Monday, October 19, 2026
spot_img
Home Blog Page 355

The case for being medically uninsured

by Jane M. Orient, M.D.

Republicans say they are going to “replace” ObamaCare, but they will come up with something very similar and at least as bad if they start with the same misguided objective: “universal coverage.”

There are necessities of life, but insurance is not one of them.

Just what good is that little card in your wallet? Once it has expired, it is good for absolutely nothing, even if you have paid $100,000 or more for it over a period of years.

It might be a ticket to get you into certain medical facilities, but in these days of narrow networks, it will keep you out of others. It by no means guarantees that the facility will provide you with the care you need or want—or even that you won’t get an outrageous bill, especially before you meet the deductible. It will guarantee that you will be paying for a lot of things you don’t need or want. Some will be other people’s medical care, or anti-tobacco lectures, or alcohol rehab (even if you are a teetotaler). You’ll pay for some things just because they are “quality” metrics—hospice evaluation is a newly proposed one. And you will definitely pay for administrators, managers, monitors, clerks, claims processors and re-processors, etc., all of whom get their paycheck or their pension even if your doctor doesn’t.

Many people choose to be uninsured, even if they are a good risk and can afford insurance, and more end up uninsured because they are a bad risk or can’t afford it, or simply choose to use their money for something else. In 1940, less than 10 percent of the population had health insurance.

You could go your whole life, and never miss that insurance card.

Most people, of course, do need medical care at some point. If they are uninsured, they can go to the doctor and whip out their checkbook, just like your mother or grandmother did, and just like you probably do at the veterinarian’s, the dentist’s, the massage therapist’s, or the mechanic’s.

The best reason for having insurance of course is the unexpected accident or catastrophic illness. Oh how I miss my AAA catastrophic policy that I had for years.
It cost about $250/year and had a $25,000 deductible but promised to pay about $1,000,000 above that. They changed the rules and started requiring a “basic” (or “comprehensive” policy), which would cost about $10,000. So I said no thanks, and increased my automobile policy to the maximum medical coverage.

There’s still the risk of an expensive medical illness. What then?

I have actually bought quite a lot of medical care and paid out of pocket, although I have never filed a medical insurance claim. For one reason or another, insurance probably wouldn’t have paid anyway. And if you ask, the cash price is often quite reasonable, and the service prompt and courteous.

But what about something really expensive, like surgery or cancer therapy? Options include medical “tourism” abroad or in the U.S. Look for a price online, for example on MediBid.com or Surgery Center of Oklahoma (surgerycenterok.com), or ask in advance at facilities of your choice.

One option is to do without. Sound terrible? Well, it would be the patient’s choice, not President Obama’s deciding the patient would be better off with the “pain pill.” Nor would it be the insurer’s decision that the care was “unnecessary,” “inappropriate,” “not prudent,” or “experimental.” And of course if you decided to do without, you’d still have your money, not having paid it to the insurer in advance in exchange for a worthless promise.

There’s the risk of a bona fide emergency, with no time to think about the cost. Fortunately, these days you’ll still get the care in the U.S. If you have assets, you might have to sell them to settle your hospital bill. But consider this: would you rather buy a nice car and risk having to sell it to pay a bill, or pay the insurance company the same amount and never get to drive the car? If you have to borrow money to pay a bill, the interest is likely less than the amount it costs to funnel the money through a third party. And charity or cost-sharing ministries help a lot.

If most bills were paid directly instead of through a third party, medical care would cost far less. Wouldn’t that be better for everybody?

Everybody—except those who profit from gaming the system.

Cancer patients’ stories are featured. But they would probably be worse off with universal third-party payment.

Too much “insurance” (third-party payment) is the problem—not the solution.

The right to be uninsured is a necessary safeguard—not a threat to the system.

(Jane M. Orient, M.D. has been in solo private practice since 1981 and has served as Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) since 1989. Since 1988, she has been chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Pima County (Arizona) Medical Society. She is the author of YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Healthcare, and the second through fourth editions of Sapira’s Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis).

spot_img

Inside the invisible government: war, propaganda, Clinton & Trump

NOTE FROM THE EDITOR

Dear readers:

With this past elections behind us but still causing storm, we were able to see the true face of the mainstream media lies, but which the people believed blindly. Propaganda was the name used for government media in the Soviet Union; advertising or public relations is called in the US and the rest of the ‘free world,’ which at the end it is the same propaganda, used to make people believe what the elite want us to believe. PART 1 OF TWO.

Inside the invisible government: war, propaganda, Clinton & Trump

by John Pilger
Originally appeared at
CounterPunch

The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.

The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term “public relations” as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions.
In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade – behavior then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, “Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!”

Bernays’ influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War.  The secret, he said, was “engineering the consent” of people in order to “control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it”.

He described this as “the true ruling power in our society” and called it an “invisible government.”

Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged.

Imagine two cities.

Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.

But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.

In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.

The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by “us” – by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America.

Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.

Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.

What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria.

Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.

Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was “vindicated” for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell’s fabrications.
The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, “What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?”

He replied that if journalists had done their job, “there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq.”

It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question — Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.

In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.

There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005.  There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.

When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande’s bombast about France being “at war” and “showing no mercy”. That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.

“When the truth is replaced by silence,” said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, “the silence is a lie.”

The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.

The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an “agreement” that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.

From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics – the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: “We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked.”

The West’s medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars’ worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – “our” bombs – that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.
The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news.

Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia — and with careers on the BBC, The Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post.

These organizations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.

And they love war.

WILL CONTINUE ON NEXT WEEK EDITION.

spot_img

Use essential oils for bone aches and inflamation

by David Gutiérrez

One in five U.S. adults suffer from arthritis, a term used to describe inflammation of the joints. Arthritis, which can be caused by a variety of widely differing health conditions, is the number one cause of disability in the United States.

Because there is no cure for arthritis, the condition is typically treated with over-the-counter or prescription painkillers and anti-inflammatories (underlying health conditions, such as autoimmune disorders, may have their own treatments). But as with all pharmaceuticals, these drugs can carry side effects or even serious risks, particularly if used long term.

But, there is a natural alternative. If you suffer from stiff, inflamed or painful joints, try the following essential oil treatments, and see if they are able to offer you relief. (Also, stay informed about natural remedies at Remedies.news)

Which oils to use

Many essential oils have overlapping effects, so you can either choose the oil that you best like the smell of (or that is least expensive or easiest to find), or you can combine multiple oils to boost their effectiveness, or both.

Eucalyptus oil is a natural topical analgesic, which is why it is included as an ingredient in many medicated chest and muscle rubs. Part of its painkilling power may come from its effect of dilating blood vessels and increasing circulation — which also promotes the body’s natural healing processes.

Peppermint oil contains menthol, another common ingredient in medicated chest and muscle rubs. Menthol and other peppermint oil components are anti-inflammatory, thus helping bring down the pain and swelling associated with arthritis.

Rosemary oil combines many of the properties of eucalyptus and peppermint oils. It is an analgesic, anti-inflammatory and anti-spasmodic that also helps improve circulation.

Birch oil is also anti-inflammatory and anti-spasmodic. It also contains the painkillers methyl salicylate and salicylic acid, chemicals closely related to aspirin. Like most essential oils, birch is also a potent antiseptic.

The final oil on the list is not a painkiller or anti-inflammatory, and is better known for its effects on mood: lavender. But like eucalyptus and rosemary oil, lavender oil helps increase circulation, which leads to improved healing and reduced pain. Lavender’s ability to promote calm, relaxation and sleep also help mobilize your body’s natural healing abilities.

How to use essential oils for arthritis

With only a very few exceptions, essential oils should never be applied directly to the skin. Instead, they should be mixed with a “carrier oil” such as jojoba, sesame, olive or sweet almond. These can be food-grade oils from your grocery store, or cosmetics-grade oils purchased from a natural health or grocery store.
One of the best essential oil treatments for arthritis is a full-body bath soak. This consists of taking a few drops of essential oils, mixing them into a small amount of carrier oil, then pouring the entire mixture into a bathtub full of hot water. If you want, you can also add 2 to 3 cups of Epsom salts for added effectiveness.

If you want a more focused treatment on a particular part of your body, you can simply use your essential oil-carrier oil blend (about 10 drops essential oil per ounce of carrier oil) as a massage oil, and apply it directly to the troublesome spot. Or you can mix 4 drops of essential oil directly into a pint of either hot or icy water, to use for a hot or cold compress. Soak up the water-oil blend with a small towel, then apply the compress to the painful area for 15 to 20 minutes, or until the compress has reached body temperature.

Heat is recommended by most health professionals for maximum promotion of blood flow and the body’s natural healing processes. Cold, however, can provide more short-term relief by temporarily reducing pain and swelling. To get the benefits of both, you can alternate between hot and cold compresses.

Because essential oils are biologically active, it is possible for them to interact negatively with certain pharmaceutical drugs. If you are taking any arthritis medication, consult with a qualified health professional before mixing pharmaceutical and essential oil therapies. (Natural News).

spot_img

What Trump can and can’t do to immigrants

EAST PALO ALTO, CA - 26FEBRUARY14 - Immigrants, workers, union members, people of faith and community activists demonstrated in front of the Mi Pueblo market in East Palo Alto, calling for a moratorium on deportations and the firing of undocumented workers because of their immigration status. Thousands of workers have been fired as a result of the audits of I-9 forms by the federal government, and the use of the E-Verify database, including hundreds at the Mi Pueblo markets. Almost 400,000 people have been deported every year for the past five years. The demonstration was organized by groups in Silicon Valley Copyright David Bacon

by David Bacon

While the government officials developing and enforcing U.S. immigration policy will change on Jan. 20, the economic system in which they make that policy will not. As fear sweeps through immigrant communities in the United States, understanding that system helps us anticipate what a Trump administration can and can’t do in regard to immigrants, and what immigrants themselves can do about it.

Over the terms of the last three presidents, the most visible and threatening aspect of immigration policy has been the drastic increase in enforcement. President Bill Clinton presented anti-immigrant bills as compromises, and presided over the first big increase in border enforcement. George W. Bush used soft rhetoric, but sent immigration agents in military-style uniforms, carrying AK-47s, into workplaces to arrest workers, while threatening to fire millions for not having papers. Under President Barack Obama, a new requirement mandated filling 34,000 beds in detention centers every night. The detention system mushroomed, and over 2 million people were deported.

Enforcement, however, doesn’t exist for its own sake. It plays a role in a larger system that serves capitalist economic interests by supplying a labor force employers require. High levels of enforcement also ensure the profits of companies that manage detention and enforcement, who lobby for deportations as hard as Boeing lobbies for the military budget.

Immigrant labor is more vital to many industries than it’s ever been before. Immigrants have always made up most of the country’s farm workers in the West and Southwest. Today, according to the U.S. Department of Labor, about 57 percent of the country’s entire agricultural workforce is undocumented. But the list of other industries dependent on immigrant labor is long—meatpacking, some construction trades, building services, healthcare, restaurant and retail service, and more.

During the election campaign, candidate Donald Trump pledged in his “100-day action plan to Make America Great Again” to “begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country” on his first day in office. In speeches, he further promised to eventually force all undocumented people (estimated at 11 million) to leave.

In a society with one of the world’s highest rates of incarceration, crimes are often defined very broadly. In the past, for instance, under President George W. Bush federal prosecutors charged workers with felonies for giving a false Social Security number to an employer when being hired. He further proposed the complete enforcement of employer sanctions—the provision of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act that forbids employers from hiring workers without papers. Bush’s order would have had the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) check the immigration status of all workers, and required employers to fire those without legal immigration status, before being blocked by a suit filed by unions and civil rights organizations.

Under President Obama, workplace enforcement was further systematized. In just one year, 2012, ICE audited 1600 employers. Tens of thousands of workers were fired during Obama’s eight years in office. Given Trump’s choice of Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, greater workplace enforcement is extremely likely. Sessions has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for greater immigration enforcement, and has criticized President Obama for not deporting enough people. Last year he proposed a five-year prison sentence for any undocumented immigrant caught in the country after having been previously deported.

Industry Needs Immigrants

Both deportations and workplace firings face a basic obstacle—the immigrant workforce is a source of immense profit to employers. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that, of the presumed 11 million people in the country without documents, about 8 million are employed (comprising over 5 percent of all workers). Most earn close to the minimum wage (some far less), and are clustered in low-wage industries. In the Indigenous Farm Worker Survey, for instance, made in 2009, demographer Rick Mines found that a third of California’s 165,000 indigenous agricultural laborers (workers from communities in Mexico speaking languages that pre-date European colonization) made less than minimum wage.

The federal minimum wage is still stuck at $7.50/hour, and even California’s minimum of $10/hour only gives full-time workers an annual income of $20,000. Meanwhile, Social Security says the national average wage index for 2015 is just over $48,000. In other words, if employers were paying the undocumented workforce the average U.S. wage it would cost them well over $200 billion annually. That wage differential subsidizes whole industries like agriculture and food processing. If that workforce were withdrawn, as Trump threatens, through deportations or mass firings, employers wouldn’t be able to replace it without raising wages drastically.

As president, Donald Trump will have to ensure that the labor needs of employers are met, at a price they want to pay. The corporate appointees in his administration reveal that any populist rhetoric about going against big business was just that—rhetoric. But Hillary Clinton would have faced the same necessity. And in fact, the immigration reform proposals in Congress from both Republicans and Democrats over the past decade shared this understanding—that U.S. immigration policy must satisfy corporate labor demands.

During the Congressional debates over immigration reform, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) proposed two goals for U.S. immigration policy. In a report from the CFR-sponsored Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, Senior Fellow Edward Alden stated, “We should reform the legal immigration system so that it operates more efficiently, responds more accurately to labor market needs, and enhances U.S. competitiveness.” He went on to add, “We should restore the integrity of immigration laws, through an enforcement regime that strongly discourages employers and employees from operating outside that legal system.” The CFR, therefore, coupled an enforcement regime—with deportations and firings—to a labor-supply scheme.

This framework assumes the flow of migrating people will continue, and seeks to manage it. This is a safe assumption, because the basic causes of that flow have not changed. Communities in Mexico continue to be displaced by 1) economic reforms that allowed U.S. corporations to flood the country with cheap corn and meat (often selling below the cost of production—known as “dumping”—thanks to U.S. agricultural subsidies and trade agreements like NAFTA), 2) the rapacious development of mining and other extractive concessions in the countryside, and 3) the growing impoverishment of Mexican workers. Violence plays its part, linked to the consequences of displacement, economic desperation, and mass deportations. Continuing U.S. military intervention in Central America and other developing countries will produce further waves of refugees.

While candidate Trump railed against NAFTA in order to get votes (as did Barack Obama), he cannot—and, given his ties to business, has no will to—change the basic relationship between the United States and Mexico and Central America, or other developing countries that are the sources of migration. Changing the relationship (with its impact on displacement and migration) is possible in a government committed to radical reform. Bernie Sanders might have done this. Other voices in Congress have advocated it. But Trump will do what the system wants him to do, and certainly will not implement a program of radical reform.

To read the complete article, please visit: http://davidbaconrealitycheck.blogspot.com/2017/01/what-trump-can-and-cant-do-to-immigrants.html

spot_img

Texas Republicans make third attempt to ban ‘sanctuary cities’

Bills targeting “sanctuary cities” failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011 and 2015, but similar efforts this session have better chances of making it to Gov. Greg Abbott’s desk

by Julián Aguilar

The Legislature is gearing up for a fight over “sanctuary cities” bills — and not for the first time. The current debate was foreshadowed by one in 2011, but this time, chances are better that a bill could make it to Gov. Greg Abbott‘s desk.

Texas’ proposed 2011 ban on sanctuary cities, the common term for local entities that don’t enforce federal immigration laws, would have authorized local police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they arrested or detained. It led to fears that immigrants wouldn’t report crimes and that officers could detain people based solely on skin color and turn them over to federal immigration officers.

“Texas Can Do Better” and “No Arizona Hate” were common mantras from critics of the legislation that reverberated around the State Capitol in 2011 — references to a controversial Arizona bill that expanded the immigration enforcement powers of local law enforcement and passed that state’s legislature in 2010.

The plan, marked as an emergency item by then-Gov. Rick Perry, failed to pass the Texas Legislature in 2011, and similar legislation died in the Texas Senate in 2015. As expected, Republicans are taking another crack at passing a bill this year, and Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick have labeled the issue a “legislative priority.”

Bills filed in both chambers — Senate Bill 4 by state Sen. Charles Perry, R-Lubbock, and House Bill 889 by state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth — would allow local police to enforce immigration laws, but only if the officer is working with a federal immigration officer or under an agreement between the local and federal agency. It would also punish governments if their law enforcement agencies — specifically county jails — fail to honor requests, known as detainers, from federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers for sheriffs to hand over immigrants in their custodies for possible deportation. The punishment would be a denial of state grant funds.

This time around, one border Democrat has conceded that he could support the detainer component of the current proposals, especially if it means it will keep more extreme measures at bay.

Sen. José Rodríguez, D-El Paso, said data from ICE and testimony from county sheriffs earlier this year shows that county jail compliance isn’t the issue Republicans make it out to be.

“We had hearings, and all 254 counties [in Texas] were cooperating with ICE,” Rodríguez said, referring to out-of-session meetings held last year. “So if it [only has a detainer provision], nobody has a problem with that, as far as I can tell.”

The ICE component of the legislation has become a major focus for Republicans, especially after Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez drew Abbott’s ire in 2014 after she said she would cooperate with ICE only on a case-by-case basis. New Travis County Sheriff Sally Hernandez added to the controversy when she was running for office last year, saying she wouldn’t cooperate with ICE. Valdez later said she had been taken out of context, but state officials had already jumped on the comments.

A Texas Tribune analysis of ICE data shows that Texas counties weren’t the main offenders when it came to denying federal requests. Only 146 of the country’s 18,646 declined ICE detainers between January 2014 and September 2015 came from Texas jails. Travis County was at the top of the list with 72, while Bexar County had 11. Valdez’s Dallas County Jail declined only two, according to the data. And two of Texas’ largest border counties – Webb and Hidalgo – recorded three, while El Paso County only recorded one. (A spokeswoman for the Webb County Jail said it didn’t deny those requests — the inmates were transferred to another county where they also faced charges.)

Though the legislation doesn’t apply to a person that is detained because they are a victim of or witness to a crime, Rodríguez said he still has concerns about the bill because it’s written so broadly that it opens the door to police enforcement.

“It’s consistent with an interpretation that their intent is to have local police ask about immigration status,” he said. “Because on the other hand, what they’re saying is that if you have a so-called sanctuary city that prohibits them from inquiring, they are going to be penalized and sanctioned with loss of funds. So obviously those two combined together suggests [they] want people to be checked.”

Sen. Perry’s office didn’t respond to requests for comment for this story. But Geren said it’s too early in the process to predict what the final bill will look like and said he is willing to talk to anyone who has concerns about the legislation.

“We haven’t vetted it through the committee process at this point,” he said. “I want to work with law enforcement to make sure that we’re not discouraging people from coming forward, so there is a still a lot to talk about.”

Geren was adamant that sheriffs needed to comply with ICE detainers.

“That’s a large portion of the bill that we want to pass. But obviously there are some sheriffs that have said that they are not going to do it, and that causes a problem,” he said. “But I understand that some of the rural counties, where ICE is not in the jail every day, could be a financial burden to do it.”

Lawmakers could also face some pushback from the business community because of a provision in the bill that permits a person to file a complaint with the attorney general if they think that a local government isn’t following the provisions of the bill.

“If you are a sheriff and I am running against you, all I have to do is to allege you are doing something nefarious, as I read the legislation, and then the [attorney general] has the authority to open an investigation,” said Bill Hammond, the former CEO and president of the Texas Association of Business and current president of consulting firm Bill Hammond and Associates. “I stand to be corrected, but a mere allegation not being substantiated could trigger and probably would trigger an investigation of an incumbent. That’s bad politics.”

spot_img

Without benefits, Mexico could stay out of NAFTA

by the El Reportero’s wire services

Mexico could be out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) if it does not receive benefits in the negotiations that would be held soon with the United States, Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo announced today.

Guajardo said his country would defend national sovereignty and interests in the meetings planned for this week, with top officials of President Donald Trump’s Administration.

To go for less than what we have? Staying does not make sense, he told the television station Televisa.

Guajardo asserted that Mexico was an important country for the region and also to the United States.

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Vedegaray reiterated the stance expressed by President Enrique Pena Nieto that the way would be negotiation and not confrontation, but bound to principles and objectives already announced by the head of State.

Videgaray emphasized that Mexico would not pay for the wall that Trump promised to erect at the border.

If the US side insists on it, the Mexican delegation could leave the negotiation table, the Foreign minister warned.

Reaction to Keystone XL and Dakota Pipelines announcements

In a statement, Voces Verdes accused President Trump of limiting public participation and enable construction of ‘dirty energy pipelines.’

“President Trump’s executive actions today enable approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, pave the way to approve the Dakota Access Pipeline, and weaken environmental review of projects that could threaten our families’ wellbeing and harm our country,” the statement said. “Put simply, these actions make it clear that Trump’s aim is to benefit big oil and gas companies even if their actions endanger the American people.”

Millions of Americans objected to the Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL projects recognizing that the risk to water, land and air was far too high and that the country had little to gain from either of these dirty energy projects.

“It is clear that Mr. Trump cares very little about the water we drink or the air we breathe, and even less about the tribal nations whose sacred land will be polluted.”

Mexico City offers care programs for returnees from US

Bood news for those returnees in Mexico.

‘’Today Mexico City has programs ready to assist migrants returning from the United States,’’ Miguel Ángel Mancera, head of the government of the capital, said.
In an information note, the governor stressed that migrants returning to the city will find benefits from programs such as Unemployment Insurance, The Doctor at Home, Safe Baby, DMMX Cribs and the Social Alert System.

Also the Labor and Employment Promotion Secretariat offers migrants immediate attention through a module located in Room 3 of Terminal 2 of Mexico City International Airport, with alternatives for labor insertion.

spot_img

Boxing program – The Sport of Gentlemen

Thursday, January Saturday, January 21 2017
Sun National Bank Center, Trenton, New Jersey
Zab Judah vs. Jorge Luis Munguia
Derrick Webster vs. Thomas Awimbono
Saturday, January 21 2017
UIC Pavilion, Chicago, Illinois
Achour Esho vs. Anthony Abbruzzese
Josh Hernandez vs. TBA
Saturday, January 21 2017
Palais des Sport Marcel Cerdan, Levallois-Perret, Hauts-de-Seine, France
Cedric Vitu vs. Isaac Real
Saturday, January 21 2017
Struer Arena, Struer, Denmark
Patrick Nielsen vs. Beibi Berrocal
Dina Thorslund vs. Xenia Jorneac
Abdul Khattab vs. Arman Torosyan
HBO
Saturday, January 28 2017
Fantasy Springs Casino, Indio, California
Francisco Vargas vs. Miguel Berchelt
(WBC junior lightweight title)

Takashi Miura vs. Miguel “Mickey” Roman
Saturday, January 28 2017
Claridge Hotel & Casino, Atlantic City, New Jersey
Thomas LaManna vs. TBA
Showtime
Saturday, January 28 2017
MGM Grand Garden Arena, Las Vegas
Carl Frampton vs. Leo Santa Cruz
(WBA featherweight title)

Dejan Zlaticanin vs. Mikey Garcia
(WBC lightweight title)
Sunday, January 29 2017
Studio City, Macau, China
Jerwin Ancajas vs. Jose Alfredo Rodriguez

spot_img

Learn the most occult secrets of the sound of the afro-Latin music

Compiled by the
El Reportero’s staff

Learn the most hidden secrets of Afro-Latin music history and sound.

Signup for John Santos’ Afro-Latin Percussion Class at the College of San Mateo (CSM). Registration for the Spring (Jan 19 – May 25, 2017) semester is now open. Course information for sign-up is below.

on’t wait ‘til the 11th hour, as it usually fills up quickly, then you’ll have to wait until the Fall. Class title is Afro-Latin Percussion Ensemble. On Thursdays from 3:25 to 6:00 PM, from Jan 19 – May 25, 2017. At San Mateo College, 1700 W Hillsdale Blvd, San Mateo. For info call 650-574-6161, and to register call 650-574-6165, or write to csmadmission@smccd.edu, at the College Center Building 10, Room 360.

New SFMOMA contemporary art exhibitions

A Slow Succession with Many Interruptions: William Kentridge: The Refusal of Time, Runa Islam: Verso.

William Kentridge: The Refusal of Time: Making its West Coast debut at SFMOMA, artist William Kentridge’s The Refusal of Time (2012) is an immersive installation combining synchronized video projections featuring live action, animation and dance, with audio feeds that incorporate music and sound and a central kinetic sculpture called “the elephant,” which breathes a steady rhythm from the center of the gallery.

Runa Islam: Verso: This solo presentation of the Bangladesh-born British artist Runa Islam features the U.S. premiere of Cabinet of Prototypes (2009–10), a 16mm film installation from SFMOMA’s collection that serves as the exhibition’s point of departure for exploring the threshold between film and sculpture. Originally commissioned for the Kivik Art Centre in Österlen, Sweden, as a projected film for an architect’s pavilion set in the sculpture park’s grounds, the work was later reconfigured into a cinematic sculpture by enclosing both the projector and screen within a glass vitrine.

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) announces the complete reinstallation of its seventh floor with three new contemporary exhibitions—A Slow Succession with Many Interruptions; William Kentridge: The Refusal of Time; and Runa Islam: Verso—on view from December 10, 2016 through April 2, 2017. Underscoring its deep commitment to engaging with living artists, SFMOMA presents in these exhibitions a thought-provoking selection of the art for our time.
On View from Dec. 10, 2016 through April 2, 2017, at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, 151 Third Street, San Francisco.

SFMOMA Presents: Tomás Saraceno: Stillness in Motion—Cloud Cities

The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMOMA) will present the exhibition Tomás Saraceno: Stillness in Motion — Cloud Cities, by artist Tomás Saraceno, on view at the museum through May 21, 2017. Organized by the SFMOMA Architecture and Design department, the exhibition includes an immersive site-specific cloudscape installation of suspended tension structures and floating sculptures, as well as explorations of the intricate constructions of spider webs.

“Visually provocative and conceptually rigorous, Saraceno’s practice merges art, architecture and science in a compelling, pragmatic and poetic way,” said Joseph Becker, associate curator of architecture and design at SFMOMA.

Stillness in Motion — Cloud Cities is part of Saraceno’s larger, long-term project titled Aerocene, the artist’s vision for a future era in which humanity minimizes the impact on the planet’s fossil-fuel resources, and instead resides in collective airborne cities.
Through–May 21, 2017

spot_img

Mexican actor Bernal awarded in the US for his role in Neruda

by the El Reportero’s news services

LOS ANGELES, Jan 16 – The 28th Palm Spring International Film Festival in the United States awarded today the most recent work by Mexican actor Gael García Bernal, one of the leading actors in the film Neruda.

For making the film, Chilean director Pablo Larraín chose to evade the schemes of a biography and ventured into an interpretation of the life of the Chilean renowned poet, to fill possible emotions of a soul through a fictitious dialogue between the writer and a detective characterized by García Bernal.

This character is part of the search and capture operation that carried out the government of Gabriel González Videla (1946-1952) on Neruda, along with a campaign to malign the image of the poet.

The jury of the 28th edition of the festival that concluded on Monday granted the award for Best Actor in a Foreign Language Film to García Bernal for his work in the film that also won four Fénix Awards in Mexico for Best Bilm, Costumes, Edition and Art Design.

According to the juri, Bernal’s performance is at the heart of the tonal changes of the film, and contributes to the historical drama with the same poetry of the theme.
The 38th Festival of the New Latin American Cinema, the largest film event in Cuba, awarded Estefanía Larraín last December with the Coral for Best Artistic Direction and Hervé Schneid for Best Edition.

Uruguayan composer Serebrier says he likes to perform in China

Jose Serebrier, one of the most important figures in Uruguay’’s contemporary music direction and composition, likes to perform in China for an audience always eager to learn about the West and one of the most appealing.

Serebrier, granted eight Grammy Awards and nominated more than 45 times in the recent years, told the Prensa Latina news agency that he is always curious to know more about China.

Beijing’s population has appreciated performances by Serebrier many times.

Along with the National Symphony Orchestra of China he performed on January 12th at the National Grand Theater (National Center for the Performing Arts, NCPA), one of Beijing’s four most important landmarks, with the suite ‘The Horsefly’ and a special arrangement for this occasion of the symphony ‘Carmen’, said Prensa Latina.

Serebrier, an admirer of many Chinese musicians that has included in his prolific career, described China as a land that, although having thousands of years of history, is still a new country when it comes to Western music.

spot_img

Will the CIA assessinate Trump? Ron Paul warns of “more power, shadow government

by Tyler Durden
Submitted by Mac Slavo via SHTFPlan.com

It isn’t just that Donald Trump routinely thumbs his nose at the establishment, insults media figures he sees as unfair and bucks conventional wisdom.
It is that President-elect Trump is defying the will of the deep state, military industrial complex base of ultimate power in the United States. That is why he is treading dangerous waters, and risks the fate of JFK.

Trump publicly dissed the intelligence community assessments on Russian hacking; they retaliated with a made up dossier about the alleged Trump-Putin ‘golden shower’ episode.

While it may be a silly falsehood, it may also be serving as a final warning that they get to script reality, not him.
Perhaps they want Trump to feel blackmailed and controlled by alluding to fake dirt, while reminding him of the real dirt they hold on his activities (whatever it may be).

Insulting the credibility of the intelligence community in a public way – as the man elected to the highest office in the land – is liable to ruffle a few feathers, and it could provoke a serious response.

Trump knows the power of the people he is taunting, but he may not be aware of where the line is between play in political rhetoric and actually irritating and setting off those who control policy.

There is plenty of Trump misbehavior that can be simply written off, or trivialized, but cutting into the war and statecraft narrative of the shadow government steering this deep state is a deviation too far.

It is one thing to play captain, but another to imagine that you steer the ship. They are happy for Trump to take all the prestige and privileges of the office; but not for him to cut into the big business of foreign conflict, the undercurrent of all American affairs, the dealings in death, drugs, oil and weapons, and the control of people through a manipulation of these affairs.

If President Trump takes his rogue populism too far, he will suffer the wrath of the same people who took out Kennedy… there are some things that are not tolerated by those who are really in charge.

And now leaders in the Senate are warning President-elect Trump about the stupidity of going against the national-security establishment.

As Jacob G. Hornberger warns:

In a truly remarkable bit of honesty and candor regarding the U.S. national-security establishment, new Senate minority leader Charles Schumer has accused President-elect Trump of “being really dumb.”… for taking on the CIA and questioning its conclusions regarding Russia.
  “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you…. He’s being really dumb to do this.”
  […]
 No president since John F. Kennedy has dared to take on the CIA or the rest of the national security establishment […] They knew that if they opposed the national-security establishment at a fundamental level, they would be subjected to retaliatory measures.
 Kennedy… After the Bay of Pigs, he vowed to tear the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter them to the winds. He also fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, who, in a rather unusual twist of fate, would later be appointed to the Warren Commission to investigate Kennedy’s murder.
Kennedy’s antipathy toward the CIA gradually extended to what President Eisenhower had termed the military-industrial complex, especially when it proposed Operation Northwoods, which called for fraudulent terrorist attacks to serve as a pretext for invading Cuba, and when it suggested that Kennedy initiate a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union.
  […]
 Worst of all, from the standpoint of the national-security establishment, [Kennedy] initiated secret personal negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, both of whom, by this time, were on the same page as Kennedy.
  […]
 Kennedy was fully aware of the danger he faced by taking on such a formidable enemy.

And to the extent that President Kennedy consciously stood up to the system, he paid the price for his attempt at independent wielding of power from the Oval Office.

It is a shuddering thought. A sharp lesson in history that must not be misinterpreted.

The implications for Trump are quite clear. If his refusal to take intelligence briefings, or follow CIA advice is serious, then serious consequences will follow. If Trump is serious about peace with Putin when they insist on war, there will be a problem.

There are several powers behind the throne that have wanted to ensure that presidents don’t let the power go to their head, or try to change course from the carefully arranged crisis-reaction-solution paradigm.

True peace is not good for military industrial complex business; true peace, without the persistence of grave threats, and plenty of sparks of chaos to back it up, cannot be tolerated.

As things have progressed today, making friendly with Putin, and calling off the war with Russia may simply be impermissible. If Trump is attempting to negotiate his own peace – and sing along with Frank Sinatra’s “My Way” at the inauguration, then he is in for a very rude awakening.

If, on the other hand, he is the Trump card being played by this very same establishment, then things may develop according to the same ultimate objectives, albeit through a ‘wild card’ path styled after the ego of President Trump.

With Goldman Sachs and neocon advisors filling up his administration, Trump may be simply nudged in the right direction. But the intelligence community is not willing to take many chances – and there are clearly contingencies in place.

As SHTF has previously reported, the continuity of government “Doomsday” command-and-control planes were brought out after the election as a public show of power to Trump and the American people. The shadow government is real, and for now, maintains dominance.

spot_img
1...354355356...729Page 355 of 729

SELECTIONS

POPULAR TICKETS

POPULAR CATEGORY

ABOUT US

Welcome to our Marvin J. Ramirez website! We are an innovative newspaper located in the heart of San Francisco. With a relentless passion for telling powerful stories, we inform our community with truthful news, insightful analysis, and compelling reporting.

Contacto: lreportero@aol.com

FOLLOW US

© Copyright 2023. AMAYCOM.NET. All rights reserved.