No 881 “En mi
opinión” Marzo
3, 2015
“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño EDITOR
Enero 20, 2017 FIN DEL DISPARATE
AMENPER: Obama Dispuesto a terminar con el
Enemigo
El problema es que el enemigo es nuestro
único amigo en el Medio Oriente
El Drudge Report es un sitio de agregación
de noticias estadounidense. Dirigido por Matt Drudge. Agregación quiere decir
que no editorializa, simplemente reporta noticias de otros medios y enlaces de
diferentes columnista otras veces de reportes confidenciales, pero nunca expone
su opinión
El Drudge Report se originó en 1996 como
un despacho semanal de correo electrónico basado en las opiniones de otros y
noticias, fue la primera fuente de noticias para romper el escándalo de Monica
Lewinsky al público, después de Newsweek decidió no publicar la historia.
Ahí está el detalle como decía Cantinflas,
no opina pero tampoco oculta una noticia, la reporta sin importarle las
consecuencias y esto puede ser muy maalo para algunos, sobre todo para esta
administración.
Entonces ¿Por qué Obama y sus acólitos
acusan al Drudge Report como una agencia conservadora? Bueno si es porque
conserva la verdad, bueno entonces Drudge es culpable.
Esta noticia
salió recientemente el at Drudge Report, ya había sido reportada por otros, pero
la seriedad y la reputación de Drudge le da más veracidad, por esto Obama está
bastante molesto con el Drudge Report.
Obama Amenazó a Derribar aviones de la
Fuerza Aérea de Israel si atacaban a Irán.
La Agencia de noticias con sede en
Bethlehem Ma'an ha citado un informe periódico kuwaití , que Estados Unidos
Presidente Barack Obama frustró un ataque militar israelí contra las
instalaciones nucleares de Irán en el 2014 con la amenaza de derribar aviones
israelíes antes de que podrían alcanzar sus objetivos en Irán. Tras amenaza de
Obama, el primer ministro Benjamín Netanyahu presuntamente fue obligado a
abortar el ataque de Irán.
Según Al-Jarida, el gobierno de Netanyahu
tomó la decisión de atacar Irán algunas vez en 2014 pronto después de que
Israel había descubierto los Estados Unidos e Irán habían estado involucrado en
conversaciones secretas sobre el programa nuclear de Irán y estaban a punto de
firmar un acuerdo en ese sentido a espaldas de Israel.
El informe afirma que un ministro israelí
sin mencionar que tiene buenas relaciones con la administración estadounidense
reveló el plan de ataque de Israel al Secretario de estado John Kerry, y que
Obama entonces amenazó con derribar los aviones israelíes antes de que podrían
alcanzar sus objetivos en Irán.
Al-Jarida citó fuentes "bien
informadas" como diciendo que Netanyahu, junto con el Ministro de defensa
Moshe Yaalon y entonces-Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores Avigdor Liberman, había
decidido llevar a cabo ataques aéreos contra el programa nuclear de Irán después
de consultas con los comandantes de máxima seguridad.
Según el informe, "Netanyahu y sus
comandantes de acuerdo después de cuatro noches de deliberaciones a la tarea
jefe de gabinete del ejército israelí, Benny Gantz, para preparar una operación
cualitativa contra el programa nuclear de Irán. Además, Netanyahu y sus
Ministros decidieron hacer lo que ellos consideraran necesario para frustrar un
posible acuerdo entre Irán y la casa blanca porque tal acuerdo es,
supuestamente, una amenaza para la seguridad de Israel."
Las fuentes añadió que Gantz y sus
comandantes elaboraron el plan solicitado y que aviones de combate israelíes
entrenado durante varias semanas con el fin de asegurarse de que los planes
funcionaría correctamente. Aviones de combate israelíes al parecer incluso
llevaron a cabo vuelos experimentales en el espacio aéreo de Irán después de
que lograron romper a través de radares.
Derribar aviones Isralíes fue Idea de
Brzezinski. El ex diplomático Zbigniew Brzezinski, quien apoyó con
entusiasmo en su campaña a Obama en 2008, le pidió que derribara aviones
israelíes si atacan a Irán. "Tienen que sobrevolar el espacio aéreo en
Irak. ¿Vamos a sentarnos allí y dejarlos?", dijo el asesor de seguridad
nacional anterior al ex Presidente Jimmy Carter en una entrevista con el Daily
Beast.
"Tenemos que ser serios acerca de
negarles ese derecho", dijo. "Si vuelan sobre Iraq, tenemos que subir
y enfrentarlos. Tienen la opción de seguir o no. Nadie desearía esto, pero
podría ser una 'libertad' al revés.
Israel atacó por error el buque
estadounidense “Libertad” durante la guerra de seis días en 1967.
Brzezinski era un candidato superior para
convertirse en asesor oficial de Presidente Obama, pero él fue degradado tras
cargos democráticos republicanos, favorable a Israel durante la campaña porque
la actitud antiisraelí de Brzezinski dañaría a Obama en las encuestas.
Esto sin lugar
a dudas sucedió, viene de diferentes fuentes serias. La situación es
similar, si yo fuera Bibi, claro que estaría preocupado, claro que tendría que
hablar claro. Como dijo hoy en televisión, su problema no es temor a un ataque
terrorista, su temor es que destruyan a su nación en un día.
Amenper: Casa blanca ofrece
refutación al discurso de Netanyahu antes de que se produzca.
Clarividente en la casa blanca da al
presidente texto del discurso.
Obama ofrecerá 'réplica' al discurso de Bibi al Congreso para 'refutar' las
reivindicaciones que Irán plantea una amenaza significativa a Israel.
Nuestro querido líder 'reiteró" que su declaración es una
réplica a las voces de falsa propaganda que deben de ser “rechazadas"
Nuevas revelaciones indican que Obama El Magno ofrecerá esta 'refutación' a
Netanyahu porque temía que Bibi pueda revelar el hecho de que nuestro glorioso
líder amenazó con derribar aviones israelíes si este lanzara un
ataque contra las instalaciones nucleares de Irán como se publicó en las
noticias del Drudge Report
Consideramos que nuestro glorioso líder tiene una muy buena razón para usar
su asesor clarividente en este caso. No queremos que nuestros hermanos y
hermanas en la comunidad liberal puedan perder la fe y las esperanzas de
cambio, por sobre la este pequeño pedazo de la tierra que conocemos
como Israel.
Como un avance, tan solo cuatro días antes del discurso del primer ministro
Benjamin Netanyahu en una reunión conjunta del Congreso, la administración
Obama buscó el viernes refutar la crítica que se espera del líder
israelí, argumentando que Netanyahu no ha podido presentar una alternativa
viable a las propuestas estadounidenses para restringir el programa nuclear de
Irán. Que Bibi debe de esperar a que lo ataquen antes de atacar.
En una reunión informativa para periodistas, funcionarios de la
administración sostenían que incluso un acuerdo de buena fe, con la palabra de
honor de los mandatarios de Irán pudiera mantener los esfuerzos nucleares de
Irán controlados durante un período de tiempo.
Esto es preferible a una ruptura de las conversaciones. Podemos
esperar a que Irán produzca la bomba y ataque a Israel, para poder negociar
mejor con pruebas evidentes.
La pregunta planteada por nuestro glorioso líder sigue siendo: ¿Debe un
país como los Estados Unidos sancionar a los productores de unas cuantas armas
de destrucción de material fisionable en una inocente fábrica de material
nuclear privado en aras de su autopreservación? ¿O es mejor esperar para
mantener nuestra amistad con una nación del mundo?
Amenper: Threatened to Shoot Down Israel Air Force if tries to Strike Iran.
Kuwaiti
paper claims unnamed Israeli minister with good ties with the US administration
'revealed the attack plan to John Kerry.'
The Bethlehem-based news
agency Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US
President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran's
nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before
they could reach their targets in Iran.
Following Obama's threat,
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned
Iran attack.
According to Al-Jarida, the
Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon
after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in
secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in
that regard behind Israel's back.
The report claimed that an
unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed
the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then
threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets
in Iran.
Al-Jarida quoted
"well-placed" sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister
of Defense Moshe Yaalon, and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had
decided to carry out airstrikes against Iran's nuclear program after consultations
with top security commanders.
According to the report,
“Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task
the Israeli army's chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative
operation against Iran's nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his
ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement
between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a
threat to Israel's security.”
The sources added that Gantz
and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets
trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work
successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental
flights in Iran's airspace after they managed to break through radars.
Brzezinski's idea. Former US
diplomat Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for Obama in
2008, called on him to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They
have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and
watch?” said the former national security advisor to former President Jimmy
Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast.
“We have to be serious about
denying them that right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them.
They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it
could be a 'Liberty' in reverse.’"Israel mistakenly attacked the American
Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967.
Brzezinski was a top candidate
to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after
Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that
Brzezinski’s anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls.
En Español:
Obama
amenazó con disparar hacia abajo de la Fuerza Aérea de Israel si intenta atacar
a Irán.
Periodico
kuwaití afirma ministro israelí no identificado con buenas relaciones con el
gobierno de Estados Unidos 'reveló el plan de ataque a John Kerry. "
La
agencia de noticias con sede en Belén Ma'an ha citado un informe periódico
kuwaití sábado que el presidente estadounidense Barack Obama frustró un ataque
militar israelí contra las instalaciones nucleares de Irán en 2014, amenazando
con derribar aviones israelíes antes de que pudieran llegar a sus objetivos en
Irán.
Tras la
amenaza de Obama, el primer ministro Benyamin Netanyahu habría sido obligado a
abortar el ataque a Irán planeado.
Según
Al-Jarida, el gobierno de Netanyahu tomó la decisión de atacar a Irán algún
tiempo en 2014 poco después de que Israel había descubierto los Estados Unidos
e Irán había participado en conversaciones secretas sobre el programa nuclear
de Irán y estaban a punto de firmar un acuerdo en ese sentido detrás espalda de
Israel.
El
informe afirma que un ministro israelí sin nombre que tiene buenas relaciones
con el gobierno de Estados Unidos reveló el plan de ataque a la secretaria de
Estado estadounidense, John Kerry, y que Obama amenazó con derribar los aviones
israelíes antes de que pudieran llegar a sus objetivos en Irán.
Al-Jarida
citó a fuentes "bien colocados" como diciendo que Netanyahu, junto
con el ministro de Defensa Moshe Yaalon, y el entonces ministro de Relaciones
Exteriores, Avigdor Liberman, había decidido llevar a cabo ataques aéreos
contra el programa nuclear de Irán después de consultas con los altos mandos de
seguridad.
Según el
informe, "Netanyahu y sus comandantes acordaron después de cuatro noches
de deliberaciones a la tarea jefe del ejército israelí de personal, Benny
Gantz, para preparar una operación cualitativa contra el programa nuclear de
Irán. Además, Netanyahu y sus ministros decidieron hacer lo que podían hacer
para frustrar un posible acuerdo entre Irán y la Casa Blanca, ya que un acuerdo
de este tipo es, supuestamente, una amenaza para la seguridad de Israel. "
Las
fuentes agregaron que Gantz y sus comandantes prepararon el plan solicitado y
que los aviones de combate israelíes entrenados durante varias semanas con el
fin de asegurarse de que los planes funcionarían correctamente. Aviones de
combate israelíes según se informa incluso realizan vuelos experimentales en el
espacio aéreo de Irán después de que lograron romper los radares.
Idea de
Brzezinski. El ex diplomático estadounidense Zbigniew Brzezinski, quien con
entusiasmo hizo campaña por Obama en 2008, pidió a él para derribar aviones
israelíes si atacan a Irán. "Ellos tienen que sobrevolar nuestro espacio
aéreo en Irak. ¿Vamos a sentarse allí y ver? ", Dijo el ex asesor de
seguridad nacional del ex presidente Jimmy Carter en una entrevista con el
Daily Beast.
"Tenemos
que ser serios en negarles ese derecho", dijo. "Si ellos vuelan
sobre, se sube y enfrentarse a ellas. Ellos tienen la opción de volver atrás o
no. Nadie desea para esto, pero podría ser un 'Liberty' al revés '.
"Israel atacó por error el barco American Liberty durante la Guerra de los
Seis Días en 1967.
Brzezinski
era un de los principales candidatos a convertirse en un asesor oficial para el
presidente Obama, pero él fue degradado después de republicanos y demócratas
cargos a favor de Israel durante la campaña que la actitud anti-Israel de
Brzezinski dañaría Obama en las urnas.
Obama Threatened
To Shoot Down Israeli Jets
This is certainly ridiculous. Obama
fighting against Israel would certainly bring about a civil war in our country.
Check it out:
Check it out:
The Bethlehem-based news agency
Ma’an has cited a Kuwaiti newspaper report Saturday, that US President Barack
Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in
2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their
targets in Iran.
Following Obama’s threat, Prime
Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly forced to abort the planned Iran
attack.
According to Al-Jarida, the
Netanyahu government took the decision to strike Iran some time in 2014 soon
after Israel had discovered the United States and Iran had been involved in
secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in
that regard behind Israel’s back.
The report claimed that an
unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed
the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then
threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets
in Iran.
Al-Jarida quoted “well-placed”
sources as saying that Netanyahu, along with Minister of Defense Moshe Yaalon,
and then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman, had decided to carry out airstrikes
against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with top security
commanders.
Continue Reading on www.israelnationalnews.com ...
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/obama-threatened-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets/
Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/03/obama-threatened-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets/
On
The Eve Of Netanyahu’s Speech, A Shocking Report About An Obama Threat To
Israel
Numerous reports claim Obama was ready to give the order...
Despite reports by a number of Middle East news
agencies, including the Israeli news source Arutz Sheva, the White House denies that President Obama threatened to deploy the U.S. military to shoot down
Israeli warplanes last year.
A Kuwaiti newspaper on Saturday said that Obama
was ready to give the order to shoot down Israeli jets if they had been
sent to attack nuclear facilities in Iran. Reportedly, such an attack was
imminent after Israel discovered that Iran and the United States were engaged
in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and the nation’s suspected intent
to develop nuclear weapons that could be used against Israel.
According to the Arutz Sheva article,
“Following Obama’s threat, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was reportedly
forced to abort the planned Iran attack.”
The emergence and swift distribution of these
reports became yet another headache for the White House only hours before Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before a joint session of
Congress.
The Washington Times says that administration
officials late Sunday called the reports of Obama’s shoot-down threat “totally
false.” The National Security Council sent out an eleventh-hour tweet denying
there was ever such a threat.
Appearing on ABC’s This Week program, Secretary
of State John Kerry didn’t address the latest controversy directly; but,
according to the Washington Times, he did attempt to downplay reports of a
widening rift between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the
Israeli leader’s Capitol Hill speech on Tuesday.
In fact, Kerry went so far as to claim that
Israel is safer today thanks to the Obama administration’s progress on a
nuclear deal with Iran — a deal that many Republicans argue is far too
lenient and forgiving of Iran’s intent to develop nuclear weapons.
The Washington Times reported, “’Israel is
safer today, and that is the standard that we will apply to any agreement going
forward. It is to guarantee that we will know that Iran cannot develop a
nuclear weapon under the procedure that we’re putting in place,’ Mr. Kerry said
on This Week.”
As for the genesis of the flurry of reports
claiming President Obama was threatening to shoot down Israeli jets if they had
set their sights on Iranian targets in 2014, the Washington Times noted what
Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had maintained.
“They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq.
Are we just going to sit there and watch?” the Carter administration national
security adviser said in a 2008 interview with the Daily Beast.
“We have to be serious about denying them that
right,” he said. “If they fly over, you go up and confront them.
Versión al español de google tránsate.
En la víspera del discurso de Netanyahu, Un impactante
Informe Sobre Una Obama amenaza para Israel
Numerosos informes afirman que Obama estaba listo para
dar la orden ...
NORVELL ROSE -
A pesar de los informes de varias
agencias de noticias de Medio Oriente, incluyendo la fuente de noticias israelí
Arutz Sheva, la Casa Blanca niega que el presidente
Obama amenazó con desplegar el ejército estadounidense para derribar aviones
israelíes el año pasado.
Un periódico kuwaití el sábado,
dijo que Obama estaba listo para dar la orden de derribar aviones israelíes si
hubieran sido enviados a atacar las instalaciones nucleares de Irán. Según se
informa, este tipo de ataque era inminente después de que Israel descubrió que
Irán y Estados Unidos estaban comprometidos en conversaciones secretas sobre el
programa nuclear de Irán y la sospecha de la intención de la nación para
desarrollar armas nucleares que podrían ser utilizadas contra Israel.
Según el artículo de Arutz Sheva,
"Tras la amenaza de Obama, el primer ministro Binyamin Netanyahu habría
sido obligada a abortar el ataque a Irán planeado."
Publicidad en el contenido continúa
más abajo
La aparición y la rápida
distribución de estos informes se convirtieron en un nuevo dolor de cabeza para
la Casa Blanca sólo horas antes del discurso programado del primer ministro
israelí, Benjamin Netanyahu, ante una sesión conjunta del Congreso.
The Washington Times dice que
funcionarios del gobierno de la noche del domingo llamó a los informes de
amenaza derribo de Obama "totalmente falso". El Consejo de Seguridad
Nacional envió un tuit a última hora negando alguna vez hubo tal amenaza.
Screen shot 02/03/2015 al 11/15/56
AM
Publicidad en el contenido continúa
más abajo
Al aparecer en el programa This
Week de la cadena ABC, el secretario de Estado John Kerry no se refirió a la
última controversia directamente; pero, según el Washington Times, que él trató
de restar importancia a los informes de un distanciamiento cada vez mayor entre
el presidente Obama y el primer ministro Netanyahu sobre el Capitolio el discurso
del líder israelí el martes.
De hecho, Kerry fue tan lejos como
para afirmar que Israel es más seguro hoy gracias a los avances de la
administración Obama en un acuerdo nuclear con Irán - un acuerdo que muchos
republicanos argumentan es demasiado indulgentes y perdonar de la intención de
Irán de desarrollar armas nucleares.
El Washington Times informó:
"Israel es más seguro hoy en día, y que es el estándar que aplicaremos a
cualquier acuerdo futuro. Es para garantizar que vamos a saber que Irán no
puede desarrollar un arma nuclear bajo el procedimiento que estamos poniendo en
marcha ", dijo Kerry en esta semana".
En cuanto a la génesis de la serie
de informes que afirman el presidente Obama estaba amenazando con derribar
aviones israelíes si habían puesto sus ojos en blancos iraníes en 2014, el
Washington Times señaló lo de Jimmy Carter asesor de Seguridad Nacional
Zbigniew Brzezinski había mantenido.
"Ellos tienen que sobrevolar
nuestro espacio aéreo en Irak. ¿Vamos a sentarse allí y ver? ", Dijo el
asesor de seguridad nacional de la administración Carter en una entrevista de
2008 con el Daily Beast.
"Tenemos que ser serios en
negarles ese derecho", dijo. "Si ellos vuelan sobre, se sube y
enfrentarse a ellas.
h / t: The Washington Times
Obtenga más información en http://www.westernjournalism.com/on-the-eve-of-netanyahus-speech-a-shocking-report-about-an-obama-threat-to-israel/#uW0w8COgc7a0Wy47.99
ISRAEL'S ENEMIES IN AMERICA AND RUSSIA
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visits
Washington and speaks to Congress, bypassing the Obama administration, the
stakes could not be higher. But President Obama is not the only, and certainly
not the most significant, opponent of Israel. The important new book, “The USA and The New World Order,” features a debate in which one of
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s key advisers, Alexander Dugin, criticizes
Israel’s “imperialist” role in the Middle East and America’s role in the world
as a whole.
A careful reading of this important debate, which
occurred in 2011 and has recently been published in book form, demonstrates
that it is Russia, which is the main threat to Israel and the United States.
Dugin’s debate opponent, the anti-communist Brazilian
writer and philosopher Olavo de Carvalho, sees Dugin as the brains behind
Putin’s geopolitical strategy that embraces “genocidal violence.” He notes that
Dugin has “advocated the systematic killing of Ukrainians—a people who,
according to him, do not belong to the human species.”
As for Israel, the debate transcript shows that Dugin
regards the Jewish state as “a modern capitalist and Atlantist entity and an
ally of American imperialism.” This is a rather straightforward view of how the
Moscow regime views Israel today, and why it backs the government of Iran with
weapons, nuclear technology, and diplomatic support.
The term “Atlantist” or “Atlanticist” is meant to
refer to trans-Atlantic cooperation between Europe, the United States and
Canada in defense and other areas.
Iran is a key part of the anti-American alliance.
Dugin has explained in the article, “Eurasianism,
Iran, and Russia’s Foreign Policy,” that a “strategic alliance” exists
between Iran and Russia, and Russia “will not cease its efforts to reduce
sanctions against Iran” over its support for terrorism and pursuit of nuclear
weapons.
In the debate with de Carvalho, Dugin proclaims, “I
have nothing against Israel,” then quickly added, “but its cruelty in
repressing the Palestinians is evident.”
To which de Carvalho counters, “The rockets that the
Palestinians fire practically every day at non-military areas of Israel are
never reported by the international big media, whereas any raid by Israel
against Palestinian military installations always provokes the greatest outcry
all over the world.”
He tells Dugin, “I know the facts, my friend. I know
the dose of violence on both sides. I know, for instance, that the Israelis
never use human shields, while the Palestinians almost always do it. I know
that, in Israel, Muslims have civil rights and are protected by the police,
while, in countries under Islamic rule, non-Muslims are treated as dogs and
often stoned to death.”
This exchange is only part of a debate that puts
Israel in the context of a global conflict that Dugin sees as “The West against
the rest.” The world is going through a “global transition,” away from
dominance by the U.S. and its allies, he asserts.
De Carvalho commented that Dugin, himself the son of a
KGB officer, is “the political mentor of a man [Vladimir Putin] who is the very
incarnation of the KGB.” He said that Dugin has emerged as “the creator and
guide of one of the widest and most ambitious geopolitical plans of all time—a
plan adopted and followed as closely as possible by a nation which has the
largest army in the world, the most efficient and daring secret service and a
network of alliances that stretches itself through four continents.”
De Carvalho describes Eurasianism
as “a synthesis of the defunct USSR and the Tzarist Empire” that includes
philosophical elements of Marxism-Leninism, Russian Messianism, Nazism, and
esotericism. The last element is a reference to certainoccult
influences in Russia.
“In order to fulfill his plans,” de Carvalho explains,
“he counts on Vladimir Putin’s strong arm, the armies of Russia and China and
every terrorist organization of the Middle East, not to mention practically
every leftist, fascist and neo-Nazi movements which today place themselves
under the banner of his ‘Eurasian’ project.”
He says the historical roles played by Russia and
China in sponsoring and arming terrorist groups help explain why global Islam
has targeted the United States and Israel. “Some theoreticians of the Caliphate
allege that socialism, once triumphant in the world, will need a soul, and
Islam will provide it with one,” he notes.
In this global war for domination, however, he also
identifies a “globalist elite,” including in the U.S. Government and society,
which wants to destroy traditional Christianity and share in “the spoils” from
the decaying west.
What we are witnessing, he writes, is an “alliance of
Russia with China and the Islamic countries, as well as with part of Western
Europe,” that has come together in a “total war against the United States and
Israel,” which is to be followed by “the establishment of a worldwide
dictatorship.” It is the replacement of an “Atlanticist Order” by the “Eurasian
Order.”
For those who doubt such global schemes could come to
pass, de Carvalho says that Dugin “is not a dreamer, a macabre poet creating
imaginary hecatombs in a dark dungeon infested with rats.” Rather, he is “the
mentor of the Putin government and the brains behind Russian foreign policy,”
whose ideas “have long ceased to be mere speculations.”
De Carvalho identifies among these “material
incarnations” of the Dugin vision the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO),
a group founded by Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and
Uzbekistan, which “intends to be the center of a restructuring of military power
in the world.” Iran has been an observer state at the SCO since 2005. He also
cites the Paris-Berlin-Moscow axis, a geopolitical term for countries, which
are seen as developing a mechanism to replace NATO, the one-time anti-communist
alliance.
Another such international organization is the BRICS
alliance of nations, incorporating Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South
Africa. Iran is also discussing joining BRICS.
On January 20, Iran and Russia signed an
agreement expanding their military ties. Russian
defense minister Sergei Shoigu said Moscow wants to develop a “long-term and
multifaceted” military relationship with Iran. Just a few days ago Russiaoffered to
sell the Antey-2500 anti- aircraft and ballistic missile system to Iran. “The
United States and Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it
could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air
strikes,” Reuters reported.
For its part, the government of Israeli Prime Minister
Netanyahu has been warning about Iran while simultaneously conducting cordial
relations with Russia and refusing to condemn Putin for invading Ukraine.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor
Lieberman says Israel will maintain “neutrality” in the
Russian-Ukrainian conflict. “Maintenance of good relations with Russia is a
priority moment for Israel and its principal stance,” Lieberman said.
It has been estimated that more than 6,000 people have
died in eastern Ukraine since Russia’s invasion of the country. The Obama
administration has refused to supply Ukraine with weapons for its own
self-defense.
© 2015 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Jorge Alberto Villalón Y.
AMENPER: Cuba’s revolution comes full circle with a Hilton in Havana
Paris
Hilton visits the Hilton hotel where Fidel Castro installed himself more than
50 years ago and takes a 'selfie' with Castro's son
Paris Hilton takes a selfie with Fidel Castro
Diaz-Balart, son of Cuba's former leader Fidel Castro Photo: Alexandre Meneghini/Reuters
8:16PM GMT 01 Mar 2015
America’s
historic rapprochement with Cuba was given a celebrity seal of approval at the
weekend when the heiress Paris Hilton visited the hotel her great-grandfather
opened in Havana the year before the communist revolution.
The reality
television star even met Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, the son of Fidel Castro, the
revolutionary who commandeered and later nationalised her family’s hotel.
Hilton’s
trip to Havana’s annual cigar festival, where she was joined by the model Naomi
Campbell, came two months after the US began easing curbs on Americans
travelling to Cuba.
In March
1958, under the Batista regime, Conrad Hilton opened the Habana Hilton, a
25-floor tower with more than 500 rooms and a casino, that was largest hotel in
Latin America at the time. It was designed by the same US architect as the
Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles.
Related
Articles
The
following year Castro set up his provisional headquarters in the building for
several months. According to a history of the hotel his office was in suite
2324. The hotel was nationalised and became the Hotel Habana Libre.
Paris
Hilton posted a photograph on the internet of herself in front of the building.
She said: "Posing in front of the original 'Habana Hilton Hotel' that my
great grandfather Conrad opened here in 1958."
Picture posted by Parish Hilton on her Instagram account
The heiress
also commented "Cuba baby!" and "There's some beautiful
architecture here in Cuba."
Americans
can travel to communist Cuba for academic, religious and cultural programs, and
the Obama administration is easing restrictions.
In December
Mr Obama and Cuban president Raul Castro agreed to restore diplomatic
relations, reopen embassies for the first time since 1961, and exchanging
prisoners.
A second
round of talks between US and Cuban officials were held in Washington last
week, following a first round in Havana last month.
Officials
on both sides said progress was made but they have yet to set a date for
renewal of diplomatic relations and embassies opening.
Paris Hilton with Naomi Campbell and Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart in Cub (Reuters)
At the
talks Cuba pushed to be removed from a US list of state sponsors of terrorism.
It said removal from the list was not a pre-condition for renewal of diplomatic
ties, but was a "very important issue" and priority for Cuba.
The US
wants to reopen embassies before a regional summit in Panama on April 10 at
which Mr Obama and Mr Castro could meet for the first time since the
announcement of their intent to normalise relations was made on Dec 17.
US
Assistant Secretary of State Roberta Jacobson, head of the US delegation at
last week's talks, said they were productive and encouraging." She added:
"I do think we can get this done in time for the summit.
COMO ME LO CONTARON TE LO CUENTO… ALGO PARA RECORDAR
Al parecer , para el gobierno cubano el mayor premio que puede recibir un cubano
es una reunion con Fidel y en su propia
casa. LO MAXIMO.
Es cierto que los ya famosos 5
espias, han sido premiados con todos los honores
disponibles, ya no le caben ni una
chapita ni una medallita mas en el pecho.
Titulos honorificos y diplomas lo tienen
todo, desde cederista ejemplar, hasta
hijo honorifico de Pinar del Rio, hasta
profesores emeritus en todas las universidades.
Ya no les cabe un titulo mas.
La reunion con el tirano mayor fue
historica, recibirlos en su propio hogar.
Hay que reconocer que le dedicaron
practicamente 1 dia entero. Fidel que se veia
cansado, de su habituales ejercicios
-corre mas de 10 millas diarias - con su inseparable
uniforme ADDIDAS - anuncio
politico pagado 10 mil US/d por foto- y con su fiel
cra, -que fue violada cuando
adolecente en el Escambray- ahora convertida en
primera dama y madrina de Elian.
La reunion estuvo acompanada, de exquisitos
platos elaborados con Moringa del
propio patio del dictador. Un ambiente familiar.
Se abordaron muchos temas desde la
liberacion de Alan Gross, totalmente prostituido,
saben lo que es recibir una compensacion
del USAID de 3 miilones de US/d y ahora el
gobierno federal, piensa premiarlo con
otros 5 milones de US/d. Increible
Pero fijense bien en la foto, hay un
intruso, Alejandro Castro Espin, cuarto de derecha
a izquierda . Habia un tema muy
especifico y muy delicado. Un banco genetico, utilizando
la experiencia de la inseminacion
artificial de Gerardo. Ya hablaremos de eso.
Y para terminar, cada vez estoy mas
convencido que el problema del tirano mayor
"ESTA EN EL COCO"
UN
MINUTO DE FAMA
Paris Hilton fue una de las invitadas de honor en el festival anual del cigarro y el tabaco cubano en La Habana, Cuba, realizado recientemente en esa ciudad. Allí junto con la supermodeloNaomi Campbell, la heredera de los Hilton ha llamado la atención, dado que ambas mujeres fueron vistas con frecuencia mientras se hacían selfies con Fidel Castro ...
Paris Hilton fue una de las invitadas de honor en el festival anual del cigarro y el tabaco cubano en La Habana, Cuba, realizado recientemente en esa ciudad. Allí junto con la supermodeloNaomi Campbell, la heredera de los Hilton ha llamado la atención, dado que ambas mujeres fueron vistas con frecuencia mientras se hacían selfies con Fidel Castro ...
De verdad que resulta raro ver al Junior, sin su habitual ropa de trabajo
cortando cana en los campos cubanos. Al parecer . la Hilton se
entero , que el Junior que vive en Chile, va a ser el ALBACEA de la
fortuna de los Castro. Aqui si la comida , fue primera limpia.
Y como dice el Junior """"La Buena vida es cara,
hay otras mas baratas
pero no vale la pena vivirla"
Netanyahu, Obama and the Geopolitics of
Speeches
March 3, 2015 | 08:49 GMT
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is
visiting the United States this week to speak to Congress on March 3. The Obama
administration is upset that Speaker of the House John Boehner invited
Netanyahu without consulting with the White House and charged Boehner with
political grandstanding. Netanyahu said he was coming to warn the United States
of the threat of Iran. Israeli critics of Netanyahu charged that this was a
play for public approval to improve his position in Israel's general election
next year. Boehner denied any political intent beyond getting to hear
Netanyahu's views. The Obama administration claimed that the speech threatens
the fabric of U.S.-Israeli relations.
Let us begin with the obvious. First, this is a
speech, and it is unlikely that Netanyahu could say anything new on the subject
of Iran, given that he never stops talking about it. Second, everyone involved
is grandstanding. They are politicians, and that's what they do. Third, the
idea that U.S.-Israeli relations can be shredded by a grandstanding speech is
preposterous. If that's all it takes, relations are already shredded.
Speeches aside, there is no question that U.S.-Israeli relations have
been changing substantially since the end of the Cold War, and that change,
arrested for a while after 9/11, has created distance and tension between the
countries. Netanyahu's speech is merely a symptom of the underlying reality.
There are theatrics, there are personal animosities, but presidents and prime
ministers come and go. What is important are the interests that bind or
separate nations, and the interests of Israel and the United States have to
some extent diverged. It is the divergence of interests we must focus on,
particularly because there is a great deal of mythology around the U.S.-Israeli
relationship created by advocates of a close relationship, opponents of the
relationship, and foreign enemies of one or both countries.
Building
the U.S.-Israeli Relationship
It is important to begin by understanding that the
United States and Israel did not always have a close relationship. While the
United States recognized Israel from the beginning, its relationship was cool
until after the Six-Day War in 1967.
When Israel, along with Britain and France, invaded Egypt in 1956, the United
States demanded Israel's withdrawal from Sinai and Gaza, and the Israelis
complied. The United States provided no aid for Israel except for food aid
given through a U.N. program that served many nations. The United States was
not hostile to Israel, nor did it regard its relationship as crucial.
This began to change before the 1967 conflict,
after pro-Soviet coups in Syria and
Iraq by Baathist parties. Responding to this threat, the United States created
a belt of surface-to-air missiles stretching from Saudi Arabia to Jordan and
Israel in 1965. This was the first military aid given to Israel, and it was
intended to be part of a system to block Soviet power. Until 1967, Israel's
weapons came primarily from France. Again, the United States had no objection
to this relationship, nor was it a critical issue to Washington.
The Six-Day War changed this. After the conflict,
the French, wanting to improve relations with the Arabs, cut off weapons sales
to Israel. The United States saw Egypt become a Soviet naval and
air base, along with Syria. This threatened the U.S. Sixth Fleet and
other interests in the eastern Mediterranean. In particular, the United States
was concerned about Turkey because the Bosporus in Soviet hands would open
the door to a significant Soviet challenge in the Mediterranean and Southern
Europe. Turkey was now threatened not only from the north but also from the
south by Syria and Iraq. The Iranians, then U.S. allies, forced the Iraqis to
face east rather than north. The Israelis forced the Syrians to focus south.
Once the French pulled out of their relationship with Israel and the Soviets
consolidated their positions in Egypt and Syria in the wake of the Six-Day War,
the United States was forced into a different relationship with Israel.
It has been said that the 1967 war and later U.S.
support for Israel triggered Arab anti-Americanism. It undoubtedly deepened
anti-American sentiment among the Arabs, but it was not the trigger. Egypt
became pro-Soviet in 1956 despite the U.S. intervention against Israel, while
Syria and Iraq became pro-Soviet before the United States began sending
military aid to Israel. But after 1967, the United States locked into a
strategic relationship with Israel and became its primary source of military
assistance. This support surged during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, with U.S.
assistance rising from roughly 5 percent of Israeli gross domestic product to
more than 20 percent a year later.
The United States was strategically dependent on
Israel to maintain a balance of power in the eastern Mediterranean. But even
during this period, the United States had competing strategic interests. For
example, as part of encouraging a strategic reversal into the U.S. camp after
the 1973 war, the United States negotiated an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai
that the Israelis were extremely reluctant to do but could not avoid under U.S.
pressure. Similarly, U.S. President Ronald Reagan opposed an Israeli invasion
of Lebanon that reached Beirut, and the initial U.S. intervention in Lebanon
was not against Arab elements but intended to block Israel. There was a
strategic dependence on Israel, but it was never a simple relationship.
The Israelis' national security requirements
have always outstripped their resources. They had to have an outside
patron. First it was the Soviets via Czechoslovakia, then France, then the
United States. They could not afford to alienate the United States — the
essential foundation of their national security — but neither could they simply
comply with American wishes. For the United States, Israel was an important
asset. It was far from the only important asset. The United States had to
reconcile its support of Israel with its support of Saudi Arabia, as an
example. Israel and the Saudis were part of an anti-Soviet coalition, but they had competing interests,
shown when the United States sold airborne warning and control systems to the
Saudis. The Israelis both needed the United States and chafed under the
limitations Washington placed on them.
Post-Soviet
Relations
The collapse of the Soviet Union destroyed the
strategic foundation for the U.S.-Israeli relationship. There was no pressing
reason to end it, but it began to evolve and diverge.
The fall of the Soviet Union left Syria and Iraq without a patron. Egypt's
U.S.-equipped army, separated from Israel by a demilitarized Sinai and token
American peacekeepers, posed no threat. Jordan was a key ally of Israel. The
United States began seeing the Mediterranean and Middle East in totally
different ways. Israel, for the first time since its founding, didn't face any
direct threat of attack. In addition, Israel's economy surged, and U.S. aid,
although it remained steady, became far less important to Israel than it was.
In 2012, U.S. assistance ($2.9 billion) accounted for just more than 1 percent
of Israel's GDP.
Both countries had more room to maneuver than
they'd had previously. They were no longer locked into a relationship with each
other, and their relationship continued as much out of habit as out of
interest. The United States had no interest in Israel creating settlements in
the West Bank, but it wasn't interested enough in stopping them to risk
rupturing the relationship. The Israelis were no longer so dependent on the
United States that they couldn't risk its disapproval.
The United States and Israel drew together
initially after 9/11. From the Israeli perspective, the attacks proved that the
United States and Israel had a common interest against the Islamic world. The
U.S. response evolved into a much more complex form, particularly as it became
apparent that U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq were not going to pacify either country. The
United States needed a strategy that would prevent jihadist attacks on the
homeland, and that meant intelligence cooperation not only with the Israelis
but also with Islamic countries hostile to Israel. This was the old problem.
Israel wanted the United States focused on Israel as its main partner, but the
United States had much wider and more complex relations to deal with in the
region that required a more nuanced approach.
This is the root of the divergence on Iran.
From Israel's point of view, the Iranians pose an inherent threat regardless of
how far along they are — or are not — with their nuclear program. Israel wants
the United States aligned against Iran. Now, how close Tehran is to a nuclear
weapon is an important question, but to Israel, however small the nuclear risk,
it cannot be tolerated because Iran's ideology makes it an existential threat.
The
Iran Problem
From the American perspective, the main question
about Iran is, assuming it is a threat, can it be destroyed militarily? The
Iranians are not fools. They observed the ease with which the Israelis
destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981. They buried theirs deep
underground. It is therefore not clear, regardless
of how far along it is or what its purpose is, that the United States could
destroy Iran's nuclear program from the air. It would require, at the very
least, special operations on the ground, and failing that, military action
beyond U.S. capabilities. Aside from the use of nuclear weapons, it is unclear
that an attack on multiple hardened sites would work.
The Israelis are quite aware of these difficulties.
Had it been possible to attack, and had the Israelis believed what they were
saying, the Israelis would have attacked. The distances are great, but there
are indications that countries closer to Iran and also interested in destroying
Iran's nuclear program would have allowed the use of their territories. Yet the
Israelis did not attack.
The American position is that, lacking a viable
military option and uncertain as to the status of Iran's program, the only
option is to induce Iran to curtail the program. Simply maintaining permanent
sanctions does not end whatever program there is. Only an agreement with Iran
trading the program for an end of sanctions would work. From the American point
of view, the lack of a military option requires a negotiation. The Israeli
position is that Iran cannot be trusted. The American position is that in that
case, there are no options.
Behind this is a much deeper issue. Israel of
course understands the American argument. What really frightens the Israelis is
an emerging American strategy. Having failed to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq, the
United States has come to the conclusion that wars of occupation are beyond
American capacity. It is prepared to use air power and very limited ground
forces in Iraq, for example. However, the United States does not see itself as
having the option of bringing decisive force to bear.
An
Intricate U.S. Strategy
Therefore, the United States has a double strategy
emerging. The first layer is to keep its distance from major flare-ups in the
region, providing support but making clear it will not be the one to take
primary responsibility. As the situation on the ground deteriorates, the United
States expects these conflicts to eventually compel regional powers to take
responsibility. In the case of Syria and Iraq, for example, the chaos is on the border of Turkey.
Let Turkey live with it, or let Turkey send its own troops in. If that happens,
the United States will use limited force to support them. A similar dynamic is
playing out with Jordan and the Gulf Cooperation Council states as Saudi Arabia
tries to assume responsibility for Sunni Arab interests in the face of a
U.S.-Iranian entente. Importantly, this rapprochement with Iran is
already happening against the Islamic State, which is an enemy of
both the United States and Iran. I am not sure we would call what is happening
collaboration, but there is certainly parallel play between Iran and the United
States.
The second layer of this strategy is creating a
balance of power. The United States wants regional powers to deal with issues
that threaten their interests more than American interests. At the same time,
the United States does not want any one country to dominate the region.
Therefore, it is in the American interest to have multiple powers balancing
each other. There are four such powers: Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Some collaborate, some are hostile, and some shift over time. The United States
wants to get rid of Iran's weapons, but it does not want to shatter the
country. It is part of a pattern of regional responsibility and balance.
This is the heart of Israel's problem. It has
always been a pawn in U.S. strategy, but a vital pawn. In this emerging
strategy, with multiple players balancing each other and the United States
taking the minimum possible action to maintain the equilibrium, Israel finds
itself in a complex relationship with three countries that it cannot be sure of
managing by itself. By including Iran in this mix, the United States includes
what Israel regards as an unpredictable element not solely because of the
nuclear issue but because Iran's influence stretches to
Syria and Lebanon and imposes costs and threats Israel wants to
avoid.
This has nothing to do with the personalities of
Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The United States has shown it cannot
pacify countries with available forces. The definition of insanity is doing the
same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome. If the United States
is not involved on the ground in a conflict, then it becomes a problem for
regional powers to handle. If the regional powers take the roles they must,
they should balance against each other without a single regional hegemon
emerging.
Israel does not want to be considered by the United
States as one power among many. It is focused on the issue of a nuclear Iran,
but it knows that there is no certainty that Iran's nuclear facilities can be
destroyed or that sanctions will
cause the Iranians to abandon the nuclear program. What Israel fears is an
entente between the United States and Iran and a system of relations in which
U.S. support will not be automatic.
So a speech will be made. Obama and Netanyahu are
supposed to dislike each other. Politicians are going to be elected and jockey
for power. All of this is true, and none of it matters. What does matter is
that the United States, regardless of who is president, has to develop a new
strategy in the region. This is the only option other than trying to occupy
Syria and Iraq. Israel, regardless of who is prime minister, does not want to
be left as part of this system while the United States maintains ties with all
the other players along with Israel. Israel doesn't have the weight to block
this strategy, and the United States has no alternative but to pursue it.
This isn't about Netanyahu and Obama, and both know
it. It is about the reconfiguration of a region the United States cannot subdue
and cannot leave. It is the essence of great power strategy: creating a balance
of power in which the balancers are trapped into playing a role they don't
want. It is not a perfect strategy, but it is the only one the United States
has. Israel is not alone in not wanting this. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia
don't want it, either. But geopolitics is indifferent to wishes. It understands
only imperatives and constraints.
Jorge
Alberto Villalón Y.
Jesus Marzo Fernandez:
HABLANDO EN SERIO
EMO(Que raro)LRGM
--Al parecer , se le esta poniendo la cosa dificil a los opositores,
Raul elimino a Paya, Cristina a Nisman, Putin a Boris Nemtson.
Y Maduro -como le faltan pantalones- los mete en Ramo Verde
y despues no sabe que hacer con ellos. Por eso, le recomiendo
a los amigos, hay que cuidarse la boca, la cosa esta mala.
---El gobierno cubano esta fatal, le dijeron que si se portaban bien
durante 6 meses lo sacaban de la lista de paises terroristas,
Ahora cogen un barco chino en Cartagena con 20 contenedores
armas con destino a Cuba La suerte es que Santos esta en el
poder
vamos a ver como salen de esta. No escarmientan.
Para terminar, los epecialistas que pronosticaban una caida
total de los precios de la gasolina La Sonora trompetilla.
Al parecer el periplo de Maduro dio resultado. En el CASH
todo el mundo se pone de acuerdo
SALUDOS A TODOS, MARZO FERNANDEZ
Kerry Warns Israel PM Against Revealing Details of Iran Nuclear
Deal
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday warned Israel's prime
minister against revealing details at his upcoming speech to US Congress of an
Iran nuclear deal that world powers are in the process of negotiating.
While he did not mention Benjamin Netanyahu by name, Kerry told reporters
in Geneva he was "concerned by reports" that "selective
details" of the deal aimed at curbing Tehran's nuclear programme would be
revealed in the coming days.
His comments come after an Israeli official said the Jewish state
knew about the emerging agreement and that the prime minister would elaborate
in his congressional address.
Kerry is due to meet his Iranian counterpart Mohammad Javad Zarif
in the Swiss lakeside town of Montreux later Monday for talks on the Iran
agreement.
"The best way to deal with the question surrounding this
nuclear programme is to find a comprehensive deal, but not a deal which comes
at any costs," he told reporters.
"We have made some progress, but we still have a long way to
go, and the clock is ticking."
The P5+1 group of world powers that are negotiating with Iran have
until March 31 to reach a framework for a deal, which would then be firmed up
and officially signed on June 30.
But Israel is worried that the deal will ease sanctions on Tehran
-- which is what Iran wants -- without applying sufficiently stringent
safeguards against Iran developing an atomic bomb.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-nuclear-politics-US/2015/03/02/id/627694/#ixzz3TGmZIxk5
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-nuclear-politics-US/2015/03/02/id/627694/#ixzz3TGmZIxk5
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
IMORTANT INFORMATION YOU SHOULD SHARE -- 2-21-2015
Alonso, Francisco
To: Lazaro
R Gonzalez (lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com)
From: Osborn, Pete
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 1:01 PM
Subject: FW: [Bulk] IMORTANT INFORMATION YOU SHOULD SHARE -- 2-21-2015
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 1:01 PM
Subject: FW: [Bulk] IMORTANT INFORMATION YOU SHOULD SHARE -- 2-21-2015
"There are none so
blind as those who will not see."
��������������������
When you read this you will understand why Obama refuses to say the words "radical Islam."..
��������������������
When you read this you will understand why Obama refuses to say the words "radical Islam."..
I didn't originate
this, but it checked out with Google and Snopes �
Did you know that we
now have a Muslim government?
John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Obama's top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.
Hillary Clinton's top advisor, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia.
Obama's top advisor, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.
Hillary Clinton's top advisor, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
Assistant Secretary for
Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim.
Homeland Security Advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim.
Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.
Obama's Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim.
And last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama.
Homeland Security Advisor, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim.
Obama advisor and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.
Obama's Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim.
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim.
And last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama.
It's questionable if
Obama ever officially took the oath of office when he was sworn in. He didn't
repeat the oath properly to defend our nation and our Constitution. Later the
Democrats claimed he was given the oath again in private?
CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible.
Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur'an.
CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible.
Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur'an.
Congresswoman Michele
Bachman was vilified and almost tarred and feathered by Democrats when she
voiced her concern about Muslims taking over our government.
Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East.
The more damage Obama does, the more arrogant he's become!
Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us. It can only get worse!
Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East.
The more damage Obama does, the more arrogant he's become!
Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us. It can only get worse!
If you fail to pass this one on, there's something
wrong ... somewhere!
Ted Cruz Spills Secret of
GOP Sabotage
image:
http://conservbyte.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/IMG_2522-300x204.jpg
It
baffles me why the GOP ever compromises with liberals.
Check it out:
Check it out:
U.S.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strongly suggested the fix was in from the beginning by
GOP leaders to sabotage the fight against Obama’s amnesty, saying, “The cake
was baked from the start.”
The
senator said that was evident to him immediately when GOP leaders chose a bill
funding the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, as the vehicle to try to
stop the amnesty President Obama granted to five-million illegal immigrants by
executive order in November.
Cruz
made the observations while speaking to a small group of reporters across the
street from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, on
Thursday.
WND
kicked off the conversation by asking: Why won’t GOP leaders fight amnesty?
If
the GOP leadership had really wanted to stop amnesty, Cruz explained, they
would not have attached the provision defunding Obama’s amnesty to the DHS
funding bill.
They
would have attached it to a bill defunding the Environmental Protection Agency,
“or some other non-essential agency.”
ALTA TRAICIÓN A SU PATRIA:
VENEZUELA.
EL ROBO MÁS GRANDE DEL SIGLO XXI LO HIZO HUGO CHÁVEZ. INFORME DE INTELIGENCIA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS REVELA:
EL ROBO MÁS GRANDE DEL SIGLO XXI LO HIZO HUGO CHÁVEZ. INFORME DE INTELIGENCIA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS REVELA:
EL ROBO MÁS GRANDE DEL SIGLO XXI LO HIZO HUGO
CHÁVEZ.
INFORME DE INTELIGENCIA DE ESTADOS UNIDOS
REVELA:
Puntualicemos los hechos:
1°. ¿CUANDO?
Es importante que el pueblo de ese país,
Venezuela, sepa que el 17 de octubre de 2012 una vez que el presidente Chávez
fue informado en la Habana luego de someter a exámenes rigurosos, que le
restaban unos cercanos 60 días de vida,
2°¿ DE QUE MONTO Y NATURALEZA FUE EL ROBO ?
Trasportó 13 toneladas de oro de las reservas
del Banco Central de ese país, Venezuela, que fueron transportados en un avión
ruso que partió del aeropuerto de la Carlota a las 6am del día 20 de octubre
hasta el aeropuerto de Rancho Boyero en Cuba. Y
además sacaron de las reservas del Internacionales 20.000 millones de dólares
americanos que fueron depositados en el Banco Central de Cuba.
3°. CONSECUENCIAS MACROECONÓMICAS DE LA GRAN
ESTAFA:
A°. De allí que las reservas de ese país,
Venezuela, apenas disponen de 1.200 millones,
B°. y por ello la restricción de divisas para importar
necesidades básicas de alimentos, medicinas, autopartes, reactivos para
laboratorios y equipos médicos
C°. Que genera una grave situación alimentaria causa del desabastecimiento severo que sufre ese país en estos alimentos que amenaza con implosionar una situación de vastas proporciones en los próximos tres meses.
C°. Que genera una grave situación alimentaria causa del desabastecimiento severo que sufre ese país en estos alimentos que amenaza con implosionar una situación de vastas proporciones en los próximos tres meses.
AQUÍ VEMOS AL TIRANO DEMENTE EN UNIFORME DE
COMANDANTE EN JEFE: ESPECIALMENTE DISEÑADO POR REGLAMENTO, PARA SUPLIR SU
EXTREMO COMPLEJO DE INFERIORIDAD, SIMULANDO SER NAPOLEÓN BONAPARTE.
WaPo: 4 Pinocchios to Obama For Repeating False Claims on Keystone
The Washington Post's Fact Checker Glenn Kessler has given four
Pinocchios to President Barack Obama for his statement that the Keystone XL
pipeline proposal "bypasses the United States."
After Obama had vetoed a bill in Congress last week to approve the construction of the oil pipeline from Canada, he made a deceptive statement to a North Dakota radio station defending his position, according to Kessler.
"I've already said I'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf," Obama said during the interview.
After Obama had vetoed a bill in Congress last week to approve the construction of the oil pipeline from Canada, he made a deceptive statement to a North Dakota radio station defending his position, according to Kessler.
"I've already said I'm happy to look at how we can increase pipeline production for U.S. oil, but Keystone is for Canadian oil to send that down to the Gulf," Obama said during the interview.
"It bypasses the United States and is estimated to create a little
over 250, maybe 300 permanent jobs. We should be focusing more broadly on
American infrastructure forAmerican jobs and American producers, and that's something that we
very much support."
But Kessler said that Obama had repeated false claims about Keystone and
managed to make his statements "even more misleading than before" by
suggesting that the pipeline would not benefit American producers "at
all."
"The Fact Checker … takes no position on the pipeline, and has repeatedly skewered both sides for overinflated rhetoric," Kessler wrote. "Yet the president's latest comments especially stand out.
"When the president says 'it bypasses the United States,' he leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel.
"Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower."
Kessler noted that a report released in February by IHS Energy, which consults for energy companies, said that "Canadian crude making its way to the USGC [Gulf Coast] will likely be refined there, and most of the refined products are likely to be consumed in the United States."
"The Fact Checker … takes no position on the pipeline, and has repeatedly skewered both sides for overinflated rhetoric," Kessler wrote. "Yet the president's latest comments especially stand out.
"When the president says 'it bypasses the United States,' he leaves out a very important step. The crude oil would travel to the Gulf Coast, where it would be refined into products such as motor gasoline and diesel fuel.
"Current trends suggest that only about half of that refined product would be exported, and it could easily be lower."
Kessler noted that a report released in February by IHS Energy, which consults for energy companies, said that "Canadian crude making its way to the USGC [Gulf Coast] will likely be refined there, and most of the refined products are likely to be consumed in the United States."
Although environmentalists say IHS comments are self-serving, the
findings are similar to those in the State Department's environmental
impact statements on the Keystone XL project.
"This is what is especially strange about Obama's remarks, as he appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue," Kessler wrote.
The Fact Checker also noted that although Obama claims that Keystone is just for Canadian oil, the pipeline would actually help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana.
"Moreover, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada's oil sands region," Kessler wrote. "Thus, contrary to Obama's suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
"When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report. Clearly, the report remains unread."
Kessler concluded by saying: "The president's latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department's findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis.
"This is what is especially strange about Obama's remarks, as he appears to be purposely ignoring the findings of the lead Cabinet agency on the issue," Kessler wrote.
The Fact Checker also noted that although Obama claims that Keystone is just for Canadian oil, the pipeline would actually help U.S. oil producers in North Dakota and Montana.
"Moreover, U.S. companies control about 30 percent of the production in Canada's oil sands region," Kessler wrote. "Thus, contrary to Obama's suggestion, it is not strictly Canadian.
"When Obama first started making the claim that the crude oil in the Keystone pipeline would bypass the United States, we wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios — and strongly suggested he take the time to review the State Department report. Clearly, the report remains unread."
Kessler concluded by saying: "The president's latest remarks pushes this assertion into the Four Pinocchios column. If he disagrees with the State Department's findings, he should begin to make the case why it is wrong, rather than assert the opposite, without any factual basis.
"Moreover, by telling North Dakota listeners that the pipeline has
no benefit for Americans, he is again being misleading, given that producers in
the region have signed contracts to transport some of their production
through the pipeline."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/Washington-Post-Obama-keystone-oil/2015/03/02/id/627729/#ixzz3TKf6Bzzi
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/Washington-Post-Obama-keystone-oil/2015/03/02/id/627729/#ixzz3TKf6Bzzi
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
UNA GENIALIDAD—ESTE BRASILERO ES MI MÉDICO, CARAJO!!!!
EXCELENTE MENSAJE PARA PONERLE
FIN A ESTE DÍA. Y SI LE AGREGAMOS UN POCO
MAS DE HUMOR A NUESTRA VIDA VIVIREMOS
MEJOR. GRACIAS POR DARME LA OPORTUNIDAD DE
CONOCER A ESTE MEDICO UD. HIZO MI NOCHE
[Confederación Profesionales
Vzla]
ESTE ES MI MÉDICO, CARAJO!
|
El Dr. Paulo
Ubiratan es el director médico del Hospìtal de Porto Alegre, en Brasil.
Este es el
extracto de una entrevista en la TV local, donde se le preguntaba sobre temas
de alimentación y deporte...
Pregunta:
Los ejercicios cardiovasculares prolongan la vida ¿es verdad?
Respuesta: El corazón está hecho para latir una cantidad de veces determinadas. No desperdicie esos latidos en ejercícios. Su periodo de vida se gastará, independientemente de su uso. Acelerar su corazón no va a hacer que usted viva más. Eso es como decir que usted puede prolongar la vida de su coche conduciendo más deprisa. ¿Quiere vivir más? Échese la siesta. P: ¿Debo dejar de comer carnes rojas y comer más frutas y vegetales? R: Se necesita entender la logística de la eficiencia en alimentación ¿Qué comen las vacas? Hierba y maíz. ¿Qué es eso? Vegetales. Entonces un filete es el mecanismo más eficaz de colocar vegetales en su sistema. ¿Necesita comer cereales? Pues coma pollo. P: ¿Debo reducir el consumo de alcohol? R: De ninguna manera. El vino está hecho de fruta. El brandy es un vino destilado, lo que significa que se elimina el agua de la fruta de modo que usted saque mayor provecho de ella. La cerveza también está hecha de cereales. No limite demasiado su consumo. P: ¿Cuales son las ventajas de un programa regular de ejercicios? R: Mi filosofía es: si no tiene dolor, no haga nada. Está usted bien. P: ¿Los fritos son perjudiciales? R: Hoy en día la comida se fríe en aceite vegetal. La verdad es que quedan impregnadas de aceite vegetal. ¿Como puede ser que más vegetales añadidos sean perjudiciales para usted? P: ¿La gimnasia ayuda a reducir la obesidad? R: Absolutamente no. Ejercitar un músculo lo único que hace es aumentar el tamaño del músculo. P: ¿El chocolate hace daño? R: Es cacao. Otro vegetal. Es un alimento bueno para ser feliz. La vida no debe ser un viaje para la tumba, con la intención de llegar sano y salvo, con un cuerpo atractivo y bien preservado.
Lo mejor es
emprender el camino, con una cerveza en la mano y un bocadillo en la otra. El
mejor final es haber tenido mucho sexo y un cuerpo completamente gastado,
totalmente usado, gritando: mereció la pena, qué viaje tan extraordinario...
P: ¿Algún consejo más que nos pueda dar? R: Si andar mucho fuera saludable, los carteros serían inmortales.
Las ballenas
se pasan nadando todo el día, solo comen pescado y solo beben agua.
Sin embargo
están gordas. Las liebres corren, saltan y no paran, pero no pasan de 15 años
de vida. La tortugas no corren
y no hacen nada, pero viven 450 años.
Grande Maestro!. Así se combate tanta boludez que hay ahora con la "vida sana ".
Dr. Javier Quintanilla Guerra
|
 |
El
software de antivirus Avast ha analizado este correo electrónico en busca de
virus.
www.avast.com |
How Outraged will Liberals Get? Obama
Supporter Louis Farrakhan calls Rudy Giuliani a “Privileged Cracker” and
“Devil” for Speaking Out against Obama!
Liberals across America spent the past week with
their panties in a twist about comments Mayor Rudy Giuliani made questioning President
Obama’s love of country. Sure, Rudy’s comments were inflammatory and liberals
could have debated the issue – instead they chose to attack Giuliani’s opinion
(based on examples) with ad
hominems and
mean-spirited rhetoric. One Obama supporter jumped the shark though with his
attacks on the former New York City Mayor.
Nation of Islam leader
Louis Farrakhan was not happy
with Giuliani’s comments about the President and let the world know about it in
the sermon he preached on Sunday.
“Giuliani says Obama does not love America. And
instead of apologizing, they say he doubled down, he tripled down, he said,
‘I’m not taking this back. He didn’t grow up like we grew up
How did you grow up, Giuliani? A privileged
cracker? Or I should say, a privileged devil?!
You grew up on the sweat and the blood of black men
and women who made America before your fathers got here! All of
you Europeans, you recent immigrants that have found a home in America, and you
are so happy. But you walking on our blood. Our blood soaks the soil of
America!”
Yep. It’s not just Giuliani who is a horrible
person for living a full and happy life in North America… all European
immigrants and their descendants are evil, vile creatures for being so happy
while walking on the “blood soaked soil of America.” The logical fallacies that
must fill the mind of Farrakhan and his supporters are simply astounding, and
the worst part isn’t that his hatred is being carried on to the next generation
… no, it’s that he and his followers could be living a similarly happy and
productive life if they’d simply leave behind their violent and racist
rhetoric.
I’m not saying “forget” about what has happened in
the past. I am saying build for the future, just like your ancestors did. The
men and women who pushed for Civil Rights immediately after the Civil War
through the 1960’s fought hard for the future, and now Farrakhan and his ilk
are so thoroughly focused on the past that they’ve become stuck – mired in a
sea of vitriol and angst.
It’s sad really.
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/15557/outraged-will-liberals-get-obama-supporter-louis-farrakhan-calls-rudy-giuliani-privileged-cracker-devil-speaking-obama/#dAA3oJHIIlH52TcK.99
Read more at http://eaglerising.com/15557/outraged-will-liberals-get-obama-supporter-louis-farrakhan-calls-rudy-giuliani-privileged-cracker-devil-speaking-obama/#dAA3oJHIIlH52TcK.99
Netanyahu Tells AIPAC World Must Not Let Iran Go
Nuclear
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted
Monday that his plans to address Congress are not aimed at disrespecting
President Barack Obama, even as he assailed the U.S. leader's bid for a nuclear
deal with Iran as a threat to his country's survival.
"I have a moral obligation to
speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert
them," Netanyahu said during an address to a pro-Israel lobbying group in
Washington.
As Netanyahu spoke, Secretary of State
John Kerry was opening a new round of talks with Iran in Geneva aimed at
reaching a framework nuclear deal ahead of a late March deadline. Obama views
the prospect of a nuclear accord with the Islamic republic as a central
component of his foreign policy legacy.
While Obama and Netanyahu have never
had a warm personal relationship, the prime minister's visit to Washington this
week has exposed the depth of their tensions.
At the heart of this latest flare-up
is Netanyahu's decision to address a joint meeting of Congress, a Tuesday event
during which he is sure to criticize the nuclear talks. The speech was arranged
by Republican leaders without the Obama administration's knowledge, a move the
White House blasted as a breach of diplomatic protocol.
Netanyahu's visit to
Washington comes two weeks before Israeli elections, heightening the political
overtones. Obama won't meet the prime minister while he is in town, citing
longstanding policy to avoid appearing to play favorites in foreign elections.
In a preview of his speech
to lawmakers, Netanyahu suggested that Obama did not — and could not—
understand the extent of Israeli concerns about Iran's pursuit of a nuclear
bomb.
"U.S. leaders worry
about the security of their country," he said. "Israeli leaders worry
about the survival of their country."
Despite his sharp
rhetoric, Netanyahu declared that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel
remains strong.
"Reports of the
demise of the Israeli-U.S. relationship is not only premature, they're just
wrong," Netanyahu said. "Our alliance is stronger than ever."
Netanyahu's remarks at the
annual policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee were
being bracketed by speeches from a pair of senior U.S. officials: U.N.
Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.
Power spoke warmly of the
ties between the U.S. and Israel, saying the relationship was rooted in
"shared, fundamental values." She highlighted the billions of dollars
in military assistance Washington provides Israel and the constant defense the
U.S. provides Israel at the United Nations.
Power said the deep ties
between the longtime allies meant their relationship "should never be
politicized."
The ambassador also
defended Obama's pursuit of an accord with Iran and said the president shared
Israel's commitment to preventing Tehran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
"If diplomacy should
fail, we know the stakes of a nuclear-armed Iran," she said. "We will
not let it happen."
Rice was expected to
deliver a more specific rebuttal to Netanyahu's criticism of the U.S.-led
nuclear negotiations. She also has been among the most outspoken critics of the
prime minister's plan to address Congress, calling the move
"destructive" to the U.S.-Israel relationship.
Netanyahu has long been
suspicious of Obama's negotiations with Iran, fearing the U.S. and its
negotiating partners are prepared to leave Tehran on the cusp of developing a
nuclear weapon. He has stepped up his public criticism as the parties inch
closer to the March deadline.
U.S. and Israeli officials
have reported progress on a deal that would freeze Iran's nuclear program for
10 years but allow it to slowly ramp up in the later years of an agreement.
Netanyahu has vigorously criticized the contours of such an agreement, saying
it suggests the U.S. and its partners have "given up" on stopping
Iran from being able to get a bomb.
A Netanyahu adviser told
reporters traveling with the prime minister to Washington Sunday that Israel
was well aware of the details of the emerging nuclear deal and that they
included Western compromises that were dangerous for Israel. Still, he tried to
lower tensions by saying that Israel "does not oppose every deal" and
was merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks.
Kerry, who is in
Switzerland for the next round of nuclear negotiations, warned Israel against
releasing "selective details" of the negotiations.
"Doing so would make
it more difficult to reach the goal that Israel and others say they
share," said Kerry, who is negotiating alongside diplomats from Britain,
France, Germany, Russia and China.
U.S.
Set to Be the New Swing Producer
Just a
decade ago, Saudi Arabia maintained unequivocal power over oil prices.
As the
largest producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), it has the power
to turn the spigot off and on during oil crashes and rebounds, essentially
dictating the price of oil in the global market.
But it
seems the Saudis are tiring of this role. And now, the United States is ready
to take control…
Heavy Is the Head
That Wears the Crown
As the
chart below shows, Saudi Arabia is still the dominant producer of oil within
OPEC. It has the ability to produce more oil to temper prices or cut production
to bolster prices.
Most recently, the Saudis used this power to flood the market
and spark the oil crash, along with the other members of OPEC, in an effort to
eliminate competition from the United States.
This ability to efficiently turn on or off production makes them
the “swing producer.”
But the swing producer also tends to get the short end of the
stick…
You see, if OPEC were to reduce output to keep prices high for
everyone, they’d lose part of their market share to other, less-efficient
producers who are not reducing production, but are still
benefiting from the effect of higher prices.
The Saudis have been signaling for some time that they are fed
up with the role…
Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi expressed his country’s
frustration with the situation in an exclusive interview with the Middle
East Economic Survey earlier
this year:
“Is it reasonable for a highly efficient producer to reduce
output, while the producer of poor efficiency continues to produce? That is
crooked logic. If I reduce, what happens to my market share? The price will go
up, and the Russians, the Brazilians, [and] U.S. shale oil producers will take
my share,” said Al-Naimi.
Saudi Arabia saw the rise of shale oil from the United States
and realized that it would, once again, have to lose market share in order to
stay profitable.
Thus, OPEC’s refusal to cut production and keep prices high is a
clear message that Saudi Arabia is done with being the swing producer.
The Saudis are hoping that prices will stay low long enough that
marginal shale producers go out of business, and that those strong enough to
survive will take on the role of swing producer and cut production.
And what country has been gaining ground in the oil market
lately? The United States, of course…
Long Live the New King?
While the shale revolution in the United States is in full swing, it’s still quite
early in the game.
You see, U.S. oil production growth wasn’t expected to peak
until the mid-2020s. And that might be pushed back a bit now, as the U.S. shale
producers begin to temper exploration and production until prices recover.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that the United States has
the ability to ramp up production, or as we are seeing today, delay or defer
production (as a group) at the drop of a hat. And the number of producers is
such that we can affect global supplies, and thus prices, almost as quickly as OPEC.
Yes, the United States is ready to assume the mantle of swing
producers.
This realization is putting pressure on prices.
You see, many producers, like EOG Resources (EOG) and Encana(ECA), have announced lower
capital spending going forward or the intention to keep production at the same
level until prices recover – essentially keeping the spigot flow steady instead
of turning it on full blast. But the world oil markets just aren’t buying it.
|
Editor’s Note: Steady oil production is blocking any chance of a
price recovery, which isn’t good for the energy positions in your portfolio.
But the good news is, we’re seeing an increase in demand for another type of
“commodity.” And it could lead to huge long-term profits for investors who
get in ahead of time. Click here for the full story.
|
The reason is that there are now two entities that can turn on
the oil spigot at a moment’s notice, and produce significant and measurable
quantities of oil, should prices increase. Not to mention that without an
increase in global demand, the price of oil isn’t going to stage a miracle
recovery.
The Saudis and OPEC do have the ability to cut production (which
many within the cartel are clamoring for) as does the United States.
But this time, the Saudis recognize that it’s in their best
interest to wait this out and hope that enough shale production is cut back or
that U.S. producers decide to permanently moderate production growth in return
for higher prices. Barring a surge in global demand, this process could be
protracted, and so could the slump in prices.
And the chase continues,
Karim Rahemtulla
With an
expertise in emerging markets and energy, Karim
Rahemtulla is regarded as one of the country's
foremost resource and developing world analysts. Educated in England, Canada
and the United States, Karim is fluent in several languages. His undergraduate
studies were completed in Economics/Foreign Languages, and his graduate
coursework was completed in Finance. Learn More >>
 |
 |
 |
"President Obama, you don't love America..."
Elena
Enriquez
WATCH: This Young YouTube Star Who Spoke Up For Rudy Just Stood Up Tall For Free Speech image: http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/8414e18d1452977cda856cfc5abe66ea?s=48&d=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.westernjournalism.com%2Fwp-content%2Fthemes%2Fpresso-child%2Fimages%2Fgravatar.png%3Fs%3D48&r=PG Norvell Rose ﹘ March 2, 2015 It’s been viewed more that 1.4 million times ﹘ the video by a 12-year-old Georgia boy who posted an incredibly eloquent defense of Rudy Giuliani after the former mayor was slammed for saying President Obama doesn’t love America. Western Journalism told you about 6th grader CJ Pearson and his remarkable rant that’s gone viral. Now, it appears that Facebook has blocked the young conservative from posting on his own public figure page after so much attention was focused on the hugely popular video in which Pearson was highly critical of Obama. In an appearance on Fox and Friends Weekend, CJ proved that his poised presentation on the video he posted on February 21st was no fluke. He once again vigorously defended Rudy Giuliani’s right to express his opinion and sharply criticized those who would try to stifle free speech in America. Advertisement-content continues below “I think the point is this: When a person decides to speak up, their voice shouldn’t be hindered because of someone disagreeing.” You can watch CJ Pearson’s impressive appearance on the Fox News show by clicking on the video above. Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/watch-this-young-youtube-star-who-spoke-up-for-rudy-just-stood-up-tall-for-free-speech/#356CKDgPEd35C5Cl.99
“En mi opinión”
No comments:
Post a Comment