No 613 “En mi opinión” Marzo
8, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
“EMO” A ESTA PRESENTADORA
DEBIAN HACERLA: “ANCOR”DE LA MAYOR CADENA TELEVISIVA DE LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS DE
AMERICA. NOS HACE FALTA GENTE CON: MORAL, DIGNIDAD, VERGÜENZA Y HONOR PORQUE
CON POCAS EXEPCIONES NO TENEMOS MUCHAS
PERSONAS INTEGRAS AQUÍ. LRGM http://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2014/03/06/presentadora-renuncia-en-vivo-no-puedo-ser-parte-de-la-red-que-encubre-las-acciones-de-putin/
Presentadora renuncia en vivo:
"No puedo ser parte de una red que encubre acciones de Putin"
Por Greg
Botelho, CNN
(CNN) - Otro miembro de la cadena noticiosa
financiada por el gobierno ruso, Russia Today, creó polémica el miércoles, al
no respaldar a Moscú, como la cadena de noticias suele hacer, sino oponiéndose.
Desde el asiento de conducción,
Liz Wahl cerró un espectáculo, como se ve en el video que más tarde tuiteó, hablando de los "retos éticos y
morales" que enfrenta al trabajar para Russia Today, también conocido como
RT. Ella comentó que provenía de una familia que huyó a Estados Unidos para
escapar de las fuerzas soviéticas durante la revolución húngara de 1956, siendo
la hija de un veterano militar de Estados Unidos y la pareja de un médico que
trabaja en una base militar de Estados Unidos.
"Y es por eso que,
personalmente, no puedo ser parte de una red financiada por el gobierno ruso
que encubre las acciones del presidente Putin", dijo Wahl, refiriéndose al
presidente ruso Vladimir Putin.
"Me siento orgullosa de ser
estadounidense y creemos en la difusión de la verdad", agregó. "Y es por
eso, que después de este noticiero, voy a renunciar".
No quiere decir que
necesariamente debía tardarse mucho más, después de sus comentarios. En un
comunicado, RT dijo: "Cuando un periodista no está de acuerdo con la
posición editorial de su organización, el curso normal de acción es abordar
esos agravios con el editor y, si no se pueden resolver, renunciar como un
profesional".
"Pero cuando alguien
presenta un espectáculo público grande de una decisión personal, no es nada más
que un truco de autopromoción", dijo la cadena.
Hablando el miércoles por la
noche con Anderson Cooper de CNN, Wahl dijo que el hecho que ella lo hacía
"para beneficio personal... no podría estar más lejos de la verdad".
Dijo que había "dudado en relación a hablar sobre esto por un tiempo, por
temor a las repercusiones", pero decidió actuar ahora basada en su
creencia sobre que "la naturaleza propagandista de RT había hecho pública
con toda su fuerza" sobre su cobertura de la crisis de Ucrania.
"RT no es acerca de la
verdad, se trata de promover una agenda putinista" le dijo Wahl a CNN.
"Y puedo decirlo de primera mano, se trata de ataques verbales a Estados
Unidos".
Wahl, quien se describe como
filipina-húngara-americana y corresponsal de RT América en su cuenta de
Twitter, se convirtió en la segunda figura de Russia Today en retar de forma
pública y desafiante al gobierno que con eficacia firma sus cheques de pago.
Su anuncio de renuncia no
mencionó explícitamente la crisis en Ucrania, aunque ella lo mencionó
posteriormente en su entrevista con CNN. Respaldado por diplomáticos del oeste,
los funcionarios en esa nación europea oriental reclaman que las tropas rusas
han violado su soberanía con eficacia invadiendo la península de Crimea.
Putin, por su parte, ha negado
haber enviado más tropas rusas al país, o que alguno de los más de 25.000
soldados que están posicionados allí haya jugado algún papel en el
enfrentamiento, según la agencia de noticias estatalRIA Novosti.
Pero esa situación es central
para la cobertura de RT, que se inclina hacia el punto de vista de Moscú. El
miércoles, por ejemplo, su sitio web contó historias
con titulares como "francotiradores de Kiev contratados por los líderes de
Maidan", "'estereotipos de la Guerra Fría': Rusia condena plan de la
OTAN" y "Preguntas sobre Ucrania, Occidente opta por no
responder".
Hace dos días, otra figura de RT,
Abby Martin, se refirió directamente a "la ocupación militar de Rusia en
Crimea" aunque parecía que se estaba saliendo del guión a favor de Rusia
al final de su programa "Breaking the Set".
"No puedo expresar lo
suficiente que tan firmemente estoy en contra de cualquier intervención del
Estado en los asuntos de una nación soberana", dijo Martin, originaria de
California que, como Wahl, tiene sede en Washington. "Lo que Rusia hizo
está mal".
Aunque Martin se negó a
"defender la agresión militar", ella no dejó RT.
De hecho, ella volvió a salir al
aire la noche siguiente y ni siquiera fue amonestada, de acuerdo con la red.
Como RT señaló en un comunicado, Martin lo llamó "una especie de triste
comentario que", aunque ella ha hablado regularmente en contra de la
intervención militar, "mi única crítica de las acciones de Rusia fueron
usadas" por los medios de comunicación.
La noche del miércoles, Wahl dijo
que recientemente se había molestado porque unas partes de una de sus
entrevistas se había recortado, a lo que calificó como un segmento "muy
peligroso" en elementos neonazis entre la oposición ucraniana y preguntas
"muy, muy cargadas" planteadas por la administración de RT.
"Sentí que ya no podía
trabajar aquí y salir en la televisión y decirle al pueblo estadounidense que
esto es lo que está pasando y hacerlo pasar como noticias", dijo Wahl.
"Es algo de lo que no me siento a gusto".
La llamada filtrada plantea interrogantes
sobre quién estaba detrás de los ataques del francotirador en Ucrania.
Tanto los comentarios de Wahl
como los de Martin ponen en relieve que es RT exactamente, en cuanto a su
propósito y punto de vista, sobre todo en relación a su programación en inglés
con sede en Estados Unidos.
El sitio
web del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia apunta a la red como una fuente de medios de
comunicación superior. Y el Columbia Journalism Review dice que es mejor "conocido como una
extensión de la política extranjera de confrontación del anterior presidente
Vladimir Putin".
En su declaración sobre Martin,
la red dijo que "los periodistas y los presentadores de RT son libres de
expresar sus propias opiniones".
Lo que hace que los comentarios
de Martin sean diferentes de los de Wahl, de acuerdo a RT, es que el primero
"habló en el marco de su propio programa de debates, a los espectadores
que han estado sintonizando por años para escuchar sus opiniones sobre temas de
actualidad, las opiniones que la mayoría de los medios de comunicación no les
importaba hasta hace dos días".
"Durante años, la Sra.
Martin ha estado hablando en contra de la intervención militar de Estados
Unidos solo para ser ignorados por los principales medios de noticias",
añadió RT. "Pero con ese único comentario, calificado como un acto de
desafío, se convirtió en una sensación de la noche a la mañana".
La red entonces parecía sugerir
que Wahl, quien aplaudió a Martin como "mi chica" después de su
comentario, prestó atención a todo el alboroto.
"Es un ejemplo tentador para
seguir," dijo RT.
Wahl dijo que muchos que siguen
el ejemplo de la administración de la red, los miembros de alto nivel que están
en Moscú, son jóvenes e "inexpertos" y "con ganas de
agradar" a sus jefes.
"Finalmente, aprendes lo que
le gusta a la administración, lo que no le gusta a la administración",
dijo. "... De cierto modo se aseguran que la narrativa se entregue de una
forma u otra".
AMENPER: En Defensa de Nuestro
Presidente Obama
Veo
que la nominación de Debo Adegbile para la posición de mayor responsabilidad en
materia de derechos civiles en el Departamento de estado está siendo
condenada como un acto de arrogancia de nuestro presidente, y que la respuesta
de Obama al Senado por el rechazo a la nominación también fue un acto de
arrogancia.
La
razón de esta percepción se debe a que Debo hizo lo que no debió en el pasado.
Debo
defendió a Mumia
Abu-Jamal un negro islámico que mató de dos tiros por la espalda a Daniel
Faulkner un oficial de la policía en Filadelfia mientas estaba dándole un
ticket de tráfico a su hermano.
Este era un
caso que en mi tiempo se hubiera resuelto como medida
preventiva colgando as la Mumia de Abul-Jamal de la rama más alta de
una guásma y posteriormente se le hubiera juzgado para ratificar la
condena.
Pero ya en
1981 eran otros tiempos, y Debo que era también era el director legal de la Asociación Nacional para el Progreso
de la Gente de Color (NAACP, en inglés) en el Fondo de Defensa Legal (LDF)
cuando defendió a Abu-Jamal no sólo se limitó a una defensa legal, pero inició
una campaña nacional alegando las acusaciones a Mumia como racista. La
campaña de esta institución fue algo excepcional, tal parecía que Mumia era un
ángel y el policía era un agente de la época de la alemania nazi.
La publicidad
de la época denunció la condena de Mumia como una parodia basada en
deliberaciones ilegales e injustas a un ciudadano por su raza.
Curiosamente
estos fueron los mismos adjetivos que Obama usó para criticar al senado,
diciendo que "El fracaso del
Senado a la hora de confirmar a Debo Adegbile para dirigir la División de
Derechos Civiles del Departamento de Justicia es una parodia basada en ataques
salvajemente injustos contra un servidor público bueno y cualificado"
Por
eso tengo que defender a Obama. Asombrarse de la arrogancia de Obama
es un acto de una falta de reconocimiento a esta condición sine qua non de
nuestro primer mandatario, es su carácter y no puede cambiar. Así ¿por qué se
asombran?
Además,
hay que reconocer que Obama gobierna bajo un nuevo juego de leyes establecidas
en la sociedad. Un negro nunca es culpable de un crimen de asesinar
a un blanco, condenar a un negro es una parodia bajo la nueva
ley, En un crimen el blanco siempre es culpable aunque el negro le
haya disparado por la espalda. Esta es la manera de pensar de Obama.
En
resumen, Obama es arrogante por naturaleza, y está convencido que los negros
tienen derecho superiores a los blancos, por eso Michelle dijo que por primera
vez en su vida se sentía orgullosa de ser americana.
Hay
que aceptar estas premisas, no hay por qué asombrarse ni nada que criticar, es
un hecho consumado sin discusión posible. Parafraseando a la madre
del defensor musulmán de Granada, no podemos llorar como hembras lo que no
supimos defender como machos en las urnas.
Los
que atacan a nuestro presidente tienen que darse cuenta de esto, y aceptar la
realidad.
No
importa que el Senado
estadounidense que rechazó la nominación sea de mayoría demócrata, no importa
que la votación ha sido el primer bloqueo después que los demócratas
modificaron las normas de votación del Senado para que se aprobaran todas las
nominaciones, no importa esto, estos viejos blancos del senado nunca debían de
haber rechazado a Debo, porque es negro, como Mumia era negro y como Obama
también es negro, así que evidentemente el rechazó a la nominación de Debo es
un acto “salvaje” de injusticia racial y Obama tiene el derecho a sentirse
ofendido porque para eso es presidente, como ha dicho, para hacer lo que le dé
la gana.
Es hora que
los opositores de Obama se ajusten a la nueva realidad, Obama es el ungido y no
se puede criticar ni oponerse a un nominado, así que tenemos que aceptar para
el departamento de armonía racial del departamento de justicia al presidente de
los panteras negras, si Obama decide nominarlo.
Y no se vayan
a oponer.
Donald Trump: “We’re Becoming A Third-World Country”
“EMO” Thanks to obama. LRGM
"We have
so much potential," he said. "We need to use it."
During
his address to the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
Thursday, Donald Trump pulled no punches in his portrayal of America’s current
state of affairs. The Western Center for Journalism is covering the three-day
gathering in Washington, D.C. and is reporting the analysis by Trump and many
other prominent speakers.
Real unemployment, the famed entrepreneur
and former Republican presidential candidate estimated, is as high as 22
percent. Dishonest calculations, however, suppress the real results of Barack
Obama’s disastrous economic policies.
“When you give up looking for a job,” he explained, “it’s like they consider
you employed.”
Americans are waking up to the truth,
however, as Obama’s approval ratings hit all-time lows.
“I’d love to see him do a great job … but
we all know it’s not going to happen,” Trump said, concluding that “we’re
getting into Jimmy Carter territory.”
America does have incredible untapped
potential, he insisted; but it will take a concerted effort among patriotic
Americans to secure a bright future for this nation.
“Somebody said, ‘Who is your audience?’
These are people that love the country, that want to see it be great again.
It’s that simple,” he said.
As a pivotal midterm election approaches,
Trump expressed confidence that the Republican Party will win back the U.S.
Senate. He is also optimistic about the 2016 presidential election; however, he
said the years following that cycle will be very trying for the country.
“If you look and study it like I do,” he
said, “all of the problems are being deferred to the year 2016 after the
election. I don’t know how the Republican leadership is allowing that to
happen.”
He shared a common concern among
economists that the years of 2017 and 2018 could usher in an “economic
catastrophe” as the policies of the Obama administration are fully implemented.
“Whoever’s president, good luck,” he said. “You’re going to have to be smart.”
America currently has a surplus of
problems, he said, and a dearth of leadership. He pivoted to Obama’s abysmal
foreign policy, touching on the upheaval in Ukraine. Just as Russian President
Vladimir Putin targeted the economic center of the Crimean peninsula, he said
attacks on American economy are threatening this country.
Instead of “rebuilding and rebuilding”
schools and roads in Afghanistan, he concluded the money would be much better
spent on similar projects in the U.S.
“We’re becoming a third-world country,” he
said.
Trump mentioned several issues that must
be addressed immediately, including America’s porous borders and lax immigration
policy.
“We either have borders or we don’t,” he
said.
While he conceded that “ObamaCare has to
be changed,” he criticized some Republicans who want to strip Social Security
benefits — as well as those who are targeting Medicaid and Medicare.
“I want to make this country so strong and
so rich and so powerful,” he continued, that those programs remain solvent for
those who need them most. Polling suggests, he said, that even the most
conservative Americans want to maintain these programs, even as some GOP
leaders are campaigning on a platform to radically decrease their funding.
“How the hell do you get elected when you
want to do that?” he asked.
He insisted that addressing and preventing
fraud within those programs, however, should be a priority.
In the end, he said America’s future is in
the hands of its leaders, urging voters to support those who will fight for our
constitutional values.
“We have so much potential,” he said. “We
need to use it.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/donald-trump-becoming-third-world-country/#GQlzhqosXOCt8bTp.99
AMENPER: La Seriedad del
Rechazo a la nominación de Adegbile. Ann Coulter
En un E Mail anterior tomé el caso de Debo
Adegbile con un grano de sal, dejando que mi lado ligero tomara en caso con
buen humor.
Pero la pura verdad sobre Debo Adegbile era que
él había incurrido en un caso flagrante de racismo inverso, tan común en estos
tiempos. Había sido un digno predecesor de los racistas de hoy.
Durante la defensa de Mumia Abul-Jamal, que se
convirtió en un circo romano fuera de la corte se mantuvieron por meses
tratando de convencer a las personas de lo indefendible. Los que somos lo
suficientemente viejos para haber vivido aquellos tiempos podemos atestiguar
por la intensidad de la propaganda.
Pero parece que entre los que convenció fue a
Barack Hussein Obama, Obama debe de haber sido de los defensores de Mumia en
1981. Obama debe de haber estado entre los manifestantes, Obama está convencido
que Mumia es una víctima del sistema democrático, por eso ahora está convencido
que el rechazo de su nominado lo convierte a él en una víctima del sistema.
¿Si no es así, como pudo haberse atrevido a
nominar a un racista como Adegbile para un cargo de derechos
civiles? Obama está convencido que Mumia es inocente y que Adegbile
es un héroe.
Pero eso fue demasiado para incluso siete
senadores demócratas — entre ellos, Bob Casey de Pennsylvania — quien se unió a
cada senador republicano — liderada por Pat Toomey de Pensilvania — para
bloquear el nombramiento del Sr. Adegbile para dirigir la división de derechos
civiles del Departamento de justicia.
Adegbile supervisó un equipo legal de NAACP que
argumentó que la condena asesinato de 1981 del asesinato del policía de
Filadelfia por Mumia Abu-Jamal, el ex pantera negra.
Mumia no era a pantera activa por convicción,
había dejado la organización porque no cumplía con los requerimientos de
asistencia a los cursos de instrucción y ejercicios militares. No era pantera
negra por arrepentimiento pero por su irresponsabilidad en todos los aspectos
de su vida...
La condena a muerte de Mumia, fue desestimada por
la campaña racista. La condena a muerte de la militante negro fue conmutada a
cadena perpetua, fue realmente un logro por la propaganda y así se reconoció
entonces. Pero ahora ya se olvidaron, han pasado 30 años y ahora nos
quieren decir que Mumia era inocente...
Ahora, es una cosa representar a un cliente a lo
mejor de su capacidad jurídica. Y no esperamos menos. Pero es otra cosa que
imprudentemente de aviven las llamas del racismo donde no existe y eso lo vimos
recientemente en el caso de Zimmerman, como los estamos viendo ahora. Y eso es
exactamente lo que hizo Adegbile. El Sr. Abu-Jamal no es el héroe ni un preso
político que fue pintado como y no es sin duda ninguna víctima. Es un asesino
despiadado y sin arrepentimiento.
Presidente Obama defendió las acciones indefendibles
de Adegbile, llamando a sus calificaciones "impecable", diciendo que
él "representa lo mejor de la profesión jurídica" y que su derrota
"es contrario a un principio fundamental de nuestro sistema de
justicia".
No, señor Presidente, los que se opusieron a la
nominación estaban representando al sistema jurídico tradicional y
representando la decencia común.
Our Biggest
National Security Crisis is Barack Obama
Speaking at the 2014 Conservative Political Action
Conference Thursday morning, Ambassador John Bolton slammed President Obama’s foreign policy approach and what
he called the Obama doctrine.
“Our biggest national security crisis is
Barack Obama,” Bolton said.
Bolton touched on the ongoing crisis with
Russia but classified the 9/11 terror attack in Benghazi as Barack Obama’s
biggest foreign policy failure.
“Libya is the paradigm of the Obama doctrine’s
failure,” Bolton said. “Since Benghazi, Obama has done nothing to avenge Chris
Stevens death.”
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/28781/john-bolton-biggest-national-security-crisis-barack-obama/#EPkQ0vE8o4hilJJZ.99
Amenper:
La Verdadera Prueba de la Sexualidad
Hoy estaba leyendo un articulo en Huffington Post sobre una lesbiana que se
sintió conmovida cuando una niña de 4 años le preguntó ¿Eres una niña o un
niño?.
La publicación liberal nos sigue contando sobre
la situación y la respuesta de la lesbiana de que hay personas que tienen
diferentes preferencias sexual .
El artículo se complace largamente tratando de
dar una explicación pseudocientífica, y criticando
la ignorancia de los que piensan diferente a ellos, llamándolos membretes para
hacerlos pasar como retrógrados ignorantes. Es largo, pueden leerlo si
prefieren hacerlo en este enlace
Ellos consideran como un hecho probado de que el
homosexual nace y no se hace. Pero
los estudios son forzados, o sea salen de una conclusión antes de hacer el
estudio, y como es lógico el estudio prueba lo que ellos quieren que
pruebe. Y después se ha
finalizado con la siempre presente corrección política.
La realidad es que esta niña representa la
realidad que provoca la inocencia. Ella no tiene prejuicios, ella sólo se
guía por lo que le enseña la realidad, y lo que le ha enseñado la naturaleza de
la diferencia entre ella y su hermanito.
El hombre y la mujer son los dos géneros humanos
que existen, son creados biológicamente diferenciados y con sus órganos para
reproducir y continuar la naturaleza humana.
Pero el ser humano no trata sólo de vivir y
sobrevivir satisfaciendo sus necesidades primarias (alimentación, descanso,
seguridad) sino de vivir complaciéndose a sí mismo. Por eso, lo más
genuino del ser humano es la transformación del entorno y hasta de su propia
persona en función de lo que en un momento el considera bueno y agradable para
él.
El problema es que esos deseos artificiales se
conviertan en generación de realidades superfluas o artificiosas que a la
larga, aunque lo nieguen, no le dan valor, y no le proporcionan
bienestar. Lo
problemático no es lo artificial sino que su creación artificial sea
artificiosa, vana, sin sentido, ajena a la naturaleza y su bienestar. Lo cuestionable es generar nuevos deseos e
intenciones cargados de artificialidad. En este nivel es dónde entra el
discernimiento ético. No todo objeto artificial hace bien al hombre, no toda
artificialidad proporciona bienestar o lo que él considera su bienestar.
Estas mejoras suponen modificar la naturaleza
humana para servir nuestros propios intereses. Lo importante es el propio
diseño, la propia voluntad, la ambición y las metas personales. El ser humano
se convierte en un superagente que busca su propia determinación. El ser humano juega a ser Dios interviniendo
en su propia naturaleza. El
ser humano parece pensar que él se ha creado a sí mismo olvidando, entre otras
cosas, su largo camino hacia la madurez.
No puede haber un nuevo sexo por la
preferencia de un ser humano, el sexo está definido biológicamente. Lo que puede haber son personas que
quieren modificar su naturaleza para una aberración que ha escogido para su
sexo artificial, ya sea haciendo sexo con animales, con fetiches o con personas
del mismo sexo. La realidad histórica de esto, es igual que la realidad
histórica de la mentira, se repite por generaciones, pero por su realidad
no podemos considerar que es correcto, y los que pensamos así tenemos
nuestro derecho natural y razonable.
Cuando hacemos cosas para servir nuestros
propios intereses, como mentir, robar, excederse en vicios como la droga o
convertirnos en borrachos, muchas personas nos dicen que estamos haciendo esto
porque nacimos así, aunque siempre vemos como se trata de usar ese tipo de
excusa para esconder la verdad de una conducta ajena a lo que nos brinda la
naturaleza.
La realidad es que el ser humano quiere evadir
la responsabilidad de sus hechos con excusas y la verdad como nos dicen los
filósofos griegos, la verdad es una sola y aunque la verdad algunas veces está
tapada como en el caso de la lesbiana y la niña, pero la verdad se puede
encontrar, lo único que tenía que hacer la niña para encontrar la verdad era
pedirle a la lesbiana que
se bajara los pantalones. Esta
respuesta hubiera sido mucho más convincente para la niña que el número de
palabras vacías con que le contestó.
SAMITIER: Hasta el New York Time lo reconoce
Los
Rusos Se Burlan De Las AMENAZAS De USA…
Obama
Ha Desprestigiado A Los Estados Unidos...
Para
leer más sobre la “TROMPETILLA” De Los
Rusos
A Obama... La Clinton Y Kerry...
Los representantes demócratas de
California protegen a uno de los SUS MIEMBROS QUE FUE CONDENADO
La Ley No
Es Igual Para Todos
Mientras a Todos los
Republicanos electos son FORZADOS A RENUNCIAR
Los congresistas
Californianos BLOQUEARON QUE UNO DE SUS MIEMBROS
FUERA FORZADO A RENUNCIAR A
PESAR DE HABER SIDO DECLARADO CULPABLE...
De contra a nadie se le
ocurre decir que es UNA PROTECCIÓN RACISTA...
YA QUE EL REPRESENTANTE
CONDENADA... ES negro...
Los pagos de IMPUESTOS DE APPLE...
Una Verdadera Lavandería De Dinero,
Pero Todo De Acuerdo Al
"IRS" Todo Legal HAY... Del Ciudadano que invoque los MISMO GASTOS... http://adage.com/article/the-media-guy/apple-avoids-paying-fair-share-taxes/292014/?utm_source=mediaworks&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=adage&ttl=1394743820
Ukraine's Crisis of Legitimacy. How the New Government in Kiev Can Save Itself. By Keith Darden
MARCH 3,
2014
It’s
been a turbulent few months in Ukraine. What began at a summit in Vilnius in
November as part of the EU’s ongoing effort to create a Europe “whole and free”
now looks increasingly like it could result in a Ukraine that is not whole and
perhaps not free. As Ukraine has moved from peaceful demonstrations to lethal
battles between police and protesters, and from President Victor Yanukovych’s
ouster to Russia’s seizure of the Crimean peninsula, Ukrainians and outside
observers alike talk openly of the country's collapse or descent into civil
war.
Back
in November, it all seemed so simple, or so the story goes. Many observers
argued that the offer of the Association Agreement with the EU, which would
boost Ukraine’s economic and cultural ties with Europe, presented the country
with a simple choice: the path of modernization, liberalization, the rule of
law, and greater integration with the West; or the course of authoritarianism,
cronyism, stagnation, and integration with Russia. After signaling for
months that he would sign the agreement, Yanukovych rejected it. Many thought
the gambit could never work, and the crowds that gathered on the Maidan seemed
to prove them right. The mass protests, according to most media coverage and
commentary, were a sign that Ukrainians, like the Polish and Baltic peoples
before them, want the prosperity and predictability that would flow from EU
accession.
There
is both truth and falsehood in this narrative. For 20 years, Ukraine has done
little more than tiptoe toward Europe and a liberal economic model. It is
certainly true that Ukrainians are not happy with the result. Elections have
been relatively free and competitive, but few other elements of liberalism have
followed. Across Ukraine, people express deep dissatisfaction with the
corruption and lawlessness that has marked their post-Soviet history. They want
security, an end to the abuse of power, a legitimate democratic process, and
above all the prosperity that comes from the rule of law. To the extent that
these are the values that constitute Europe, Ukrainians want to be part of
Europe.
But
the idea of Europe and the reality of integration into the European Union are
not the same thing. When pollsters from the Kiev
International Institute of Sociology, in November, asked Ukrainians
whether they wanted their country to join the EU, just 39 percent said yes (37
percent favored the Russian-led Customs Union). If pollsters had asked whether
they supported the government scaling back energy subsidies, laying off
workers, and reducing services in order to cut its budget deficit, the number
might have fallen into the single digits. But EU integration would, indeed,
force Ukraine to make such reforms to move its economy closer to European
standards. And joining Europe requires far more than just economic
reform.
The
surest way out of Russia’s efforts to divide the country is to restore
legitimacy to the government in Kiev through presidential and parliamentary
elections.
And
therein lies the rub. Although geographically proximate, Ukraine is still
institutionally distant from Europe. No Ukrainian government to date has shown
genuine willingness to close that gap, and citizens have long been divided on
whether they ought to try. Despite what opposition leaders say, there are few
signs that Ukraine’s new interim government, led by new Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk,
will be much different. Some of its first steps are even oddly redolent of the
country’s recent past.
In
the four years that Yanukovych was in power, he used his control of the courts
and the parliament to selectively prosecute his enemies, expropriate business
rivals, change the constitution to his liking, and accumulate wealth and power
(and a number of gaudy houses). In its first days in power, the new government
has installed its own loyalists in the prosecutor’s office, the police, and the
courts; impeached Yanukovych without using constitutionally mandated
procedures; freed its political friends and issued arrest warrants against its
enemies; and turned a blind eye as armed militias brandished their Kalashnikovs
in government offices and invaded the homes and offices of political rivals.
Despite the new government’s revolutionary rhetoric, a revolution that just
replaces old faces with new faces is no revolution at all. It is only when the
old, patrimonial, and politicized institutions are replaced with new ones that
Ukraine will truly find a place in Europe.
The
prospects for democracy are uncertain. There was a moment of hope for a stable
transition to more democratic government late last month. After protests turned
violent in Kiev and over 70 people were killed (most by government snipers),
Yanukovych and the opposition signed what amounted to a power-sharing
agreement, brokered by the foreign ministers of France, Germany, and Poland, to
return to the 2004 constitution (with a weaker presidency and stronger
parliament). Constitutional revisions, the disarmament of the militant groups,
and early presidential elections would follow. But militant protesters in
Kiev’s Maidan quickly torpedoed the deal. Although Ukraine has returned,
nominally, to the 2004 constitution, little else has gone as planned. All of
the newly appointed ministers in the opposition’s new government are from
familiar opposition parties or from the Maidan: if power is being shared, there
is no evidence of it yet.
There
is no question that Yanukovych’s departure is an opportunity. He was not the
only patrimonial politician in Ukraine, but he was the most important one. With
his avarice, repression, and tendency to overreach whenever he felt he had the
upper hand, Yanukovych created the conditions of his own downfall. If Ukraine
was to find a place in Europe, he needed to go.
But
Yanukovych needed to go via a legitimate election. His removal from office
upset the country’s delicate internal politics and opened the door to Russian
intervention. Yanukovych’s exit and the partial collapse of his Party of
Regions, which represented a significant portion of the south and east of the
country, left key pro-Russian constituencies unrepresented at a critical time.
The new government exploited the situation by quickly abolishing a law allowing
the country’s regions to make Russian a second official language.
The
Russian military has now stepped into the breach, invading Ukrainian territory
under the pretext of restoring constitutional order and protecting the rights
of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking citizens. The citizens of southern and eastern
Ukraine deserve to have their interests better represented in the new
government, but the Russian military is not the representation they needed. Indeed,
if President Vladimir Putin were truly concerned with the rights of ethnic
Russians, he didn’t need to invade Crimea -- there are 143 million Russians at
home waiting to be liberated from his own authoritarian rule.
Imposing
economic sanctions on Russia is an appropriate and necessary response. But the
surest way out of Russia’s efforts to divide the country is to restore
legitimacy to the government in Kiev through both presidential and
parliamentary elections. Nothing is more important to Ukraine’s European
future.
But
elections will not be easy now that Russian troops are on Ukrainian soil. Even
before Russia’s move, tensions were high as the new government showed no
willingness to rein in the most militant factions on the Maidan or to crack
down on vigilante efforts against the old regime. Pravy Sektor, a coalition of
far-right militants, has already declared its own ban on the Party of Regions
and the Communist Party and called on its members and nonmembers alike to
attack both groups. Last week, the government rewarded Dmytro Yarosh, the
leader of Pravy Sektor, with a high-ranking security post; the Ministry of
Internal Affairs announced official collaboration with nationalist paramilitary
groups and is allowing them to continue to operate on Ukrainian soil. In
Crimea, elections would be held under Russian occupation.
Fortunately,
Russia has an incentive for Crimea to recognize Ukrainian sovereignty and take
part in Ukrainian elections: for two decades, Crimean voters have provided
crucial electoral support for pro-Russian parties and presidential candidates.
Without Crimea, Yanukovych could never have won office in the first place. If
Crimea leaves Ukraine, Ukraine will move further from Russia.
The
EU and the United States, for their own part, must also get Kiev to clean up
its act. If there is a silver lining to the crisis, it is that the new
government needs outside help, especially financial aid, to survive. Western
governments should use assistance as leverage to constrain extreme actions and ensure
fair elections that bring to power a legitimate president and a representative
parliament, regardless of geopolitical loyalties. That scenario, which might
just keep Ukraine whole and free, would benefit the EU, the United States, and
Russia together. It is the only truly European course. If this contest does not
take place in the voting booth but in the streets across the country, from Kiev
to the Crimea, there will be nothing European about it.
DAILY EVENTS FEATURED STORY
OBAMACARE’S ULTIMATE FAILURE: THE UNINSURED AREN’T BUYING.
You’ve got to give President Obama this much: his health-care plan might
be the most comprehensive failure in the history of American government.
Never before has a program tried to control so much, at such soaring
expense, and utterly failed in every
single way. Insurance
is getting less affordable for many Americans; plans are getting wiped out left
and right, contrary to Obama’s promises; the quality of medical care is
declining as provider networks contract, also contrary to Obama’s promises; the
cost of the Affordable Care Act is soaring high enough to make its original
cost estimates look ridiculous; and the insurance industry has been hollowed
out enough to enter the bailout zone.
But perhaps worst of
all, there are new studies that show uninsured Americans are profoundly
uninterested in ObamaCare. The ostensible point of this hideously
expensive exercise – the way it was sold to the American people – was the
desperate need to bring insurance coverage to those left in the cold by the old
system. A trillion dollars later, it turns out most of the uninsured
would rather stay out in the cold.
Only
one in 10 uninsured people who
qualify for private plans through the new health insurance marketplaces
enrolled as of last month, according to a survey by the consulting firm
McKinsey & Co., The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
The McKinsey survey found that only
27 percent of people who have selected a plan on the exchanges described
themselves as having previously been without insurance. That
percentage is up from 11 percent a month earlier, the report said.
The Obama administration has said 4 million people have signed up for
private coverage through the insurance exchanges although it is not known how
many of them had been uninsured.
The reason “it is not known how many of them had been uninsured” is that
the Obama Administration doesn’t
want to know. Somehow the vast army of highly-paid
bureaucrats at the massive Department of Health and Human Services “forgot” to
add a checkbox to the online form, asking if ObamaCare applicants were
previously uninsured. That’s why we have to rely on outside studies to
guess at the numbers.
“That’s not a data point that we are really collecting in any sort of
systematic way,” a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid official admitted to
reports. Oh, really? Because that’s the entire point of this stupid, illegal
program. (At this point, ObamaCare is more fairly described
as a violation of the law, rather than a “law,” given how many times the
President has illegally altered it on the fly.) CMS is pointedly refusing
to collect the data needed to make an important judgment about the program’s
success. How conveeeeeenient.
The Washington Post has a
hilarious quote from a different CMS official who acknowledges that, yeah,
keeping track of how many uninsured people buy into ObamaCare is kind of
important, so various tea leaves, chicken bones, Ouija boards, and maybe a
Magic 8-Ball will eventually be consulted to cook up some kind of number:
“We are a looking at a range of data sources to determine how many
marketplace enrollees previously had coverage,” said Julie Bataille, director
of the Office of Communications at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid
Services (CMS), the HHS agency overseeing the new insurance
marketplaces. “Previous insurance coverage is an important metric, and we
hope to have additional information in the future,” she said.
In the absence of information from people who have enrolled, Obama
administration officials have drawn attention to recent outside
polls that suggest that the overall number of uninsured Americans is
declining. It is not clear, however, whether the trend is because of the
health-care law or other reasons.
“It is not clear” will
soon become the favorite phrase of sweaty ObamaCare defenders, because clarity
is their mortal enemy. Everything “clear” about the effects of the
Affordable Care Act is horrifying.
How about the state exchanges? Are they keeping track of the
uninsured? Well, whaddya know, all but one of the state exchanges made the same mistake
as the federal government, and just plumb forgot to ask ACA customers if they
were previously uninsured. And that one state, New York, made a point of
mixing Medicaid enrollees into its number… which makes it utterly meaningless for
judging the success of ObamaCare. It should be a federal crime,
punishable by immediate termination without benefits, for anyone in any federal
or state agency to mix Medicaid numbers into an ObamaCare statistic.
Experts agree that the
high cost of ACA policies is one of the big reasons the uninsured aren’t
biting, which should not come as a surprise. People who didn’t want to
buy the old, cheaper, better policies aren’t going to shell out more money to
buy insurance with higher deductibles, smaller provider networks, and a
boatload of mandates that don’t make sense… sold through a crabby network of
federal and state computer systems that still aren’t completely operational,
despite years of preparations and over a billion dollars in total expense.
The Democrats who perpetrated ObamaCare maintained that uninsured
Americans were victims of an uncaring system, but the number of truly
“hardcore” uninsured was always far smaller than they claimed. Quite a
few people simply didn’t want to buy insurance, and while some of them might
have benefited from education and outreach – which private insurance firms
could be given proper economic incentives to provide – there are a lot of
people who made rational decisions not to pay
for health insurance. Nothing about the Affordable Care Act is likely to
change their assessment. In almost every respect, it’s doing the opposite of what would be
necessary to expand private insurance markets deep into the ranks of previously
uninterested customers.
This really should be the final nail in ObamaCare’s coffin. The
last stand for its defenders was the argument that sure, most of American hates
this law and they’re suffering because of it – calling out sympathetic
ObamaCare victims as “liars” sure as hell didn’t do the Democrats any good –
but it’s all worthwhile for the Greater Good, because millions of
Americans will get insurance coverage for the first time. That isn’t happening. It’s long past time to pull the
plug on this disaster and start from scratch with reasonable reforms
Obama’s latest fiasco invites more lambs to the
slaughter…
Though it didn't generate much news, I want to discuss an important summit meeting that
was held in Toluca, Mexico a few weeks ago.
The meeting - to figure out how to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, aka NAFTA - included the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper; the President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto; and our own Barack Obama.
You see, while NAFTA is credited with producing over $1 trillion in trade each year, it counts trade that would've likely taken place anyway. And now that NAFTA is 20 years old, it's easy to see that it was a job killer. In fact, NAFTA was a stepping stone on the path that sent record numbers of American jobs abroad.
So NAFTA is currently slated to be replaced by a secretive, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This partnership would continue to integrate the United States' economy with our two closest neighbors, in addition to a group of Asian nations. And the global elites are intent on pushing this agreement through.
That's because multinational corporations love predictability, and they love to create barriers to entry for smaller competitors - which is exactly what these so-called free-trade agreements do. In reality, they're more about "managed trade" than free trade. We haven't really had free trade in decades.
The meeting - to figure out how to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, aka NAFTA - included the Prime Minister of Canada, Stephen Harper; the President of Mexico, Enrique Peña Nieto; and our own Barack Obama.
You see, while NAFTA is credited with producing over $1 trillion in trade each year, it counts trade that would've likely taken place anyway. And now that NAFTA is 20 years old, it's easy to see that it was a job killer. In fact, NAFTA was a stepping stone on the path that sent record numbers of American jobs abroad.
So NAFTA is currently slated to be replaced by a secretive, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This partnership would continue to integrate the United States' economy with our two closest neighbors, in addition to a group of Asian nations. And the global elites are intent on pushing this agreement through.
That's because multinational corporations love predictability, and they love to create barriers to entry for smaller competitors - which is exactly what these so-called free-trade agreements do. In reality, they're more about "managed trade" than free trade. We haven't really had free trade in decades.
The United States of North America?
It's frightening enough that free-trade
agreements are barely understood by America's ill-informed citizens. But what's
even scarier - and lesser known - is that these international bodies pushing
for trade agreements and multinational governance are unelected!
Let me remind you that the European Union (EU) started as a free-trade zone. Today, it has taken almost complete control of European politics.
After trade, the EU began a regulation regime, and now Brussels controls everything from immigration policy to banking. Little is left to the parliaments of the EU member states. Sovereignty has been completely relinquished in the name of integration.
This is exactly how the global elite would have North America operate in 25 years.
And why not? The governing elite do well under these regimes. But their citizens? Less so. Just ask the people of Greece how the common market is working out for them.
Let me remind you that the European Union (EU) started as a free-trade zone. Today, it has taken almost complete control of European politics.
After trade, the EU began a regulation regime, and now Brussels controls everything from immigration policy to banking. Little is left to the parliaments of the EU member states. Sovereignty has been completely relinquished in the name of integration.
This is exactly how the global elite would have North America operate in 25 years.
And why not? The governing elite do well under these regimes. But their citizens? Less so. Just ask the people of Greece how the common market is working out for them.
|
|
For
far too long, the Washington establishment has ignored "We the
People." But now is our chance to show them we have both the money and
the votes to take them on in 2016. Click here to cast your vote
right now!
|
Meanwhile, in America, Obama is using a tool known as "fast track" authority to push radical changes. With fast track authority, Barack Obama's team can negotiate any trade agreement in total secrecy. The coverage blackout only ends once the agreement is signed. And Congress can't make any amendments to these deals... they simply get to vote yes or no.
Not surprisingly, these trade agreements often pass without Congress ever understanding what's inside the deal. The Republicans, for their part, usually don't want to look under the wrapper when "free trade" is stamped on top. But if they paid attention, they'd see that Obama and his team have totally abused this fast track procedure to pass a coveted agenda under the cloak of trade agreements.
Ultimately, the losers are usually small- and medium-sized businesses, whose smaller firms have trouble with compliance and increased regulations. A host of foreign firms end up Balkanizing their business in the name of "completion."
Of course, I'm all for competition... but completion never comes in the form of an agreement governed by the World Trade Organization. Just look at China. It has firms invading America, yet the Chinese use all sorts of countermeasures to block our access to their markets.
Finally, as Obama's team continues pushing the deal known at PTT, we'll do our best to look under the hood for you in the weeks ahead. I predict that Obama's definition of free trade is vastly different than the dictionary definition. Let's hope Congress notices.
Your eyes on the Hill,
Floyd Brown
“LA LIBERTAD
NO ES GRATIS”
IN GOD WE TRUST
“En mi opinión”
Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
Para contribuir con artículos, opiniones, sugerencias o recibir “En mi
opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment