HPIM0049

No 1040 “En mi opinión” Septiembre 16, 2015

No 1040 “En mi opinión” Septiembre 16, 2015

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R Gonzalez Miño  Editor

Lázaro R González Miño para alcalde de Miami Dade

NUESTRO PROXIMO PRESIDENTE  DEBE TENER: El CONSERVADURISMO,  El RESPETO A LA CONSTITUCION,  LAS IDEAS, EL VALOR, LA ENTERESA, EL PATRIOTISMO, LA MORAL, VALOR,  Y AMOR POR NUESTRA NACION AMERICANA DE RONALD REAGAN

 

AMENPER: ¿PORQUE TENEMOS ELECCIONES?

Oímos las voces de los genuinos líderes conservadores, escandalizados por el falso profeta del conservadurismo, el liberal con disfrazado con piel de oveja conservadora, Donald Trump, su popularidad y su posición puntera en las encuestas. 

Una de las voces más destacada del conservadurismo, un conservador de la raza negra un profesor universitario y pensador, que nunca ha ocupado un cargo político, pero que siempre ha sido un puntal filosófico de la doctrina conservadora, Thomas Sowell, nos ofrece su visión del fenómeno Trump y del fenómeno del nuevo votante americano. 

Es difícil imaginar una manera más tonta o más peligrosa de toma de decisiones que poner esas decisiones en manos de personas que no pagan ningún precio por equivocarse,-  Thomas Sowell

¿Por qué tenemos elecciones?

POR THOMAS SOWELLSEPTEMBER 15, 2015, 5:30

En un país con más de 300 millones de personas, es notable cómo los medios de comunicación se han obsesionado  con un solo — Donald Trump.

Lo más notable es que, después de seis años de desastres repetidos tanto nacional como internacionalmente, bajo un egomaníaco superficial e insincero en la casa blanca, muchos posibles votantes están recurriendo a otro egomaníaco superficial e insincero para ser su sucesor.

Sin duda gran parte de la estampida de los votantes republicanos hacia el Sr. Trump se basa en su aparente indignación con el establecimiento republicano. El hecho de que los dos con mayoría-de votos en las encuestas también son completos extraños — el Dr. Ben Carson y Sra. Carly Fiorina, esto refuerza la idea de que se trata de una protesta.

Es fácil entender por qué hay resentimientos entre los votantes republicanos. ¿Pero se tienen las elecciones con el propósito de expresión de las emociones?

Ningún líder nacional nunca despertó emociones más fervientes que Adolf Hitler lo hizo en la década de 1930. Vemos algunos viejos noticiarios de multitudes alemanas delirantes de alegría a la vista de él. Lo único que en todo comparables en tiempos más recientes fueron las multitudes extáticas que saludaron a Barack Obama cuando irrumpió en la escena política en 2008. Nota mía, también lo vimos en Cuba con Fidel Castro

Las elecciones, sin embargo, tienen algo mucho más duradero y mucho más grave — o incluso sombrío — para ser consecuencias de una ventilación emocional. La trayectoria real histórica de los personajes, tenemos a Juan Perón en Argentina, Obama en Estados Unidos o Hitler en Alemania, Nota mía Fidel Castro en Cuba, debiera ser muy aleccionador, si no oprime dolorosamente.

Los medios de comunicación parecen pensar que la participación en las elecciones es un gran problema. Pero la participación a menudo se acerca a 100 por ciento en países tan rotos por polarización amarga que todos tienen miedo al desastre muerte de lo que ocurrirá si gana el otro lado. Pero los tiempos y lugares con baja afluencia de votantes son a menudo tiempos y lugares cuando no hay esos temores y que por tener una oposición gana un partido con pocos votos.

A pesar de muchas personas que nos instan todos a votar como un deber cívico, el propósito de las elecciones no es participación. El objetivo es seleccionar a personas para oficinas, incluyendo el de Presidente de los Estados Unidos. Quien tiene esa oficina tiene nuestras vidas, las vidas de nuestros seres queridos y el destino de toda la nación en sus manos.

Una elección no es un concurso de popularidad, o un premio por el espectáculo. Si quiere cumplir con su deber como ciudadano, entonces usted necesita ser un votante informado. Y si no se informa, entonces lo más patriótico que puedes hacer en el día de las elecciones es estancia casera.

De lo contrario con su voto, basado en caprichos o emociones, juega ruleta rusa con el destino de esta nación.

Todo el alboroto sobre Donald Trump es distraer la atención de un gran campo de otros candidatos, algunos de los cuales tienen un historial excepcional como gobernadores, donde demostraron valentía, carácter e inteligencia. Otros tienen habilidades retóricas como Trump o un dominio serio de problemas, a diferencia de Trump.

Aunque Trump mismo no termine como el candidato republicano a la Presidencia, él habrá hecho un perjuicio importante a su partido y al país, porque su palabrería nos ha costado una oportunidad de explorar en profundidad el haber podido incluir a alguien mucho mejor preparados para los retos complejos de esta coyuntura en la historia.

Tras el desastroso acuerdo nuclear con Irán, estamos entrando en una época cuando pueden personas que viven en este momento ver un día cuando queden ciudades americanas en las ruinas radiactivas. Tenemos toda la sabiduría, coraje y dedicación en el próximo presidente — y sus sucesores — para salvar a nosotros y nuestros hijos de tal catástrofe.

Retórica y la teatralidad ciertamente no nos salvará.

Donald Trump no es el único obstáculo para encontrar líderes de tal carácter. El último peligro se encuentra en el voto público mismo. Muchos todos los indicios apuntan a un electorado incluyendo muchas personas que están muy desinformadas o, peor aún, mal informados.

El hecho de que la edad de votación bajó a 18 años, muestra el triunfo de la visión de las elecciones como rituales participativos, más que a veces por decisiones fatídicas.

En todo caso, la edad podría se habría podido plantear a 30 años, desde hoy millones de personas en sus 20s ni siquiera han tenido la responsabilidad de ser autosuficiente, para darles algún sentido de la realidad.

Sólo podemos esperar que los meses que aún quedan antes de las primeras elecciones primarias del próximo año permitir a los votantes sobre sus respuestas emocionales y concentrarse en las implicaciones de la vida y la muerte de elegir al próximo presidente de los Estados Unidos.

 

 

Carlos Miyares… IMPORTANTE:  Muy importante: Lázaro R González Miño, Editor de “En mi opinión” (Muy importante porque creo que el vaticano no está dando una vez más gato por liebre… Este papa no es un papa es un boniato y podrido. Lamento mucho si lastimo sensibilidades pero creo que esto está muy mal y se va a poner peor)

EL PAPA FRANCISCO Y LA MONJA: ARTICULO DE ANOLAN PONCE

Desde que ocupa el trono de San Pedro, el papa Francisco se ha embarcado en una cruzada abierta contra el capitalismo, dedicando más tiempo a atacarlo que a las funciones y problemas internos de la Iglesia Católica como corresponde al máximo vicario de Jesús en la tierra. En su reciente viaje a Sudamérica, y sobre todo en Bolivia, sus discursos fueron de tono tan radical que pueden ser tildados de políticos y revolucionarios, y ello no compagina con el carácter religioso y espiritual de su posición eclesiástica.

La actitud del Papa me ha hecho recordar la novela Historia de una monja, un relato verídico de la escritora norteamericana Kathryn Hulme, basada en la vida de la ex monja y enfermera belga Marie Louise Habets, la cual fue llevada al cine en 1959 con Audrey Hepburn como protagonista. La cinta acaparó 8 nominaciones al Oscar, llegando a ser en aquel entonces el film más taquillero de la Warner Brothers.

Historia de una monja narra la lucha interna de Habets –en la cinta la hermana Luke– por resolver el gran conflicto que se desarrolla entre su amor a Dios, que la ha impulsado a aceptar los votos monásticos, y su vocación verdadera, que es ayudar al prójimo y halla su objetivo en la enfermería. En un recorrido espiritual de casi 18 años por el corazón y el alma de esta joven belga, descubrimos, al igual que ella, que su deseo de ayudar al prójimo la ha esposado erróneamente con Dios. La hermana Luke rectifica y renuncia a los hábitos aunque no a Dios, escogiendo servirlo a través de su labor humanitaria de enfermera en el frente de batalla durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

La historia de Marie Louise Habets es un ejemplo de una vocación canalizada a través de un medio equivocado. ¿Pudiera ser esto lo que sucede con el Papa Francisco? Si tiene vocación de revolucionario, ¿no debía ser en lugar de Papa un jefe sindical, un primer ministro o un líder guerrillero? Es la pregunta que nos hacemos muchos católicos en el mundo.

Nadie pone en duda su bondad, honradez, sinceridad y sobre todo su humildad. Francisco habla con su corazón cuando defiende a los pobres, a los explotados y a los marginados por la sociedad. Pero, ¿es el suyo un corazón mortalmente herido por prejuicios creados en su niñez o su adolescencia de los cuales no ha logrado desprenderse, de la misma forma que Habets comprende que no ha podido desprenderse del amor que siente por su padre al ser incapaz de perdonar a los nazis que lo matan, lo que finalmente la impulsa a abandonar los hábitos?

La cruzada del Papa Francisco es justa e injusta a la vez. Justa es porque defiende a los pobres, a los explotados y a los marginados por la sociedad. Pero es injusta porque en lugar de atacar los excesos del capitalismo, ataca a este en sí, ignorando que ha sido el capitalismo el que ha sacado a mayor número de personas de la pobreza y que donde este no rige o se practica de alguna forma, es donde existen los mayores porcentajes de miseria y escasez. Es también injusto atacar al capitalismo y no dedicar una onza de crítica al comunismo cruel y criminal que mantiene a Cuba con un nivel de pobreza de un 70% a un 80%, o al Socialismo del siglo XXI que ha sumido a Venezuela, a pesar de la bonanza petrolera de los últimos 10 años, en una pobreza mayor que cuando Hugo Chávez llegó al poder.

El papa Francisco da a veces la impresión que abusa del privilegio de su alta posición para influenciar a otros a que consigan por la fuerza lo que no puede la prédica. En Bolivia instó a “los humildes, los explotados, los pobres, y los excluidos” a buscar un cambio de sistema, “un cambio real, de estructuras”; visitó a los prisioneros de Palmasola, la cárcel mas peligrosa del país; se reunió con activistas de movimientos populares; y aceptó como arte un Cristo crucificado en la hoz y el martillo.

Yo propongo que el Papa haga lo mismo en su viaje a Cuba. El mismo discurso radical llamando a cambiar las estructuras; que visite a los prisioneros políticos que se pudren en las cárceles cubanas por luchar pacíficamente por lo que él propone en su discurso; que se reúna con todos los disidentes y atienda sus quejas; y que pida a Raúl Castro que libere a El Sexto y acepte “como arte” su acción de soltar en el centro de La Habana a dos puercos con los nombres de Fidel y Raúl.

Si el Papa es un revolucionario, lo debe ser para todos. Ante mis ojos cubanos, solo así quedará redimido.

AnolanPonce@aol.com

OPINIÓN SOBRE CUBA 

 

 

 

AMENPER: Records Show Scant Reagan-Trump Ties

Reagan Library files indicate real-estate developer was rebuffed in many entreaties to former president

President. Records indicate the two men were far from close.

By JAMES V. GRIMALDI

Sept. 15, 2015 7:30 p.m. ET

SIMI VALLEY, Calif.—Like many hopefuls before him, presidential candidate Donald Trump has embraced Ronald Reagan, the icon of the modern Republican Party.

“I have great respect for him,” Mr. Trump said on NBC. “I helped him. I knew him. He liked me and I liked him.”

Mr. Trump, on a variety of television shows, has compared himself to Mr. Reagan—“he had a great heart, and I have a great heart,” he told Fox News—and has strongly implied the two men weren’t only allies, but friends.

But a peek inside the archives at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, host of Wednesday’s Republican presidential debate, tells a different story. Aides in the Reagan White House, peppered with invitations to Trump events, mostly kept the real-estate mogul at arm’s length, except when they were trying to stop his donations to Democrats or soothe his “large ego,” as one memo put it.

Among the few signs of a personal connection between the men are two photos of them shaking hands in greeting lines, including one that the president mis-signed as “Reagan Reagan.” Mr. Trump doesn’t appear in Mr. Reagan’s extensive diary.

The records referencing Mr. Trump were opened to the public for the first time this summer after a request by The Wall Street Journal.

“Everybody says they knew Reagan now,” said Frank J. Donatelli, a former Reagan administration official and author of the “ego” memo, who said he was irked by the comparisons between the 40th president and Mr. Trump.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Trump said, “I didn’t know him well,” but added that friends close to the president told him Mr. Reagan admired Mr. Trump. “He felt very good about me,” Mr. Trump said. “Frankly, he liked my attitude.”

One Trump supporter, Roger Stone, a former Reagan administration official who worked for Mr. Trump’s campaign this year, said Mr. Trump was a longtime Reagan supporter. Mr. Stone also noted that Mr. Trump and his father served on Mr. Reagan’s 1979-80 presidential finance committee and attended his launch announcement.

 

One month after Mr. Reagan announced his candidacy on Nov. 13, 1979, Mr. Trump, his parents, sister and brother each made the maximum federal campaign contribution allowed—but not to Mr. Reagan. The Trumps all gave to the re-election campaign of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, according to Federal Election Commission records.

 

FEC records show no donation from Mr. Trump to Mr. Reagan for four more years. In fact, 10 months after Mr. Reagan’s 1981 inauguration, Mr. Trump made an early contribution to the political-action committee for the presidential bid of former Vice President Walter Mondale, a Democrat.

 

Mr. Trump said Tuesday he couldn’t recall, but thought he had donated to Mr. Reagan. He suggested FEC records might be incomplete. “Keep checking,” he said.

 

As far as the Reagan Library records show, the relationship between Mr. Reagan and Mr. Trump began when the White House invited Mr. Trump to be one of 100 people recruited in 1983 to sit on the President’s Council for International Youth Exchange.

Mr. Trump returned the favor by inviting President Reagan to events in New York, including a fundraising dinner for a Vietnam veterans memorial and the opening of Trump Tower in October 1983

In response to the veterans memorial invitation, the White House sent regrets, along with a “special message,” whose contents aren’t in the museum’s files. Political aides suggested a telegram for the Trump Tower opening. “The Trump family have been long time supporters of the President,” said a memo, written by Mike McManus.

Mr. McManus’s request was nixed by the White House Counsel’s Office. “NO,” was scrawled on the memo found in the Reagan archives. “Commercial. Don’t do.”

In March 1984, Mr. Trump made his first political donation to Mr. Reagan, giving $1,000 to his re-election campaign committee. A year later, Mr. Trump snagged an invitation to one of the most prestigious of Washington events, a state dinner, this one in honor of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Trump’s political giving showed no sign the Reagan White House was a particular favorite. In 1986 he gave $1,000 to George H.W. Bush’s campaign for president, followed later by donations to the campaigns of Republicans Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, and Democrats Bruce Babbitt and Dick Gephardt.

“Donald has been a Democrat much more than he has been Republican,” said Charlie Black, who was Mr. Trump’s lobbyist and political adviser from 1987 to 2000.

Responded Mr. Trump: “I lived in Manhattan. In Manhattan, everybody was Democrat.”

Mr. Trump got the White House’s attention in late 1987 when he hired an advertising team that had worked for Mr. Reagan’s 1984 re-election to produce full-page ads in national newspapers blasting American foreign policy. “America should stop paying to defend countries that can afford to defend themselves,” read the “open letter from Donald J. Trump,” which went on to suggest, “There’s nothing wrong with America’s Foreign Defense Policy that a little backbone can’t cure.”

In the ads’ wake, then-House Speaker Jim Wright, (D., Texas) flew to New York to ask Mr. Trump if he would sponsor the 25th annual Democratic Congressional Dinner, one of the party’s biggest fundraisers. He said he would think about it.

When the news leaked, Mr. Donatelli, the political aide in the White House, penned a memo to Chief of Staff Howard Baker, asking him to call Mr. Trump that day. The memo mentioned the Wright meeting and attached a copy of the ad. Of Mr. Trump, Mr. Donatelli said, “He has a large ego and would be responsive to your call.”

A few days later, Mr. Trump announced he wouldn’t be chairman of the dinner, in deference to his GOP friends.

Mr. Trump increased the volume of invitations to the White House in last two years of Reagan’s second term, including one for a La Toya Jackson concert, “a world premier event,” at Mr. Trump’s casino in Atlantic City, N.J., and a New Jersey Hotel/Motel Association dinner where Mr. Trump received awards.

“There’s no question he was looking to promote himself as much as he could, figuring out ways to get invited to things,” said Ken Khachigian, a longtime aide to President Reagan. He said there is little evidence that Mr. Reagan had affection for Mr. Trump.

In December 1987, Mr. Trump was invited to a luncheon at the State Department for Mikhail Gorbachev, premier of the Soviet Union. The next day, Charles Z. Wick, the late-director of the U.S. Information Agency and an old Hollywood friend of the Reagans, wrote a note to Nancy Reagan.

“Donald Trump asked me to give you his best wishes,” Mr. Wick said. “In fact, he is enchanted with you!”

That fall, Mr. Trump’s book, “The Art of the Deal,” was published and became a best seller. It contains a photo of Mr. Trump shaking hands with Mr. Reagan. It is stamped “To Donald Trump,” and signed, erroneously, “Nancy & Reagan Reagan.”

A White House staff member saw the photo in Mr. Trump’s book and requested a newly signed one. “It was obviously signed either in a rush or with a large batch,” Kathy Osborne said in a memo. 

Write to James Grimaldi at James.Grimaldi@wsj.com

 

 

AMEMPER: La parodia del Conservadurismo de hoy en día.

Soy conservador, siempre he sido conservador y seré conservador hasta el último día de mi vida.

¿Cuáles son los valores del conservadurismo que se mantienen como los valores fundamentales en cualquier momento cualquier lugar cualquier situación?

¿Cuál es el pensamiento común de Aristóteles, el apóstol Pablo, Aquino, Locke, Adam Smith, Goldwater y Reagan?

Templanza, fortaleza. Justicia, fe, esperanza, y amor

Los cuatro primeros provienen de Aristóteles, los dos últimos el apóstol Pablo (aunque yo diría que están implícitos en Aristóteles si leen todas sus obras) y son la base para el sistema más perfecto de la ética jamás creado.

Justicia. Los conservadores creemos en el concepto de justicia, que la gente debe recompensada o castigada por lo que se merecen. El mérito de ingresos es la base de la meritocracia del capitalismo de libre mercado. Esto por supuesto se opone a la obsesión liberal por la igualdad.

Prudencia. Mientras que un concepto altamente complejo que la prudencia de palabra no es bastante para transmitir la complejidad del concepto clásico, podría ser mejor definida como el conocimiento de lo que debe ser valorado. Con prudencia viene el entendimiento de que la cosa sólo verdaderamente valiosa es la felicidad (claro, estoy usando la clásica definición de una vida bien vivida) y valorar todo el bien subordinado que se necesita para la felicidad. Esto incluye la libertad, porque la felicidad no puede alcanzarse sin libre albedrío, logro real.

El liberalismo valora las cosas materiales y no ve ningún punto superior a la vida que no sea vivir, los conservadores  valoran la sociedad y la visión de Dios, no es un conservador una persona que sólo ve haber logrado la felicidad por el dinero acumulado.

Templanza, es tomar el conocimiento del valor de la prudencia y decidir cuánto usted debe valorarlo, a qué hora, en qué lugar y de qué manera. Arrogancia es el antónimo de Templanza.

Fortaleza de ánimo. Una vez más a menudo mal entendido cómo valor o imprudencia, está más atada a las tres virtudes anteriores como la voluntad de hacer lo sabemos que es correcto. Imprudencia no es Fortaleza.

Para los propósitos aquí, voy a tener fe y esperanza juntas porque esta es la principal diferencia entre el verdadero conservador y los líderes que estamos teniendo usando la frustación del pueblo ante el avance del socialismo para una agenda personal que no tienen nada que ver con la filosofía conservadora, una filosofía sin fe y con una pormesa de una esperanza fallida una y otra vez.

Amor, la última de las virtudes teológicas y lo que debe ser para toda la sociedad estable. Es la creencia de que otros seres humanos tienen valor y el valor y debe ser respetados y ayudados cuando sea posible. Esta es realmente la base para el capitalismo, repúblicas democráticas, amistad y progreso de todos. La creencia de que todos los seres humanos valen la pena sin diferencia de raza, creencia o diferencias económicas. Esta es una creencia que no encuentras en muchas de las creencias políticas cómo el socialismo que se nutre de la lucha de clases.

No dudo que volveré a este tema una y otra vez… pero ha quedado claro para mí que una o todas estas virtudes son lo que falta en cada filosofía política que no sea propiamente conservadurismo.

Una persona cómo Donald Trump, que presenta cómo principal atributo su riqueza, que no conoce la templanza y que destila odio y rechaza la esperanza por el materialismo, no es conservador.

¿Pueden usar la palabra templanza y amor para describir a Donald Trump? ¿Pueden usar la palabra justicia en una persona que hace alarde en haber comprado a políticos para sus negocios, o el respeto a otros seres humanos?

Históricamente, los temas centrales en conservadurismo americano incluyen respeto a las tradiciones americanas, apoyo del republicanismo y el estado de derecho, valores Judeo-cristiana, el anticomunismo, defensa del excepcionalísimo norteamericano y una defensa de la civilización occidental de amenazas percibidas por el relativismo moral, multiculturalismo y oposición al ridículo postmodernista de la cultura de nuestros tiempos.

Una persona que no sea moral en su vida, que practica el relativismo moral y se opone al multiculturalismo como principio, no es un conservador.

 “Libertad” es un valor fundamental, presentarse autoritariamente contra los que no comparten sus ideas, no es promover la libertad.

El conservadurismo es  seguir las leyes establecidas, la Constitución, no es retórica radical.

Donald Trump no es y nunca había sido un conservador, es asombroso que aún corra como un republicano y se auto-titule conservador.

Trump es el candidato más liberal en la política fiscal en todo el campo, con la posible excepción Bernie Sanders.

Su estilo enojado puede reflejar la profunda frustración que los estadounidenses tienen con los dirigentes de Washington que no han podido cumplir sus promesas. Pero las políticas que implementaría sólo beneficiarían  a sí mismo y sus propios intereses, no a los estadounidenses.

Eso lo convierte en la peor clase de político. Por eso apoyaba el pagador único en el sistema de salud, siempre que su empresa fuera este pagador.

 Pero Trump golpea en frustraciones que son muy reales, bajo esta administración, y es un maestro manipulador de los medios de comunicación.

Los principios del presidente Ronald Reagan marcan la pauta conservadora en la década de 1980; en el decenio de 2010 los líderes republicanos suelen reclamar lealtad a sus principios

Reagan no recurrió a ninguna xenofobia como la que Trump utiliza al hablar de los inmigrantes mexicanos.

Apeló a los mejores instintos de los votantes obreros. Él había sido, como Presidente de la Screen Actors Guild, un líder sindical. Él entendía la contribución de los sindicatos de entonces en los Estados unidos a  la derrota del comunismo.

La estrategia de Reagan fue incluir mano de obra, unir, no dividir al pueblo americano.

Oh, él podría ser resistente como hierro con un sindicato radical, como fue con los controladores de tráfico aéreo cuando se dirigían a una huelga ilegal.

Pero él nunca demostró un odio al movimiento obrero organizado, fue crítico cuando tenía que serlo pero no odiador.

Galardonó con la medalla de la libertad para el organizador de trabajo el gran anticomunista Irving Brown de la AFL-CIO.

Porque hay de todo en el sindicalismo y como en todo no se puede generalizar, ser específico es algo que Trump no nos enseña en ningún momento. Pero la generalización es atractiva especialmente en estos tiempos en que vivimos de sindicatos corruptos y politizados y una inmigración sin control.

El objetivo estratégico de Reagan fue conquistar — y mantener — lo que vino a ser llamado los “demócratas de Reagan”. El demócrata que no les gusta ver América ridiculizada en el extranjero. Demócratas que querían una economía que produce puestos de trabajo.

Reagan entendía y lo explicó una y otra vez, como puestos de trabajo se producen por el crecimiento económico. Comprendió también que una vez que tuvimos ese crecimiento, necesitamos la mano de obra inmigrante por lo que muchos se quejaron.

No estaba a favor de la inmigración ilegal y sin control que tenemos en estos momentos, pero estaba de acuerdo a la entrada de trabajadores con el permiso de trabajo temporal, algo que también apoyó George W Bush.  Hay trabajos, sobre todo en la agricultura que sólo los inmigrantes están dispuestos a realizar.

En la economía, la llamada “Reaganomics” por sus críticos, la idea  de Reagan, era un programa de pocos impuestos llamado “arrastramiento del soporte” — ordinarios asalariados en soportes diseñados para millonarios.

Ahora la manera casi cero las tasas de interés ha descarrilado lo que debería haber sido un boom de puestos de trabajo.

La demagogia de Trump ha eclipsado por el momento, nuestros gobernadores más acertados, incluyendo Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, John Kasich, Scott Walker, y senadores más brillantes, como Marco Rubio y Ted Cruz forasteros políticos triunfadores en la vida privada como Ben Carson y Carly Fiorina.

Reagan habría considerado a Trump como un charlatán sobre economía.

Ser un millonario de nacimiento, comprar las prebendas de políticos, usar la bancarrota para su beneficio económico no es el tipo de economía conservadora, sin lugar a dudas no tiene nada que ver con la economía que proponía Ronald Reagan.

Reagan evitó la grandilocuencia. Es difícil imaginárselo haciendo alarde sobre ser rico o haber hecho bien en Wall Street. O hablar acerca de nuestros propios líderes de su partido, llamándolos estúpidos.

Oh, él podría afirmarse a sí mismo en el debate. “Estoy pagando por este micrófono,” él dijo una vez sarcásticamente a un entrevistador. Y una vez resumió su política de guerra fría contra los comunistas como “nosotros ganamos, ellos pierden”.

Pero tenía un mesurado sentido comunicador. Esto fue explicado por el mismo después de su Presidencia en el libro “Reagan en su propia mano,” sobre cómo escribió sus propios comentarios.

Era un maestro de la entrañable homilía, la broma y de la autocrítica. ¿Han visto a Donald Trump autocriticándose?

Él era también un maestro del lenguaje visionario — “la ciudad brillante en una colina”.

Sobre todo, era un maestro de optimismo, de que los estadounidenses no se debieran  sentir peor acerca de otras personas, pero mejor acerca de sí mismos.

Una diferencia abismal con Donald Trump cuando no considera a nadie bueno menos el mismo y se siente enojado con todo el que lo critica y trata de destruirlo. Y se siente orgulloso de su porcina  insensibilidad.

¿Qué pudiéramos esperar de él si llega a ser presidente?

Reagan, por cierto, fue también un negociador principal y entendió el equilibrio estratégico hasta el fondo. Por eso logró ganar la guerra fría a los rusos sin disparar un cohete, pero era un negociador real, nunca hizo una negociación cómo la de Obama en Irán, nunca cedió en las demandas de la democracia y la libertad.

Todavía nadie en el partido republicano ha dicho mucho de este tema. De nuevo algo que Donald Trump no toma en consideración.

La trayectoria del partido republicano tomó un curso diferente en 1992, cuando el millonario Ross Perot con una campaña parecida a la de Donald Trump hoy separó suficientes republicanos y demócratas de Reagan para entregar la victoria a Bill Clinton.

Una gran piedra en el camino, la misma piedra que vemos ahora cuando vemos otro candidato millonario del partido republicano usando el mismo truco y vemos que logra los mismos resultados.

Un candidato Incoherente,  inútil, lleno de auto-elogios, patinazos, completamente desprovisto de cualquier cosa parecida a un pensamiento sustantivo. Esto era Ross Perot, eso es Donald Trump.

Está en primer lugar en las encuestas. Esto es América hoy.

Oremos por nuestro país esta noche, todo el mundo. Oremos por nuestro país.

AMENPER: ¿Fanfarrón o Agente?

   Esta es mi respuesta a alguien que me respondió a un E Mail sobre Donald Trump, y me dice que no cree que es un fanfarrón, pero un agente de sus amigos, los Clinton para destruir las oportunidades del partido en las próximas elecciones generales. 

Aquí está mi respuesta.

Ante todo saludos y cariños.

Me alegro que me expongas esto, porque no sé si lo vistes en otros de mis E Mail, pero sugerí esa posibilidad.  

No tengo tendencia a aceptar en esta sociedad abierta las teorías conspirativas, pero tampoco me gustan las casualidades convenientes. 

Y sin lugar a dudas a quien más conviene Donald Trump es al partido demócrata. 

En unas elecciones en que cualquier republicano hubiera tenido un chance mejor que en años anteriores, ha surgido este fenómeno de un candidato autoritario, con una retórica incendiaria, que nunca podrá competir en las elecciones generales, amenazando con ser el candidato del partido y creando una lucha incruenta, divisiva y destructiva.

Trump tiene el 30% de votantes republicanos, de personas infatuadas con sus promesas.

Tiene un 70% de republicanos, que prefieren otro candidato, y que por razonamiento, no les gusta Trump, no cómo a un candidato cualquiera, de una manera diferente.  Es decir, que alguien que le guste Scott Walker o inclusive Jeb Bush, no dejaría de votar por Ben Carson, Marco Rubio, Carly Fiorina u otro candidato si es el que resulta electo en las primarias, pero a los que no les gusta Trump, no votarían por él de ninguna manera en las elecciones presidenciales. 

Es un candidato emocional que crea emociones negativas en sus contrarios.   O sea que con el porcentaje mayoritario de muchos republicanos que no votarían por él en el partido y el 100% de los demócratas que no votarían por él, no tiene la menor oportunidad de ganar en las elecciones generales contra cualquier demócrata, sea quién sea el candidato, inclusive el socialista Sanders. 

Esto lo tiene que saber él, y hay solamente dos disyuntivas, o es un ególatra que no le importa el país, o tenemos que ir a la teoría conspirativa de que es un agente de los Clinton, que está saboteando al partido republicano, lo que en este caso tiene bastante credibilidad.

 

 

 

AMEMPER: Necesitamos Líderes “Fuertes” O ¿Fanfarrones?

Creo que debemos exigir del gobierno americano que invada la isla de Cuba y destituya al gobierno comunista de Cuba que ha estado oprimiendo al pueblo por generaciones. Debemos salir a la calle en manifestaciones y declarar huelga en nuestras comunidades hasta que el gobierno escuche nuestras demandas.  Debemos hacer oír nuestras voces inclusive usar medios violentos, ya que con líderes blandos no hemos logrado nada.

¿Qué les parece? ¿Creen que esto solucionará nuestro problema? ¿Creen que un líder que nos ofrezca esta retórica resolverá definitivamente el problema de Cuba? ¿O esto simplemente es hablar una quimera que simplemente no resolverá nada, porque es una situación irrealizable que no solucionará nada sino que posiblemente la empeorará?¿No es esto en realidad protagonismo, no patriotismo?

Los problemas de resuelven con soluciones específicas y articuladas. 

Soluciones en que se presente una trayectoria realista para llegar al objetivo final que necesitamos.  Hablar con un lenguaje bombástico y engolado de bravatas sin lógica, no soluciona ningún problema, sino que lo empeora.

Esto es lo que nos ha presentado algunos de nuestros líderes en el exilio, el camino fácil de la fantasía, y han dejado a nuestro pueblo no en una fantasía pero en un infierno.

Durante un tiempo cuando fracciones con un tipo de estrategia fanfarrona tomaron el camino del terrorismo y huelgas en Miami y New York, poniendo bombas, no en Cuba, pero en la tierra que los acogió, nos vimos justamente rechazados hasta por nuestros únicos aliados. 

Oímos a líderes que nos dijeron que violáramos las leyes de los Estados Unidos, y oyéramos el llamado de Fidel Castro y nos lanzáramos en una flotilla de barcos a recoger a cubanos oprimidos que Fidel nos ofrecía en el puerto del Mariel, y Fidel nos envió conjuntamente con los familiares a la escoria y los espías que todavía están entre nosotros. No usamos la lógica articulada, era mejor oír la solución fácil de no mirar al respeto de las leyes y la estabilidad de la nación que nos acogió.

Sin embargo estos líderes que nos presentaron esta estrategia, fueron aceptados por muchos, cómo que eran los líderes  que realmente necesitábamos, cómo que eran los “patriotas” desde el cómodo exilio.

No es lo mismo tirar un cohete transportado en el maletero del carro en Hialeah y tirarlo en Bayfront Park a un barco creando un incidente internacional que tirar el cohete en la bahía de la Habana al hotel donde estaba un líder comunista.

El segundo es un luchador realizando patriótico acto de sabotaje, el primero es un terrorista y un traidor a la causa de Cuba, porque traiciona a nuestro único aliado desde su seguro exilio.

El primero tiene abogados que lo defiendan si lo descubren, el segundo no hubiera tenido abogados pero paredón si lo hubieran capturado.  Esa es la diferencia entre un acto de terrorismo y un acto de sabotaje, esta es la diferencia entre un patriota y un protagonista fanfarrón..

Esto es lo que ofrece El Donald al pueblo americano.  Cómo en el caso de los Cubanos, el pueblo americano está sediento de líderes que expresen su frustración, y escuchan las fanfarronadas de un líder que nos ofreces fantásticas soluciones sin una planificación específica y articulada.

Hay entre los líderes republicanos quienes si la ofrecen para todos nuestros problemas, tanto para los problemas del medio oriente, como para inmigración o los problemas económicos.  Pero se presentan flojos, porque es mejor decir que tenemos que deportar a todos los inmigrantes, lo cual es bombástico e irreal, que decir que tenemos que tener un plan articulado de cerrar las fronteras y estudiar después el caso de los que están aquí, deportando a los ilegales que han violado la ley, es más fácil botarlos a todos, pero no es fácil es demagogia el decir eso, pero nos gusta oír a los demagogos.  Es muy fácil decir que vamos a tomar todo el Medio Oriente y usar el petróleo de ellos para que nos indemnicen de las guerras, pero la logística es fantasía, considerando la logística política de siglos de los musulmanes, pero nos gustan las fantasías.

Claro que teníamos que luchar por la libertad de Cuba, claro que tenemos que luchar por la libertad de los Estados Unidos que se enfrentan al peligro socialista.  Pero si oímos los cantos de la demagogia populista de un líder ególatra que tiene como principal objetivo su protagonismo personal, nos veremos con el resultado que tuvimos los cubanos en el exilio, nos veremos cómo el enemigo se mantendrá en el poder y se consolidará en su objetivo.

Esperamos que este no sea el final de los Estados Unidos que admiramos y conocimos.

 

 

 

WJ: Obama’s Biggest Lies: Obama Promised To Wait Five Days Before Signing Bills Into Law

by Staff 2

10. Obama Promised To Wait Five Days Before Signing Bills Into Law… To be fair, maybe he just got caught up in the excitement of it all. Or maybe in his

rush to approve more federal spending of tax money  he simply forgot his promise.

9. “This Is The Most Transparent Administration In History” … This was a statement made by Barack Obama early in 2013 during a Google Plus “Fireside” Hangout. He went to add that he could, “document that this is the case.”

8. Obama Lied About Broadcasting Healthcare Negotiations On C-SPAN… Going into the final negotiations of the now infamous ObamaCare health care bill, Barack Obama chose to ignore an explicit promise made during his campaign: to put the entire process out to the public via C-SPAN.

7. Obama Promised That If Elected, He Would Close The Detention Center At Guantanamo Bay In 2009. … After being voted into the White House, he reiterated this promise in a television interview

with ABC. During campaigning he called Guantanamo “a sad chapter in American history.”

6. “Lobbyists Will Not Work In My White House.” … As a

presidential candidate he was quite adamant about this promise.

It was a favorite target of his for denigrating the outgoing administration.

5. “It Was Not My Decision To Pull All The Troops From Iraq.” … Really? In a speech to the American people in October of 2011, President Obama made the announcement that he was ending

the U.S. involvement in Iraq.

4. “Not One Dime Of ObamaCare Will Go For Abortions.”… 

This “PROMISE” was reiterated at least 12 times during the

run-up to the passing of the ACA. But apparently, most

Americans are not nuanced enough to distinguish between

“not” and “it depends.”

3. “I Cannot Pass Amnesty Through Executive Action…

I Am Not A Dictator.” … Wow! Barack Obama was able to

tell two separate and distinct lies in that single 12-word

sentence. He is truly the master of deceit.

2. “With ObamaCare We Will Reduce Your Insurance Premiums

By $2,500 Per Family, Per Year.” … Another healthcare promise made by President Obama was that ObamaCare would reduce insurance premiums by $2,500 per year on average. Unfortunately for the rest of us, the exact opposite happened.

1.  “If you Like Your Health Care Plan, You Can Keep Your Health Care Plan.” … Will anyone ever forget this grand daddy of all

Obama lies? Will anyone actually claim that they didn’t know

he was lying each and every time it said it?

 

Google Translate:

WJ:

Las mentiras más grandes de

Obama: Obama prometió que

esperaría cinco días antes de firmar proyectos de ley

10. Obama prometió que esperar cinco días antes de firmar proyectos de

ley … Para ser justos, tal vez sólo quedó atrapado en la emoción de todo.

O tal vez en su apresurarse a aprobar un mayor gasto federal del dinero

de los impuestos que simplemente se olvidó de su promesa.

9. “Esta es la administración más transparente en la historia” … Esta fue

una declaración hecha por Barack Obama a principios de 2013 durante un Hangout Google Plus “Fireside”. Fue a añadir que pudo, “documento que

este es el caso.”

8. Obama mintió acerca de las negociaciones de Difusión de la salud en

C-SPAN … Al entrar en las negociaciones finales del proyecto de ley de atención médica ahora infame ObamaCare, Barack Obama optó por

ignorar una promesa explícita hecha durante su campaña: poner todo el proceso a la opinión pública a través de C-SPAN.

7. Obama prometió que si era elegido, cerraría el centro de detención

de la Bahía de Guantánamo en 2009. … Después de ser votado en la

Casa Blanca, reiteró esta promesa en una entrevista televisiva

con ABC. Durante la campaña que llamó Guantánamo “un capítulo

triste en la historia de Estados Unidos.”

6. “Los grupos de presión no funcionará En Mi Casa Blanca.” … Como

candidato presidencial que era bastante inflexible acerca de esta promesa.

Era un blanco favorito de los suyos por denigrar la administración saliente.

5. “No fue mi decisión de retirar todas las tropas de Irak.” … ¿En serio?

En un discurso al pueblo estadounidense en octubre de 2011, el presidente Obama hizo el anuncio de que estaba llegando a su fin la participación

EE.UU. en Irak.

4. “No es un centavo de ObamaCare irá por Abortos.” …

Esta “promesa” se reiteró al menos 12 veces durante el previo a

la aprobación de la ACA. Pero al parecer, la mayoría Los estadounidenses

no son lo suficientemente matizada distinguir entre

“No” y “depende”.

3. “I Can not Pass Amnistía través de la acción ejecutiva …

No soy un dictador. “… ¡Guau! Barack Obama fue capaz de

decirle dos mentiras separadas y distintas en ese solo 12 palabras

frase. Él es verdaderamente el maestro del engaño.

2. “Con ObamaCare vamos a reducir sus primas de seguro

Por $ 2,500 por familia, por año “. … Otra promesa de la salud del

presidente Obama fue que ObamaCare reduciría las primas de seguros

por $ 2,500 por año en promedio. Por desgracia para el resto de nosotros, sucedió exactamente lo contrario.

1.    “Si usted tiene gusto de su plan de salud, usted puede mantener su

2.    Plan de Salud.” … ¿Va a nadie olvidará jamás este gran padre de todos

Los mentirosos Obama miente? ¿Alguien realmente puede afirmar que no sabía que estaba mintiendo cada vez que lo hizo?

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

LAZARO R GONZALEZ

Para Alcalde del Condado Miami Dade

Elecciones de noviembre 8, 2016

Escriba el nombre de Lázaro R González en

el espacio de la boleta electoral en blanco

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

Recuerde que “NO Deseamos Donaciones de Dinero”

Les pedimos que comuniquen a todos sus amigos y familiares.

LazaroRGonzalez@gmail.com LazaroRGonzalez@hotmail.com

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.

Asunto: El Papa Francisco, ¿tan desinformados están los Obispos Católicos de Cuba y el mismo Papa? [¿Es papa o boniato?]lrgm

Francisco, ¿el cardenal Jaime Ortega no les informa a los Obispos Católicos de Cuba de las denuncias que recibe sobre la violación a los derechos humanos del pueblo cubano?

Francisco, le digo esto porque la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de Cuba (COCC) expresó este viernes “profunda satisfacción” por la decisión del régimen de indultar a 3.522 presos con motivo de su visita a mi patria.
Francisco, aunque el cardenal Jaime Ortega recibió una lista con casi un centenar de presos políticos, entre los cuales figuran algunos con más de 15 años en el Archipiélago Gulag de Occidente, ni uno solo de ellos será indultado.

Francisco, el sitio en internet Esglobal, antes Foreign Policy en Español, informó:

En las cárceles cubanas se han detectado, según organizaciones como el Comité para la tortura de la ONU, varias deficiencias: maltrato a algunos presos, muertes de presos no aclaradas, altas tasas de ocupación carcelaria por metro cuadrado o falta de garantías de algunos detenidos. También se han denunciado las detenciones temporales y los procesos por motivos políticos”.

Francisco, ¿cuándo la Conferencia de Obispos Católicos de Cuba (COCC) va a condenar los tratos crueles, inhumanos y degradantes que sufren los presos en la Cuba de los hermanos Castro?

Francisco, lo invito a ver este documental, donde cuatro ex prisioneros políticos cubanos denuncian los tratos crueles, inhumanos y degradantes sufridos en las prisiones cubanas.

Francisco, el grafitero Danilo Maldonado Machado -conocido como El Sexto- retomó la huelga de hambre que por motivos de salud abandonó a principios de septiembre. El Sexto está encarcelado desde hace 10 meses sin haber sido sometido a juicio; fue arrestado en diciembre de 2014 cuando intentaba realizar una performance con dos cerdos a los que había pintado los nombres Fidel y Raúl. La organización Human Rights Foundation (HRF) exigió la liberación de El Sexto.

El Sexto está preso por satirizar a una dinastía familiar que lleva 57 años arrogándose el poder absoluto en Cuba, sin celebrar una sola elección democrática y reprimiendo cualquier expresión crítica por más inofensiva que sea. Lo irónico es que Fidel y Raúl Castro confirmaron la puntería del arte de El Sexto porque reaccionaron exactamente igual que Napoleón, el cerdo dictador retratado en el libro Rebelión en la granja, de Orwell”, dijo el presidente de HRF, Thor Halvorssen.

Francisco, ¿cuándo usted va a condenar la violación a los derechos humanos que sufre el pueblo cubano?

Es criminal quien sonríe al crimen; quien lo ve y no lo ataca; quien se sienta a la mesa de los que se codean con él o le sacan el sombrero interesado; quienes reciben de él el permiso de vivir”.

José Martí

 

Alguien me dijo una vez que cuando el presidente de USA sea un negro y el Papa un Argentino, EL MUNDO SE VA A ACABAR>>>> lrgm. emo>

WJ: The Pro-Islamic Policies Of The Obama Doctrine

When will the American people begin to wake up and realize that our government, our politicians, and our own president represent the greatest threat to our nations very survival?

Nick Short 

Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, Jr. (Ret.), the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, noted the following in regards to President Obama’s pro-Islamic policies during the Defeat Jihad Summit sponsored by the Center for Security Policy. The Admiral stated that Obama’s policies are “very simple, and any thinking American should be able to grasp it. It’s anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Islamic, pro-Iranian, and pro-Muslim Brotherhood.” Bold as these comments may seem today, one only needs to look at Obama’s underlying belief that America has played a malign role in the world as our sins have been both of omission and commission.

Thomas Sowell writes “Obama, in his citizen-of-the world conception of himself, thinks that the United States already has too much power and needs to be deflated.” In viewing Obama’s repeated sacrifices of American national interests as deliberate, one can begin to understand the administrations’ anti-American foreign policy. No one defined Obama better than Dinesh D’Souza when he wrote that Obama’s view of America is one which we are apart of a “multi-polar world.” This is a world in which, “the American era is over as we become just one power in the great dining table of nations.” Seen through this lens, Obama’s “successes” become just as dangerous, if not more-so, than his failures.

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

In the early months of Obama’s administration he made sure that people in foreign capitals throughout the world knew he believed much was wrong with America as he went on an apology tour beginning on April 3, 2009 in Strasbourg, France. In his remarks to the people of France, Obama stated that, “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive even derisive” throughout our nations existence. He then explained that the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was a “sacrifice of [our values] for expedience sake” while announcing that this was the reason he would be closing it. “In dealing with terrorism, we can’t lose sight of our values, and who we are. That’s why I’ve ordered the closing of Guantanamo,” stated Obama, further claiming that enhanced interrogation techniques like those used at Abu Ghraib, “wasn’t good for our security — it was a recruitment tool for terrorism.”

During the Question and Answer session afterword, Obama then went on to explain his view that if America would cut the size of its nuclear arsenal, Iran and North Korea would be convinced to abandon their ambitions. This was an early indicator the President always intended to bring Iran to the negotiation table with the skewed view that if we cut our own nuclear arsenal, then Iran wouldn’t pursue their own. Obama stated that America needed to “take serious steps to actually reduce our nuclear stockpiles” because doing so “would give us greater moral authority to say to Iran, don’t develop a nuclear weapon; to say to North Korea, don’t proliferate nuclear weapons.” The obstacle to diplomacy for Obama was in fact, and has always been, America’s own strength. If our strength could be reduced, then we would have the “moral authority” to bring murderous regimes such as Iran into the “community of nations” by pursuing diplomacy backed by no actual hard power.

Obama’s next stop in his apology tour was in Cairo, Egypt in June of 2009 as he gave his infamous speech to the “Muslim world.” Acknowledging a strain between the United States and the Muslim world, Obama explained that the tension had been “fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.” He then provided his perspective on a world order that was not based upon America’s own interest nor our strength as he noted that “any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership: progress must be shared.”

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

This “partnership” was exemplified in Egypt with the Obama administrations support of the terrorist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood as they overthrew Egypt’s President Hosni Murbark and put in place a member of the Brotherhood in Mohamed Morsi. It is important to note that Murbark had upheld the Egypt-Israel peace treaty for over four decades until Obama came into office and supported his overthrow. In 2013, Egypt’s military ousted Morsi in the wake of massive protests by the Egyptian people, who regard the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorists that they are and despise Obama for his support of their plight. To show just how far Obama is willing to support the Brotherhood, on New Years eve of this year, Morsi’s successor, former defense minister Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, actually stood before the same podium that Obama once did in Cairo and called for an “Islamic reformation” throughout the world in response to the violence committed in the name of Islam. Sisi then went on to attend a Coptic Christmas mass in a symbolic show of unity with the Christian world as he was the first Egyptian leader to ever appear at a Cairo cathedral. Obama’s response to this was silence.

Obama supported Morsi and didn’t support the people of Egypt when the people themselves wanted to combat the terrorism that Obama himself had help facilitate into a position of leadership. This was also the case in Iran in 2009 when the leaders of the Green Revolution, an uprising by the Iranian people against the rigged election that brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back into office, plead for help to the Obama administration. In November 2009, leaders of the Green party, which had staged a revolt on the streets of Tehran in June of that year, sent a long memo through channels to the Obama administration in documents obtained by the Washington Examiner. According to the memo obtained by the Examiner, the Green party stated on November 30, 2009, that “at this pivotal point in time, it is up to the countries of the free world to make up their mind. Will they continue on the track of wishful thinking and push every decision to the future until it is too late, or will they reward the brave people of Iran and simultaneously advance the Western interests and world peace.”

The eight-page memo described the current regime under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a “brutal, apocalyptic theocratic dictatorship”. The memo warns that Iran “with its apocalyptic constitution will never give up the atomic bomb, nor will it give up its terror network, because it needs these instruments to maintain its power and enhance its own economic and financial wealth.” The administration claimed in 2009 that the Green party in Iran did not want American help, a lie that was perpetrated in order to secure the nuclear deal with Iran that Obama officially “secured” last month. The point that cannot be underscored enough in this instance is Obama’s willingness to ignore the opportunity to overthrow the radical Mullah’s in Iran for the sake of securing a nuclear deal with said Mullah’s in the future.

This finally brings us to the Iranian ally in Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. When chemical weapons were used in Syria by Assad and Obama’s infamous red line was crossed, the president’s response was hollow and empty with a lack of resolve and conviction to back up the claim of holding Assad responsible. Little did we know the reason for this at the time was due to keeping the Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran alive. The repercussions of this also had the effect of opening a new found door for Russia to play conciliator and chief.

Vladimir Putin was able to protect his mutual ally in both Syria and Iran while also presenting himself as a “peacemaker” to the world by proposing a “diplomatic solution” in announcing Russia’s support for helping and brokering the plan for Assad to turn over his chemical weapons. The presidents stupefying walk-back from that red line, as well as his retreat from his earlier statements that Assad must go, “has sent an unmistakable message of American weakness to our foes,” states Melik Kaylan in The Russia-China Axis.

Playing on the belief that the international community feared Assad could target chemical weapons inspectors acting in Syria, Russia was able to assert a deal in which Moscow says it was provided with significant responsibility over the skies of Syria, purportedly to insure against Assad’s air force acting against the international disarmament effort. An effort that in fact was brokered by Putin himself which has allowed him to “threaten retaliation against the U.S.” under the pretense that Syrian airspace is under Russian control. The vacuum that has been created in not only Syria but also Iraq is precisely due to Obama lacking the conviction and the fortitude to assert American power.

Leon Panetta, the president’s former CIA director and defense secretary, confirmed that due to Obama’s announcement of withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq without securing a status of forces agreement, he “created a vacuum in terms of the ability of that country to better protect itself, and it’s out of that vacuum that ISIS began to breed.” The terrorist group known as the Islamic State or ISIS, was in fact created because of both the actions and inaction’s of Obama himself.

In fact, a recently released Defense Intelligence Agency memo affirms that as early as 2012, U.S. intelligence predicted the rise of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS), but instead of clearly delineating the group as an enemy, the report envisions the terror group as a U.S. strategic asset. The DIA report makes the following summary points concerning the general situation in an excerpt of the report which can be viewed in full by clicking here.

  1. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
  2. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
  3. Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA.

8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.

In an interview with retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan, Flynn dismissed Al Jazeera’s supposition that the US administration “turned a blind eye” to the DIA’s analysis and affirmed his belief that the US government didn’t listen to his agency on purpose. Flynn claimed that he thought “it was a willful decision,” on behalf of the Obama administration to basically create the Islamic State under the auspices of supporting the “Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad.

On the surface this may seem complicating but underneath all the spin what this means is that Obama is indirectly supporting al-Qaeda and the Islamic State by arming and training what he labels “moderate Syrian rebels” in their fight against Assad, who is supported by both Russia and Iran. Now that Obama has guaranteed that Iran will retain the ability to create a nuclear weapon while he hands over more than $150 billion in frozen assets, we see that the culmination of his anti-American, pro-Islamic foreign policy has created a tinder box in the Middle East. And unfortunately for us here in the United States, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost as tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” are about to be welcomed and resettled throughout our country.

Yet, if you’re still not convinced that Obama’s polices are not only pro-Islamic but outright threatening to the safety of our country, consider what Obama has been working on in the background under his Foreign Fighter Task Force established by the Department of Homeland Security. This Task Force was created under the direction of Obama and according to the May 2015 Interim Report it’s goals are to rehabilitate and reintegrate into American society individuals who have returned home after having traveled abroad to fight with terrorist organizations such as ISIS. For example, one of the tasks outlined in the report states, “If ideologically-motivated individuals cannot be stopped from engaging in foreign fighter activity, what can the Department of Homeland Security do to ensure these individuals do not engage in violence within their communities upon re-entry into American communities?”

The report further notes “incidents involving returning foreign fighters will require a comprehensive holistic community approach, to include families, educators, faith-based organizations and networks, civic groups, health and social professionals.” In short, this “Task Force” will be used as a justification by Obama to not only succeed in fulfilling his goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, but also in bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian “refugees” who cannot be properly vetted.

As Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Mag writes, “more Muslim refugees mean more terrorist attacks. It is an inescapable fact of history. We would not have Muslim terrorism without Muslim immigration. And the Muslim refugee terror wave of the past is even more likely to be repeated by groups of Muslim migrants coming from a war zone.”

The question that we need to be asking is not will Obama’s pro-Islamic policies kill Americans, but how many will they kill until the American people begin to wake up and realize that our government, our politicians, and our own president represent the greatest threat to our nations very survival?

 

Carson And Trump Just Got Huge News That’ll Make The Debate Even More Interesting

The two will likely get to square off face-to-face.

Randy DeSoto 

A New York Times/CBS News poll released on Tuesday finds Ben Carson pulling nearly neck-and-neck with Donald Trump in the race for the Republican nomination.

In the new poll, Carson makes the greatest gains of any of the candidates since the last one taken by the news outlets prior to the last GOP debate in early August. In that survey, Carson registered at just 6 percent, but now is coming in at 23 percent. Meanwhile, Trump, who registered 24 percent before the last debate, is now at 27 percent. The margin of error for the poll is plus or minus 6 percent.

Advertisement

RELATED STORIES

Carson likely drew some of his gains from Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, both of whom have fallen the most in the standings since the last debate. Walker went from 10 to 2 percent, while Bush fell from 13 to 6 percent.

Additionally, Carly Fiorina has seen significant gains following her standout performance in the last debate moving from barely registering in the August poll to 5 percent support.

As reported by Western Journalism, Carson and Trump got into a dust-up last week after the doctor called into question The Donald’s faith. Carson said that he had not seen the “humility” and “fear of the Lord” in Trump’s manner one would expect, if faith were an important part of his life.

Advertisement

TRENDING STORIES

Trump responded saying he is a Presbyterian and that he barely knows Ben Carson. “I happen to be a great believer in God and a great believer in the Bible,” Trump said.

Carson apologized for his remarks on Fox News on Friday saying: “There is no reason ever to question anybody’s faith. That’s something between them and God.”

The two will likely get to square off face-to-face at next Republican debate on Wednesday, which is being hosted by CNN and the Reagan Presidential Library.

CNN has indicated its moderators plan to pose questions to candidates in such a way that they will be invited to directly address others on the stage.

“My goal is more about: Let’s draw the contrasts between the candidates, and have them fight it out over these policies, over who has the best approach to Putin, over who has the best approach to taxes, over who believes what over immigration reform,” one of the debate’s moderators CNN’s Jake Tapper told the New York Times

“That’s how we’ve been crafting our questions, so that Senator X will respond to what Governor Y said about him or a policy he proposed, and try to encourage them to actually debate Lincoln-Douglas style as much as possible,” he added, referring to the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas in the 1858 Illinois U.S. senate race.

The first debate on August 6th drew a record 24 million viewers. CNN is anticipating similar numbers for Wednesday night’s event.

 

WND: Obama Now Flip-Flopping on Social Security

Dear Reader,

Recently, 70 Democrats delivered a letter to the White House, demanding that President Obama “expand Social Security benefits for millions of Americans.”

President Obama echoed this belief in an address the following day when he stated, “Here’s the truth: Medicare and Social Security are not in crisis, nor have they kept us from cutting our deficit by two-thirds since I took office… We need to keep Social Security strong.

But Obama’s new tune stands in stark contrast to his statements last year…

In the White House’s 2015 budget proposal, President Obama outlined a major Social Security cut, and the backlash from his party members was substantial.

On page 150 of the Obama Administration’s proposal, it explained the plan to “eliminate [the] aggressive Social Security claiming strategies” that some Americans are using to maximize their Social Security benefits.

Most Americans don’t realize this, but there are real and proven ways to dramatically boost your social security payments. And all of these options are still available- because Obama’s Social Security cut proposals never made it into law.

For example, one couple from Boston used a simple strategy that earned them an estimated $50,000 extra from Social Security in just four years.

One of the experts on these claiming strategies is Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff- a Boston University professor and Senior Economist on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers to Ronald Reagan from 1981-1982.

Dr. Kotlikoff says there are several totally legal and easy ways to boost your Social Security payments. You just have to understand how these strategies work, and how to put them to use.

Dr. Kotlikoff has written much more about this subject. To see our written summary of his findings, and learn more about the specifics on how to boost your own Social Security payouts, before Congress threatens to shut them down, go here.

Regards,

Michael Ford
Researcher,
 Stansberry Research

P.S. If you’re already collecting Social Security benefits, it may not be too late for you to “redo” your benefits and restart at a much higher rate. To visit the written summary of our findings, go here.

How Many American Soldiers has Iran Murdered?

  • Source:The Daily Caller 
  • by: Jonah Bennett
  • Roadside bombs manufactured by Iran took out 196 American troops in Iraq between November 2005 and December 2011, rather than the figure of 500 cited by military officials in July.

    Out of 1,526 explosively formed penetrators (EFPs), nearly 200 Americans died and 861 suffered from injuries, Defense One reports.

    EFPs, present on the scene in Iraq since 2005, wrought havoc on American forces, mostly because they are a much more advanced form of roadside bomb than regular IEDs and function as cannons, rather than simply sending shrapnel in all directions. The total cost to make an EFP is about $30.

    While startling, the new number obtained by declassified U.S. Central Command documents is less than half the figure cited by military officials like Gen. Joseph Dunford, who stated that the number was “recently quoted as about 500″ during his nomination hearing for incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early July.  Source:The Daily Caller

– See more at:

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/an-official-number-196-american-soldiers-dead-in-iraq-because-of-iranian-ieds#sthash.9rb9g8ka.dpuf

WESTERN JOURNALISM: Watch: Iran Just Spit In Obama’s Face With This Stunning Video Threat- Will He Respond?

The video closes with an American flag-draped coffin.

Randy DeSoto September 14, 2015 at 11:45am

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei continued his heated, anti-U.S. social media campaign on Sunday by releasing a video promising death and destruction to American forces if any military action is taken against his country.

On Sunday, the Iranian leader tweeted the link to a video entitled, “If any war happens.”

RELATED STORIES

The video opens by quoting President Obama from an interview he gave assuring those who have any doubts about the Iran nuclear agreement that the military option is always on the table. “We could knock out their military with speed and dispatch, if we chose to,” said Obama. 

An image of the White House appears next with the Ayatollah’s voice in the background stating, “A U.S. official has said that he can destroy Iran’s army. I do not want to say anything more in this regard.”

The video then depicts two cowboys, apparently representing the United States, with an Iranian fighter in the foreground pulling a knife on them. Khameni says, “Our predecessors used to call such statements, ‘boasting among strangers.’”

TRENDING STORIES

Next, the video shows images of Iran’s military arsenal, which it has at its disposal to attack U.S. naval and ground forces. 

“We neither welcome nor begin any war,” the Ayatollah says, while animation shows Iranian missiles being fired. “They must know that should any war break out, one who will emerge humiliated out of it will be invading and criminal America,” Khamenei promises as the dates of America’s involvement in Iraq appear on the screen: 2003-2011.  

The video draws to a close with a photo of soldiers carrying an American flag-draped coffin.

The Ayatollah’s threatening video comes on top of equally disturbing remarks he made last week against the United States and Israel.

As reported by Western Journalism, Khamenei tweeted that Israel need not concern itself with the terms of the Iranian nuclear agreement, because “You will not see the next 25 years. God willing there will be nothing [left of the] Zionist regime….”

As for the United States, Khamenei tweeted that the “‘US is the Great Satan,’ some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”

The Ayatollah promised in a speech last Wednesday that his nation would no longer be negotiating with the United States. “The Iranian nation ousted the Satan. We should not let it back through the window,” he said, referring to the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah.

In the midst of this bellicose rhetoric, Senate and House Democrats by-in-large stood with President Obama, voting to approve the Iranian nuclear deal at the end of last week, thereby blocking Republican efforts to reject it.

A CNN/ORC poll released on Sunday finds that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Obama is handling U.S. relations with Iran. Further, 49 percent of Americans now view Iran as a serious threat, up 10 points from April. CNN reports:

Most Americans think Iran will ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that extremely likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it’s not at all likely that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and independents (58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would violate the agreement than are Democrats (44% likely).

If Iran did violate the deal, 64% of all adults say the United States should respond with military action, including majorities across party lines (57% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 72% of Republicans). About a third, 34%, say the United States should not take military action if the deal is broken.

 

WESTERN JOURNALISM: Watch: Iran Just Spit In Obama’s Face With This Stunning Video Threat- Will He Respond?

The video closes with an American flag-draped coffin.

Randy DeSoto September 14, 2015 at 11:45am

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei continued his heated, anti-U.S. social media campaign on Sunday by releasing a video promising death and destruction to American forces if any military action is taken against his country.

On Sunday, the Iranian leader tweeted the link to a video entitled, “If any war happens.”

RELATED STORIES

The video opens by quoting President Obama from an interview he gave assuring those who have any doubts about the Iran nuclear agreement that the military option is always on the table. “We could knock out their military with speed and dispatch, if we chose to,” said Obama. 

An image of the White House appears next with the Ayatollah’s voice in the background stating, “A U.S. official has said that he can destroy Iran’s army. I do not want to say anything more in this regard.”

The video then depicts two cowboys, apparently representing the United States, with an Iranian fighter in the foreground pulling a knife on them. Khameni says, “Our predecessors used to call such statements, ‘boasting among strangers.’”

TRENDING STORIES

Next, the video shows images of Iran’s military arsenal, which it has at its disposal to attack U.S. naval and ground forces. 

“We neither welcome nor begin any war,” the Ayatollah says, while animation shows Iranian missiles being fired. “They must know that should any war break out, one who will emerge humiliated out of it will be invading and criminal America,” Khamenei promises as the dates of America’s involvement in Iraq appear on the screen: 2003-2011.  

The video draws to a close with a photo of soldiers carrying an American flag-draped coffin.

The Ayatollah’s threatening video comes on top of equally disturbing remarks he made last week against the United States and Israel.

As reported by Western Journalism, Khamenei tweeted that Israel need not concern itself with the terms of the Iranian nuclear agreement, because “You will not see the next 25 years. God willing there will be nothing [left of the] Zionist regime….”

As for the United States, Khamenei tweeted that the “‘US is the Great Satan,’ some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”

The Ayatollah promised in a speech last Wednesday that his nation would no longer be negotiating with the United States. “The Iranian nation ousted the Satan. We should not let it back through the window,” he said, referring to the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah.

In the midst of this bellicose rhetoric, Senate and House Democrats by-in-large stood with President Obama, voting to approve the Iranian nuclear deal at the end of last week, thereby blocking Republican efforts to reject it.

A CNN/ORC poll released on Sunday finds that 59 percent of Americans disapprove of the way President Obama is handling U.S. relations with Iran. Further, 49 percent of Americans now view Iran as a serious threat, up 10 points from April. CNN reports:

Most Americans think Iran will ultimately violate the terms of the agreement, with 37% calling that extremely likely and 23% saying very likely. Just 10% think it’s not at all likely that Iran would break the agreement. Republicans (83% likely) and independents (58% likely) are more apt to believe Iran would violate the agreement than are Democrats (44% likely).

If Iran did violate the deal, 64% of all adults say the United States should respond with military action, including majorities across party lines (57% of Democrats, 64% of independents and 72% of Republicans). About a third, 34%, say the United States should not take military action if the deal is broken.

WND: ON CAPITOL HILL

NEW BOMBSHELL: 5-MONTH GAP IN HILLARY EMAILS

Compared to missing 18 minutes in Nixon Watergate tapes

Published: 1 day ago. Updated: 09/14/2015 at 10:50 PM

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2013/03/gkant_avatar.jpg

 GARTH KANT


WASHINGTON – There are gaps totaling five months in the Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department, the watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday morning.

The revelation emerged after a court ordered the release of State Department documents as part of Judicial Watch’s effort to obtain Clinton emails under the Freedom of Information Act.

Emails sent and received by Clinton on her private server are missing over periods totaling five months, beginning when she took office as secretary of state in 2009.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the gaps indicate Clinton lied under oath when she said all her emails had been turned over, and it suggested government officials had not turned over everything they were required to deliver.

Fitton said other State Department officials, including the one in charge of email production, Patrick Kennedy, previously had been informed of the five-month gap.

What do YOU think? Who will be the Democratic Party nominee? Sound off in today’s WND poll

The gap in emails received by Clinton run from Jan. 21, 2009, when she became secretary of state, to March 17, 2009. The gaps in emails sent by Clinton from from Jan. 21, 2009, to April 12, 2009, and from Dec. 30, 2012, to Feb. 1, 2013.

Judicial Watch said the revelation of the email gap casts doubt on whether Clinton told the truth when she declared under oath last month, “I have directed that all of my emails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State.”

Judicial Watch obtained that statement, made in response to a court order, in separate FOIA litigation.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

The announcement of the email gap was made at an event in which many of the best minds in Washington came together to discuss what to do about the many crises plaguing the country during the Obama era.

Judicial Watch is holding a day-long “Leadership Summit on Washington Corruption and the Transparency Crisis.”

Judicial Watch has been in the forefront of the legal battle to obtain Clinton’s emails and State Department documents concerning the former secretary of state’s use of a private server to conduct all of her official business.

Contrary to her denials, government inspectors revealed Clinton did have classified information on her private server, which security experts say was especially vulnerable to hacking by foreign intelligence agencies.

The FBI is investigating Clinton’s use of the server and trying to retrieve 30,000 emails she deleted after her own staff deemed them personal correspondence.

The State Department said it had received approximately “60,00-70,000 pages of email correspondence printed to paper and stored in twelve bankers boxes,” which are “the only comprehensive set of Secretary Clinton’s email correspondence.”

But the department was concerned there were other Clinton emails that would not be found.

“However, of the sample examined, many of the emails were from Secretary Clinton’s personal email account to official Department email accounts of her staff. Emails originating from Secretary Clinton’s personal email account would only be captured by Department systems when they came to an official Department email account, i.e., they would be captured only in the email accounts of those recipients. Secretary Clinton’s staff no longer work at the Department, and the status of the email accounts of Secretary Clinton’s staff (and other Department recipients) is unknown at this time.”

Fitton said one State Department official indicated she did not want a written record of the inquiry into Clinton’s emails, noting an email in which she said she preferred to discuss the matter on the phone.

Every email should have been turned over

Fitton also said that among the newly obtained documents is an internal appraisal by the State Department that determined none of Clinton’s emails should have been excluded for examination as to whether they were personal or government business.

The document, titled “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Email Appraisal Report,” dated Feb. 9, 2015, concluded: “As the person holding the highest level job in the Department, any email message maintained by or for the immediate use of the secretary of state is ‘appropriate for preservation.’ This record series cannot be considered personal papers based on the definition of a record in 44 U.S.C. 3301 or Department policy found in 5 FAM 443.”

All of Clinton’s emails should have been turned over to the government for review, Fitton said.

That determination by the State Department is significant, because Clinton said she deleted more than 30,000 emails that her own staff had determined were personal.

Fitton emphasized that none of the Clinton emails were made public voluntarily but were disclosed as the result of litigation.

He compared the five-month Clinton email gap to the infamous 18-minute gap in the audio tapes turned over to Watergate investigators by President Nixon.

The email gap was revealed in documents obtained under court order in the FOIA lawsuit against the Department of State originally filed by Judicial Watch on May 6, 2013.

The documents also revealed for the first time the private email account that top Clinton aide Cheryl Mills apparently used to conduct government business, cherylmills@gmail.com

Classified info

The documents also show the State Department had concerns months ago about classified information in Clinton’s emails.

A letter on March 3, 2015, to longtime Clinton attorney David Kendall said, “Please note that if Secretary Clinton wishes to release any document or portion thereof, the Department must approve such release and first review the document for information that may be protected from disclosure for privilege, privacy or other reasons.”

Just last week, Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge they had no reason to suspect Clinton had failed to produce any emails requested by Congress or watchdog groups.

Monday’s revelation of the five-month gaps in emails turned over by Clinton would appear to cast doubt on the Justice Department’s assurance.

The State Department appraisal report that said Clinton should have turned over all emails, including the 30,000 she deleted, because they were deemed personal, also seemed to contradict the Justice Department.

Top Justice Department lawyers Benjamin Mizer and Elizabeth Shapiro said in papers filed in federal court Wednesday: “Because personal records are not subject to [the Freedom of Information Act], and State Department employees may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal, plaintiff’s preservation argument reduces to an unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal records.”

‘Unprecedented assault’

Judicial Watch described the Monday event as a symposium that will “examine how the Obama administration’s corruption and abuse of power have undermined the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”

Andrew McCarthy

The group contended the nation is “in the midst of an unprecedented assault on its open records laws by the corrupt and secretive Obama administration and corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton, an assault that we believe poses a serious threat to our country’s future.”

The event was divided into three sessions, with closing remarks and a question-and-answer period. The first session was “Clinton Corruption Challenge from Benghazi to Clinton Cash.”

Panelists:

  • Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president
  • John Fund, columnist for National Review Online and senior editor at the American Spectator
  • Joe diGenova, diGenova & Toensing
  • Steve Bannon, executive chairman of Breitbart News
  • David Martosko – U.S. political editor for DailyMail.com

During the first panel, Fund called it ironic that Clinton began her career as a staffer on a House committee investigating the 18-minute gap in the Nixon tapes.

Fund recalled how her supervisor, a Democrat, had said it would only be a matter of time before the Nixonian traits she had learned would come back to haunt her.

The columnist also predicted that investigators would get to the bottom of the email scandal because, he quipped, “I happen to know that President Jarrett is not amused by the scandal” – a reference to Obama’s top adviser, Valerie Jarrett.

DiGenova claimed Clinton wanted a private email server only to deny access to everyone who had a legal right to see her emails.

“If not for Judicial Watch, we would not be sitting here today,” he said.

DiGenova said Clinton “knew all of her electronic devices were not encrypted,” so the suggestions she did not know that she would receive classified information was “ludicrous.”

“And she knew if she turned over everything, she’d be dead meat.”

He added, “I know who has all of the emails – the NSA.”

DiGenova said every one of the emails would have been captured by the spy agency as part of a counter-intelligence program.

“One phone call from the attorney general to the head of the NSA would have produced them all,” he said.

Fitton said he “guaranteed” all of Clinton’s emails were in the possession of her attorney, Kendall.

The second session was “Illegal Immigration Crisis: National Security, Job Security, Election Integrity and Public Safety.”

Panelists:

  • Chris Farrell, Judicial Watch director of research and investigations
  • Irene Garcia, Judicial Watch investigative reporter
  • Louis Gohmert, U.S. congressman, TX-1
  • Andrew C. McCarthy III, senior fellow at National Review Institute
  • Robert Popper, Judicial Watch senior attorney and head of Election Integrity Project
  • Christian Adams – president and general counsel of the Public Interest Legal Foundation

The final session: “The IRS Attack on Free Speech.”

Panelists:

  • Paul Orfanedes, Judicial Watch director of litigation
  • Ramona Cotca, Judicial Watch senior attorney
  • Cleta Mitchell, partner and political law attorney, Foley & Lardner LLP

Follow Garth Kant @ DCgarth

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/5-month-gap-in-hillary-emails/#vr4B8ODC0iIf1SS5.99

 

 

Carlos Miyares:

The Church, Pope Francis, and Cuba**  
 

 

Eight hundred years ago, the Magna Carta laid the foundations for individual freedoms, the rule of law and for limits on the absolute power of the ruler.

King John of England, who signed this great document, believed that since he governed by divine right, there were no limits on his authority. But his need for money outweighed this principle and he acceded to his barons’ demand to sign the document limiting his powers, in exchange for their help.

King John then appealed to Pope Innocent III who promptly declared the Magna Carta to be “not only shameful and demeaning but also illegal and unjust” and deemed the charter to be “null and void of all validity forever.” Thus from the beginning of the conflict between individual rights and unlimited authority, the Church sided with authority. It is a position that, with notable exceptions has, and continues to characterize the conduct of Church-State affairs.

In 1929, the Holy See signed with Benito Mussolini’s Fascist government the Lateran Treaty which recognized the Vatican as an independent state. In exchange for the Pope’s public support, Mussolini also agreed to provide the Church with financial backing.

In 1933, the Vatican’s Secretary of State Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) signed on behalf of Pope Pius XI, the Reich Concordat to advance the rights of the Catholic Church in Germany. The treaty predictably gave moral legitimacy to the Nazi regime and constrained the political activism of the German Catholic clergy which had been critical of Nazism. Similarly, advancing the Church’s interests in Cuba is the explanation given for the Church’s hierarchy coziness with the Castro regime.

For most of us the Catholic Church is simply a religion, but the fact is that it is also a state with its own international politico-economic interests and views. It is hard to discern the defense of any moral or religious principles in the above historic undertakings of the Church-State.

These doings of the Church, as a state in partnership with authoritarian rule, are in sharp contrast with the Biblical rendition, where Christ was persecuted for his political views by a tyrannical regime acting in complicity with the leadership of His church. Cubans today are also politically persecuted by a tyrannical regime. The question arises as to whether the leadership of the Catholic Church will side with the people or with the Castro regime.

Pope Francis probably, was not thinking of Magna Carta, the Lateran Treaty or the Reich Concordat, when he warmly received General Raul Castro in the Vatican earlier this spring, and he probably won’t be thinking about that foundational document for individual freedoms, the rule of law and for limits on the absolute power of the ruler or how the medieval Church spurned it when he travels to Cuba in September. But the questions of the Vatican’s support for authoritarianism and the Pope’s political ideology will be in the background of his visit nonetheless.

In political terms, Pope Francis is himself the head of an authoritarian state -an oligarchical theocracy where only the aristocracy -the Princes of the College of Cardinals- participate in the selection of the ruler. Most religions do not follow a democratic structure, but the Catholic Church is unique in that it is also a state recognized by international law.

Pope Francis may seem to be sailing against the winds of this structure in some of his carefully publicized “iconoclasms,” but clues he has left as to his political and economic thought regarding Cuba show someone very comfortable with certain status quos.

In 1998, then Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Monsignor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the Pope was then known, authored a book titled: “Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro.” In my reading of the Pope’s complex Spanish prose, he favors socialism over capitalism provided it incorporates theism. He does not take issue with Fidel Castro’s claim that “Karl Marx’s doctrine is very close to the Sermon on the Mount,” and views the Cuban polity as in harmony with the Church’s social doctrine.

Following Church tradition he severely condemns U.S. economic sanctions, but Pope Francis goes much further. He uses Cuba’s inaccurate and politically charged term “blockade” and echoes the Cuban government’s allegations about its condign evil. He then criticizes free markets, noting that “neoliberal capitalism is a model that subordinates human beings and conditions development to pure market forces…thus humanity attends a cruel spectacle that crystalizes the enrichment of the few at the expense of the impoverishment of the many.” (Author’s translation)

In his prologue to “Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro,” Monsignor Bergoglio leaves no doubt that he sympathizes with the Cuban dictatorship and that he is not a fan of liberal democracy or free markets. He clearly believes in a very large, authoritarian role for the state in social and economic affairs. Perhaps, as many of his generation, the Pope’s understanding of economics and governance was perversely tainted by Argentina’s Peronist trajectory and the country’s continued corrupt mixture of statism and crony capitalism.

His language in the prologue is reminiscent of the “Liberation Theology” movement that developed in Latin America in the 1960’s and became very intertwined with Marxist ideology. Fathered by Peruvian priest Gustavo Gutierrez, the liberation theology movement provided the intellectual foundations that, with Cuban support, served to orchestrate “wars of national liberation” throughout the continent. Its iconography portrayed Jesus as a guerrilla with an AK 47 slung over his shoulder.

John Paul II and Benedict XVI censured Liberation Theology, but after Pope Francis met with father Gutierrez in 2013 in “a strictly private visit,” L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, published an essay stating that with the election of the first pope from Latin America Liberation Theology can no longer “remain in the shadows to which it has been relegated for some years…”

The political ideology of the Argentinian Monsignor Bergoglio may not have been of any transcendental significance. But as Pope Francis, he is now the head of a state with defined international political and economic interests. These state-interests and personal ideology will be in full display in his upcoming visit to Cuba and the United States.

In “Dialogues between John Paul II and Fidel Castro,” Pope Francis speaks of a “shared solidarity” but, as with Pope Innocent III’s rejection of the Magna Carta, that solidarity appears to be with the nondemocratic illegitimate authority in Cuba and not with the people. This is a tragic echo of the Cuban wars for independence when the Church sided with the Spanish Crown and not with the Cuban “mambises” fighting for freedom. No wonder that when Cuba gained its independence, many Cubans saw the Church as an enemy of the new nation.

In his September visit Pope Francis will have a chance to reverse this history and unequivocally put the Church on the side of the people, especially with the black and mulatto majority in the Island. If he does not, history will judge him as unkindly as it has Innocent III. When the Castros’ tropical gulag finally fades into the past, Cubans will remember that this Pope had a choice between freedom and authoritarianism, just as his predecessor did eight hundred years ago, and picked the wrong side.

Author’s Note: I am Indebted to Diego Trinidad, César Vidal, Andres Oppenheimer, Julio Shiling, José Benegas, and others for ideas reflected in this article.

_________________________________________________

**Published in the World Affairs Journal September/October Issue, 2015.

_________________________________________________


*José Azel is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, University of Miami and the author of the book “Mañana in Cuba.”

_________________________________________________

The CTP can be contacted at P.O. Box 248174, Coral Gables, Florida 33124-3010, Tel: 305-284-CUBA (2822), Fax: 305-284-4875, and by email at ctp.iccas@miami.edu. The CTP Website is accessible at http://ctp.iccas.miami.edu.

 

 

VERY DISTURBING: What You Need to Know About Europe’s Immigration Crisis

Written by Kenn Daily

Things you need to know about Europe’s immigration crisis.

1. They’re not refugees. They are insurgents.

A matter of semantics? Not really.

An insurgent is one who uses force against legal authorities. A refugee seeks little more than safety.

Watch the violent scenes I cobbled together in my short video, The Displacement of Western Civilization — In Real Time,  then ask yourself, “Are these people insurgents or refugees?”

2. 90 percent have no IDs.

Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald reported that 90 percent of those arriving in Serbia via Macedonia are undocumented. That is, they claim they are fleeing Syria, but they have no identification to support their claims.

Authorities report finding discarded ID cards belonging to insurgents from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and elsewhere.

3. Legitimate Syrian insurgents are selective.

Many insurgents are, in fact, fleeing Syria. However, they traverse through Macedonia, Greece, or Hungary and proceed to Germany, Sweden, and Britain where they are endowed with generous welfare benefits.

4. They’re not fleeing starvation.

News images reveal well-fed and well-dressed insurgents toting smart phones and trendy backpacks. They hardly resemble the rag-tag refugees who fled Ireland’s 19th-century potato famine.

Some media report insurgents using GPS enabled smart phones to navigate from Turkey to Western Europe.

Many claim to have paid smugglers well over $1,200 to get them into Europe. Where do thousands of starving Syrians each get $1,200 expendable cash?

5. Left-leaning politicians welcome the insurgents.

Largely uneducated, unemployable, and government dependent, the insurgents will bond with leftist politicians eager to exchange the tax dollars of ethnic Europeans for the votes of insurgent Muslims.

As Democrats in the United States welcome illegal aliens from Latin America, leftist politicians understand the hordes of insurgents from the Middle East will support politicians who dole out government programs.

The “far right” in Europe is surging. Leftists are desperate to take drastic actions to secure their control of governments, even if it means destroying Europe’s ancient culture.

6. Oil-rich Arab states are accepting no “refugees”.

Are Arab nations shunning refugees? Or are refugees shunning Arab nations? While some Islamic nations have accepted legitimate Syrian refugees, many have received none.

Why? Because there is no need for Islamic insurgents to invade Islamic nations.

Among those Arab nations with no Syrian refugees crossing their borders are Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.

Europe is the primary destination. Germany, alone, is accepting 800,000 insurgents this year alone.

7. ISIS promised to infiltrate the “migrants”

Are Islamic terrorists infiltrating the insurgent hordes?

Of course they are.

The acceptance of insurgents in the name of compassionate diversity makes airport screening moot. Terrorists don’t need to slip past airport security. They simply flood past helpless border guards.

8. Many are illiterate and have no concept of Western values.

There is no plan for assimilation. Rather, Europeans are expected to be culturally sensitive to Islamic invaders.

You may have noticed that, even in America, there are sensitivity classes designed to teach us to tolerate them, but no sensibility classes teaching them to assimilate with us.

Australia may the sole exception. At least that nation requires immigrants to read a handbook on Western culture that reads, in part, “Australians use tongs to handle food, do not blow their nose on to the footpath and say ‘Yes please’ if they would like a cup of tea.”

How odd. The far-left of Europe is embracing the most intolerant culture on earth in the name of tolerance.

9. The crisis is not new.

The Middle East has been in a perennial state of turmoil since the founding of Islam 1,400 years ago. The current tsunami of insurgents is not due to conflict and poverty. Rather, it’s due to open borders, welcome mats, and politicians willing to sell votes in exchange for welfare benefits.

Likewise, the constant status of crime, corruption, and poverty has existed in Latin America for generations. Only in recent years have aliens swarmed across our Southern border.

10. It’s by design.

Clearly, the displacement of Western culture in Europe and the United States is neither accident or coincidence. Rather, it is a calculated effort to remove the economic disparity that exist between Western civilization and Third-world nations.

The intent is to merge the two disparate cultures into one.

The end game will be the displacement of Western culture and the introduction of a paleolithic dark ages from which humanity may never emerge.

Share to spread the truth about these ‘refugees’!


Read more at
http://clashdaily.com/2015/09/very-disturbing-what-you-need-to-know-about-europes-immigration-crisis/

“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”

“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