Barack Obama : : Change We Can Believe In His Own Words
My reaction:
I am glad to be able to listen to whole speech and reach my own conclusions. Unfortunately, most people will form opinions based on what they hear from others. Last night, I was watching Hardball, the Factor, and Hannity & Colmes, and it was interesting to see almost both extreme views. On one hand, I heard it was the best speech on race since MLK on the other hand it seemed as if Obama embraced and defended Rev. Wright's outrageous and offensive comments. To the point where Sean Hannity kept saying that he believes that Obama agrees with Rev. Wright and implied if elected would be anti-American (in POV, code for sympathetic to terrorism). My father, who is well-educated and very informed, called me concerned about Obama's problem now with Rev. Wright. Unfortunately, many Independents who support Obama will never listen to his whole speech and may change their support. I think it is imperative that Obama continues to condemn Rev. Wright's remarks on every opportunity that he gets but also focuses on the urgent issues that we face today such as the war in Iraq and the Economy. It is clear that many opponents of Obama are looking for anything to destroy his chances of being elected and will continue to do so throughout the campaign.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Bill: Deem Venezuela a terror sponsor - 03/14/2008 - MiamiHerald.com#recent_comm#recent_comm#recent_comm#recent_comm
Bill: Deem Venezuela a terror sponsor - 03/14/2008 - MiamiHerald.com#recent_comm#recent_comm#recent_comm#recent_comm
My comment:
As a Venezuelan, I agree that the U.S. put their business interest aside (ie. oil from Venezuela)I agree the U.S. Congress should pass their resolution but most importantly, they need to push the UN Security Council to review all the evidence and propose a resolution to classify Chavez government for what he is - a Taliban government - that protects and finances the narcoterrorist FARC. If they don't both, it is going to be view as another U.S. unilateral position.
My comment:
As a Venezuelan, I agree that the U.S. put their business interest aside (ie. oil from Venezuela)I agree the U.S. Congress should pass their resolution but most importantly, they need to push the UN Security Council to review all the evidence and propose a resolution to classify Chavez government for what he is - a Taliban government - that protects and finances the narcoterrorist FARC. If they don't both, it is going to be view as another U.S. unilateral position.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Ahead of the Tape - WSJ.com
Ahead of the Tape - WSJ.com
This article is very interesting. It projects another two years or so of home prices dropping to level off with personal income
This article is very interesting. It projects another two years or so of home prices dropping to level off with personal income
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Chávez Democrats - WSJ.com
The Chávez Democrats - WSJ.com
My comment:
Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. As a Venezuelan who radically opposes Chavez - Taliban-type President, who openly supports and finances terrorists - FARC, I would agree with you 100% to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. However, let's not be naive. Obama's advisor "wink, wink" to Canada on NAFTA, probably cost him the Ohio primary. Ohio decided the last general election and will probably decide it again. On the other hand, the Republicans had the WH and Congress for plenty of years to pass the free trade agreement with Colombia, which is much worse because they stand for free trade. Further, in my POV, nothing has galvanized the left in Latin American against the U.S. more than Bush. I do agree 100% that Chavez is power because of President Carter. He quickly certified the referendum to keep Chavez without a proper audit of the results. So, let's spread the blame fairly among Democrats and Republicans when it comes to destructive policy in Latin America.
My comment:
Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. As a Venezuelan who radically opposes Chavez - Taliban-type President, who openly supports and finances terrorists - FARC, I would agree with you 100% to sign a free trade agreement with Colombia. However, let's not be naive. Obama's advisor "wink, wink" to Canada on NAFTA, probably cost him the Ohio primary. Ohio decided the last general election and will probably decide it again. On the other hand, the Republicans had the WH and Congress for plenty of years to pass the free trade agreement with Colombia, which is much worse because they stand for free trade. Further, in my POV, nothing has galvanized the left in Latin American against the U.S. more than Bush. I do agree 100% that Chavez is power because of President Carter. He quickly certified the referendum to keep Chavez without a proper audit of the results. So, let's spread the blame fairly among Democrats and Republicans when it comes to destructive policy in Latin America.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
For Hugo Chávez, problems over FARC are just beginning - 03/06/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
For Hugo Chávez, problems over FARC are just beginning - 03/06/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
Andres,
I wrote a couple days ago the following that echoes the point of your article:
Once again, I underestimated Chavez. Last night, I was listening to his speech in "Alo Presidente", and I could not believe that he came borderline of declaring war to Colombia in defense of what we should all be celebrating, which is the death of Reyes, the #2 leader of the terrorist FARC. After seizing Reyes' computer, it is clear why Uribe did not notify Correa of the attack. The FARC considers Correa their friend. Uribe was pragmatic. He had the opportunity to take out one of the two leaders of Colombia #1 enemy and menace to society and then deal with the consequences. Ironically, Chavez responded harsher than Correa, who called his ambassador and "kicked-out" the Colombian ambassador. Correa also asked for the OAS and UN to act -- clearly using diplomatic protocol. He called the attacked a massacre and denounced Colombia for attacking instead of defending. Chavez, on the other hand, did not talk of any diplomatic measures, but instead sent 10 battalions, Air Force, etc. and threaten to go to war against Colombia if they make an incursion in Venezuela to attack the FARC. He also closed the embassy in Colombia, which basically means diplomatic and trade relations are suspended.
Chavez is acting like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not only is he providing safe haven to terrorists but also willing to use the Venezuelan Armed Forces to defend it. I hope that the Chavista leaders and Armed Forces are seriously evaluating if they want to "jump off the cliff" with Chavez. I believe the Venezuelan Armed forces would not go into war with Colombia to defend the FARC. They are unwilling, inexperienced, and unprepared to go to war to follow a crazy and egomaniac. I still have faith and hope that this is the beginning of hopefully the near end to Chavez. I hope that I do not underestimate the Venezuelan Armed Forces.
Andres,
I wrote a couple days ago the following that echoes the point of your article:
Once again, I underestimated Chavez. Last night, I was listening to his speech in "Alo Presidente", and I could not believe that he came borderline of declaring war to Colombia in defense of what we should all be celebrating, which is the death of Reyes, the #2 leader of the terrorist FARC. After seizing Reyes' computer, it is clear why Uribe did not notify Correa of the attack. The FARC considers Correa their friend. Uribe was pragmatic. He had the opportunity to take out one of the two leaders of Colombia #1 enemy and menace to society and then deal with the consequences. Ironically, Chavez responded harsher than Correa, who called his ambassador and "kicked-out" the Colombian ambassador. Correa also asked for the OAS and UN to act -- clearly using diplomatic protocol. He called the attacked a massacre and denounced Colombia for attacking instead of defending. Chavez, on the other hand, did not talk of any diplomatic measures, but instead sent 10 battalions, Air Force, etc. and threaten to go to war against Colombia if they make an incursion in Venezuela to attack the FARC. He also closed the embassy in Colombia, which basically means diplomatic and trade relations are suspended.
Chavez is acting like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not only is he providing safe haven to terrorists but also willing to use the Venezuelan Armed Forces to defend it. I hope that the Chavista leaders and Armed Forces are seriously evaluating if they want to "jump off the cliff" with Chavez. I believe the Venezuelan Armed forces would not go into war with Colombia to defend the FARC. They are unwilling, inexperienced, and unprepared to go to war to follow a crazy and egomaniac. I still have faith and hope that this is the beginning of hopefully the near end to Chavez. I hope that I do not underestimate the Venezuelan Armed Forces.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Bush Backs Colombian President
Bush Backs Colombian President
My comment:
Of course, everyone knows that the U.S. fully supports Uribe, especially against Chavez, who has called Bush the devil and a terrorist. If Bush wants to help Uribe, the best thing he can do is to shut up. Every time he supports anyone it backfires. There has never been a U.S. president less popular than Bush. Chavez says that Uribe is Bush’s puppet and that the U.S in behind the attack in Ecuador. Chavez main rhetoric is that the U.S is about to invade Venezuela and kill him to take away the oil. Most people in Venezuela don’t believe him, but if Bush keeps talking in support of Colombia, it is going to wake nationalistic sentiment in Venezuela, Ecuador, and the rest of Latin America. What’s going to be interesting is how the UN decides with the evidence that Chavez sent $300 million to the FARC.
My comment:
Of course, everyone knows that the U.S. fully supports Uribe, especially against Chavez, who has called Bush the devil and a terrorist. If Bush wants to help Uribe, the best thing he can do is to shut up. Every time he supports anyone it backfires. There has never been a U.S. president less popular than Bush. Chavez says that Uribe is Bush’s puppet and that the U.S in behind the attack in Ecuador. Chavez main rhetoric is that the U.S is about to invade Venezuela and kill him to take away the oil. Most people in Venezuela don’t believe him, but if Bush keeps talking in support of Colombia, it is going to wake nationalistic sentiment in Venezuela, Ecuador, and the rest of Latin America. What’s going to be interesting is how the UN decides with the evidence that Chavez sent $300 million to the FARC.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Once again, I understimated Chavez ...
Once again, I underestimated Chavez. Last night, I was listening to his speech in "Alo Presidente", and I could not believe that he came borderline of declaring war to Colombia in defense of what we should all be celebrating, which is the death of Reyes, the #2 leader of the terrorist FARC. After seizing Reyes' computer, it is clear why Uribe did not notify Correa of the attack. The FARC considers Correa their friend. Uribe was pragmatic. He had the opportunity to take out one of the two leaders of Colombia #1 enemy and menace to society and then deal with the consequences. Ironically, Chavez responded harsher than Correa, who called his ambassador and "kicked-out" the Colombian ambassador. Correa also asked for the OAS and UN to act -- clearly using diplomatic protocol. He called the attacked a massacre and denounced Colombia for attacking instead of defending. Chavez, on the other hand, did not talk of any diplomatic measures, but instead sent 10 battalions, Air Force, etc. and threaten to go to war against Colombia if they make an incursion in Venezuela to attack the FARC. He also closed the embassy in Colombia, which basically means diplomatic and trade relations are suspended.
Chavez is acting like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not only is he providing safe haven to terrorists but also willing to use the Venezuelan Armed Forces to defend it. I hope that the Chavista leaders and Armed Forces are seriously evaluating if they want to "jump off the cliff" with Chavez. I believe the Venezuelan Armed forces would not go into war with Colombia to defend the FARC. They are unwilling, inexperienced, and unprepared to go to war to follow a crazy and egomaniac. I still have faith and hope that this is the beginning of hopefully the near end to Chavez. I hope that I do not underestimate the Venezuelan Armed Forces.
Chavez is acting like the Taliban government in Afghanistan. Not only is he providing safe haven to terrorists but also willing to use the Venezuelan Armed Forces to defend it. I hope that the Chavista leaders and Armed Forces are seriously evaluating if they want to "jump off the cliff" with Chavez. I believe the Venezuelan Armed forces would not go into war with Colombia to defend the FARC. They are unwilling, inexperienced, and unprepared to go to war to follow a crazy and egomaniac. I still have faith and hope that this is the beginning of hopefully the near end to Chavez. I hope that I do not underestimate the Venezuelan Armed Forces.
Veneconomia - Violenta Realidad - Marzo 3, 2008
Violenta realidad
La relación estrecha del Gobierno de Chávez con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), dejó de ser este fin de semana un secreto a voces para convertirse en una violenta realidad.Nunca antes habían estado tan claros y visibles los vínculos de Hugo Chávez y su Gobierno con las FARC como ahora, a raíz de la muerte de Raúl Reyes y de otros 17 guerrilleros más, en manos de un grupo comando del Ejército colombiano en territorio ecuatoriano.Las simpatías del mandatario venezolano con todo grupo insurgente, pero muy especialmente con las FARC, ha sido evidenciado en decenas de oportunidades.Una de ellas, por ejemplo, es la sentencia firme que se ordenó contra el Comandante Humberto Quintero Aguilar, en castigo por haber arrestado, en cumplimiento de su deber, al guerrillero Rodrigo Granda, conocido como el Canciller de las FARC.Más recientemente, durante todo el proceso de liberación de rehenes en manos de las FARC, se tiene el mensaje de solidaridad y amistad público que llevó su Ministro de Interior y Justicia del Gobierno venezolano a los guerrilleros que entregaron a las diputadas Clara Rojas y Consuelo González, en enero pasado. "¡Mantengan ese espíritu, mantengan esa fuerza! ¡Cuenten con nosotros!" Fue la promesa del ministro Ramón Rodríguez Chacín a los guerrilleros ese día.Más grave aún fue la solicitud de Chávez para que se le diera a las FARC y al ELN el reconocimiento de beligerancia a nivel internacional como verdaderos ejércitos, que tienen "un proyecto político y bolivariano aquí respetado".Otra evidencia de esta cercanía del Gobierno de Chávez con las FARC es la indiferencia con la que recibió Chávez de manos de Álvaro Uribe las pruebas de la existencia de campamentos guerrilleros en territorio venezolano, a pesar de habérsele entregado mapas y coordenadas de la ubicación de los mismos.Ahora, Chávez con la movilización de 10 batallones y tanques a la frontera con Colombia, y el cierre de la Embajada en Bogotá se ha metido en un conflicto bi nacional entre Colombia y Ecuador donde, a primera vista, no tiene incumbencia Venezuela.Es cierto que la acción del Ejército colombiano destruyó un campamento guerrillero en territorio ecuatoriano, lo que requiere de una explicación por parte del Gobierno de Colombia al de Ecuador.Pero, también requiere de amplias explicaciones por parte del presidente Rafael Correa, el hecho de que haya permitido que ese campamento estuviera en el Ecuador. Esto es evidencia de la complacencia de su Gobierno con las FARC y su ingerencia en un conflicto interno de un país soberano.Según las últimas informaciones, las cosas parece que se están complicando aún más. El Gobierno de Colombia recabó en la operación militar documentos que parecen involucrar más directamente a los Gobiernos de Correa y de Chávez con las FARC.De corroborarse estas denuncias, quedarían develadas las verdaderas razones de la unilateral, emocional e irracional reacción de Hugo Chávez, que ponen en riesgo de entrar en un conflicto de proporciones incalculables a pueblos hermanos.
La relación estrecha del Gobierno de Chávez con las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC), dejó de ser este fin de semana un secreto a voces para convertirse en una violenta realidad.Nunca antes habían estado tan claros y visibles los vínculos de Hugo Chávez y su Gobierno con las FARC como ahora, a raíz de la muerte de Raúl Reyes y de otros 17 guerrilleros más, en manos de un grupo comando del Ejército colombiano en territorio ecuatoriano.Las simpatías del mandatario venezolano con todo grupo insurgente, pero muy especialmente con las FARC, ha sido evidenciado en decenas de oportunidades.Una de ellas, por ejemplo, es la sentencia firme que se ordenó contra el Comandante Humberto Quintero Aguilar, en castigo por haber arrestado, en cumplimiento de su deber, al guerrillero Rodrigo Granda, conocido como el Canciller de las FARC.Más recientemente, durante todo el proceso de liberación de rehenes en manos de las FARC, se tiene el mensaje de solidaridad y amistad público que llevó su Ministro de Interior y Justicia del Gobierno venezolano a los guerrilleros que entregaron a las diputadas Clara Rojas y Consuelo González, en enero pasado. "¡Mantengan ese espíritu, mantengan esa fuerza! ¡Cuenten con nosotros!" Fue la promesa del ministro Ramón Rodríguez Chacín a los guerrilleros ese día.Más grave aún fue la solicitud de Chávez para que se le diera a las FARC y al ELN el reconocimiento de beligerancia a nivel internacional como verdaderos ejércitos, que tienen "un proyecto político y bolivariano aquí respetado".Otra evidencia de esta cercanía del Gobierno de Chávez con las FARC es la indiferencia con la que recibió Chávez de manos de Álvaro Uribe las pruebas de la existencia de campamentos guerrilleros en territorio venezolano, a pesar de habérsele entregado mapas y coordenadas de la ubicación de los mismos.Ahora, Chávez con la movilización de 10 batallones y tanques a la frontera con Colombia, y el cierre de la Embajada en Bogotá se ha metido en un conflicto bi nacional entre Colombia y Ecuador donde, a primera vista, no tiene incumbencia Venezuela.Es cierto que la acción del Ejército colombiano destruyó un campamento guerrillero en territorio ecuatoriano, lo que requiere de una explicación por parte del Gobierno de Colombia al de Ecuador.Pero, también requiere de amplias explicaciones por parte del presidente Rafael Correa, el hecho de que haya permitido que ese campamento estuviera en el Ecuador. Esto es evidencia de la complacencia de su Gobierno con las FARC y su ingerencia en un conflicto interno de un país soberano.Según las últimas informaciones, las cosas parece que se están complicando aún más. El Gobierno de Colombia recabó en la operación militar documentos que parecen involucrar más directamente a los Gobiernos de Correa y de Chávez con las FARC.De corroborarse estas denuncias, quedarían develadas las verdaderas razones de la unilateral, emocional e irracional reacción de Hugo Chávez, que ponen en riesgo de entrar en un conflicto de proporciones incalculables a pueblos hermanos.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
My response to "NAFTA rhetoric may harm ties with Latin America" - 03/02/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
NAFTA rhetoric may harm ties - 03/02/2008 - MiamiHerald.com
My response:
Andres,
I think you are being too harsh saying that Obama and Clinton's statements as irresponsible as Republicans on illegal immigration, considering that some Republicans' comments are borderline racist. However, let me comment on somethings missing in your article. I am all for free trade. As a matter of fact, one of the few areas where there is a consensus among Economists is free trade, but let's put some context. Ohio, a big manufacturing economy is hurting, mainly due to jobs lost to globalization. This is also the state where the primary and may be the national election will be decided. Hillary has asked for a "time-out" and Obama wants to keep "improving fairness in labor and enviromental" standards. I worry more about what does a "time-out" mean -- suspending NAFTA? The fact of the matter is that when you have $20 hour vs. $1-2 hour you cannot close that gap even without NAFTA. This is where China applies. Free Trade will be very difficult with China. The U.S. starting losing its manufacturing industry long before NAFTA. The big issue is that it is also losing the technology industry. We have all called customer service to help us install our wireless router for example and somebody from India or Costa Rica helps us set it up. The U.S. biggest comparative advantage continues to be to attract talent from all over the world who innovate and stay in the U.S. Unfortunately, try explaining that to labor unions in Michigan and Ohio, which are key to get the National nomination.
Posted by: Carlos Erban
My response:
Andres,
I think you are being too harsh saying that Obama and Clinton's statements as irresponsible as Republicans on illegal immigration, considering that some Republicans' comments are borderline racist. However, let me comment on somethings missing in your article. I am all for free trade. As a matter of fact, one of the few areas where there is a consensus among Economists is free trade, but let's put some context. Ohio, a big manufacturing economy is hurting, mainly due to jobs lost to globalization. This is also the state where the primary and may be the national election will be decided. Hillary has asked for a "time-out" and Obama wants to keep "improving fairness in labor and enviromental" standards. I worry more about what does a "time-out" mean -- suspending NAFTA? The fact of the matter is that when you have $20 hour vs. $1-2 hour you cannot close that gap even without NAFTA. This is where China applies. Free Trade will be very difficult with China. The U.S. starting losing its manufacturing industry long before NAFTA. The big issue is that it is also losing the technology industry. We have all called customer service to help us install our wireless router for example and somebody from India or Costa Rica helps us set it up. The U.S. biggest comparative advantage continues to be to attract talent from all over the world who innovate and stay in the U.S. Unfortunately, try explaining that to labor unions in Michigan and Ohio, which are key to get the National nomination.
Posted by: Carlos Erban
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
