Saturday, October 25, 2014

No 776 "En mi opinion" Octubre 25, 2014

No 776 “En mi opinión”  Octubre 25, 2014

“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR

“The miracle of the Vote Machines at Illinois” “EMO” You Vote For Republicans and Automatically Changed To Democrats. LRGM.

First hand fraud…..  by Cowboy Byte
Jim Moynihan, Republican candidate for the Illinois State House, went in today to vote early, and to vote for himself. But when he touched the screen mark his name, it was his Democratic opponent’s name that registered the vote.
“While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” Moynihan told Illinois Review. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat.”
Every time he touched the screen for a Republican the machine registered it as a vote for the Democrat. “Clearly, I am concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice, especially if they are in a hurry and do not double check their ballot,” Moynihan said.
He notified the election officials and demonstrated the problem for them. He was eventually able to vote for himself and other Republicans.
Jim Scalzitti, Cook County Clerk’s Office Deputy Communications Director, told Watchdog Illinois, “This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine. When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”
Scalzitti reiterated that the votes were not counted, they did not register and encouraged every voter to double-check their ballot before hitting submit.  Continue Reading on

Illegals Registered To Vote…

Our election is so filled with fraud. Disgusting.
Check it out:
With the North Carolina U.S. Senate race in a dead heta, state election officials say they have discovered 145 names on the voting rolls who are ineligible to vote because they are illegal immigrants who have been granted President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals status. 
According to a Winston-Salem Journal report, the State Board of Elections discovered the potential illegal voters Tuesday night when the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles ran a search for DACA licenses. The 145 DACA recipients whose names appear on the SBOE’s voting rolls will be sent letters requesting documentation that they are citizens, the report noted. 
DACA beneficiaries in North Carolina are able to obtain drivers licenses, but they are not able to vote. 
The Journal notes that it is likely more ineligible people may still remain on the voting rolls. 
Nearly 10,000 names on the rolls are tagged by the DMV as “legally present,” according to elections and transportation officials. But that doesn’t mean that all 10,000 are ineligible to vote at this time. These are license holders who were not U.S. citizens when they got a license. They may have been green-card holders, foreign workers or foreign students, for example.
Most have become U.S. citizens since getting a license, according to an estimate by elections officials based on a sample of the overall list.
Read the rest of this Patriot Update article here:

“El Crimen Abrazando a la Maldad

Obama Caught Covering Up Emails In Fast And Furious Scandal For Eric Holder And His Family

"Asserted executive privilege to block emails sent between Attorney General Eric Holder and..."

A government watchdog group announced Thursday, after receiving information about the Fast and Furious operation, that President Obama asserted executive privilege to block emails sent between Attorney General Eric Holder and family members.
Early during President Obama’s tenure, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) launched “Operation Fast and Furious,” allowing thousands of firearms to be illegally sold in the hopes of tracking Mexican drug cartels. United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one of those firearms in December of 2010.
Judicial Watch, a right-leaning legal advocacy organization, announced Thursday it received from the Department of Justice (DOJ) a “Vaughn index” — a more than 1,307 page draft document with details about Fast and Furious. Among the information the group received is disclosure of 20 emails between Holder and his wife, Sharon Malone, as well as his mother.
The contents of the emails are being withheld “under an extraordinary claim of executive privilege as well as a dubious claim of deliberative process privilege under the Freedom of Information Act.” Judicial Watch writes that the exemption is ordinarily only used for “public disclosure records that could chill internal government deliberations.”
Other information in the ‘Vaughn index’, according to Judicial Watch, included:
–Numerous emails that detail Attorney General Holder’s direct involvement in crafting talking points, the timing of public disclosures, and handling Congressional inquiries in the Fast and Furious matter.
–DOJ communications (including those of Eric Holder) concerning the White House about Fast and Furious.
–Communications to and from the United States Ambassador to Mexico about Fast and Furious.
The scandal required the attention of virtually every top official of the DOJ and ATF. Many of the records are already publicly available, such as letters from Congress, press clips, and typical agency communications. Ordinarily these records would, in whole or in part, be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Few of the records seem to even implicate presidential decision-making and advice that might be subject to President Obama’s broad and unprecedented executive privilege claim.

Amenper: El presidente Obama firma orden ejecutiva para proteger a votantes Republicanos del Virus de Ébola.

El Presidente Barack Obama emitió una orden ejecutiva que hoy para el  día 4 de noviembre de 2014 como un día nacional de cuarentena para aquellos estadounidenses que están en mayor riesgo de contraer el virus del Ébola.
"No pueden contagiarse  del Ébola por contacto casual como sentarse al lado de alguien en un autobús," dijo el Presidente en una conferencia de prensa poco después de firmar la orden ejecutiva. "Sin embargo pueden cogerlo mientras esperaban en la cola para votar."

La orden ejecutiva sólo se aplica a los republicanos registrados que tienen actualmente menos probabilidades de recibir atención sanitaria del gobierno proporcionada por el Obamacare y por lo tanto son más susceptibles a contraer el virus Ébola.

La cuarentena entrará en vigor en la medianoche del 3 de noviembre y durará hasta que cierren las urnas el 4 de noviembre. Los republicanos podrán moverse libremente en toda la sociedad, siempre y cuando no se acerquen a 1000 metros de una cabina de votación.
Muchas agencias de gobierno han sido bien armadas en los últimos seis años y serán movilizadas el día de las elecciones para hacer cumplir la cuarentena.

Antes de salir para una relajante ronda de golf, el Presidente concluyó su conferencia de prensa para tranquilizar a los estadounidenses de que tendrán un día de las elecciones seguro. "Aunque hemos tenido nuestros desacuerdos, yo más que nadie quiero a los republicanos y cuido de ellos para que sobrevivan. Tal vez no como un partido político, sino como contribuyentes pagando los impuestos  de nuestra gran nación."- 

Letterman’s ISIS Joke Hits the Nail on the Head and Proves Liberals Are Tired of Obama, Too

Left-wing comedian and talk show host David Letterman is winding down his years as the late-night king, and it looks as though he’s ready to tell some hard truths. On Friday night’s show, Letterman offered his own hilarious insights about ISIS, beginning with the new name he says the administration has coined for the terror group:
Every military operation has to have a name so people can get behind it. And they now have a name for the war against ISIS: Operation Hillary’s Problem.
As is always true in the best jokes, this one has a kernel of reality. It appears Obama is not planning to move ahead in any real confrontation with ISIS, and the next president — which Letter assumes will be Hillary Clinton — will certainly have to deal with the consequences of that choice.

Obama “A Candidate For Impeachment” If He Gives Illegals Green Cards

I’m still waiting to see how Obama tries and stay in office after 2016.
Check it out:
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano hit out at the President this week over revelations that the Obama administration is overseeing a federal order for 34 million blank work permits and green cards, an indication that Obama is set to issue an executive order on amnesty after the midterm election.
Speaking on Fox News, the libertarian analyst said “He can’t make illegals legal. But he can do the following: he can open the borders, arguably he did that a few months ago with the Central American children in Texas; he can issue green cards to whoever he wants; he can stop deportations for the rest of his presidency.”
“…both Republican Congresses and Democratic Congresses have given to Republican and Democratic presidents extraordinary authority.” Napolitano clarified.
The order for the blank cards, to be delivered over the course of five years, was actioned by the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) department, which posted a draft solicitation earlier this month announcing its intention to seek a vendor capable of delivering “an estimated 4 million cards annually with the potential to buy as many as 34 million cards total.”

Amenper: Los Nuevos Inteligentes…  [¿?]
Con la subida de Obama, y la campaña de lucha de clases, el ser decente se ha convertido como cuando tomó poder la revolución en Cuba, en algo malo.  La persona educada y trabajadora, pasa a ser estúpido y malo para la sociedad.  Los jóvenes influenciados por la propaganda del  gobierno comienza a tener una vida que los distinga como listos, lo que en inglés llaman "street smart" que se supone que tengan un grado de inteligencia superior a los estúpidos que son "book smart" o "establishment smart"
Es mi idea personal que esto no es algo que ha surgido en una etapa social que pasará, porque esto pasó en Cuba y no pasó hasta que se consolidó la revolución, y se mantuvo mientras se estaba estableciendo el nuevo sistema,  hasta que ya consolidados se establezca una nueva estructura de clases, una nueva clase social.
Creo que es algo ideado para cambiar a las personas como un medio para cambiar el sistema.  
Hollywood y la televisión son los cómplices complacientes, y podemos ver esto en sus películas y programas.
Crean un personaje como alguien que es un inadaptado social, una persona sin educación o título académico, de bajos recursos económicos o un vagabundo, un desamparado como le dicen, y que en la mayoría de las veces es de la raza negra.  Este personaje es antisocial, pero lo presentan como un excelente "street smart", es capaz de pensar más inteligente que los demás y a menudo es muy bueno para solucionar la mayoría de las veces, los problemas de los demás.  El villano es siempre un profesional, un empresario o una persona de un estrato social alto, el cual es presa permitida para robarle, vejarlo y hasta matarlo, porque es un parásito que causa daño a la sociedad.
Y lo más importante, en el transcurso de la trama, logra convencer a otros que el sistema social como ellos lo viven es malo y hay que cambiarlo a los conceptos del personaje.
De lo que se trate es de implantar la lógica opuesta a lo establecido y usarlo como una crítica del sistema americano. afirmando que los que piensan como se pensaba antes son idiotas incompetentes que no saben de inteligencia cuando la ven, o que el sistema social establecido está  diseñado deliberadamente para sofocar la innovación y el libre albedrío para que estas inteligentes personas se vuelvan esclavos asalariados en el sistema.  Lo que Marx llamó la explotación del hombre por el hombre.
Nosotros los cubanos sabemos lo que viene después, la explotación del hombre por el estado.
Pero la historia no enseña, la historia se repite, porque el hombre es el único animal que tropieza dos veces con la misma piedra

Leahy: Some Americans ‘Never Want’ Another Black President

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said Thursday that some Americans “never want to have” another black president.
The Hill reports that Leahy made the comments during an appearance on PBS’ “Tavis Smiley” show.
“Get out and move around America. You’ll find plenty of examples of racial prejudice,” Leahy said. “There are those who never want to have another African-American president, and that would be another very, very bad thing for this country.”
Leahy, who took office in 1975, supports President Barack Obama — who in 2008 became the first black president in the nation’s history.
But Leahy, according to The Hill, said Obama getting elected to the Oval Office is just the start of a trend that needs to happen.

Amenper: About Government, Freedom, Responsibility and Leadership 
Freedom is our most precious commodity and if we are not eternally vigilant, government will take it all away.  But individual freedom demands individual responsibility. Lyn Nofziger

No matter the era, no matter which side you are on, and no matter where you live, the government will find ways to break your life. We are here because the governments in our country, because of the corruption and authoritarian arrogance of our politicians..  And we are here and we are now living under a corrupt, arrogant and authoritarian administration. 
Quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the customer gets out and is willing to pay for. A product is not quality because it is hard to make and costs a lot of money, as some manufacturers typically believe. This is incompetence. Customers pay only for what is of use to them and gives them value. Nothing else constitutes quality.
In politics the government is the manufacturer and the citizen is the customer, and as customers, we expect a quality product form our elected officials.  But government is inherently incompetent, and no matter what task it is assigned, it will do it in the most expensive and inefficient way possible
Government just gives us a product that cost a lot of money, this product is bureaucracy.
The purpose of bureaucracy is to punish the responsible citizens to compensate other for they incompetence irresponsibility and lack of discipline. They just don't have time to distinguish between the unfortunate and the incompetent and irresponsible. 
We see that this happens in any government, but the socialist system with they pursue of equality has created a new mark on human incompetence.
In a socialist system, equal opportunity means everyone will have a fair chance at being incompetent.
Today I feel equality has arrived, the socialist ways has arrived, they tell us that we can elect to office a woman who is as incompetent as the man who is already here. This will fulfill the dream of a socialist government in America.  We won't have Obama anymore, we will have Hillary.
President Obama is a gifted politician. He is gifted with rhetoric virtuosity. He is gifted with the ability to lie directly to camera without blinking.  And he is gifted with always doing the wrong thing and never been accountable or  responsible for his errors. 
Hillary is also gifted to look directly to the camera and say things like these quotes: “God bless the America we are trying to create." Or calling the people of Arkansas, “Bimbos, sluts, trailer trash, rednecks, and sh*t-kickers “…(American Evita, p. 139).
Socialists tell us that it is wrong to think that people are different because they have penis or genitalia or because the color of their skin, white, black, red or brown. So it is reasonable not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not discriminate against someone on the grounds of 'race' or 'gender' alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason.
But it is accepted today by the left, that this is the time for a woman to be president, so they want us to elect Hillary, for the same reason that we elected Obama for being black.
Seeing the name Hillary in a headline last week—a headline about a life that had involved real achievement—I felt a mouse stirring in the attic of my memory. Please,,, perhaps you poisoned your mouse, but mine is alive, and  remember the Hillary that tried to socialize medicine, the Hillary that lied about her achievements and was exposed by the Obama campaign during the primaries, the Hillary of Bengasi and then the cover up.  The Hillary that would do anything for power, even stay married to a man that has dozen of public infidelity episodes known for everybody and ignore by Hillary for political convenience. Yet isn't it all—all of it, every single episode and detail of the Clinton saga—exactly like that? And isn't some of it a little bit more serious? For Hillary Clinton, something is true if it validates the myth of her striving and her 'greatness' (her overweening ambition in other words) and only ceases to be true when it no longer serves that limitless purpose. And we are all supposed to applaud the skill and the bare-faced bravado with which this is done. In the New Hampshire primary in 1992, she knowingly lied about her husband's uncontainable sex life and put him eternally in her debt. This is now thought of, and referred to in print, purely as a smart move on her part. In the Iowa caucuses of 2008, he returns the favor by telling a huge lie about his own record on the war in Iraq, falsely asserting that he was opposed to the intervention from the very start. This is thought of, and referred to in print, as purely a tactical mistake on his part: trying too hard to help the spouse. The happy couple has now united on an equally mendacious account of what they thought about Iraq and when they thought it. What would it take to break this cheap little spell and make us wake up and inquire what on earth we are doing when we make the Clinton family drama—yet again—a central part of our own politics?”
Those of us who remember Hillary life, rather than view it as a game show does not look at Hillary Clinton and simply think 'first woman president.' We think—for example—'first ex-co-president' or 'first wife of a disbarred lawyer and impeached former incumbent' or 'first person to use her daughter as photo-op protection during her husband's perjury rap
That is not the character of a person for the office of the presidency of the United States.
The world needs us to go back the traditional American type of leadership. Let it be not discredited by those who are out of sympathy with it, who don't understand it or are incompetent to administer it. In America, the demand for power to compel is a confession of incompetence to lead.

GAME OVER? Official Autopsy Suggests Michael Brown Was Not Surrendering, Attempted to Take Officer’s Gun…

Forensic evidence seems to lean in favor with Ferguson police officer Darren Willson’s story. Check it out.
It appears that the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” chant of the local protestors, outside agitators, and violent rioters that have plagued Ferguson, Missouri, since early August is based on fiction, according to experts who have reviewed Michael Brown’s official autopsy.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch report this morning that the official autopsy of Michael Brown supports the version of events told by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and flatly contradicts the claims of many of the eyewitnesses.
One of the results was apparent confirmation that Michael Brown attacked Officer Wilson in his police Tahoe SUV, and was attempting to take Officer Wilson’s gun when he was first shot.
Michael Brown was shot at extreme close range in the thumb.
[St. Louis medical examiner Michael] Graham said the examination indicated a shot traveled from the tip of Brown’s right thumb toward his wrist. The official report notes an absence of stippling, powder burns around a wound that indicate a shot fired at relatively short range.
But Graham said, “Sometimes when it’s really close, such as within an inch or so, there is no stipple, just smoke.”
The report on a supplemental microscopic exam of tissue from the thumb wound showed foreign matter “consistent with products that are discharged from the barrel of a firearm.”
Dr. Judy Melinek, a forensic pathologist in San Francisco, said the autopsy “supports the fact that this guy is reaching for the gun, if he has gunpowder particulate material in the wound.” She added, “If he has his hand near the gun when it goes off, he’s going for the officer’s gun.”
The autopsy and forensics collected inside and outside Officer Wilson’s Chevrolet Tahoe shows that there was a significant struggle inside the vehicle as the 6’4′, 292 lbs Brown attacked Officer Wilson and attempted to take his gun. Roughly half of all police officers killed in the line of duty were killed by suspects disarming officers and using the gun against the officer.

Clemente Sanchez:   La Amenaza Bergoglio… César Uribarri
Reproducimos a continuación un acertado y valiente artículo publicado originalmente en "El Blog de César Uribarri" del Portal amigo "InfoVaticana".
Desde el inicio de su Pontificado el Papa Francisco ha buscado un giro copernicano no sólo en la vida de la Iglesia, sino en la vivencia de la fe. Desde un subjetivismo camuflado en misericordia,
Bergoglio ha izado a lo más alto de la Iglesia un equipo de leales que tienen en común la capacidad de destrucción subrepticia de la doctrina. Francisco no se ha servido nunca de declaraciones directas sino de construcciones lingüísticas en las que late una continua invitación a abandonar los rigorismos dogmáticos para abrirse a la realidad moderna, pero todo en una clave moralista en la que se apela a la subjetividad del oyente. Motivo por el cual ni se perciben enfrentadas las verdades doctrinales ni se apela a ellas para establecer un suelo desde el que juzgar el mensaje. Tal moralismo en el lenguaje, acompañado de gestos existenciales en el mismo Papa, son el campo abonado para la siembra del giro copernicano que se pretende. Y en esa estrategia el Sínodo Extraordinario de octubre de 2014 se quiso como la primera y fundamental piedra en esa demolición, pero no está tan claro que lo hayan conseguido.
La primera pregunta es si hay o no una batalla en el seno de la Iglesia. Y de haberla en qué términos y de qué alcance. A esto la respuesta es sí. Sí hay una batalla crudelísima entre los que tratan de adaptar el Evangelio a la realidad de un mundo que ha apostatado y los que pretenden salvar el núcleo del dogma. El sínodo está siendo clara evidencia de su alcance. Pero los sucesos que llevan ocurriendo más de un año obligan a una segunda pregunta: cuál es el papel del Papa en esta batalla. Y atreverse a responder exige dejar de lado toda construcción mental previa para ceñirse a los hechos. Y los hechos son tozudos: es el Papa Francisco quien está impulsando estos cambios. Y cambios que se acercan peligrosamente no sólo a un cisma, tal es la fricción que está causando en esas dos posturas enfrentadas, sino a la validación de la herejía. La comunión a los divorciados vueltos a casar no sólo puede ser una espita que haga saltar toda la antropología y moral cristiana sino que es la terrible puerta a la negación de las enseñanzas de Cristo.
Pero el Papa, el mismo que ha hecho gala de una dureza total contra los elementos que considera enemigos de sus planteamientos (como es el caso de los Franciscanos y Franciscanas de la Inmaculada o de Mons. Livieres) parece querer jugar al doloso juego de que sea la voz universal de la Iglesia la que "demande" los cambios aperturistas, para que él sea, solamente, el obligado instrumento que deba dar el placet-de-hecho al recorrido pastoral que, vox populi vox Dei, dinamite el dogma de la Iglesia.Esta estrategia de nuevo ha sido reconocida por el Cardenal Kasper cuando afirma que "es claro lo que (el Papa) quiere y eso es evidente. El quiere una parte importante del Episcopado con él y lo necesita. Él no puede hacerlo en contra de la mayoría del Episcopado".
Los motivos del porqué Bergoglio no quiere imponer su autoridad directamente, dando la cara, en este tema solo parece encontrar una explicación plausible: llevar la contraria a Cristo es más fácil cuando la mayoría del cuerpo Episcopal te apoya. Psicológicamente no se está solo ante tal paso y si muchos hablan siempre habrá quien vea la voz de Dios en el barullo.
Este mecanismo defensivo y perverso, para ser evitado, exigiría obligar al Papa a que se pronuncie directa y expresamente sobre todos estos temas puestos en la mesa de la discusión pública. Ya el Cardenal Burke ha reclamado recientemente al Santo Padre que salga de ese silencio omisivo. "El Papa no tiene faringitis y debe hablar". Pero en vano. Al contrario, diversas personalidades de la Iglesia -impulsoras, o condescendientes, de esas medidas aperturistas- trasladan la perfecta sintonía del Papa con ellos y, por ende, con esas posturas aperturistas. "Es el Papa quien lo quiere" dirá el presidente de la Conferencia Episcopal Argentina [NdE: Mons. José María Arancedo], "y nosotros estamos con él".
Por ello el Sínodo era la estación más importante en la red que lleva al giro perverso de la Iglesia, porque de él debía emanar un documento de trabajo que recogiera todas las "bondades" del cambio pastoral, de la apertura, de la tolerancia. Porque no debía ser el Papa quien comprometiera su oficio, sino que la totalidad de los Padres Sinodales, en ese abstracto y doloso sustantivo de totalidad que no se sabe cuántos la componen, habría de marcar las directrices educativas con las que habrían de trabajar los Obispos, Pastores, Catequistas y Medios de Comunicación, para vender a las abandonadas almas de los ingenuos fieles que ya existe un "a partir de ahora", un nuevo paradigma de cristiandad no sometida a la moral exógena y falaz de unos fariseos rigoristas que se empeñan en poner pesados fardos.
Y si bien el discurrir del Sínodo está siendo más contestatario de lo que se quería, el largo brazo del Papa aún sigue maniobrando para que no todo se pierda en su estrategia de confusión y pueda ver la luz un documento aperturista y favorecedor de las nuevas andaduras pastorales.
Sin embargo ya es notorio que la primavera pretendida se ha convertido en una Primavera de Praga. Los tanques puede que pasen, pero en la retina quedará la imagen de algunos valientes defendiendo la Verdad.
¿Qué hará el Papa ante esa contestación? El tiempo juega a favor del Santo Padre. Acabado el Sínodo, cada cual irá a su lado, y dispersado el enemigo caerá su fuerza. Desde la Santa Sede bastará con elevar la voz unida de aquellos que estén con él, con sus reformas aperturistas a fin de que durante este año próximo la labor educativa de esa catequesis perversa pueda concluir en un verdadero documento programático de apertura, pero no por decisión del Papa reinante, sino por concesión a las Conferencias Episcopales a las que habrá de dotarse de potestades doctrinales para decidir el alcance de la apertura. Y esto, nuevamente, nos situaría ante un Cisma de hecho al crearse tantas Iglesias como Conferencias Episcopales decidieran.
Lo terrible de todo esto es que la situación actual nos está obligando a estar vigilantes, tal es la cercanía de los pasos Papales al borde del abismo de lo herético, porque de dar tal paso, nuevamente no sólo rompería un hito en la Iglesia bimilenaria sino que abriría la espita a todo lo peor. Por ello, en mi modesta opinión, lo correcto no es esconder el ruido de sables en aras de una falsa piedad y amor a la Iglesia, sino poner el foco en tal escándalo no vaya a ser que al verse el Santo Padre continuamente iluminado no haga por vergüenza lo que haría por agrado.

LOS PREJUICIOS IDEOLÓGICOS DEL NEW YORK TIMES‏. Por Alfredo M. Cepero. Director de Sígame en:

El New York Times es un gran periódico que durante 163 años, en el curso de los cuales ha ganado 106 Premios Pulitzer, ha proporcionado información fidedigna y detallada a miles de millones de lectores. Sus departamentos de investigación y de análisis, unidos a la calidad profesional de sus diseñadores y redactores, le han ganado merecida fama como el mejor periódico de los Estados Unidos y uno de los mejores del mundo. Pero hasta ahí llega mi admiración por el rotativo junto al Hudson. Porque su forma de presentar los temas sobre asuntos políticos e ideológicos ha sido la excepción de la que debe ser la regla de oro de cualquier empresa informativa: la objetividad en la presentación de sus informaciones y el equilibrio en sus páginas de opinión.
La izquierda obsesiva y vitriólica que determina el contenido político del New York Times sufre de una especie de virus ideológico que paraliza sus procesos mentales y para el que no parece existir cura ni antídoto conocidos. Por eso Francisco Franco, Augusto Pinochet y Fulgencio Batista fueron calificados en su tiempo, y lo siguen siendo hasta este momento, de dictadores. En increíble contradicción, Joseph Stalin, MaoTse Tung y Raul Castro, mil veces más represores y asesinos que los antes mencionados, son calificados, y lo serán por la eternidad, como líderes, gobernantes y hasta presidentes. Un flaco servicio a la objetividad periodística y un verdadero insulto a la inteligencia de sus lectores.
De ahí que no me haya extrañado en lo más mínimo el último atentado del New York Times contra la compasión humana, la verdad histórica y hasta el sentido común. Con el fin de promover su agenda de izquierda, y a sabiendas de que prolonga el martirio de 12 millones de cubanos, ha propuesto que el Presidente Barack Obama levante de manera unilateral el embargo contra la tiranía de los vándalos de Birán. Dejemos, sin embargo, que sean los ideólogos del Times, abdicando de su misión periodística, quienes se expresen: "Por primera vez en más de medio siglo, cambios en la opinión pública estadounidense y una serie de reformas en Cuba han hecho que sea políticamente viable reanudar relaciones diplomáticas y acabar con un embargo insensato".
En este sentido, podría ser aceptable, aunque reprochable, que los estados actúen dentro del contexto de lo que sea políticamente viable. Pero que un periódico que se proclama defensor de la libertad, de la democracia y de los derechos humanos proponga semejante claudicación ante tiranos que han esquilmado a su pueblo por más de medio siglo es una soberana canallada. El Times llega incluso a dar certificado de validez a las maniobras de los tiranos para aferrarse al poder cuando afirma: "El proceso de reformas ha sido lento y ha habido reveses. Pero en conjunto estos cambios demuestran que Cuba se está preparando para una era post-embargo".
Pero ahí no termina la conducta del Times como celestina de la tiranía castrista. En el colmo del cinismo, presenta a los asesinos de miles de seres humanos en Cuba y en cuatro continente como paladines en la lucha contra el ébola. En este sentido afirma: "Cuba es una isla pobre y relativamente aislada. Queda a más de 7,000 kilómetros de los países africanos donde el ébola se está esparciendo a un ritmo alarmante, pero podría terminar jugando el papel más destacado entre las naciones que están trabajando para refrenar la propagación del virus". Llega incluso a citar una referencia indirecta a Cuba del Secretario de Estado, John Kerry, cuando éste elogió la semana pasada el “coraje de todo profesional médico que está asumiendo este desafío”.
Abundando sobre el tema, y en la cima de la hipocresía y del descaro, el New York Times afirma: "Es lamentable que Washington, el principal contribuyente financiero a la lucha contra el ébola, no tenga vínculos diplomáticos con La Habana, dado que Cuba podría terminar desempeñando la labor más vital. En este caso, la enemistad tiene repercusiones de vida o muerte, ya que las dos capitales no tienen mecanismos para coordinar sus esfuerzos a alto nivel". Una mórbida y deleznable explotación de la desgracia humana para promover una agenda ideológica.
Por otra parte, el Times no está interesado en los hechos históricos incontrovertibles que determinaron la ruptura de relaciones diplomáticas entre Washington y la tiranía castrista en 1962. El déspota que bajó ensoberbecido de su madriguera en la Sierra Maestra decidió expropiar sin compensación alguna las propiedades de corporaciones y ciudadanos norteamericanos residentes en Cuba. En los próximos 50 años, cerca de 6,000 corporaciones y ciudadanos norteamericanos han establecidos demandas contra la tiranía comunista por un monto superior a los 7,000 millones de dólares.
Como apuntamos al principio, el New York Times no está siquiera interesado en las condiciones aterrantes y miserables en que subsisten actualmente los cubanos. Condiciones que ha destacado hasta un organismo corrupto y complaciente con la tiranía cubana como la Organización de Naciones Unidas. En reiteradas ocasiones la Comisión de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas ha adoptado la medida extraordinaria de designar un Relator Especial para investigar los abusos contra los derechos humanos. El Gobierno cubano ha negado sistemáticamente el acceso al Relator Especial y ha expresado de forma oficial su decisión de no "aplicar ni una coma" de las resoluciones de las Naciones Unidas por las que se designa el Relator.
Si en vez de parcializarse con la tiranía el Times quiere solidarizarse con la tragedia del pueblo cubano no tiene que dirigirse a Obama sino a los Castro. Ellos son quienes mantienen un embargo interno y son los responsables del embargo externo. Todo lo que tienen que hacer es irse con sus arcas llenas de dinero más allá del alcance de la justicia que, de no irse, un día no lejano les aplicara su pueblo.
La Ley de la Libertad Cubana y Solidaridad Democrática, más conocida por los nombres de sus principales promotores, el senador por Carolina del Norte, Jesse Helms, y el representante por Illinois, Dan Burton, especifica con claridad las condiciones para el levantamiento del embargo. En tal sentido, estipula: "Cuando el Presidente de los Estados Unidos determine que se encuentra en el poder un gobierno cubano de transición, y notifique esa determinación ante los comités pertinentes del Congreso de los Estados Unidos, tras celebrar consultas con el Congreso, quedará autorizado a tomar medidas destinadas a suspender el embargo económico de Cuba".
Por desgracia, las decisiones humanas no siempre son tomadas a la luz de la razón o determinadas por la justicia. Los tiranos cubanos están empecinados en morir en el poder y el New York Times no está dispuesto a reconocer su error de publicar la entrevista en que Herbert Mathews resucitó a un Fidel Castro que muchos creían muerto y lo presentó como un Robin Hood que sacaría a los cubanos de la opresión y de la miseria. Pero la opresión de Batista devino en la represión de Castro y la miseria anterior a la tiranía castrista, cuando se le compara con la existencia miserable y paupérrima del 95 por ciento de los cubanos en la actualidad, es recordada hoy como una época de opulencia y de relativa libertad.
No puedo cerrar este artículo sin hacer referencia al logo altisonante del New York Times: "All the News That's Fit to Print." ("Todas las noticias dignas de ser impresas".) Palabras que no son capaces de encubrir los prejuicios de su línea editorial y la manipulación de sus informaciones. Se me ocurre que un lema más descriptivo de su forma de enfocar los acontecimientos del mundo sería; "Toda la basura que aguante el papel".
La Nueva Nación es una publicación independiente cuyas metas son la defensa de la libertad, la preservación de la democracia y la promoción de la libre empresa. Visítenos en :

Amenper: Práctico es mejor que Decorativo.
Imagen sobre substancia, como a Rush Limbaugh le gusta describir la corrección política o escoger lo funcional sobre superfluo, como nos gusta razonar a los que preferimos una vida pragmática sobre una decorativa, todo es lo mismo, todo se puede resumir en el prosaico dicho cubano
“No te puedes tirar el peo más alto que el culo”.
Lo principal para responsabilidad económica es el simple axioma de que no podemos gastar más de los que ganamos, que tenemos que crearnos un presupuesto ajustando nuestros gastos a nuestros ingresos, ya se trate de algo individual, comercial o el gobierno.
Pero cuando el gobierno da el ejemplo keynesiano de pedir prestado sin parar los gastos, no es de extrañar que los ciudadanos piensen que ellos pueden hacer los mismo, y que el dinero que le falte lo pueden conseguir pidiendo más prestado y recibiendo ayuda del gobierno, porque después de todo el gobierno siempre tiene dinero, si no lo tiene lo pide prestado o sube los impuestos.  Además, si eso lo hacen los "inteligentes" del gobierno, ¿Por qué no lo van a hacer ellos?
Claro que nuestros problemas económicos se deben a los vientos socialistas.  La burbuja hipotecaria fue causada por los bancos creados para dar hipotecas as personas que no estaban calificadas y no las podían pagar, y la flojera de Bush para oponerse a los liberales que habían creado el problema contribuyó a la explosión de la burbuja. 
Esto igual que cuando vemos personas con vestidos de modas y joyas pagando con sellos de alimentos en los mercados, es un problema del tipo de medidas socialistas con la dependencia irresponsable, que se han ido implantando en la nación progresivamente por muchos años.
Pero no puede el gobierno crear esta situación sin la complicidad del ciudadano.  No puede haber fraude al Medicare o el Medicaid sin la complicidad del recipiente, no puede haber una hipoteca que miran a otro lado con las calificaciones falsas, sin que haya personas que falsifican sus calificaciones.  No nos tendríamos que enfrentar a la próxima burbuja de las tarjetas de crédito, sin que haya personas que quieren vivir un estilo de vida por arriba de sus ingresos pagando con un dinero plástico que no tiene substancia si después no lo puedes pagar..
Hay un dicho español que dice que “Si el pillo supiera las ventajas de ser honrado, sería honrado por pillería”.  Creo que es lo mismo con la responsabilidad, si la persona irresponsable, supiera las ventajas de vivir con la tranquilidad de vivir de acuerdo con sus medios, sin los costosos ornamentos de la vanidad, serían responsables por vanidad.
¿No es mejor vivir en una casa funcional que esté pagada o con un pago que se ajuste a nuestros ingresos, que vivir en zozobra en una casa millonaria ostensosa en la que no podemos pagar la mensualidad al banco?
Según el centro de investigación nacional de quiebras, las declaraciones de bancarrota de habían duplicado desde a finales de 2008. Nos dicen que quiebra alivia la ansiedad de la carga del deudor.
Pero esto no sólo es injusto para el vendedor o el prestador, pero para la persona que se declara en bancarrota, porque la culpa y la ansiedad persiste, generalmente continuará los malos hábitos de la persona y el problema del dinero volverá a aparecer otra vez.
La ansiedad opresiva a que nos enfrentamos hoy también nos está diciendo algo, pero a diferencia de la situación de lucha o huída relativamente breve, se activa en respuesta a un estresor externo que no podemos controlar con los mecanismos de defensa a nuestra disposición.
La verdad es que la  ansiedad de una persona, un negocio o un gobierno le está diciendo algo acerca de su estilo manejar sus finanzas que debe y puede cambiar.
Para un individuo, el refrán "sólo se vive una vez" puede ser trivial, pero es cierto. Si la ansiedad es causada por vivir más allá de sus posibilidades, un préstamo, un programa de gobierno, una solución  de un fármaco o una droga escapista, no son la mejor solución..
La ansiedad es la forma del cuerpo de decirnos que no se puede sostener la forma en que actualmente vivimos nuestras vidas que hay que cambiar, que tenemos que llevar una conducta responsable, que tenemos que vivir de acuerdo a un presupuesto que si gastamos más que lo que entra, eventualmente, tarde o temprano nuestra vida explotará como una bomba y la ansiedad que sentimos hoy en día se justificará por la debacle. Realmente deberíamos empezar a escuchar, tanto los individuos como nuestros gobernantes..
 Hay un consejo que oí hace tiempo y que resumen la conducta que nos evitaría muchos problemas económicos:
"No compres cosas que no puedes pagar, con dinero que no tienes para impresionar a personas que no te gustan". 

Contrary to Obama Constitution Does Not ‘Guarantee’ Same-Sex Marriage

In an interview with the New Yorker, President Obama said he thinks “the Equal Protection Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does guarantee same-sex marriage in all 50 states.” He better think again.
It seems that every new law that’s being imposed on us is built on the foundation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the most litigated part of the Constitution. It’s a legal wax nose easily shaped to fit every liberal cause.
Any group, real, imagined, or manufactured can appeal to the Fourteenth Amendment for the creation of a new set of rights.
These renegade judges are making laws out of thin air. There is no moral basis for their decision regarding sexual behavior which is fundamentally different from a person's skin color.
How is it rationally possible to think that same-sex couples, when compared to heterosexual couples that were designed to procreate and live together as a couple made one (Gen 2:24), are in the same definitional category? The Constitution does not say a thing about same-sex marriage. In fact, it doesn’t say anything about marriage. It doesn't say anything about murder, rape, stealing, etc. the Constitution rests on something more morally foundational.
There is no discrimination taking place when a statute says that people of the same sex cannot marry since the law applies to everyone equally. There is no special class called homosexuals. The entire LGBTQIAA alphabet soup is a social construct. People may want to identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, and Asexual as well as be an Ally of the movement, but making up designations does not change the fundamentals that make marriage what marriage is by Someone's design.
But how do we arrive at a definition of marriage? Lawyers who have tried to defend “traditional” marriage have done a poor job since neither they nor the courts have a moral pou sto, a moral place to stand. What basis for morality are judges using today as the foundation for their rulings? There was a time when there was a prevailing worldview where it was agreed that God was the “Supreme Judge of the world,” as the Declaration of Independence states.
Lawyers trying to defend against same-sex marriage go before judges are ill-equipped since they, like the judges they face, have made a back room deal that there is no higher law than man. Humanistic law has been the foundation for jurisprudence since Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
The first book-length critique of Darwinism was written by Charles Hodge (1797–1878), professor of systematic theology at Princeton Theological Seminary. Hodge’s What Is Darwinism? ((Charles Hodge, What is Darwinism? And Other Writings on Science and Religion, eds. Mark A. Knoll and David N. Livingstone (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994).)) was published in 1874 and expanded his earlier assessment of the theory that appeared in his multi-volume Systematic Theology[1] that was ublished in 1873. His critique of Darwinism was “based on his central objection that Darwin’s theories excluded intelligent design from any part of natural selection or evolution. Therefore, to Hodge, Darwinism was in effect atheism and by its very nature incompatible with Christianity.”[2]
Hodge wrote that Darwinism "excludes God; it excludes intelligence from everything.”
With God out of the frame, everything is permissible and flexible. If an inert chemical bath that spontaneously appeared billions of years ago can evolve into you and me, then people with incompatible sex organs can get married.
It’s here that today’s judges stand, and it’s here that defenders of so-called traditional marriage also stand. They have no defense.
Rosaria Champagne Butterfield “was a tenured English professor at Syracuse University, a skeptic of all things Christianity, and in a committed lesbian relationship. Her academic specialty was Queer Theory, a postmodern form of gay and lesbian studies. Today Butterfield is a mother of four, a homemaker, and wife of a Presbyterian pastor named Kent. They live in Durham, North Carolina.”
What made the difference? It came by way of a letter in response to an article she had written in a local newspaper. The letter was written by Ken Smith, then-pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church:
“It was a kind and inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire: How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week, confronting me with the worldview divide that demanded a response. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview, but Christianity is a supernatural worldview. Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”[3]
We need to puncture the integrity of the courts’ basis for determining what is morally right or wrong. Judges need to face a Higher Court of appeal, but this will never happen if we try to make our arguments with the same materialist worldview they are using.
Given the materialist foundation for law in our society, there is no moral basis for anything in the Fourteenth Amendment, including the abolition of slavery found in the Thirteenth Amendment.

Video: Father Helps ISIS Militants Stone Daughter as per Sharia

A young Syrian woman, accused of adultery, was sentenced to be stoned to death. Her father zealously helped carry out the death sentence.
Islamic State militant standing next to the father of the woman about to be stoned.
Islamic State militants in Syria stoned to death a young woman who they had accused of committing adultery.
According to the Arabic language news site Al-Arabiya, the stoning took place in the eastern part of the Hama province. A gruesome video of the execution was published by the media sources of the Islamic State (see below).
The video shows the victim’s father standing next an Islamic State member while facing his daughter. Using a pleasant, gentle tone, the militant explains to the woman that she is being punished for the crime of adultery.
The Islamic State member then asks the father if he’s willing to forgive his daughter. The father refuses adamantly. Turning to his daughter he adds, “I’m not your father.”
The militant again tries to convince the father to forgive his daughter before she is stoned to death, but he refuses. The daughter pleads with her father to forgive her, only to be told by him, “Don’t call me father.” In the end, the father only agrees to say, “Allah will forgive.”
The video then shows the central militant from the Islamic State turning to the woman and saying, “My sister, I want to tell you a few words. You are about to receive a punishment that Allah commanded.”
He then turns to the Muslim men, telling them that they should not leave their wives for more time that is allowed according to (Islamic)sharia law.
The woman is then covered in a blanket, with her face left exposed. Her father ties her arms at her waist and then led her to a pit. He proceeds to tie her legs together after which the Islamic State militants, together with the father, start pummeling her head with large stones.
At this point the image is blurred by the Islamic State’s video editor, however the act of the stoning can still be seen.
Towards the end of the video, music -- added by the Islamic State’s editors – accompanies the scene of the father hurling, at point blank range, one stone after another at his daughter’s head.
Warning, very graphic, disturbing images

To learn more about the Islamic State and its brutal system of sharia-based governance see Clarion Project's Factsheet: The Islamic State (ISIS, ISIL) 

$40 Million for 6 Years of Presidential Vacations

President Barack Obama’s last  three vacations cost $6.2 million.
As a friend made me think, when he sent me this story, if this man ever opens his mouth again about “income inequality” and “economic injustice,” someone needs to tell him to shut up. A Secret Service agent would be perfect. The next two years can’t be over soon enough. I’m sure he’ll add another $5-$10-million to this obscene bill to shove down our throats before he’s done.
According to the Washington Examiner,, “Taxpayers get stuck with $6.2 million tab for just 3 Obama vacations; $40m over 6 years.”
Three recent and lavish vacations by the first family cost taxpayers more than $6.2 million just for transportation and security, bringing the pleasure price for President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama’s trips to tens of millions of dollars since taking office, according to federal documents.
Taxpayer watchdog group Judicial Watch told Secrets that new cost calculations for security showed that the first family’s 2012-2013 vacation to Honolulu and the first lady’s 2014 ski trip to Aspen, Colo., reached nearly $1 million.
The Feds also coughed up the cost for flying the first lady to Aspen this year: $34,962.

10 Things About The U.S. News Media That They Do Not Want You To Know

Do you trust the news media?  Do you believe that the information that they are giving you is true and accurate?  If you answered yes to either of those questions, that places you in a steadily shrinking minority.  Yes, on average Americans watch approximately 153 hours of television a month, but for their news they are increasingly turning to alternative sources of information such as this website.  Big news channels such as CNN, MSNBC and Fox News are losing hordes of viewers, and they are desperately searching for answers.  Things have gotten so bad at CNN that they have been forced to lay off hundreds of workers.  The mainstream media is slowly dying, but they will never admit it.  They are still convinced that they can find some way to turn this around and regain the trust of the American people.  But it simply is not going to happen.  The following are 10 things about the U.S. news media that they do not want you to know...
#1 The level of trust in the U.S. news media is at an all-time low.
According to a Gallup survey that was conducted last month, only 40 percent of all Americans have a "great deal/fair amount" of confidence in the mass media.  That ties the lowest level that Gallup has ever recorded.
#2 The news media is far more liberal than the American people.
We hear much about the supposed "conservative bias" of Fox News, but the truth is that overall the U.S. public considers the news media to be extremely liberal.  Gallup found that 44 percent of all Americans consider the news media to be "too liberal", and only 19 percent of all Americans consider the news media to be "too conservative".
And it is a fact that "journalists" are far more likely to give money to Democrats than to Republicans.  The following comes from an MSNBC report... identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
#3 Fox News is not nearly as "conservative" as you think that it is.
Fox News may be constantly promoting a "Republican agenda", but that does not mean that it is conservative.  This is especially true when it comes to social issues.  Some of their anchors are extremely socially liberal, one of the top executives at Fox News is a big Hillary Clinton supporter, and 21st Century Fox/News Corp. has given the Clintons more than 3 million dollars since 1992.
#4 MSNBC is in a death spiral.
After years of lying to the American people, the credibility of MSNBC is absolutely shot.  Pretty much all MSNBC does is endlessly spew establishment propaganda.  One study found that MSNBC only engages in 15 percent "factual reporting" and the other 85 percent is "commentary/opinion".
So it should be no surprise that only 6 percent of Americans consider MSNBC to be their most trusted source for news...
NBC News and sister cable network MSNBC rank at the bottom of media outlets Americans trust most for news, with Fox News leading the way, according to a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.
In its fifth trust poll, 35 percent said they trusted Fox news more than any other outlet, followed by PBS at 14 percent, ABC at 11 percent, CNN at 10 percent, CBS at 9 percent, 6 percent for MSNBC and Comedy Central, and just 3 percent for NBC.
#5 Americans are increasingly turning to Facebook and other Internet sources for their news.
At least that is what one recent survey discovered.  It found that an astounding 48 percent of Americans got news about government and politics from Facebook within the past week.  The numbers for CNN and Fox News were just 44 percent and 39 percent respectively.
#6 Over the past year or so the big three cable news networks have lost an unprecedented number of viewers. 
According to a Pew Research study, the number of prime time viewers for all three networks combined declined by 11 percent in 2013...
In 2013, the cable news audience, by nearly all measures, declined. The combined median prime-time viewership of the three major news channels—CNN, Fox News and MSNBC—dropped 11% to about 3 million, the smallest it has been since 2007. The Nielsen Media Research data show that the biggest decline came at MSNBC, which lost nearly a quarter (24%) of its prime-time audience. CNN, under new management, ended its fourth year in third place, with a 13% decline in prime time. Fox, while down 6%, still drew more viewers (1.75 million) than its two competitors combined (619,500 at MSNBC and 543,000 at CNN).
The decline was even more dramatic for the critical 25 to 54-year-old demographic.  From November 2012 to November 2013, CNN's ratings for that demographic plunged by a whopping 59 percent, and MSNBC's ratings for that demographic plummeted by 52 percent.
#7 The big news networks have a love affair with the Obama administration.
Yes, there are reporters that get annoyed by the petty press rules that Obama makes them follow and by their lack of access to the president, but overall there is a tremendously incestuous relationship between the Obama administration and the mainstream news media.
For example, did you know that the president of CBS and the president of ABC both have brothers that have served as top officials in the Obama administration?
And needless to say, Barack Obama does not care for the alternative media much at all.  The following is an excerpt from a WND article...
NBC News Political Director Chuck Todd says President Obama was making it “clear” at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner over the weekend how he feels about the rise of Internet news sites like Politico, Buzzfeed and … well, WND.
“He hates it.”
Appearing on “Meet the Press” Sunday morning following Saturday night’s media, politics and celebrity soiree, Todd explained the president’s disdain for independent online news sources was showing during his speech.
“It did seem … I thought his pot shots, joke-wise, and then the serious stuff about the Internet, the rise of the Internet media and social media and all that stuff – he hates it, OK? He hates this part of the media,” Todd said. “He really thinks that the, sort of, the buzzification – this isn’t just about Buzzfeed or Politico and all this stuff – he thinks that sort of coverage of political media has hurt political discourse. He hates it. And I think he was just trying to make that clear last night.”
#8 Newspaper ad revenues are about a third of what they were back in the year 2000. 
Yes, you read that correctly.  As Americans have discarded the print versions of their newspapers, newspaper ad revenues have experienced a decline that is absolutely unprecedented...
It took a half century for annual newspaper print ad revenue to gradually increase from $20 billion in 1950 (adjusted for inflation in 2013 dollars) to $65.8 billion in 2000, and then it took only 12 years to go from $65.8 billion in ad revenues back to less than $20 billion in 2012, before falling further to $17.3 billion last year.
#9 News magazines are also experiencing a dramatic multi-year decline in ad revenues. 
Once upon a time, news magazines such as Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report were must reads.
But those days are long gone.
Ad revenues are way down across the entire industry, and any magazine that can keep their yearly losses to the single digits is applauded for it...
For a third year in a row, news magazines faced a difficult print advertising environment. Combined ad pages (considered a better measure than ad revenue) for the five magazines studied in this report were down 13% in 2013, following a decline of 12.5% in 2012, and about three times the rate of decline in 2011, according to the Publishers Information Bureau. Again, hardest hit was The Week, which suffered a 20% drop in ad pages. The Atlantic fell 17%, The Economist 16%, and Time about 11%, while The New Yorker managed to keep its ad pages losses in single digits (7%).
#10 Even though the mainstream media is dying, they still have an overwhelmingly dominant position.
What would you say if I told you that there are just six enormous media conglomerates that combine to produce about 90 percent of all the media that Americans consume?
If you do not believe this, please see my previous article entitled "Who Owns The Media? The 6 Monolithic Corporations That Control Almost Everything We Watch, Hear And Read"?
This is why "the news" seems to be so similar no matter what channel you watch.
But we aren't just talking about control of the news media.  These giant media corporations also own movie studios, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses, video game makers, music labels and even many of our favorite websites.
So we should be thankful that their media monopoly is finally crumbling.
Nobody should have that much power over what the American people see, hear and think about.
What is your perspective on all of this?  Please feel free to share your thoughts on the U.S. news media by posting a comment below...

Obama Insists ‘I’m Doing Pretty Good’ as President

President Obama — who just came off a poll that showed his favor with America had dropped to an all-time low — nonetheless told a high-dollar fundraising crowd that he’s doing “pretty good” and that all’s well on the White House front.
“Whenever people ask me how I’m going, I say, ‘Actually, I’m doing pretty good,’ ” Mr. Obama said, The Hill reported. “I love the work. It is an extraordinary privilege to every single day work on behalf of the American people.”
The president did recognize that the Islamic State situation had created a “sense of urgency overseas,” along with Ebola and Russia’s aggression into Ukraine, The Hill said. But despite all, his outlook was positive — especially since Ebola has only claimed one life on U.S. soil, he said.
“So far, we’ve only got one person dying of Ebola, but people are understandably concerned in part because they’ve seen what’s happened in Africa,” Mr. Obama said, The Hill reported. “This is a virulent disease and it is up to us to once again mobilize the world’s community to do something about it — to make sure that not only we’re helping on a humanitarian basis those countries, but we’re not seeing a continued epidemic and outbreak that can have a serious impact here.

Dem to Obama: Ineptitude Has Sunk from Annoying to Embarrassing

Obama has shown America what liberalism is all about.
Check it out:
The relationship between the White House and Senate Democrats hit a new low Tuesday evening after the administration’s press office released a transcript of first lady Michelle Obama’s appearance in Iowa on behalf of Democratic Senate candidate Bruce Braley. The problem: The subject line of the e-mail referred to Braley as the “Democratic candidate for governor.”
The botch came after the first lady repeatedly referred to the Democratic Senate nominee as “Bruce Bailey” in a campaign appearance earlier this month—and it took an attendee in the crowd to correct her mistake. On Tuesday, she made light of the incident, reminding the audience she messed up his name last time and joking that she sometimes calls Barack Obama “Bo.” But the self-inflicted errors continued after her speech with the White House press shop’s email. At midnight, two hours after the initial press release, the White House issued a corrected e-mail that reflected his accurate title.
Indicating the sensitivity of the mistake, top Senate Democratic officials wasted no time lashing out at the Obama administration’s political team in response, suggesting it was acting like a junior varsity operation two weeks before the midterms. The slipup comes one day after President Obama told Rev. Al Sharpton on his radio show that Senate Democrats keeping their distance from him are still “folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress.” That alarmed Senate Democrats up for reelection this November, most of whom are working hard to distance themselves from an unpopular president.
“The ineptitude of the White House political operation has sunk from annoying to embarrassing,” one senior Senate Democratic aide told National Journal. Another Senate official told the Washington Post that Obama’s comments were “not devised with any input from Senate leadership.”

Ebola Can Be Transmitted Via Infectious Aerosol Particles: Health Workers Need Respirators, not Masks

CIDRAP Editor’s Note: Today’s commentary was submitted to CIDRAP by the authors, who are national experts on respiratory protection and infectious disease transmission. In May they published a similar commentary on MERS-CoV. Dr Brosseau is a Professor and Dr Jones an Assistant Professor in the School of Public Health, Division of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Healthcare workers play a very important role in the successful containment of outbreaks of infectious diseases like Ebola. The correct type and level of personal protective equipment (PPE) ensures that healthcare workers remain healthy throughout an outbreak—and with the current rapidly expanding Ebola outbreak in West Africa, it’s imperative to favor more conservative measures.
The precautionary principle—that any action designed to reduce risk should not await scientific certainty—compels the use of respiratory protection for a pathogen like Ebola virus that has:
·         No proven pre- or post-exposure treatment modalities
·         A high case-fatality rate
·         Unclear modes of transmission
We believe there is scientific and epidemiologic evidence that Ebola virus has the potential to be transmitted via infectious aerosol particles both near and at a distance from infected patients, which means that healthcare workers should be wearing respirators, not facemasks.1
The minimum level of protection in high-risk settings should be a respirator with an assigned protection factor greater than 10. A powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) with a hood or helmet offers many advantages over an N95 filtering facepiece or similar respirator, being more protective, comfortable, and cost-effective in the long run.
We strongly urge the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) to seek funds for the purchase and transport of PAPRs to all healthcare workers currently fighting the battle against Ebola throughout Africa—and beyond.
There has been a lot of on-line and published controversy about whether Ebola virus can be transmitted via aerosols. Most scientific and medical personnel, along with public health organizations, have been unequivocal in their statements that Ebola can be transmitted only by direct contact with virus-laden fluids2,3 and that the only modes of transmission we should be concerned with are those termed “droplet” and “contact.”
These statements are based on two lines of reasoning. The first is that no one located at a distance from an infected individual has contracted the disease, or the converse, every person infected has had (or must have had) “direct” contact with the body fluids of an infected person.
This reflects an incorrect and outmoded understanding of infectious aerosols, which has been institutionalized in policies, language, culture, and approaches to infection control. We will address this below. Briefly, however, the important points are that virus-laden bodily fluids may be aerosolized and inhaled while a person is in proximity to an infectious person and that a wide range of particle sizes can be inhaled and deposited throughout the respiratory tract.
The second line of reasoning is that respirators or other control measures for infectious aerosols cannot be recommended in developing countries because the resources, time, and/or understanding for such measures are lacking.4
Although there are some important barriers to the use of respirators, especially PAPRs, in developing countries, healthcare workers everywhere deserve and should be afforded the same best-practice types of protection, regardless of costs and resources. Every healthcare worker is a precious commodity whose well-being ensures everyone is protected.
If we are willing to offer infected US healthcare workers expensive treatments and experimental drugs free of charge when most of the world has no access to them, we wonder why we are unwilling to find the resources to provide appropriate levels of comparatively less expensive respiratory protection to every healthcare worker around the world.
How are infectious diseases transmitted via aerosols?
Medical and infection control professionals have relied for years on a paradigm for aerosol transmission of infectious diseases based on very outmoded research and an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. In the 1940s and 50s, William F. Wells and other “aerobiologists” employed now significantly out-of-date sampling methods (eg, settling plates) and very blunt analytic approaches (eg, cell culturing) to understand the movement of bacterial aerosols in healthcare and other settings. Their work, though groundbreaking at the time, provides a very incomplete picture.
Early aerobiologists were not able to measure small particles near an infectious person and thus assumed such particles existed only far from the source. They concluded that organisms capable of aerosol transmission (termed “airborne”) can only do so at around 3 feet or more from the source. Because they thought that only larger particles would be present near the source, they believed people would be exposed only via large “droplets” on their face, eyes, or nose.
Modern research, using more sensitive instruments and analytic methods, has shown that aerosols emitted from the respiratory tract contain a wide distribution of particle sizes—including many that are small enough to be inhaled.5,6 Thus, both small and large particles will be present near an infectious person.
The chance of large droplets reaching the facial mucous membranes is quite small, as the nasal openings are small and shielded by their external and internal structure. Although close contact may permit large-droplet exposure, it also maximizes the possibility of aerosol inhalation.
As noted by early aerobiologists, liquid in a spray aerosol, such as that generated during coughing or sneezing, will quickly evaporate,7 which increases the concentration of small particles in the aerosol. Because evaporation occurs in milliseconds, many of these particles are likely to be found near the infectious person.
The current paradigm also assumes that only “small” particles (less than 5 micrometers [mcm]) can be inhaled and deposited in the respiratory tract. This is not true. Particles as large as 100 mcm (and perhaps even larger) can be inhaled into the mouth and nose. Larger particles are deposited in the nasal passages, pharynx, and upper regions of the lungs, while smaller particles are more likely to deposit in the lower, alveolar regions. And for many pathogens, infection is possible regardless of the particle size or deposition site.
It’s time to abandon the old paradigm of three mutually exclusive transmission routes for a new one that considers the full range of particle sizes both near and far from a source. In addition, we need to factor in other important features of infectivity, such as the ability of a pathogen to remain viable in air at room temperature and humidity and the likelihood that systemic disease can result from deposition of infectious particles in the respiratory system or their transfer to the gastrointestinal tract.
We recommend using “aerosol transmissible” rather than the outmoded terms “droplet” or “airborne” to describe pathogens that can transmit disease via infectious particles suspended in air.
Is Ebola an aerosol-transmissible disease?
We recently published a commentary on the CIDRAP site discussing whether Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, especially in healthcare settings. We drew comparisons with a similar and more well-studied disease, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS).
For Ebola and other filoviruses, however, there is much less information and research on disease transmission and survival, especially in healthcare settings.
Being at first skeptical that Ebola virus could be an aerosol-transmissible disease, we are now persuaded by a review of experimental and epidemiologic data that this might be an important feature of disease transmission, particularly in healthcare settings.
What do we know about Ebola transmission?
No one knows for certain how Ebola virus is transmitted from one person to the next. The virus has been found in the saliva, stool, breast milk, semen, and blood of infected persons.8,9 Studies of transmission in Ebola virus outbreaks have identified activities like caring for an infected person, sharing a bed, funeral activities, and contact with blood or other body fluids to be key risk factors for transmission.10-12
On the basis of epidemiologic evidence, it has been presumed that Ebola viruses are transmitted by contaminated hands in contact with the mouth or eyes or broken skin or by splashes or sprays of body fluids into these areas. Ebola viruses appear to be capable of initiating infection in a variety of human cell types,13,14 but the primary portal or portals of entry into susceptible hosts have not been identified.
Some pathogens are limited in the cell type and location they infect. Influenza, for example, is generally restricted to respiratory epithelial cells, which explains why flu is primarily a respiratory infection and is most likely aerosol transmissible. HIV infects T-helper cells in the lymphoid tissues and is primarily a bloodborne pathogen with low probability for transmission via aerosols.
Ebola virus, on the other hand, is a broader-acting and more non-specific pathogen that can impede the proper functioning of macrophages and dendritic cells—immune response cells located throughout the epithelium.15,16 Epithelial tissues are found throughout the body, including in the respiratory tract. Ebola prevents these cells from carrying out their antiviral functions but does not interfere with the initial inflammatory response, which attracts additional cells to the infection site. The latter contribute to further dissemination of the virus and similar adverse consequences far beyond the initial infection site.
The potential for transmission via inhalation of aerosols, therefore, cannot be ruled out by the observed risk factors or our knowledge of the infection process. Many body fluids, such as vomit, diarrhea, blood, and saliva, are capable of creating inhalable aerosol particles in the immediate vicinity of an infected person. Cough was identified among some cases in a 1995 outbreak in Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo,11 and coughs are known to emit viruses in respirable particles.17The act of vomiting produces an aerosol and has been implicated in airborne transmission of gastrointestinal viruses.18,19 Regarding diarrhea, even when contained by toilets, toilet flushing emits a pathogen-laden aerosol that disperses in the air.20-22
Experimental work has shown that Marburg and Ebola viruses can be isolated from sera and tissue culture medium at room temperature for up to 46 days, but at room temperature no virus was recovered from glass, metal, or plastic surfaces.23 Aerosolized (1-3 mcm) Marburg, Ebola, and Reston viruses, at 50% to 55% relative humidity and 72°F, had biological decay rates of 3.04%, 3.06%. and 1.55% per minute, respectively. These rates indicate that 99% loss in aerosol infectivity would occur in 93, 104, and 162 minutes, respectively.23
In still air, 3-mcm particles can take up to an hour to settle. With air currents, these and smaller particles can be transported considerable distances before they are deposited on a surface.
There is also some experimental evidence that Ebola and other filoviruses can be transmitted by the aerosol route. Jaax et al24 reported the unexpected death of two rhesus monkeys housed approximately 3 meters from monkeys infected with Ebola virus, concluding that respiratory or eye exposure to aerosols was the only possible explanation.
Zaire Ebola viruses have also been transmitted in the absence of direct contact among pigs25 and from pigs to non-human primates,26 which experienced lung involvement in infection. Persons with no known direct contact with Ebola virus disease patients or their bodily fluids have become infected.12
Direct injection and exposure via a skin break or mucous membranes are the most efficient ways for Ebola to transmit. It may be that inhalation is a less efficient route of transmission for Ebola and other filoviruses, as lung involvement has not been reported in all non-human primate studies of Ebola aerosol infectivity.27 However, the respiratory and gastrointestinal systems are not complete barriers to Ebola virus. Experimental studies have demonstrated that it is possible to infect non-human primates and other mammals with filovirus aerosols.25-27
Altogether, these epidemiologic and experimental data offer enough evidence to suggest that Ebola and other filoviruses may be opportunistic with respect to aerosol transmission.28 That is, other routes of entry may be more important and probable, but, given the right conditions, it is possible that transmission could also occur via aerosols.
Guidance from the CDC and WHO recommends the use of facemasks for healthcare workers providing routine care to patients with Ebola virus disease and respirators when aerosol-generating procedures are performed. (Interestingly, the 1998 WHO and CDC infection-control guidance for viral hemorrhagic fevers in Africa, still available on the CDC Web site, recommends the use of respirators.)
Facemasks, however, do not offer protection against inhalation of small infectious aerosols, because they lack adequate filters and do not fit tightly against the face.1 Therefore, a higher level of protection is necessary.
Which respirator to wear?
As described in our earlier CIDRAP commentary, we can use a Canadian control-banding approach to select the most appropriate respirator for exposures to Ebola in healthcare settings.29 (See this document for a detailed description of the Canadian control banding approach and the data used to select respirators in our examples below.)
The control banding method involves the following steps:
1.      Identify the organism’s risk group (1 to 4). Risk group reflects the toxicity of an organism, including the degree and type of disease and whether treatments are available. Ebola is in risk group 4, the most toxic organisms, because it can cause serious human or animal disease, is easily transmitted, directly or indirectly, and currently has no effective treatments or preventive measures.
2.      Identify the generation rate. The rate of aerosol generation reflects the number of particles created per time (eg, particles per second). Some processes, such as coughing, create more aerosols than others, like normal breathing. Some processes, like intubation and toilet flushing, can rapidly generate very large quantities of aerosols. The control banding approach assigns a qualitative rank ranging from low (1) to high (4) (eg, normal breathing without coughing has a rank of 1).
3.      Identify the level of control. Removing contaminated air and replacing it with clean air, as accomplished with a ventilation system, is effective for lowering the overall concentration of infectious aerosol particles in a space, although it may not be effective at lowering concentration in the immediate vicinity of a source. The number of air changes per hour (ACH) reflects the rate of air removal and replacement. This is a useful variable, because it is relatively easy to measure and, for hospitals, reflects building code requirements for different types of rooms. Again, a qualitative ranking is used to reflect low (1) versus high (4) ACH. Even if the true ventilation rate is not known, the examples can be used to select an appropriate air exchange rate.
4.      Identify the respirator assigned protection factor. Respirators are designated by their “class,” each of which has an assigned protection factor (APF) that reflects the degree of protection. The APF represents the outside, environmental concentration divided by the inside, facepiece concentration. An APF of 10 means that the outside concentration of a particular contaminant will be 10 times greater than that inside the respirator. If the concentration outside the respirator is very high, an assigned protection factor of 10 may not prevent the wearer from inhaling an infective dose of a highly toxic organism.
Practical examples
Two examples follow. These assume that infectious aerosols are generated only during vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, or similar high-energy emissions such as some medical procedures. It is possible that Ebola virus may be shed as an aerosol in other manners not considered.
Caring for a patient in the early stages of disease (no bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, coughing, sneezing, etc). In this case, the generation rate is 1. For any level of control (less than 3 to more than 12 ACH), the control banding wheel indicates a respirator protection level of 1 (APF of 10), which corresponds to an air purifying (negative pressure) half-facepiece respirator such as an N95 filtering facepiece respirator. This type of respirator requires fit testing.
Caring for a patient in the later stages of disease (bleeding, vomiting, diarrhea, etc).If we assume the highest generation rate (4) and a standard patient room (control level = 2, 3-6 ACH), a respirator with an APF of at least 50 is needed. In the United States, this would be equivalent to either a full-facepiece air-purifying (negative-pressure) respirator or a half-facepiece PAPR (positive pressure), but standards differ in other countries. Fit testing is required for these types of respirators.
The control level (room ventilation) can have a big effect on respirator selection. For the same patient housed in a negative-pressure airborne infection isolation room (6-12 ACH), a respirator with an assigned protection factor of 25 is required. This would correspond in the United States to a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece or with a helmet or hood. This type of respirator does not need fit testing.
Implications for protecting health workers in Africa
Healthcare workers have experienced very high rates of morbidity and mortality in the past and current Ebola virus outbreaks. A facemask, or surgical mask, offers no or very minimal protection from infectious aerosol particles. As our examples illustrate, for a risk group 4 organism like Ebola, the minimum level of protection should be an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.
This type of respirator, however, would only be appropriate only when the likelihood of aerosol exposure is very low. For healthcare workers caring for many patients in an epidemic situation, this type of respirator may not provide an adequate level of protection.
For a risk group 4 organism, any activity that has the potential for aerosolizing liquid body fluids, such as medical or disinfection procedures, should be avoided, if possible. Our risk assessment indicates that a PAPR with a full facepiece (APF = 50) or a hood or helmet (APF = 25) would be a better choice for patient care during epidemic conditions.
We recognize that PAPRs present some logistical and infection-control problems. Batteries require frequent charging (which requires a reliable source of electricity), and the entire ensemble requires careful handling and disinfection between uses. A PAPR is also more expensive to buy and maintain than other types of respirators.
On the other hand, a PAPR with a loose-fitting facepiece (hood or helmet) does not require fit testing. Wearing this type of respirator minimizes the need for other types of PPE, such as head coverings and goggles. And, most important, it is much more comfortable to wear than a negative-pressure respirator like an N95, especially in hot environments.
A recent report from a Medecins Sans Frontieres healthcare worker in Sierra Leone30 notes that healthcare workers cannot tolerate the required PPE for more than 40 minutes. Exiting the workplace every 40 minutes requires removal and disinfection or disposal (burning) of all PPE. A PAPR would allow much longer work periods, use less PPE, require fewer doffing episodes, generate less infectious waste, and be more protective. In the long run, we suspect this type of protection could also be less expensive.
Adequate protection is essential
To summarize, for the following reasons we believe that Ebola could be an opportunistic aerosol-transmissible disease requiring adequate respiratory protection:
·         Patients and procedures generate aerosols, and Ebola virus remains viable in aerosols for up to 90 minutes.
·         All sizes of aerosol particles are easily inhaled both near to and far from the patient.
·         Crowding, limited air exchange, and close interactions with patients all contribute to the probability that healthcare workers will be exposed to high concentrations of very toxic infectious aerosols.
·         Ebola targets immune response cells found in all epithelial tissues, including in the respiratory and gastrointestinal system.
·         Experimental data support aerosols as a mode of disease transmission in non-human primates.
Risk level and working conditions suggest that a PAPR will be more protective, cost-effective, and comfortable than an N95 filtering facepiece respirator.
We thank Kathleen Harriman, PhD, MPH, RN, Chief, Vaccine Preventable Diseases Epidemiology Section, Immunization Branch, California Department of Public Health, and Nicole Vars McCullough, PhD, CIH, Manager, Global Technical Services, Personal Safety Division, 3M Company, for their input and review.

Estamos Completamente Preparados Para Mantener a los Floridanos y Visitantes Seguros.      Governor Rick Scott

Aunque no tenemos casos confirmados de Ébola en la Florida, y esperamos que nunca tengamos un caso de Ébola, seguimos trabajando con proveedores de atención médica a través del estado y el CDC para asegurar que todas las precauciones necesarias se lleven a cabo para proteger a nuestros ciudadanos y visitantes. Es por eso que hemos tomado acción.

-Se le pidió a los hospitales de la Florida a que establecieran programas obligatorios de entrenamiento para el Ébola para proteger a los profesionales de atención médica. Hasta la fecha, 92 hospitales han completado su entrenamiento profesional de atención médica. AHCA segué en comunicación diaria con los hospitales para asegurar que el entrenamiento se ha completado.

-El departamento de salud también ha indentificado $7 millones de dólares en fondos federales que la Florida puede usar para comprar equipo de protección personal (PPEs) y otros equipos para fortalecer nuestros efuerzos.

-La Guardia Nacional de la Florida está incrementando sus esfuerzos de preparación mediante la creación de dos equipos de acción rápida que podrán proporcionar servicios de salud para posibles casos de Ébola en la Florida.

Mientras hemos aumentado nuestros esfuerzos de preparación al nivel estatal, hemos continuado presionando al CDC para que mejore sus esfuerzos para proteger a la Florida. Hemos pedido al gobierno federal a que agregue los aeropuertos de la Florida a la lista de los aeropuertos que están aplicando una inspección adicional para los pasajeros. En este momento, cinco aeropuertos de Estados Unidos han puesto en marcha estos exámenes adicionales, y los aeropuertos de la Florida deben ser incluidos. También seguimos pidiéndole al CDC que proporcione 30 kits de pruebas adicionales para cubrir a todos los hospitales públicos de la Florida. Hasta la fecha, elCDC sólo ha ofrecido tres de estos kits.

Continuamos haciendo todo lo necesario para asegurar que estamos preparados. Para obtener más información sobre qué se puede hacer para protegerse y proteger a sus seres queridos, visite los siguientes sitios web (en inglés):

   Rick Scott

Elena Enriquez: Guess Who's Moving?

GE  is Moving from Wisconsin.  Keep your eye on  Waukesha , Wisconsin ......
                    Their biggest employer just moved out.
                             General Electric is planning to move its 115-year-old  X-ray division from Waukesha, Wis.,  to Beijing.
                     In addition to moving the  headquarters, the company will invest        $2 billion in China  and train more than 65 engineers and create six  research centers. This is the same GE that made $5.1 billion in the United States last year, but paid no taxes - the same company that employs more people  overseas than it does in the United States .
          So let me get this straight. President Obama appointed GE Chairman Jeff Immelt to head his commission on job creation (job czar). Immelt is       supposed to help create jobs.  I guess the President forgot to tell him in which country he was supposed to be creating those jobs. 
Thanks  Jeff, you're a "real" American.... and give Obama our Best!               
          If this doesn't show you the total lack of  leadership of this President, I don't know what does.
                    Please  pass this information to others and think about it  before you buy a GE  product.

Sugerencias para las próximas elecciones Noviembre Martes 4:
Consideren a los siguientes candidatos y a las explicaciones que los acompañan en la mayoría de los casos.  También les sugiero que consideren como votar en las enmiendas y las explicaciones que las acompañan.  Pero cada uno de Uds. sabrá cómo quieren votar ese día.
1.  Para gobernador y vicegobernador: Rick Scott y Carlos López Cantera.  Rick Scott tomó las riendas del estado en un momento en que el desempleo estaba sumamente alto y miles de familias tenían sus propiedades en foreclosure.  Charlie Cris fue republicano, independiente y ahora demócrata.  Dice que va a subir el salario mínimo y ésto suena muy lindo, pero eso es una función del gobierno federal y no el de un estado.  Ninguno de los candidatos son santos pero hay veces que hay que elegir el menos de dos males.
2.  Para fiscal general:  Pam Bondi
3.  Para Funcionario Principal de Finanzas:  Jeff Atwater
4.  Para Comisionado de Agricultura:  Adam Putnam
5.  Representante ante el Congreso, Distrito 23:  Joseph "Joe" Kaufman
6.  Representante ante el Congreso, Distrito 24:  Carlos Curbelo.  José "Joe" García es su oponente.  Esta en estos momentos siendo investigado por un caso federal y no olvidemos que el dice que "Communism works."
7.  Representante Estatal, Distrito 100:  Martin a. "Marty" Feigenbaum
8.  Representante Estatal, Distrito 103:  Manny Díaz, Jr.  No tiene nada que ver con el que fué alcalde de la Ciudad de Miami y terminó siendo millonario en pocos años.
9.  Representante Estatal, Distrito 105:  Carlos Trujillo
10. Representante Estatal, Distrito 110:  Jose Oliva
11. Representante Estatal, Distrito 111:  Votar por uno 
12. Representante Estatal, Distrito 112:  Daniel Díaz Leyva
13. Representante Estatal, Distrito 114:  Erik Fresen
14. Representante Estatal, Distrito 115:  Michael Bileca
15. Representante Estatal, Distrito 116:  Jose Felíx Díaz/Carmen Sotomayor
16. Representante Estatal, Distrito 118:  Frank Artiles
17. Representante Estatal, Distrito 119:  Jeanette M. Nuñez
18: Tasador de Inmuebles:  Pedro J. García.  El ha estudiado toda su vida para esa posición.  Gracias a el, nuestros impuestos a la propiedad bajaron cuando el estaba en ese cargo.  Su contrincante es Eddy Gonzalez, no luce una mala persona, pero no sabe mucho sobre la posición de tasador ya que por años fué un Representante Estatal.  
19. Enmienda #1-Water and Land Convervation-Conservación de Aguas y Tierras:  No.  (Suena bonito, sobre todo cuando dicen que no nos subiran nuestros impuestos.  Aqui es para que el gobierno sigan comprando tierras y más tierras y hacer más y más regulaciones.  ¿Sabian que apróximadamente el 80% de las tierras del estado de Nevada han sido compradas por el gobierno?  Todo en nombre del calentamiento global, etc.-  Esto se pica y se extiende!!!)  Tengan mucho cuidado porque el lobo viene vestido de obeja.
20. Enmienda #2-Marihuana:  No.  Ya el estado de la Florida tiene la ley Charlotte Webb firmada por el gobernador Rick Scott que permite la venta de la marihuna medicinal a personas que de verdad lo necesitan.  Lean lo que ha pasado en el estado de Colorado después que ellos votaron a favor.  Ahora la mayoria de los usuarios son jovenes entre los 20 y los 35 años.  Ya estan haciendo galleticas de marihuana y hasta un aceite de cocinar de marihuana.  La marihuana es adictiva, afecta al cerebro y es el primer paso al uso de drogas mas fuertes.  Suena muy bonito como no las quieren vender.
21.  Enmienda #3-Nombramiento Eventual para Ciertos Cargos Judiciales Vacantes:  No.  Esta perfecto de la manera que se hace.  No hace falta que cambien el proceso que esta en vigencia hoy en día.  Eso le daria un poder a los gobernadores de poner a sus amigos ya Uds. saben para que.
22.  Preguntas del Condado-Enmienda para permitir bibliotecas en parques:  No.  Ya tenemos suficientes bibliotecas y con las que tenemos ellos tienens problemas asi que como ahora ellos quieren bibliotecas en los parques.  Parece que le esta patinando el coco.
23.  Preguntas del Condado-  Eximir al Parque Regional de Fútbol de Miami-Dade del Articulo 7:  No.  Esto es un arma de doble filo.
24.  Preguntas del Condado-  Permitir terrenos para acampar y alojamientos/cabañas en el Parque de Matecumbe:  No.  Esto también esta dudoso.Ya tenemos bastantes lugares de alojamientos y para acampar.  Esto impactaria negativamente el medio ambiente de la zona.  ¿Quién sera el contratista y el dueño de esos alojamientos y lugares de acampar?  
25.  Enmienda para eximir del Articulo 7  la ampliación de la Universidad Internacional de la Florida en los predios de la Fería de la Juventud:  No.  FIU ya tiene bastante tierra.  Ya estan tomando tierras del otro lado de la Calle 8.  Tienen un Campo Universitario en el Norte que hay que decirle Ud.  Quiere tomar los mangos bajitos con el hecho de que le den esos terrenos.  En esos terrenos se llevan a caba muchas actividades para nuestra comunidad.  Pienso que lo mudarian para Homestead.  ¿Cuantas familias pueden ir a Homestead?  También FIU ha hecho muchas cosas en contra de los estudiantes.  Cursos lo dividen en dos sesiones para cobrar más, se quedan con parte del dinero de Florida Pre-paid,etc.  En fin, son un pulpo que lo quiren acaparar todo.  
26.  Imponer otro impuesto a la propiedad para cubrir el gasto de construir una Corte que reemplaze el edificio del Cielito Lindo:  No.  Ya no podemos con otro impuesto mas.  Si el edificio de la corte esta asi es porque el Condado la dejo ponerse asi.  ¿Dónde han estado los inspectores todos estos años?  Solo piensen lo que le pasaria a Uds. si pusieran algo fuera de codigo en su propiedad o no cortaran el pasto por un tiempo. . . Si, le iban a poner una tremenda multa.  Recuerden lo que paso con el impuesto al Jackson Hospital.  Ahora tenemos que pagar ese impuesto y el dinero que el hospital recibia del estado se lo han quitado y se los han dado a otros hospitales alrededor del estado.
27.  Juez del Condado, Grupo 19:  Frank Bocanegra
28.  ¿Se deberian retener en sus cargos los tres jueces del Tribunal de Apelaciones:  Thomas Logue, Barbara Lagoa, y Vance E. Salter?  (He tratado de encontrar información sobre ellos y la poca información que esta disponible dice que han desempeñado bien su cargo).  
Piensen en todos los puntos antes mencionados.  Recuerden, la decisión es suya.  Compartan cualquier información que piensen que es importante con sus familiares y amigos.  Pidanles que voten por cualquiera de los candidatos que ellos merecen que se merecen su voto, pero que voten.
Lázaro R. González Miño
En mi opinión

No 776 “En mi opinión”  Octubre 25, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño   EDITOR