Archivo de la etiqueta: United States

Are they willing to share a piece of the cake?

1901302_10203311176287239_479807445_nYolanda Rodriguez Zayas-Bazán

Despite the existence of the embargo, the United States is the fifth largest exporter to Cuba (6.6% of Cuba’s imports are from the US). However, Cuba must pay cash for all imports, as credit is not allowed, reason why Obama wants to take Cuba off the list of terrorist countries. They will then have access to international credits and will not be obligated to pay cash. There are currently an estimated 4,500 companies from more than 100 countries that «do business in the Republic of Cuba» within such categories as importing to, exporting from, providing services to, or having investments within the Republic of Cuba.*

This is the sad story of what the Castro government has turned our country into, nothing more than a luscious, extremely appetizing «CAKE». A land desired to be devoured by every body and it’s mother with each one wanting a piece of it or, if possible, a larger slice. Is it so difficult to see how the Cuban people fit into the scheme of things?, do you even think all these hungry, powerful, ambitious entities find themselves considering, as history claims Marie Antoinette Queen of France said: «Let them eat cake»?. Really!, do you believe they are willing to share a piece of «THE CAKE» with them when their own government doesn’t do it or even care?….Please!!10391423_10206238144099605_7576685295330811006_n

*You can find this list in Goggle (list of companies doing business with Cuba) under the heading: Non-United States companies in Cuba.

MGuatyMarrero para Cjaronu

Day of infamy


WASHINGTON — The United States will restore full diplomatic relations with Cuba and open an embassy in Havana for the first time in more than a half-century after the release of an American contractor held in prison for five years, President Obama announced on Wednesday.

In a deal negotiated during 18 months of secret talks hosted largely by Canada and encouraged by Pope Francis, who hosted a final meeting at the Vatican, Mr. Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba agreed in a telephone call to put aside decades of hostility to find a new relationship between the United States and the island nation just 90 miles off the American coast..

MGuatyMarrero para Cjaronu

Charter schools get results

Charter schools get results

untitledBy: Moorad Alexanian

At times, it is hard to understand the logic behind opposition to charter schools,

The essence of schools is to educate students of useful knowledge that would allow them to become positive elements in our society.

Of course, some schools have to be tailored to differing student preparation – much of which should have been learned at healthy home environments.

Charter schools offer that flexibility and opportunity instead of the public schools system – a centralized form of education that has failed.

If charter schools can accomplish the task at a much lower cost to taxpayers than public schools and someone is making a profit, what is wrong with that?

Let the parents decide which school to send their children. After all parents are the taxpayers.

Anything centralized is doomed to fail. Witness countries where a handful of people ran the show, e.g., Cuba, the former Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea, etc. Total failures.

It is incredible that some people associate the failure of our president not to his incompetence and lack of leadership but because he does not hold all the reins of power. They want to give our president more power. Go figure.

Moorad Alexanian, Wilmington


MGuatyMarrero para Cjaronu

Thought police on patrol

The Washington Post – 4-10-14

Charles Krauthammer

Thought police on patrol

Two months ago, a petition bearing more than 110,000 signatures was delivered to The Post, demanding a ban on any article questioning global warming. The petition arrived the day before publication of my column, which consisted of precisely that heresy.

The column ran as usual. But I was gratified by the show of intolerance because it perfectly illustrated my argument that the left is entering a new phase of ideological agitation — no longer trying to win the debate but stopping debate altogether, banishing from public discourse any and all opposition.

The proper word for that attitude is totalitarian. It declares certain controversies over and visits serious consequences — from social ostracism to vocational defenestration — upon those who refuse to be silenced.

Sometimes the word comes from on high, as when the president of the United States declares the science of global warming to be “settled.” Anyone who disagrees is then branded “anti-science.” And better still, a “denier” — a brilliantly chosen calumny meant to impute to the climate skeptic the opprobrium normally reserved for the hatemongers and crackpots who deny the Holocaust.

Then last week, another outbreak. The newest closing of the leftist mind is on gay marriage. Just as the science of global warming is settled, so, it seems, are the moral and philosophical merits of gay marriage.

To oppose it is nothing but bigotry, akin to racism. Opponents are to be similarly marginalized and shunned, destroyed personally and professionally.

Like the CEO of Mozilla who resigned under pressure just 10 days into his job when it was disclosed that six years earlier he had donated to California’s Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

But why stop with Brendan Eich, the victim of this high-tech lynching? Prop 8 passed by half a million votes. Six million Californians joined Eich in the crime of “privileging” traditional marriage. So did Barack Obama. In that same year, he declared that his Christian beliefs made him oppose gay marriage.

Yet under the new dispensation, this is outright bigotry. By that logic, the man whom the left so ecstatically carried to the White House in 2008 was equally a bigot.

The whole thing is so stupid as to be unworthy of exegesis. There is no logic. What’s at play is sheer ideological prejudice — and the enforcement of the new totalitarian norm that declares, unilaterally, certain issues to be closed.

Closed to debate. Open only to intimidated acquiescence.

To this magic circle of forced conformity, the left would like to add certain other policies, resistance to which is deemed a “war on women.” It’s a colorful synonym for sexism. Leveling the charge is a crude way to cut off debate.

Thus, to oppose late-term abortion is to make war on women’s “reproductive health.” Similarly, to question Obamacare’s mandate of free contraception for all.

Some oppose the regulation because of its impingement on the free exercise of religion. Others on the simpler (nontheological) grounds of a skewed hierarchy of values. Under the new law, everything is covered, but a few choice things are given away free. To what does contraception owe its exalted status? Why should it rank above, say, antibiotics for a sick child, for which that same mother must co-pay?

Say that, however, and you are accused of denying women “access to contraception.”

Or try objecting to the new so-called Paycheck Fairness Act for women, which is little more than a full-employment act for trial lawyers. Sex discrimination is already illegal. What these new laws do is relieve the plaintiffs of proving intentional discrimination. To bring suit, they need only to show that women make less in that workplace .

Like the White House, where women make 88 cents to the men’s dollar?

That’s called “disparate impact.” Does anyone really think Obama consciously discriminates against female employees, rather than the disparity being a reflection of experience, work history, etc.? But just to raise such questions is to betray heretical tendencies.

The good news is that the “war on women” charge is mostly cynicism, fodder for campaign-year demagoguery. But the trend is growing. Oppose the current consensus and you’re a denier, a bigot, a homophobe, a sexist, an enemy of the people.

Long a staple of academia, the totalitarian impulse is spreading. What to do? Defend the dissenters, even if — perhaps, especially if — you disagree with their policy. It is — it was? — the American way.

Courtesy of: Mario Espinosa

MGuatyMarrero para Cjaronu

An attack on one is an attack on all

Imagen de PPS- Estrofa de poema de Cástulo Gregorisch- PPS Teresita Hernández

Imagen de PPS- Estrofa de poema de Cástulo Gregorisch- PPS Teresita Hernández

Anniversary of the worst domestic massacre in American history perpetrated in the name of Islam.

Publicado por MGuatyMarrero para Cjaronu

You won’t believe this.One problem. The picture isn’t even from Syria, it’s from Iraq in 2003.

photographer, Marco di Lauro

photographer, Marco di Lauro

So, Secretary of State John Kerry referenced this photograph when making his speech today, trying to drive home how awful the Syrian chemical attack was as he tried to convince us why we should go to war. One problem. The picture isn’t even from Syria. It’s from Iraq in 2003. The photographer, Marco di Lauro, said he nearly «fell off his chair» when he saw it was being used to promote a war in Syria. It’s getting pretty disturbing to see how far our politicians are willing to go to drum up support for a war nobody wants.

Referencia.: Lillan Castañeda Facebook

Published por MGuatyMarrero for Cjaronu