Pensamiento para hoy:
"La guerra comenzó cuando el enemigo lo quiso. Pero no debe
de terminar hasta que nosotros estemos bien convencidos de que ha recibido
lo que merece."
Winston Churchill
A continuación transcribo un trabajo de NHR.com sobre el nombramiento de Sheril Saban, como Embajadora de los USA ante la ONU, la cual no tiene absolutamente ninguna experiencia o carrera que la pueda acreditar para ese trabajo, Ella es la esposa del dueño de Univisión el Judio-Egipcio, Hain Saban que ha contribuido con un millón de dolares a la campaña de Obama a la presidencia. Esto creo que explica porque Univisión y otras cadenas de noticias y comentarios políticos, se tiran de barriga, defendiendo al UFO “Unidentified Foreing Occupant” de La Casa Blanca. A pesar de los desastres económicos y de todo índole que ha creado. Esto me recuerda aquel anuncio que decía “Aquí lo que cuenta es el CA$H” LRGM.
NELSONHORTAREPORTA.COM Obama nombra a esposa de dueño de Univisión embajadora ante la ONU. • Haim Saban es el mayor donante de dinero con el que cuenta la campaña de Obama.
MIAMI, 26 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 2012, NHR.com—A raíz de los cambios llevados a cabo por Univisión en el ámbito radial de Miami cuando la desaparición de “La Cubanísima WQBA” y la nueva estructura de programación de Radio Mambí, en NHR.com publicamos un reporte sobre quién es el verdadero dueño de Univisión.Las quejas y sinsabores de aquellos cambios motivaron que NHR.com decidiera dar a conocer los datos a los que referimos. La reestructuración de la WQBA tendría que basarse en metas apartadas del pensamiento de la comunidad que servia en Miami.
Y las preguntas y quejas no se han detenido, sino aumentado, al irnos acercando a las elecciones presidenciales del país y notarse la búsqueda de neutralizar a los medios de comunicación con tendencia de centro o derecha, mientras cada vez es más notable la inclinación preferencial de los medios comunicativos hacia el presidente Barack Obama frente al republicano Mitt Romney.
En el día de ayer surgió una noticia que para muchos observadores confirma la estrecha relación que mantienen ciertos medios con la campaña de Obama. El presidente Barack Obama ha elegido a Cheryl Saban, la esposa del dueño de Univisión, para representar a Estados Unidos ante la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas.
Haim Saban, un multimillonario de origen judío nacido en Egipto, es el mayor donante de dinero con el que cuenta la campaña de Obama. Saban le ha enviado varios cheques generosos, y hace semanas regaló 1 millón de dólares para un comité de acción política a favor de la reelección de Obama, mientras que han cesanteado a cientos de empleados de esa empresa y le han rebajado los sueldos a otro tanto, según fuentes que le informaron a NHR.com
De acuerdo con detalles que NHR.com ha podido conseguir, en el año 2008 Saban apoyó a Hillary Clinton, pero esto cambió cuando en el último año la campaña de Obama le ha estado “cortejando intensamente” para que donara fondos, según ha trascendido en informes de prensa.
En diciembre de 2011 se reunió dos veces con el presidente en la Casa Blanca y desde entonces ha manifestado su apoyo incondicional. Nuestras fuentes nos dijeron que Saban le prometió al propio presidente darle apoyo incondicional.
Saban, de 69 años, logró el control de la cadena Univisión en junio de 2006, anulando la oferta de compra de otro millonario, el mexicano Emilio Azcárraga Jean, dueño de la cadena Televisa. Saban Capital Group pagó por la adquisición 13,700 millones de dólares.
Aunque el nombramiento de Cheryl Saban se ha sabido hoy, tuvo lugar el pasado miércoles, un día antes de que Obama fuera entrevistado por la cadena Univisión en un fórum público a través precisamente de Univisión, desde la Universidad de Miami.
La señora Saban nunca ha trabajado en puestos diplomáticos pero ha colaborado activamente en obras filantrópicas y organizaciones sin fines de lucro tales como CARE USA, Children’s Network International, Mercy Corps y Plan USA.
La fortuna de Haim Saban asciende a 3,600 millones de dólares y está considerado por la revista Forbes como uno de los 100 hombres más ricos de EEUU.
Que cree usted, véalo y júzguelo: http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/09/24/video-the-video-that-killed-obamas-re-election/
Thomas Jefferson, tercer presidente de los Estados
Unidos. Por Amenper.
El partido de Jefferson los Democratas-Republicanos,
se oponía al Gobierno poderoso y centralizado. Jefferson defendió los derechos
de los estados frente a los Federalistas-
Después de terminar sus dos términos fundó la
Universidad de Virginia en 1819.
Han pasado más de 215 años, pero el pensamiento
político de Jefferson y sus luchas contra los Federalistas, está más vigente
que nunca.
América se encuentra como en el año 1800, en la
encrucijada de dos filosofías políticas. Un gobierno que trata de
centralizar el poder en Washington y la filosofía de limitar la libertad
los estados para gobernar a sus constituyentes según sus necesidades.
Es la lucha de la Democracia representativa contra la
Democracia de un gobierno federalista que impone la burocracia de Washington
sobre los Estados.
Estos son algunos de los pensamientos de Jefferson:
"Cuando alguien asume un
cargo público debe considerarse a sí mismo como propiedad pública
Estoy a favor de un gobierno que sea vigorosamente
frugal y sencillo. Que que refrene a
los ciudadanos de dañarse los unos a los otros, pero que permita dejarlos en
libertad para regular la búsqueda sus aspiraciones de industria y avance, y no
debe tomar de de su trabajo, el pan que se ha ganado. Esta es la suma de
un buen gobierno, y esto es necesario para cerrar el círculo de nuestra
felicidad.
Un gobierno suficientemente grande como para darte
todo lo que quieras, es lo suficientemente fuerte como para sacarte todo lo que
tienes.
Obligar a un hombre a proporcionar contribuciones de
dinero con impuestos para la propagación de opiniones que no cree y aborrece,
es pecaminoso y tiránico
Mi predicción para la felicidad
de los americanos, es que ellos sean capaces de evitar la intervención del
gobierno en su trabajo, con la excusa de que los están cuidando
Los derechos del hombre es lo
que pertenece al pueblo, frente a cada gobierno, y es lo que ningún gobierno
debe de refutar, o inferir en indiferencia.
Los déspotas han recurrido de
antiguo al procedimiento de utilizar una parte del pueblo para mantener en
orden a la otra.
Derechos iguales para todos,
privilegios especiales para ninguno.
Espero que nuestra sabiduría crezca con nuestro poder
y nos enseñe que cuanto menos usemos nuestro poder, mejor será.
Es la incumbencia en cada
generación pagar sus propias deudas. Un principio que si se ejecuta,
ahorraría la mitad de las guerras en el mundo.
No tengo miedo de que el
resultado de nuestro experimento sea que los hombres puedan ser confiados para
gobernarse a sí mismos sin un amo
El espíritu de resistencia al
gobierno es tan valioso en ciertas ocasiones, que deseo que siempre sea
mantenido con vida
No se deber de gastar el dinero antes de tenerlo
El hombre que nunca mira un
periódico está mejor informado que el que los lee, de la misma manera que el
que no sabe nada está más cerca de la verdad que aquel cuyo espíritu está
atiborrado de falsedades y errores.
Yo no leo ningún periodico, ni siquiera una vez
al mes, y me siento infinitamente más feliz por ello
Es más peligroso, en todo
tiempo, que un culpable sea castigado sin las formas de la ley, que dejarle
escapar.
A medida que nuestros enemigos han descubierto que
podemos razonar como hombres, tenemos que demostrar que podemos
pelear como hombres también.
Siempre he dicho, y siempre diré que la lectura
cuidadosa y diligente del Libro Sagrado produce mejores ciudadanos. La Biblia
produce las mejores personas del mundo. Verdaderamente tiemblo por mi patria
cuando pienso que Dios existe
La diferencia de opinión es una ventaja en la
religión. Las diversas sectas realizan el trabajo de un Censor. Yo soy partidario de la libertad de religión y estoy en contra de todas las
maniobras encaminadas a lograr el predominio legal de una secta sobre
otra."
Sostenemos estas verdades como evidentes por sí
mismas:
Que todos los hombres son creados iguales; que son
dotados por su creador con ciertos derechos inalienables; que entre ellos están
la vida, la libertad, y el derecho a la búsqueda de la felicidad.
Thomas Jefferson
“Obamacin” Side Effects
Obama Blasted by
Left and Right for Snubbing World Leaders. Enviado por Jorge A
Villalon.
Tuesday, 25 Sep 2012 12:04 PM
By Martin Gould
President Barack Obama has not planned a
single meeting with foreign leaders who are visiting New York this week for the
United Nations General Assembly.
He has already received criticism for failing to make time in his election campaign schedule to meet Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but now it is clear he will not meet any of the other world leaders who are descending on the Big Apple for the annual event.
Now Obama is being slammed from both the right and the left for finding time to meet with the ladies of television’s “The View” but not with Britain’s David Cameron, Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, France’s Francois Hollande, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai or any of the 120 leaders in town.
Reuters described it as a trip with “Whoopi but no Bibi” referring to The View’s Whoopi Goldberg and Israel’s Netanyahu. The news service pointed out that foreign policy — especially a possible Israel strike on Iran in the next few weeks — “poses a greater risk to Obama's prospects for a second term,” than any other issue.
Campaigning needs seem to be the only reason for Obama’s decision to forego one-on-one meetings. Last year he scheduled a dozen.
“There really isn't a full explanation that's been forthcoming other than the president has a busy schedule,” ABC News’ Jake Tapper said on Fox News’ On the Record.
Republican rival Mitt Romney was quick to attack Obama for failing to meet other world leaders, especially those from Israel and Arab nations. "We want a president who will shape events in the Middle East," he said.
Romney hit out at Obama’s comment on Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” that recent events in the Middle East have been little more than “bumps in the road.”
“The world looks at the events going on," Romney said at a campaign event Monday in Pueblo, Colo. "They don't see these events as bumps in the road. These are lives. This is humanity. This is freedom."
Obama addressed the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, but that was likely to be the full extent of his participation, as he left bilateral meetings to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Time magazine said, “Blink and you may miss President Barack Obama’s appearance at the annual U.N. General Assembly this week. The President plans to make the briefest visit by a U.S. President in recent memory.”
“President Obama’s display of indifference to the most basic function of his job—national security—would at least until this Administration have been absolutely unimaginable,” wrote Helle Dale on The Heritage Network blog, The Foundry.
“But even for a celebrity-hound like Obama, the contrast between the severity of the crisis facing the nation and the president’s set of priorities is beyond belief.”
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said the move was “odd” and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called Obama's schedule a “missed opportunity.”
On MSNBC, Todd noted the president “won’t have a single one-on-one meeting with a world leader on his schedule. Not anybody.”
“The White House also argues that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice will hold meetings,” Todd said, according to Politico, after airing a clip of Fox News’s Chris Wallace pressing Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs about the president's schedule. “But folks it is odd to have a president come to the United Nations and not have any bilaterals. Granted it is a campaign year, but still odd considering what’s going on in the Middle East.”
Blitzer, meanwhile, told CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield that appearing on "The View" was determined by the president's campaign to be "an important thing for the president to do only six weeks before an election. Same reason why Mitt Romney the other day went on Kelly Ripa’s show.”
But skipping bilateral meetings may be a mistake, Blitzer said.
“I do think that there potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders, but he’s made the decision that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with those world leaders, not him” Blitzer said.
When asked on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would run into leaders at a reception and continues to stay in touch with them by phone.
Carney stressed that Obama had had lengthy phone conversations with the leaders of Egypt, Libya and Yemen over unrest in the Middle East.
During Tuesday’s address to the General Assembly, Obama said the time for diplomacy was running out when it came to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” he said. “It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
On the attacks on American embassies and the killing of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Obama said, “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”
He has already received criticism for failing to make time in his election campaign schedule to meet Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but now it is clear he will not meet any of the other world leaders who are descending on the Big Apple for the annual event.
Now Obama is being slammed from both the right and the left for finding time to meet with the ladies of television’s “The View” but not with Britain’s David Cameron, Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi, France’s Francois Hollande, Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai or any of the 120 leaders in town.
Reuters described it as a trip with “Whoopi but no Bibi” referring to The View’s Whoopi Goldberg and Israel’s Netanyahu. The news service pointed out that foreign policy — especially a possible Israel strike on Iran in the next few weeks — “poses a greater risk to Obama's prospects for a second term,” than any other issue.
Campaigning needs seem to be the only reason for Obama’s decision to forego one-on-one meetings. Last year he scheduled a dozen.
“There really isn't a full explanation that's been forthcoming other than the president has a busy schedule,” ABC News’ Jake Tapper said on Fox News’ On the Record.
Republican rival Mitt Romney was quick to attack Obama for failing to meet other world leaders, especially those from Israel and Arab nations. "We want a president who will shape events in the Middle East," he said.
Romney hit out at Obama’s comment on Sunday night’s “60 Minutes” that recent events in the Middle East have been little more than “bumps in the road.”
“The world looks at the events going on," Romney said at a campaign event Monday in Pueblo, Colo. "They don't see these events as bumps in the road. These are lives. This is humanity. This is freedom."
Obama addressed the General Assembly on Tuesday morning, but that was likely to be the full extent of his participation, as he left bilateral meetings to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Time magazine said, “Blink and you may miss President Barack Obama’s appearance at the annual U.N. General Assembly this week. The President plans to make the briefest visit by a U.S. President in recent memory.”
“President Obama’s display of indifference to the most basic function of his job—national security—would at least until this Administration have been absolutely unimaginable,” wrote Helle Dale on The Heritage Network blog, The Foundry.
“But even for a celebrity-hound like Obama, the contrast between the severity of the crisis facing the nation and the president’s set of priorities is beyond belief.”
MSNBC’s Chuck Todd said the move was “odd” and CNN’s Wolf Blitzer called Obama's schedule a “missed opportunity.”
On MSNBC, Todd noted the president “won’t have a single one-on-one meeting with a world leader on his schedule. Not anybody.”
“The White House also argues that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice will hold meetings,” Todd said, according to Politico, after airing a clip of Fox News’s Chris Wallace pressing Obama campaign adviser Robert Gibbs about the president's schedule. “But folks it is odd to have a president come to the United Nations and not have any bilaterals. Granted it is a campaign year, but still odd considering what’s going on in the Middle East.”
Blitzer, meanwhile, told CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield that appearing on "The View" was determined by the president's campaign to be "an important thing for the president to do only six weeks before an election. Same reason why Mitt Romney the other day went on Kelly Ripa’s show.”
But skipping bilateral meetings may be a mistake, Blitzer said.
“I do think that there potentially is a missed opportunity this week for the President of the United States to meet with some world leaders, but he’s made the decision that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet with those world leaders, not him” Blitzer said.
When asked on Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Obama would run into leaders at a reception and continues to stay in touch with them by phone.
Carney stressed that Obama had had lengthy phone conversations with the leaders of Egypt, Libya and Yemen over unrest in the Middle East.
During Tuesday’s address to the General Assembly, Obama said the time for diplomacy was running out when it came to dealing with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
“Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” he said. “It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
On the attacks on American embassies and the killing of Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, Obama said, “There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan.”
© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Video:Whose Side Is Barack Obama On? http://www.exposeobama.com/2012/09/25/video-whose-side-is-barack-obama-on/
CAMBIOS POLITICOS Amenper.
He vivido más años
que lo que pensaba vivir y posiblemente viva menos años de los que pienso que
me quedan por vivir.
Por eso, por mi
juventud en los años 50s mientras estudiaba en Virginia, los años que he
vivido en el exilio, y los años que viví en Cuba, he visto cambios políticos en
ambos países que me forman un ajiaco en mi cerebro cuando pienso en ellos.
En la época de los
50s, los Republicanos liberales eran una mayoría. El alcalde La Guardia de New
York, Thomas Dewey que aspiró a la presidencia, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Hijo del
presidente y senador de Massachussets, Prescot Bush, padre de George H Bush y
abuelo de George W. Bush, el famoso William Scraton que le dio que hacer a
Reagan, George W. Romney de Michigan, el padre de Mitt Romney todos eran
liberales y el más famoso de todos, Nelson A. Rockefeller de New York, el más
izquierdista de todos los Republicanos.
Richard Nixon a
pesar de que era contrario a Rockefeller, y mas a su derecha, tampoco era
un conservador y adoptó muchas posiciones liberales. Especialmente en
gastos excesivps en el sistema de salud y asistencia social como el
welfare y tuvo una administración de tendencia federalista-
Había un
Republicano que quizás recuerden, John B Anderson de Illinois que fue de
independiente con una plataforma liberal contra Reagan. No fue hasta el
gobierno de Reagan que un verdadero conservador fue el presidente Republicano.
Por la otra parte,
el partido Demócrata en el sur era completamente racista. Gobernadores y
Senadores demócratas del sur eran conocidos como miembros del Ku Klux Kan- El
sur siempre se identificó con el Partido Demócrata y no le perdonó al partido
Republicano la guerra de secesión. El poder del partido demócrata era tal
que la verdadera elección eran las primarias demócratas, porque el partido
Republicano no tenía chance porque era considerado “negrero”-
Los que hablaban
de los derechos civiles de los negros, eran considerados “agitadores yanquis”
En 1964, cuando se
prohibió la segregación, los demócratas sureños firmaron un documento de
oposición que llamaron el “Manifiesto de Dixie” que fue firmado por 97
demócratas y 2 republicanos.
Entre los que
firmaron estaba George Smathers, que quizás recuerden como senador de la
Florida. También firmó Harry Byrd, senador de Virginia que murió hace poco y
que era un miembro bona fide del KKK y fue demócrata hasta su muerte, también
los conocidos Strom Thurmond, senador de North Carolina y aspirante a la
presidencia, Orval Faubus, gobernador de Arkansas que se paró en la puerta del
High School de Little Rock para no dejar entrar a estudiantes negros, James
Eastland de Mississippi que dijo “Corte Suprema o no, nosotros mantendremos la
segregación en Dixie” Lester Maddox gobernador de Georgia y el más famoso
George Wallace que fue dos veces aspirante a la presidencia., que también se
paró frente a la Universidad de Alabama para evitar que entraran estudiantes
negros. Todos miembros del partido Demócrata.
Harry Byrd tuvo la
oportunidad de ver a un negro ocupar la presidencia de los Estados Unidos, y lo
apoyó, no sé si sinceramente o por conveniencia, los otros murieron antes.
Por eso digo que
el vivir tan largo tiempo, me ha hecho ver muchas cosas, y me he convencido que
cualquier cosa puede pasar. Vi lo que decían que no podía ser en Cuba, el
comunismo a 90 millas de los Estados Unidos, y vi el cambio de los partidos
políticos en los Estados Unidos.
Pero lo que me
preocupa es que viendo el proceso, he visto que no ha sucedido de pronto, ha
sido un cambio progresivo, tanto en Cuba como en los Estados Unidos. En
Cuba después del 1933, el populismo y la lucha de clases tomaron una posición
preponderante en la política.Cubana-
De la revolución
del 33, salió el dictador populista Batista y los presidentes Grau y Prio,
hasta llegar a Fidel Castro.
Y digo que me
preocupa porque veo en este país la misma tendencia que vi en la Cuba
pre-Castro y que creó las condiciones para la dictadura totalitaria de los
Castro.
Dr. Bárbara Bellar,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnY8r7_fLw Candidata para el senado estatal de Illinois, – El
Obamacare resumido en Una Frase. Amenper.
¿Que c… es el Obamacare?
Déjenme aclarar
esto...Nos van a dar un regalo de un plan de salud que vamos a estar obligados
a comprar, y que nos imponen una multa si no lo compramos, que hipotéticamente
cubre por los menos a 10 millones de personas más, sin emplear ningún nuevo
doctor, pero que debe producir para emplear a 16,000 nuevos agentes del IRS, un
documento escrito por un comité cuyo director dice que no lo entiende, aprobado
por un congreso que no lo ha leído, pero que se excluyeron ellos de esto, y
firmado por un presidente que es un fumador, (risas y aplausos) con fondos
administrados por un jefe de tesorería que no paga sus impuestos, el cual
gravará nuestros impuestos por cuatro años antes de que los beneficios se
implementen, por un gobierno que ya ha llevado a la bancarrota el seguro social
y el medicare, todo supervisado por una cirujana general que es obesa y
financiado por un país en bancarrota Así que, ¿qué "blip",(carajo)(risas y
aplausos) puede ir mal? Dr. Bárbara Bellar, Candidata para el senado
estatal de Illinois,
Dr. Barbara Bellar – Obamacare Summed Up in One
Sentence – Candidate For Illinois State Senate.
Let me get this straight.....We’re going to be gifted
with a healthcare plan we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don’t, which
purportedly covers at least 10 million more people, without adding a single new
doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose
chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a congress that didn’t read
it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with
funding (laughing & applause) same sentence – with funding administered by
a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four
years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already
bankrupted social security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon
general who is obese and (laughing & applause) and financed by a country
that’s broke. (laughing & applause)
So, what the "Bleep" (laughing &
applause) could possibly go wrong?
OBAMA CONTRA OBAMA: PART II
by Thomas Sowell
En ninguna parte es el contraste entre
Barack Obama, tal como se define por su retórica ("Obama 1") y Barack
Obama como se define por sus acciones ("Obama 2") mayor que en su
política exterior - y especialmente su política hacia Israel.
¿Qué pasa si dejamos a un lado la
retórica de Barack Obama, y en lugar de tener exclusivamente en
cuenta su historial documentado en un período de décadas, hasta e incluyendo el
presente?
Lo primero que llama más la atención
sobre ese disco es la larga lista de sus mentores y aliados que fueron marcados
por el odio a los Estados Unidos, y una visión del mundo en el que las naciones
occidentales blancos, se han convertido en prósperos oprimiendo y explotando la
que no son blancas, las naciones no occidentales.
La persona que la mayoría de la gente
ha oído hablar de que coincidía con esa descripción ha sido Jeremiah Wright,
cuya iglesia Barack Obama asistió durante 20 años, y todavía estaba asistiendo
cuando comenzó su campaña para la presidencia. Pero Jeremías Wright fue sólo
uno de una serie de mentores y aliados con una visión similar y una hostilidad
visceral similares a Occidente.
Barack Obama fue prácticamente
marinado en esa visión de la infancia. Su madre se enfrentó con su marido
indonesio cuando comenzó a alejarse de su anterior radicalismo antioccidental y
trabajar con las empresas occidentales que invierten en Indonesia.
Como contrapeso ideológico a lo que la
influencia de su marido indonesio podría tener sobre su hijo, ensalzó las
virtudes de su padre ausente de Kenia, que siguió siendo un doctrinario,
anti-occidental socialista hasta el final.
Después de que Barack Obama fue
enviado de regreso a Hawai a vivir con sus abuelos a la edad de diez años, su
abuelo le presentó a un hombre negro llamado Frank Marshall Davis, quien tuvo
una larga carrera de antinorteamericana, anti-blanco propaganda que incluyó una
temporada como miembro del Partido Comunista. Davis fue el mentor de Obama en la
carrera a lo largo de sus años de adolescencia, hasta que Obama fue a la
universidad.
La progresión de los tutores y
contemporáneos afines continuó como Obama pasó por el Occidental College,
Universidad de Columbia y la Escuela de Derecho de Harvard.
Entre ellos el profesor Edward Said en
Columbia, un portavoz de los terroristas palestinos, y el profesor Derrick Bell
en la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard. Bell era un defensor de la llamada
"teoría crítica de la raza" - una mezcolanza acrítica de las ideas de
un hombre que dijo que vio a su papel como la gente blanca deliberadamente
molestos. Barack Obama literalmente abrazado profesor Bell en una reunión
pública.
Después de que Obama salió al mundo y
trabajó durante un tiempo en una empresa privada, se consideraba a sí mismo
como ser, según sus propias palabras, "un espía detrás de las líneas
enemigas".
Más tarde, cuando comenzó su carrera
política a las elecciones estatales en Illinois, su campaña se inició con una
recaudación de fondos en la casa de Bill Ayers, que había sido un terrorista
doméstico que colocaron bombas en lugares públicos, entre ellos el Pentágono.
Cuando esta asociación se reveló más
tarde, Obama dijo que él era todavía un niño durante Ayers años como un
terrorista. Sin embargo, Obama no era todavía un niño cuando Ayers defendió sus
años de terrorismo en un comunicado que apareció en el New York Times -
irónicamente, el 11 de septiembre de 2001.
Este no es el Barack Obama que la
mayoría de los votantes vio y elegido Presidente de los Estados Unidos en 2008.
Lo que vieron fue una imagen cuidadosamente elaborada de un brillante y
elocuente compañero, enérgico y genial que sanaría nuestro racial y partidista
divide. Su simpatía era alta y se mantuvo así, incluso después de que muchos se
decepcionó con sus políticas.
Su genialidad le ha llevado a muchos a
través de momentos difíciles. Pero ¿alguna vez has oído hablar de un hombre de
confianza de mal humor? Genialidad es un requisito previo para el trabajo.
Lo que muchos consideran como un
fracaso de la política exterior de Obama, especialmente en Oriente Medio, bien
puede ser uno de sus más grandes éxitos. Su deseo de redistribuir la riqueza en
el país es parte de una visión más amplia ideológico que incluye una
redistribución del poder a nivel internacional.
Obama ha dicho durante mucho tiempo
que Estados Unidos juega un papel demasiado importante a nivel internacional.
Sus políticas sugieren que los países islámicos necesita un papel más
importante. La pregunta inquietante es si él todavía ve su propio papel como
"un espía detrás de las líneas enemigas" en la Casa Blanca.
Nowhere is the contrast between Barack Obama,
as defined by his rhetoric ("Obama 1") and Barack Obama as
defined by his actions ("Obama 2") greater than in his foreign
policy — and especially his policy toward Israel.
What if we put aside Barack Obama's
rhetoric, and instead look exclusively at his documented record over a period
of decades, up to and including the present?
The first thing that is most striking about that
record is the long string of his mentors and allies who were marked by hatred
of the United States, and a vision of the world in which the white, Western
nations have become prosperous by oppressing and exploiting the non-white,
non-Western nations.
The person most people have heard of who matched that
description has been Jeremiah Wright, whose church Barack Obama
attended for 20 years, and was still attending when he began his campaign for
the presidency. But Jeremiah Wright was just one in a series of
mentors and allies with a similar vision and a similar visceral hostility to
the West.
Barack Obama was virtually
marinated in that vision from childhood. His mother clashed with her Indonesian
husband when he began to move away from his earlier anti-Western radicalism and
to work with Western businesses investing in Indonesia.
As a counterweight to whatever ideological influence
her Indonesian husband might have on her son, she extolled the virtues of his
absent Kenyan father, who remained a doctrinaire, anti-Western socialist to the
end.
After Barack Obama was sent back to
Hawaii to live with his grandparents at age ten, his grandfather introduced him
to a black man named Frank Marshall Davis, who had a long
career of anti-American, anti-white propaganda that included a stint as a
member of the Communist Party. Davis was Obama's mentor on race
throughout his adolescent years, until Obama left for college.
The progression of such mentors and like-minded
contemporaries continued as Obama went through Occidental College,
Columbia University and the Harvard Law School.
These included Professor Edward Said at
Columbia, a spokesman for Palestinian terrorists, and Professor Derrick Bell
at the Harvard Law School. Bell was an advocate of so-called
"critical race theory" — an uncritical mishmash of notions by a man
who said that he saw his role as deliberately annoying white people. Barack
Obama literally embraced Professor Bell at a public gathering.
After Obama went out into the world and worked
for a time in a private business, he regarded himself as being, in his own
words, "a spy behind enemy lines."
Later, when he began his political career by running
for state office in Illinois, his campaign began with a fundraiser in the home
of Bill Ayers, who had been a domestic terrorist who planted
bombs in public places, including the Pentagon.
When this association was later revealed, Obama
said that he was still a child during Ayers' years as a terrorist. But Obama
was by no means still a child when Ayers defended his years of terrorism in a
statement that appeared in the New York Times — ironically, on September 11,
2001.
This is not the Barack Obama that most
voters saw and elected President of the United States in 2008. What they saw
was a carefully crafted image of a bright, articulate, energetic and genial
fellow who would heal our racial and partisan divides. His likability was high
and remained so, even after many became disappointed with his policies.
His geniality has carried him over many rough spots.
But have you ever heard of a grumpy confidence man? Geniality is a prerequisite
for the job.
What many regard as a failure of Obama's
foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, may well be one of his biggest
successes. His desire to redistribute wealth domestically is part of a larger
ideological vision that includes a redistribution of power internationally.
Obama has long said that the United
States plays too large a role internationally. His policies suggest that
Islamic countries need a larger role. The troubling question is whether he
still sees his own role as "a spy behind enemy lines" in the White
House.
========================
Note by PGdeC: Tom Sowell,
a distinguished, civic-minded economist, has devoted an important part of his
many books, articles and speeches to explain and combat the fallacies used by
political demagogues to mislead voters and advance their own greedy schemes.
Read more of his columns at
DIRECT FROM CAESAR’S PALACE...let's hope he is
right! Por Amenper.
A Las Vegas "odds maker" gives his reasons for big win by Romney in
November. Interesting analysis.
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or
prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am
neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a
well-known Vegas odds maker with one of the most accurate records of
predicting political races.
But as an odds maker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking
political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call
them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Year's
Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been
held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from
Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his
competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that
the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until
election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide
similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding
Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9
points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most
pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my
gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch
to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted
for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or
scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.
Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
**Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His
endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians.
He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not
good news for Obama.
**Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel . Many
Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's
Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60's. This is not good
news for Obama.
**Youth voters. Obama's biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4
years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are
disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is
long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual
voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
**Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won't
happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with
the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the
Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
**Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time
around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of
small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans
and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to give someone different a
chance. As I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and
demonize anyone who owned a business...that he'd support unions over the
private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending
and debt. My friends didn't listen. Four years later, I can't find one
person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not
one. This is not good news for Obama.
**Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White
working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans
feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
**Suburban moms. The issue isn't contraception, it's having a job to pay for
contraception. Obama's economy frightens these moms. They are worried about
putting food on the table. They fear for their children's future. This is
not good news for Obama.
**Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning
by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they
disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will
anyone in America wake up on election day saying, I didn't vote for Obama 4
years ago, but he's done such a fantastic job, I can't wait to vote for him
today. Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas odds maker and common sense
small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a
world-class repudiation of Obama's radical and risky socialist agenda. It's
Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I'll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that
familiarity breeds contempt.
A Las Vegas "odds maker" gives his reasons for big win by Romney in
November. Interesting analysis.
Most political predictions are made by biased pollsters, pundits, or
prognosticators who are either rooting for Republicans or Democrats. I am
neither. I am a former Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee, and a
well-known Vegas odds maker with one of the most accurate records of
predicting political races.
But as an odds maker with a pretty remarkable track record of picking
political races, I play no favorites. I simply use common sense to call
them as I see them. Back in late December I released my New Year's
Predictions. I predicted back then- before a single GOP primary had been
held, with Romney trailing for months to almost every GOP competitor from
Rick Perry to Herman Cain to Newt- that Romney would easily rout his
competition to win the GOP nomination by a landslide. I also predicted that
the Presidential race between Obama and Romney would be very close until
election day. But that on election day Romney would win by a landslide
similar to Reagan-Carter in 1980.
Understanding history, today I am even more convinced of a resounding
Romney victory. 32 years ago at this moment in time, Reagan was losing by 9
points to Carter. Romney is right now running even in polls. So why do most
pollsters give Obama the edge?
First, most pollsters are missing one ingredient- common sense. Here is my
gut instinct. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch
to Obama. Not one in all the land. But many millions of people who voted
for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, turned off, or
scared about the future. Voters know Obama now- and that is a bad harbinger.
Now to an analysis of the voting blocks that matter in U.S. politics:
**Black voters. Obama has nowhere to go but down among this group. His
endorsement of gay marriage has alienated many black church-going Christians.
He may get 88% of their vote instead of the 96% he got in 2008. This is not
good news for Obama.
**Jewish voters. Obama has been weak in his support of Israel . Many
Jewish voters and big donors are angry and disappointed. I predict Obama's
Jewish support drops from 78% in 2008 to the low 60's. This is not good
news for Obama.
**Youth voters. Obama's biggest and most enthusiastic believers from 4
years ago have graduated into a job market from hell. Young people are
disillusioned, frightened, and broke- a bad combination. The enthusiasm is
long gone. Turnout will be much lower among young voters, as will actual
voting percentages. This not good news for Obama.
**Catholic voters. Obama won a majority of Catholics in 2008. That won't
happen again. Out of desperation to please women, Obama went to war with
the Catholic Church over contraception. Now he is being sued by the
Catholic Church. Majority lost. This is not good news for Obama.
**Small Business owners. Because I ran for Vice President last time
around, and I'm a small businessman myself, I know literally thousands of
small business owners. At least 40% of them in my circle of friends, fans
and supporters voted for Obama 4 years ago to give someone different a
chance. As I warned them that he would pursue a war on capitalism and
demonize anyone who owned a business...that he'd support unions over the
private sector in a big way...that he'd overwhelm the economy with spending
and debt. My friends didn't listen. Four years later, I can't find one
person in my circle of small business owner friends voting for Obama. Not
one. This is not good news for Obama.
**Blue collar working class whites. Do I need to say a thing? White
working class voters are about as happy with Obama as Boston Red Sox fans
feel about the New York Yankees. This is not good news for Obama.
**Suburban moms. The issue isn't contraception, it's having a job to pay for
contraception. Obama's economy frightens these moms. They are worried about
putting food on the table. They fear for their children's future. This is
not good news for Obama.
**Military Veterans. McCain won this group by 10 points. Romney is winning
by 24 points. The more our military vets got to see of Obama, the more they
disliked him. This is not good news for Obama.
Add it up. Is there one major group where Obama has gained since 2008? Will
anyone in America wake up on election day saying, I didn't vote for Obama 4
years ago, but he's done such a fantastic job, I can't wait to vote for him
today. Does anyone feel that a vote for Obama makes their job more secure?
Forget the polls. My gut instincts as a Vegas odds maker and common sense
small businessman tell me this will be a historic landslide and a
world-class repudiation of Obama's radical and risky socialist agenda. It's
Reagan-Carter all over again.
But I'll give Obama credit for one thing- he is living proof that
familiarity breeds contempt.
ENVIEN “EN MI OPINION” A SUS CONTACTOS
Lázaro R González Miño
https://www.facebook.com/lazarorg
“Salmo109”
7-Cuando fuere juzgado salga culpable; 8-Sean sus días pocos; tome otro su
oficio,
Porque tuyo es El
Reino, El Poder y La Gloria Eterna. AMEN
No comments:
Post a Comment