Después de siete años de gobierno socialista en España, el pasado 20 de noviembre los españoles apostaron por el cambio. El Partido Popular, presidido por Mariano Rajoy, alcanzó unos resultados históricos en las urnas y será el encargado de dirigir las riendas del país en los próximos años. Con más de cinco millones de parados, lo que supone más del 20% de la población en paro, el nuevo Ejecutivo tendrá como prioridad absoluta impulsar la recuperación económica, así como el conseguir que España vuelva a ser un país que genere confianza a nivel internacional.

Durante el mandato de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero las relaciones del Gobierno español con Estados Unidos han tenido demasiados altibajos. No obstante, a partir de ahora es de esperar que la buena sintonía entre ambas administraciones se recupere. El nuevo gobierno de Mariano Rajoy debería apostar por reforzar los vínculos con Estados Unidos, especialmente por el gran potencial que supone para España la comunidad hispana estadounidense, con más de cincuenta millones de personas. El intercambio cultural, económico y social repercutirá positivamente en ambos países, que comparten una herencia común desde hace siglos y cuyas nuevas generaciones no deberían obviar.

“Of all the people I interviewed in New Orleans regarding the Kennedy assassination, Carlos Bringuier was the one I trusted most. I could see in his eyes he was always telling me the complete truth.”  (Oriana Fallaci, L, Europeo, 1969.)

y store and started looking around,” recalls Carlos Bringuier about the afternoon of August 5, 1963. “But I could sense he wasn’t a shopper. Sure enough, after a few minutes of browsing he came up and extended his hand. “Good afternoon,” he said. “I’m Lee Harvey Oswald.”

In 1963 the CIA regarded the Di“That weasel walked into mrectorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) “the most militant and deeply motivated of all the Cuban exile organizations seeking to oust Castro.” Carlos Bringuier was their representative in New Orleans. It was DRE agents who infiltrated Cuba and brought out the first reports of Soviet missile installations–to the scoffs of everyone from Camelot’s CIA to the State Department’s wizards, to the White House’s Best and Brightest. It took two months for anyone to finally take them seriously. A U-2 flight then confirmed every last detail of what the DRE boys had been risking their lives for months to report.

“Oswald approached me because my name was so often linked to anti-Castro activities in the local (New Orleans) news,” recalls Bringuier. “He even jammed his hand in his pocket and pulled out a roll of bills, offering to contribute to the anti-Castro cause. I was suspicious and declined, but he kept blasting Castro and Communism in very colorful terms the whole time he was in the store. He returned the next day, snarled out a few more anti-Castroisms and dropped off his training manual for the anti-Castro fight, Guidebook for Marines.”

Two days later Bringuier was astounded to spot Oswald a few blocks away from his store distributing Fair Pay for Cuba pamphlets. Carlos approached, accepted a pamphlet, ripped it to pieces and a scuffle ensued. The cops arrived, the scuffle made the news, and a few days later Bringuier and Oswald odebated on New Orleans radio and TV.

Dozens of books, movies, articles and TV specials depict these events. What they DON’T depict is how, between their scuffle and debate, Carlos and a friend Carlos Quiroga turned the tables on Oswald. Posing as a Castro-sympathizer eager to join Oswald’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Quiroga (who had not been in the store or involved in the scuffle) visited Oswald at his home and they commiserated for hours. “You read everyplace that Oswald was dumb, a flake, a patsy, a set-up,” says Bringuier. “Nonsense. He was a smooth operator and spoke fluent Russian.”

Quiroga noticed that Oswald’s living room was filled with Fair play For Cuba Committee literature. From one stack Oswald pulled an application to join the Committee and offered it to Quiroga. Yet during the Warren Commission circus The Fair Play for Cuba Committee repeatedly denied that Oswald had any links with them.

Among the things that caught Quiroga’s eye during his visit was Oswald speaking Russian with his wife and daughter. “Its good practice,” explained Oswald. “I’m studying foreign languages at Tulane University.” He was lying. Also keep in mind the date: this was 3 months before the assassination. Oswald’s stint in Russia was virtually unknown at the time.

On the very night of Nov. 22^rd 1963 Carlos Bringuier went public on American radio and TV: “We don’t know yet if Lee Harvey Oswald is President Kennedy’s assassin. But if he is, then Fidel Castro’s hand is involved in this assassination. ”

Fidel Castro immediately called a press conference to denounce Carlos Bringuier by name and kick off the media disinformation campaign that finally peaked as high comedy with Oliver Stone’s JFK.

“For 15 years of my life at the top of the Soviet bloc intelligence community, I was involved in a world-wide disinformation effort aimed at diverting attention away from the KGB’s involvement with Lee Harvey Oswald. The Kennedy assassination conspiracy was born—and it never died.”(Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking intelligence official ever to defect from the Soviet bloc.)

But Carlos Bringuier was on to the disinformation campaign from its very birthday.

“Oliver Stone interviewed me for hours while researching for his movie JFK” recalls Bringuier. “This was almost 30 years ago. Stone’s loony–left credentials weren’t yet blatant. I figured he was after the truth. So I went along, telling him everything. Well, his movie comes out –and turns out I’M involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK!” Bringuier laughs. “For fifty years the media has either ignored or turned everything I’ve told them upside down,” says Bringuier. “Finally I got sick of it so when a couple years back 60 Minutes asked me for an interview, I told them: “sure. I’ll do an interview—but this time it has to be LIVE, no editing.” That ended whatever relationship I had with CBS producers.”

“U.S leaders who plan an eliminating Cuban leaders should not think that they are themselves safe!” warned Castro on Sept 7,1963. “We are prepared to answer in kind!”

Many of those closest to the early evidence were convinced that Castro made good on his boast. “I’ll tell you something that will rock you,” Lyndon Johnson told Howard K. Smith in 1966. “Kennedy tried to get Castro — but Castro got Kennedy first.”

General and former Secretary of Defense Alexander Haig agreed with LBJ. Haig served as a military aide under both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. “As I read the secret report I felt a sense of physical shock, a rising of the hair on the back of my neck,” he writes about an incident one month after the Kennedy assassination when a classified report crossed his desk. “I walked the report over to my superiors and watched their faces go ashen.” “From this moment, Al.” said his superiors, “You will forget you ever read this piece of paper, or that it ever existed.”

The classified intelligence report that so rattled Haig and caused so many faces to go ashen described how a few days before the Dallas assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, accompanied by Castro intelligence agents, had been spotted in Havana, where he’d traveled from Mexico City.

For 34 years Markus Wolf was the chief of East Germany’s foreign intelligence service, a branch of the STASI with many contacts and operations in Castro’s Cuba. It was the STASI rather than the KGB that undertook the training of Castro’s police and intelligence services. Wolf’s autobiography is titled, “Man Without a Face” and subtitled, “The Autobiography of Communism’s Greatest Spymaster.” Most intelligence experts agree that the subtitle fits. Wolf was once asked about the Kennedy assassination and quickly replied. “Don’t ask me — ask Fidel Castro.”

When Japan’s ferocious General Tomoyuki Yamashita (“The Tiger of Malaya”) finally emerged from his headquarters on Luzon to surrender on September 2^nd 1945 he handed his pistol, samurai sword and battle flag to the nearest U.S. soldier he saw. This was staff sergeant Manuel Perez-Garcia of the 32nd Infantry Division. Perez-Garcia was born in Cuba but immigrated to the U.S. after Pearl Harbor to join the U.S. Army and volunteer for combat.

At war’s end the 82nd Airborne presented a special trophy to the U.S. soldier who had racked up the most enemy kills in the Pacific theater. Today that trophy sits prominently in Miami’s Bay of Pigs Museum, donated by the man who won it, WWI and Bay of Pigs veteran Manuel Perez Garcia (who started with the 82nd but fought in the Pacific with the 32^nd.) The trophy sits alongside Yamashita’s samurai sword and battle flag—and  the three purple hearts, three bronze stars and three silver stars Mr Perez-Garcia earned in the Pacific.

Upon the Communist invasion of South Korea in June of 1950, Manuel Perez-Garcia rallied to the U.S. colors again, volunteering for the U.S. army again at age 41. It took a gracious letter from President Harry Truman himself to explain that by U.S. law Manuel was slightly overaged but mostly that, “You, sir, have served well above and beyond your duty to the nation. You’ve written a brilliant page in service to this country.” Mr Perez-Garcia’s son, Jorge, however was the right age for battle in Korea and stepped to the fore. He joined the U.S. army, made sergeant and died from a hail of Communist bullets while leading his men in Korea on May 4th 1952.

When Perez Garcia was 51 years old the Quisling Castro brothers in partnership with Soviet proxy Che Guevara were rapidly converting his native country into a Soviet satrapy. So Manuel volunteered for combat again, in what came to be known as the Bay of Pigs invasion.

At the time, Cuba’s enraged campesinos had risen in arms by the thousands as Castro and Che started stealing their land to build Soviet Kolkhozes, and murdering all who resisted. Alarmed by the savage insurgency, Castro and Che sent a special emissary named Flavio Bravo whimpering to their sugar-daddy Khruschev. “We are on a crusade against kulaks like you were in 1930,” whimpered this old–line Cuban Communist party member.

In short order, Soviet military “advisors,” still flush from their success against their own campesinos in the Ukrainian Holocaust were rushed to Cuba.

This anti-Stalinist rebellion 90 miles from U.S. shores and  involving ten times the number of rebels, ten times the casualties and lasting twice as long as the puerile skirmish against Batista, found no intrepid U.S. reporters anywhere near Cuba’s hills. What came to be known as The Bay of Pigs invasion was originally planned as a link-up with the Cuban resistance of the time, which was more numerous (per-capita) than the French resistance before D-Day.

At the bloody beachhead now known as the Bay of Pigs, Manuel Perez-Garcia gave the Castroites a thrashing as bad as he’d given the Japanese. These Cuban freedom-fighters battled savagely against a Soviet-trained and led force 10 times theirs’ size, inflicting casualties of 20-to-1. “They fought magnificently—and they were NOT defeated!” stressed their trainer Marine Col. Jack Hawkins, a multi-decorated veteran of Bataan, Iwo Jima and Inchon. “They simply ran out of ammunition after being abandoned by their sponsor the U.S. Government.”

“WIMPS!” sneers Michael Moore about Bay of Pigs veterans in his book “Downsize This”, “Ex-Cubans with a yellow stripe down their backs– and crybabies too!”

“Florida’s Cubans” continues Michael Moore in his book, “Downsize This,” are responsible for “sleaze in American politics. In every incident of national torment that has deflated our country for the past three decades…Cuban exiles are always present and involved.”

To fight America’s enemies, Cuban-American Manuel Perez-Garcia and his son were shipped thousands of miles to distant continents. When Senor Perez-Garcia  tried fighting an enemy every bit as rabid and murderous as Tojo or Kim Il Sung but only 90 miles away—and who had converted Perez-Garcia’s homeland into a island prison, a Soviet colony and daily playground for Che Guevara’s firing squads—he was sold down the river.

When their CIA trainer and de-facto liaison with Washington realized the Cuban freedom-fighters had been abandoned by the Best and Brightest at the Bay of Pigs, he pleaded with their commander to allow an evacuation from the doomed Bay of Pigs beachhead. “We will NOT be evacuated!” yelled that commander, Pepe San Roman, into his radio. “We came here to fight. This ends HERE!”

And so it did. Then came the real heroics. Living under a daily firing squad sentence for almost two years these men refused to sign the confession damning the “U.S. Imperialists” (the very nation, which for all they knew at the time, that had betrayed them on that beachhead.) “We will die with dignity!” responded their second-in-command Erneido Oliva to his furious Communist captors, again and again and again.

“These Cuban exiles, for all their chest-thumping and terrorism, are really just a bunch of wimps. That’s right—wimps!” stresses Michael Moore in his book “Downsize This.” His smear refers to all Cubans who escaped Castroism at the risk of their lives and at the sacrifice of all their capitalistically earned (much like Moore’s) property. But the rotund filmmaker singles out the Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters for particular scorn.

A guilt-stricken JFK finally ransomed back the Bay of Pigs prisoners. Hundreds of these promptly joined the U.S. Army and many volunteered for action in Vietnam. One of these was named Felix Sosa-Camejo.

By the day Mr. Sosa-Camejo died while rescuing a wounded comrade, he’d already been awarded 12 medals, including the Bronze Star, three Silver Stars and two Purple Hearts. I’ll quote from his official citation:

“On February 13, 1968, the lead platoon was hit by an enemy bunker complex manned by approximately forty North Vietnamese Regulars. Upon initial contact the point man was wounded and lay approximately 10 meters in front of the center bunker. The platoon was unable to move forward and extract the wounded man due to the heavy volume of fire being laid down from the enemy bunker complex.

“Captain Sosa-Camejo immediately moved into the firing line and directed the fire against the enemy bunker. With disregard for his safety, Captain Sosa-Camejo ran through the intense enemy fire and pulled the wounded point man to safety. After ensuring that the wounded man was receiving medical treatment, Captain Sosa-Camejo returned to the fire fight and again exposed himself to the intense enemy fire by single handedly assaulting the center bunker with grenades killing the two NVA soldiers manning the bunker. As he turned to assault the next bunker an NVA machine gun opened up and he was mortally wounded. Captain Sosa-Camejo’s valorous action and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.”

From his limousine Michael Moore sneers at this Cuban-American veteran and his Band-of-Brothers as “wimps and crybabies with yellow lines down their back.”

Humberto Fontova is the author of four books, including Fidel: Hollywood’s Favorite Tyrant and Exposing the Real Che Guevara. Visit hfontova.com

Even as he continues to suffer a serious illness, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez shows no letup in his headlong pursuit of building his vaunted “21^stcentury socialism.”  No one is quite sure — including probably Chávez — what that’s going to inevitably look like, but it clearly includes a lack of respect for private property rights and flouting the rules of international commerce.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that Chávez was drawing up plans to withdraw Venezuela from the World Bank’s International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a little-known, but important entity for multinational corporations to arbitrate disputes with foreign governments.

That followed an earlier Chávez announcement that he was transferring $6 billion in cash reserves held in U.S. and European banks to Russia and China, in addition to repatriating some 200 tons of gold – valued at $11 billion – held abroad to Venezuela’s Central Bank.

The clear implications of these decisions are that, one, Chávez is not interested in compensating the some 20 companies that are seeking more than $40 billion in claims at ICSID for properties he has confiscated from them, and, secondly, he is taking measures to ensure Venezuela has no assets abroad that can be seized in retaliation.

Incredibly, over the past decade, as Chávez has amassed more power and increased state control of the Venezuelan economy, he has ordered the nationalization of some 988 foreign and domestic companies.  While he hasn’t totally reneged on his obligations — there have been some compensations — the prospects that remaining claimants will get paid their due are declining by the day.

Several days ago, Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramírez drove home the point, referring to oil claimants ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips as “typical companies from the empire [the United States],” and that his government will not honor any unfavorable decisions made by international courts like ICSID.  (Ironically, his comments were made at a conference sponsored by the state oil company to drum up foreign investment in the oil sector.)

Meanwhile, the legal shoes continue to drop.  Two more U.S. companies recently sought legal redress against the Chávez government.  First, oil services company Helmerich & Payne filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Venezuela over the confiscation of 11 drilling rigs belonging to the company.

Days later, U.S. bottle maker Owens Illinois filed a claim for arbitration against Venezuela at ICSID over its confiscated properties in October 2010.  (The company had operated in the country for more than five decades and employed more than 1,000 workers.)

To be sure, no one forced these companies to invest their dollars abroad, and overseas investments are always risky ventures in countries with weak rule of law.  But global prosperity — and U.S. security — also depends on vibrant international trading and investment regimes where adherence to accepted rules and behavior benefits all.

Of course, Hugo Chávez has always believed that Venezuela’s vast oil wealth allows him to play by his own rules — but he’s playing a risky game.  Foreign investment in Venezuela is already sinking like a stone as a result of his rash decisions.  According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, foreign direct investment was a negative $3.1 billion in 2009 and a negative $1.4 billion in 2010.

In downgrading Venezuela’s credit rating recently, Standard & Poor cited growing “uncertainty” over Chávez’s “changing and arbitrary laws, price and exchange controls, and other distorting and unpredictable economic measures [that] have undermined private-sector investment and hurt productivity, weakening Venezuela’s domestic economy.”

It so happens that as the results of Chávez’s hare-brained economic policies are being felt on the street, with shortages of electricity, foodstuffs, and housing, not to mention rampant street crime, taking a toll on the working class — his political base — the country is gearing up for a presidential election in October 2012.  Chávez still remains extremely popular with his base, but their declining economic fortunes, and with the uncertainty swirling around Chávez’s health, may mean the Venezuelan populist’s re-election, for the first time in a long time, won’t be a slam dunk.

José R. Cárdenas served in several foreign policy positions during the George W. Bush administration (2004-2009), including on the National Security Council staff. He is a consultant with Vision Americas in Washington, D.C., and edits the website www.interamericansecuritywatch.com and blogs at http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/.

“Si no eres rico, por favor, no envidies al rico. Si deseas ser rico, trata de serlo mediante tu esfuerzo personal.  Y si no lo deseas, trata de vivir en paz, contigo mismo, y con tu projimo.”

La creencia de que la buena fortuna de otros es tambien la de uno, no es algo que el ser humano entiende muchas veces. Sin embargo, es una nocion muy importante. Es la anti envidia. Es la clave para la prosperidad de una sociedad.

La única manera, para una persona o país pobre, de salir de la pobreza,  es el trabajo arduo, la creatividad, la innovación, el riesgo, la fe en el futuro.  En el ámbito individual, para obtener una movilidad ascendente, el individuo debe trabajar mas arduamente que la clase por encima de su status.  En el ámbito de países, un país tiene que trabajar mas, educar mas a sus ciudadanos, promover el desarrollo de una economía privada, y garantizar un estado de derecho y libertad.

No solo la riqueza no trae la pobreza general de un pais, sino que una causa importante de que un pais no prospere economicamente es que exista entre el pueblo de ese pais el concepto de que la riqueza trae la pobreza. A este concepto erroneo se le añade el odio al rico, el deseo de expropiar, de nacionalizar, el concepto de que la propiedad es producto del robo.

El concepto de que la riqueza crea pobreza es ampliamente aceptado por muchos pueblos. El odio o envidia al rico. Las expropiaciones, o la  oposición a las privatizaciones, el pensamiento de que toda propiedad adquirida fue robada. Sin  embargo, donde quiera que estos conceptos e ideas predominan, la  pobreza se extiende y se prolonga. No, la riqueza no trae pobreza. Lo que causa la pobreza es el concepto de que la riqueza es la que la causa.

Tenemos que entender que nada es gratis. Todo gobierno, cuando provee servicios como educacion y salubridad, obtiene los fondos para los mismos de impuestos monetarios recaudados del pueblo, o de la venta de productos y servicios producidos por el pueblo. Se debe aprender tambien que el gobierno no produce riquezas. El gobierno debe limitar sus funciones a estimular el crecimiento de la industria privada, que es  la creadora de las riquezas de un pais.

La riqueza de un país, a su vez, consiste en los bienes que prometan un flujo futuro de ingreso. Los ingresos producidos por una industria-petroleo, recursos naturales, turismo, manufactura, mineria,  serviciosetc.- no representa riqueza si no se convierte en capital remunerativo de industrias, escuelas, carreteras,  puertos, acueductos, viviendas, en fin, una infraestructura completa que provea un desarrollo económico estable.

Igualdad de oportunidades? Si, es otra ley dorada de una democracia y de una libre empresa. Igualdad de resultados? No. Cada persona, dada la condición de igualdad de oportunidades, logra lo que su esfuerzo, dedicación, intelecto, interés, estudio, lo haga posible.

Si, la riqueza crea mas riqueza. Tanto en el ámbito individual como nacional, asi como en el  material y en el espiritual.

Dr. Manuel Cereijo is an electrical and computer engineering professor who holds patents in manufacturing, telecommunications and control systems. He lectures at the University of Miami.

Ever since Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the 2000 presidential election, there has been a major push to abandon the Electoral College system. Superficially, there is a sense that the election was unfair and everyone’s vote did not count equally. Three or four times in history we have elected a president who did not win the popular vote. The election of the president is determined by the Electoral College, not a national popular vote. In every state but two, Maine and Nebraska, all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Each state is allotted as many electoral votes as they have U.S. Senators and Representatives. This results in smaller states having more electoral votes proportionate to their populations, and larger states having less. Since smaller states tend to be more conservative, this makes it more likely that a Democrat could win the popular vote by winning large urban areas in big states, while still losing the election.

Realizing they can rig the system, Democrats are advocating replacing our current system with the National Popular Vote Compact (NPV). They would get around the difficulty of amending the Constitution by instead having states voluntarily enter into a compact to participate. States would agree to assign all of their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the total popular vote across the country, not just within that state. As soon as enough states pass this legislation and surpass half the electoral votes, 270, it will go into effect. Currently eight states and the District of Columbia have joined, totaling 132 electoral votes so far.

The problem with choosing mass democracy over electing educated representatives to make most political decisions can be summed up in the well-known expression, “Democracy is two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner.” The reason we have checks and balances is to avoid tyranny of the majority. Our country has lasted long and excelled because we were not established as a mass democracy. The U.S. was founded as a republican democracy – a representative government. We elect leaders to make decisions for us because not all of us have time to spend delving into political issues to fully understand them. James Madison in Federalist No. 10 explained why the Constitution established electoral representation and not direct representation, “…by enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests…”

Determining who would make the best candidate for the most important office in the country is not necessarily something that needs to be equally weighted among every person. In fact, in the past, several states did not have a popular vote for president, but allowed the state legislatures to choose the electors. The Constitution does not prescribe how the president is elected, other than leaving it up to the state legislatures to determine how to select the electors.

Ensuring one vote per person does not require ensuring one vote per issue or topic. We elect people to various political offices all the time, who then select other people for additional political positions based on criteria they select, not based on additional votes from the rest of us. This is no different.

The move to a national popular vote is supported by far left groups including the ACLU, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters and Common Cause, which receives funding from George Soros and the Tides Foundation. The President Pro Tempore of the Delaware Senate, Anthony DeLuca, has declared that once NPV goes into effect, we will never elect another Republican president. Tom Golisano, the billionaire spokesperson bankrolling the movement, is a seven-figure donor to the Democratic Party. He has cleverly hired Republican lobbyists like former Senator Fred Thompson to popularize it.

The NPV website is full of convoluted, deceptive arguments that dance around the real issue of direct democracy. The “myths” section simply denies everything. It claims that small states and federalism will not be harmed, and muddles the distinction between a republic and a democracy.

Shawn Steele, former chairman of the California Republican Party, is leading Republican opposition to NPV. The RNC passed a unanimous 168-person resolution this summer opposing NPV. California, the most recent state to adopt NPV, passed it without a single Republican State Senator voting in favor.

Some Republicans are getting excited about a variation of modifying the Electoral College being considered in Pennsylvania, which has already been adopted in Maine and Nebraska. Pennsylvania’s Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R) is leading the effort and Pennsylvania’s Republican Governor Tom Corbett has indicated he will probably sign the bill. Under the modified system, one electoral vote is awarded to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district, and the remaining two electors are awarded to the winner of the state’s popular vote. Due to the makeup of Pennsylvania, which has given all of its electoral votes to Democrats since 1988, the change would likely favor Republicans. So far there has only been one election where Maine or Nebraska has not given all of their electoral votes to one candidate, in 2008.

The proposed system in Pennsylvania does not change the fact that since Congressional districts are different sizes, one person’s vote in a district will appear to have more or less weight than someone’s vote in another district. Candidates who win the popular vote in the state could still lose a majority of its electoral votes.

The primary problem with the proposed changes in Pennsylvania is that voting will become heavily influenced by gerrymandering. A state that leans Republican could find itself giving a majority of its electoral votes to Democrats if districts become gerrymandered to favor Democrats. Redistricting and gerrymandering will increase.  States, on the other hand, have had established boundaries for years. Pennsylvania State GOP Chairman Rob Gleason opposes the changes. Save our States, a project of the Freedom Foundation think tank in Washington state that is dedicated to saving the Electoral College, opposes NPV but is ambivalent about the proposed changes in Pennsylvania.

Meddling with the Electoral College is a bad idea. It would decentralize elections and nationalize politics. A national popular vote would transfer voting power to large urban cities favoring Democrats. Even the New York Times has editorialized against tampering with the Electoral College, not wanting a solution favoring Republicans like that being proposed in Pennsylvania.

If direct democracy is such a good idea, then why not get rid of the U.S. Senate? It is the same concept. No matter how small a state’s population, it has two U.S. Senators. This is for good reason. We allot a larger proportion of representation to smaller states in order to provide them with adequate representation. Otherwise the heavily dense urban areas of larger states would bulldoze over the interests of smaller, more rural states. Don’t be fooled by the hype. The Electoral College’s system of representative democracy and federalism is the backbone of this country, not mob rule.

Rachel Alexander is the co-editor of the Intellectual Conservative.

A veces tenemos la evidencia frente a nuestras narices y hace falta querer estar ciego para no verla. El ataque de septiembre contra la embajada de Estados Unidos en Kabul el 13 de septiembre, que ahora se ha vinculado a agentes del servicio secreto pakistaní, es sin duda un buen ejemplo de ello.

Sufrir un ataque a manos de terroristas apoyados por alguien que supuestamente es un aliado es haber tocado fondo. Como Lisa Curtis de Heritage correctamente enfatiza, la administración Obama tiene que dejar absolutamente claro que eso ha marcado un cambio en las reglas del juego de las relaciones entre Pakistán y Estados Unidos. Si no es así, nuestro gran país será percibido como un actor cada vez más débil ante el público extranjero.

Desafortunadamente, este es solo uno en una larga serie de insultos y desaires de extranjeros que la Casa Blanca de Obama parece haberse acostumbrado a recibir. “Vale más ser amado que temido” ha sido siempre el modus operandipreferido del presidente. Por desgracia, su discurso ante la Asamblea General de la ONU fue un fracaso en ambos aspectos la semana pasada.

Tan poco respeto despierta el Presidente de Estados Unidos ahora que no hubo forma de disuadir a los palestinos para que abandonaran su táctica en la ONU. No suficiente con eso, el presidente francés, Nicolas Sarkozy, no tuvo problema alguno en declarar su rotundo rechazo a la posición americana contra el reconocimiento en la ONU de un Estado palestino, y todo ello sucedió solo 4 discursos después de que el presidente Obama hubiera hablado desde ese mismo podio. Este desaire habría sido inconcebible apenas hace unos años.

Y si de amor se trata, bueno, aquí tiene lo que el exvocero del Departamento de Estado P.J. Crowley escribió el lunes en la web de la BBC sobre la política para Medio Oriente de la administración Obama: “El fracaso fue llegar a Nueva York, en medio de un cambio histórico y transformativo, para abordar la solicitud palestina para ser Estado y no tener nada más que ofrecer que una amenaza de veto”.

Y Crowley amargamente comentaba sobre el discurso de Obama en El Cairo, tocando un punto contra el que Hillary Clinton había arremetido durante la campaña de las primarias demócratas: “Esta es una prueba. La paz es difícil. Pero si la única respuesta es un veto, entonces lo del Cairo ya no representa la política de Estados Unidos. Era solo un discurso”.

Lamentablemente, el “Era solo un discurso” es aplicable a la mayor parte de las iniciativas diplomáticas del gobierno de Obama y que se remonta al desafortunado intento en los primeros meses de la presidencia Obama para conseguir traer los Juegos Olímpicos de 2012 a Chicago, su ciudad natal. Prácticamente en un arranque, sin preparación adecuada, el presidente y la primera dama de Estados Unidos se subieron a un avión  para hacer una visita relámpago a Copenhague donde el Comité Olímpico se reunía. A pesar del ampliamente admirado discurso del presidente, Chicago ni siquiera llegó a la ronda final de los aspirantes. El ganador final fue Londres, cuyos funcionarios habían estado preparando el caso desde hacía años. El desaire que sufrió el presidente de Estados Unidos era tan predecible como autoinfligido. Y fue el presagio de desaires por venir.

Será el trabajo duro pero necesario del próximo presidente de Estados Unidos —sea quien sea— restaurar el prestigio y la credibilidad internacional de Estados Unidos. Mantener la fuerza militar de la nación, reforzar su diplomacia internacional y usar la diplomacia pública para recordar al mundo los logros y la influencia de Estados Unidos deben ser parte de esa tarea.

Propiedad de Libertad.org

Helle C. Dale is the Heritage Foundation’s Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy studies. Her current work focuses on the U.S. government’s institutions and programs for strategic outreach to the public of foreign countries, as well as more traditional diplomacy, critical elements in American global leadership and in the war of ideas against violent extremism.

Recently, I heard Deepak Chopra speak at a conference organized by the Institute for Integrative Nutrition. He spoke about his book, “The Soul of Leadership.” His words were relevant for Latinos in many ways. We are growing in population, but are not seeing an accompanying growth in education level and representation across sectors. We are visibly underrepresented in politics, media, and entertainment. Many are working hard to change this situation, and Being Latino is part of this movement.

We need more true leaders and we need our young people to reach their potential. But what is a true leader? A true leader leads from within, speaks powerfully to share their message, and cultivates self-power instead of agency power.

Agency power is power that others bestow on you, such as a title or a position. Self-power is independent of agency power. We all know people who attract others to them, who communicate a vision and inspire confidence from others. It’s likely they have self-power. Strong leaders are not dependent upon approval from others or praise. They are also not swayed by criticism. They have an unwavering faith in themselves and their purpose. However, they do actively seek constructive feedback and look for ways to improve. Self-power enables true leaders to have a vision and act upon it.

Chopra said, “A leader is a symbolic soul for a collective consciousness.” I’ve been thinking a lot about what that means. Leaders immediately come to mind- compelling people with fervent followings. Barack Obama, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Oz, Cory Booker, Maya Angelou, Cesar Chavez. I believe all of these true leaders are thought leaders. They are using their voice in any way possible to communicate their ideas to others and shape our society. When they talk, people listen and even act.

As Latinos, we are in need of two things: thought leaders and more exposure for existing thought leaders. We need to hear the voices of our Latino leaders loud and clear on a national level. When faced with a lack of outlets for their voices, thought leaders create their own. We need to be in charge of our own stories. Consider the incredible success of the musical “In the Heights,” now touring nationally. Creator Lin-Manuel Miranda told a Latino story and now the whole nation has heard.

Unfortunately, many of our driven young people are focused on attaining material items or a certain position or job title. What if they were focused on changing the paradigm, inspiring others, and cultivating self-power? It would make a world of difference. Also, our successful Latino professionals should challenge themselves to share their voices and stories through public speaking, writing, blogging, or social media. Each person has a unique passion and gift to share with their world. If more Latinos cultivated their voices and became true leaders, and these voices gained traction, society would never be the same.

Original article found in Being Latino Online Magazine.

Currently, Catarina writes about nutrition/health as a contributor to Being Latino Online Magazine. She is also the Co-Founder/Director of Healthy Kids in the Heights, a non-profit program empowering low-income communities to live healthier lifestyles. She’s on the leadership team for United Latino Professionals, a social networking organization focused on friends, culture, and community.

Former Mexican president Vicente Fox’s dramatic declaration last Friday that his nation should seek a truce with vicious narco-trafficking gangs draws attention to a critical issue as Mexicans consider what kind of country they want to leave their children.

Fox’s suggestion also should serve as a wake-up call to our country that we should not take for granted the extraordinary sacrifice of Mexicans who are fighting the same transnational crime syndicates that threaten U.S. security and well-being.

His provocative words may also ensure that Mexico’s 2012 presidential campaign will include a healthy debate on whether its citizens are committed to building a modern, law-abiding society or prefer to tolerate drug corruption that stunts its economic and political growth.

Vicente Fox is no radical. He is the charismatic democrat who led his center-right National Action Party (PAN) to a historic victory in 2000, ousting the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that had held power for over 70 years. Indeed, at the outset of his mandate, Fox battled the powerful narcotrafficking syndicates that control the transit of cocaine and other illegal drugs through Mexican territory to insatiable consumers in the United States. However, he backed off quickly as he realized that his security forces could not go toe-to-toe with the bloodthirsty criminals.

Before Fox, a succession of PRI governments tolerated or sanctioned truces between local narcotraffickers and local political bosses. In some cases, otherwise respectable state governors chose to prevent rampant violence by striking unsavory deals with criminals. In other jurisdictions, notorious politicians were silent partners with the cartels. Political leaders, police or judges who refused such arrangements risked violence against themselves or their communities – and they could not rely on federal authorities for any help. Fox ended his term insisting that his government would make no deals with narcos, he had to accept the fact that de facto truces kept some measure of peace on the streets even as it corrupted Mexico’s institutions.

Fox’s successor, Felipe Calderón would have none of that. He came into office declaring narcotrafficking a national security threat. And he insists that Mexico cannot thrive as a modern nation unless its laws are applied without fear or favor. The effect of his anti-narco campaign – in which he has deployed military units and federal social agencies to back-up local authorities in drug-ridden communities – has been a blood-letting of staggering proportions.

Although the 35,000 persons killed since he launched his offensive are mostly criminals caught up in gang violence, hundreds of security officials have given their lives and too many innocent civilians have been caught in the cross-fire. Moreover, bloody reprisals and turf wars have spread into Mexico City and affluent communities, and splintered gangs have taken up new violent criminal enterprises that menace millions of Mexicans. Fox’s desperate suggestion of an open truce comes on the heels of a casino bombing last week that claimed 52 lives in the well-off northern city of Monterrey.

It is fair to say that Calderón’s offensive should have been preceded by greater preparation by security forces and more robust social development programs to fortify communities against lawlessness. Indeed, launching a frontal assault has provoked a vicious backlash whose toll could not have been predicted. And, only now is Mexico beginning to build the professional police forces and effective courts that can gradually reduce drug criminality to manageable proportions.

Calderón’s critics tend to ignore altogether the corrosive effects of the past policy of tolerance and truces on Mexico’s institutions and social fabric. It is healthy for Mexicans to decide whether or how they want Calderón’s successor to continue his policy of imposing the rule of law, because such a battle requires the commitment of a nation, not only its president.

American politicians are too quick to criticize Mexico, neglecting the fact that it is our most important ally in the drug war and that its government and people are carrying more than their fair share of the burden piled high by U.S. drug abuse.

Although we have provided $1 billion in material support and training in the last five years, it is not enough. Additional funding and political solidarity – from Republicans and Democrats alike – are essential to reassuring beleaguered Mexicans that we will accept our shared responsibility.

If Mexicans elect a leader who sees narcotrafficking as the United States’ problem, that nation, in the long run, will pay a very dear price. But, so will ours. If we consider that possibility we might then demand that our leaders do more – alongside Mexico – to confront a common threat.

Roger F. Noriega was ambassador to the Organization of American States from 2001 to 2003 and assistant secretary of State from 2003 to 2005. He is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and managing director of Vision Americas LLC.

Newt Gingrich believes in the American dream for everyone. He is the one Republican candidate who talks consistently about the importance of enacting policies that allow more Latinos to realize the American dream. Gingrich is the one Republican candidate who is leading the way for more Latinos to take positions of leadership in America and the Republican Party.Here are 10 reasons why Latinos should support Newt Gingrich for president:

1. Latinos owe Obama nothing

Barack Obama promised to create more and better jobs for Latinos. He promised to fix the economy, to increase educational opportunities for our children and to solve the immigration quagmire. None of these promises were kept, and Latinos are worse off than before. That’s why Latino support for Obama has plummeted. Just because Obama is a Democrat, doesn’t mean he deserves our blind loyalty.

2. Newt Gingrich shares our conservative values

Latinos believe in family, in God, in country and in life – so much so that we protect it. We believe in good, honest, hard work. We don’t believe in handouts, just an equal opportunity to prove ourselves. We believe in patriotism and putting country before self. These values are Newt’s values and the ties that bind us.

3. Newt Gingrich knows the importance of the Latino community

50 million Latinos comprise 16% of our country’s population today. Half of our country’s population growth in the next 20 years will be generated by the growth in the Latino population. Latinos have become a key driver of our nation’s future. While the other candidates seem oblivious to this fact, Newt Gingrich has been working hard for many years to include American Hispanics in the overall conversation for a better America.

4. Newt Gingrich will fix the economy

When the economy sours, everything breaks down. People lose their jobs and stop buying. When people quit buying, the people who make the products they would have bought also lose their jobs. People without jobs pay fewer taxes so the government has less money when the unemployed need more help. So the government borrows more and goes into deeper debt. It then pays more interest, leaving even fewer dollars to help the unemployed. This domino effect must be stopped. Newt Gingrich will focus on growing the economy by instilling confidence in America and creating opportunity for those who generate jobs. He will grow the small business sector by creating financing opportunities, cutting both taxes and unnecessary regulations.

5. Newt Gingrich will create more jobs

Hispanic unemployment is 11.6% compared to the already high 9.1% nationally. When Newt Gingrich fixes the economy, jobs – including Latino jobs – will come back. Newt Gingrich is a steadfast supporter of NAFTA, and CAFTA – measures that will help make America #1 in job creation once again.

6. Newt Gingrich will make education a top priority

Our current system of education is failing all Americans, including Latinos. America has gone from #1 to #9 in educational achievement and is falling further behind. Newt Gingrich will reverse this trend by preparing our children for successful careers and productive lives starting at pre-K. He will inspire students, parents and their teachers to set the highest expectations possible. He will reward educators’ best work.

7. Newt Gingrich will tackle immigration head on

For almost four years, Barack Obama has kept immigration on the back burner, breaking his promise to address it in his first year in office. Newt Gingrich will tackle the issue and fix it. His plan starts with securing our borders and is based on a multi-step platform for issuance of more work permits to create legal workers. It will also provide a secure employment verification system and immediate deportation of criminals. All this can be implemented while respecting the sanctity and dignity of each human life.

8. Newt Gingrich has a record of Hispanic inclusion

In 2004 Newt Gingrich launched his first Spanish website Newt.org/paralatinos. In 2009 he launched TheAmericano.com, the first conservative bilingual website for American Hispanics. For the past five years, he has been writing columns for Spanish newspapers and holding roundtables with Latino leaders across the country. Newt Gingrich has studied Spanish for over five years and is becoming an accomplished Spanish speaker.

9. Newt Gingrich will keep us safe

Since 9/11, America has been on high alert. Our American men and women in our military have done our country proud. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are gone but the threat remains. Newt Gingrich will focus on keeping our country safe and strong while refocusing military priorities and spending only on the resources we truly need.

10. Newt Gingrich has the experience America needs

Barrack Obama’s inexperience in Washington has brought our government to a virtual standstill. America needs a president who has fought and won in the legislative arena and has the experience to lead. Past mistakes have made Newt Gingrich wiser. He is known for his keen intellect, effective leadership and bravery in the line of fire. He cuts through complicated issues to the core of the problem and will not let either political extreme dictate the future of our country.

Lionel is the founder of Sosa, Bromley, Aguilar & Associates, now Bromley Communications, the largest Hispanic advertising agency in the U.S. He has been Hispanic Media Consultant in seven Republican presidential campaigns beginning in 1980. He is a recognized expert in Hispanic consumer and voter behavior. Lionel was named‚ One of the 25 most influential Hispanics in America‚ by Time Magazine in 2005 and is a member of the Texas Business Hall of Fame.