Armstrong: 'Yes,' he used performance-enhancing drugs

nbcsports.msnbc

"Yes."

That was Lance Armstrong's response to Oprah Winfrey's initial question in her much-publicized interview with the former seven-time Tour de France winner on whether he used performance-enhancing drugs to aid his victories in all seven of the prestigious races.

Armstrong said a "win at all costs" mentality and "arrogance" were behind his cheating, and accepted blame for his mistakes, saying he deserves the scrutiny he's now come under in the wake of being stripped of his titles.

Armstrong answered "yes" to separate questions about whether he used EPO, whether he partook in blood transfusions, whether he used took human-growth hormone and whether he used performance-enhancing drugs in all seven of his Tour de France victories. He answered "no" when asked if he felt his accomplishments were possible without the assistance of banned substances.

Armstrong did insist that he did not use performance-enhancing drugs beyond 2005, and that his third-place finish in his 2009 comeback to the Tour de France was clean.

Reflecting back on his era of cycling dominance, Armstrong said that "the winning was almost phoned in," and he did not feel bad about using banned drugs, and furthermore did not feel that using banned drugs was cheating, revelations that he now, in hindsight, finds "scary." In a moment of contrition, Armstrong said that his longtime supporters "have every right to feel betrayed," and that he'll spend the rest of his life apologizing to make it up to them.

On the topic of illegal testosterone use, Armstrong had a controversial excuse, saying he used it because he was running low on his natural supply of the hormone due to his battle with cancer.

Armstrong insisted that there was no directive within his U.S. Postal Service team requiring riders to conform with the doping program in which he and other riders partook. That stands in contrast with statements from former teammates, notably Christian Vande Velde, who says he was threatened with being kicked off the team before partaking in the program.

Armstrong also confessed to being "a bully," and wanting to control the narrative, reacting negatively to statements he didn't like. It's a pattern of behavior Armstrong said has followed him his entire life, and one evident in Armstrong's frequent denials of doping over the years before and since his retirement.

When asked pointedly whether he required or expected teammates to dope for the sake of achieving a certain level of team success, Armstrong responded, "absolutely not."

Armstong hesitated before responding, "No," when asked if Dr. Michele Ferrari was at the head of the team's doping program, but also said he was reckless to be involved with the Italian physician and cycling coach, who's been issued a lifetime sports ban by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency for multiple anti-doping violations. Armstrong characterized the entire period of his life as "reckless."

Armstrong said a donation made to UCI, cycling's chief organizing body, was made "because they asked me to," and not in an attempt to bribe officials to hide positive test results.

Winfrey pressed Armstrong on the topic of lawsuits filed against people who spoke out against Armstrong, among them Emma O'Reilly, a former masseuse for the U.S. Postal Service team. "It's a major flaw," Armstrong said of lawsuits against O'Reilly and others who were speaking the truth. "It's a guy who expected to get whatever he wanted and control every outcome. It's inexcusable."

The International Olympic Committee didn't wait to listen to Armstrong's interview.

The IOC on Wednesday stripped Armstrong of his 2000 bronze medal, sending him a letter asking him to return it, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced.

For others who will tune in Thursday, it's not just what Armstrong said that matters. How he said it, whether angry, tearful or matter-of-fact, will be judged as well.

"I left it all on the table with her and when it airs the people can decide," Armstrong said of his interview in a text sent to the AP on Wednesday. He dismissed a story earlier in the day that described him as "not contrite" when he acknowledged doping while dominating the cycling world.

Livestrong, the cancer charity Armstrong founded in 1997 and was forced to walk away from last year, said in a statement it expected him to be "completely truthful and forthcoming." A day earlier, World Anti-Doping Agency director general David Howman said nothing short of a confession under oath — "not talking to a talk-show host" — could prompt a reconsideration of Armstrong's lifetime ban from sanctioned events. And Frankie Andreu, a former teammate that Armstrong turned on, said the disgraced cyclist had an obligation to tell all he knew and help clean up the sport.

"I have no idea what the future holds other than me holding my kids," Armstrong said in the text.

Armstrong has held conversations with officials from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, including a reportedly contentious face-to-face meeting with USADA chief executive Travis Tygart near the Denver airport. It was USADA's 1,000-page report last year, including testimony from nearly a dozen former teammates, that portrayed Armstrong as the leader of a sophisticated doping ring that propelled the U.S. Postal Service team to title after title at the Tour de France. In addition to the lifetime ban, Armstrong was stripped of all seven wins, lost nearly all of his endorsements and was forced to cut ties with Livestrong.

According to a person with knowledge of the situation, Armstrong has information that might lead to his ban being reduced to eight years. That would make him eligible to compete in elite triathlons, many of which are sanctioned under world anti-doping rules, in 2020, when Armstrong will be 49. He was a professional athlete in the three-discipline sport as a teenager, and returned to competition after retiring from cycling in 2011.

That person also said the bar for Armstrong's redemption is higher now than when the case was open, a time during which he refused to speak to investigators. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a confidential matter.

Armstrong, who always prized loyalty on his racing teams, now faces some very tough choices himself: whether to cooperate and name those who may have aided, abetted or helped cover up the long-time use of PEDs.

Armstrong left his hometown of Austin, where the interview was taped at a downtown hotel, and is in Hawaii. He is named as a defendant in at least two pending lawsuits, and possibly a third. The Justice Department faces a Thursday deadline on whether to join a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by former teammate Floyd Landis, who was stripped of the 2006 Tour de France title for doping.

That suit alleges Armstrong defrauded the U.S. government by repeatedly denying he used performance-enhancing drugs. Armstrong could be required to return substantial sponsorship fees and pay a hefty fine. The AP reported earlier that Justice Department officials were likely to join the lawsuit.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

El Aldeano Ft El Libre, Barbaro El Urbano, Maikel Xtremo: 'Aniversario'

LosAldeanosOficial

Brookings Institution: “Opening to Havana “

Ted Piccone

brookings.edu

Under this chapeau of direct talks, your administration can seek a negotiated solution to the thorny issue of U.S. and Cuban citizens serving long prison sentences, thereby catalyzing progress toward removing a major obstacle to improving bilateral relations.

You should, in parallel, also take unilateral steps to expand direct contacts with the Cuban people by:

• authorizing financial and technical assistance to the burgeoning class of small businesses and cooperatives and permitting Americans to donate and trade in goods and services with those that are certified as independent entrepreneurs, artists, farmers, professionals and craftspeople;

• adding new categories for general licensed travel to Cuba for Americans engaged in services to the independent economic sector, e.g., law, real estate, insurance, accounting, financial services;

• granting general licenses for other travelers currently authorized only under specific licenses, such as freelance journalists, professional researchers, athletes, and representatives of humanitarian organizations and private foundations;

• increasing or eliminating the cap on cash and gifts that non- Cuban Americans can send to individuals, independent businesses and families in Cuba;

• eliminating the daily expenditure cap for U.S. citizens visiting Cuba and removing the prohibition on the use of U.S. credit and bank cards in Cuba;

• authorizing the reestablishment of ferry services to Cuba;

• expanding the list of exports licensed for sale to Cuba, including items like school and art supplies, athletic equipment, water and food preparation systems, retail business machines, and telecommunications equipment (currently allowed only as donations).

The steps recommended above would give your administration the tools to have a constructive dialogue with the Cuban government based on a set of measures that 1) would engage Cuban leaders in high-level, face-to-face negotiations on matters that directly serve U.S. interests in a secure, stable, prosperous and free Cuba; and 2) allow you to assert executive authority to take unilateral steps that would increase U.S. support to the Cuban people, as mandated by Congress.

To take this step, you will have to contend with negative reactions from a vocal, well-organized minority of members of Congress who increasingly are out of step with their constituents on this issue. Your initiative should be presented as a set of concrete measures to assist the Cuban people, which is well within current congressional mandates, and as a way to break the stalemate in resolving the case of U.S. citizen Alan Gross (his wife is calling for direct negotiations). Those are winnable arguments. But you will need to be prepared for some unhelpful criticism along the way.

Conclusion:

Current U.S. policy long ago outlived its usefulness and is counterproductive to advancing the goal of helping the Cuban people. Instead it gives Cuban officials the ability to demonize the United States in the eyes of Cubans, other Latin Americans and the rest of the world, which annually condemns the embargo at the United Nations. At this rate, given hardening attitudes in the region against U.S. policy, the Cuba problem may even torpedo your next presidential Summit of the Americas in Panama in 2015. It is time for a new approach: an initiative to test the willingness of the Cuban government to engage constructively alongside an effort to empower the Cuban people.

Keep reading on thecubaneconomy >>

Cuba: Taxonomía de la Asamblea Nacional (IV)

 

eichikawa

Arnaldo M. Fernández

La lista de candidatos a diputados a la Asamblea Nacional (AN) engloba contextos vitales que sobrepujan con creces a la intelectualidad del texto y la imagen «orgánicos» del socialismo a lo cubano. Unos 125 candidatos ocupan cargos de dirección o son especialistas en empresas de la producción (industrial o agrícola) o de los servicios —desde salud hasta correo— y 25 desempeñan iguales funciones en cooperativas agropecuarias. Otros 25 proceden de centros de investigación tan prestigiosos como el de Bioquímica Molecular (CBM) o tan alucinantes como el de Investigaciones de la Economía Mundial (CIEM), en tanto 15 tienen cargos en centros de estudios.

Además de con ministros y sus equivalentes, la burocracia estatal contribuye a la lista de candidatos con al menos 8 dirigentes o funcionarios de nivel central y unos 50 en las direcciones o delegaciones provinciales y municipales. Los órganos locales del Poder Popular pertenecen también a este orden burocrático, pero son a la vez representativos y de gestión. De ahí que los presidentes de consejos populares (circa 50) predominen sobre los funcionarios municipales (4) o provinciales (4), que se agregan a los presidentes de asambleas.

La burocracia partidista aporta 5 funcionarios del Comité Central y unos 15 dirigentes de provincia o municipio al núcleo duro de sus candidatos: el Buró Político, el Secretariado y los primeros secretarios de provincia. Amén de sus dirigentes nacionales, las “correas de transmisión” suman otros 50 candidatos, que desempeñan funciones a nivel central (sobre todo cuadros sindicales), provincial o municipal.

La gente de a pie forma un calidoscopio: 3 maestras primarias, 2 instructoras de arte, 2 profesores de secundaria y 1 de preuniversitario, 1 médico residente y 1 dentista, 1 asistente de salud y 1 enfermera, 1 secador de arroz y 1 pulidor de baldosas, 1 encuadernadora, 1 carpintero de aluminio, 1 profesora de balonmano y 1 entrenador de boxeo, 1 cajera-dependiente de SERVICUPET (por lo demás, licenciada en Cultura Física) y 1 ex oficial de policía (Onel Castro), que ahora es campesino usufructuario de tierras en Palma Soriano.

Junto al candidato enlistado sin ocupación aparecen también veteranos de su grupo político, fuera del generalato, que con abstracción de sus grados militares y por orden cronológico de incorporación serían Melba Hernández, Ramiro Valdés, Armando Hart, Guillermo García, José Ramón Machado Ventura, José Ramón Fernández y Faure Chomón. Sin embargo, la clave del régimen no radica ya en este u otros grupos históricos, sino en la estructura configurada de arriba abajo durante más de medio siglo.

--------------------------

Ver Cuba: Taxonomía de la Asamblea Nacional >>

--------------------------
-Ilustración: Domingo Ravenet, Homenaje a Abela (1968)

OPPENHEIMER/ El nuevo líder regional: Raúl Castro

OPPENHEIMER

cantotalk.blogspot.com

Parece una broma, pero no lo es: a fines de este mes, la Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y del Caribe (CELAC) —una organización inter-gubernamental de 33 países que tiene entre sus objetivos oficiales el de promover la democracia— designará como su nuevo presidente al dictador cubano Gen. Raúl Castro.

Y lo que es igualmente disparatado, el general Castro se convertirá en el vocero oficial de Latinoamérica y el Caribe en las negociaciones políticas y comerciales con los 27 países de Unión Europea y otros bloques regionales durante su período de 12 meses al comando de la CELAC. Castro, que recibirá la presidencia de la CELAC de manos del presidente chileno Sebastián Piñera, deberá a su vez entregar la presidencia a la presidente de Costa Rica en enero de 2014.

Los diplomáticos europeos, que se enorgullecen de exigir una “cláusula democrática” que requiere elecciones en sus acuerdos de libre comercio con países en desarrollo, ya están levantando las cejas con frustración ante la perspectiva de aparecer sonrientes en las fotos junto a Castro, cuyo gobierno no ha autorizado ni una sola elección libre, ni ha permitido un solo periódico independiente, en más de cinco décadas.

Tal como me dijo un diplomático europeo, por más que algunos le encuentren factores que lo podrían redimir, no hay diccionario en el mundo que tenga una definición de la palabra "dictador" que no se aplique al general Castro.

Es cierto que aunque el presidente venezolano Hugo Chávez haya vitoreado la creación de la CELAC como "el evento político de mayor importancia de todos los que han ocurrido en esta América nuestra en cien años", la CELAC es considerada por muchos como un sello de goma. En rigor, la CELAC es una organizadora de cumbres: no tiene sede central, ni personal permanente, y está regida por una presidencia rotativa a cargo del país elegido para dirigirla durante un período de doce meses.

El grupo fue creado para por los países de Latinoamérica y el Caribe para reunirse sin la presencia de Estados Unidos y Canadá. Chávez, uno de sus principales promotores, dijo que espera que la CELAC pronto reemplace a la Organización de Estados Americanos (OEA), que el considera un instrumento del ’’imperio".

Pero aunque la CELAC es uno de tantos grupos regionales similares que fueron inaugurados con gran pompa y luego pasaron al olvido, tiene funciones de convenir y redactar la agenda de varias cumbres, lo que le da cierto poder.

Irónicamente, el documento fundacional de la CELAC, firmado el 23 de febrero de 2010 en la cumbre de Latinoamérica y el Caribe realizada en la Rivera Maya, México, establece específicamente que los países miembros acordaron "reafirmar que la preservación de la democracia y de los valores democráticos, la vigencia de las instituciones y el Estado de Derecho" y la vigencia de los derechos humanos "son objetivos esenciales de nuestros países’’.

¿No es un chiste que una organización regional comprometida con la democracia elija como nuevo presidente al único dictador militar de las Américas?, le pregunté al Secretario General de la OEA, José Miguel Insulza, a principios de esta semana.

Tal vez para no criticar a una organización rival, Insulza me respondió que "’el hecho de que el presidente de Chile, que no es precisamente un hombre de izquierda ni mucho menos, le entregue la CELAC a Raúl Castro indica un clima de entendimiento y tolerancia que existe hoy día en America latina".

Mi opinión: Con todo respeto, no estoy de acuerdo. Este no es un problema de izquierda o derecha, sino de democracia o dictadura.

Desafortunadamente, Castro, Chávez y otros han logrado hacer resucitar en el discurso político latinoamericano las viejas etiquetas de “derecha” e “izquierda”, rótulos que carecen de sentido en el mundo de hoy, en el que China —el mayor país comunista del mundo— se ha convertido en la Meca del capitalismo.

Como alguien que siempre se opuso a las dictaduras, ya sean de derecha o de izquierda —y que condenó de inmediato tanto el intento golpista de Chávez de 1992 como el intento golpista contra Chávez de 2002—, no creo que la designación del general Castro como nuevo líder de la CELAC sea un síntoma de una “nueva tolerancia” que deba ser aplaudido.

Por el contrario, es una traición a los principios democráticos y de defensa de los derechos humanos por los que muchos han luchado mucho tiempo.

Si los presidentes latinoamericanos quieren ser tomados en serio, deberían o bien eliminar del documento fundacional de la CELAC toda referencia a la democracia y los derechos humanos, o olvidarse de nombrar al general Castro como su nuevo líder.

La CELAC no puede afirmar que defiende la democracia, y al mismo tiempo nombrar como su nuevo presidente al dictador más antiguo de la región.

Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/01/17/v-fullstory/1386311/oppenheimer-el-nuevo-lider-regional.html#storylink=cpy

[VIDEO] Rechazan a estudiantes que fueron a pedir fe de vida de Chávez a la Embajada de Cuba

lapatilla

Foto cortesía Luis Magallanes

El dirigente político, Luis Magallanes informó este jueves que se encuentra en la sede de la embajada de Cuba en Caracas para solicitar y exigir la fe de vida del presidente Hugo Chávez Frías, y conocer su condición de salud, debido a la incertidumbre que vive el país desde hace más de un mes, así lo informó  el periodista Angelo Herrera de ACN.com.ve.

En este sentido, señaló que en el lugar hicieron presencia para la solicitud cuatro estudiantes de la facultad de derecho de la Universidad de Carabobo (UC) y su persona como abogado de la república en su total ejercicio para que el ente cubano de una respuesta efectiva en relación a la petición, la cual se estima en las próximas 48 horas.

Asimismo, acotó que hasta el momento han recibido una buena atención y esperan a que la Embajada lo atienda formalmente para introducir el pliego mencionado en horas de la mañana.

Igualmente, destacó que desde que el Mandatario Nacional viajó a La Habana, los venezolanos han sido informado solo por el ministro de comunicaciones Néstor Villegas y el vicepresidente de la república Nicolás Maduro, sin embargo no se ha observado al presidente Chávez por ningún medio de manera evidente.

Finalmente, acotaron que si en las próximas horas no han recibido una respuesta favorable tomaran acciones pertinentes y necesarias al caso.

Cuba: Pro-Democracy Leader Targeted in Murder Plot

capitolhillcubans

The Castro regime's secret police tried to pressure an 18-year old member of the opposition group, Cuban Patriotic Union (UNPACU), to murder its leader, Jose Daniel Ferrer.

Ferrer and UNPACU, whose ranks have swelled in the last years, have become the biggest target of the Castro dictatorship in the eastern provinces.

Just this month, senior regime officials were sent from Havana to the city of Santiago de Cuba to devise a strategy to dismantle UNPACU.

Thirty-two (32) of UNPACU's members are currently in prison for political offenses -- two of them are women.

Moreover, recently three UNPACU activists, Jesus Diaz Morales, Josue Senna and Ariel Meneses Cruz, were chased down by hooded individuals and beaten with blunt objects.

The 18-year old, Yohandry Pupo Sarmiento, attempted suicide due to the pressure put on him by Castro's secret police.

Pupo would later confess the episode to Ferrer.

He was asked to poison Ferrer's food -- also putting Ferrer's wife and children at risk.

See Pupo's full testimony (in Spanish) here.

"He was visited in the hospital by the agent who was his handler, a captain who called himself Leo, and he said to him: 'Why did you do this? Instead of trying to kill yourself you should try to kill Jose Daniel. Don't you want to leave the country? We can help get you out. This anger you have against yourself, turn it towards Jose Daniel and we will help you get out of here,'" Ferrer explained to Diario de Cuba.

Pro-Gun Texas Lawmaker Makes A Fool Of Wolf Blitzer

Denuncian opositores venezolanos presencia de tropas cubanas en Venezuela

Prosecutor: We acted reasonably in Swartz case

This Just In

A federal prosecutor is pushing back against a claim by the grieving family of Internet activist Aaron Swartz that "prosecutorial overreach" was a factor in his suicide, saying her office acted "fairly and responsibly."

News of the death of Swartz, 26, last Friday sent shock waves through the hacker community and the larger online world. His family and partner issued a statement saying that federal charges filed over allegations that he stole millions of online documents – mostly scholarly papers – from MIT through the university's computer network contributed to Swartz's decision to take his own life.

But the U.S. attorney for Massachusetts, Carmen M. Ortiz, disputed their account of events in a statement released Thursday, while expressing her sympathy "as a parent and a sister" for their loss.

FULL STORY >>

Second-Term Reckonings

PJMedia/ Victor Davis Hanson

newyorker.com

A rule of the modern age: all confident, reelected presidents trip up in the second term. LBJ was sunk by Vietnam. Reagan faced Iran-Contra. Bill Clinton had his comeuppance with Monica. George W. Bush was overwhelmed with the Iraqi insurgency and Katrina. And Obama will have his as well, obsequious media or not.

Supposedly fundamental partisan swings of an era usually prove transitory: LBJ’s landside led to Nixon four years later, whose landslide then led to Carter in 1980, whose supposed new politics of humility and apology led to Reagan, whose small government-paradigm shift nonetheless by 1992 gave us Clinton, whose “middle way” after only eight years gave us Bush, whose “compassionate conservative realignment” ended with Obama. And so on until the end of the republic.

Why these second-term reckonings? Partly, presidential hubris leads to a natural correction, as Nemesis kicks in; partly, one can dodge mishaps for four years, but the odds catch up after eight; and partly, the media and voters grow tired of a monotonous presidential voice, appearance, and manner, and want change for the sake of change. To the degree a president walks softly, understands his second-term dilemma, and reaches out, he is less vulnerable.

But Obama either has misread his reelection as a mandate (e.g., Republicans maintained control of the House and the majority of state governorships and legislatures; Obama, unlike most second-term presidents, received fewer votes than in 2008, fewer in fact then John McCain received), or he believes that his progressive legacy lies in ramming through change by any means necessary to obtain results that are neither possible through legislative compromise nor supported by majorities of the American people.

Consider the reckoning Obama will soon have in the following areas:

Guns

Americans are as outraged over the Newtown shootings as they are baffled by how to stop such mass murders — given the difficulty of legislating away human evil. They have a vague sense both that someone should not be able to fire off 30 rounds in seconds, and yet that prior assault-weapons bans and comprehensive gun control have not done anything to curtail the incidents of gun violence. The more the Obama legions try to push curtailments of the Second Amendment, the more pushback they will encounter. Voters sense rightly that ultimately Obama is angry not so much at the “clingers” and their guns, but at the Second Amendment itself.

And yet they sense that Obama himself — and most celebrities — quite rightly count on the guns of their security guards to protect them from evil.

James Madison did not write that amendment just as a protection for hunters or to ensure home defense, but rather as a warning to an all-powerful federal government not to abuse its mandate, given that the citizenry would be armed and enjoy some parity in weaponry with federal authorities. That is why a militia is expressly mentioned, and why the Third Amendment follows, emphasizing further checks on the ability of the federal government to quarter troops in private homes (made more difficult when, thanks to the Second Amendment, they are armed).

For Obama to win over public opinion following Newtown, he would have to make arguments that strict gun control leads to decreased shootings in places like Chicago, or that a prior assault weapon ban stopped Columbine, or that Connecticut’s strict gun control mitigated the effects of Newtown. The president would also have to explain, if he were to go ahead with executive orders curbing gun access, why not equally so with knives — which are used in more killings than assault weapons — or ammonium nitrate fertilizer that can lead to something like Oklahoma City. And he must demonstrate that playing a sick video game for hours in a basement, or being part of a pathological culture that produces schlock like Natural Born Killers, or expanding the First Amendment to such lengths that the violently insane cannot be forcibly hospitalized are minor considerations in comparison to the availability of semi-automatic weapons.

Keep reading >>

New Cuba: Beachhead for Economic Democracy Beyond Capitalism

By Keith Harrington, Truthout | Op-Ed 

People wait for food from a sandwich shop in Havana, Cuba, October 28, 2012. (Photo: The New York Times)

The year 2012 may have been the United Nation's International Year of Cooperatives, but 2013 may turn out to be the more historic year for worker-ownership if the Cubans have anything to say about it.

To listen to the mainstream American media, however, you'd never know it. As a video supplement to a recent New York Times article  makes clear, the corporate press has already made up its mind on how the story of Cuba's economic liberalization is bound to end:

"In a state defined by all-consuming communism for the past 50 years, capitalist change comes in fits and starts, and only at the pace that the government is willing to allow."[Emphasis added]

In other words, Cuba's post-communist story ends just like China's - in capitalism, because according to orthodox dogma, there's nowhere else to go. Trapped by the limited possibilities of this dichotomist capitalism-or-communism mentality, mainstream commentators lack the perspective needed to appreciate (much less inform others) that a transition away from a state-dominated command economy might conceivably lead to a type of market that is very distinct from our elite-shareholder-dominated and profit-fixated capitalist model.

But that is precisely the nuanced story we find in Cuba when we dig just below the surface and consider the very guidelines the Cuban government has adopted to steer the transition process. Since the state unveiled its nuevos lineamientos or new guidelines for economic development in 2010, the easing of government restrictions on private entrepreneurial activity has only constituted a single aspect of a much broader picture of change. Unfortunately, The New York Times and its ilk have gotten so hung up on the privatization shift, that they've left out crucial details about the types of private enterprises the Cuban government is attempting to foster.

Specifically, the government is placing high priority on the development of worker-owned-and-managed firms and has recently passed a law intended to launch an experimental cadre of 200 such firms. Under the law, workers - rather than government bureaucrats or elite boards of directors - will democratically run the businesses, set their own competitive prices, determine wages and salaries and decide what to do with the profits they generate. In other words, Cuba's new worker cooperatives will operate pretty much along the same lines as their successful cousins in the capitalist world, including Spain's Mondragon Cooperative Corporation.

But what sets the Cuban cooperative experiment apart and renders it such an incredible opportunity for the global worker-cooperative movement, is its occurrence in a political-economic milieu that is currently free from the distorting effects of capitalist competition. This is significant because while cooperatives have proven just as competitive as capitalist firms in a capitalist context, when capitalist profits and growth assume top priority, worker-owned firms may be compelled to act more like capitalist firms and subordinate core objectives such as worker empowerment and well-being, community development and environmental sustainability. Indeed, as cooperatives grow, even the percentage of actual worker owners in their ranks has been known to decline, as we've seen with Mondragon.

In short, the worker-ownership movement could greatly benefit from a national-scale economic environment that will allow cooperative enterprises to develop according to their own particular democratic nature and exhibit their true potential, free from the profit-above-all dictates of capitalism. No country bears as much promise in this respect than contemporary Cuba.

Nevertheless, for Cuba's experiment to work, all efforts should be made to steer the economy and the behavior of the country's emergent private entrepreneurial class in a direction that comports with the ethos and objectives of economic democracy. Above all, this would likely require severe restrictions, if not an outright ban, on the entry of large foreign capitalist firms or the establishment of large domestic capitalist firms. For, as economists such as Jamee Moudud of Sarah Lawrence University and many structuralist thinkers have pointed out, as jobs and tax revenues become dependent on the success of capitalist firms, societies become constrained in their ability to pursue developmental paths that do not prioritize capitalist accumulation. Accordingly, during the early years of the cooperative experiment, Cuba should seek to limit foreign direct investment to cooperative or triple-bottom-line firms as much as possible, facilitate joint-ventures between such firms and its own cooperatives and continue to seek industrial loans largely from committed social democratic partners such as Venezuela, and other "pink-tide" trade partners.

Finally, the global cooperative movement must appreciate the historic, strategic importance of Cuba's experiment and mobilize its resources to support the effort. As observers of the situation have pointed out, Cuba's experience with worker cooperatives is limited primarily to its agricultural sector, and the establishment of a robust non-agricultural cooperative sector will require serious provision of training, technical support and worker acculturation. On this front, the experience of successful worker-ownership movements in Argentina, the United States, Spain and other countries could prove invaluable. Such assistance might be coordinated with the help of organizations such as Democracy at Work, the Democracy at Work Network, the Democracy Collaborative and the Working World, all of which specialize in helping worker cooperatives grow and thrive.

Of course, anyone can bolster this important beachhead for economic democracy by simply spreading the word and helping plug the gap in the media's coverage of Cuba's transition. Please help bust the myth that markets mean capitalism for the new Cuba by sharing this article and others cited here.

A Debt Limit Strategy Rather Than Tactics

John B. Taylor*

The recent debate about the debt limit focuses on the negative economic impact of a decision by the government not to increase the debt limit. That’s why President Obama says he is asking for clean debt limit increase—one not linked to spending reductions, saying that a default would cause economic harm, and that we should not play chicken with the American economy.

But with current high and growing debt levels a clean debt limit increase would also hurt the economy. If politicians just increase the debt limit now without reducing the rapid growth of spending, then they will be expected to do so in the future and the debt explosion will continue to create a drag on the economy with a likely future crisis. The time pattern may be different with a clean debt limit increase--if kicking the can down the road postpones the harm, but the overall impact is negative, and it could be worse if there is a debt crisis.

There is an obvious way to prevent both evils: follow a policy strategy which links debt limit increases to reductions in the growth of spending. By focusing on tactics--games of chicken, leverage and threats—Washington is ignoring this sensible policy strategy.

In a recent technical paper my colleague Bob Hall, rigorously works out the effects of severing the link between debt increases and deficit spending. He defines a parameter which he calls “alpha.” It’s simply the amount by which politicians reduce the deficit when they increase the debt, measured as a fraction of the debt to GDP ratio. In other words, alpha is an indicator of how much the government “leans against” the debt. As Bob puts it: “Alpha is all-important in the analysis….Governments with no tendency to lean against debt, with alpha = 0, face a likelihood but not a certainty of debt crisis.” The problem with a clean debt limit increase is that it effectively sets alpha to 0.

A much better value of alpha, as Bob shows, is around .1, which, if you measure spending reductions on a ten year basis, translates to .1X10 or 1, or, in other words, a strategy like the one-to-one link sometimes called the Boehner rule. So while some may think of such a rule a threat, it is really a strategy, and a sensible strategy in my view.

------------------

*Professor of Economics at Stanford University

Yoani Sanchez recibira pasaporte

por consiguiente podra viajar. ella misma lo cuenta: "Después de aguardar por 24 horas a las afueras del Departamento de Inmigración y Extranjería (DIE), supe que finalmente me expedirían un nuevo pasaporte. Con veinte “tarjetas blancas” negadas en menos de cinco años, confieso que estaba más escéptica que esperanzada. Aún ahora, sólo creeré que lo he logrado cuando me vea dentro de un avión que levante vuelo". Continuar leyendo en Generacion Y >>

Atendido o secuestrado/ Espinaxiones

talcualdigital.com

Ayer escuchaba unas pocas palabras del "jefe" de la escolta del Payaso de Miraflores.
Resulta que entre las pocas cosas que dijo, declaro que no veia al mico desde el dia 25 de diciembre.
Entre enfermedades, penetraciones de la inteligencia, falta de verguenza y de madre del kaxtrizmo que con tantas invasiones y otras medidas activas tanto tiempo estuvo por adueñarse de Venezuela, nada ha de extrañar que concepto como "soberania" e "independencia", con otras muchas como progreso, democracia y derechos de los ciudadanos universalmente aceptados por una America Letrina, la vieja Europa o America del Norte, todo o casi todo eso haya ido pasando por debajo del molino sin que haya muchos que se hayan asombrado, ofendido o indignado.
Tendremos que esperar al siglo XXII porque el actual se ve muy jodido con ademas el maximo lider Hussein Obama junto con la Pelossi ya pretenden hasta modificar las enmiendas a la Constitucion norteamericana.
En estos dias me tomo otras vacaciones en mi Force 1 en Hawaii gastando lo mas que pueda. Abajo los republicanos!

Jon Stewart Shreds The NRA And Exposes Who's Behind The Reason The Federal Government Cannot Enforce Federal Gun Laws

businessinsider/ Brett LoGiurato 

Daily Show host Jon Stewart tore into the NRA on Wednesday night, quipping that the organization was a covert operation run by Michael Moore in an "attempt to discredit responsible gun owners."

But Stewart saved his harshest NRA criticism for the reaction to President Barack Obama's proposals to curb the nation's rash of gun violence.

Stewart cut to a clip of a pro-gun rights guest on CNN, who said that the U.S. needs to simply enforce the gun laws it already has on the books. Stewart went on to explain how that was nearly impossible because of the restrictions imposed on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Stewart highlighted Rep. Todd Tiahrt, who in 2007 suggested that mayors shouldn't try to trace the source of illegal guns because the ATF is "going after them 24/7."

But in reality, Stewart said that the ATF is full of dysfunction because of inadequacies in its setup. For instance, its current director, B. Todd Jones, doubles as the U.S. Attorney for Minnesota.

"You're telling me this dude ... has another full-time job?" Stewart quipped. "He's just moonlighting?"

The Senate hasn't confirmed an ATF director since 2006. The body has to confirm the position because of a 2006 provision inserted into a Patriot Act renewal by Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner.

"I don't have footage of that. ... I do have footage of Sensenbrenner from that year, accepting the NRA's coveted Defender of Freedom Award," Stewart said.

Stewart pointed out other problems—like how the ATF is prohibited from creating a federal registry to track gun sales. It also is barred from releasing information from its firearms trace database to anyone other than a law enforcement agency or prosecutor.

Stewart then revealed that the Congressman who authored the amendment with so many limits on the ATF was the aforementioned Todd Tiahrt. Stewart said the amendment couldn’t be worse if the NRA wrote it themselves."

Stewart got word from his "messenger pigeon" that, indeed, the NRA "did write that law."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/jon-stewart-nra-atf-gun-control-obama-2013-1#ixzz2IFZLVwqB

Does Obama's gun plan ignore doctor-patient confidentiality?

O'Reilly on Guns and the federal government

Los Aldeanos - Cierrate (VIDEO OFICIAL) 2013

LosAldeanosOficial

Panetta to Troops: Democracy Won't Survive Without You

ThePentagonChannel

Cuba: Pasajeros sin destino/ Norberto Fuentes

cubaencuentro

ojodigital.com

Norberto Fuentes

La noción de que una isla es un lugar del cual no puedes escapar surgió tarde en mi juventud. No había cumplido 30 años cuando me vi enredado en el más notorio de los escándalos literarios de la Revolución: el caso del poeta Heberto Padilla, de 1971. Padilla había sido arrestado y todo indicaba que el próximo sería yo, por haberme destacado como un escritor disidente. Entonces se apareció en mi casa un novelista llamado Ezequiel Vieta, del doble de mi edad, que se declaraba como “fan incondicional” de mi literatura. Había que hacer un esfuerzo de imaginación para aceptar que un delgado librito de 100 páginas alcanzaba el rango de “literatura”. El caso es que Ezequiel, no sé de qué manera, se había agenciado de un coche Hillman Triumph, nuevo de paquete y se presentaba en mi casa para ofrecerme la llave de ignición y ponerlo a mi servicio. “Toma el carro y huye”, me dijo. “No te dejes capturar”. Tuve la cautela de no herir sus sentimientos, pero tuve que explicarle que Cuba no tenía fronteras terrestres con otros países y que el movimiento estaba limitado hasta las costas. “Sí”, respondió, meditativo. “Cierto. Es el problema de las islas” “Además, Ezequiel”, le dije, “no te olvides que el combustible está racionado”.

Bueno, parece ser una condición insular. Recuerdo que a la primera persona que le escuché el tema fue precisamente a la que luego sería la mujer de Padilla, ella misma una poetisa, Belkis Cuza Malé. Trabajaba en el órgano oficial del Partido, el rotativo Granma, una especie de Pravda cubano pero con más páginas y vivos titulares en tipos rojos. Pedían la expulsión de Belkis del comité de la Juventud Comunista debido a un embrollo de tipo más bien literario. Citó una frase del gran novelista cubano Alejo Carpentier sobre la gente que vive en las islas que tienen la eterna necesidad de abandonarlas. Se pueden imaginar el efecto que eso causó, las sospechas que levantó, sobre las intenciones de la infeliz. El cuento es mucho más largo pero me extenderé en otra ocasión. El caso es que Belkis libró con una amonestación. Pero yo nunca olvidé la impresión que me causó la frase de Alejo memorizada por Belkis. Aunque todavía la persecución sobre mí tardaría algunos años en hacerme sentir el peso opresor de la Isla.

Pero les confieso que yo por aquella época no tenía la menor intención de irme, ni aunque Ezequiel me hubiese agenciado un Hillman anfibio. Pese a que me persiguieran, Cuba y su Revolución era una aventura que yo no quería perderme por nada del mundo. Había peligros, por supuesto, pero qué verdadera aventura no los tiene. En realidad, uno se creía pertenecer a un conglomerado social muy privilegiado. Éramos un pueblo de elegidos. Nada que ver con estas decenas sino centenares de miles de cubanos que están haciendo filas desde hace días frente a las oficinas de solicitud de pasaportes. Es lo que me informan amigos y parientes desde Cuba, en el consabido lenguaje en clave. Es como si trataran de ganar distancia de un volcán. Lo curioso, sin embargo, es que huyen de un volcán que se apaga. El pueblo elegido huye.

Las autoridades afirman que se habilitan unas 200 oficinas, dispuestas a lo largo del país. Expedir pasaportes es su misión. Pasaportes como quien distribuye los productos de la cartilla de racionamiento. Y las colas, organizadas como se han acostumbrado los cubanos durante medio siglo de escaseces. Nombran unas especies de delegados —a veces voluntarios, a veces por una modesta paga— que mantienen cinco o seis puestos en la fila mientras uno se puede retirar hacia otras labores.

“Oye, están locos”, me dice Many Bouza, pero en lenguaje claro y abierto, porque nos estamos tomando unja cerveza aquí, en Miami. Many tiene una oficina de bienes inmuebles y maneja un Mercedez Benz. Nos hicimos amigos hace pocos años cuando descubrimos que coincidimos en la misma zona de operaciones del Escambray, cuando la limpia de alzados. “Mis primos están vendiendo su apartamento en La Habana por 15 mil dólares. Y todavía no saben para dónde van, ni qué va a hacer donde aterricen, ni de qué van a vivir. Tampoco saben que los 15 mil dólares no le alcanzan ni para un mes de vida”.

Pese a todo, la actividad es febril y ocupa sin sosiego la imaginación del país desde que el Gobierno anunció a fines de año que eliminaría la tristemente célebre tarjeta blanca. La resolución es vista como un equivalente de la legalización de la droga en otros países, o en los estados de la Unión que así lo han decidido. Con la diferencia de que en San Francisco o en Seatle te puedes atiborrar de marihuana, pero los cubanos lo único que van a tener por lo pronto es un documento de pastas de cartón, dentro del cual está su foto, su nombre y 32 páginas en blanco.

La nueva legislación que el Gobierno cubano puso en vigor este 14 de enero, según sus propias estadísticas, evitará que más del 99 % de la población de la Isla se vea obligada a sufrir engorrosos trámites burocráticos. Lo dice con aire triunfal y como si reivindicaran una causa más a favor del pueblo. Callan que, hasta la fecha, la sola pretensión de salir del país te convertía en un ciudadano bajo sospecha de actividad contrarrevolucionaria. Caías de inmediato bajo el escrutinio de los “servicios”.

Las cosas cambian. “Es la dialéctica”, hubiésemos dicho en nuestros años de descubrimiento y aprendizaje del marxismo. Te podían triturar hoy, pero mañana descubrían que era un error o alguien te quería salvar la vida. Entonces se acudía a la dialéctica. Era un bálsamo polivalente, se diría que mágico. Así que, tranquilo. Ahora te agencias una visa, te compras tu boleto, te presentas en el aeropuerto y espera la llamada de abordar. Es decir, los nacionales cubanos somos iguales que los extranjeros. Se cumple finalmente el sueño del famoso chascarrillo, el del niño cubano que quiere ser turista cuando sea grande.

Sin embargo, las esperanzas que se cifran en el 14 de enero parecen conducir desde ahora a un callejón sin salida. Yo no quiero pensar que sea una enorme burla del Gobierno cubano con sus súbditos, aunque de acuerdo a ciertas manifestaciones de personalidad tanto de Fidel como de Raúl, se puede esperar cualquier cosa. Sobre todo, porque ambos son muy vengativos. No quiere decir desde luego que no tengan razón en acabar de resolver un problema que a ellos les es imposible de todos modos dar solución. Pero también yo siento una cierta manifestación de orgullo herido, de carácter ofendido, en ellos. “Con todo lo que hemos tratado de hacer por ustedes, y miren cómo nos pagan”. Además, los dos son muy dados a la relación feudal con los que consideran sus subordinados. La educación que recibieron en la finca del despótico Ángel Castro. Recuerdo la frase que con más fuerza le oí repetir a Fidel: “El poder es para usarlo”. Lo cierto es que no existen muchos sitios que acepten cubanos sin visas, y los que no ofrecen inconvenientes en recibirlos, limitan de cualquier modo el tiempo de estancia. La situación es como aquella aldea cayún descrita por William Faulkner que Hollywood fabricó para una película: unas paredes falsas en la que tú abrías la puerta para caer directamente al océano.

No obstante, algunos modestos beneficios se pueden encontrar todavía hoy de la enrarecida actividad priorizada por la población. Por lo menos se sabe de algunos avispados propietarios de computadoras que te venden por el precio de un euro una lista “actualizada” de los países que aceptan cubanos cuyos pasaportes carezcan de visa. La relación cabe en una simple hoja de papel carta impresa por una sola cara. De todos los continentes, los asiáticos son los que se muestran más generosos, encabezados por Mongolia. Ya ustedes saben, aterrizar en Ulán Bator y más tarde a disfrutar de la espesa leche de yak tomada en el desierto de Gobi bajo cero y cercados por una jauría de lobos. Por su parte, los hermanos países africanos no se destacan como muy complacientes. Ni siquiera los angolanos y la historia de nuestros 2.000 combatientes internacionalistas muertos por su libertad parecen conmoverles. No solo te exigen visa, sino que enseñes la plata de que dispones. Y ésa es la otra espada de Damocles que pende sobre la masiva oleada de emigrantes que empuja en las colas. Nadie responde a la pregunta básica de quién paga los pasajes y con que qué se van a mantener en sus lugares de aterrizaje.

La respuesta a este dilema logístico se encuentra para muchos en el carácter emprendedor de los cubanos. El mismo Many Bouza me decía ayer una frase para mí memorable: “Ningún cubano sabe lo que vale hasta que llega a Estados Unidos”. Y Many, advierto, no es el cubano contrarrevolucionario típico de Miami. Es un hombre de éxito en esta ciudad, pero siempre me llama la atención con el candor que se refiere a los compañeros junto a los que luchó en Cuba. No le falta razón, por lo menos en lo que a las ventajas del desplazamiento se refiere. Como el ejemplo de aquel oscuro técnico de una planta local de Coca-Cola en La Habana, que terminó siendo presidente de ese emporio y uno de los hombres más ricos del mundo: Enrique Goizueta. En fin, que según Many, puede ser un simple asunto de dislocación.

Cierto que para una sociedad entrenada en una economía hecha para sacar aceite de las piedras, la supervivencia cotidiana tampoco debe ofrecer escollos insuperables.

El asunto, una vez más, radica donde siempre ha radicado para los cubanos en lo que concierne a la economía: en la reproducción del dinero. Porque no crean que ninguno piensa en destinos del Tercer Mundo. Se sabe que la primera gestión se dirige hacia la compra de visas de los países altamente desarrollados, hechos desde luego a la medida de Goizueta y de mi amigo Many. Grandes metrópolis, eso es lo que necesitamos. Desde luego que el personal diplomático radicado en Cuba dispuesto a escuchar ofertas razonables no es poco, y mucho menos melindroso. 5.000 (cinco mil) euros es el precio actual del mercado de visas en La Habana, con una lógica tendencia al alza, dado al enorme flujo que se avecina. Esto conlleva a su vez a deprimir el precio de los viejos inmuebles y propiedades abandonados por los cubanos de las primeras oleadas de emigrantes que, si no se han derrumbado, son las prendas de mayor valor (ya no se sabe cuántas veces han cambiado de mano) para la oferta.

Como es de suponer, los (las) emigrantes potenciales más jóvenes, son los (las) que gozan de mayor fortuna, por su equipamiento personal: la prostitución sigue siendo un negocio lucrativo y sin mayor trámite que el toma y daca. Contemplamos en este rubro un aumento lógico de los precios, al revés de los inmuebles. Y nada de pomitos de champú y un juego de ropa interior por el servicio. ¿Tú entiendes? En efectivo. La carne en alza, la mampostería en baja.

Las remesas de familiares radicados sobre todo en Miami constituyen una fuente permanente de apoyo para los que puedan contar con tal respaldo y, no faltaba más, mi hermano, tú no te preocupes si tienes que salir por Haití (acepta cubanos sin visa), que enseguida te rescato con un yate. De más está decir que un porcentaje de desheredados de la fortuna y del afecto familiar establecido en el sur de la Florida continuarán lidiando con los avatares del socialismo real. O como lo dijo un transeúnte a un periodista de la TV hispana de Miami: ¿Quién paga 5.000 euros por un negro?

Si bien es cierto que no suele haber respuestas públicas para casi ninguna de las acciones y conductas de los líderes cubanos, no está de más tratar de entender la naturaleza de lo que allí ocurre. Y yo creo que lo competente es buscar las claves en las diferencias entre los dos hermanos. Fidel era un líder nato. Lo quiso todo, amigos y enemigos, corrientes ideológicas a favor y en contra, todo el país, todo el pensamiento, todas las clases, y cada tornillo, cada libro, cada cabeza de ganado, De alguna manera era —en verdad— divino. Desde luego, también muy sabio. Fíjense si no que sus manos descansaban en la llave maestra de la válvula de escape de presión. Sabía cuándo tenía que abrirla para que la olla no estallara. Eso fueron las reiteradas crisis de balseros, Camarioca, Mariel, Cojímar. Y después se ufanaba que Cuba no iba a cometer los mismos errores de la Unión Soviética en cuanto a política migratoria. Ni cortina de hierro ni muro de Berlín. No obstante, los años han probado que era igual que ellos. Pero caía tan bien. Era tan simpático. Tan apuesto.

Raúl, no. Raúl es un administrador, un excelente organizador —¡cuidado con esto último! Además quiere dejar a sus hijos encaminados y fuera de peligro. Tiene esa impedimenta y por tal razón es conservador. Significa que a donde más lejos va a llegar es a la mera puntera de sus zapatos. En fin, que, a todo tirar, es un reformista. En este sentido, la audacia que se puede esperar de él, es el desmontaje de las audacias de Fidel. No es otro su empeño, y es toda su estrategia. Porque ha comprendido como nadie que donde se acaba la ideología, la única fuente de poder es el dinero. Dicho de manera más brutal: para eludir que el derrumbe de Cuba sea el mismo de la Unión Soviética pero diferido, es menester que el primero en acometer el derrumbe sea él pero reteniendo todo el poder. Está por ver si es un acuerdo secreto suyo con Fidel, como estrategia genial de supervivencia. Por lo pronto, den por seguro que ellos mismos decidieron hacer la transición de Lenin a Putin, aunque eludiendo a Gorbachov y su blandenguería.

Cuba autoriza a viajar a todos sus ciudadanos, pero que nadie puede hacerlo, es en verdad una de las soluciones práctica de Raúl Castro. Sacarse todos los problemas de arriba. No molesten más con los viajecitos. Ustedes vayan a donde les plazca y a donde les concedan visa. Saca el pasaporte y te vas. ¿Médico? Te vas. De ahí en adelante es un problema tuyo. De ustedes. Y no del Gobierno cubano.

Muerto el perro, se acabó la rabia, dice el refrán.

Understanding the Obama conspiracy & U.S. takeover

canadafreepress

Doug Hagmann

The Constitutional government of the United States has been overthrown, and the American people have been captured. The only question now is what are we, as true Americans believing that our Constitution is the one and only law of the land, going to do about it? It’s now simply a matter of what the blowback from the tyranny being thrust upon us will look like, how or even if it will play out.

If you are looking for normal political solutions out of this legal, financial, moral and spiritual mess of a country, I believe that time has long passed. If your hope rests in a change with the midterm elections, go back to sleep or better yet, increase the dosage of your medication. It is clearly evident by the actions and inaction of the spineless or compromised leaders in whom you’ve placed your hope and future, and the future of your children and grandchildren, that doing so again will change nothing. We are a captured operation, and partisan politics is nothing more than theater to divert your attention from the iron fist of tyranny that is about to change life as you know it.

You must understand that our nation today is ruled not by democrats or republicans, but by the party of royalty with a European mindset and a Globalist agenda.  The morphing from a two-party system into one of elite royalty did not happen overnight, but incrementally and under the proverbial radar of a deliberately distracted public.

Much of what you see, hear and read is a lie so big that you don’t recognize it as a lie, and so bold that it operates without question or impediment right in front of us. There are plenty of writers and talkers who will sugar-coat the lie or participate in political theater for air time, print space or a paycheck, but I refuse to be one of them. Allow me to walk you through my investigative findings into the “Obama conspiracy” to show you just how deep the lie goes. By the end of this summary report, I hope that you will better understand the lie, the objectives of those involved, and the fate intended for us all.

They are not coming for our guns

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.” -Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Would you believe me if I wrote that the government is not after our guns? Probably not, as it certainly looks that way with the pending executive orders and new gun legislation. Well, the guns are secondary. I urge you to think bigger, “think outside of the box.” Make no mistake about this, they will come after our guns, but they are coming after us.

By believing in the Constitution, we’ve earned ourselves a spot on the latest incarnation of the White House enemies list. By supporting the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land, we’ve identified ourselves as an enemy of the state. By “clinging” to our guns and Bibles, we pose a danger to the globalist agenda rooted in socialism, fascism and communism. By understanding that we are being victimized by an out-of-control banking system, we have earned a spot on the “single-cause” terrorist watch list. By becoming informed of the tyranny that exists before us, we have become a threat to their ultimate global objectives.

They are afraid of not just the guns, but of by a well armed and well informed populace that understands the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. It is the well informed and the well armed that they fear, as they should. The are racing against the clock as we become more informed and better armed. Accordingly, they must act in haste, as they see us rapidly peeling away the layers of lies that have kept them insulated for so long.

Certainly, they will attempt to get our guns, but make no mistake that it’s us, or those unwilling to be serfs, who they are after. Their hunt will be relentless, matching their end-game objective of creating the royal elite while enslaving the unwashed.

Those among us who believe they can talk their way out of an illegal government confiscation by claiming the loss of their guns in some boating accident are self-deluded and not understanding the larger picture. Adherence to this delusion is not only childish and naive, but a dangerous underestimation of the intent of the tyranny that lies before us. We must face what lies ahead like adults and prepare ourselves accordingly.

What lies ahead?

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.” -Ecclesiastes 1; 9 (KJV)

The hour is late and time is short. A rapid understanding of the lie and how deep it goes is required right here, right now.

We can briefly look at a few key events that not have changed history, but will also reveal the tyrannical playbook of the global elite that has remained unchanged for the past century.

From the attack on Pearl Harbor to the assassinations of JFK, RFK, and MLK, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident through the attack that “changed the world” on September 11, 2001, each event is deeply mired in various levels of deception, controversy, inconsistencies, unanswered questions, and conflicting accounts. The farther we travel away from each event, the less chance the actual truth will ever be made known, at least in time to make a difference. Even worse, reasonable people seeking sensible and honest answers and wanting nothing less than the complete truth are routinely vilified and forced into accepting the “official” accounts of the various events being questioned.

Two of the most recent relevant issues that remain mired in controversy and off limits to inquiring minds are Obama’s eligibility status and the attacks of September 11, 2001. Despite “official accounts” regarding the former, the issue remains a legitimate controversy to the extent that Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro, has yet to prove his eligibility to hold office under the Constitution of the United States. Despite what has been reported or accepted as fact, Obama has never produced authenticated hardcopy documentation of his Certificate of Live Birth, verification of his social security number and related documentation, his selective service documents, or his official passport records.

Even the most hard-core conservatives have long argued that the entire eligibility matter is a fringe issue unworthy of discussion. Much like the previous controversies referenced, we are forbidden to have a sensible discussion on the matter, at least not without obligatory vilification. Yet, vital and relevant questions remain unanswered amid the requisite obfuscation, diversion and yes, vilification.

We are not permitted to know the bona-fides of the man who is tasked with transforming the United States from a Constitutional Republic into a tyrannical kingdom of royalty and serfs. Questions related to his eligibility are never answered. Instead, they are met with accusations of racism and bigotry where none is ever intended or warranted.

Such questions are also met with objections that the issue distracts from other more important issues. What could be more important than the background and eligibility of the man who holds the most powerful position in our country and arguably, the world? Perhaps never allowing these questions to be addressed was the plan from the start. If so, it’s a tactic that certainly fits with information that follows.

Also, there remain very legitimate and very relevant questions about the attack of September 11, 2001, “the event that changed the world.” Instead of being able to hold a rational, thoughtful discourse about valid concerns, any questions are met with accusations that those asking the questions are lunatics enamored by delusions of some grand conspiracy. Are we not entitled to answers about an event that resulted in the creation of governmental policies and agencies that are responsible for the most intrusive attacks on the liberties of every American?

From the attacks of 9/11 to Obama’s eligibility to even the most basic questions surrounding the recent Sandy Hook school shooting (yes, there are inconsistencies in need of answers), we cannot have a reasonable discussion without being castigated and marginalized as conspiracy nuts. You see that the stage for asking such questions has been set throughout time. After all, who are we, the unwashed masses, to question our “leaders” about anything of substance?

Now, those of us who seek only the truth must fight against the putrid hubris of the likes of Obama and his minions, the Clintons, the Feinsteins, the Cuomos, New York Mayor Bloomberg, and others who hold the reins of power. To be completely honest and fair, such unbridled hubris extends to those on the right as well, including the members of Bush dynasty, John Boehner, Lindsey Graham and countless others. Again, we are not governed by political parties, but ruled by royalty who have erected firewalls of protection against the common people, us - the serfs.

Although they did not create the current perspective, they most assuredly embraced and advanced it. How dare we, the uninitiated and unwashed, question their words and actions?

Their tasks become easier as they have firmly entrenched their advance teams within the press to further their objectives. They know the power of the airwaves and print, and use the likes of Piers Morgan, the chameleon for the modern day Camelot and arguably a man with no love for our Constitutional Republic to do their bidding. The political right has similar truth suppressors who trade their morals and integrity for a paycheck, and the future of our nation for a promised seat at the table of power. And we, the people who have built this nation with the sweat of our brow and the skin from our knuckles, are scolded like children when we dare ask for the truth.

Such is the perspective or the backdrop from which we must now operate.

Obama: selected to be the last president

America is more than a piece of land. It is a mindset, an ideology that was founded on the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our founders left England and established our great nation to rid themselves of the oppression we are seeing return with even greater force and oppressiveness. But something happened to many of us over the years to make us more accepting of the British or European model of governance, which is exactly what we are seeing take over our nation. It is the push for globalism, a global governance, a singular mindset drafted and choreographed by the most rich and powerful families of the world.

As Americas, we’ve been set up. Perhaps it began in 1913, when America was force fed the lie of our current and corrupt monetary system with the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Then came the creation of the Internal Revenue Service, which was a consolidation of power regulating our wealth. From the League of Nations to the United Nations, the push for consolidation of power by the few to rule the many has been the objective.

As we progressed through the Twentieth century, can we now look back and see with increasing clarity that Communist infiltration of nearly every branch of government, our centers of higher learning and all schools, compliments of the creation of the Department of Education, as well as the media? Can we now see with clarity that America, too strong to be taken down from the outside, is being taken down from within?

Can any rational, sane person explain the run-up to, and consequences of the financial crisis of 2008? Our unbridled debt of over 16 TRILLION dollars? As you watch the evening news or listen to political pundits talk of recovery and improving economic conditions, do you wonder what planet they are from, or whether they actually believe their lies? Do you honestly believe that we had fair elections in 2012? How about 2008, 2004 or even 2000?

America was set up from the inside to be destroyed. Our children have been sold into slavery to illegal debt created by a cabal of central banks based… in London. Perhaps that’s the reason Barack Hussein Obama, or whatever his real name is, is so reluctant to show his papers, as perhaps he’s really a British citizen, as his father, who hailed from Kenya, was actually a British subject, which would make Obama a British national.

Could it be that we’ve been taken over once again by the British empire? Is European socialism being used a as a stepping stone to Communism and then to global governance, or a “New World Order?”

When the American dollar collapses, and it must, which country will play a major role in replacing our defunct economic system? Great Britain? So, in one fell swoop, America will become beholden to Great Britain and all of its laws once again.

People like Michael Savage, who is already on Her Majesty’s radar might want to consider those implications.

Perhaps that’s why Piers Morgan is smirking and acting as if he owns America.

In any event, what are we, true American patriots and not just keyboard warriors, prepared to do about it? The time to decide is now. The time to act will be soon.

No one Protecting American masses against ‘The Revenge of Obama’

canadafreepress

Judi McLeod 

In an increasingly upside-down world, we’re now being Mainstream media-warned that Obama is getting more aggressive.

And just to think we’re getting that message as if a President of the United States of America getting more aggressive is normal.

“The wide-ranging proposals on gun control that Barack Obama is expected to announce tomorrow (Jan. 16) symbolize the change in attitude accompanying his second presidential term.

Rapidly accelerating a process that began during his campaign, Obama since November has confidently picked fights with Republicans—and challenged the most conservative members of his own party—on a broad range of foreign-policy and domestic social issues. Besides gun control these include immigration, the pace of withdrawal from Afghanistan and the nomination of Republican senator Chuck Hagel as Defense secretary, a red flag for the GOP’s neo-conservative wing.” (National Journal, Jan. 16, 2013)

“Picking fights with Republicans”, “challenging the most conservative members of his own party” is not Barack Hussein Obama at his worst.

It’s how his unchecked policies are dismantling the USA that is the real problem.

As politicians, the GOP’s neo-conservative wing can, or should be, able to look after themselves.

It’s the innocent masses which need protection from a “getting more aggressive” president.

With all the marbles ( the money supply, the mainstream media, the social media, unending executive orders, at your disposal)  and absolutely loathing the country you were elected to serve, you are no longer a president like all those who came before you, but a bully.

Radio Talk Show Host Rush Limbaugh did a superb job yesterday of describing the “Revenge of Obama”, but why is it that not a single elected official is not demanding to know where Obama gets off seeking revenge.

Is this behavior in a president adult, normal or even acceptable?

The lion’s share of Obama’s time in office has been dishing on the US.  No US enemy at home or abroad has done a better job.  Obama is systematically tearing apart everything that brought America to its noble place in the world,  scattering those parts into the four winds—and even showing he enjoys it.

Why is no one in office demanding to know why?

More importantly, why is no one trying to stop him?

It’s everybody’s nightmare that a full-of-hate community organizer from out of nowhere took over the White House in 2008 and was re-installed for a second term in 2012.

Everybody’s because most countries in the outside world depend on a healthy America to survive.

It’s as if Obama is in a self-devised contest to win 1st Place as the president who most hates his country.

People who hate their own country without reasonable rationale are not only dangerous but sick.

Why are so many sitting idly by allowing a revenge-seeking president to utterly destroy their country rather than removing him?

La Habana: Ciudad en ruinas [Video]

rafa

High Fashion in the Mosque?

SodaHead/ By **Bessie** 

We're constantly clubbed on the head with the claim that the Muslim world condemns 9/11, abhors 9/11, etc. - Yet every day Shirts like this are mass produced, marketed, and sold by street venders thru out the Middle East and it's simply OK. The mass-murder of 9-11 is a celebrated event by millions of people. Now a few of our military guys, after months of sleeping on the cold ground, eating MREs, not having a good hot shower, and away from their love ones, get caught peeing on a couple of dead Al Qada types, and they are condemned by the world. What they did wasn't right, but the huge outpouring of condemnation doesn't compare (in my mind) to someone who would wear a shirt like this that glorifies the murder of over 3,000 innocent Americans.

Woman without tongue has groundbreaking surgery

itnnews

Colera en La Habana: Cierran cafeterías privadas y estatales

HablemosPress

Obama Wants Doctors Interrogating Patients About Guns

responsebeacon

A week ago, Breitbart had reported that Obamacare actually prohibited the Department of Health and Human Services from collecting information on gun owners. Awr Hawkins wrote:

It seems that in their haste to cram socialized medicine down the throats of the American people, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Barack Obama overlooked Senate amendment 3276, Sec. 2716, part c. According to reports, that amendment says the government cannot use doctors to collect ‘any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.’

Obama has now clarified with his recent executive actions that Obamacare does not actually prohibit doctors from interrogating their patients about guns. In fact, the Obama administration is encouraging doctors to do just that.

Post Continues on godfatherpolitics.com >>

El pastor cubano de los presidentes de Estados Unidos

Daniel Shoer Roth

En 1961, Luis León salió de Cuba a Miami sin sus padres. Sólo tenía 11 años, un cepillo de dientes, una muda de ropa y $3 en el bolsillo. Pero también traía un corazón que décadas después lo llevaría a dirigir una iglesia histórica aledaña a la Casa Blanca conocida como “la iglesia de los presidentes”.
El próximo lunes, aquel joven que formó parte de la Operación Pedro Pan recitará la bendición en la ceremonia que investirá por segunda vez a Barack Obama como presidente de Estados Unidos. Y encarnará el espíritu de lo que significa ser un ciudadano de este país, así como de los valores de diversidad e inclusión que representa el presidente reelecto.
“Es un honor ser parte de un hito de la historia estadounidense, puesto que todas las investiduras presidenciales lo son, y es un honor especial por ser un inmigrante en este país, el único país donde un hecho como éste puede suceder”, afirmó León el miércoles en una entrevista telefónica con El Nuevo Herald desde la Iglesia Episcopal St. John’s, en Washington. “Siento que de cierta manera estoy representando a la comunidad hispana de Estados Unidos. Somos una parte importante de este país”.
El Día de las Elecciones, Obama cimentó su victoria en el fuerte respaldo de los latinos.
León no será el único representante de sangre cubana en la ceremonia de asunción, que tendrá lugar en el National Mall a partir de las 11:30 a.m. Obama también eligió personalmente al poeta Richard Blanco, criado en Miami de padres cubanos, quien declamará un poema original para el juramento. Blanco es el primer poeta hispano y el más joven que participa en la investidura de un presidente.
Como ministro de St. Jhon’s desde 1995, León ha aconsejado desde el púlpito a tres líderes de la nación que le abrió los brazos cuando el gobierno comunista de Cuba descarriló su vida: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush – quien organizó una fiesta en la Casa Blanca para celebrar el vigésimo quinto aniversario de su ordenación en la Iglesia Episcopal – , y Obama.
Fue en el 2005, durante la ceremonia de asunción del ex presidente Bush, que León ingresó a los anales de la historia nacional como el primer hispano en ofrecer la bendición inaugural. Y la semana próxima, la vida le concederá el privilegio por segunda vez.
Durante los tres minutos en que será el foco de atención de millones de ciudadanos alrededor del mundo, se centrará en el tema del diálogo y la reconciliación.
“Mi preocupación es que no estamos hablando unos con los otros”, explicó León, de 63 años. “Creo que cuando Dios nos bendice, Dios nos llama a dar lo mejor de nosotros; a conversar y relacionarnos unos con otros”.
El pastor nació en el área cubana de Guantánamo en 1949, hijo de Luis y Concepción “Concha” León, que profesaban la fe católica. La madre trabajaba en la única escuela episcopal de Guantánamo y se sintió atraída hacia esa denominación de origen anglicano. Su esposo siguió sus pasos y ambos fueron recibidos formalmente en la Iglesia Episcopal, cuya presencia en Cuba data del siglo XIX, cuando se fundó una capellanía para atender a los ingleses y norteamericanos que vivían en la isla en tiempos de la Colonia.

Read more here: http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2013/01/17/1386104/el-pastor-cubano-de-los-presidentes.html#storylink=cpy