

Los canallas se están apoderando de nuestra nación y destruyéndola.

Tú Tienes que hacer, lo que tienes que hacer; si no lo haces eres cómplice de la destrucción de tu país y del futuro de tus hijos. No hacer nada es ser enemigo de los que hacen.

Lázaro R González Miño. “En mi opinión”

 

 

 

AMENPER:  Fox News

El Presidente Obama continuó sus críticas de Fox News, argumentando que los televidentes de la red están recibiendo un conjunto diferente de los hechos que en el resto del país. “No estamos en una conversación común”, dijo. “Si ves Fox News, habitas en un mundo totalmente diferente con diferentes hechos que si usted lee el New York Times,” dijo.

Donald Trump expresó una entrevista en CNN su malestar por el tono “agresivo” e “injusto” con que los moderadores de Fox New se dirigieron a él, con “como personales directos en mayor cantidad al resto de candidatos

Fox News es como Juan el Bautista de los evangelios, una voz que clama en el desierto.  La única voz que podemos oír en la televisión que nos reporta las noticias sin compromisos y presenta todos los puntos de vista. Como dice su lema de una manera justa y balanceada.

Pero tanto Trump cómo Obama lo consideran injusto porque no se adaptan a su manera de pensar, esto era algo inconcebible en América en el pasado, donde todos los candidatos y presidentes fueron blanco de los medios comunicativos que trataban de llevar al público la opinión del político que los representaba o los aspira a representar y  nadie ni pensaba en quejarse de las preguntas de los periodistas, hubiera sido contraproducente.  Pero vivimos en otros tiempos..

Esta coincidencia de Trump y Obama nos dice de cómo ha bajado el rasero moral político cuando tanto un presidente cómo un candidato se quejan de que un periodista ejerza su derecho a cuestionar a un político, cuando se nos presentan ejecutivos y aspirantes a ejecutivos con la soberbia y arrogancia de un dictador de una dictadura bananera.

Pero gracias a Dios por Fox News, que nos la conceda por muchos años, porque si, tiene razón Obama habitamos en mundo totalmente diferente porque vemos a Fox News Y AL NEW YORK TIMES, y podemos comparar los dos puntos de vistas.  Gracias a Dios por Fox News porque por las preguntas a los candidatos republicanos podremos hacer una decisión mucho más educada e inteligente que si hubieran sido entrevistados por periodistas tramitados complacientes.

Tiene que pensar en esto Trump cuando va a la emisora del enemigo para hablar mal del único medio de comunicación restante que nos representa.

No creo que nadie con un sentido de lo que es la libertad de expresión pueda recibir estos ataques como algo diferente a los que son, y son un elogio de la labor periodística de Fox News, porque no hay mejor elogio a un demócrata que el ataque de un tirano.

 

 

 

AMENPER: Escándalo Homosexual de Hillary Clinton

Musulmana primera dama si Hillary es electa Presidente

Hillary Clinton no está sólo atrapada en un escándalo político sobre sus correos electrónicos perdidos de su etapa como Secretario de estado – ella también está aterrorizada de revelaciones personales acerca de un estilo de vida lésbico secreto!

Esto lo podemos ver en los dos principales tabloides de prensa amarilla, El National Enquirer y El Globe.

De acuerdo son trapos escandalosos, pero también están sujetos a demandas legales, por lo que lo que publican tiene que tener cierta veracidad que quedaría después de filtrar la exageración.

La que se supone que sea la favorita es su ayudante personal Huma Abedin, que tiene un tío y un primo en la hermandad musulmana que sus padres son musulmanes con relaciones un poco turbias con elementos sospechosos de terrorismo.

Les voy a pasar una investigación exclusiva por The National ENQUIRER que revela que algunos de los correos electrónicos famoso “borrados” del candidato presidencial que están llenos de referencias lesbianas referencias y los nombres de sus amantes.

“No creo que ella está tan preocupada por emails refiriéndose a ella como secretamente gay,” dijo un insider de Clinton. “Eso ya se sabe hace muchos años, su verdadero miedo es que los nombres de algunos de sus amantes se haría públicos!”

El ENQUIRER descubrieron que la lista de las amantes lesbianas de Hillary incluye una belleza en su 30s temprano que ha viajado a menudo con Hillary;  una popular estrella de cine y tv; la hija de un funcionario superior; y unas modelos impresionantes que recibieron un impulso de la carrera después de dormir con Hillary. Hillary hizo el gran error de mezclar mensajes públicos y privados mientras estaba usando su servidor de correo electrónico personalizado –por lo que prefirió correr el riesgo de un enorme escándalo al negarse a hacer públicos los documentos.

“Eso es claramente por qué ella fue al paso extraordinario de borrar todo,” la fuente de alto rango dijo a The ENQUIRER.

Hillary está particularmente preocupada por correos electrónicos íntimos con su ayudante Huma Abedin, que se casó con el congresista Anthony Weiner en una ceremonia que muchos ridiculizaron como un arreglo político para cubrir la relación de Hillary con Huma.

 Anthony más tarde renunció por escándalos extramatrimoniales y ‘ sexting ‘, después de publicar pornos de él en cueros,  dijo que que estaba en un matrimonio abierto en que las dos partes podían hacer lo que quisieran con otras parejas.

“Creo que mucho del tiempo cuando no nos estábamos hablando, Huma estaba probablemente con Hillary,”

Desentrañando el escándalo en marzo, cuando Hillary reveló que elimina más de 30.000 correos electrónicos, insistiendo en que los mensajes era solo “cosas que típicamente encontrará en bandejas de entrada”. 

 

 

 

AMENPER: ¿Está vivo el Che Guevara?

Existe un rumor sin confirmar que nos ha llegado por fuentes sin identificar que la muerte del Che Guevara no fue real y que el héroe dela revolución cubana se ha convertido en un capitalista en los Estados Unidos, vendiendo camisetas a los simpatizantes del comunismo.

Según estos rumores el Che Guevara ha cumplido su sueño de ser  el gran vendedor del comunismo.

Comenzó su vida glamorosa matando a gente que no compraba sus ideas de la felicidad universal y la igualdad.

Aunque este método de ventas ha funcionado bien en países de Latinoamérica y áfrica, Ernesto rápidamente se dio cuenta de que para conquistar el mundo tenía que aprender otras técnicas.

Él notó que en la tierra del gran Capital algunos estudiantes universitarios idealistas, habían comenzado a poner sus mensajes en camisetas y letreros en las paredes del dormitorio. ¡Bingo! Como todos los comunistas ante la perspectiva de hacer unos pocos dólares, decidía intentar su mano en la entidad misteriosa conocida como «trabajo» y la «inversión empresarial».

Un vendedor brillante, realizó una maniobra ingeniosa fingiendo su propia muerte y así lograr el estatus de icono-.

Como el mundo progresivo lloró  y había idolatrado su imagen, comenzó tranquilamente la impresión propia de camisas con su rostro en el sótano humilde de una lavandería de Buenos Aires.

Al principio el proceso consistió en mojar su cabeza en un cubo de sangre de cerdo y físicamente presionando su cara en la camiseta. Después que las ventas comenzaron a aumentar fue capaz de aplicar para un préstamo de pequeña empresa y compró una máquina de impresión de pantalla.

Ha comercializado su marca brillantemente con los años, vendiendo a un nicho específico del mercado: jóvenes que no tienen idea lo que ha hecho o lo que representa.

El dinero sigue fluyendo, cada día más dormitorios de Universidades de todo el mundo están siendo adornados con su cara, y cada vez más hijos e hijas de clase media alta y rica, usan sus camisas para, entre otras cosas, lavar la el sentido de culpa de su crianza como niños ricos.

¡No ha habido empresario que haya alcanzado el nivel de venta con un solo producto como las camisas del Che! “dice un confidente del Che Guevara desde su oficina 36 del piso de su sede mundial en Madison Avenue en Nueva York.

Su único producto se vende exclusivamente por popularidad sin anunciarse a jóvenes que buscan  ganar aceptación en los círculos sociales.

“Usted puede usar una calidad de camisa inferior, esencialmente una completa basura y las personas todavía lo compran y usan porque quieren estar en la moda del Che,” declara John Hayden de Consumer Reports magazine.

Hoy el empresario Ernesto Guevara bajo su nombre adoptado sin identificar, manda un imperio enorme en un negocio global con oficinas en Nueva York, París, Londres y Tokio.

Su cara ha aparecido en las revistas Forbes y Fortune no menos de 8 veces.

Con casas en Nueva York, Los Ángeles y Aspen, ha transitado un largo camino desde sus humildes comienzos revolucionarios.

Su compañía ha sido incluida en la lista Fortune 500 durante los últimos 6 años y ha sido votado como uno de los diez mejores empleadores en los Estados Unidos.

Presentado recientemente en estilos de vida de los ricos y famosos, es un ávido coleccionista de arte y Ferraris.

Pasa su tiempo libre en las pistas de Aspen o socializando con su buen amigo, consejero y asociado de negocios Donald Trump quien lo ha ayudado en su técnica de mercadeo.

“Ernesto ha entendido bien el concepto que la gente compra cualquier cosa que le vendas si lo presentas de la manera que quieren oírlo” dijo Trump.

Con una flota de jets de y  nunca está demasiado lejos de salas de juntas corporativas del mundo.

Su futuro se presenta brillante por la fuente infinita de profesores universitarios liberales y estudiantes universitarios que lo ayudarán a mantener su imperio global a flote en el futuro previsible.

 

 

Fox’s Murdoch Tweets: Mission Accomplished

Miriam Dopico

Fox’s Murdoch Tweets: Mission Accomplished

by sundance

URL: http://wp.me/p1kzlW-rdH

 

Candidate Jeb Bush attends Chamber of Commerce dinner with Fox’s Rupert Murdoch and Valerie Jarrett (December 2014)

Immediately after the debate, Katie Couric congratulated Megyn Kelly.  The picture above was taken last year.

The quote in the picture above was made by Megyn Kelly on 8/5/15 the day before the debate itself.  The picture she tweeted following the debate – and she says:

“this is moments before the big debate and we are firing up for the big event”  (twitter link)

 

FOX News is One of Top 10 Largest Donors to the Clintons

by Tim Brown

URL: http://wp.me/p3c1Bb-dgb

Christians and conservatives continue to be hoodwinked by FOX News. Not only has the organization been supporting the sodomite agenda, but they have also been one of the top ten donors to the Clinton Family since 1992.

Michael Lotfi reported:

To many, it seems contrary to intuition that Fox News could be one of the Clinton family’s largest donors for the better part of two decades. Check your intuition at the door- it’s true. According to Federal Election Commission and Center for Responsive Politics data, 21st Century FoxNews Corp. has donated more than $3 million to Clinton family accounts. Overall, this lands Fox as the Clinton family’s 9th largest donor over the course of the family’s political involvement.

Top corporate and union donors to the Clintons over two decades, compared with top corporate and union donors to Obama’s 2012 campaign.

Open Secrets also confirms the report above.

Sadly, too many people think that FOX is giving them the truth all the time. They war against others who watch MSNBC, CNN, and the various other alphabet media corporations, who are basically owned by a few.

This is why it is always a good idea to watch or listen with discernment no matter who is reporting news to you. Personally, I would rather someone present to me the documentation and let me view it for myself, something I have often tried to do here. I make no attempt to disguise my bias towards Christianity, law or the Constitution. Otherwise, how would one know if someone was being unethical? Yet, I still make attempts to provide the documentation and if people want to continue on in their ignorance, that is their decision.

Considering the information above, one does find it ironic that the FOX hosts on Thursday evening would have asked Donald Trump about money he gave to Hillary Clinton:

The fact that Trump claims Socialist, single-payer healthcare “works in Canada” and “Scotland” just points out that he does not believe in freedom, but socialism. The fact that the father of the Canada system claims it is a failure must have slipped Trump’s mind at the time. Scotland is pretty much the same deal. I’ll have more on the questionable actions of Donald Trump soon, but the point is that he was asked about this by talking heads whose company has supported the Clintons to the tune of over $3 million!

Hello pot? This is kettle!

Courtesy of Freedom Outpost.

 

 

 

LOTS OF HEAT, LITTLE LIGHT EMERGES FROM GOP DEBATE
If you didn’t get much actual information from the first Republican primary debates on Thursday night, I’m sure you at least had a few laughs and did a couple of double takes.

The big talker of the night was, of course, Donald Trump. He stole the show almost immediately when he was the only candidate to refuse to pledge to not run as an independent should he fail to win the Republican nomination. 
The economy is typically an important topic for voters during the first round of debates. But this time, only about 15 minutes were devoted to one of the nation’s most pressing problems. Still, that was all the time it took to see which candidates have put some actual thought into their policies.

Here are some highlights from the brief discussion of the economy, plus some other top moments.

Economics

Trump’s bankruptcy history was a major topic. He touted his business acumen as proof that he could tackle the national debt and current fiscal imbalances. He clarified that he had never personally filed for bankruptcy, despite the fact that four of his companies have.

Trump also made a weak attempt to explain his ties to the Clintons (they attended his wedding) by saying they felt obligated because he gave money to the Clinton Foundation.

Trump did make one salient economic point, though, saying Iran will be a highly rewarding investment if the sanctions are lifted. A point that many large companies and investors agree with.

Other candidates floated interesting ideas on bridging the gap between federal revenue and spending.

Mike Huckabee’s plan for funding Social Security and Medicare is to ensure that “illegals, prostitutes, pimps, and drug dealers” pay their taxes. 


Ben Carson also addressed taxation by turning to the Bible, pitching the idea of a flat tax akin to tithing, where everyone gives 10% of their income to the church.

Chris Christie went after one of the GOP’s biggest economic touchstones, noting that the government needs to address entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and benefits for veterans and federal employees, which make up 71% of the national budget.

John Kasich didn’t offer any specifics about how to improve the economy, but he did make a point to mention that any economic growth needs to reach minorities and other vulnerable communities.

Immigration

Jeb Bush identified immigration as an economic issue, proposing a reform initiative that would allow more highly skilled workers into the country. This stance is supported mainly by those in the growing tech sector.

Trump really let his ego roam when he claimed that he started the debate on immigration. (Republicans have been disagreeing with Obama’s immigration policy since he came into office.) Trump followed that up by claiming that Mexico is shipping criminals over the boarder to the United States because “they don’t want to pay for them.” 
Marriage Equality

Kasich’s remarks on gay marriage proved to be a delightful moment of reason and a possible bridge to right-leaning Independents wary of the GOP’s position on the issue. When asked about his stance on same-sex marriage, Kasich stated that he would respect the ruling of the Supreme Court and reasoned that just because he doesn’t agree with someone doesn’t mean he can’t love and respect them. 
Abortion

On a more strident note, Mike Huckabee vocalized his staunch position against a woman’s right to an abortion. He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortions. When asked how his message would appeal to Democrats and Independents, Huckabee reiterated his unequivocal “pro life” position. The former pastor also suggested that the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect a fetus at the moment of conception, just the same as a person. 


Women

One of the most disturbing quotes of the evening came, not surprisingly, from Trump, on the topic of his treatment of women. When moderator Megyn Kelly asked him about his record of referring to women he doesn’t like as “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals,” the casino/hotel mogul brushed the issue off, saying he was just joking.

Of course, he followed that up by threatening to be mean to Kelly.
Overall, the night proved to be full of buzzworthy clips and shocking pullout quotes. But as far as any substantive debate about actual tactics and policies, the discussion was about as deep as a puddle.

Who can be surprised though? With so many candidates to contend with, the debate couldn’t have been anything but a competition to be remembered. We won’t get any real sense of the candidates until the field is culled.

Good investing,

Samantha Solomon

 

 

 

LAZARO R GONZALEZ Para Alcalde del Condado Miami Dade

Elecciones de noviembre 8, 2016

Escriba el nombre de Lázaro R González en la boleta electoral en el espacio en blanco Para alcalde del Condado Miami Dade.

Por favor dígaselo a sus amigos y familiares si quiere que se acabe el relajo, el robo, el descaro, la mala administración y que el gobierno le responda a usted, no permita más abusos.

Contacto:  lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com

 

 

 

BETWEEN THE LINES

WHO LOST THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?

Exclusive: Joseph Farah names biggest deadbeat in historic prime-time event

Published: 16 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12/Joseph-Farah_avatar.jpg

 JOSEPH FARAH About | Email | Archive

 

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//favicon.ico

 Receive author alerts 

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png

 Subscribe to feed

Republish Reprint

 

I don’t think there’s any question who won the first Republican presidential debates.

Political correctness.

The candidates who impressed and energized voters were Donald Trump, Dr. Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee – and, what they had in common, was their unbridled attacks on the irrational, illogical plague of mental illness that threatens to destroy America’s free society.

We all know Trump stole the big show. His personality is bigger than life. He’s brutally blunt and consistently drives home the point that the language of political correctness is designed to limit debate, limit solutions to problems that are ravaging the country and limit rational thinking about ways to save America from its downward cultural, spiritual, economic and political spiral.

But Trump was not alone. Others who broke through to connect with voters were those who weren’t afraid to venture off the politically correct reservation.

So who lost the debate?

While Fox News is toasting itself for the record-shattering ratings for the debates, the “fair and balanced network” might have to rethink its marketing slogan.

Megyn Kelly was over the top in suggesting Donald Trump is anti-woman – maybe even part of the Democrats’ phony “war on women” concocted to eliminate from acceptable political discussion the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage.

The popular anchorwoman was clearly out to get Trump – nail him for unacceptable name-calling – and, in the process, become part of the debate herself, showing anger, open hostility and emotion in her “gotcha” assertion that he wouldn’t be able to stand up to Hillary Clinton in a presidential campaign.

Experience more of Joseph Farah’s no-nonsense truth-telling in his books, audio and video products, featured in the WND Superstore

For Chris Wallace, too, asking tough questions wasn’t enough. He openly mocked candidates for not answering his question. Whatever happened to “we report, you decide”?

While Bret Baier remained, as always, a consummate professional newsman, it’s quite possible the performances of Kelly and Wallace in front of Fox News’ biggest audience ever could foment discontent with the base for a network built on its reputation as an “alternative” to the misnamed “mainstream media.”

When Fox News gets rave reviews from the fringe MSNBC for its aggressive pursuit of the leading Republican presidential contender and kid-glove treatment of GOP establishment figures, you might think the big audience could prove to be a mixed blessing for the future of Fox.

What do YOU think? Will GOP debate moderators’ performance affect your viewing of Fox News? Sound off in the WND poll

Remember, also, that there are big changes coming for Fox News and the formula that made it the most successful cable news channel, showering it, along the way, with higher profits than ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and CNN combined.

The tenure of the two architects of this success are nearing the end of their careers at the helm. Rupert Murdoch is preparing for retirement and delegating authority to his children, who don’t share his eclectic views, and Roger Ailes, the genius programmer, is operating on borrowed time as Murdoch’s kids have openly signaled their own distaste for the Fox News formula that actually permits a fairly wide spectrum of ideas and opinions to be expressed on air.

Many Fox News viewers have actually come to believe the criticism of Fox from its worst antagonists – that it is a purveyor of right-wing thought. It never has been. But the attacks on Fox News have helped propel its legendary ratings and revenue success. Now, however, following this first series of 2016 Republican presidential debates, Fox viewers are expressing the kind of outrage normally reserved for CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.

While Trump emerged unscathed from the bare-knuckled, undisguised, open attacks by two Fox News stars – and possibly more popular than ever – Fox News’ position could be diminished as a result. It might even be time for some damage control.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact media@wnd.com.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/who-lost-the-gop-presidential-debate/#EEoGMWMdscwBWy3d.99

 

 

 

WESTERN JOURNALISM: Rosie O’Donnell Could Only Respond With 6 Words To Trump’s Vicious Debate Jab

Megyn Kelly upbraided Trump, saying he has called women he doesn’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”

Jack Davis 

Rosie O’Donnell dismissed Donald Trump’s revival of their long-standing feud with six words via Twitter. Meanwhile, Trump insisted neither he nor America have time for “total political correctness” and that many of his comments online are meant to be “fun” and “a good time.”

At Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, moderator Megyn Kelly upbraided Trump, saying he has called women he doesn’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.” Trump cut her off, saying, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

O’Donell’s tweet in response was curt. “Try explaining that 2 ur kids,” she wrote.

At the debate, Kelly chided Trump for his reply. “For the record, it was well beyond Rosie O’Donnell.”

Trump and O’Donnell have had high profile blowups in the past. In 2006, she called Trump a “snake-oil salesman” for not firing Miss USA Tara O’Connor over drug abuse. “[He] left the first wife—had an affair. [He] had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America,” she said then.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

Trump, in his 2006 response, called O’Donnell “nice fat little Rosie” and a “dummy.”

“She’s an extremely unattractive person who doesn’t understand the truth. … I think she’s a terrible person … She has failed at everything she has done… She’s a bully and she sucker punches people,” he said on Larry King Live at the time.

“Probably the Trump stuff was the most bullying I ever experienced in my life, including as a child,” O’Donnell said later in a 2014 interview. “It was national, and it was sanctioned societally. Whether I deserved it is up to your own interpretation.”

Who do you think won the debate? Take our poll and see the results for yourself!

h/t: Time

 

 

 

Scott Walker Rips Hillary Clinton at Conservative Conference

‘Hillary Clinton can be the Deceiver-in-Chief, but we cannot trust her to be the Commander-in-Chief’
Dear Conservative,


Gov. Scott Walker ‘tore-into’ Hillary Rodham Clinton in a powerful speech to conservatives at the RedState conservative conference this weekend in Atlanta.

 

Gov. Scott Walker used his time to “talk about one particular candidate – Hillary Clinton”.  

 

Here is what he said:

 

“We need to remind the American people that as bad as things are under this President today, they would be much worse in a President Hillary Clinton.  

 

We can’t let that happen!

 

“Hillary Clinton is going to claim she has the upper hand when it comes to foreign policy.  But think about that… Everywhere in the world that Hillary Clinton has touched is more messed-up today then before she and the President took office…”

 

“Hillary Clinton can be the deceiver-in-chief, but we cannot trust her to be the Commander-in-Chief…”

 

A confident Scott Walker then made his case for the Republican nomination to conservatives, asking the audience:

 

“Who’s best equipped to make sure that Hillary Clinton is not the next President?”

 

Without hesitation, Scott Walker answered:

 

“I can argue to you that I am the best candidate to take on Hillary Rodham Clinton because I just don’t talk about it. I FIGHT and I WIN and I have a RECORD of ACCOMPLISHMENTS in a ‘Blue State’ and I cannot compromise my principles at any time…

 

“There are fighters who have yet to win those fights, and there are winners who are yet to be in the fight. I am the only one who has fought and won…” 

 

“That’s the kind of leader we need.”

 

In politics, actions speak louder than words, which is why Scott Walker’s PROVEN track record is so important. 

Scott Walker has shown us time and again that he’s got the guts to FIGHT for our conservative American values.

Today, America Needs Scott Walker for President.

 

Walker is the REAL deal – a genuine conservative with a PROVEN track record of success.

City Journal

A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute.

edited by Brian C. Anderson.

© The Manhattan Institute

Urbanities

by Theodore Dalrymple

Why Havana Had to Die

Written in the Summer 2002

Decay, when not carried to excess, has its architectural charms, and ruins are romantic: so romantic, indeed, that eighteenth-century English gentlemen built them in their gardens, as pleasantly melancholic reminders of the transience of earthly existence. But Fidel Castro is no eighteenth-century English gentleman, and Havana is not his private estate, for use as a personal memento mori. The ruins of Havana that he has brought into being are, in fact, the habitation of over 1 million people, whose collective will, these ruins attest, is not equal in power to the will of one man. “ Comandante en jefe,” says one of the political billboards that have replaced all commercial advertisements, “you give the orders.” The place of everyone else, needless to say, is to obey.

Havana has changed a little since I was last there, a dozen years ago. The vast Soviet subsidy has vanished; the economy now depends on European tourism. The influx of tourists, most of them in search of a cheap holiday in the tropics and cheerfully oblivious to Cuba’s politics, has necessitated a slight degree of flexibility. Small private family restaurants, called paladares ( paladar is Spanish for palate), with no more than 12 seats, are now tolerated, though the hiring of non-family labor, deemed exploitative by definition, is still not permitted. Only certain dishes are allowed—not fish and lobster, reserved to the state restaurants—and those paladares that break the rules operate like speakeasies in the time of Prohibition, the fish-bootlegging owners keeping a nervous eye out for informers. (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution still operate everywhere.) The owner of one such that I visited—with no sign outside to mark its existence—anxiously looked through the peephole of the door before letting anyone in. The taking of a simple meal at one of the three tables turned into a scene from a spy novel.

 

Flea markets are also now legal in Cuba, and a petty trade in cast-off clothing and household goods takes place. Twelve years ago it was unthinkable for anyone to buy or sell anything in the open, for buying and selling were symptoms of bourgeois individualism and contrary to Fidel’s socialist vision, in which everything is to be rationed—rationally, as it were—according to need. (In practice, of course, this meant rationing according to what there was, which was not much.)

 

Openings to small-scale commerce have occurred before during Castro’s 43-year rule, but they have always soon succumbed to periods of “rectification,” after it became all too apparent that people were responding more vigorously to economic incentives than they ever had to the “moral” ones praised in the adolescent theories of Che Guevara. But this time the commercial activity is more secure, because it is essential to the regime’s economic survival. When last I was in Havana, even the dollar-laden foreigner couldn’t find food to eat outside his hotel—a situation that hardly encouraged mass tourism. Now, of necessity, cafés and bars aplenty cater to the visitor.

 

The economy is now extensively dollarized, a curious and ironic denouement to decades of impassioned nationalism. When I asked in my hotel to change money into pesos, I was told—quite rightly, it turned out—that I would not need them. The few dusty shops that were prepared to exchange goods for pesos—for moneda nacional—advertised this extraordinary fact in their windows, as if performing a miracle, though the goods for sale were few and of the lowest quality. Last time I was in Cuba, the possession of a dollar by an ordinary Cuban was a crime, virtually proof of disloyalty and disaffection, if not of outright economic sabotage of the revolution. Dollars were handled as if they were nitroglycerine, liable to blow up in your face at the slightest jolt; but now they are merely units of currency, which anyone may safely handle.

 

The sheer number of foreign visitors to Cuba means that, though the hotel lobbies are still patrolled by security men with walkie-talkies to ensure that no unauthorized Cubans enter, relations between Cubans and foreigners are more relaxed than they once were. To talk to a foreigner is no longer a sign of political unreliability, and conversations do not have to be carried out in a hole-and-corner fashion, behind walls, with one nervous eye open for spies and eavesdroppers. I even received a few requests that I send medicine, since none was available in the local pharmacies—an admission, unthinkable a few years ago, that all is not well in the much-vaunted health-care system.

 

People will even speak of lo bueno and lo malo, the good and the bad, of the revolution—usually adding that lo malo was very, very bad. One man, brought up in the 1970s, told me that he had been fired by revolutionary romanticism, with Che Guevara and John Lennon as his heroes (he told me proudly that Havana was one of three cities with memorials to Lennon, the others being Liverpool and New York). He thought then that a new world had been in construction: but he knew now that it had been a dead end. And old people in particular are inclined to murmur jabón (soap) as you pass, in the hope that you might have some of this rare and precious commodity to give away. When the first old lady came up to me and said jabón, I thought she was mad; but she was only the first of many.

 

There are now signs of a slight intellectual opening. In La Moderna Poesía, a bookshop in an art deco building on the Calle Obispo, I found a Spanish translation of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies. The price in dollars was unlikely to attract many Cuban buyers. Perhaps it was there only to convince foreigners of the regime’s intellectual tolerance; perhaps any Cuban who tried to buy it would be reported at once to the authorities: but even so, the mere public presence of a work so antithetical to the regime’s philosophy would have been unthinkable a dozen years ago.

 

By contrast, the newspapers, Granma and Rebelde, have not changed at all: to have read them 40 years ago is to have read them today and tomorrow and in ten years’ time, if the regime lasts that long. The incessant recital of social progress in Cuba in the face of adversity, and horrible social breakdown everywhere else (especially, of course, in the United States), would bore even the truest of believers. No doubt that is why I saw not a single Cuban reading a newspaper or taking any notice of the aged itinerant salesmen, each with about five copies to dispose of. When I expressed an interest in buying one, the old men took the opportunity openly to ask me for money: selling the newspaper was only a pretext to approach and beg. The question “How much is the newspaper?” always drew the answer “Whatever you would like to give.”

 

Forty-three years of totalitarian dictatorship have left the city of Havana—one of the most beautiful in the world—suspended in a peculiar state halfway between preservation and destruction. For myself, I found the absence of the most grating aspects of commercialism aesthetically pleasing: McDonald’s restaurants (and their like) would ruin Havana as a townscape as comprehensively as time and neglect. And the comparative lack of traffic in Havana demonstrates how mixed a blessing the inexorable spread of the automobile has been for the quality of city life. Had Havana developed “normally,” its narrow grid-pattern streets would by now be choking with traffic and pollution, a suffocating inferno like Guatemala City or San José, Costa Rica, where to breathe is to grow breathless, where noise makes the ears sing, and where thoughts turn to escape as soon as possible.

 

The streets of Havana, not like that at all, are pleasant to walk in. The air is clean, and there is no honking of horns. You can hear yourself think and talk. Most of the few cars that pass are American relics of the Batista era, battered but much restored; they rattle and wheeze like beasts of burden driven forward under duress. Some seem to progress crabwise, not straight ahead but sideways; and with the patina of time, these vehicles, which once would have seemed the commonplace, throwaway mass products of an industrialized society, have taken on an aura of romance, almost of personality. They are loved and treasured as irreplaceable old friends, and when you look at them you wonder how many of the objects that you take so much for granted might one day be regarded in like fashion. It helps you to see the world anew.

 

Few new buildings have been added to Havana, which is just as well, of course, since those few are in the style of totalitarian modernism, and ruin the neighborhood. In the very center of the city, moreover, which UNESCO has declared to be part of humanity’s patrimony, tasteful restoration work is under way. In the Plaza Vieja, a grand colonial building has been transformed into luxury apartments for tourists to rent, with an excellent restaurant downstairs (the very idea of an excellent restaurant in Cuba was unthinkable 12 years ago). The bourgeoisie is thus a little like nature: though you pitch it out with a revolution, yet it will in the end return.

 

But the scale of the restoration of Havana is as nothing compared with the scale of its ruination. It is quite literally crumbling away. One of the most magnificent of its many magnificent streets is known as the Prado, a wide avenue that leads to the sea, with a central tree-lined marble walkway down which people stroll at night in the balmy air. Some of the beautifully proportioned mansions along the Prado have collapsed into rubble since the last time I was there; others have their facades—all that remains of them—propped up by wooden struts. The palace along the Prado that houses the national school of ballet is a mere shell, the ground floor containing nothing but rubble: it is extraordinary to hear the sound of répétiteurs emerging from the upper floor of this shell. Havana is like Beirut, without having gone through the civil war to achieve the destruction.

No words can do justice to the architectural genius of Havana, a genius that extended from the Renaissance classicism of the sixteenth century, with severe but perfectly proportioned houses containing colonnaded courtyards cooled and softened by tropical trees and shrubs, to the flamboyant art deco of the 1930s and 40s. The Cubans of successive centuries created a harmonious architectural whole almost without equal in the world. There is hardly a building that is wrong, a detail that is superfluous or tasteless. The tiled multicoloration of the Bacardi building, for example, which might be garish elsewhere, is perfectly adapted—natural, one might say—to the Cuban light, climate, and temper. Cuban architects understood the need for air and shade in a climate such as Cuba’s, and they proportioned buildings and rooms accordingly. They created an urban environment that, with its arcades, columns, verandas, and balconies, was elegant, sophisticated, convenient, and joyful.

 

Of course, not every Cuban shared it: there were large shantytowns outside the city, and in the countryside much of the peasantry lived in grinding poverty. In 1958, Cuba might have had Italy’s overall levels of consumption per capita, more or less, but the consumption was unevenly distributed. Yet what is so striking about Havana’s grandeur and beauty is how extensive it is, and how wealthy (as well as sophisticated) the society that produced it must have been. The splendor of Havana, rather than being confined to a small quarter of the city, extends for miles.

 

The splendor is very faded now, of course. The city is like a great set of Bach variations on the theme of urban decay. The stucco has given way to mold; roofs have gone, replaced by corrugated iron; shutters have crumbled into sawdust; paint is a phenomenon of the past; staircases end in precipices; windows lack glass; doors are off their hinges; interior walls have collapsed; wooden props support, though not with any degree of assurance, all kinds of structures; ancient electrical wiring emerges from walls, like worms from cheese; wrought ironwork balconies crumble into rust; plaster peels as in a malignant skin disease; flagstones are mined for other purposes. Every grand and beautifully proportioned room—visible through the windows or in some places through the walls that have crumbled away—has been subdivided by plywood partitions into smaller spaces, in which entire families now live. Washing hangs from the windows of what were once palaces. Every entranceway is dark, and at night the electric lights glimmer rather than shine. No ruination is too great to render a building unfit for habitation: Havana is like a city that has been struck by an earthquake and its population forced to survive among the wreckage until relief arrives.

 

It cannot be said, however, that the inhabitants of Havana appear notably unhappy—far from it. The children play baseball cheerfully in the street with balls of compressed rags and bats of metal piping. (Curiously, the Latin American countries with the strongest anti-Yanqui political tradition are those where baseball is most enthusiastically played, as if the politics aimed to assuage the guilt at having taken up the pastime of the enemy.) There is plenty of social life in the streets, much smiling and laughter, and it isn’t hard to find a small fiesta with music and dancing. When you look into the homes that the people have made among the ruins, there are the small, heartbreaking signs of pride and self-respect that one also sees in the huts of Africa: the carefully tended plastic flowers and other cheap ornaments, for example. A taste for kitsch among the well-to-do is a sign of spiritual impoverishment; but among the poor, it represents a striving for beauty, an aspiration without the likelihood of fulfillment. Only the old look downcast or crushed: old people’s thoughts turn naturally to the past, and the contrast between the Havana of their youth and the Havana of their dotage must be painful to contemplate.

 

The evident contentment of the population among the ruins, though, does not lessen my profound sorrow (and worse than sorrow, it is something indefinable that weighs on the heart) to see the destruction of a masterpiece of collective human endeavor down the ages, Havana. On the contrary, I find the very unconcern profoundly disturbing. What can it mean that people should live contentedly in the ruins of their own capital city, the ruination having been wrought not by war or natural disaster but by prolonged (and in my view deliberate) neglect? They are not barbarians who actively smash or destroy what they do not understand and value; nor do they fail to notice—how could they?—that the buildings in which they live are on the verge of collapse. It is not difficult to get people to show you the ramshackle ruins they inhabit, a service they perform with a laugh and a smile; it is simply that to live thus has become natural for them, and the collapse of walls and staircases seems no more avoidable than the weather.

 

An artist to whom I spoke, who was tentatively trying to use his photographs to draw the attention of his countrymen to the decay and destruction of their architectural inheritance occurring all around them, explained the neglect of the city as a manifestation of the government’s priorities. It had always been more concerned about education and the health service, he said, than with preservation of the fabric of Havana. Though he understood why the government should have considered the reduction of the infant-mortality rate to be more important than the care of mere material objects such as buildings, he himself had gradually come to see the importance of preserving that inheritance: once gone, it was irrecoverable. But in his opinion, most people were unconcerned by it.

 

Alas, I suspect that the neglect of Havana has a deeper and more sinister rationale than the one the artist proposed. It is not difficult to imagine Castro’s angry response to the accusation that he has let Havana fall into ruins. He would argue that, largely because of the American embargo, he had always had to establish clear spending priorities, and that schools, hospitals, and medicines mattered more for the life of a people than the upkeep of a capital city in which only a minority of the population lived. Life itself was more important than objects: and Cuba’s low infant-mortality rate and high life expectancy were justification of his policies.

But this answer would not, in my view, be entirely honest—even beyond the question of whether Cuba’s progress in literacy and public health necessitated Castro’s policies or justified the evident lack of freedoms enjoyed by Cubans. I suspect that the neglectful ruination of Havana has served a profoundly ideological purpose. After all, the neglect has been continuous for nearly half a century, while massive subsidies from the Soviet Union were pouring in. A dictator as absolute as Castro could have preserved Havana if he had so wished, and could easily have found an economic pretext for doing so.

 

Havana, however, was a material refutation of his entire historiography—of the historiography that has underpinned his policies and justified his dictatorship for 43 years. According to this account, Cuba was a poor agrarian society, impoverished by its dependent relationship with the United States, incapable without socialist revolution of solving its problems. A small exploitative class of intermediaries benefited enormously from the neocolonial relationship, but the masses were sunk in abject poverty and misery.

 

But Havana was a large city of astonishing grandeur and wealth, which was clearly not confined to a tiny minority, despite the coexistence with that wealth of deep poverty. Hundreds of thousands of people obviously had lived well in Havana, and it is not plausible that so many had done so merely by the exploitation of a relatively small rural population. They must themselves have been energetic, productive, and creative people. Their society must have been considerably more complex and sophisticated than Castro can admit without destroying the rationale of his own rule.

 

In the circumstances, therefore, it became ideologically essential that the material traces and even the very memory of that society should be destroyed. In official publications (and all publications in Cuba are official) the only positive personages from the past are rebels and revolutionaries, representing a continuing nationalist tradition of which Castro is the apotheosis: there is no god but revolution, and Castro is its prophet. The period between Cuban independence and the advent of Castro is known as “the Pseudorepublic,” and the corrupt thuggery of Batista, as well as the existence of poverty, is all that needs (or is allowed) to be known of life immediately before Castro.

 

But who created Havana, and where did the magnificence come from, if before Castro there were only poverty, corruption, and thuggery? Best to destroy the evidence, though not by the crude Taliban method of blowing up the statues of Buddha, which is inclined to arouse the opprobrium of the world: better to let huge numbers of people camp out permanently in stolen property and then let time and neglect do the rest. In a young population such as Cuba’s, with little access to information not filtered through official channels, life among the ruins will come to seem normal and natural. The people will soon be radically disconnected from the past of the very walls they live among. And so the present ruins of Havana are the material consequence of a monomaniacal historiography put into practice.

 

Yet foreshortened memory can be made to serve an ideological turn, as has happened with the restoration of a small area of the city—a much-needed restoration, for inhabited ruins will not long attract mass tourism. And so a large and glossy book has appeared, recording by means of before-and-after photographs the Herculean efforts of the regime to restore some of the buildings of old Havana that had fallen practically into ruins. Entitled Lest We Forget, the book omits to mention how the ruination came about in the first place. The restoration is thus one triumph more for the revolution.

 

The terrible damage that Castro has done will long outlive him and his regime. Untold billions of capital will be needed to restore Havana; legal problems about ownership and rights of residence will be costly, bitter, and interminable; and the need to balance commercial, social, and aesthetic considerations in the reconstruction of Cuba will require the highest regulatory wisdom. In the meantime, Havana stands as a dreadful warning to the world—if one were any longer needed—against the dangers of monomaniacs who believe themselves to be in possession of a theory that explains everything, including the future.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_3_urbanities-why_havana.html

 

Gustavo Tapanes

Translate message

Añado, que Trump, es amigo de los Clinton y fue Demócrata primero. 

El ha impresionado, pues ha dicho muchas cosas que nadie se ha atrevido a decir, y eso le trae popularidad.

Sera este hombre una carta para darle el triunfo a Hilary Clinton?. 

Slds

Fox News

El Presidente Obama continuó sus críticas de Fox News, argumentando que los televidentes de la red están recibiendo un conjunto diferente de los hechos que en el resto del país. “No estamos en una conversación común”, dijo. “Si ves Fox News, habitas en un mundo totalmente diferente con diferentes hechos que si usted lee el New York Times,” dijo.

Donald Trump expresó una entrevista en CNN su malestar por el tono “agresivo” e “injusto” con que los moderadores de Fox New se dirigieron a él, con “como personales directos en mayor cantidad al resto de candidatos

Fox News es como Juan el Bautista de los evangelios, una voz que clama en el desierto.  La única voz que podemos oír en la televisión que nos reporta las noticias sin compromisos y presenta todos los puntos de vista. Como dice su lema de una manera justa y balanceada.

Pero tanto Trump cómo Obama lo consideran injusto porque no se adaptan a su manera de pensar, esto era algo inconcebible en América en el pasado, donde todos los candidatos y presidentes fueron blanco de los medios comunicativos que trataban de llevar al público la opinión del político que los representaba o los aspira a representar y  nadie ni pensaba en quejarse de las preguntas de los periodistas, hubiera sido contraproducente.  Pero vivimos en otros tiempos..

Esta coincidencia de Trump y Obama nos dice de cómo ha bajado el rasero moral político cuando tanto un presidente cómo un candidato se quejan de que un periodista ejerza su derecho a cuestionar a un político, cuando se nos presentan ejecutivos y aspirantes a ejecutivos con la soberbia y arrogancia de un dictador de una dictadura bananera.

Pero gracias a Dios por Fox News, que nos la conceda por muchos años, porque si, tiene razón Obama habitamos en mundo totalmente diferente porque vemos a Fox News Y AL NEW YORK TIMES, y podemos comparar los dos puntos de vistas.  Gracias a Dios por Fox News porque por las preguntas a los candidatos republicanos podremos hacer una decisión mucho más educada e inteligente que si hubieran sido entrevistados por periodistas tramitados complacientes.

Tiene que pensar en esto Trump cuando va a la emisora del enemigo para hablar mal del único medio de comunicación restante que nos representa.

No creo que nadie con un sentido de lo que es la libertad de expresión pueda recibir estos ataques como algo diferente a los que son, y son un elogio de la labor periodística de Fox News, porque no hay mejor elogio a un demócrata que el ataque de un tirano.

 

 

CUBA MURIÓ EN LA CRUZ-ESTEBAN FERNANDEZ

Ayer un tipo que lee mis escritos demostrando mi amor por los recuerdos de mi patria antes del castrismo me dijo: “Pues, allá nadie quiere regresar a los oprobios del pasado” Lo miré, me sonreí y le dije: “Perfecto, pues parece que la mayoría se conforma y se adapta, con la basura del presente” Porque eso es lo que es la Cuba actual: UNA BASURA. Porque no crean que yo me engaño y no siento el dolor de darme cuenta que de aquella Patria que yo les hablo ya no queda nada. Esa murió en la cruz. La Cuba de hoy es la creada por Fidel y Raúl Castro, y un montón de Generales, dueños de esa Isla, con cientos y cientos de mansiones, de Mercedes Benz, con miles de millones de dólares en el exterior. Eso es Cuba hoy.

Y al mismo tiempo Cuba es para los cubanos hambre, miseria, desolación, cárcel, chivatos, Comités de Defensa, diplotiendas para los extranjeros y playas privadas para los turistas.

Cuba es una televisión aburrida, una radio maniatada, un periódico que sólo lanza propaganda gubernamental y castrista. Cuba es falta de transporte, guaguas que nunca llegan y cuando llegan están atestadas de pueblo como si fuera ganado, Cuba es escasez, sangre, lágrimas de padres por hijos muertos e hijos en el exilio, hijos muertos en el medio del mar caídos de balsas utilizadas como vía de escape de la ignominia.

Cuba es represión, es Ministerio del Interior, es Seguridad del Estado, es tener dos caras, es tener que asistir a manifestaciones en contra de la voluntad, es tener que decir públicamente “Viva Fidel y Raúl” y por dentro defecarse en ellos, es tener que demostrar odio a los yanquis y por dentro estar desesperados por poder poner los pies en U.S.A.

Cuba es no ver un pedazo de carne en meses, ni disfrutar de una Materva, ni de un sándwich cubano. Cuba es vivir en Cuba y no ver los productos cubanos, Cuba es cuentas secretas en bancos del extranjero de dos tiranos, Ladas y relojes Rolex para los Mayimbes, y racionamiento para el pueblo de “a pie”.

Cuba es inculcarle en las escuelas a los niños a “seguir el ejemplo de un argentino asmático, suicida y fracasado” y los niños lo que quieren ser es “turistas extranjeros”. Cuba es jineteras, médicos manejando taxis, Cuba es tener que demostrar adhesión a la tiranía para poder estudiar una carrera universitaria, Cuba es refrigeradores vacíos, perros famélicos deambulando por las calles, Cuba es “Remolcador 13 de marzo”, el maleconazo, moscas, suciedad, basura en las calles, edificios derrumbados o apuntalados, apagones, falta de agua, falta de higiene, falta de medicinas, consignas antiamericanas, ocultamiento de glorias pasadas, periodo especial eterno, asqueroso picadillo de soya, carretones de mulas convertidos en taxis. Cuba no produce alimentos pero produce Brigadas de Respuesta Rápida.

Actos de repudio contra todo el que discrepa, niños adoctrinados con pañoletas rojas y vestidos de Pioneros, televisores y radios destartalados, carros desbaratados del año 57 y 58 andando por las calles, sin piezas de repuestos y poniendo en peligro a la ciudadanía.

Cuba es pesos cubanos sin valor alguno, bisté de frazada, colas en busca de alimentos, Cuba es “Villa Marista”, “Combinado del Este” y “100 y Aldabó”, y las fotos de Nicolás Maduro a pupilo en la prensa controlada, profesionales montados en bicicletas, orientales como limosneros recorriendo las calles de La Habana conocidos como “los palestinos”, Cuba es casi dos millones de exiliados, separación de las familias, y Cuba es Dalia Soto y Mariela Castro Espín con mansiones en la Riviera Francesa, en Sicilia y París, mientras los cubanos no tienen ni papel higiénico, ni las mujeres tienen Kotex, y se dificulta hasta encontrar una aspirina. Eso es Cuba hoy en día.

 

 

 

 

Quintin George:

August 07, 2015
The Goldberg File
by Jonah Goldberg
 
Deer Reader (and all of you who never get tired of jokes about reading off of ungulates),

I wonder if, right before his show-of-hands question, Bret Baier turned to the guys sitting behind him and said, “Watch this. It is about to go down.”

I don’t have much use for defenses of Donald Trump in general, but the one I have the least patience for is that the opening question to all the candidates of whether they would support the eventual GOP nominee and forgo a third-party run was “unfair.”

Just to set the stage: This was literally the stage — like the physical stage — of the next Republican convention. This was the first debate in the contest for the nomination to lead the Republican party. Donald Trump is the frontrunner in the polls for that nomination and he has, several times in recent weeks, suggested he might take his marbles and go if he’s not the nominee. But it was unfair to ask him about it?

Imagine there’s an election for your high-school chess club or your local Shriners group or the Regional Association of Men Who Eat Over the Sink (I’m treasurer). And one guy has been saying over the last couple weeks that if he doesn’t get elected the next president he will quit this organization and set up a rival one. You don’t think it’s fair to ask him about that?

But wait, as an oppo-researcher says to his boss when playing him a video of a Debbie Wasserman Schultz press conference, “Hold on. It gets dumber.”

Contrary to what you might have read over the urinal at Mother Jones, Bret Baier doesn’t work for the GOP. So even if you think it’s unfair for a Republican to expect an answer to that question — which is crazy talk — you have to have your head so far up Donald Trump’s red-velvet-lined ass you can see the glow of the nickel slot machines, to think it’s out of bounds for a journalist to ask that question.

And by the way, what’s up with the whining? All I ever hear from Trump supporters is how “he fights” and “he doesn’t back down” and — of course — “you just don’t get it.”

Well, if it’s too mean to ask this “fighter” to hold up his hand to answer a question he basically begged the world to ask him, is he really deserving of the label? Trump was given an opportunity to explain his position. Go back andread his response. Here it is:

I cannot say. I have to respect the person that, if it’s not me, the person that wins, if I do win, and I’m leading by quite a bit, that’s what I want to do. I can totally make that pledge. If I’m the nominee, I will pledge I will not run as an independent. But — and I am discussing it with everybody, but I’m, you know, talking about a lot of leverage. We want to win, and we will win. But I want to win as the Republican. I want to run as the Republican nominee.

I know what you’re thinking: It’s like when Abraham Lincoln spoke at Cooper Union. Oh, I don’t mean Lincoln’s address. That was a marvel of erudition and coherence. I mean the crazy shirtless guy with a horseshoe sticking out of his open fly shouting, “Did you feed the cat!?” who was dragged out of the room five minutes before Lincoln spoke.

By the way, I will make a similar pledge. If I’m the nominee, I vow not to run as an independent as well. Similarly, if I’m made King of America I will not make any effort to become King of Australia.

What Don’t I Get Again?

I know, I know. I “just don’t get it.”

Which reminds me, here’s a hint, people: If your best argument is “You just don’t get it,” you’re probably the person who doesn’t get it. Why? Because “You just don’t get it!” is not an argument. Sure, I understand if you say it after you’ve made a serious case with facts, data, and logic. But when you start out with “You just don’t get it,” the brain farting is all on your end of the conversation. It roughly means: “Earth logic is useless in communicating why I think this guy should be the nominee. So I will, like an ugly American, shout the same phrase over and over again on the assumption that with greater decibels comes greater understanding.”

As I learned from wading through a river of pro-Trump tweets last night to the point where I felt like I was escaping Shawshank prison through a sewer pipe, what I apparently don’t get is that Trump won’t commit to the party because he needs “leverage.” The word “leverage” is even in his response; it stands out like a lone crouton in that wilted word salad of his.

I understand why Trump won’t pledge loyalty to the nominee — it’s not complicated. He’s threatening the party to make nice on him or else. That may be a smart tactic. But if that’s his tactic, what’s your objection to asking him about it again?  

Trump, Putanesca Style

By the way, I think Rand Paul was exactly right, if not exactly effective, in his critique of Trump last night. Trump’s argument is that as a businessman he had no choice but to essentially buy politicians.

BAIER: . . . You’ve also supported a host of other liberal policies. Use — you’ve also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi.

You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business-related favors.

And you said recently, quote, “When you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do.”

TRUMP: You’d better believe it.

Trump added a few moments later that as a “businessman”:

I give to everybody. When they call, I give.

And do you know what?

When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me.

He even went so far as to insinuate that he bought most of the people on the stage with him last night. That prompted one of my favorite moments. Rubio said he didn’t get any money from Trump adding, “Actually, to be clear, he supported Charlie Crist.”

I remember a time when “the base” hated people who supported Charlie Crist. Now, because of the reality-warping power of Donald Trump, supporting Charlie Crist isn’t only defensible, it’s what all the smart businessmen do.

Seriously: What the Hell is wrong with conservatives who denounce crony capitalism in theory but forgive it in practice? Trump is like a john damning the prostitutes he beds for being whores. Since when does being a businessman mean never having to say you’re sorry?

Oh, and what are we supposed to make of Trump’s boast — boast! — that he bribed Hillary Clinton to attend his wedding? Why is this something you would pay for? Why is this something you would admit? I mean, how is this proof of Trump’s shrewdness as a businessman? I get paying Hillary Clinton to get a zoning favor or a tax break or something like that. But how does having Hillary Clinton eating your canapés help your bottom line?

The guy is bragging about how, as the greatest businessman ever, he shrewdly buys politicians — and his example is getting Hillary Clinton to attend his wedding? I guess not since John D. Rockefeller got Mrs. Harding to attend his daughter’s piano recital has there been a more deft move in the world of high-stakes business. As I joked on Twitter last night, “It profits a man nothing to give his soul to gain the whole world, but for …. Hillary Clinton at your wedding?”

I could of course go on about the idea that the savior of American conservatism is a man who thinks socialized medicine works great in Canada and Scotland and who seems to honestly believe that illegal immigration “was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement” two months ago.

But, again, the problem is I “just don’t get it.”

Now, the Important Stuff

Last night’s debates were actually extremely encouraging. I was probably a little too narrow in my declaration — over at Politico — that Rubio, Cruz, and Fiorina were the only winners. At the very least, there weren’t a lot of losers. I mean, yeah, sure, historians will spend decades trying to figure out what Jim Gilmore was doing up there. Honorable, decent, smart guy, I’m sure. But he’s the answer to a question no one is asking.

I increasingly believe that if this Rick Perry had run in 2012, he might be president now. He certainly might have been the nominee. I was very hard on Perry last time around because nothing pisses me off more in politics than when talented and charismatic politicians don’t do their homework. Charisma can’t be bought — if it could, Romney would have bought a ton of it. But you can buy knowledge and preparedness. It takes remarkably little money but a good deal of effort. Perry blew his moment last time so this time he’s running the way a candidate should: seriously.

And that’s true of most of these candidates. The best example is Carly Fiorina. She’s comes to play and doesn’t lose her cool. She was the clear winner of the5:00 P.M. debate, but Jindal and Perry gave good performances, too. Carly also really shined afterwards. Her interview with Chris Matthews was one of the best examples of a conservative eating a liberal’s lunch since Andrew Breitbart commandeered Anthony Weiner’s press-conference podium.

I will say I was much more bullish on the 5:00 P.M. panel than warranted. I assumed the main debate wouldn’t be as awesome as it was — a safe assumption, I think! Fiorina still helped herself a lot, but it turns out the kiddy-table debate really was a poor substitute for the primetime gig.

Obama’s Iran Speech

For reasons I will get to in a moment, this was an absolutely terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week. So I couldn’t get my normal Friday column done yesterday. That was particularly vexing because it was on Obama’s Iran speech, which I thought was not only bad, but outrageous. It was petulant, small, nasty, partisan, wildly hypocritical, and dishonorable in almost every regard. People who celebrated it should be ashamed of themselves. And the press’s ho-hum reporting on it as if it were just another presidential speech is a searing indictment of not just their news judgment but their partisanship.

The president of the United States said critics of the Iran deal were finding common cause with a murderous Iranian regime — a regime that he has coddled, accommodated, and apologized for time and again. He imputed to his domestic political opponents a none-too-vague whiff of cowardice, dual loyalty, and dishonor. In vintage Obama mode, he condemned the partisanship of his critics while delivering a searing partisan attack. He once again bragged about his opposition to the Iraq War while denigrating all those who supported it — including both of his secretaries of state and his vice president — as if that proves the rightness of everything he does. But this time he went further, basically suggesting that if you don’t support this deal, you are rewarding this evil fifth column in our midst. It was disgusting.

Last, he threatened that if you don’t support his deal, it will mean war.

This is a lie. First of all, if Congress votes down the deal tomorrow, who here believes that Obama will say, “Well, we have no choice now. We have to go to war.”

Anyone?

Who here believes that the people cheering his speech as powerful and impressive will apply its logic if it fails? Will David Axelrod — who loved the speech, of course — suddenly say, “Diplomacy has failed, alas. Now we have no choice but to bomb Iran.”?

They are fear-mongering and lying while denouncing their opponents as fear-mongerers and liars.

They are dishonestly threatening war because war is the only option less preferable than this unbelievably bad deal. It’s a magic-beans deal, minus the magic. It’s the equivalent of giving the Clintons millions in exchange for Mrs. Clinton attending your wedding.

It was the most shameful presidential speech on foreign policy in my lifetime. Shame on him and his fans.

My Week

Feel free to skip what follows. I just needed to get it out of my system.

So, I was supposed to be at the Cleveland debates. I had credentials waiting for me. I even prepaid for a hotel room for two nights. But on Monday, a couple hours after my wife departed for a week in Alaska, I got word from the folks at the Pacific Research Institute that there was a problem. You see, I’m going on the PRI cruise from Copenhagen to St. Petersburg. I didn’t make a big deal about it around here, because every time I go on a competing cruise to National Review’s (super-terrific-awesome) cruises, NR publisher Jack Fowler starts cutting himself again. But this seemed like a great cruise, and the Goldbergs could use the subsidized travel to turn it into a family trip. So far so good. So anyway, on Monday I got word that there was a problem with my daughter’s passport. You see, there’s a rule that on foreign cruises (and similar travel) your passport has to be valid. “Well, duh,” you’re probably saying. “Of course it needs to be valid.” Well, you didn’t let me finish. It needs to be valid for six months after the conclusion of your cruise. My daughter’s passport expires in November. The cruise ends on August 22nd. So, okay. I’ll get Lucy a new passport. That’s inconvenient but doable. I’ve known people to get new passports in 24 hours. All I need to do is pay one of these passport expediting services. For just shy of $500 they can guarantee that I get her passport renewed in 24 hours after getting the right paperwork. All I have to do is follow their instructions to the letter. What I was unprepared for was the complication of these instructions and the degree to which they have to be done in the correct order. The folks at the service are kind of like the guy talking the civilian through how to land a plane in a 1970s disaster movie. “Do this. Don’t do that. Don’t touch that! I can’t believe you slept with Sharon!”

So where was I? Oh, right, there’s a hitch. My daughter needs to personally apply — as in physically be at a passport office or post office — as if it were her first time doing so, because she’s a minor. Well, crap on a stick. Lucy’s in rural Maine at sleep-away camp. I’m going to NYC to do Outnumbered on Wednesday and then fly to Cleveland to be over-served at bars while getting spun by consultants and cursed out by Trump fans or maybe the Pataki fan. Well, maybe I can take her when I get back? Oh no. You see, not only does Lucy have to apply in person. Both parents must be physically present with her. Well, now we’ve got a real problem. The cruise needs the updated passport information in eight days or we won’t be allowed to board the boat. Well, I could board without my daughter and my wife, but then again, I could also see what parts of my body best fit into a Cuisinart in frappé mode on my long planned family vacation. Not an option.

Jessica won’t be back from Alaska until 48 hours or so before the deadline. Aha. Jessica can fill out a form — there’s always a form! — have it notarized, stamped, approved by the priests, and, assuming the goats’ entrails are auspicious, the bureaucrat will smush his signet ring into the hot wax. This form attests that she is she and that my wife co-owns the title on our kid and that I have her permission to get our daughter a new passport to replace the perfectly valid passport she already has without her present. So, the only way this works is for me to cancel my flights from New York City to Cleveland (and eat the hotel costs) and instead figure out travel to rural Maine. I have to time it so that my wife gets the form to me in time — and place — so that I have it with me when I take the child to apply.

Oh, so I get to New York to do Outnumbered. Happy to do the show — great bunch of gals and pre-debate talk should be fun — but super inconvenient given my new priorities. I wake up at 5:00 A.M. Perambulate the dingo. Leave for train station. (My AEI research assistant has agreed to house and animal sit for me. He seemed agreeable when I took out my revolver and laid it on my desk before I asked him.) Make 7:00 A.M. train to New York. On train I learn that Obama will speak at 11:15 from American University on the Iran deal. So I say to myself, “Self, how much you want to bet he’s late and preempts this show?” So I get there. Obama is 45 minutes late, which is roughly 25 minutes later than his standard tardiness. So there I am, caked in makeup, sitting on a couch with four ladies, having an Obama speech-watching party. Every five minutes the producer updates us on what we won’t be able to do as Obama chews up the time (and America’s integrity). I end up on air for two minutes. Totally worth the trip.

So, I head to Penn Station, the only place left on the East Coast that really captures the full ambrosia of urban failure and urine. For the second time in two weeks (we just had our daughter’s parents’ weekend at camp), I head to Boston (I had taken three separate red eyes from Canada to make visiting day at the end of the NR cruise). This time, I take the train to Boston, not remembering that I had rented the car from Logan airport. So even when I’m not flying into that open sewage pit of an airport, I still gotta go there. I take a cab from the train station (got ripped off on the fare — long story), get to Logan airport, and rent a car. Because my daughter loves VW bugs, I take the pale blue VW bug when offered. From the moment I get behind the wheel, I can feel my sperm count dropping and my testosterone evaporating through my pores. I check between the seats for my Y chromosome. I drive to Portsmouth, N.H. (for my third visit this summer, another long story). The paperwork from my wife is waiting for me at the hotel. Yay. I spend the next couple hours going back and forth between the hotel bar, business center, and the reception desk getting copies made, talking to the specialists at the passport service, and generally trying to remember everything I need to do while drinking to forget. I wake up at5:00 A.M. again to write my Iran column. But I get myself too angry to get it done the way I want to. I’ll get back to it later. And I need to get on the road to pick up my kid. I drive to Maine. She’s late for pick-up because you can’t wear white T-shirts or uniforms for your passport picture. That’s almost all she’s got. Anyway, I exfil kid. Drive back to Portsmouth. We sacrifice the appropriate chickens. Get kid’s passport photo taken. It looks like a mugshot on TMZ. We leave post office for the UPS store to send the paperwork off to D.C. where I live so they can start the process of replacing her perfectly valid passport. Take kid to lunch. Drive her back to camp along the same windy rural roads I drove that morning. Day dragged on too long. No time for column. I discover that the testosterone-draining VW Bug doesn’t have any USB ports or working cigarette lighter thingies. So batteries all die. I use my laptop as a portable battery for my phone. Not going to make it to Boston in time for first debate. Fox News Radio not carrying it because everyone likes to hear the third hour of the Tom Sullivan show instead of the first debate of 2016. Duh. Call D.C .bureau of Fox and try to get someone to put me on hold so I can listen to live broadcast they use instead of muzak. That doesn’t work for some reason. Call my research assistant. He’s at my house. He puts phone up to TV and I listen with the remaining juice in my phone battery. And then I watched a great debate. No word yet on whether I’ll get the passport in time.

 

 

Donald Trump Says He Fired Campaign Strategist — but That Might Not Be the Whole Story

Dave Urbanski

  • Tweet This

Apparently tension had been brewing between Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his longtime campaign strategist for some time — and then after Thursday’s GOP debate, things reportedly boiled over and now Roger Stone is gone.

 

Image source: AP

The question is: Who cut the ties?

Washington Post national political reporter Robert Costa broke the news Saturday via Twitter that Stone got the “you’re fired” treatment from Trump:

Trump said Stone might offer a different version of events:

Indeed Stone did have a different take, telling Costa he “fired Trump.”

“Unfortunately, the current controversies involving personalities and provocative media fights have reached such a high volume that it has distracted attention from your platform and overwhelmed your core message …” Stone’s resignation letter obtained by MSNBC read. “… With this current direction of the candidacy, I no longer can remain involved in your campaign.”

Costa noted that Trump and Stone had been at odds for a while, and then after things “flared” following the debate, their relationship ended the next day.

While Trump has been tearing into Fox News host Megyn Kelly since the debate, Stone took part in aTwitter war with the network’s very own Geraldo Riveraa few days ago.

Costa also said Trump won’t apologize for his Kelly comments, insisted he wouldn’t leave the race and that Fox News needs him:

 

 

NOW ON THEBLAZE RADIO – “PURE OPELKA”

MEDIA

Donald Trump Shocks, Takes War With Fox News to Next Level With Latest Megyn Kelly Insult

Oliver Darcy

  • Tweet This

Real estate tycoon Donald Trump escalated his war with Fox News during a Friday evening appearance on CNN, hurling a shock insult at Megyn Kelly.

After Trump said he has “no respect” for Kelly and contended that she is “highly overrated,” he took one more jab at her.

“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her — wherever,” he said, in reference to Thursday night’s GOP debate.

The comment was immediately met with backlash online.

“What the HELL,” Townhall editor and Fox News contributor Katie Pavlich tweeted.

“Totally out of line.”

Share:

“Totally out of line,” another tweeted, reacting to the comment.

Another person added, “I feel that I can’t even be shocked anymore by what he says.”

(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Trump’s spat with Fox News began after Kelly asked him during the debate about disparaging commentshe had made towards women in the past.

After the debate, the GOP hopeful said the questions he faced from debate moderators were “not nice.”Trump then turned to Twitter to blast Kelly and pollster Frank Luntz whose focus group showed that the outspoken businessman lost support.

When debate ratings came out, Trump continued to battle Fox News, saying the network “should be ashamed.” He also called for the firing of pundit Charles Krauthammer who criticized his debate performance.

Kelly, for her part, has not directly addressed the comments — either on Twitter or on her show — and appears to be looking to take the higher ground in the dispute.

A Fox News spokesperson did, however, tell TheBlaze Friday that she would be a guest on Sunday’s episode of “Media Buzz.” In her appearance, which was pre-taped Friday, Kelly will talk about Thursday’s debate and Trump.

 

 
Lázaro R González para Alcalde del Condado de  Miami Elecciones de Noviembre 8 del 2016.  Use la boleta en blanco.

Por favor  infórmeselo a todos los familiares, vecinos y amigos, No aceptamos contribuciones monetarias Contacto: lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com

 “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