No 797 “En mi opinión” Noviembre 18, 2014
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro
R González Miño EDITOR
|
Este escrito de Gordon Crovitz, nos dice de la obsesión y los enredos de
Obama, en sus intentos de regular la Internet.
Es interesante como
saca leyes del 1880 para enredar la situación, en su interés en censurar la
Internet.
Pero legalmente es
imposible que pueda censurar, sólo regular, aunque a veces casi sea lo mismo
pero no lo es completamente.
Pero, por favor,
porque seguir con legalismos, Obama debe de ser sincero como Gruber, que dijo
que los votantes eran estúpidos, Obama debe de dejar de pensar que somos
estúpidos, y ser sincero, dejarse de enredar los cables y decir que lo que quiere es
censurar la Internet para que nosotros no descubramos su desgobierno.
What a
Tangled Web Obama Weaves
Treating
the Internet like a utility won’t achieve the president’s supposed goal, so why
pursue it?
By L. GORDON CROVITZ
Al Gore didn’t invent the Internet, but Bill
Clinton deserves credit for the most important Internet policy: a bipartisan
consensus reached during his administration in the mid-1990s to keep the
Internet free of regulation. The Web would be permissionless, so that innovators
could start sites and other digital offerings without waiting for regulatory
approval.
In a surprise speech last week, President Obama
demanded the end of the unregulated Internet, ratcheting up his campaign to
subject the Internet to century-old regulations written to micromanage public
utilities. Mr. Obama pressured the Federal Communications Commission to
reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, which
was based on railroad regulations from the 1880s and used to oversee AT&T when it was
a telephone monopoly. Regulators set prices, terms and conditions and must
approve new products.
ENLARGE
GETTY IMAGES
Mr. Obama says Internet service providers will
“limit your access to a website” without Title II oversight. Pro-regulation
lobbyists have made this argument from the beginning of the Web—and every year
are proven more wrong. The Internet boomed precisely because it wasn’t
regulated. In 1999 the FCC published a paper titled “The FCC and the
Unregulation of the Internet.” The study contrasted the dramatic growth of the
open Internet with that of the sluggish industries subject to Title II’s more
than 1,000 regulations. Sen. Ted Cruz got it
right last week when he tweeted that Title II would be ObamaCare for the
Internet.
Amazing as it seems, under these regulations
federal bureaucrats in the 1970s decided whether AT&T could move beyond
standard black telephones to offer Princess phones in pink, blue and white. A
Title II Internet would give regulators similar authority to approve,
prioritize and set “just and reasonable” prices for broadband, the lifeblood of
the Internet.
When Apple first
offered Internet access on the iPhone, Steve Jobsdidn’t have
to ask regulators for permission. Instead of network operators prioritizing
traffic based on technical optimization, as they do today, under Title II
regulators would prioritize streaming video from Netflix ,
pornographers or church services. Title II would invalidate “nonneutral” practices
such as T-Mobile offering
mobile phones with free music. Surgeons operating remotely via robotic systems
may no longer have access to a latency-free (no lag time) connection to the
Internet.
Title II regulation would also be a hidden tax
increase: Broadband consumers would pay the 16.1% tax on interstate revenues
under the Universal Service Fund. State utility commissioners would also get
oversight of the Internet.
Mr. Obama claims that regulators can always
“forbear” from the more onerous regulations of Title II. But the nature of
regulators is to regulate, not to forbear. And as FCC Commissioner Michael
O’Rielly explained at a Free State Foundation policy seminar last week,
regulators can’t forbear even if they want to. The law, he said, sets the “bar
so high for forbearance that it is nearly impossible to meet, especially when
the Commission deals with core common carrier provisions on a nationwide
basis,” as with the Internet.
Title II wouldn’t even get net-neutrality advocates
what they say they want. They object to “paid prioritization” by Netflix and
YouTube, which at peak times account for more than half the broadband capacity
in the U.S. These bandwidth hogs couldn’t function without fast lanes on the
Internet. They invest in huge networks of computer servers in many data centers
to ensure smooth delivery of their content. Title II would bless these
different tiers of service.
Everyone agrees that broadband providers should not
discriminate based on the content of a website or other digital service, but
broadband providers already pledge to their users that they won’t discriminate.
If they did, regulators can enforce this version of “neutrality” without the
draconian Title II by prohibiting “commercially unreasonable” network
management practices.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, who was appointed by Mr.
Obama last year, knows that Title II would be a disaster for the Internet. He
has never supported it. The New York Times reported
that the pressure from Mr. Obama last week made Mr. Wheeler “testy, defensive
and a bit angry that he might be seen as a political pawn.” He deserves to be
angry: The president is making him choose either to run his independent agency
independently or to become a political lackey for the White House.
Last week, Senate Republicans warned the FCC that
Title II is “last century’s rules” and they would fight it. Some Democrats went
further, with the Progressive Policy Institute, run by policy advisers from the
Clinton administration, questioning Mr. Obama’s motives. They warned that the
“likely rationale for imposing Title II is to pursue an aggressive regulatory
agenda unrelated to net neutrality.”
The last time net neutrality became a big political
issue was in the 2010 midterm elections, when all 95 congressional candidates
who campaigned for net neutrality were defeated. Americans like their
unregulated Internet, and they want to keep it.
The lies that are central to
Obama’s agenda
Share the joy
By Kyle Smith-November 16, 2014-NY Post
Damn Americans. They just don’t see the wisdom
of surrendering to experts the power they need to remake the country into a
progressive paradise.
Sighing with regret, liberals like Jonathan
Gruber admit that they’re forced to hoodwink the citizens. For their own good.
Gruber, the MIT economist who (in the words of
The New York Times) “put together the basic principles of” ObamaCare and helped
Congress “draft the specifics of the legislation” is one of a long line of
liberals driven by the belief that the stupidity of the American people is so
insurmountable that persuasion is futile. Liberalism: the place where
compassion blurs into condescension.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political
advantage and basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter
or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting the
thing to pass,” Gruber said, in a newly unearthed 2013 video that went viral
last week.
Gruber’s jocular tone wasn’t surprising. In explaining why a huge tax increase was disguised to conceal it from the American people, he was admitting what was obvious to close observers: The law is really just a redistribution scheme.
Gruber’s jocular tone wasn’t surprising. In explaining why a huge tax increase was disguised to conceal it from the American people, he was admitting what was obvious to close observers: The law is really just a redistribution scheme.
Even the Democrats didn’t think ObamaCare could
pass by being so described.
That’s why deception, as Gruber says, was central to its design.
Clemente Sanchez: Lección de Putin a Occidente
¡¡FORMIDABLE!!
Hace dos años el rey de Arabia visitó a Putin en Moscú.
Antes de partir le dijo a Putin que quería comprar una gran parcela y
edificar, con dinero totalmente árabe, una gran mezquita en la capital rusa.
edificar, con dinero totalmente árabe, una gran mezquita en la capital rusa.
"No hay problema", le contestó el ruso, "pero con una
condición: que vuestra
majestad autorice a que se construya también en su capital árabe una gran
iglesia ortodoxa" .
majestad autorice a que se construya también en su capital árabe una gran
iglesia ortodoxa" .
" No puede ser" dijo el árabe.
"¿Por qué? preguntó Putin.
"Porque su religión no es la verdadera y no podemos dejar que se
engañe al
pueblo".
pueblo".
"Yo pienso igual de su religión y sin embargo permitiría edificar su
templo
si hubiera correspondencia, así que hemos terminado el tema"
si hubiera correspondencia, así que hemos terminado el tema"
El 4 de agosto de 2013 el líder ruso, Vladimir Putin, se dirigió al
parlamento de su país con este discurso acerca de las tensiones con las
minorías étnicas:
parlamento de su país con este discurso acerca de las tensiones con las
minorías étnicas:
"En Rusia vivid como rusos! Cualquier minoría, de cualquier parte,
que
quiera vivir en Rusia, trabajar y comer en Rusia, debe hablar ruso y
debe respetar las leyes rusas. Si ellos prefieren la Ley Sharia y vivir una
vida de musulmanes les aconsejamos que se vayan aquellos lugares donde esa
sea la ley del Estado...Rusia no necesita minorías musulmanas,
quiera vivir en Rusia, trabajar y comer en Rusia, debe hablar ruso y
debe respetar las leyes rusas. Si ellos prefieren la Ley Sharia y vivir una
vida de musulmanes les aconsejamos que se vayan aquellos lugares donde esa
sea la ley del Estado...Rusia no necesita minorías musulmanas,
Esas minorías necesitan a Rusia y no les garantizamos privilegios
especiales
ni tratamos de cambiar nuestras leyes adaptándolas a sus deseos. No importa
lo alto que exclamen "discriminación", No toleraremos faltas de respeto
hacia nuestra cultura rusa. Debemos aprender mucho de los atentados suicidas
de América, Inglaterra, Holanda y Francia, etc. Si queremos sobrevivir como
nación.
ni tratamos de cambiar nuestras leyes adaptándolas a sus deseos. No importa
lo alto que exclamen "discriminación", No toleraremos faltas de respeto
hacia nuestra cultura rusa. Debemos aprender mucho de los atentados suicidas
de América, Inglaterra, Holanda y Francia, etc. Si queremos sobrevivir como
nación.
Los musulmanes están venciendo en esos países y no lo lograrán en Rusia.
Las
tradiciones y costumbres rusas no son compatibles con la falta de cultura y
formas primitivas de la Ley Sharia y de los musulmanes.
tradiciones y costumbres rusas no son compatibles con la falta de cultura y
formas primitivas de la Ley Sharia y de los musulmanes.
Cuando este honorable cuerpo legislativo piense crear nuevas leyes,
deberá
tener en mente primero el interés nacional ruso, observando
que las minorías musulmanas no son rusas."
tener en mente primero el interés nacional ruso, observando
que las minorías musulmanas no son rusas."
Los miembros del Parlamento Ruso puestos en pie ovacionaron a Putin
durante
cinco minutos.
cinco minutos.
Amenper: Necesitamos la
“Pax Americana”
Oímos el escepticismo sobre
vigilancia del mundo, o sea la teoría de que los Estados Unidos no deben ni
pueden ser el policía del mundo, expresado por el Presidente Obama y el senador
Rand Paul.
Pero el retiro de Estados Unidos
y la pasividad lo que han hecho es alimentar el resurgente
terrorismo islamista, los intentos de restaurar el imperio soviético Vladimir
Putin, el empuje de armas nucleares de Irán nucleares, y las crecientes tensiones creciente
entre China y Japón, aliado de Estados Unidos que pone en peligro
las garantías de seguridad estadounidenses.
Los Estados Unidos no están en
declive; está en retirada en todo el mundo debido a decisiones de una política
errante de Obama que hacen un cambio de curso tanto posible como necesario.
El mundo necesita un
policía, y es preferible que sea los Estados Unidos, que China, Rusia u otra
nación, la que desempeñe ese papel.
Claro que eso no es posible con
Obama o Rand Paul como presidentes.
¿Cuán graves podrían ser las
consecuencias de la continua retirada de Estados Unidos?
Bueno vamos a
ver escenario plausible en unos cuantos años.
Con una decididamente
aislacionista América; habría una desaceleración económica en todo el mundo;
veríamos una agresión China hacia Taiwán; una situación en el
Oriente Medio que conduciría a tanto Arabia Saudita como Irán para producir
libremente armas nucleares; más malestar económico europeo; y un curso
internacional de intromisión por parte de Rusia en los países vecinos, para
restaurar el imperio soviético, en la américa latina con la reanudación de las
relaciones con Cuba, ésta se fortalecería económicamente y el comunismo se
extendería totalmente en los países de Latinoamérica.
Esto ilustra el tipo de peligros
que Estados Unidos podría enfrentar si no revierte su retirada del
resto del mundo.
La "Pax
Americana" no sólo para el continente americano, pero como se
utilizó principalmente en sus connotaciones globales modernas relativas a la
paz después del final de la II guerra mundial en 1945, ha desaparecido, y
la necesitamos de nuevo.
En este sentido moderno, la “Pax
Americana” había venido para indicar la posición militar y económica de los
Estados Unidos en relación con otras naciones.
La “Pax Americana” que hemos
tenido por años, ha producido el libre comercio y la movilidad del capital
entre los mercados globales y la alta estimación de tolerancia y apertura que
son absolutamente vitales para los Estados Unidos y el mundo.
Este camino de aislacionismo y
renunciar a ser el líder del mundo libre que ha adoptado Obama, lo vimos surgir
con Jimmy Carter, con funestos resultados, pero revertidos por suerte con la
administración de Ronald Reagan que salvó al mundo.
No es tarde para revertir los
daños hechos por la administración de Obama, aunque ha podido hacer y hará más
por el tiempo que ha tenido en el poder, en comparación con los cuatro años de
Carter.
Pero es imperativo el elegir un
presidente en el 2016 que vuelva a los valores de la nación, no sólo en
política internacional pero en la política doméstica.
No necesitamos un libertario que
nos ayude en la economía doméstica y entregue el liderazgo mundial, porque la
política internacional repercute en la economía doméstica, ahora más que nunca,
cuando la tecnología y los modernos medios de comunicación han convertido al
mundo en una sociedad homogénea y parroquial.
Los Republicanos tienen que ser inteligentes, ponerse las pilas y
demostrar liderazgo si quieren ver el fruto en las presidenciales del 2016
Elecciones 2014: significado y deberes
ARMANDO GONZALEZ
Sabemos que Barack Obama es bueno, por
lo menos, en algo: elegir a Barack Obama como presidente de Estados Unidos.
Cuán bueno es como presidente es algo que se presta a largo debate. Y algo menos
debatible es que es terrible como líder de su partido. No se supone que fuera
así. En el 2008, Obama se suponía que fuera el precursor de una nueva
era liberal. El candidato Obama, recién llegado de Berlín, nos dijo: “Este es
el momento por el cual el mundo ha estado esperando”.
Confiado
en que la historia estaba de su lado, Obama manejó su presidencia de forma
partidista, aprovechando mayorías demócratas en el Congreso y logró aprobación
para Obamacare , el mayor logro de legislación social en varias décadas.
Lo más interesante de esto es que Obamacare nunca ha sido popular. El
presidente, simplemente, no pudo “venderla”. De marzo del 2009 a marzo del
2010, pronunció, por lo menos, un discurso semanal promoviendo Obamacare. Pero,
a pesar de sus celebradas habilidades retóricas, el público nunca “compró” la
idea.
En
el 2010, el congresista de Arkansas Marion Berry le advirtió que Obamacare se
sentía como una repetición del desastroso HillaryCare de 1993 que condujo a una
derrota en las elecciones congresionales de 1994 donde los demócratas perdieron
54 escaños en la Cámara y Newt Gingrich se convirtió en el presidente de la
Cámara. Obama se burló del comentario de Berry y le dijo: “Bueno, la diferencia
entre ahora y 1994 es que ahora me tienen a mí”. Unos días después , los
demócratas perdieron 63 escaños en la Cámara.
Después
del desastre del pasado martes 4, cualquier pensamiento de una coalición pro
Obama suena como una ilusión. Los votantes jóvenes desertaron al Presidente,
los hispanos se quedaron en su casa y los blancos no hispanos votaron
republicano 30 por ciento por encima de los que votaron demócrata.
Contrario a lo que los demócratas tratan de hacernos creer, esta no fue una
elección anti-incumbente. Estas elecciones fueron un acto de repudio a Obama,
su partido y sus ideas. Los republicanos ganaron escaños senatoriales en Iowa y
Colorado, estados que Obama ganó dos veces. Las contiendas para gobernador en
estados demócratas como Maryland, Illinois y Massachusetts fueron al Partido
Republicano. El Senado, donde los republicanos necesitaban ganar seis escaños
netos para lograr mayoría, lograron siete, y casi con toda seguridad, dos más
en los próximos días.
Y,
ahora que los republicanos tendrán mayoría en ambas cámaras del Congreso, ¿qué
significa eso? Ahora tienen que demostrar que saben gobernar. La derrota —o la
masacre como la llamó The Economist— marca el final del Obamismo, una especie
de liberalismo de izquierda que se entromete en nuestras vidas, ejecutado con
tal incompetencia y, últimamente tan impopular, que será apenas recordado como
un paréntesis en la historia política de Estados Unidos. El mismo Obama definió
esta elección días antes cuando dijo: “Mis ideas están en la boleta. Todas y
cada una de ellas”.
Los
republicanos deben controlar la agenda nacional. De forma determinada y
firme. Enviarle al Presidente un proyecto de ley por semana, comenzando por
aquellos que deben tener apoyo demócrata como el oleoducto Keystone XL. Otra
sería la autoridad para negociar tratados internacionales de comercio de forma
rápida (fast track), algo que todo presidente desea, esto le daría una especie
de victoria a Obama y demostraría bipartidismo y magnanimidad (así como buen
sentido económico). Después, un proyecto de ley para repatriar $ 2 billones
(trillones en inglés) que corporaciones de Estados Unidos mantienen en el
exterior evadiendo los altísimos impuestos de Estados Unidos. Seguido por un
proyecto de ley para facilitar la exportación de gas natural y petróleo y un proyecto
de ley para seguridad de fronteras.
En
cuanto a Obamacare, poco a poco. Repeler el impuesto a equipos e instrumentos
médicos, repeler el mandato individual, repeler el mandato patronal y repeler
el subsidio federal para compañías de seguros que, por mala administración, se
vean en problemas. Si Obama los veta, que los demócratas defiendan los vetos
durante los próximos dos años.
Aprovechen
la oportunidad. La percepción hoy, gracias a los demócratas y la prensa
cómplice, es que la disfunción en Washington es culpa del partido del No.
Expongan al verdadero agente del No. Muestren que con Harry Reid impotente, el
Congreso puede funcionar. Pasen legislación. Cuando Obama firme demostrarán su
seriedad y habilidad para gobernar. Cuando Obama ejerza su veto, ustedes habrán
clarificado el origen del No y comenzarán a preparar el camino para el 2016.
Jorge
Alberto Villalón Y.
Support
Builds in GOP for Government Shutdown Over Obama Immigration Orders
Momentum is
building in the House in the GOP caucus to attach a rider to the Continuing
Resolution that would fund the government until the end of the fiscal year that
would defund agencies charged with implementing President Obama’s coming executive orders on immigration.
The amendment
would almost certainly be unacceptable to Democrats in the Senate. This would
set up a showdown with the White House, giving President Obama and the Democrats the option of failing to fund the government
past December 12, leading to a shutdown.
“I
am insisting on that [rider] because the president is violating his executive
privilege,” GOP Rep. Paul Gosar, who represents the border state of Arizona,
said in an interview Friday.
Rep.
Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) called the plan to block the executive action through the
government-funding bill “a great idea.” Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who defeated
then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the June GOP primary in part by accusing
his opponent of supporting “amnesty,” said he also backed the proposal.
Asked
if a government shutdown would be worth halting Obama’s immigration action,
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) replied: “When you take an oath to uphold the
Constitution, it is not appropriate to contemplate the political consequences.
You should uphold the Constitution come what may.”
The
call to arms by conservatives is a challenge for GOP leaders in both chambers,
who also oppose executive action by Obama but acknowledge they have not settled
on a plan to stop it.
Read
more: http://www.americanthinker.com/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/11/support-builds-gop-government-shutdown-obama-immigration-orders/
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2014/11/support-builds-gop-government-shutdown-obama-immigration-orders/
Amenper: Nuestros Aliados Musulmanes
No puedo defender el comunismo,
esta doctrina no sólo destruyó nuestra patria pero ha creado la inestabilidad
política en el mundo en todas sus versiones.
Pero sin lugar a dudas, los
ideólogos originales del comunismo, aunque equivocados o con maldad, expresaban
más coherentemente sus ideas. Eran más civilizados.
El islam, se presenta de una
manera irracional, con el crimen no cómo en el comunismo a escondidas y con
excusas, pero como una doctrina permisible públicamente, como las ejecuciones
de ISIS.
Nuestros aliados musulmanes, no
son mejores, no sólo en su violencia, pero en la manera como expresan su
idolología.
Tenemos al presidente de Turquía,
que hace unas declaraciones absurdas sobre el descubrimiento de
América. ¿Cómo un presidente de una nación puede presentar
fanáticamente este punto de vista sin una substanciación histórica plausible?
Para los que no vieron sus
declaraciones las copio a continuación según apareció en Yahoo, sin cambiar
nada.
Estambul (AFP) El presidente turco Recep Tayyip Erdogan dijo el
sábado que las Américas fueron descubiertas por los musulmanes en el siglo XII,
cerca de tres siglos antes de que Cristóbal Colón pudiera poner los pies allí.
"Los
contactos entre América Latina y el Islam se remontan al siglo XII. Los
musulmanes descubrieron América en 1178, no Cristóbal Colón,” dijo el
presidente conservador Islámico en un discurso televisado durante una cumbre en
Estambul de líderes musulmanes de América Latina.
"Los
marinos musulmanes llegaron a América desde 1178. "Colón mencionó la
existencia de una mezquita en una colina en la costa cubana, dijo Erdogan.
Erdogan
dijo que Ankara estaba incluso dispuesto a construir una mezquita en el lugar
mencionado por el explorador Genovés.
"Me
gustaría hablar de ello a mis hermanos cubanos. Una mezquita iría perfectamente
en la colina de hoy," dijo el líder turco.
Los
libros de historia dicen que Colón llegó al continente americano en 1492 cuando
buscaba una nueva ruta marítima a la India.
Una
pequeña minoría de los eruditos musulmanes ha sugerido recientemente una previa
presencia musulmana en las Américas, aunque nunca se ha encontrado ninguna
ruina precolombina de una estructura islámica.
En un
polémico artículo publicado en 1996, historiador Youssef Mroueh se refiere a
una entrada del diario de Colón que menciona una mezquita en Cuba. Pero la
frase se entiende que es una referencia a la forma del paisaje en una forma
metafórica.
Tal parece un chiste, y como tal
se los mandé hace unos días, y cómo alguien sin importancia me puedo tomar esa
libertad. Pero el que dijo lo que copia arriba es un jefe de
gobierno de un importante país, y un supuesto aliado de los Estados Unidos en
la región, y no lo dijo como chiste sino como algo importante y real. Y esto
sin tomar en consideración su referencia amistosa a Cuba.
Para remendar Cielito Lindo,
el condado necesita $55 millones
Dice ex juez que trabajo allí, que es mejor vender dicho
edificio
MIAMI 18 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2014,
nhr.com—“La mejor opción
para salirnos del edificio del 73 West Flagler (Cielito Lindo), es ponerlo a la
venta”, nos dijo un ex juez que conoce muy bien los problemas que
existen en ese edificio, porque trabajó allí.
De acuerdo con Beatrice Butchko,
jueza administradora asociada del Circuito Judicial 11 de Florida, “el
Condado debe buscar el dinero para reparar las columnas, y son unos $25
millones de dólares sin incluir la reparación de los daños causados por
filtraciones o esparcimiento de partículas de asbesto”.
Sin embargo cuando el pasado 29 de
enero nelsonhortareporta.com descubrió los problemas que tenía el deteriorado
edificio ubicado en el 73 West Flagler, pedimos bajo la ley 119 de registros
públicos todos los documentos sobre el estatus de las reparaciones que se
hacían en Cielito Lindo.
Se nos hizo llegar la información
sobre las condiciones del edificio y de un estudio, y se nos dijo que el
edificio no ofrecía peligro en ese momento.
Según el condado en ese momento, “el
edificio se está renovando como parte de un programa continuo de mejoramiento
de estas instalaciones, el proyecto actual de $30 millones de dólares incluye,
mejoras del techo, alrededores y la fachada”.
O sea ya el condado había
adjudicado $30 millones para ese proyecto que estaba en proceso, el condado
contrató a la firma de ingenieros G.M. Selvy para realizar el estudio
estructural y una revisión de las estructuras de apoyo del Palacio de Justicia
señaló que “ha
levantado preocupaciones con respecto a algunas de las columnas de soporte
ubicadas en el sótano del edificio”, dijo la nota que el 29 de enero nos
envió el condado, vía correo electrónico.
El estudio de ingeniería hecho por
G.M. Selvy, indicó que, “sobre el actual uso y ocupación del
edificio, no tenemos una preocupación inmediata de colapso o fallo basado en
las observaciones visuales”, dijo.
De acuerdo con los ingenieros de
G.M. Selvy, “los edificios de esta edad tienen
una inherente redundancia incorporada en su diseño que ayuda enormemente a la
estabilidad global de la estructura. Sin embargo, dada la pérdida
estimada de acero en algunas de las áreas de pruebas, algunas fallas
localizadas pueden tener lugar en caso de una carga excesiva. Dicho esto,
le recomendamos una evacuación completa del edificio en caso de un huracán de
nivel 1. Nuestra opinión está sujeta a cambio basado en la disponibilidad
de información del futuro y los resultados de ensayos destructivos. Al
término de nuestra evaluación, conjuntamente con los resultados de los ensayos
destructivos, apuntalamiento temporal se puede recomendar para las columnas que
son consideradas inseguro unidad tal vez como reparaciones completa puede ser
proporcionado”.
Gastarse $30 millones que se
adjudicaron según señalan los registros públicos enviados a
nelsonhortareporta.com en enero del 2014, y ahora otros $25 millones sumarian
$55 millones para “remendar” un edificio viejo, Nuestro amigo el ex juez tiene
razón cuando nos dijo que “lo mejor era ponerlo a la venta”.
On Obama and the Nature of Failed
Presidencies…
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - 03:01 Print Text
Size
We do not normally comment on domestic political affairs unless they affect
international affairs. However, it is necessary to consider American political affairs because they are
likely to have a particular effect on international relations. We have now
entered the final phase of Barack Obama's presidency, and like those of several
other presidents since World War II, it is ending in what we call a state of
failure. This is not a judgment on his presidency so much as on the political
configuration within it and surrounding it.
The midterm elections are over, and Congress and the president are in
gridlock. This in itself is not significant; presidents as popular as Dwight
Eisenhower found themselves in this condition. The problem occurs when there is
not only an institutional split but also a shift in underlying public
opinion against the president. There are many more sophisticated analyses of
public opinion on politics, but I have found it useful to use this predictive
model.
Analyzing a President's Strength
I assume that underneath all of the churning, about 40 percent of the
electorate is committed to each party. Twenty percent is uncommitted, with half
of those being indifferent to the outcome of politics and the other half being
genuinely interested and undecided. In most normal conditions, the real battle
between the parties -- and by presidents -- is to hold their own bases and take
as much of the center as possible.
So long as a president is fighting for the center, his ability to govern
remains intact. Thus, it is normal for a president to have a popularity rating
that is less than 60 percent but more than 40 percent. When a president's
popularity rating falls substantially below 40 percent and remains there for an
extended period of time, the dynamics of politics shift. The president is no longer
battling for the center but is fighting to hold on to his own supporters -- and
he is failing to do so.
When the president's support has fragmented to the point that he is
fighting to recover his base, I considered that a failed presidency -- particularly
when Congress is in the hands of the opposition. His energy cannot be directed
toward new initiatives. It is directed toward recovering his base. And
presidents who have fallen into this condition near the end of their
presidencies have not been likely to recover and regain the center.
Historically, when the president's popularity rating has dipped to about 37
percent, his position has been unrecoverable. This is what happened to George W. Bush in 2006. It happened to
Richard Nixon in 1974 when the Watergate crisis resulted in his resignation and
to Lyndon Johnson in 1967 during the Vietnam War. It also happened to Harry
Truman in 1951, primarily because of the Korean War, and to Herbert Hoover
before World War II because of the Great Depression.
However, this is not the final historical note on a presidency. Truman,
enormously unpopular and unable to run for another term, is now widely regarded
as one of the finest presidents the United States has had. Nixon, on the other
hand, has never recovered. This is not therefore a judgment on Obama's place in
history, but simply on his current political condition. Nor does it take
failure to lose the presidency; Jimmy Carter was defeated even though his
popularity remained well in the 40s.
Obama's Presidency
Of the five failed presidencies I've cited, one failed over scandal, one
over the economy and three over wars -- Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. Obama's case
is less clear than any. The 40 percent who gravitated to the opposition opposed
him for a host of reasons. He lost the center for complex reasons as well.
However, looking at the timing of his decline, the only intruding event that
might have had that impact was the rise of the Islamic State and a sense, even in his own
party, that he did not have an effective response to it. Historically, extended
wars that the president did not appear to have a strategy for fighting have
been devastating to the presidency. Woodrow Wilson's war (World War I) was
short and successful. Franklin Roosevelt's war (World War II) was longer, and
although it began in failure, it became clear that a successful end was
conceivable. The Korean, Vietnam and two Iraq wars suffered not from the
length, but from the sense that the presidency did not have a war-ending
strategy. Obama appears to me to have fallen into the political abyss because
after eight years he owned the war and appeared to have no grip on it.
Failure extends to domestic policy as well. The Republican-controlled
legislature can pass whatever legislation it likes, but the president retains
veto power, and two-thirds of both houses must vote to override. The problem is
that given the president's lack of popularity -- and the fact that the presidency, all of the House of Representatives and
one-third of the Senate will be up for re-election in two years -- the
president's allies in Congress are not as willing to be held responsible for
upholding his vetoes. Just as few Democrats wanted Obama campaigning for them,
so too do few want to join the president in vetoing majority legislation. What
broke Truman, Johnson and Nixon was the moment it became clear that their
party's leaders in Congress wanted them gone.
Acting within Constraints
This does not mean that the president cannot act. It simply means that it
is enormously more difficult to act than before. Gerald Ford, replacing Nixon
but weakened by the pardoning of his predecessor, could not stop Congress from
cutting off aid to South Vietnam during the final Communist assault. George W.
Bush was able to launch the surge, but the surge was limited in size, not only
because of strategic conditions but also because he had lost the ability to
force Congress to fund alternative expansions of the war. In each of the failed
presidencies, the president retained the ability to act but was constrained by
the twin threats of an opposition-controlled Congress and his own party's
unwillingness to align with him.
At the same time, certain foreign diplomatic initiatives can continue.
Nixon initiated negotiations between Egypt and Israel that culminated, under
Carter's administration, in the Camp David Accords. Truman tried to open negotiations with
China, and the initiative's failure had little to do with opposition to a
negotiated settlement in Korea.
The president has few domestic options. Whatever Obama does with his power
domestically, Congress can vote to cut funding, and if the act is vetoed, the
president puts Congressional Democrats in mortal danger. The place where he can
act -- and this is likely the place Obama is least comfortable acting -- is in
foreign policy. There, the limited deployment of troops and diplomatic
initiatives are possible.
Obama's general strategy is to withdraw from existing conflicts in the
Middle East and contain and limit Russian actions in Ukraine. The president has the
ability to bring military and other pressure to bear. But the United States'
opponent is aware that the sitting president is no longer in control of
Washington, that he has a specific date of termination and that the more
unpopular things he does, the more likely his successor is to repudiate them.
Therefore, in the China-North Korea model, the assumption is that that
continuing the conflict and negotiating with the successor president is
rational. In the same sense, Iran chose to wait for the election of Ronald
Reagan rather than deal with Jimmy Carter (who was not a failed president).
This model depends on the opponent's having the resources and the political
will to continue the conflict in order to bargain with the president's
successor, and assumes that the successor will be more malleable. This is
frequently the result, since the successor can make concessions more readily
than his predecessor can. In fact, he can make those concessions and gain
points by blaming the need to concede on his predecessor. Ironically, Obama
used this strategy after replacing George W. Bush. The failed president
frequently tries to entice negotiation by increasing the military pressure on
the enemy. Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush all took this path while seeking
to end their wars. In no case did it work, but they had little to lose
politically by trying.
Therefore, if we follow historical patterns, Obama will now proceed slowly
and ineffectively to increase military operations in Syria and Iraq, while
raising non-military pressure on Russia, or potentially initiating
some low-level military activities in Ukraine. The actions will be designed to
achieve a rapid negotiating process that will not happen. The presidency will
shift to the other party, as it did with Truman, Johnson and George W. Bush.
Thus, if patterns hold true, the Republicans will retake the presidency. This
is not a pattern unknown to Congress, which means that the Democrats in the
legislature will focus on running their own campaigns as far away from Obama
and the next Democratic presidential candidate as possible.
The period of a failed presidency is therefore not a quiet time. The
president is actively trying to save his legacy in the face of enormous
domestic weakness. Other countries, particularly adversaries, see little reason
to make concessions to failed presidents, preferring to deal with the next
president instead. These adversaries then use military and political
oppositions abroad to help shape the next U.S. presidential campaign in
directions that are in their interests.
It is against this backdrop that all domestic activities take place. The
president retains the veto, and if the president is careful, he will be able to
sustain it. Obama will engage in limited domestic politics, under heavy
pressure from Congressional Democrats, confining himself to one or two things.
His major activity will be coping with Syria, Iraq and Russia, because of both
crises and the desire for a legacy. The last two years of a failed presidency
are mostly about foreign policy and are not very pleasant to watch.
Read more: On Obama and the Nature of Failed Presidencies | Stratfor
Follow us: @stratfor on Twitter | Stratfor on Facebook
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
Convicted Terrorist Known as the ’20th Hijacker’ Has a Stunning
Claim About the 9/11 Attacks
Billy HallowellShare This
·
Tweet This
·
·
A man known as the “20th hijacker” who is serving a
life sentence for his admitted role in conspiring to murder Americans in the
Sept. 11 attacks in 2001 has come forward with some shocking new allegations,
claiming that a Saudi Arabian royal helped fund the devastating terror events.
In this undated file photo provided by the Sherburne County Sheriff Office, Zacarias Moussaoui is shown. (AP Photo/Sherburne County,
Minn., Sheriff’s Office, File)
Zacarias Moussaoui,
46, has said, more specifically, that a Saudi prince paid to train him and the
19 hijackers in the time leading up to the attacks.
He issued these allegations in recently filed federal court
documents, alleging that the prince was fully aware that the training was being
done on behalf of Osama bin
Laden, according to the Daily Mail.
“I am ready to testify about all the above and more in your court in an
Open Hearing that I request,” Moussaoui said in a handwritten court document dated October 23.
According to his account, Prince Turki Al Faisal AlSaud met with him, provided him with
funding and also financially assisted the other 19 Sept. 11 terrorists.
Moussaoui also
detailed an alleged Al Qaeda plan to shoot down Air Force One when
Bill Clinton was in office — a purported plot that he said involved an employee
at one of Saudi Arabia’s embassies, according to the Oklahoman.
The Saudi government has denied any involvement in the 9/11
attacks in the past and some say that Moussaoui‘s own credibility is at
issue in taking his claims at face value, especially considering that a defense
psychologist once said he suffers from delusions as a result of paranoid schizophrenia.
Still, this isn’t the first time Saudi Arabia has
been accused of involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.
As for Moussaoui, he was originally arrested in August 2001 —
just one month before 9/11 — after staffers at a Minnesota flight school became
concerned over his quest to learn to fly a Boeing 747, despite not having a
pilot’s license.
Moussaoui was
initially arrested on immigration charges before the attacks and was held in
custody just weeks later when they unfolded; in 2005, he pleaded guilty to
conspiring with the hijackers.
A courtroom drawing shows Al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui shouting “I will be free. Before the
end of George Bush I will get out.” as he is led out the courtroom by a marshal
in Bryan US District Court May 2006 in Alexandria, Virginia.
(AFPPHOTO/COURTROOM DRAWING BY ART LIEN)
Just one year later, though, an audio recording revealed that bin
Laden was separating himself from Moussaoui,
claiming that the man wasn’t part of the 9/11 attacks, the Daily Mail reported.
These facts aside, Moussaoui claims to have given a
deposition in October to lawyers
who are representing insurance companies and victims seeking damages from Saudi
Arabia over claims that the country was involved in the Sept. 11 plot.
Republicans weigh government
shutdown to stop Obama. Cowboy Byte
If that what it takes….
Check it out:
Check it out:
One
Republican leader on Sunday held open the possibility that his party could move
to shut down the government in an attempt to stop President Barack Obama from taking executive action on
immigration policy.
A
vocal group of conservatives in the House of Representatives is pressing to use
government funding as leverage to prevent any White House moves that would
allow millions of undocumented immigrants to stay and work in the United
States.
Read more at http://cowboybyte.com/34804/republicans-weigh-government-shutdown-stop-obama-immigration/
|
Lo mas
increible es que La Prensa (Bueno la Liberal e Izquierdista) y
algunos Oficiales electos : Senadores y Congresistas respalden a que EUA.,vaya
hacia una Dictadura donde un hombre tome determinaciones , las que le de la
gana, por si solo. Ya el pueblo se boto a muchos, pero aun
quedan mas.
La dictadura (del latín dictatūra) es una forma de gobierno en la cual
el poder se concentra en torno a la figura de un solo individuo (dictador) o
élite, generalmente a través de la consolidación de un gobierno de facto, que
se caracteriza por una ausencia de división de poderes, una propensión a
ejercitar arbitrariamente el mando en beneficio de la minoría que lo apoya, la
independencia del gobierno respecto a la presencia o no de consentimiento por
parte de cualquiera de los gobernados.
Un dictador en una
democracia representativa es cuando el ejecutivo ignora las otras ramas del
gobierno, y el poder se concentra en la figura de un solo individuo que ejecuta
arbitrariamente su voluntad sin el consentimiento de cualquiera de los
gobernados.
Cuando el presidente
Obama gobierna a través de decisiones ejecutivas, sólo días después que los
votantes han rechazado su agenda de gobierno, está llenando la descripción de
dictador.
La amenaza, que
ya es casi un hecho, de una acción ejecutiva sobre inmigración, sin tomar en
consideración si es adecuada o no, es una acción dictatorial.
La división de
poderes es lo que ha diferenciado a esta nación de otras en el mundo, es la que
ha hecho la democracia americana el ejemplo de democracia que es la admiración
y envidia del mundo.
No sabemos cuál
será la reacción de los otros poderes, las cámaras legislativas y la judicial,
pero cualquier actitud de protesta será rechazada por el dictador.
Esta no sera la primera , ya el aspirante a
dictador lo ha hecho varias veces. Es importante recordar los
nombres de todos los que siguen respaldando al Dictador, incluyendo La
Prensa.
State of Emergency Declared in Ferguson
Guess they have to get ready for the return of the thug racists.
Check it out:
Check it out:
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon issued an executive orderdeclaring
a state of emergency in his state on Monday. The
order was posted as St. Louis residents wait anxiously on the decision of the
county’s grand jury as to whether or not Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson
should be brought up on any charges for the shooting death of Ferguson resident
Mike Brown.
The August 9 incident between Brown and Wilson immediately sparked
violent confrontations between law enforcement and protesters for several days
thereafter.
According to the order, Nixon is directing “the Missouri State
Highway Patrol together with the St. Louis County Police Department and the St.
Louis Metropolitan Police Department to operate as a Unified Command to protect
civil rights and ensure public safety in the City of Ferguson and the St. Louis
region.” The order continues with further jurisdictional operation plans:
I further order that the St.
Louis County Police Department shall have command and operational control over
security in the City of Ferguson relating to areas of protests, acts of civil
disobedience and conduct otherwise arising from such activities.
I further order that the Unified
Command may exercise operational authority in such other jurisdictions it deems
necessary to protect civil rights and ensure public safety and that other law
enforcement agencies shall assist the Unified Command when so requested and
shall cooperate with operational directives of the Unified Command.
I further order, pursuant to
Section 41.480, RSMo, the Adjutant General of the State of Missouri, or his
designee, to forthwith call and order into active service such portions of the
organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property and assist
civilian authorities and it is further directed that the Adjutant General or
his designee, and through him, the commanding officer of any unit or other
organization of such organized militia so called into active service take such
action and employ such equipment as may be necessary to carry out requests
processed through the Missouri State Highway Patrol and ordered by the Governor
of the state to protect life and property and support civilian authorities.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/state-emergency-declared-ferguson/
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/2014/11/state-emergency-declared-ferguson/
Obama
tells Ferguson protesters: Stay the course
Only fitting that America’s racist
Troublemaker-in-Chief, Barack Obama would meet with Ferguson agitators and tell
them to “stay the course.”
H/T to The Gateway Pundit for finding this little
jewel hidden in The New York Times report:
But leaders here say that is the
nature of a movement that has taken place, in part, on social media and that
does not match an earlier-era protest structure where a single, outspoken
leader might have led the way. “This is not your momma’s civil rights movement,”
said Ashley Yates, a leader of Millennial Activists United. “This is a movement
where you have several difference voices, different people. The person in
charge is really — the people. But the message from everyone is the same: Stop
killing us.”
At times, there has been a split
between national civil rights leaders and the younger leaders on the ground
here, who see their efforts as more immediate, less passive than an older
generation’s. But some here said relations have improved in recent weeks.
Some of the national
leaders met with President Obama on Nov. 5 for a gathering that included a
conversation about Ferguson.
According
to the Rev. Al Sharpton, who has appeared frequently in St. Louis with the
Brown family and delivered a speech at Mr. Brown’s funeral, Mr. Obama
“was concerned about Ferguson staying on course in terms of pursuing what it
was that he knew we were advocating. He said he hopes that we’re doing all we can
to keep peace.”
In other words, even if Officer Darren
Wilson is found innocent, continue to act as if Ferguson is the hot bed of
racist cops shooting unarmed teens.
In a time when Obama should be calming
people about Ferguson, telling people to trust the justice system–a system
in which ironically he is “the man”–Obama is playing into the Civil Rights v2.o
narrative.
And their mantra is hypocritically,
“Stop killing us!”
Allow me to finish it: “Because we are
doing just great killing ourselves!”
If America has anything to overcome,
it’s Obama and the racist minions that are constantly stirring up trouble.
These people make far too much political hay stirring up the “ignorant,” low
information, as ObamaCare architect and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber noted
about the typical Liberal.
Racism is where the money is, and the Left profits
daily on such nonsense. So “Stay the course” means, keep the money in
racism and other Leftist nonsense flowing.
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2014/11/obama-tells-ferguson-protesters-stay-course/
Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2014/11/obama-tells-ferguson-protesters-stay-course/
This
Former FBI Official Just Betrayed Holder And Obama Without Holding Anything
Back
"It won’t be long before the American
people turn their..."
Ron
Hosko is a former assistant director of the Criminal Investigative Division
(CID) at FBI Headquarters in Washington — the culmination of a distinguished 30-year
career with the Bureau.
Hosko
is now president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, whose mission is to
protect law enforcement professionals by fighting for their legal rights.
The
fight that Ron Hosko has just taken on — and taken to the highest levels of the
federal government — is against his former boss. In a scathing letter written
to President Obama and obtained by investigative reporter Katie Pavlich at townhall.com, Hosko accuses Eric Holder of polluting
the Department of Justice with a highly politicized atmosphere and agenda.
Hosko
also charges Obama’s Attorney General with bringing a clear prejudice to his
office, promoting an aggressive antagonism toward the law enforcement
community.
As an
example of Holder’s divisive and dangerous antagonism, Hosko cites the racially
charged tensions in Ferguson, Missouri, where Holder personally injected
himself into the conflict and the controversy between protestors and police.
This puts our
communities at greater risk, especially the most vulnerable among us,” Hosko
wrote in the letter exclusively obtained by Townhall. “Your attorney general,
Eric Holder, is chief among the antagonists.
Hosko’s
lengthy letter to Obama also looks beyond Holder’s personal involvement in the
Ferguson conflict, according to the Pavlich
article:
“It won’t be
long before the American people turn their attention to other matters. Long
after Ferguson is forgotten, police officers across America will still remember
the way their senior federal executives turned their back on them with
oft-repeated suggestions that race-based policing drives a biased, broken law
enforcement agenda.”
While
this may be Hosko’s first time writing a letter to the president that’s highly
critical of Holder, it’s not his first public criticism of the outgoing
Attorney General. About a month-and-a-half ago, Hosko penned a biting opinion
piece for foxnews.com on Holder’s politicizing of the Ferguson
incident involving officer Darren Wilson:
What seems
abundantly clear is that the leadership Department of Justice is unconcerned
about Officer Darren Wilson’s legal fate, since it has already reached its own
conclusions about what happened that night in Ferguson.
Unfortunately,
politicization of what is supposed to be blind justice is hardly unusual in the
Obama administration.
Clearly,
this one-time top official at the FBI holds the Obama administration, and
particularly Eric Holder, in very low regard:
The Obama
administration is obviously turning its back on the brave men and women who put
their lives on the line every day to serve and protect our communities. Its
politicization of our nation’s justice system only makes it more difficult for
police to do jobs that are already dangerous and, too often, life-threatening
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-former-top-official-fbi-just-said-eric-holder-scathing-letter-obama/#VBubyvZPT5YTkaFP.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/heres-former-top-official-fbi-just-said-eric-holder-scathing-letter-obama/#VBubyvZPT5YTkaFP.99
The
Western Center.
Did you watch Barack Obama's press conference the afternoon after the election? Did you hear him say, on one hand, that he wants to work with Congress and THEN DEMAND that Congress either send an amnesty bill that is acceptable to him to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree?
It's clear that Barack Obama didn't get the message the that the American people just sent to Washington. It's clear that the self-proclaimed leader of the free world is behaving like a petulant child... sticking his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down and yelling loudly so he can't hear what the American people are trying to say to him... and it's clear that he will not change his ways.
Enough is enough. The American people are sick and tired of the childishness... the American people are sick and tired of the dictatorial delusions of godhood... the American people are sick and tired of the lawlessness... and, most of all, the American people are sick and tired of Barack Obama.
And so, it's time to send Congress an even stronger message. If Barack Obama moves forward with his dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT HIM IMPEACHED.
The American
Sent You A Clear Message On November 4, 2014 And It Wasn't: "Compromise
With Barack Obama" Or "Work With Barack Obama To Get Stuff
Done." ... The American People Sent You To Washington To Stop Barack
Obama... PERIOD!
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said it best: "How can you govern with a president that disobeys the Constitution? How can you govern with a president that is demonstrably lawless when he thinks he has to be?"
The answer to Rush's rhetorical question is, you can't!
And at some point, our elected officials will also have to come to the inescapable conclusion thatBARACK OBAMA IS THE PROBLEM. He will not "work with Congress to get things done" ... he will not "compromise" with Congress. With Barack Obama, it's either his way or the highway and if our elected officials choose the former, only then will the liberal media hallelujah choir proclaim that they're truly "compromising" and "working to get things done."
And we're not the only ones who have made that observation:
Erick Erickson with RedState observed: "As the reality of a Republican wave
became imminent... a dangerous narrative began to take hold among the
conservative talking heads on cable news and in the victory speeches of the
victorious Republicans. The narrative was that now that the Republicans have
control of both chambers of Congress, it is incumbent upon them to work with
Obama and the other Democrats in the service of 'getting things done' and
'fixing the broken system.'" Rush Limbaugh said: "The Republican Party was not elected to
fix a broken system or to make it work. The Republican Party was not elected to
compromise. The Republican Party was not elected to sit down and work together
with the Democrats. The Republican Party was not elected to slow down the speed
the country is headed to the cliff and go over it slowly." Conservative icon Gary Bauer stated: "Likewise Republicans shouldn't fall into
the trap of trying to resuscitate so-called comprehensive immigration reform.
... In the days ahead, there will be a lot of talk about compromise and
cooperation in Washington. Let President Obama make the first move by dropping
his plans for a mass executive amnesty." It's clear. The liberal media and the Washington elites are trying to spin the message that the American people just sent to Washington beyond human comprehension, but patriotic Americans, like you, have the power to fight this phony narrative and the time to stop Obama is now, before he irrevocably changes America.
Obama Gave The American People The Bird.
Senator Ted Cruz called it right when he said that "the
era of Obama lawlessness is over." Make no mistake, that's the message
that the American people sent to Washington and, if you agree, then you're not
alone.
Erickson again: "If voters really wanted people who would
work closely with Obama and other Democrats to 'get things done,' they would
have just voted for more Democrats. ... Say what you want about the information
level of the average voter, but absolutely no one was confused into thinking
that they were replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the hopes that the
Republican would be more friendly to the Democrat agenda."
Limbaugh essentially said the same thing: "If
they [the American people] wanted you to work with the Democrats, you wouldn't
have won. If they wanted the Republicans to work with the Democrats and to help
the Democrats accomplish more, they would have just elected the
Democrats."
Cruz went on to say: "It is incumbent on Republicans to stand
up and lead. ... You know, the fact that the people rose up and voted the
Democrats out of power doesn't necessarily mean they trust the Republicans.
They've given us another chance. But we've got to earn that trust, and the way
to earn that trust is to listen to the priorities of the people."
It's time for our elected officials to start earning some trust. Yes, impeachment is a bold move but Barack Obama is NOT afraid to be bold.
When he mounted the stage and proclaimed that Congress either send an acceptable amnesty bill to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, he wasn't pushing half-measures or painting with pale pastels.
Even liberal media personalities couldn't believe what they were hearing:
NBC's Chuck Todd said that said that Obama must know that he "is
going to know that if he does this, he is starting a political war..."
CNN's Candy Crowley: "If he makes a major move along the lines
of what we've been hearing... that would be like just popping a grenade and
throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor."
But The National Journal's Ron Fournier said it best, "After
this repudiation, acting on immigration by fiat would be the political
equivalent of literally flipping the country the bird."
Even liberals know that Obama is bold as brass. It's time for Republicans to be just as bold. The House of Representatives has the votes necessary to advance Articles of Impeachment and if Barack Obama views himself as a dictator, then it's time for Congress to show Mr. Obama what happens to dictators in the United States of America.
Erickson again: "If voters really wanted people who would
work closely with Obama and other Democrats to 'get things done,' they would
have just voted for more Democrats. ... Say what you want about the information
level of the average voter, but absolutely no one was confused into thinking
that they were replacing a Democrat with a Republican in the hopes that the
Republican would be more friendly to the Democrat agenda." Limbaugh essentially said the same thing: "If
they [the American people] wanted you to work with the Democrats, you wouldn't
have won. If they wanted the Republicans to work with the Democrats and to help
the Democrats accomplish more, they would have just elected the
Democrats." Cruz went on to say: "It is incumbent on Republicans to stand
up and lead. ... You know, the fact that the people rose up and voted the
Democrats out of power doesn't necessarily mean they trust the Republicans.
They've given us another chance. But we've got to earn that trust, and the way
to earn that trust is to listen to the priorities of the people." It's time for our elected officials to start earning some trust. Yes, impeachment is a bold move but Barack Obama is NOT afraid to be bold.
When he mounted the stage and proclaimed that Congress either send an acceptable amnesty bill to his desk, or he WILL issue a dictatorial and unconstitutional amnesty decree, he wasn't pushing half-measures or painting with pale pastels.
Even liberal media personalities couldn't believe what they were hearing:
NBC's Chuck Todd said that said that Obama must know that he "is
going to know that if he does this, he is starting a political war..." CNN's Candy Crowley: "If he makes a major move along the lines
of what we've been hearing... that would be like just popping a grenade and
throwing it in the middle of the Senate floor." But The National Journal's Ron Fournier said it best, "After
this repudiation, acting on immigration by fiat would be the political
equivalent of literally flipping the country the bird." Even liberals know that Obama is bold as brass. It's time for Republicans to be just as bold. The House of Representatives has the votes necessary to advance Articles of Impeachment and if Barack Obama views himself as a dictator, then it's time for Congress to show Mr. Obama what happens to dictators in the United States of America.
Dispelling
The Media Myth That Impeachment Will Hurt Republicans...
The media has done an outstanding job of rewriting history and advancing the false narrative that impeaching Barack Obama will somehow hurt Republicans, so much so that even some conservatives believe it.
And if you believe the media narrative, then ask President Al Gore whether or not he believes that the impeachment of Bill Clinton kept him out of the White House. The historical record is very clear.
The liberal paper of record, The New York Times wrote: "Mr.
Gore confronted Mr. Clinton in the Oval Office after Mr. Gore ran for president
in 2000... In the course of a brutal one-hour exchange, aides to both men said,
Mr. Gore blamed Mr. Clinton for his loss — suggesting that he had been dragged
down by the burden of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment proceedings." Back in 1999, the Chicago Tribune wrote: "President
Clinton conceded Thursday that his impeachment scandal may hurt Vice
President Al Gore's election hopes, acknowledging that 'a lot of people who may
not like me may hold it against him.'" Back in 2001, The Telegraph wrote: "The
two, whose relationship has been very difficult since the Lewinsky affair and
the impeachment that followed it, had their showdown alone inside the White
House and it lasted for more than an hour... Another source who knows both told
the Washington Post that the tone of the conversation was 'very, very blunt.' The
newspaper said that while the former vice-president's friends called the
meeting 'very constructive,' the Clinton side saw it as a much angrier event in
which Mr. Gore laid bare a simmering resentment of his former boss." Don't be fooled, the media narrative that impeachment hurts Republicans only gained a firm footing when the Pretender-in-Chief took the oath of office.
And when it comes to the theory that the impeachment of Bill Clinton hurt Republicans in Congress; another fact that is often ignored by the media is that even though Republicans lost a handful of seats in Congress, they actually maintained majority control in both House of Congress once the dust settled from the 2000 election.
But what is even more historic is that one year after impeaching Bill Clinton, Republicans gained control of the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate and the White House for the first time since Herbert Hoover occupied the Oval Office (until RINO Senator Jim Jeffords switched parties 5 months later and gave the Democrats marginal control of the Senate).
So exactly how did impeaching Bill Clinton hurt Republicans? ... But dispelling false narratives aside, there is another reason why impeachment needs to be on the table:
Barack Obama's ego is tremendous. He does not want to go down in history as one of three presidents ever impeached in the United States of America. Obama fears impeachment and if Congress sends him the message that he is subject to impeachment then he will either behave or he will be gone.
Floyd
Brown
Un curioso texto de
Bakunin.c. Clemente Sanchez
Vale la pena que leas del propio Bakunin, el texto que sigue, y
que ayuda a separar la cizaña del trigo. Lo mismo Solyenitzin un
siglo más tarde, exterioriza conceptos similares que inscribe en el prólogo de
una de sus obras: “la
Revolución Rusa es una revolución hecha en Rusia pero quienes la llevaron a
cabo no eran rusos”.
Leé
detenidamente:
Mijaíl Alexándrovich Bakunin (30 de mayo de 1814 - 1 de julio de 1876) fue un anarquista ruso
contemporáneo de Karl Marx. Es posiblemente el más conocido de la primera
generación de filósofos anarquistas y está considerado uno de los padres de
este pensamiento, dentro del cual defendió la tesis colectivista. Además,
perteneció a la francmasonería con la intención de inclinarla hacia postulados
anarquistas.
"Marx
es un judío y está rodeado por una pandilla de pequeños, medianamente
inteligentes, astutos, ágiles y especuladores judíos así como los judíos lo son
en todas partes agentes bancarios y comerciantes, escritores, políticos,
corresponsales de periódicos de todas las tendencias políticas; en pocas
palabras, corredores literarios así como son corredores de la Bolsa, con un pie
en la Banca y el otro en el movimiento socialista, y con sus traseros sobre la
prensa alemana. Se han apoderado de todos los periódicos y ya se pueden
imaginar la nauseabunda literatura que producen.
Ahora, todo este mundo Judío, que constituye una secta explotadora, un pueblo de sanguijuelas, un parásito voraz, cercanos e íntimamente conectados el uno con el otro, sin importar no sólo las fronteras sino tampoco las diferencias políticas. Este mundo Judío está hoy a disposición de Marx o de Rothschild. Estoy seguro que, por un lado, los Rothschild aprecian los méritos de Marx y por el otro lado, Marx siente una inclinación instintiva y un Gran respeto por los Rothschild. Esto puede parecer extraño. ¿Que podrían tener en común el comunismo y la Alta Finanza? ¡oh, oh! El comunismo de Marx busca un fuerte Estado centralizado, y donde ello exista debe, inevitablemente, existir un Banco Central estatal, y dónde esto exista allí la parasitaria Nación Judía -que especula con el trabajo del pueblo- encontrará el medio para su propia existencia...
En realidad esto significaría para el proletariado un régimen de cuartel, bajo el cual los trabajadores y trabajadoras -convertidos en una masa
Ahora, todo este mundo Judío, que constituye una secta explotadora, un pueblo de sanguijuelas, un parásito voraz, cercanos e íntimamente conectados el uno con el otro, sin importar no sólo las fronteras sino tampoco las diferencias políticas. Este mundo Judío está hoy a disposición de Marx o de Rothschild. Estoy seguro que, por un lado, los Rothschild aprecian los méritos de Marx y por el otro lado, Marx siente una inclinación instintiva y un Gran respeto por los Rothschild. Esto puede parecer extraño. ¿Que podrían tener en común el comunismo y la Alta Finanza? ¡oh, oh! El comunismo de Marx busca un fuerte Estado centralizado, y donde ello exista debe, inevitablemente, existir un Banco Central estatal, y dónde esto exista allí la parasitaria Nación Judía -que especula con el trabajo del pueblo- encontrará el medio para su propia existencia...
En realidad esto significaría para el proletariado un régimen de cuartel, bajo el cual los trabajadores y trabajadoras -convertidos en una masa
uniforme-
se levantarían, irían a dormir, trabajarían y vivirían al compás de un tambor;
el privilegio de conducir quedaría en las manos de los
técnicos
y educados, con un amplio campo para negociados provechosos realizados por los
judíos, que serían atraídos por la enorme extensión de las especulaciones
internacionales de los bancos nacionales...”
(Polámique contre les Juifs, Paris, 1872).
(Polámique contre les Juifs, Paris, 1872).
Asombrosa
ingenuidad.
Es increíble
como alguna gente que parece inteligente y que ha tenido acceso a una educación
de cierta calidad, puede caer en tan elemental trampa, esa que muestra una
candidez serial solo admisible en la niñez.
El éxito, en los negocios, en la vida personal, en la actividad política o
inclusive en las relaciones interpersonales, nunca es el producto de meros
golpes de suerte, sucesos impensados u ocasionales actos espasmódicos.
Ese camino jamás es lineal. Está repleto de obstáculos, de infinitos desvíos y
momentos especiales en los que se requiere detenerse y a veces hasta retroceder
para luego recién desde allí seguir avanzando.
Cuando se observa un efectivo cambio en el rumbo de las decisiones políticas de
un territorio que se encamina con mayor determinación hacia un futuro mejor,
eso no ha ocurrido por obra de la casualidad, de un habilidoso truco de magia o
de un guiño del destino.
La inmensa mayoría de las veces, esas transformaciones que tanto se anhelan,
son la consecuencia inevitable de una combinación de situaciones particulares,
de acciones prácticas y detonantes generados por la coyuntura. Nada ocurre
porque sí, por un simple accidente o por azar.
Es difícil comprender la conducta de algunos individuos que siendo astutos,
capaces y hasta exitosos en sus círculos profesionales, suponen que en el campo
de la política y de los espacios sociales, el progreso puede alcanzarse de la
mano del eterno voluntarismo.
Es incomprensible esa actitud de quienes tienen plena conciencia de lo mucho
que les ha costado estar allí donde están y llegar hasta ese meritorio lugar
que ocupan. Muchos de ellos le han dedicado miles de horas a estudiar para
conseguir cierto status académico. Otros han trabajado en diferentes lugares, a
veces en condiciones casi indignas, con un ahínco desproporcionado y haciendo
un enorme sacrificio para desarrollarse.
Algunos llegaron aunque no todos. Sin embargo, todos aprendieron la lección.
Ahora saben que el recorrido es muy complejo y que la perseverancia es vital
para conseguir cualquier meta propuesta.
Bajo estas reglas y en ese contexto, es inadmisible que un ser humano que sabe
del valor del esmero y que conoce por experiencia propia, que la constancia es
un atributo esencial, pueda creer tan inocentemente que en la vida ciudadana se
pueden obtener evoluciones importantes solo con ganas.
Si en lo personal, si en la existencia propia, eso se torna muy difícil, a
veces casi imposible, mucho más aun es lograr esas mejoras en una sociedad. Es
importante comprender la naturaleza del problema. Cuando eso no se logra,
sucede lo ya conocido, con individuos haciendo demasiado sin conquistar los
resultados esperados, dedicando energías a lo inconducente.
Existe un agravante que preocupa también. Cada batalla perdida, cada maniobra fallida,
solo consigue instalar en el ambiente una gran desazón, una frustración que
carcome las fuerzas de cara al próximo intento. Cuando triunfa la resignación
sobreviene lo peor, el acostumbramiento a la situación actual, el conformismo
interminable y con él, la más absoluta decadencia.
Cambiar la realidad no es un objetivo imposible, pero se requiere tomar la
iniciativa e imprimirle una impronta diferente. Para ganarle a la mediocridad,
resulta fundamental entender lo más básico de la partitura.
Es allí donde aparecen los mayores problemas. En la comprensión de este
fenómeno social. No se puede pretender caminar en el aire creyendo que la ley
de gravedad no hará su parte. Ningún esfuerzo puesto al servicio de hacer lo
inadecuado generará algún resultado favorable.
Comprender esta dinámica es solo una parte del asunto. La otra es entender que
para avanzar en positivo se precisan consensuar una nómina de mínimos acuerdos
con los otros, con los que piensan diferente.
La tarea es construir sobre aspectos comunes, encontrar esa masa crítica para
conseguir desde allí una fortaleza estructural que logre que esas voces tengan
trascendencia y se puedan multiplicar, aunque no necesariamente sean la mayoría
numérica, pero sí que tengan una significación relevante.
Si realmente se quiere protagonizar el cambio, si se pretende lograr
transformaciones en el rumbo de los acontecimientos, primero habrá que entender
los mecanismos bajo los cuales funciona la sociedad. Desde esa acabada
comprensión de la dinámica, se puede iniciar una labor ininterrumpida que
tendrá un norte definido, pero no un plazo predecible.
En materia de comportamientos sociales no existen demasiadas certezas. No se
trata de una ciencia exacta. Pero no menos cierto es que haciendo lo correcto,
eligiendo las estrategias convenientes y utilizando las tácticas oportunas con
el debido criterio, se puede avanzar en el sentido apropiado.
Si se quiere realmente cambiar el estado de situación habrá que hacer mucho más
que unos pocos esfuerzos aislados. Suponer que una movilización ciudadana, una
denuncia judicial o un ciclo televisivo de carácter crítico, es suficiente para
lograr un objetivo de real transformación es no entender absolutamente nada y
denota una asombrosa ingenuidad.
Alberto Medina
Méndez.
albertomedinamendez@gmail.com
Breaking:
Obama Directly Implicated In Obamacare Scandal By 39 Second Video
"And Obama was like...I can't just do this..."
You’ve
no doubt heard the phrase “preponderance of the evidence” with regard to civil
lawsuits taken to trial. Keeping that phrase in mind…
With
regard to the rapidly developing case involving ObamaCare architect Jonathan
Gruber, the trickery and deception surrounding the design and passage
of the health care law, and the Obama administration’s complicity in what
appears to have been serious and concerted efforts to fool the American public,
the preponderance of the evidence is pointing to the direct involvement of the
President of the United States in a purposeful fraud.
With
yet another Gruber video now front and center in what is quickly becoming a
scandal — and with this latest video put into context with previous revelations made by the MIT economist and
ObamaCare consultant — it will likely be increasingly hard for the White House
to steer clear of the exploding controversy.
Thanks
to an investigative report at thegatewaypundit.com, we learn that Jonathan Gruber —
widely acknowledged to have played a key role in helping to develop the
Democrat-driven bill that became ObamaCare — attended a significant White House
meeting at which President Obama was present.
The
article cites a “smoking gun” transcript of a “Frontline” interview from PBS in
which Gruber confirms that Obama was in the room and fully engaged in the
discussion when the important “Cadillac tax” deception was crafted.
Via thegatewaypundit.com, here are selected excerpts from
Jonathan Gruber’s June 2012 TV interview for the PBS program — note that Gruber
says Obama was present, engaged, and “very interested” in how to fool the
Congressional Budget Office whose blessing the bill badly needed:
“So
we had a meeting in the Oval Office with several experts, including myself, on
what can we do to get credible savings on cost control that the Congressional
Budget Office would recognize and score as savings in this law.
And
that was a meeting — it was very exciting, once again, because the economists
in the room all said the number one thing you need to do is you need to take on
the tax subsidy to employer-sponsored insurance.
Now,
the problem is, it’s a political nightmare, … and people say, “No, you can’t
tax my benefits.” So what we did a lot in that room was talk about, well, how
could we make this work?
And Obama was like, “Well, you know” —
I mean, he is really a realistic guy. He is like, “Look, I can’t just do this.”
He said: “It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass.
How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?” And we talked
about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.”
Recognizing
that the incriminating Gruber videos — being surfaced now one after another in
rapid succession — are actually starting to get critical attention in the mainstream media, the Obama White House is trying to distance itself from the talkative ObamaCare
architect.
But
Official White House visitor logs make that distancing effort difficult, as the Daily Caller points out:
President
Obama personally crafted a major ObamaCare deception with Jonathan Gruber at one
of Gruber’s numerous White House meetings.
Gruber
attended five of the 12 White House meetings with top experts to design
Obamacare in 2009, according to a 2011 transcript of an MSNBC program that
Gruber appeared on.
Given
the “preponderance of the evidence” thus far — and the distinct prospect that
even more incriminating Gruber videos will surface — it will likely be
increasingly difficult for the Obama White House to credibly claim that the
president’s signature legislative accomplishment was passed with any semblance
of true transparency or integrity.
You
can watch a key part of the Jonathan Gruber “Frontline” interview by clicking
on the video above.
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obama-now-directly-implicated-in-obamacare-deception-scheme-in-another-gruber-video/#0I1wtRlUKeCUCzeV.99
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/breaking-obama-now-directly-implicated-in-obamacare-deception-scheme-in-another-gruber-video/#0I1wtRlUKeCUCzeV.99
Michelle Obama Sends Desperate Email Expressing Fear Of Impeachment
October 2, 2014
1:21pm PST
The Obamas are
becoming more and more desperate as they live in daily fear of impeachment.
Today, Michelle sent a pathetic email to one of her minions in which she begs
him for help.
The leaked email
has the subject line “I really need you,” and it only gets more sad from
there…
Sorry, Michelle,
but not even Drew can help you or your idiot husband now…
What do you think
of this email? Let us know in the comments below!
H/T: Weaselzipper
Gustavo
Rojas: Cuando
pueda regresar a Cuba, me gustaria.......
|
Urgent Survey on Obama, Amnesty, and Impeachment
POLL: Is Obama's Amnesty an Impeachable Offense?
Dear Conservative:
Please participate in
this urgent poll on President Obama’s plan grant Executive Amnesty to an
estimated 6 million immigrants who have entered our country illegally.
Is Obama’s Executive Amnesty an Impeachable Offense?
If President Obama
makes good on his threat to grant Executive Amnesty to 6 million immigrants who
entered our country illegally, how should Congress respond?
>>>Click Here to Participate in
this Urgent National Survey
After you complete the survey, there's an option to donate to a public information campaign to BLOCK AMNESTY.
After you complete the survey, there's an option to donate to a public information campaign to BLOCK AMNESTY.
“FREEDOM IS NOT FREE”
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment