No 1020 “En mi opinión” Agosto 10, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST”
Lázaro R González Miño Editor
Lázaro R González para Alcalde del Condado de Miami
No llores como
mujer
Lo que tienes que
defender como hombre
Sultana Aixa a su hijo Boabdil, ante la pérdida de Granada.
AMENPER: La Relatividad del Conservador…
Conservadurismo
Americano
Dentro de la convulsa arena política americana, vimos en el debate
algo extraordinariamente positivo, todos los candidatos se autoproclamaron
conservadores, los cual es positivo porque de lo que se debe tratar es de
conservar la continuidad de los valores políticos, económicos y sociales que
han hecho grande a esta nación.
Ser conservador no es en sí una filosofía, ser conservador es la
persona o el partido político que es favorable a la continuidad de las formas
de vida de la sociedad donde vive.
Filosofías son la economía de mercado que explicaron en sus escritos
Adam Smith, y otros, también filosofía es el marxismo leninismo, y las
religiones politizadas que cambian los valores de la sociedad.
Por lo tanto conservador varía según donde vivas, si estás de acuerdo
con el sistema donde vives, y si este sistema es el comunismo como en Cuba, si
apoyas al régimen y desean la continuidad de este, en Cuba eres un conservador,
si te opones al sistema, eres un liberal.
Como la denominación de conservador es relativa, tenemos que ir a las
tradiciones del país para conocer a un verdadero conservador americano, tenemos
que ir a la filosofía de los padres de la patria.
Básicamente, en la tradición americana concretamente podemos
establecer que un partido o una persona conservadora considera que la religión
es pilar fundamental de la sociedad, ya que gracias a la misma se establece un
nexo de unión de todos los individuos y también es una necesidad espiritual del
ser humano, pero que la libertad de practicar una religión es potestad del
individuo y no debe de ser regulada por el estado..
A nivel económico, los conservadores se adhieren a la tradición
económica del libre mercado y la oposición de un gobierno central que
interfiera con las libertades del mercado.
Por lo tanto está de acuerdo con el orden establecido, tanto en
materia política como social, está a favor de la propiedad privada, apuesta por
lo que se conoce cómo prudencia fiscal, y no duda en respaldar en todo momento
lo que es la ley natural, es decir, el Derecho sustentado en lo que es la
costumbre.
Y esto es lo básico, si se ajusta a esos objetivos, una persona en los
Estados Unidos, es conservadora, puede haber en el tiempo y la historia
diferentes posiciones entre conservadores, como en el caso específico de
inmigración un caso actual de la política americana, pero si un conservador
difiere de otro en ciertas condiciones existentes, básicamente es una situación
que podemos reclamar según pensemos, pero no podemos acusar a alguien de no ser
conservador si su pensamiento es conservador porque se aparte de una posición
adoptado ante una situación histórica, porque no existe una filosofía doctrinal
conservadora. En el caso de inmigración estamos ante una situación histórica en
que las tradicionales leyes migratorias se están violando, el conservador por
definición tiene que estar de acuerdo en que se conserven las leyes existente,
la manera de tratar de hacer que se cumplan las leyes pueden variar según la
manera de pensar del conservador, pero un conservador no puede acusar a otro de
no serlo porque tenga una idea particular de cómo resolver el conflicto
histórico siempre y cuando sea para restituir las leyes
tradicionales..
Un político conservador, por definición, simplemente desea mantener el
statu quo de las condiciones existentes. El dilema radica en la posición
adoptada ante los cambios históricos. Por ejemplo: Cuando Batista dio un golpe
de estado en Cuba, rompió la frágil continuidad democrática, Batista hizo un
cambio revolucionario rompió el status conservador , pero después se convirtió
en el status quo, y la revolución comunista implantada por Fidel
Castro en Cuba supuso una ruptura histórica en el modelo histórico y social del
país. En la década de 1960, por lo tanto, los comunistas y socialistas eran
revolucionarios que derrocaron el régimen conservador de Fulgencio Batista.
Hoy, cincuenta años más tarde, dichos revolucionarios se han convertido en
conservadores ya que defienden el mismo sistema desde hace medio siglo.
El Partido Conservador existe en diversos países para defender
políticas como las ya mencionadas (nacionalismo, tradiciones, etc.). Uno de los
más importantes es el Partido Conservador de Gran Bretaña(Conservative Party),
que fue creado en 1830 y que es el partido británico con mayor cantidad de
afiliados. Su líder es David Cameron, quien se desempeña como Primer Ministro
desde mayo de 2010.
En el conocido partido Tory tiene su origen esta formación británica
que en su país es la que más victorias electorales ha obtenido a lo largo de la
historia.
El conservadurismo Británico ha influenciado al conservador americano,
aunque el conservadurismo americano es algo diferente, porque, otra vez,
tenemos que comprender que ser conservador es tratar de conservar lo
establecido y no es lo mismo lo establecido en la Gran Bretaña que en el
sistema americano.
El concepto de conservador en un país como los Estados Unidos, sujeto
al Estado de derecho y normalmente moderado por una Constitución que la regula
en la protección de los derechos, libertades individuales y colectivas.
Estableciendo ésta Constitución restricciones tanto a los líderes demócratas
como a la ejecución de las voluntades de una determinada mayoría social dentro
de esa democracia.
Ser conservador simplemente es seguir esta democracia natural
establecida y que ha dado resultado, y es agradable el ver cómo todos los
candidatos republicanos se adhieren a este concepto.
Hemos llorado y
los dioses callan
Hemos confiado y sido traicionados
Hemos amado y el fruto fue cenizas
Hemos dado y el regalo fue medido.¨
Hemos confiado y sido traicionados
Hemos amado y el fruto fue cenizas
Hemos dado y el regalo fue medido.¨
El brindis de la
desesperanza, 1892.
Voltairine de Cleyre
Voltairine de Cleyre
AMENPER: Cambios en Cuba…
En unas declaraciones inesperadas, Raúl Castro anunció que de acuerdo
con sus promesas al presidente norteamericano Barack Hussein
Obama, empezará de inmediato los cambios prometidos en el sistema
comunista.
El primer cambio será el sustituir la bandera cubana por una nueva
bandera que refleje el nuevo gobierno de Cuba.
La bandera de Narciso López no representa ni nunca ha representado al
pueblo cubano, tuvimos que usarla en un período de adaptación, pero ya es hora
de cambiar esta bandera.
Narciso López era un lacayo del imperialismo yanqui de la época
antes del gobierno del compañero Obama, que buscaba la anexión de Cuba a
aquel país, dijo Raúl Castro.
La nueva bandera cubana representará a la nueva Cuba, una Cuba en que
habrá la unidad y la igualdad de todos sin diferencia de género o preferencia
sexual. Todos tendremos libertad sexual para hacer y pensar como
queramos.
Desde hace muchos años, antes de que existieran los buscadores de
Internet, entre muchas anécdotas de la Cuba castrista se hablaba de la
homosexualidad –en realidad, bisexualidad- de quien hace unos años se ha
convertido en el sucesor presidencial del retirado Fidel Castro.
Hace pocos años, Mariela Castro Espin –hija de Raúl Castro-, y la
esposa del entonces Ministro de Defensa, Vilma Espin (ya
fallecida), pidio a su padre urgentemente un cambio en la
Constitución Socialista de Cuba en un dramático pedido al Estado para que
cesaran las persecuciones contra los homosexuales, travestis y lesbianas que
viven en la Isla. También asegura la hija de castro que la HUMANIDAD
futura será bi-sexual, Y tiene un extenso artículo que se titula
"Penetración anal, prueba máxima de poder sobre las persona" y “Una
boda entre lesbianas y cambios en el código de la familia y banderas del
Orgullo homosexual”.
No nos debe entonces sorprender que Raúl haya tomado esta
determinación.
La nueva bandera tendrá las barras multicolores de la bandera gay, el
triángulo será de color rosado con un círculo blanco en que irá la hoz y el
martillo en rosado.
La figura del guerrillero heroico el Che Guevara se hará más
transgénica para representar la nueva Cuba.
Remembrando a cuando Fidel se declaró comunista, Raúl repitió las
palabras de Fidel en esa ocasión adaptándola a este momento cuando dijo “somos
maricones, hemos sido maricones y lo seremos toda nuestra
vida” Patria o Muerte, y ay..ay tu, venceremos
Los
canallas se están apoderando de nuestra nación y destruyéndola.
Tú
Tienes que hacer, lo que tienes que hacer; si no lo haces eres cómplice de la
destrucción de tu país y del futuro de tus hijos. No hacer
nada es ser enemigo de los que hacen.
Lázaro R González Miño.
“En mi opinión”
AMENPER: Fox News
El Presidente Obama continuó sus
críticas de Fox News, argumentando que los televidentes de la red están
recibiendo un conjunto diferente de los hechos que en el resto del país.
"No estamos en una conversación común", dijo. "Si ves Fox News,
habitas en un mundo totalmente diferente con diferentes hechos que si usted lee
el New York Times," dijo.
Donald Trump expresó una entrevista
en CNN su malestar por el tono "agresivo" e "injusto" con
que los moderadores de Fox New se dirigieron a él, con "como personales
directos en mayor cantidad al resto de candidatos
Fox News es como Juan el Bautista de
los evangelios, una voz que clama en el desierto. La única voz que
podemos oír en la televisión que nos reporta las noticias sin compromisos y presenta
todos los puntos de vista. Como dice su lema de una manera justa y balanceada.
Pero tanto Trump cómo Obama lo
consideran injusto porque no se adaptan a su manera de pensar, esto era algo
inconcebible en América en el pasado, donde todos los candidatos y presidentes
fueron blanco de los medios comunicativos que trataban de llevar al público la
opinión del político que los representaba o los aspira a representar y
nadie ni pensaba en quejarse de las preguntas de los periodistas, hubiera sido
contraproducente. Pero vivimos en otros tiempos..
Esta coincidencia de Trump y Obama
nos dice de cómo ha bajado el rasero moral político cuando tanto un presidente
cómo un candidato se quejan de que un periodista ejerza su derecho a cuestionar
a un político, cuando se nos presentan ejecutivos y aspirantes a ejecutivos con
la soberbia y arrogancia de un dictador de una dictadura bananera.
Pero gracias a Dios por Fox News, que
nos la conceda por muchos años, porque si, tiene razón Obama habitamos en mundo
totalmente diferente porque vemos a Fox News Y AL NEW YORK TIMES, y podemos
comparar los dos puntos de vistas. Gracias a Dios por Fox News
porque por las preguntas a los candidatos republicanos podremos hacer una
decisión mucho más educada e inteligente que si hubieran sido entrevistados por
periodistas tramitados complacientes.
Tiene que pensar en esto Trump
cuando va a la emisora del enemigo para hablar mal del único medio de
comunicación restante que nos representa.
No creo que nadie con un sentido de
lo que es la libertad de expresión pueda recibir estos ataques como algo
diferente a los que son, y son un elogio de la labor periodística de Fox News,
porque no hay mejor elogio a un demócrata que el ataque de un tirano.
AMENPER: Escándalo Homosexual de Hillary Clinton
Musulmana primera dama si Hillary es
electa Presidente
Hillary Clinton no está sólo atrapada
en un escándalo político sobre sus correos electrónicos perdidos de su etapa
como Secretario de estado – ella también está aterrorizada de revelaciones
personales acerca de un estilo de vida lésbico secreto!
Esto lo podemos ver en los dos
principales tabloides de prensa amarilla, El National Enquirer y El Globe.
De acuerdo son trapos escandalosos,
pero también están sujetos a demandas legales, por lo que lo que publican tiene
que tener cierta veracidad que quedaría después de filtrar la exageración.
La que se supone que sea la favorita
es su ayudante personal Huma Abedin, que tiene un tío y un primo en la
hermandad musulmana que sus padres son musulmanes con relaciones un poco
turbias con elementos sospechosos de terrorismo.
Les voy a pasar una investigación
exclusiva por The National ENQUIRER que revela que algunos de los correos
electrónicos famoso "borrados" del candidato presidencial que están
llenos de referencias lesbianas referencias y los nombres de sus amantes.
"No creo que ella está tan
preocupada por emails refiriéndose a ella como secretamente gay," dijo un
insider de Clinton. "Eso ya se sabe hace muchos años, su verdadero miedo
es que los nombres de algunos de sus amantes se haría públicos!"
El ENQUIRER descubrieron que la lista
de las amantes lesbianas de Hillary incluye una belleza en su 30s temprano que
ha viajado a menudo con Hillary; una popular estrella de cine y tv;
la hija de un funcionario superior; y unas modelos impresionantes que
recibieron un impulso de la carrera después de dormir con Hillary. Hillary hizo
el gran error de mezclar mensajes públicos y privados mientras estaba usando su
servidor de correo electrónico personalizado –por lo que prefirió correr el
riesgo de un enorme escándalo al negarse a hacer públicos los documentos.
"Eso es claramente por qué ella
fue al paso extraordinario de borrar todo," la fuente de alto rango dijo a
The ENQUIRER.
Hillary está particularmente
preocupada por correos electrónicos íntimos con su ayudante Huma Abedin, que se
casó con el congresista Anthony Weiner en una ceremonia que muchos
ridiculizaron como un arreglo político para cubrir la relación de Hillary con
Huma.
Anthony más tarde renunció por
escándalos extramatrimoniales y ' sexting ', después de publicar pornos de él
en cueros, dijo que que estaba en un matrimonio abierto en que las
dos partes podían hacer lo que quisieran con otras parejas.
"Creo que mucho del tiempo
cuando no nos estábamos hablando, Huma estaba probablemente con Hillary,"
Desentrañando el escándalo en marzo,
cuando Hillary reveló que elimina más de 30.000 correos electrónicos,
insistiendo en que los mensajes era solo "cosas que típicamente encontrará
en bandejas de entrada".
AMENPER:
¿Está vivo el Che Guevara?
Existe
un rumor sin confirmar que nos ha llegado por fuentes sin identificar que la
muerte del Che Guevara no fue real y que el héroe dela revolución cubana se ha
convertido en un capitalista en los Estados Unidos, vendiendo camisetas a los
simpatizantes del comunismo.
Según
estos rumores el Che Guevara ha cumplido su sueño de ser el
gran vendedor del comunismo.
Comenzó
su vida glamorosa matando a gente que no compraba sus ideas de la felicidad
universal y la igualdad.
Aunque
este método de ventas ha funcionado bien en países de Latinoamérica y áfrica,
Ernesto rápidamente se dio cuenta de que para conquistar el mundo tenía que
aprender otras técnicas.
Él notó
que en la tierra del gran Capital algunos estudiantes universitarios
idealistas, habían comenzado a poner sus mensajes en camisetas y letreros en
las paredes del dormitorio. ¡Bingo! Como todos los comunistas ante la
perspectiva de hacer unos pocos dólares, decidía intentar su mano en la entidad
misteriosa conocida como «trabajo» y la «inversión empresarial».
Un
vendedor brillante, realizó una maniobra ingeniosa fingiendo su propia muerte y
así lograr el estatus de icono-.
Como el
mundo progresivo lloró y había idolatrado su imagen, comenzó
tranquilamente la impresión propia de camisas con su rostro en el sótano
humilde de una lavandería de Buenos Aires.
Al
principio el proceso consistió en mojar su cabeza en un cubo de sangre de cerdo
y físicamente presionando su cara en la camiseta. Después que las ventas
comenzaron a aumentar fue capaz de aplicar para un préstamo de pequeña empresa
y compró una máquina de impresión de pantalla.
Ha
comercializado su marca brillantemente con los años, vendiendo a un nicho
específico del mercado: jóvenes que no tienen idea lo que ha hecho o lo que
representa.
El
dinero sigue fluyendo, cada día más dormitorios de Universidades de todo el
mundo están siendo adornados con su cara, y cada vez más hijos e hijas de clase
media alta y rica, usan sus camisas para, entre otras cosas, lavar la el
sentido de culpa de su crianza como niños ricos.
¡No ha
habido empresario que haya alcanzado el nivel de venta con un solo producto
como las camisas del Che! “dice un confidente del Che Guevara desde su oficina
36 del piso de su sede mundial en Madison Avenue en Nueva York.
Su
único producto se vende exclusivamente por popularidad sin anunciarse
a jóvenes que buscan ganar aceptación en los círculos sociales.
"Usted
puede usar una calidad de camisa inferior, esencialmente una
completa basura y las personas todavía lo compran y usan porque
quieren estar en la moda del Che," declara John Hayden de Consumer Reports
magazine.
Hoy el
empresario Ernesto Guevara bajo su nombre adoptado sin identificar, manda un
imperio enorme en un negocio global con oficinas en Nueva York, París, Londres
y Tokio.
Su cara
ha aparecido en las revistas Forbes y Fortune no menos de 8 veces.
Con
casas en Nueva York, Los Ángeles y Aspen, ha transitado un largo camino desde
sus humildes comienzos revolucionarios.
Su
compañía ha sido incluida en la lista Fortune 500 durante los últimos 6 años y
ha sido votado como uno de los diez mejores empleadores en los Estados Unidos.
Presentado
recientemente en estilos de vida de los ricos y famosos, es un ávido
coleccionista de arte y Ferraris.
Pasa su
tiempo libre en las pistas de Aspen o socializando con su buen amigo, consejero
y asociado de negocios Donald Trump quien lo ha ayudado en su técnica de
mercadeo.
“Ernesto
ha entendido bien el concepto que la gente compra cualquier cosa que le vendas si
lo presentas de la manera que quieren oírlo” dijo Trump.
Con una
flota de jets de y nunca está demasiado lejos de salas de juntas
corporativas del mundo.
Su futuro se presenta brillante por la fuente infinita de profesores
universitarios liberales y estudiantes universitarios que lo ayudarán a
mantener su imperio global a flote en el futuro previsible.
Fox’s Murdoch Tweets: Mission
Accomplished
|
 |
|
||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
If you didn't get much actual information from the first Republican
primary debates on Thursday night,
I'm sure you at least had a few laughs and did a couple of double takes.
The big talker of the night was, of course, Donald Trump. He stole the show almost immediately when he was the only candidate to refuse to pledge to not run as an independent should he fail to win the Republican nomination.  The economy is typically an important topic for voters during the first round of debates. But this time, only about 15 minutes were devoted to one of the nation's most pressing problems. Still, that was all the time it took to see which candidates have put some actual thought into their policies. Here are some highlights from the brief discussion of the economy, plus some other top moments. Economics Trump's bankruptcy history was a major topic. He touted his business acumen as proof that he could tackle the national debt and current fiscal imbalances. He clarified that he had never personally filed for bankruptcy, despite the fact that four of his companies have. Trump also made a weak attempt to explain his ties to the Clintons (they attended his wedding) by saying they felt obligated because he gave money to the Clinton Foundation. Trump did make one salient economic point, though, saying Iran will be a highly rewarding investment if the sanctions are lifted. A point that many large companies and investors agree with. Other candidates floated interesting ideas on bridging the gap between federal revenue and spending. Mike Huckabee's plan for funding Social Security and Medicare is to ensure that "illegals, prostitutes, pimps, and drug dealers" pay their taxes. Ben Carson also addressed taxation by turning to the Bible, pitching the idea of a flat tax akin to tithing, where everyone gives 10% of their income to the church. Chris Christie went after one of the GOP's biggest economic touchstones, noting that the government needs to address entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, and benefits for veterans and federal employees, which make up 71% of the national budget. John Kasich didn't offer any specifics about how to improve the economy, but he did make a point to mention that any economic growth needs to reach minorities and other vulnerable communities. Immigration Jeb Bush identified immigration as an economic issue, proposing a reform initiative that would allow more highly skilled workers into the country. This stance is supported mainly by those in the growing tech sector. Trump really let his ego roam when he claimed that he started the debate on immigration. (Republicans have been disagreeing with Obama's immigration policy since he came into office.) Trump followed that up by claiming that Mexico is shipping criminals over the boarder to the United States because "they don't want to pay for them."  Marriage Equality Kasich's remarks on gay marriage proved to be a delightful moment of reason and a possible bridge to right-leaning Independents wary of the GOP's position on the issue. When asked about his stance on same-sex marriage, Kasich stated that he would respect the ruling of the Supreme Court and reasoned that just because he doesn't agree with someone doesn't mean he can't love and respect them.  Abortion On a more strident note, Mike Huckabee vocalized his staunch position against a woman's right to an abortion. He favors a constitutional amendment banning abortions. When asked how his message would appeal to Democrats and Independents, Huckabee reiterated his unequivocal "pro life" position. The former pastor also suggested that the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution protect a fetus at the moment of conception, just the same as a person. Women One of the most disturbing quotes of the evening came, not surprisingly, from Trump, on the topic of his treatment of women. When moderator Megyn Kelly asked him about his record of referring to women he doesn't like as "fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals," the casino/hotel mogul brushed the issue off, saying he was just joking. Of course, he followed that up by threatening to be mean to Kelly.  Overall, the night proved to be full of buzzworthy clips and shocking pullout quotes. But as far as any substantive debate about actual tactics and policies, the discussion was about as deep as a puddle. Who can be surprised though? With so many candidates to contend with, the debate couldn't have been anything but a competition to be remembered. We won't get any real sense of the candidates until the field is culled. Good investing, Samantha Solomon |
LAZARO R GONZALEZ Para Alcalde del Condado Miami Dade
Elecciones de noviembre 8, 2016
Escriba el nombre de
Lázaro R González en la boleta electoral en el espacio en blanco Para alcalde
del Condado Miami Dade.
Por favor dígaselo a sus amigos y familiares si quiere que se acabe el
relajo, el robo, el descaro, la mala administración y que el gobierno le
responda a usted, no permita más abusos.
BETWEEN THE
LINES
WHO LOST THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?
Exclusive: Joseph Farah
names biggest deadbeat in historic prime-time event
Published: 16 hours ago
image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2011/12/Joseph-Farah_avatar.jpg
image:
http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//favicon.ico
I don’t think there’s
any question who won the first Republican
presidential debates.
Political correctness.
The candidates who impressed and energized voters were Donald Trump, Dr.
Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee – and, what they had in
common, was their unbridled attacks on the irrational, illogical plague of
mental illness that threatens to destroy America’s free society.
We all know Trump stole the big show. His personality is bigger than
life. He’s brutally blunt and consistently drives home the point that the
language of political correctness is designed to limit debate, limit solutions
to problems that are ravaging the country and limit rational thinking about
ways to save America from its downward cultural, spiritual, economic and
political spiral.
But Trump was not alone. Others who broke through to connect with voters
were those who weren’t afraid to venture off the politically correct
reservation.
So who lost the debate?
While Fox News is toasting itself for the record-shattering ratings for
the debates, the “fair and balanced network” might have to rethink its
marketing slogan.
Megyn Kelly was over the top in suggesting Donald Trump is anti-woman –
maybe even part of the Democrats’ phony “war on women” concocted to eliminate
from acceptable political discussion the sanctity of life and the sanctity of
marriage.
The popular anchorwoman was clearly out to get Trump – nail him for
unacceptable name-calling – and, in the process, become part of the debate
herself, showing anger, open hostility and emotion in her “gotcha” assertion
that he wouldn’t be able to stand up to Hillary Clinton in a presidential
campaign.
For Chris Wallace, too, asking tough questions wasn’t enough. He openly
mocked candidates for not answering his question. Whatever happened to “we
report, you decide”?
While Bret Baier remained, as always, a consummate professional newsman,
it’s quite possible the performances of Kelly and Wallace in front of Fox News’
biggest audience ever could foment discontent with the base for a network built
on its reputation as an “alternative” to the misnamed “mainstream media.”
When Fox News gets rave reviews from the fringe MSNBC for its aggressive
pursuit of the leading Republican presidential contender and kid-glove
treatment of GOP establishment figures, you might think the big audience could
prove to be a mixed blessing for the future of Fox.
Remember, also, that
there are big changes coming for Fox News and the formula that made it the most
successful cable news channel, showering it, along the way, with higher profits
than ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and CNN combined.
The tenure of the two architects of this success are nearing the end of
their careers at the helm. Rupert Murdoch is preparing for retirement and
delegating authority to his children, who don’t share his eclectic views, and
Roger Ailes, the genius programmer, is operating on borrowed time as Murdoch’s
kids have openly signaled their own distaste for the Fox News formula that
actually permits a fairly wide spectrum of ideas and opinions to be expressed
on air.
Many Fox News viewers have actually come to believe the criticism of Fox
from its worst antagonists – that it is a purveyor of right-wing thought. It
never has been. But the attacks on Fox News have helped propel its legendary
ratings and revenue success. Now, however, following this first series of 2016
Republican presidential debates, Fox viewers are expressing the kind of outrage
normally reserved for CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC.
While Trump emerged unscathed from the bare-knuckled, undisguised, open
attacks by two Fox News stars – and possibly more popular than ever – Fox News’
position could be diminished as a result. It might even be time for some damage
control.
WESTERN JOURNALISM: Rosie O’Donnell Could Only Respond With 6 Words To
Trump’s Vicious Debate Jab
Megyn
Kelly upbraided Trump, saying he has called women he doesn’t like “fat pigs,
dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”
Rosie
O’Donnell dismissed
Donald Trump’s revival of their long-standing feud with six words via Twitter.
Meanwhile, Trump insisted neither he nor America have time for “total political
correctness” and that many of his comments online are meant to be “fun” and “a
good time.”
At
Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, moderator Megyn Kelly upbraided
Trump, saying he has called women he doesn’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and
disgusting animals.” Trump cut her off, saying, “Only Rosie O’Donnell.”
Advertisement
RELATED STORIES
O’Donell’s
tweet in response was curt. “Try explaining that 2 ur kids,” she wrote.
At the
debate, Kelly chided Trump for his reply. “For the record, it was well beyond
Rosie O’Donnell.”
Trump and
O’Donnell have had high profile blowups in the past. In 2006, she called Trump a “snake-oil
salesman” for not firing Miss USA Tara O’Connor over drug abuse.
“[He] left the first wife—had an affair. [He] had kids both times,
but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America,” she said then.
Advertisement
TRENDING
STORIES
Trump, in
his 2006 response, called O’Donnell “nice fat little Rosie” and a “dummy.”
“She’s an
extremely unattractive person who doesn’t understand the truth. … I think she’s
a terrible person … She has failed at everything she has done… She’s a bully
and she sucker punches people,” he said on Larry King Live at the time.
“Probably
the Trump stuff was the most bullying I ever experienced in my life, including
as a child,” O’Donnell said later in a 2014 interview. “It was national, and it
was sanctioned societally. Whether I deserved it is up to your own
interpretation.”
Scott Walker Rips Hillary Clinton at Conservative
Conference
'Hillary
Clinton can be the Deceiver-in-Chief, but we cannot trust her to be the
Commander-in-Chief'
Dear Conservative,
Gov. Scott Walker 'tore-into' Hillary Rodham Clinton in a powerful speech to conservatives at the RedState conservative conference this weekend in Atlanta.
Gov. Scott Walker used his time to
"talk about one particular candidate - Hillary Clinton".
Here is what he said:
"We need to remind the American
people that as bad as things are under this President today, they would be much
worse in a President Hillary Clinton.
"Hillary Clinton is going to claim
she has the upper hand when it comes to foreign policy. But think about
that... Everywhere in the world that Hillary Clinton has touched is more
messed-up today then before she and the President took office..."
"Hillary Clinton can be the deceiver-in-chief, but we cannot trust her to be the Commander-in-Chief..."
A confident Scott Walker then made his
case for the Republican nomination to conservatives, asking the audience:
"Who's best equipped to make sure
that Hillary Clinton is not the next President?"
Without hesitation, Scott Walker answered:
"I can argue to you that I am the
best candidate to take on Hillary Rodham Clinton because I just don't talk
about it. I FIGHT and I WIN and I have a RECORD of ACCOMPLISHMENTS in a 'Blue State' and I cannot compromise my principles at any
time...
"There are fighters who have yet to win those
fights, and there are winners who are yet to be in the fight. I am the only one
who has fought and won..."
"That's the kind of leader we
need."
In
politics, actions speak louder than words, which is why Scott Walker's PROVEN
track record is so important.
Scott
Walker has shown us time and again that he's got the guts to FIGHT for our
conservative American values.
Walker is the REAL deal - a genuine
conservative with a PROVEN track record of success.
City Journal
A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by
the Manhattan Institute.
edited by Brian C. Anderson.
© The
Manhattan Institute
Urbanities
by Theodore Dalrymple
Why Havana Had to Die
Written in the Summer
2002
Decay, when not carried to excess, has its
architectural charms, and ruins are romantic: so romantic, indeed, that
eighteenth-century English gentlemen built them in their gardens, as pleasantly
melancholic reminders of the transience of earthly existence. But Fidel Castro
is no eighteenth-century English gentleman, and Havana is not his private
estate, for use as a personal memento
mori. The ruins of Havana that he has brought into being are, in fact, the
habitation of over 1 million people, whose collective will, these ruins attest,
is not equal in power to the will of one man. “ Comandante en jefe,” says one
of the political billboards that have replaced all commercial advertisements,
“you give the orders.” The place of everyone else, needless to say, is to obey.
Havana has changed a little since I was
last there, a dozen years ago. The vast Soviet subsidy has vanished; the
economy now depends on European tourism. The influx of tourists, most of them
in search of a cheap holiday in the tropics and cheerfully oblivious to Cuba’s
politics, has necessitated a slight degree of flexibility. Small private family
restaurants, called paladares ( paladar is Spanish for palate), with no more
than 12 seats, are now tolerated, though the hiring of non-family labor, deemed
exploitative by definition, is still not permitted. Only certain dishes are
allowed—not fish and lobster, reserved to the state restaurants—and those paladares that break the rules operate like
speakeasies in the time of Prohibition, the fish-bootlegging owners keeping a
nervous eye out for informers. (Committees for the Defense of the Revolution
still operate everywhere.) The owner of one such that I visited—with no sign
outside to mark its existence—anxiously looked through the peephole of the door
before letting anyone in. The taking of a simple meal at one of the three
tables turned into a scene from a spy novel.
Flea markets are also now legal in Cuba,
and a petty trade in cast-off clothing and household goods takes place. Twelve
years ago it was unthinkable for anyone to buy or sell anything in the open,
for buying and selling were symptoms of bourgeois individualism and contrary to
Fidel’s socialist vision, in which everything is to be rationed—rationally, as
it were—according to need. (In practice, of course, this meant rationing
according to what there was, which was not much.)
Openings to small-scale commerce have
occurred before during Castro’s 43-year rule, but they have always soon
succumbed to periods of “rectification,” after it became all too apparent that
people were responding more vigorously to economic incentives than they ever
had to the “moral” ones praised in the adolescent theories of Che Guevara. But
this time the commercial activity is more secure, because it is essential to the
regime’s economic survival. When last I was in Havana, even the dollar-laden
foreigner couldn’t find food to eat outside his hotel—a situation that hardly
encouraged mass tourism. Now, of necessity, cafés and bars aplenty cater to the
visitor.
The economy is now extensively dollarized,
a curious and ironic denouement to decades of impassioned nationalism. When I
asked in my hotel to change money into pesos, I was told—quite rightly, it
turned out—that I would not need them. The few dusty shops that were prepared
to exchange goods for pesos—for moneda
nacional—advertised this extraordinary fact in their windows, as if
performing a miracle, though the goods for sale were few and of the lowest
quality. Last time I was in Cuba, the possession of a dollar by an ordinary
Cuban was a crime, virtually proof of disloyalty and disaffection, if not of
outright economic sabotage of the revolution. Dollars were handled as if they
were nitroglycerine, liable to blow up in your face at the slightest jolt; but
now they are merely units of currency, which anyone may safely handle.
The sheer number of foreign visitors to
Cuba means that, though the hotel lobbies are still patrolled by security men
with walkie-talkies to ensure that no unauthorized Cubans enter, relations
between Cubans and foreigners are more relaxed than they once were. To talk to
a foreigner is no longer a sign of political unreliability, and conversations
do not have to be carried out in a hole-and-corner fashion, behind walls, with
one nervous eye open for spies and eavesdroppers. I even received a few requests
that I send medicine, since none was available in the local pharmacies—an
admission, unthinkable a few years ago, that all is not well in the
much-vaunted health-care system.
People will even speak of lo bueno and lo
malo, the good and the bad, of the revolution—usually adding that lo malo was very, very bad. One man, brought
up in the 1970s, told me that he had been fired by revolutionary romanticism,
with Che Guevara and John Lennon as his heroes (he told me proudly that Havana
was one of three cities with memorials to Lennon, the others being Liverpool
and New York). He thought then that a new world had been in construction: but
he knew now that it had been a dead end. And old people in particular are
inclined to murmur jabón (soap) as you pass, in the hope that
you might have some of this rare and precious commodity to give away. When the
first old lady came up to me and said jabón,
I thought she was mad; but she was only the first of many.
There are now signs of a slight
intellectual opening. In La
Moderna Poesía, a bookshop in an art deco building on the Calle Obispo, I
found a Spanish translation of Karl Popper’s The
Open Society and Its Enemies. The price in dollars was unlikely to attract
many Cuban buyers. Perhaps it was there only to convince foreigners of the
regime’s intellectual tolerance; perhaps any Cuban who tried to buy it would be
reported at once to the authorities: but even so, the mere public presence of a
work so antithetical to the regime’s philosophy would have been unthinkable a
dozen years ago.
By contrast, the newspapers, Granma and Rebelde,
have not changed at all: to have read them 40 years ago is to have read them
today and tomorrow and in ten years’ time, if the regime
lasts that long. The incessant recital of social progress in Cuba in the face
of adversity, and horrible social breakdown everywhere else (especially, of
course, in the United States), would bore even the truest of believers. No
doubt that is why I saw not a single Cuban reading a newspaper or taking any notice
of the aged itinerant salesmen, each with about five copies to dispose of. When
I expressed an interest in buying one, the old men took the opportunity openly
to ask me for money: selling the newspaper was only a pretext to approach and
beg. The question “How much is the newspaper?” always drew the answer “Whatever
you would like to give.”
Forty-three years of totalitarian
dictatorship have left the city of Havana—one of the most beautiful in the
world—suspended in a peculiar state halfway between preservation and
destruction. For myself, I found the absence of the most grating aspects of
commercialism aesthetically pleasing: McDonald’s restaurants (and their like)
would ruin Havana as a townscape as comprehensively as time and neglect. And
the comparative lack of traffic in Havana demonstrates how mixed a blessing the
inexorable spread of the automobile has been for the quality of city life. Had
Havana developed “normally,” its narrow grid-pattern streets would by now be
choking with traffic and pollution, a suffocating inferno like Guatemala City
or San José, Costa Rica, where to breathe is to grow breathless, where noise
makes the ears sing, and where thoughts turn to escape as soon as possible.
The streets of Havana, not like that at
all, are pleasant to walk in. The air is clean, and there is no honking of
horns. You can hear yourself think and talk. Most of the few cars that pass are
American relics of the Batista era, battered but much restored; they rattle and
wheeze like beasts of burden driven forward under duress. Some seem to progress
crabwise, not straight ahead but sideways; and with the patina of time, these
vehicles, which once would have seemed the commonplace, throwaway mass products
of an industrialized society, have taken on an aura of romance, almost of
personality. They are loved and treasured as irreplaceable old friends, and
when you look at them you wonder how many of the objects that you take so much
for granted might one day be regarded in like fashion. It helps you to see the world
anew.
Few new buildings have been added to
Havana, which is just as well, of course, since those few are in the style of
totalitarian modernism, and ruin the neighborhood. In the very center of the
city, moreover, which UNESCO has declared to be part of humanity’s patrimony,
tasteful restoration work is under way. In the Plaza Vieja, a grand colonial
building has been transformed into luxury apartments for tourists to rent, with
an excellent restaurant downstairs (the very idea of an excellent restaurant in
Cuba was unthinkable 12 years ago). The bourgeoisie is thus a little like
nature: though you pitch it out with a revolution, yet it will in the end
return.
But the scale of the restoration of Havana
is as nothing compared with the scale of its ruination. It is quite literally
crumbling away. One of the most magnificent of its many magnificent streets is
known as the Prado, a wide avenue that leads to the sea, with a central
tree-lined marble walkway down which people stroll at night in the balmy air.
Some of the beautifully proportioned mansions along the Prado have collapsed
into rubble since the last time I was there; others have their facades—all that
remains of them—propped up by wooden struts. The palace along the Prado that
houses the national school of ballet is a mere shell, the ground floor
containing nothing but rubble: it is extraordinary to hear the sound of répétiteurs emerging from the upper floor of this
shell. Havana is like Beirut, without having gone through the civil war to
achieve the destruction.
No words can do justice to the
architectural genius of Havana, a genius that extended from the Renaissance
classicism of the sixteenth century, with severe but perfectly proportioned
houses containing colonnaded courtyards cooled and softened by tropical trees
and shrubs, to the flamboyant art deco of the 1930s and 40s. The Cubans of
successive centuries created a harmonious architectural whole almost without
equal in the world. There is hardly a building that is wrong, a detail that is
superfluous or tasteless. The tiled multicoloration of the Bacardi building,
for example, which might be garish elsewhere, is perfectly adapted—natural, one
might say—to the Cuban light, climate, and temper. Cuban architects understood
the need for air and shade in a climate such as Cuba’s, and they proportioned
buildings and rooms accordingly. They created an urban environment that, with
its arcades, columns, verandas, and balconies, was elegant, sophisticated,
convenient, and joyful.
Of course, not every Cuban shared it:
there were large shantytowns outside the city, and in the countryside much of
the peasantry lived in grinding poverty. In 1958, Cuba might have had Italy’s
overall levels of consumption per capita, more or less, but the consumption was
unevenly distributed. Yet what is so striking about Havana’s grandeur and
beauty is how extensive it is, and how wealthy (as well as sophisticated) the
society that produced it must have been. The splendor of Havana, rather than
being confined to a small quarter of the city, extends for miles.
The splendor is very faded now, of course.
The city is like a great set of Bach variations on the theme of urban decay.
The stucco has given way to mold; roofs have gone, replaced by corrugated iron;
shutters have crumbled into sawdust; paint is a phenomenon of the past;
staircases end in precipices; windows lack glass; doors are off their hinges;
interior walls have collapsed; wooden props support, though not with any degree
of assurance, all kinds of structures; ancient electrical wiring emerges from
walls, like worms from cheese; wrought ironwork balconies crumble into rust;
plaster peels as in a malignant skin disease; flagstones are mined for other
purposes. Every grand and beautifully proportioned room—visible through the windows
or in some places through the walls that have crumbled away—has been subdivided
by plywood partitions into smaller spaces, in which entire families now live.
Washing hangs from the windows of what were once palaces. Every entranceway is
dark, and at night the electric lights glimmer rather than shine. No ruination
is too great to render a building unfit for habitation: Havana is like a city
that has been struck by an earthquake and its population forced to survive
among the wreckage until relief arrives.
It cannot be said, however, that the
inhabitants of Havana appear notably unhappy—far from it. The children play
baseball cheerfully in the street with balls of compressed rags and bats of
metal piping. (Curiously, the Latin American countries with the strongest
anti-Yanqui political tradition are those where baseball is most
enthusiastically played, as if the politics aimed to assuage the guilt at
having taken up the pastime of the enemy.) There is plenty of social life in
the streets, much smiling and laughter, and it isn’t hard to find a small
fiesta with music and dancing. When you look into the homes that the people
have made among the ruins, there are the small, heartbreaking signs of pride
and self-respect that one also sees in the huts of Africa: the carefully tended
plastic flowers and other cheap ornaments, for example. A taste for kitsch
among the well-to-do is a sign of spiritual impoverishment; but among the poor,
it represents a striving for beauty, an aspiration without the likelihood of fulfillment.
Only the old look downcast or crushed: old people’s thoughts turn naturally to
the past, and the contrast between the Havana of their youth and the Havana of
their dotage must be painful to contemplate.
The evident contentment of the population
among the ruins, though, does not lessen my profound sorrow (and worse than
sorrow, it is something indefinable that weighs on the heart) to see the
destruction of a masterpiece of collective human endeavor down the ages,
Havana. On the contrary, I find the very unconcern profoundly disturbing. What
can it mean that people should live contentedly in the ruins of their own
capital city, the ruination having been wrought not by war or natural disaster
but by prolonged (and in my view deliberate) neglect? They are not barbarians
who actively smash or destroy what they do not understand and value; nor do
they fail to notice—how could they?—that the buildings in which they live are
on the verge of collapse. It is not difficult to get people to show you the ramshackle
ruins they inhabit, a service they perform with a laugh and a smile; it is
simply that to live thus has become natural for them, and the collapse of walls
and staircases seems no more avoidable than the weather.
An artist to whom I spoke, who was tentatively
trying to use his photographs to draw the attention of his countrymen to the
decay and destruction of their architectural inheritance occurring all around
them, explained the neglect of the city as a manifestation of the government’s
priorities. It had always been more concerned about education and the health
service, he said, than with preservation of the fabric of Havana. Though he
understood why the government should have considered the reduction of the
infant-mortality rate to be more important than the care of mere material
objects such as buildings, he himself had gradually come to see the importance
of preserving that inheritance: once gone, it was irrecoverable. But in his
opinion, most people were unconcerned by it.
Alas, I suspect that the neglect of Havana
has a deeper and more sinister rationale than the one the artist proposed. It
is not difficult to imagine Castro’s angry response to the accusation that he
has let Havana fall into ruins. He would argue that, largely because of the American
embargo, he had always had to establish clear spending priorities, and that
schools, hospitals, and medicines mattered more for the life of a people than
the upkeep of a capital city in which only a minority of the population lived.
Life itself was more important than objects: and Cuba’s low infant-mortality
rate and high life expectancy were justification of his policies.
But this answer would not, in my view, be
entirely honest—even beyond the question of whether Cuba’s progress in literacy
and public health necessitated Castro’s policies or justified the evident lack
of freedoms enjoyed by Cubans. I suspect that the neglectful ruination of
Havana has served a profoundly ideological purpose. After all, the neglect has
been continuous for nearly half a century, while massive subsidies from the
Soviet Union were pouring in. A dictator as absolute as Castro could have
preserved Havana if he had so wished, and could easily have found an economic
pretext for doing so.
Havana, however, was a material refutation
of his entire historiography—of the historiography that has underpinned his
policies and justified his dictatorship for 43 years. According to this
account, Cuba was a poor agrarian society, impoverished by its dependent
relationship with the United States, incapable without socialist revolution of
solving its problems. A small exploitative class of intermediaries benefited
enormously from the neocolonial relationship, but the masses were sunk in
abject poverty and misery.
But Havana was a large city of astonishing
grandeur and wealth, which was clearly not confined to a tiny minority, despite
the coexistence with that wealth of deep poverty. Hundreds of thousands of
people obviously had lived well in Havana, and it is not plausible that so many
had done so merely by the exploitation of a relatively small rural population.
They must themselves have been energetic, productive, and creative people.
Their society must have been considerably more complex and sophisticated than
Castro can admit without destroying the rationale of his own rule.
In the circumstances, therefore, it became
ideologically essential that the material traces and even the very memory of
that society should be destroyed. In official publications (and all
publications in Cuba are official) the only positive personages from the past
are rebels and revolutionaries, representing a continuing nationalist tradition
of which Castro is the apotheosis: there is no god but revolution, and Castro
is its prophet. The period between Cuban independence and the advent of Castro
is known as “the Pseudorepublic,” and the corrupt thuggery of Batista, as well
as the existence of poverty, is all that needs (or is allowed) to be known of
life immediately before Castro.
But who created Havana, and where did the
magnificence come from, if before Castro there were only poverty, corruption,
and thuggery? Best to destroy the evidence, though not by the crude Taliban
method of blowing up the statues of Buddha, which is inclined to arouse the
opprobrium of the world: better to let huge numbers of people camp out
permanently in stolen property and then let time and neglect do the rest. In a
young population such as Cuba’s, with little access to information not filtered
through official channels, life among the ruins will come to seem normal and
natural. The people will soon be radically disconnected from the past of the
very walls they live among. And so the present ruins of Havana are the material
consequence of a monomaniacal historiography put into practice.
Yet foreshortened memory can be made to
serve an ideological turn, as has happened with the restoration of a small area
of the city—a much-needed restoration, for inhabited ruins will not long
attract mass tourism. And so a large and glossy book has appeared, recording by
means of before-and-after photographs the Herculean efforts of the regime to
restore some of the buildings of old Havana that had fallen practically into
ruins. Entitled Lest We Forget,
the book omits to mention how the ruination came about in the first place. The
restoration is thus one triumph more for the revolution.
The
terrible damage that Castro has done will long outlive him and his regime.
Untold billions of capital will be needed to restore Havana; legal problems
about ownership and rights of residence will be costly, bitter, and
interminable; and the need to balance commercial, social, and aesthetic
considerations in the reconstruction of Cuba will require the highest
regulatory wisdom. In the meantime, Havana stands as a dreadful warning to the
world—if one were any longer needed—against the dangers of monomaniacs who
believe themselves to be in possession of a theory that explains everything,
including the future.
|
|
Translate message
Añado,
que Trump, es amigo de los Clinton y fue Demócrata primero.
El ha
impresionado, pues ha dicho muchas cosas que nadie se ha atrevido a decir, y
eso le trae popularidad.
Sera
este hombre una carta para darle el triunfo a Hilary Clinton?.
Slds
Fox News
El Presidente Obama continuó sus críticas de Fox News, argumentando
que los televidentes de la red están recibiendo un conjunto diferente de los
hechos que en el resto del país. "No estamos en una conversación
común", dijo. "Si ves Fox News, habitas en un mundo totalmente
diferente con diferentes hechos que si usted lee el New York Times," dijo.
Donald Trump expresó una entrevista en CNN su malestar por el tono
"agresivo" e "injusto" con que los moderadores de Fox New
se dirigieron a él, con "como personales directos en mayor cantidad al
resto de candidatos
Fox News es como Juan el Bautista de los evangelios, una voz que clama
en el desierto. La única voz que podemos oír en la televisión que nos
reporta las noticias sin compromisos y presenta todos los puntos de vista. Como
dice su lema de una manera justa y balanceada.
Pero tanto Trump cómo Obama lo consideran injusto porque no se adaptan
a su manera de pensar, esto era algo inconcebible en América en el pasado,
donde todos los candidatos y presidentes fueron blanco de los medios
comunicativos que trataban de llevar al público la opinión del político que los
representaba o los aspira a representar y nadie ni pensaba en quejarse de
las preguntas de los periodistas, hubiera sido contraproducente. Pero
vivimos en otros tiempos..
Esta coincidencia de Trump y Obama nos dice de cómo ha bajado el
rasero moral político cuando tanto un presidente cómo un candidato se quejan de
que un periodista ejerza su derecho a cuestionar a un político, cuando se nos
presentan ejecutivos y aspirantes a ejecutivos con la soberbia y arrogancia de
un dictador de una dictadura bananera.
Pero gracias a Dios por Fox News, que nos la conceda por muchos años,
porque si, tiene razón Obama habitamos en mundo totalmente diferente porque
vemos a Fox News Y AL NEW YORK TIMES, y podemos comparar los dos puntos de
vistas. Gracias a Dios por Fox News porque por las preguntas a los
candidatos republicanos podremos hacer una decisión mucho más educada e
inteligente que si hubieran sido entrevistados por periodistas tramitados
complacientes.
Tiene que pensar en esto Trump cuando va a la emisora del enemigo
para hablar mal del único medio de comunicación restante que nos representa.
No creo que nadie con un sentido de lo que es la libertad de expresión
pueda recibir estos ataques como algo diferente a los que son, y son un elogio
de la labor periodística de Fox News, porque no hay mejor elogio a un demócrata
que el ataque de un tirano.
CUBA MURIÓ EN
LA CRUZ-ESTEBAN FERNANDEZ
Ayer un tipo que lee mis escritos
demostrando mi amor por los recuerdos de mi patria antes del castrismo me dijo:
“Pues, allá nadie quiere regresar a los oprobios del pasado” Lo miré, me sonreí
y le dije: “Perfecto, pues parece que la mayoría se conforma y se adapta, con
la basura del presente” Porque eso es lo que es la Cuba actual: UNA BASURA.
Porque no crean que yo me engaño y no siento el dolor de darme cuenta que de
aquella Patria que yo les hablo ya no queda nada. Esa murió en la cruz. La Cuba
de hoy es la creada por Fidel y Raúl Castro, y un montón de Generales, dueños
de esa Isla, con cientos y cientos de mansiones, de Mercedes Benz, con miles de
millones de dólares en el exterior. Eso es Cuba hoy.
Y al mismo tiempo Cuba es para
los cubanos hambre, miseria, desolación, cárcel, chivatos, Comités de Defensa,
diplotiendas para los extranjeros y playas privadas para los turistas.
Cuba es una televisión
aburrida, una radio maniatada, un periódico que sólo lanza propaganda
gubernamental y castrista. Cuba es falta de transporte, guaguas que nunca
llegan y cuando llegan están atestadas de pueblo como si fuera ganado, Cuba es
escasez, sangre, lágrimas de padres por hijos muertos e hijos en el exilio,
hijos muertos en el medio del mar caídos de balsas utilizadas como vía de
escape de la ignominia.
Cuba es represión, es
Ministerio del Interior, es Seguridad del Estado, es tener dos caras, es tener
que asistir a manifestaciones en contra de la voluntad, es tener que decir
públicamente “Viva Fidel y Raúl” y por dentro defecarse en ellos, es tener que
demostrar odio a los yanquis y por dentro estar desesperados por poder poner
los pies en U.S.A.
Cuba es no ver un pedazo de
carne en meses, ni disfrutar de una Materva, ni de un sándwich cubano. Cuba es
vivir en Cuba y no ver los productos cubanos, Cuba es cuentas secretas en
bancos del extranjero de dos tiranos, Ladas y relojes Rolex para los Mayimbes,
y racionamiento para el pueblo de “a pie”.
Cuba es inculcarle en las
escuelas a los niños a “seguir el ejemplo de un argentino asmático, suicida y
fracasado” y los niños lo que quieren ser es “turistas extranjeros”. Cuba es
jineteras, médicos manejando taxis, Cuba es tener que demostrar adhesión a la
tiranía para poder estudiar una carrera universitaria, Cuba es refrigeradores
vacíos, perros famélicos deambulando por las calles, Cuba es “Remolcador 13 de
marzo”, el maleconazo, moscas, suciedad, basura en las calles, edificios
derrumbados o apuntalados, apagones, falta de agua, falta de higiene, falta de
medicinas, consignas antiamericanas, ocultamiento de glorias pasadas, periodo
especial eterno, asqueroso picadillo de soya, carretones de mulas convertidos
en taxis. Cuba no produce alimentos pero produce Brigadas de Respuesta Rápida.
Actos de repudio contra todo el
que discrepa, niños adoctrinados con pañoletas rojas y vestidos de Pioneros,
televisores y radios destartalados, carros desbaratados del año 57 y 58 andando
por las calles, sin piezas de repuestos y poniendo en peligro a la ciudadanía.
Cuba es pesos cubanos sin valor
alguno, bisté de frazada, colas en busca de alimentos, Cuba es “Villa Marista”,
“Combinado del Este” y “100 y Aldabó”, y las fotos de Nicolás
Maduro a pupilo en la prensa controlada, profesionales montados en
bicicletas, orientales como limosneros recorriendo las calles de La Habana
conocidos como “los palestinos”, Cuba es casi dos millones de exiliados,
separación de las familias, y Cuba es Dalia Soto y Mariela Castro Espín con
mansiones en la Riviera Francesa, en Sicilia y París, mientras los cubanos no
tienen ni papel higiénico, ni las mujeres tienen Kotex, y se dificulta hasta
encontrar una aspirina. Eso es Cuba hoy en día.
Quintin George:
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
Donald Trump Says He Fired Campaign
Strategist — but That Might Not Be the Whole Story
·
Tweet This
·
·
·
Apparently tension had been brewing between Republican presidential candidate
Donald Trump and his longtime campaign strategist for some time — and then
after Thursday’s GOP debate, things reportedly boiled over and now Roger Stone
is gone.
Image source: AP
The question is: Who cut the ties?
Washington Post national political reporter Robert Costa broke the news
Saturday via Twitter that Stone got the “you’re fired” treatment from Trump:
Trump said Stone might offer a different version of events:
Indeed Stone did have a different take, telling Costa he “fired Trump.”
“Unfortunately, the current controversies involving personalities and
provocative media fights have reached such a high volume that it has distracted
attention from your platform and overwhelmed your core message …” Stone’s
resignation letter obtained
by MSNBC read. “… With this
current direction of the candidacy, I no longer can remain involved in your
campaign.”
Costa noted that Trump and Stone had
been at odds for a while, and then
after things “flared” following the debate, their relationship ended the next
day.
While Trump has been tearing
into Fox News host Megyn Kelly since the debate, Stone took part in
aTwitter
war with the network’s very own Geraldo Riveraa few days ago.
Costa also said Trump won’t apologize for his Kelly comments, insisted
he wouldn’t leave the race and that Fox News needs him:
Donald Trump Shocks, Takes War With Fox News to Next
Level With Latest Megyn Kelly Insult
·
Tweet This
·
·
·
Real estate tycoon Donald Trump escalated his war with Fox News during a
Friday evening appearance on CNN, hurling a shock insult at Megyn Kelly.
After Trump said he has “no respect” for Kelly and contended that she is
“highly overrated,” he took one more jab at her.
“You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out
of her — wherever,” he said, in reference to Thursday night’s GOP debate.
The comment was immediately met with backlash online.
“Totally out of line.”
Share:
(Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
Trump’s
spat with Fox News began after Kelly asked him during the debate about disparaging
commentshe had made towards women in the past.
After
the debate, the GOP hopeful said the questions he faced from debate moderators
were “not nice.”Trump then turned to Twitter to blast Kelly and pollster Frank Luntz whose focus
group showed that the outspoken businessman lost support.
When
debate ratings came out, Trump continued to battle Fox News,
saying the network “should be ashamed.” He also called for the firing of pundit
Charles Krauthammer who criticized his debate performance.
Kelly, for her part, has not directly addressed the
comments — either on Twitter or on her show — and appears to be looking to take
the higher ground in the dispute.
A Fox News spokesperson did, however, tell TheBlaze
Friday that she would be a guest on Sunday’s episode of “Media Buzz.” In her
appearance, which was pre-taped Friday, Kelly will talk about Thursday’s debate
and Trump.
Lázaro R González para
Alcalde del Condado de Miami Elecciones de Noviembre 8 del 2016. Use la boleta en blanco.
Por favor infórmeselo
a todos los familiares, vecinos y amigos, No aceptamos contribuciones
monetarias Contacto: lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
No comments:
Post a Comment