“EN MI OPINION” Editor Lázaro R González Miño
Miercoles,
Nov. 28, 2012 “ IN
GOOD WE TRUST ”
Hoy soy
el numero 38,273 en firmar la petición de Empeachment Obama. Tu puedes ser el 38,274...
Lo único
que tienes que hacer es seguir las instrucciones que encontraras aquí: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-request-obama-be-impeached-following-reasons/cpk4V6zK
Tambien puedes encontrar
las instrucciones en mi Facebook Lazaro R Gonzalez è https://www.facebook.com/lazarorg,
O
siguiendo estas instrucciones.
Help make
We the People even better. Share your feedback on how this new platform can
improve.
we petition the obama administration to:
We request that Obama be impeached for the following reasons.
We request that Barack Obama be impeached for the following reasons.1. He proclaimed war in libya without getting congress approval first. Article I, Section 8- Only congress can approve to start war.
2. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Forcing US citizens to get health insurance whether they want it or not.
3. Obama disrespects our Constitution calling it flawed and trying to change it even after taking this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
4. Appointing agency “czars” without Senate approval.
Created: Nov 11, 2012
Signatures needed by December 11, 2012 to reach goal of 25,000
0
Total signatures on this petition
38,272
You've signed this petition
Thank you for participating. Find other petitions you're interested in or start your own.
White House
petition for Obama impeachment tops 28,000 signatures
“The
Daily Caller” David Martosko Executive Editor
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/white-house-petition-for-obama-impeachment-tops-28000-signatures/#ixzz2DWiWz5yx
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/white-house-petition-for-obama-impeachment-tops-28000-signatures/#ixzz2DWiWz5yx
With national attention focused
on a long list of petitions asking the Obama administration for permission to
secede from the United States, a little-watched petition to
impeach the president has crept up in the rankings on the White House’s “We
the People” petition Web page.
“We request that Barack Obama be impeached,” the petition reads.
Launched on Nov. 11, it collected 28,850 digital signatures from all 50 states
in five days. The White House has promised to review petitions that attract
more than 25,000 such signatures.
The petition’s creator, identified only as “Stephen M” — the website
does not provide last names — based the proposal on complaints about the
president’s health care law, his declaration of war on Libya without
congressional consent, the appointment of unelected policy “czars” in the
White House and a claim that he has tried to “change” the Constitution.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/white-house-petition-for-obama-impeachment-tops-28000-signatures/#ixzz2DWiNISm7
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/16/white-house-petition-for-obama-impeachment-tops-28000-signatures/#ixzz2DWiNISm7
“He proclaimed war in libya
without getting congress approval first,” the petition reads. “Article I,
Section 8- Only congress can approve to start war.”
“Obamacare is unconstitutional,” it claims, objecting to “[f]orcing US
citizens to get health insurance whether they want it or not.”
“Obama disrespects our Constitution,” it continues, “calling it flawed
and trying to change it even after taking [his] oath”
“Appointing agency ‘czars’ without Senate approval,” the petition
concludes, is another reason for impeachment.
- 6.5% CD Rate AlternativesAlternatives to Low Rate CDs Fixed Rates / Principal Protected www.SeemanHoltz.com
- Watch Jennifer AnistonGet An Inside Look Into Jennifer Aniston's Security Tapes! www.youtube.com/drinksmartwater
Bill Clinton was the last sitting president to be impeached. The
Republican-controlled House of Representatives based that action in December
1998 on Clinton’s alleged perjury when he testified that he had not engaged in
a sexual tryst with a White House intern. A report from independent counsel
Kenneth Starr later showed that testimony was false.
Ten Republicans joined all 45 Democrats in the U.S. Senate in refusing
to convict Clinton by a 10-vote margin. A conviction would have resulted in his
removal from office.
Andrew Johnson was the only other U.S. president to be impeached, in
1868. The Senate voted not to convict him, sparing his presidency by a single
vote.
The 71 existing petitions to allow states to secede from the U.S. have
accumulated a combined 859,000 signatures.
We
request that Obama be impeached for the following reasons.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-request-obama-be-impeached-following-reasons/cpk4V6zK
Posted on Sunday, November 18, 2012 11:14:18 PM by modernline2009https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-request-obama-be-impeached-following-reasons/cpk4V6zK
We request that Barack Obama be impeached for the following reasons.
1. He proclaimed war in libya without getting congress approval first. Article I, Section 8- Only congress can approve to start war.
2. Obamacare is unconstitutional. Forcing US citizens to get health insurance whether they want it or not.
3. Obama disrespects our Constitution calling it flawed and trying to change it even after taking this oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,
and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
4. Appointing agency “czars” without Senate approval.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/we-request-obama-be-impeached-following-reasons/cpk4V6zK
From: Philip Riggio THINGS TO COME?
1. Buffetteering the Boobs
The GOP horse's asses have their head up their duff,
standing on their head to begin with. By not understanding how their own
gov't "works" (or making believe they don't) and mixing up satisfying
the gov't's cockamamie rigged statistics (budget, deficit/surplus, Debt) with
the economy, they're not only breaking their word to the people but acting as
agent for BO's RUINAMERICA agenda.
2. Double-Gaming the Dead
On another front, all this justifiable noise about
Susan Rice (wonder if she & Condi are related?) obscures the obvious: State
Deputy Chief of Staff & longtime Madame Secretary of State's, er,
"galpal" (17 yrs. now) Huma Abedin*, smug her al-Qaeda pals
were blasted to power thanks to having Madame drone around the desert, figured
ignore Stevens (as the Abbottabad SEALs, those surviving the mysterious chopper
crash, were ignored) by NOT calling in reinforcements from State's
private-contractor army in Iraq (incredibly ignored by Romney & GOP though
somewhere "in the appropriation:" there to allow BO to say "War
over, dude") and then told Madame (or maybe BO directly) what to say, which
then got to Rice.
Time to blow the Buffetted, Bowles'd & Huma'd
dissemblers/dunces out.
3. Double-Gaming the Nobel: Two (or More) Can Play
I think Gaza was set up by Huma to get Madame the
Nobel Peace Prize, so what if Hamas was the aggressor, Israel suffered terror
and Netanyahu (everything BO & Madame's husband aren't, partic. patriot
& warrior) got schlepped aside? Queering this is Morsi's power grab,
though maybe Oslo'll split it between Madame, Morsi & that Hamas hollerer.
HOLD ON THOUGH! There's another contender: Raul
Castro Ruz, ratpussed host of the Havana Colombia-FARC "peace" talks
(seems Santos, confronted every day in the plaza by the "revolution,"
had his fill of BO's & Madame's disgusting whoremongers in Cartagena, also
forgotten by Romney, not to mention the US's "double game" vis-a`-vis
drugs similar to that re putting Huma's pals in power in the non-monarchical
Arab despotisms disguised, and stupidly assented to by Romney & the GOP, as
"human rights" and "democracy"). Co-host and co-venue
of those talks is Norway, whence the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded.
The nominations might already be in Oslo.
(Recall how quickly BO got his?) How about a four-way split among Madame,
Morsi, Hamas and Raul?
Can't blame the Mayas for saying, "Don't blame
US!"
*Birthplace as suspect as BO's; security clearance,
anyone?
Boehner to Obama: Debt Ceiling Is ‘My Leverage’Tuesday, 27 Nov 2012 07:48 AM By Martin Gould
The increase in the nation’s debt limit is the Republicans’ “leverage”
in discussions about wider fiscal issues, House Speaker John Boehner has told
President Barack Obama.
“There is a price for everything,” Boehner told the president during a Nov. 16 meeting with the president on ways to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” Politico reported on Tuesday.
But Democrats told the web site that the GOP should not expect anything in return for agreeing to an increase in the debt. “Do you really think we would come up with a $4 trillion grand bargain and then try to find another $1 trillion in cuts to offset a debt ceiling increase? I don’t think so,” one unidentified Senate aid said.
The battle over the debt ceiling comes less than two years after the last time the issue was on the table. That resulted in a bitter fight between the two parties that consumed much political energy during the summer of 2011.
This time the issue is further complicated by the looming financial crisis that experts say would be inevitable if ways are not found to avert the so-called cliff. That is the term that has been used to describe the effect of ending Bush-era tax breaks and the imposition of $1.1 trillion of across-the-board cuts agreed by the parties during the last debt negotiations. Both are due to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Some Republicans believe the cliff and the ceiling should be dealt with separately. “The more you try to jam in a lame duck, the more complicated the deal gets and the more likely we fail,” former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told Politico.
But others believe the party has more to gain by combining them. “If you put together some sort of gerrymandered deal, a little change here and there, … that is not going to be what Republicans will view as a credible package,” said Steve Bell, the senior director of the Bipartisan Policy Center.
“There is a price for everything,” Boehner told the president during a Nov. 16 meeting with the president on ways to avoid the “fiscal cliff,” Politico reported on Tuesday.
But Democrats told the web site that the GOP should not expect anything in return for agreeing to an increase in the debt. “Do you really think we would come up with a $4 trillion grand bargain and then try to find another $1 trillion in cuts to offset a debt ceiling increase? I don’t think so,” one unidentified Senate aid said.
The battle over the debt ceiling comes less than two years after the last time the issue was on the table. That resulted in a bitter fight between the two parties that consumed much political energy during the summer of 2011.
This time the issue is further complicated by the looming financial crisis that experts say would be inevitable if ways are not found to avert the so-called cliff. That is the term that has been used to describe the effect of ending Bush-era tax breaks and the imposition of $1.1 trillion of across-the-board cuts agreed by the parties during the last debt negotiations. Both are due to go into effect on Jan. 1.
Some Republicans believe the cliff and the ceiling should be dealt with separately. “The more you try to jam in a lame duck, the more complicated the deal gets and the more likely we fail,” former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin told Politico.
But others believe the party has more to gain by combining them. “If you put together some sort of gerrymandered deal, a little change here and there, … that is not going to be what Republicans will view as a credible package,” said Steve Bell, the senior director of the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/boehner-debt-ceiling-leverage/2012/11/27/id/465458?s=al&promo_code=10E53-1#ixzz2DWc2vftJ
GOP Senators More Troubled After Rice Meeting “Newsmax” Tuesday, 27 Nov 2012 11:31 AM
Emerging from a closed-door meeting, three Republican senators said
Tuesday they are more troubled than ever with comments made days after the
deadly Sept. 11 raid in Libya by Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador and President
Barack Obama's possible choice for secretary of state.
Sens.
John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Kelly Ayotte met privately with Rice and acting
CIA Director Michael Morell for more than an hour on her much-maligned
explanations of the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya,
that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
Ayotte
said Rice told the lawmakers that her comments in a series of national
television interviews five days after the attack were wrong. However, that
failed to mollify the three lawmakers, who have talked about blocking her
nomination if the president taps her to succeed Secretary of State Hillary
Rodham Clinton.
"We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was leading up to the attack on the consulate and the tragic death of four brave Americans and whether Ambassador Rice was prepared, or informed sufficiently, to give the American people the correct depiction of the events that took place," McCain told reporters.
"We are significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get concerning evidence that was leading up to the attack on the consulate and the tragic death of four brave Americans and whether Ambassador Rice was prepared, or informed sufficiently, to give the American people the correct depiction of the events that took place," McCain told reporters.
Said
Graham: "Bottom line I'm more disturbed now than I was before that 16
September explanation."
The
three insisted that they need more information about the Libyan raid before
they even consider Rice as a possible replacement for Clinton.
"I'm
more troubled today," said Ayotte, who argued that it was clear in the
days after the attack that it was terrorism and not a spontaneous demonstration
prompted by an anti-Muslim video.
Despite
lingering questions over her public comments after the Benghazi attack, Rice
has emerged as the front-runner on a short list of candidates to succeed
Clinton, with Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., seen as her closest alternative.
The
strong statements from the three senators clouded Rice's prospects only two
days after Republican opposition seem to be softening. Rice planned meetings on
Wednesday with Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, who is in line to become the top
Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Corker
said Tuesday that he had concerns with a possible nomination.
"When
I hear Susan talk she seems to me like she'd be a great chairman of the
Democratic National Committee," Corker said. "There is nobody who is
more staff supportive of what the administration does. That concerns me in a
secretary of state."
Rice's
series of meetings on Capitol Hill will be a critical test both for
Republicans, who will decide whether they can support her, and the
administration, which must gauge whether Rice has enough support to merit a
nomination.
A
senior Senate aide said the administration was sounding out moderate members of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, such as Corker and Sen. Johnny Isakson,
R-Ga. Assessing the prospects for Rice before Obama makes any announcement
would avoid the embarrassment of a protracted fight with the Senate early in
the president's second term and the possible failure of the nominee.
Rice
is scheduled to meet with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., her most vocal critic on
Capitol Hill, and Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H. McCain and Ayotte are members of
the Senate Armed Services Committee.
On
talk shows the weekend following the attack, which took place on the 11th
anniversary of 9/11, Rice was given talking points that described the attack as
a spontaneous protest of the film, even though the Obama administration had
known for days that it was a militant assault.
Republicans
called her nomination doomed, leading to a vigorous defense of her by Obama in
his first postelection news conference. Since then, GOP lawmakers have appeared
to soften their views. McCain, who said earlier this month that would he do
everything in his power to scuttle a Rice nomination, said Sunday that he was
willing to hear Rice out before making a decision.
Sen.
Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had
issued a statement highly critical of Rice on the day of Obama's news
conference. He indicated Monday that perhaps she didn't know what had
transpired in Benghazi on the day of the attack.
"I
assumed she had full knowledge of everything that went on. I'm not at all
convinced of that now. She very well could have been thrown under the
bus," Inhofe said in an interview. He said she hadn't requested a meeting
but he would be glad to meet with her.
White
House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday that the administration appreciated
McCain's latest comments about Rice, but wouldn't say whether the president saw
them as an opening to make the nomination. "Ambassador Rice has done an
excellent job at the United Nations and is highly qualified for any number of
positions," Carney said.
Several
diplomats currently serving with Rice said that what she lacked in Clinton's
star power, she could make up with a blunter approach that demands attention
and has marked her tenure thus far at the United Nations.
Rice,
who at 48 is relatively young, has been known to covet the job for years, but
was passed over for Clinton in 2009. Since arriving in New York, she can point
to a series of diplomatic achievements — most notably the NATO-led air campaign
that toppled Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and tougher sanctions against Iran
and North Korea over their nuclear programs.
But
Rice has also been criticized — along with other Security Council leaders — for
the failure of the U.N.'s most powerful body to take action to end the 19-month
civil war in Syria.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/Cabinet-Rice/2012/11/27/id/465514?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2DWcqj7wP
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/Cabinet-Rice/2012/11/27/id/465514?promo_code=F492-1&utm_source=Test_Newsmax_Feed&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1#ixzz2DWcqj7wP
“The Daily Caller” US states less free than Canadian provinces.
A new study on economic freedom in North
America
has concluded that some American states are less free than the provinces of our
northern neighbor Canada.
“Canadian
provinces now lead US states in average economic freedom, with the provincial
average at 6.8 compared to 6.7 out of 10 for US states,” claims the new study
by the Fraser Institute.
Topping
the list of the most economically free subdivisions of North American countries
is the Canadian province of Alberta, followed by Delaware, Saskatchewan, Texas
and Nevada.
On
average, American states lose to Canadian provinces in a number of categories,
including regulation of credit, regulation of business, and legal system and
property rights. While the average of economically free regions is higher in
Canada, it is worth noting they have both the most free state, Alberta, and the
least free state, Prince Edward Island, which is located off the coast of Nova
Scotia.
The Economic
Freedom of North America 2012 report was calculated using ten components in three
basic areas: size of government, takings and discriminatory taxation, and labor
market freedom. The number one issue affecting U.S. states’ freedom is the
amount of government spending.
“Part
of this is cyclical and has to do with the recession,” Benjamin Powell,
associate professor at Suffolk University and senior fellow with the
Independent Institute, explained.
“Welfare
program spending is up, but that’s partly just because of the economic down
turn. But it’s really across the board. Business subsidies from the government
and then just government spending on goods and services generally, have all
increased and that’s been the biggest cause of the decline at the state level.”
U.S.
states with the highest levels of freedom include Wyoming, Texas, Nevada,
Colorado, South Dakota, Illinois, Nebraska and Utah, many of the same states considered to be the most business-friendly states
in the union.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/28/report-us-states-less-free-than-canadian-provinces/#ixzz2DWgiIhBi
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/28/report-us-states-less-free-than-canadian-provinces/#ixzz2DWgiIhBi
Rubio Opposes Independent Investigation into Benghazi Consulate Attack
by Javier ManjarresSenator Marco Rubio was the headliner at a rally for Israel held at a South Florida Jewish Community School this past weekend, where he reiterated his support for America’s closest ally in the Middle East and took a few questions from the media as he exited the event.
Rubio expressed his deep concerns about the lack of security measures that the U.S. government was responsible for at its consulate in Benghazi, Libya which led to the murder of four Americans.
My number one concern about the Benghazi situation is that knowing it was a very dangerous place that was growing even more dangerous, the United States did not supply sufficient security for that consulate in Benghazi, and as a result, four brave Americans lost their lives. We need to make sure how that happened, so that it never happens again. -Senator Marco Rubio
When asked whether an independent investigation was warranted to get to the bottom of what really happened both in the run up to the attack on the consulate and its aftermath, Rubio asserted that an independent investigation was not necessary.
Rubio, who sits on the Select Committee on Intelligence and is privy to intelligence briefings stated that Congress was more than capable of conducting an investigation into the matter.
I don’t think it has to be independent (investigation) the bottom line is that, the Congress is fully capable, I am on the intelligence committee, I am on the Foreign Relations committee in the Senate, I think that those committees are fully capable of investigating why there was not sufficient security provided to the personnel in Benghazi, and how that could’ve been prevented. - Senator Marco Rubio
La decadencia de EEUU
Enrique de Diego.- La victoria electoral de Barack Husein Obama es una pésima noticia en medio de una crisis que amenaza con llevarse por delante la civilización occidental. Obama es un personaje, simplemente, nefasto. Con su reelección se certifica la decadencia de Estados Unidos. Multiraletarismo no es más que un palabro que difumina la pérdida de liderazgo por parte de USA. Pero Obama no es la causa de los profundos males de Norteamérica, sino su efecto.Obama ha sido reelegido con todos los parámetros de su gestión en términos de fracaso y en muchos aspectos de desastre. En una nación en la que el pleno empleo ha sido la costumbre, el paro se sitúa por encima del 8% y ha aparecido el desempleo de larga duración, que allí se mide desde los seis meses, que era algo por completo desconocido. Su política internacional se ha caracterizado por el apoyo estúpido y suicida al integrismo islámico y el fruto cosechado ha sido el asesinato del embajador en Libia, que ha quedado impune. La primera gran operación del Cuerpo de Marines fue una exitosa expedición de castigo a Trípoli contra la piratería berberisca que había secuestrado a ciudadanos norteamericanos. El asesinato del embajador fue perpetrado por los mismos que él y su comandante en jefe habían apoyado.
Por tanto, y esta es la primera conclusión, la democracia que se establecía como sistema de corrección de errores y castigo al mal gestor ha dejado de funcionar. Obama es manifiestamente un mal gestor y su intención de llevar a Estados Unidos hacia el modelo europeo, de corte estatista y socialdemócracia, está causando daños intensos en la sociedad, mediante el paro y la deuda, sin que ello haya sido castigado por los electores. El castigo era el instinto democrático, al margen de las virtudes o defectos de Romney.
Pero las causas de esta decadencia de Estados Unidos –“la mayor potencia a favor de la libertad surgida en la historia de la Humanidad”, según la afirmación de Margaret Thatcher- son más profundas. Se ha roto el consenso básico que conformó a los Estados Unidos en el sentido thatcheriano como una nación basada en la libertad de la persona frente al poder coercitivo del Estado y la burocracia. Puede decirse que el Estados Unidos de Obama es una nación nueva que poco tiene que ver con la de Abraham Lincoln o Jefferson y sólo la mayoría de los republicanos en la Cámara de los Representantes hace funcionar el equilibrio de poderes y la existencia de un contrapoder.
Ni me gusta Obama, ni lo que representa. Obama representa un Estados Unidos multicultural en el que, a tenor de lo expuesto por todos los comentaristas, se vota a través de grupos étnicos, de comunidades yuxtapuestas, de modo que los negros, los hispanos y las mujeres –nada ha hecho más daño a la civilización occidental que la corrupción de la mujer a través del feminismo- son los que han dado la victoria a Obama. Una coalición, pues, de minorías, definidos de manera étnica. La minoría anglosajona protestante ha dejado de liderar a la nación. Estados Unidos se había presentado históricamente como la tierra de promisión en la que recalaban los emigrantes, los desheredados del viejo mundo para recalar en el nuevo y abrirse paso mediante su esfuerzo personal. Era un crisol basado en principios. Lo refleja con extraordinaria pasión la película “América” de Elia Kazan. Era un crisol en el que se fundían personas de diversas procedencias que aceptaban unos principios comunes.
El Estados Unidos de Obama es multicultural. Se trata de establecer comunidades raciales y racistas. Esos analistas que hablan de grupos étnicos reflejan una realidad con algunas categorías mentales que serían inteligibles para el estado mayor de las SS. Esas comunidades, mediante una coalición de minorías, pretende no buscar y dejar buscar a los demás la felicidad, sino obtenerla del dinero de los otros mediante la depredación del Estado a través de subvenciones y privilegios, depauperando a las clases medias. Es la ambientación generada por lo políticamente correcto. La consecuencia es el empobrecimiento paulatino de la sociedad que afecta especialmente a los votantes de Obama, los más perjudicados por esa línea ineficiente. Ese es el esquema que está fracasando estrepitosamente en Europa.
El grupo étnico que está desnivelando la balanza es el los hispanos y su avance demográfico indica que lo hará en creciente medida. La identificación de un criterio racial con una posición política me repugna. Los emigrantes del pasado se integraban en el consenso básico de Estados Unidos. Los hispanos lo están cambiando. Las políticas migratorias invasivas y subvencionadas están teniendo un efecto corrosivo. No debería ser así, pero es lo que está sucediendo. Como sus precedentes, los hispanos podrían tener a reforzar los principios de los padres fundadores, pero no está siendo así.
Obama es el personaje más nefasto de la historia de los Estados Unidos. Por supuesto, no es ningún revolucionario. Está manifiestamente al servicio de las élites financieras, pues lo que está haciendo es trasvasar dinero del contribuyente a esas élites, pero la retórica de la drogodependencia estatal y del resentimiento social cala en esos grupos étnicos que son sus víctimas. El economista negro Thomas Sowell ha explicado con brillantez como esas políticas destruyen a la familia negra y restan movilidad social, generando ghettos. El ghetto ha sustituido al american wa of life. La demolición de ese modelo se lleva predicando durante décadas en las cátedras universitarias y en los medios de comunicación. Quiero alabar el esfuerzo reactivo del Tea party.
Me cabe recordar el diagnóstico tremendamente premonitorio de San Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer escrito el 14 de febrero de 1974 en su texto –recomendando su lectura- “La tercera campanada”: “Toda una civilización se tambalea impotente y sin recursos morales”. Esa civilización cristiana, geográficamente occidental, se tambalea con espasmos cada vez más fuertes en Europa y también en Estados Unidos, cuya sociedad civil parecía más fuerte y, por ende, más inmune. En el momento actual, tiene parte de mitología.
El panorama recuerda en demasía la decadencia del Imperio romano, y USA, a pesar de su tendencia aislacionista, ha tenido bastante de imperio y mucho de gendarme del mundo. Los bárbaros han atravesado el limes y forman grupos “étnicos”, que imponen nuevos criterios, muchos de ellos traídos de los lugares fracasados de los que aparentemente venían huyendo. Estados Unidos que había desplegado los principios de la civilización se ha vuelto tribal. Votan un conjunto de tribus en litigio, aún ahormadas por el patriotismo, pero son tribus, al fin y al cabo, y así se las presenta, aunque se no utilice con precisión ese calificativo.
Es preciso desarrollar un movimiento ilustrado –es lo que he pretendido y pretendo con mis libros y con Regeneración- que cree en el ambiente necesario para la supervivencia de las clases medias y de la civilización. Sin racionalidad, el medio ambiente está lleno de emociones buenistas que pueden conducir a conflictos internos a medida que avance la pobreza, porque ni la adoración al Estado (me remito al último capítulo de mi libro “Carta a los jóvenes”) ni el multiculturalismo son capaces de asegurar los actuales niveles de población, ni los estándares alcanzados, sino que encaminan a las sociedades hacia la indigencia y el hambre. Y las poblaciones respaldan, con el voto, su propio sacrificio en una pulsión suicida.
RESPONSABLES DE LA CRISIS MUNDIAL
¿Sabéis quiénes son Lucas Papademos (actual dirigente Griego tras la
dimisión de Papandreu) y Mariano Monti (ahora al frente del gobierno
italiano)?
¿Sabéis quién es Mario Draghi (actual presidente del Banco Central
Europeo)?
¿Sabéis lo qué es Goldman Sachs?
Goldman Sachs: es uno de los mayores bancos de inversión mundial y
co-responsable directo, junto otras entidades como la agencia de
calificación Moody's, de la crisis actual, y uno de sus mayores
beneficiarios. Sólo a modo de pincelada, en 2007 ganaron 4 mil millones de
dólares en operaciones que desembocaron en el desastre actual.
Papademos: Actual primer ministro griego, tras la dimisión Papandreu.
No elegido por el pueblo.
- Ex-gobernador del Banco de la Reserva Federal de Boston entre 1993 y
1994.
- Vicepresidente del Banco Central Europeo de 2002 a 2010.
- Miembro de la Comisión Trilateral desde 1998, fundada por Rockefeller,
lobby neo-liberal (se dedican a comprar políticos a cambio de sobornarles)
- Ex-Gobernador del Banco de Central Grecia entre 1994 y 2002.
Falseó las cuentas de déficit público del país con la ayuda activa de
Goldman Sachs, lo que condujo en gran parte a la actual crisis que sufre el
país.
Mario Monti: Actual primer ministro de Italia tras la dimisión de
Berlusconi. No elegido por el pueblo.
- Ex-director europeo de la Comisión Trilateral antes mencionada.
- Ex-miembro del equipo directivo del grupo Bilderberg.
- Asesor de Goldman Sachs durante el periodo en que ésta ayudó a ocultar el
déficit del gobierno griego.
Mario Draghi: Actual presidente del Banco Central Europeo, en sustitución
de Jean-Claude Trichet.
- Ex-director ejecutivo del Banco Mundial entre 1985 y 1990.
- Vicepresidente por Europa de Goldman Sachs entre 2002 y 2006, periodo en
que se realizó el falseo antes mencionado.
........................................................................
Hay que ver la cantidad de gente que trabajaba para GoldmanSachs.....
Bien, qué casualidad, todos de la mano de Goldman Sachs. Los que crearon
la crisis se presentan ahora como la única opción viable para salir de la
misma, en lo que la prensa estadounidense está empezando a llamar "El
gobierno de Goldman Sachs en Europa".
¿Como lo hicieron? Os lo explico:
Animaron a los inversores a invertir en productos sub-prime que sabían que
era productos basura, y al mismo tiempo se dedicaron a "apostar" en bolsa
por el fracaso de los mismos. Eso es solo la punta del iceberg, y está muy
documentado, podéis investigarlo.
Mientras leéis este e-mail se están forrando a base de especulación sobre
las deudas soberanas.
Se tiende a querer hacernos pensar que la crisis ha sido una especie de
resbalón, pero la realidad apunta a que detrás de ella hay una voluntad
perfectamente orquestada de hacerse con el poder directo en nuestro
continente, en una maniobra sin precedentes en la Europa del siglo XXI. La
estrategia de los grandes bancos de inversión y agencias de calificación es
una variante de otras llevadas a cabo anteriormente en otros continentes, se
viene desarrollando desde el inicio de la crisis y ésta, desde mi punto de
vista, está siendo la
siguiente:
1. Hundimos a los países mediante la especulación en bolsa/mercado.
Los volvemos locos de miedo a lo que dirán los mercados, que nosotros
controlamos, cada día.
2. Los obligamos a recurrir a préstamos para mantenerlos en Status
Quo, o "salvarlos". Estos préstamos están estrictamente calculados para que
los países no los puedan pagar, como es el caso de Grecia que no podría
haber cubierto su deuda ni aunque su gobierno vendiera el país entero, y no
es ninguna metáfora, es matemática.
3. Exigimos recortes sociales y privatizaciones en detrimento de los
ciudadanos, bajo la amenaza de que si los gobiernos no los llevan a cabo,
los inversores se retirarán por miedo a no poder recuperar el dinero
invertido en la deuda
de esos países y demás inversiones.
4. Se crea un altísimo nivel de descontento social, propicio para que
el pueblo, ya sonado, acepte cualquier cosa con tal de salir de la
situación.
5. Colocamos a nuestros hombres donde mejor convenga.
Si os parece ciencia ficción, informaos: este tipo de estrategias están
perfectamente documentadas y se han venido utilizando con distintas
variantes a lo largo el siglo XX y XXI en otros países, notablemente en
Latinoamérica por parte de los EEUU cuando se dedicaban, y se siguen
dedicando en la medida que pueden, a asfixiar económicamente mediante la
deuda exterior por ejemplo a países de América Central, para crear
descontento social y aprovecharlo para colocar a dirigentes afines a sus
intereses.
Ahora esto está pasando en Europa, y ya no es que lo haga EEUU, sino que
lo hace la industria financiera internacional. Y lo que está ocurriendo,
bajo la mirada impotente y/o cómplice de nuestros gobiernos, es el mayor
robo jamás realizado en la historia de la humanidad y a escala planetaria;
son golpes de estado y violaciones flagrantes de la soberanía de los estados
y sus pueblos.
Es muy fácil informaros en Internet. Decídselo a vuestros amigos, pasad
esta información a cualquiera que pueda estar interesado...
Se nos están comiendo vivos... La gente tiene que saberlo.
Gracias por leerlo.
Jesús Rodríguez Barrio Profesor de Economía de la UNED --
Esto es
algo para que refresquen: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=NLjuGPBusxs&vq=medium
_____________________________________________
Contribuciones: Alberto L. Pérez “amenper”, Amb. Armando Valladares, Annie González, Ing. Armando López Calleja, Bárbara Fernández, Carlos Bringuier, Enrique Enríquez, Enrique de Diego, Erick Ruiz, Emigdio Prado, Gerardo Alfredo DeSola, Georgina López, Héctor Molina, Héctor Lemange Sando, Irmende Méndez, Jesús Angulo, Jesús Marzo Fernández, Jorge A Villalon, Jorge Aguiar , José y Marcia Caula, J Fresno, Lili Samways, Manny Fernández, Margarita Sánchez, María Argelia Vizcaíno, May De La Vega, Mil amigos de Holguín, Miriam Pinedo, Miriam Dopico, Margarita Sánchez, Marlene, Martha Ruiz, María Lahullier, Olga Griñan, Oscar Díaz, Philip Riggio, Raúl Barroso, Ricardo Samitier, Sergio Bello, Sofía Iduate, Sonia “Chuchin” Castell y
Lázaro R González Miño Algunos colaboradores prefieren ser anónimos y
respetamos su opción.
305 445 7364 lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com
MrLazaroRGonzalez.blogspot.com https://www.facebook.com/lazarorg,
“Salmo109”
7-Cuando fuere juzgado salga culpable; 8-Sean sus días pocos; tome otro su
oficio,
Porque
tuyo es El Reino, El Poder y La Gloria Eterna. AMEN