No 912 “En mi
opinión” Marzo
26, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
CAMPUS WELCOMES TERRORISTS: Cornell
Dean Is Cool With ISIS Club On Campus [VIDEO]
This
administrator at Cornell University thinks it’d be a great idea to start an
ISIS club and bring in an ISIS member to speak, among other things.
In the
latest undercover sting operation from investigative filmmaker James O’Keefe,
an assistant dean at Cornell University has advised a journalist posing as a
Moroccan student all about how to launch a campus club with the express intent
of supporting ISIS.
The Ivy
League administrator, Joseph Scaffido, also provides counsel on how to fund the
pro-Islamist militant club so it can send “care packages, whether it be food,
water, electronics” to ISIS and Hamas — both terrorist organizations, according
to the State Department. http://clashdaily.com/2015/03/campus-welcomes-terrorists-cornell-dean-is-cool-with-isis-club-on-campus-video/
AMENPER: ¿Por qué Llora El
Nativo Americano?
Los ambientalistas
tienen razón en cuanto a debemos de mantener el planeta limpio, o sea no
debemos de botar la basura en la calle, no debemos orinarnos ni defecar en la
tierra, mucho menos hacerlo en los ríos ni botar la comida y la basura en los
ríos o en huecos en la tierra .
Pero creo que hemos
hecho avances sobre todas estas cosas, vivimos protegiendo mucho más el medio
ambiente que los nativos americanos que vivían antes de que llegaran los
colonizadores y llevaban un estilo de vida como el descripto arriba.
Entonces ¿Por qué dicen
que contaminamos el medio ambiente que nos dejaron limpio los nativos
americanos o cualquiera otra generación antes que nosotros?
La historia demuestra lo
contrario, y decir algo diferente para avanzar una agenda política es negar la
historia.
La basura ha sido un
problema desde por lo menos 10.000 A.C. cuando los seres humanos comenzaron a
alejarse de sus costumbres nómadas para establecer sociedades primitivas.
Las densidades de
población mayor resultaron en más residuos de basura y defecación que se
concentraba en una pequeña área en América del norte, estudios arqueológicos
han demostrado que los americanos nativos, en lo que ahora es Colorado,
pudieron haber producido un promedio de 5,3 kilos de residuos por persona por
día en aproximadamente en 6.500 BC. Aproximadamente, en 500 A.C.,
los atenienses desarrollaron uno de los primeros sitios de disposición
municipal en el mundo occidental y requerían a los ciudadanos volcar sus
residuos por lo menos una milla de los límites de la ciudad en los campos y
bosques.
Alrededor 200 AD, los romanos establecieron
una forma temprana del servicio de recogida de basura donde los equipos de dos
hombres que caminaban por las calles recogiendo basura y residuos de
defecación y cargarlo en un vagón para botarlo en el río.
Los indios mayas de
América Central (200-900 DC) tenía sus propios problemas; sus sitios de
eliminación de residuos que a veces estallan y se quemaban.
Incluso para el Oklahoma
prehistórico, algún conocimiento de las prácticas de eliminación de residuos
como era recopilado a partir de un estudio del registro arqueológico si el
registro se evalúa en ese contexto como recopilación. Por ejemplo, más de 2 mil
años atrás, en una cultura nativa americana vivían en las cuevas de las
montañas rocosas del noreste de Oklahoma, Arkansas y Missouri. En esas
cuevas, los arqueólogos han descubierto evidencia de cocina antigua, y se
encontraron, huesos de mamíferos, calabazas, semillas de calabaza y melón,
tales hallazgos pueden sugerir que esta cultura prehistórica simplemente
dejaban sus desechos en cualquier lugar, posiblemente porque cuando los
desechos empezaban a apestar se iban a otro lugar, así que dejando los
desechos en su lugar no dio lugar a problemas.
Regulaciones sanitarias
mínimas eran comunes en las colonias americanas por los finales del siglo XVII.
Por ejemplo, en 1634, funcionarios de Boston prohibieron desechar de pescado y
basura cerca de los caminos.
Los principales oficios
de la época (curtidores y carniceros) mostraron poca preocupación con la
eliminación del impacto de sus desechos extremadamente nocivos en la ciudadanía
y el medio ambiente.
Las prácticas de
recolección de basura eran principalmente imágenes espectaculares en
Inglaterra. La basura era quemada o simplemente tirada en las calles,
callejones y las vías navegables. Cerdos vagaban libremente por las calles.
Alrededor de los mediados del 1700s, los hogares estadounidenses, en una medida
limitada, comenzaron cavando pozos de basura para la eliminación de los
residuos domésticos, pero muchos siguieron tirando la basura en las calles y
callejones. Incluso a fines de 1800, los visitantes de la ciudad de Nueva York
describen algunas partes de la ciudad como un "desastre nasal" debido
a los olores que recuerdan a "huevos podridos que se disuelven en
amoniaco”.
A fines de la Guerra
Civil, cerdos, cabras y perros callejeros eran libres de vagar por las calles
como "aspiradoras biológicas." De hecho, la necesidad de tener
animales disponibles para comer la basura era tal preocupación que Charleston,
Virginia Occidental promulgó una ordenanza en 1834 para prohibir la caza de
buitres ¡porque comían la basura de la ciudad!
El concepto de una
"molestia pública" también entró en vigor a principios de 1800 en las
ciudades americanas para aliviar, entre otras cosas, los problemas visuales así
como las molestias de los olores y residuos pudriéndose en las calles y en
propiedad privada.
Una epidemia de cólera
en el valle del Mississippi en 1873 mató a alrededor de 3.000 personas,
mientras que Nueva Orleans y Memphis tuvieron epidemias de fiebre amarilla.
Luego, en 1878, el sur fue golpeado con la fiebre amarilla, la peor
epidemia en la historia de la nación. La principal razon de las epidemias
fue en gran parte por la falta de sanidad.
Hemos avanzado, tenemos
limpieza, no tenemos epidemias de cólera o fiebre amarrilla. Tenemos quee
sentirnos orgullosos de esto y tratar de mantener el medio ambiente
limpio. Pero que no nos digan que los nativos americanos o cualquier
generación antes que nosotros cuidaban mejor el medio ambiente.
Ese nativo americano que
nos enseñan llorando cuando mira a los automóviles en la civilización y las
industrias que posiblemente están fabricando jabones, papel de inodoro, drogas
para la salud para una vida mejor, ese indio posiblemente estaba llorando
porque no lo dejaron cagar en el río o a lo mejor porque el negocio no está muy
bueno en el casino de la reservación.
Buscamos un candidato decente que no sea un
metiroso o un ladron, ni un descarado para para alcalde Miami Dade:
1- Que no haya sido
ni sea político profesional nunca.
2- Que no se robe los
dineros de los contribuyentes.
3- Que se someta a un
tribunal de cuentas al final de su mandato para que testifique que sus
propiedades y peculio no sea mayor de los que represento su sueldo de alcalde u
otras fuentes legales y agenas a su posición de alcalde.
4- Que al final de su
mandato se someta a una inspección de la diferencia de su dinero y sus
propiedades.
5- Que se
comprometa a eliminar el MDX “Miami Dade XpresWay” (Departamento que ha puesto
todos los peajes en las carreteras) Y a eliminar todos los Peajes.
6- Que no
engañe a los contribuyentes tratando de robarse dineros públicos diciendo que
va a reparar el edificio de la corte.
7- Que no
engañe al contribuyente diciendo que el inversionista no van a pedir dineros
públicos y luego le dan dineros públicos.
8- Que no tenga ni hijos ni amigos “Cabilderos”
9- Que no
traiga amigos de el para que sean “Vice-Alcaldes” (Cargo que ni existía) Y
luego les pague $100,000 o más mas gastos.
10- Que se comprometa que al final de cada trimestre se
reúna con los ciudadanos del condado a responder las preguntas de los
ciudadanos sobre su gestión durante este trimestre.
11- Que la deuda y los movimientos económicos, compras,
gastos, del condado sean expuestos en un sitio público para que los electores
puedan tener control de su administración.
12- Que sea juzgado por los tribunales si favorece de
forma económica a sus amigos o familiares.
13- Que no le tenga miedo a los gánsteres que hasta hora
han desgobernado y desguazado el condado Miami Dade y casi todas las alcaldía
de las ciudades.
“EMO”
Por favor envíenme todas las características que considera debe tener el
alcalde que usted quiere que administre, fiscalice y controle al Condado
Miami Dade.
Envienme ambien los nombres de las personas que
ustedes consideren que sea la persona que se puede enfrentar con esta difícil
tarea.
Lázaro R González Miño Editor “En mi opinion”
The United States Removes Iran and Hezbollah
from Worldwide Terror Threat List
In an unprecedented move, the United States
Department of National Intelligence has declared Iran and Hezbollah no longer
present a terror threat to the region and to our closest ally in the Middle
East, Israel.
Now, more than ever, Israel and the Jewish
people need to hear from us to know that we firmly stand with them. Both Iran
as a state sponsor, and Hezbollah as an active terrorist organization, pose an
imminent threat to Israel and all those in the region who embrace democracy and
personal liberty.
This Should Not Be!
That is why I am calling upon you to add your name to the petition calling for reversal of this decision and the
reclassification of Iran and Hezbollah, once again as a significant terror
threat to the region and to the world.
This petition will be delivered, along with
your name and that of thousands of friends like you, to the Director of
National Intelligence, James R. Clapper, and the United States Senate
Intelligence Committee.
With one voice, we who love Israel, sovereignty, and personal freedom,
must voice our strong opposition to this change. We must demand that The United
States support and stand with Israel and Jewish people, our allies, and
millions who face the constant threat of terror and extremism globally.
Take action today and stand with us. Stand
for Israel!
YES! Add My Name to the Petition to
Reclassify Iran and Hezbollah as Direct Terror Threats!
Stunning! Obama Administration Declassifies Document on
Israel’s Nuclear Power
Posted by Jim Hoft
Dimona nuclear plant in the southern Negev desert of Israel. (Alphabetics)
In a
stunning move the Obama administration released 1987 report on Israel’s top
secret nuclear program.
Israel National News reported:
Israel National News reported:
Obama
revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear
program released in unprecedented move.
In a development that has largely been missed
by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly
declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s
nuclear program, a
highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a
regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by
remaining silent.
But by publishing the declassified document
from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on
Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program
in great depth.
The timing
of the revelation is highly suspect, given that it came as tensions spiraled
out of control between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President
Barack Obama ahead of Netanyahu’s March 3 address in
Congress, in which he warned against the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and
how the deal being formed on that program leaves the Islamic regime with
nuclear breakout capabilities.
The Hamas
terrorist organization admitted last year that they attempted to hit the nuclear
reactor in Dimona, Israel.
The Obama administration just made things
easier for Israel’s enemies.
|
AMENPER:
La
Importancia de Ted Cruz
Para el que quiera entenderla
Todavía no sé si le daré el voto a
Ted Cruz en las primarias, si es escogido, por seguro que sí en las elecciones
generales. Pero este no es el caso, hay tiempo y un camino largo
todavía.
La importancia de Ted Cruz es que es
un ideólogo conservador ortodoxo. Lo importante es para el que
quiera entenderlo es la reacción de la izquierda en cuanto a la visibilidad que
ha adquirido Ted Cruz con la inteligente estrategia de presentar su candidatura
antes que los demás.
Vamos a ver la reacción de los
liberales:
1.-’Primero llamarlo ignorante y
estúpido. Esto es importante porque si llaman ignorante a una
persona los millones de personas que todavía piensan en esta nación, averiguan
si es verdad.
Entonces vemos que Ted Cruz Obtuvo
su B.A. en la Universidad de Princeton y se doctoró en leyes, magna cum laude,
en la Harvard Law School. Fue editor de la Harvard Law Review, editor ejecutivo
del Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy y editor fundador de la Harvard
Latino Law Review. Bueenoo me gustaría ser tan ignorante como
Ted.
2.-Después dice que no tiene
experiencia para ser presidente porque sólo tiene dos años en el Senado. Pero
vemos que durante la tenencia de Ted Cruz en el senado ha sido agresivamente
activo y con una visibilidad extrema por la manera en que ha expresado sus
punto de vista, contrario a la tenencia del presente presidente que sólo
mencionaba la palabra “presente” de vez en cuando como decimos en la pelota
“calentando banco”-
Además en su agenda anterior no era
precisamente un organizador comunitario, Cruz fue Ted Cruz trabajó como
Procurador General de Texas, del 2003 al 2005, cargo que sirvió no sólo como el
procurador más joven del estado sino también por ser hispano de padre Cubano.
3.-Que no tiene chance que no tiene
apoyo con los hispanos que no puede ser presidente por no haber nacido en los
Estados Unidos. Que su posición conservadora lo hace separarse de los votos
moderados independientes.
Un tipo tan inteligente, un graduado
de Princeton y Harvard, en leyes constitucionales, tiene que tener la seguridad
de que es elegible por nacimiento, debido a nacer en un país extranjero de
madre americana. Hay precedentes y hay ley.
Los votos moderados independientes
se mueven según la corriente política, y el ciclo electoral, y esta
administración socialista está erosionada y gastada, y ha movido a los
moderados independientes más a la a la derecha.
El apoyo latino hay que verlo en las
urnas, los indocumentados no votan, y a los latinos establecidos legítimamente
le molestan la entrada ilegal de los indocumentados.
4.-No tiene el menor chance, es
ridículo.
Bueno seguro que cuando salgan
a la palestra Huckabee y Santorum no vamos a ver tanta bulla de la
izquierda. Si no tiene el menor chance y es ridículo ¿Por qué tanta
bulla y ataques? ¿Por qué no lo ignoran? ¿Por qué?
Cuando el
enemigo hace bulla es porque le tiene miedo a lo que percibe.
Y lo más importante, la presentación
de la plataforma conservadora se presenta más creíble y visible con la
presencia de Cruz, los otros candidatos tendrán que apoyarla y compartirla ante
el ciclo electoral que debe de inclinarse a la derecha después de 8 años de una
desastrosa administración de la izquierda.
Ni Hillary ni los liberales podrán
ocultarse más detrás de sus sofismas liberales.
|
One of three articles published by the Wall
Street Journal today. These editorials are so explicit in the issues that there
is nothing to add, so I am just copying them to you. Sorry, I have not time to
translate it.
The Bergdahl Desertion
Obama wanted to
‘whittle away’ the killers at Guantanamo.
March 25, 2015 7:17 p.m. ET
The United States
Army intends to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before
the enemy. That wasWednesday’s news, but the bigger story is the
extravagant price the U.S. has paid because President Obama wanted to
score political points.
Readers will recall
that then-Private First Class Bergdahl went missing from his post in Paktika
province in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. Fellow soldiers suspected
desertion, though the Army conducted a risky manhunt to recover him. The
sergeant was quickly captured by the Taliban and held for five years.
The Associated Press
has reported that an internal Pentagon investigation in 2010 found
“incontrovertible” evidence that he had walked away from his post. Journalists
also uncovered an exchange of letters in which the soldier wrote to his father
“the title of U.S. soldier is just the lie of fools,” that he was “ashamed to even
be american,” and that “the future is too good to waste on lies.” Replied
father Robert: “OBEY YOUR CONSCIENCE!”
All of this would
have been known to President Obama and National Security AdviserSusan
Rice when the Administration decided to swap Sgt. Bergdahl for five
Guantanamo Bay detainees—all top Taliban leaders—in May 2014. Mr. Obama even
invited Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents to a Rose Garden ceremony to announce the swap,
while Ms. Rice declared on aSunday talk show that the soldier had served
his country with “honor and distinction.”
At the time of the
release, Mr. Obama said he had a sacred obligation as Commander in Chief to do
everything possible to bring the sergeant home. Maybe so, but the President
made his real motives clear when he noted that the transfer was part of “the
transition process of ending a war” and that he wanted to “whittle away” the
number of Gitmo detainees. That, he told NBC, “is going to involve, on occasion,
releasing folks who we may not trust but we can’t convict.”
This is the language
of a President more concerned with pursuing his ideological fixations, and
fulfilling a misbegotten campaign pledge, than winning a war or securing the
country.
The Bergdahl swap
unleashed a torrent of criticism at the time, including from Senate Democrats,
so it’s not surprising that the charges against the soldier are only being
unveiled now, five months after the midterm elections. There was no Rose Garden
ceremony, and Ms. Rice issued no statement that we saw.
Meanwhile, the war in
Afghanistan shows no sign of ending, while an emboldened Taliban can look
forward to getting their old commanders back after their obligatory year in
Qatar ends in June. Sgt. Bergdahl will now face a court martial, but we already
know that the White House is guilty of deserting its obligations to U.S.
security.
AMENPER: Published by the Wall Street Journal today. These
editorials are so explicit in the issues that there is nothing to add, so I am
just copying them to you. Sorry, I have not time to translate it.
Race After
Obama
Redefining the issue to make solutions possible.
By DANIEL HENNINGER
Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz took it in the neck from all
sides for asking his baristas to chat up half-awake customers about race in
America. Mr. Schultz, however, is merely one voice in the conversation
on race, which since the Ferguson shooting and Selma’s 50th anniversary has
settled on American politics like winter in the East, harsh and unending.
While much of it is
predictable or discouraging, others are trying something really new—a positive
point of view. We start with the discouraging words.
The nomination
of Loretta Lynch, the black federal prosecutor from the Brooklyn
district, has elicited comments about her delayed confirmation vote in the
Senate.
Democratic Sen. Dick
Durbin of Illinois said, “Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman
nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when
it comes to the Senate calendar.”
North Carolina’s
Rep. G.K. Butterfield, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus: “I
think race certainly can be considered a major factor in the delay.”
These two members of
Congress are saying some Senate Republicans, five decades after a bipartisan
vote passed the Civil Rights Act, are opposed to Loretta Lynch because she is
black.
When the president of the
United States was asked if race was playing a role in the delayed
nomination, Mr. Obama replied, “I don’t know about that.”
Eric Holder said, “My guess is that
there is probably not a huge racial component to this.” He added that “this is
really just D.C. politics.”
A fair parsing of these
comments by the president and attorney general also suggests the possibility of
racism among Senate Republicans.
Mr. Obama could have said,
“No. I do not believe race is an issue in the Lynch nomination.” Instead he
said, “I don’t know about that.”
Mr. Holder could have said
it was all about Washington politics. Instead he said the racial component
“probably” isn’t “huge.”
Others, whose work doesn’t
require them to look at all of American life through the keyhole of politics,
have different ideas.
Appearing on “The Daily Show” a few weeks ago, the hip-hop singer and
actor Common discussed race relations with Jon Stewart.Common had just won the Academy
Award, with John Legend, for the title song to the movie “Selma.”
“We all know racism exists,”
he said. Then he said, “Let’s forget about the past as much as we can and let’s
move from where we are now. How can we help each other? Can you try to help us
because we are going to try to help ourselves, too.”
The popular rapper ASAP Ferg said something along these lines in
an interview with
National Public Radio last week. Rephrasing ASAP Ferg’s words is a tricky
proposition, so the interview itself remains the best source for his thinking
on race. He did say he thinks the charge of racism has become a cult: “I think
it’s a cult-like thing . . . Because whoever is pushing this agenda of people
being racist, they like, ‘Yo. Keep doing it. Keep doing it. Yeah. Yeah.’”
In an interview with
Oprah last April, music producer Pharrell Williams talked about a
“New Black” movement, which he says “doesn’t blame other races for our issues.”
At Vanderbilt University last week, ESPN commentator Stephen A. Smith
said every black person in America should vote Republican in
one election: “You [black voters] have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’
because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb. The other party
knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest.”
***
As the Obama presidency
ends, the status quo on race is in a bad place.
If media coverage reflects
reality (a limitless “if”), the country’s racial polarization is as bad as most
people can remember. Ferguson, Staten Island, the Brooklyn cop killings, the
Oklahoma fraternity—a visitor from Mars might conclude next to nothing good has
happened since Selma. On the surface of politics, the left browbeats the right
in a bleak, zero-sum standoff.
In some conservative circles, a school of reduction holds that the black
vote is gone and the Hispanic vote is a waste of time. The future lies in
reanimating the 1980s voting bloc of Reagan Democrats that Ted Cruz identified his campaign with
this week.
But just as there is black
opinion talking now about getting past the Sharpton race cult and extending a
hand, some of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates are doing the same
thing.
Rand Paul,Jeb Bush,Marco Rubio and Chris Christie, in words or with
policies (such as Gov. Bush’s early school-choice program), have sought
minority support. Gov. Christie has done a lot of town halls in black
neighborhoods across New Jersey, and in 2013 got 21% of the state’s black
vote. Shaquille O’Neal did commercials for Mr. Christie.
The race issue will remain
after the Obama years. Emerging now is a desire to redefine this subject in
ways that make it available to solution.
AMENPER: Obama’s Mideast Realignment 
|
One of
three articles published by the Wall Street Journal today. These editorials are
so explicit in the issues that there is nothing to add, so I am just copying
them to you. Sorry, I have not time to translate it.
Obama’s
Mideast Realignment
His new doctrine: Downgrade ties to Israel
and the Saudis while letting Iran fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat.
By MAX BOOT
March 25, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET
189 COMMENTS
Let’s connect the dots.
Data point No. 1: President Obama withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq
in 2011 and is preparing to leave Afghanistan by the end of 2016, even while
keeping a few more troops there this year and next than originally planned.
Point No. 2: The Obama administration keeps largely silent about
Iran’s power grab in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, even going so far now as to assist
Iranian forces in Tikrit, while attempting to negotiate a nuclear deal with
Tehran that would allow it to maintain thousands of centrifuges.
Point No. 3: Mr. Obama berates Benjamin Netanyahu for allegedly
“racist” campaign rhetoric, refuses to accept his apologies, and says the U.S.
may now “re-assess options,” code words for allowing the United Nations to
recognize a Palestinian state over Israeli objections.
Taken together, these facts suggest that Mr. Obama is attempting
to pull off the most fundamental realignment of U.S. foreign policy in a
generation. The president is pulling America back from the leading military
role it has played in the Middle East since 1979, the year the Iranian hostage
crisis began and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. He is trying to transform
Iran from an enemy to a friend. He is diminishing the alliance with Israel, to
lows not seen since the 1960s.
Call it the Obama Doctrine: The U.S. puts down the burden, and
Iran picks up the slack.
Perhaps the least disputed of these points is the notion that Mr.
Obama is stepping back from the Middle East. He has repeatedly said as much,
promising to “rebalance” our commitments by shifting forces to the Pacific. The
U.S. still maintains substantial forces in the Persian Gulf, as it has done
since the early 1980s. But the number of troops in Iraq has fallen from 142,000
when Mr. Obama took power to fewer than 3,000 today, after an interregnum of
zero between 2011 and 2014. The number of troops in Afghanistan tripled to
100,000 in 2010 but has since fallen to 10,000 and is supposed to hit zero
before the president leaves office. This will be disastrous and destabilizing,
but it will allow Mr. Obama to claim that he “ended” the war. In reality,
pulling out U.S. troops will only fuel the conflict.
A corollary to Mr. Obama’s vow to make the “tide of war” recede is
his determination, if forced to fight, to employ air power alone. The U.S. took
part in the NATO air campaign to depose Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, but
afterward Mr. Obama refused to send a peacekeeping force, a decision that has
consigned the country to anarchy. Now Mr. Obama is launching airstrikes against
Islamic State while refusing to commit to any ground troops—even though they
are essential to ensuring the success of airstrikes.
This brings us to the second part of the Obama Doctrine. The U.S.
has regarded Iran as its enemy since our embassy in Tehran was stormed and our
diplomats taken captive. The Iranians have sponsored numerous terrorist attacks
on American targets, in Lebanon in the 1980s and Iraq in the 2000s.
The Bergdahl Desertion
In response, successive U.S. presidents have backed Israel and
Sunni allies, notably Saudi Arabia. Mr. Obama is bucking this foreign-policy
consensus. He is offering Iran extraordinarily generous terms in the current
negotiations, suggesting that he will lift sanctions if Iran merely slows down
its nuclear-weapons program for a decade.
Mr. Obama is also doing little to contest Iran’s growing imperium
in the Middle East, symbolized by the ubiquitous presence of Gen. Qasem
Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, which is charged with exporting Iran’s
revolution. Tehran backs proxy militias such as Hezbollah, which has moved from
its Lebanese base to support Iranian client Bashar Assad in Syria; the Badr
Organization, which is leading the charge against Islamic State in Tikrit; and
the Houthi militia that has taken over San’a, the capital of Yemen, and is now
at the gates of Aden, a strategically vital port near the entrance to the Red
Sea
All U.S. officials will say in response is that Iran’s actions are
“helpful” as long as they are not too “sectarian”—akin to praising Al Capone
for providing liquor to the thirsty masses while piously expressing the hope
that his conduct isn’t too criminal. Now the U.S. is even supporting the
Iranian-directed offensive against Tikrit by providing surveillance flights and
airstrikes for attacking forces.
The flip side of this shift toward Iran is a move away from
longtime allies, most notably Israel, which views the Iranian nuclear program
as an existential threat. The president vowed to put some “daylight” between
Washington and Jerusalem, and boy has he delivered. His aides deride the
Israeli prime minister as a “chickens—” and a “coward,” and Mr. Obama has
exhibited more visceral anger at Mr. Netanyahu than he has at Vladimir Putin or
Ayatollah Khamenei.
Mr. Netanyahu has sometimes played into Mr. Obama’s hands—for example,
by agreeing to address Congress without first running it by the White House and
then vowing, in the closing days of his campaign, that there will be no
Palestinian state while he is prime minister. What Mr. Netanyahu meant, as he
later explained, was that the Palestinians have not shown a commitment to peace
that would make him comfortable giving up further land in the West Bank at the
moment. But by appearing to flip-flop on his pledge to seek a two-state
solution—a bedrock of U.S. policy under Mr. Obama and George W. Bush—Mr.
Netanyahu has provided ammunition for those in the White House who maliciously
insist on painting him as a crazed warmonger and ethnic cleanser.
Will Mr. Obama succeed in pulling off his sweeping diplomatic
realignment? He still has almost two years in office and considerable
presidential prerogative to reorient foreign policy as he sees fit. Ironically,
the biggest obstacle in his path may be the Iranian mullahs. If they reject his
extraordinarily generous offer for fear of doing any deal with the Great Satan,
the folly of his foreign-policy revolution will be brutally exposed.
Mr. Boot is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
and author of “Invisible Armies: An Epic History of Guerrilla Warfare from
Ancient Times to the Present” (W.W. Norton, 2013).
Muslims Demand Mayor Apologize For
Texas Town’s ‘Islamophobic’ New Law…But She’s Not Backing Down
Thursday, Mayor Beth Van Duyne and the
city of Irving, Texas supported Texas House Bill
563. According to CBS
Dallas, the bill:
“…forbids the use of foreign law and
codifies the supremacy of U.S. and state law.”
The Dallas Morning News reports that
Van Duyne says House Bill 563 has nothing to do with religion:
“‘This bill does not reference Shariah, Islam
or even religion. It has nothing to do with preventing any tribunal,’ Van Duyne
told the crowd. ‘Why anyone would feel this is hatred or bigotry is absolutely
beyond me.'”
Many Muslims in the Dallas suburb believe the
bill is in response to anIslamic
tribunal opening its doors in the area last year.
CBS Dallas reports that Omar Suleiman,
an Irving resident, expressed his misgivings at a city council meeting:
“I think it’s the most disgraceful day in the
city of Irving.”
“The elephant in the room is that it’s the
anti-Shariah bill.”
In a Facebook
post last month, Mayor Van Duyne wrote that she is
working with state representatives on strengthening current Texas laws
that would prohibit the implementation of any foreign law:
“Currently, Texas Supreme Court precedent
does not allow the application of foreign law that violates public policy,
statutory, or federal laws. However, now that this issue has emerged in our
community, I am working with our State Representatives on legislation to
clarify and strengthen existing prohibitions on the application of foreign law
in violation of constitutional or statutory rights.”
During a city council meeting, Mayor Van
Duyne voiced her position regarding U.S. local, and national, laws:
“Respect them, obey them, embrace them.”
“No. As an elected official, I took an oath
that I would fight for and defend the constitutional rights of residents and
I’m going to continue doing that.”
According to The Blaze, the local mayor met
with the Irving Islamic Center several times following her Facebook post.
Islamic leaders asked her to apologize for “stirring up Islamophobia,” but Van
Duyne denied their requests.
The Huge Move Scott Walker Says He’d Make on ‘Day One’ If
Elected President
Share This
·
·
·
·
Though he has yet to
formally announce his candidacy for the 2016 presidential election, Wisconsin
Gov. Scott Walker told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday that as president he
would void any deal President Barack Obama makes with Iran if it allows the country
to continue uranium enrichment.
In
this May 3, 2014 file photo Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker speaks in
Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Jeffrey Phelps, File)
His answer was clear
when asked if he would reject that deal as president: “Absolutely. Day one.”
“The concept of a
nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran and certainly for Israel, but it
opens the doors,” he added. “I mean, the Saudis are next, you’re going to have
plenty of others in the region. … There is no love lost between the Saudis and
the Iranians. And so they are going to want to have a nuclear weapon if the
Iranians have a nuclear weapon. This is something that just escalates before
our eyes.”
Walker also said the
fact that the Obama administration went into negotiations with Iran “conceding
that they are going to allow enrichment to go forwards” indicates the
administration doesn’t share his same concerns about a nuclear Iran.
“A nuclear Iran is a
problem for the entire world, not just for Israel,” the governor concluded.
Listen to the segment
via “The Hugh Hewitt Show” below:
—
URGENT:
Trey Gowdy Just Sealed Hillary’s Fate With the Move We’ve Been Waiting For
Rep. Trey Gowdy sent a letter last week to Hillary Clinton’s lawyer, David
Kendall, setting a deadline of April 3 for her to turn her emails and private
server over to some neutral third party, or he would pursue litigation.
There has been quite an uproar from the pundits and
politicians this month over the revelations that former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton used a private email account on a private server to conduct
official public business.
However, for all of the noise, not much of substance has been done about it, at
least by the purported leaders of the major political parties.
That being said, there is at least one politician that
remains firmly focused on holding Hillary Clinton accountable for her likely criminal
activity, and that man is Trey
Gowdy.
The Republican chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee has
long sought the former secretary’s emails, as they relate to the 2012 terrorist
attack in Libya.
Sponsored by RevContent
Now the congressman from South Carolina is through playing
around. He apparently doesn’t have the patience to wait much longer for an
adequate response to his repeated requests for Hillary’s emails.
In essence, Gowdy is still searching for answers to the same
questions he has been asking for two years.
“The Committee must have objective assurances it, and by
extension the House of Representatives as a whole, has received all relevant
information requested and necessary for a thorough investigation into what
happened before, during and after the attacks in Benghazi, Libya,” the letter
read, in part, according to IJ Review.
Gowdy was also sure to note in his letter that this whole
email scandal was much larger than just Benghazi, most likely alluding to
numerous allegations swirling around potentially improper foreign
donations to the Clinton Foundation.
“More broadly, the equities in these emails extend beyond
this Committee,” he explained. “The House of Representatives and the American
people are entitled to a complete accounting of the Secretary’s official record
during her time as Secretary of State.”
Gowdy makes it quite clear that his committee doesn’t have
police powers, and he can’t force Hillary to comply with his demands.
However, he can refer her to the floor of the House of Representatives, where
she could be charged with contempt of Congress, a serious mark on her
credibility going forward.
As an aside, before anyone makes the claim that the focus on
Hillary Clinton’s private email is some sort of right-wing hit job, it should
be noted that the story originally broke in the liberal The New York Times,
possibly as the result of a leak
from the White House.
But that won’t stop the left from claiming that the whole
scandal is a put-up job by the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Venezuela
recorta a la mitad la asistencia petrolera a Cuba y el Caribe
|
|
|
 |
Nota mía: esto es muy interesante, vamos a oír la “bravura” de
Raul, esto creo agiliza la gestión con los EE.UU. lo podrán leer en el Nuevo
Herald en la mañana.
Venezuela recorta a la mitad la asistencia petrolera a Cuba y el Caribe
ANTONIO MARIA DELGADO ADELGADO@ELNUEVOHERALD.COM
Venezuela ha recortado a la mitad los despachos subsidiados de crudo a Cuba y los países miembros de Petrocaribe y hoy representan cerca de 200,000 barriles diarios en lugar de los 400,000 barriles enviados en el 2012, indicó un informe de Barclays.
Además, el banco de inversión calificó de “irónico” que Venezuela siga manteniendo los despachos de crudo, resaltando que mientras el país donante sufre dificultades extremas, está subsidiando a países que gozan de una mejor salud económica.
Debido a los recortes en los envíos de petróleo a los países de El Caribe, la firma recortó su pronóstico de déficit en moneda extranjera de Venezuela a $22,600 millones desde los más de $30,000 millones que preveía anteriormente para el 2015.
“Los acuerdos petroleros han sido una pesada carga para Venezuela. Estas entregas alcanzaron los 400,000 bpd en su punto más alto en el 2012, pero Venezuela solo obtuvo pagos por 200,000 bpd”, dijo Barclays citando cifras de Petrologistics, firma que hace seguimiento de los movimientos de buques tanqueros.
“En la última década los acuerdos le han costado a Venezuela hasta $50,000 millones”, agregó el informe titulado “Reduciendo la Generosidad”.
Sorprendentemente, Cuba –el más importante aliado del régimen de Nicolás maduro- no ha sido exonerada de los recortes, que se profundizaron después de agosto del 2014, cuando los precios del crudo comenzaron a disminuir.
“Cuba a recibido alrededor de 55,000 barriles diarios desde septiembre, casi la mitad de lo que recibió en el 2012”, señaló el informe.
La reducción de las entregas a Cuba es más importante que las de los otros países beneficiarios de la generosidad venezolana, dado que a diferencia de los países miembros del programa Petrocaribe, que al menos pagan una porción de las entregas, el régimen de La Habana no desembolsa pagos en efectivos por el intercambio.
Bajo los pactos de cooperación vigentes entre los dos países, Cuba paga el crudo que obtiene enviando médicos y entrenadores deportivos para los programas sociales emprendidos por el chavismo y a través de los servicios del aparato de inteligencia de la isla.
Sin embargo, los envíos a los países miembros de Petrocaribe también han disminuido significativamente.
Los despachos a la República Dominicana y a Jamaica, que abarcan aproximadamente la mitad del total del programa, han caído 56 por ciento y 74 por ciento respectivamente frente los niveles del 2012.
Los recortes reducen a solo 80,000 barriles diarios la porción del crudo que envía a sus aliados sin recibir a cambio pagos en moneda dura.
Es un mayor ingreso que mejora el cuadro financiero del país en cerca de $7,500 millones, dijo el informe.
“Nosotros ahora estimamos que el déficit del flujo de caja en moneda dura aumentará a $22,600 millones este año desde los $15,000 millones del 2014, lo cual reduce significativamente nuestro estimado previo de más de $30,000 millones”, dijo Barclays.
“Nosotros estimamos que el gobierno podría obtener financiamiento de $17,500 millones, lo que significa que su posición en activos tendrá que disminuir en cerca de $6,300 millones para poder cerrar la brecha”, agregó.
Venezuela, país que acaba de salir de una de las más pronunciadas y prolongadas bonanzas petroleras de su historia, ahora se encuentra inmersa en uno de sus peores crisis económicas debido a la sistemática destrucción del aparato productivo nacional y la drástica caída de los precios del crudo, sostienen economistas.
Los venezolanos, que hoy enfrentan un índice de escasez mayor al 50 por ciento, se están viendo obligados a pasar horas haciendo cola para poder ingresar a supermercados con anaqueles medio vacíos.
La drástica caída en los precios del crudo aunada a las pesadas obligaciones externas contraídas bajo el chavismo han dejado a la nación petrolera con menos de la mitad de los $33,000 millones que utilizó para importar productos en el 2014, año en que el país ya comenzaba a sufrir la crisis de desabastecimiento.
Además, los problemas económicos por los que hoy atraviesan los venezolanos también pueden ser atribuidos a la asistencia que brindó a Cuba y a otros países del Caribe.
“Si Venezuela hubiese vendido ese crudo bajo condiciones de mercado y ahorrado esos ingresos, tendría actualmente más de tres veces de las reservas internacionales que tiene hoy día”, dijo el informe de Barclays.
Siga a Antonio María Delgado en Twitter:@DelgadoAntonioM
Venezuela recorta a la mitad la asistencia petrolera a Cuba y el Caribe
ANTONIO MARIA DELGADO ADELGADO@ELNUEVOHERALD.COM
Venezuela ha recortado a la mitad los despachos subsidiados de crudo a Cuba y los países miembros de Petrocaribe y hoy representan cerca de 200,000 barriles diarios en lugar de los 400,000 barriles enviados en el 2012, indicó un informe de Barclays.
Además, el banco de inversión calificó de “irónico” que Venezuela siga manteniendo los despachos de crudo, resaltando que mientras el país donante sufre dificultades extremas, está subsidiando a países que gozan de una mejor salud económica.
Debido a los recortes en los envíos de petróleo a los países de El Caribe, la firma recortó su pronóstico de déficit en moneda extranjera de Venezuela a $22,600 millones desde los más de $30,000 millones que preveía anteriormente para el 2015.
“Los acuerdos petroleros han sido una pesada carga para Venezuela. Estas entregas alcanzaron los 400,000 bpd en su punto más alto en el 2012, pero Venezuela solo obtuvo pagos por 200,000 bpd”, dijo Barclays citando cifras de Petrologistics, firma que hace seguimiento de los movimientos de buques tanqueros.
“En la última década los acuerdos le han costado a Venezuela hasta $50,000 millones”, agregó el informe titulado “Reduciendo la Generosidad”.
Sorprendentemente, Cuba –el más importante aliado del régimen de Nicolás maduro- no ha sido exonerada de los recortes, que se profundizaron después de agosto del 2014, cuando los precios del crudo comenzaron a disminuir.
“Cuba a recibido alrededor de 55,000 barriles diarios desde septiembre, casi la mitad de lo que recibió en el 2012”, señaló el informe.
La reducción de las entregas a Cuba es más importante que las de los otros países beneficiarios de la generosidad venezolana, dado que a diferencia de los países miembros del programa Petrocaribe, que al menos pagan una porción de las entregas, el régimen de La Habana no desembolsa pagos en efectivos por el intercambio.
Bajo los pactos de cooperación vigentes entre los dos países, Cuba paga el crudo que obtiene enviando médicos y entrenadores deportivos para los programas sociales emprendidos por el chavismo y a través de los servicios del aparato de inteligencia de la isla.
Sin embargo, los envíos a los países miembros de Petrocaribe también han disminuido significativamente.
Los despachos a la República Dominicana y a Jamaica, que abarcan aproximadamente la mitad del total del programa, han caído 56 por ciento y 74 por ciento respectivamente frente los niveles del 2012.
Los recortes reducen a solo 80,000 barriles diarios la porción del crudo que envía a sus aliados sin recibir a cambio pagos en moneda dura.
Es un mayor ingreso que mejora el cuadro financiero del país en cerca de $7,500 millones, dijo el informe.
“Nosotros ahora estimamos que el déficit del flujo de caja en moneda dura aumentará a $22,600 millones este año desde los $15,000 millones del 2014, lo cual reduce significativamente nuestro estimado previo de más de $30,000 millones”, dijo Barclays.
“Nosotros estimamos que el gobierno podría obtener financiamiento de $17,500 millones, lo que significa que su posición en activos tendrá que disminuir en cerca de $6,300 millones para poder cerrar la brecha”, agregó.
Venezuela, país que acaba de salir de una de las más pronunciadas y prolongadas bonanzas petroleras de su historia, ahora se encuentra inmersa en uno de sus peores crisis económicas debido a la sistemática destrucción del aparato productivo nacional y la drástica caída de los precios del crudo, sostienen economistas.
Los venezolanos, que hoy enfrentan un índice de escasez mayor al 50 por ciento, se están viendo obligados a pasar horas haciendo cola para poder ingresar a supermercados con anaqueles medio vacíos.
La drástica caída en los precios del crudo aunada a las pesadas obligaciones externas contraídas bajo el chavismo han dejado a la nación petrolera con menos de la mitad de los $33,000 millones que utilizó para importar productos en el 2014, año en que el país ya comenzaba a sufrir la crisis de desabastecimiento.
Además, los problemas económicos por los que hoy atraviesan los venezolanos también pueden ser atribuidos a la asistencia que brindó a Cuba y a otros países del Caribe.
“Si Venezuela hubiese vendido ese crudo bajo condiciones de mercado y ahorrado esos ingresos, tendría actualmente más de tres veces de las reservas internacionales que tiene hoy día”, dijo el informe de Barclays.
Siga a Antonio María Delgado en Twitter:@DelgadoAntonioM
Action Alert: Your lawmaker may approve $500 billion
of debt
|
|
|
|
Doc Fix will Cost America $500 Billion
Lazaro R.,
JUST OUT:
A report released by the Congressional Budget Office confirms the doc fix deal
negotiated by Speaker Boehner and Nancy Pelosi is a budget buster. It could
drive America $500 billion further into debt.
It's irresponsible, unsustainable, and worse than
we originally thought.
Even
President Obama has publicly said he's ready to sign this so-called doc fix. If
Barack Obama is eager to sign it and Nancy Pelosi has blessed it, you know it
can't be good.
The House
is scheduled to vote on the Doc Fix deal TODAY – and many lawmakers are still
on the fence.
Conservatives
have a principled plan that solves the problems of Medicare. But Boehner and
Pelosi are trying to take the easy way out: adding hundreds of billions to our
nation's already massive debt.
Sincerely,
Russ
Vought
Vice President
Heritage Action for America
Vice President
Heritage Action for America
UST IN: ARMY SGT. BOWE
BERGDAHL WILL BE CHARGED WITH DESERTION
2.2K
It
was supposed to be an opportunity for first lady Michelle Obama to promote
healthy cooking.
Instead, her appearance on “Jeopardy!” became a spark for Internet rumors about her hair.
Instead, her appearance on “Jeopardy!” became a spark for Internet rumors about her hair.
Thanks
to the way her hair was styled and the lighting in the White House kitchen,
some thought the first lady had shaved her head… http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2015/03/25/what-happened-to-michelle-obamas-hair/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Firewire&utm_campaign=Firewire%20-%20HORIZON%203-25-15%20FINAL
Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE
“En mi opinión”
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment