¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Responder
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

Should Americans Agree To Live Under Sharia Law, In Order To Help US Troops in Afghanistan?

Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2010 11:31:30 AM by pinochet

       Prohibitions against desecration of the Koran, is part of Islamic Sharia law. American law and the US Constitution, does not forbid desecration of the Koran, because the Founding Fathers did not establish America to be a Muslim nation. But the American government and the entire US political and military establishment, forced an American Christian clergyman to submit to Islamic Sharia law. I used to think that the US military was established to defend the US Constitution. Silly me. Winning the war is more important than protecting American freedoms, and we need to get rid of offensive parts of the contitution, such as the first ammendment right to free speech, free expression, and religious freedom.

     This new realism has given me a great idea on how we can be more effective in winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani people, and make life for our boys easier in Afghanistan. How about putting Burkhas on American women. We can start with America's two most powerful women, Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama. We can then put Madonna and Paris Hilton in Burkhas, and continue until every woman in America is covered up. I must admit that there is an upside to such a policy. We will never have to look at Helen Thomas' face again. The Afghani people will just love us, if they discover that Americans are just as capable of being backward barbarians like themselves.

Power Line Blog: John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson, Paul Mirengoff
http://www.powerlineblog.com

September 11, 2010 Posted by John
 

Talk about a "teachable moment!" An unknown Florida minister with a barely-existent congregation announces that he will burn Korans on September 11, and the whole world reacts, on cue. Demonstrators in Muslim countries burn American flags; religious leaders of all denominations rush to out-do one another in condemning Rev. Jones; President Obama and Secretary of Defense Gates plead with Jones not to disrespect the Koran; General Petraeus warns that he is endangering American troops; the FBI leans on him; MSNBC invites him to appear on television and then cuts him off without allowing him to utter a word, so dangerous is his message!

     Now Reverend Jones says he will not burn any Korans after all. Why should he? If this was a bit of guerrilla theater, it succeeded beyond anything he could have imagined.

    Rev. Jones's stunt prompts the question: what lessons of September 11, 2001, have we internalized? Nine years after President Bush declared Islam a religion of peace, does anyone believe it? Apparently not. Christianity really is a religion of peace, which is why Bible burnings prompt zero news coverage, let alone hysteria throughout the Executive Branch.

     Nine years after the world called on moderate Muslims (of whom there are undoubtedly a great number) to reform their religion and marginalize the extremists, how well have they succeeded? How hard have they tried?

     Nine years ago, the United States responded to an act of war with a determined and largely successful military campaign that decimated al Qaeda's leadership and severely degraded its military capabilities. Does anyone believe that in 2010 we have the stomach for a similar response to renewed violence by Islamic terrorists?

    Nine years after September 11, 2001, which adversary is on the march? The public reaction to Rev. Jones's act of theater suggests the answer.

 

Surrender - 9/11/2010
Personal Blog - TwoConservatives ^ | 9/11/2010 | Charles Reichley

    9/11/2010. This is the day that our government surrendered to the radical Muslim hoardes.

     Those radical muslims threatened our armed forces, if we are to believe General Petraeus.

    In response, the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, the FBI (3 times), and General Petraeus all responded to the threat against our troops -- by actively and publicly intervening to stop the exercise of free speech (as defined by the Supreme Court) that was objected to by those who threatened us with war.

     In response to the overwhelming force of government threats and intimidation, the citizen of our country backed down, and agreed to relinquish his freedom to make his statement.

     This is the very definition of surrender -- the Commander in Chief (as Obama referred to himself when harassing a citizen for threatening to commit free speech), rather than standing up for the rights of our citizens guaranteed in the constitution, surrendered to those threatening war. Without a shot being fired, the muslim extremists who threatened our troops won the war.

     The only question that remains is, are there any rights that our President, and his leadership team, are willing to defend against threats of violence?

    Well, we know that Obama refuses to stand up to the threat of violence from Mexico that would result from enforcing our immigration laws and stopping the illegal invasion of our country from the south.

    So, what is next? Suppose the muslim extremists threaten violence if we don't make some muslim holy day a national holiday? What if they insist we allow muslim communities to practice sharia law? If they object to women wearing provocative garments when walking near mosques or during holy days?

      What if they insist we don't prosecute the increasing acts of violence muslims are inflicting on their own families in the name of "honor killings"? Is there some point at which the Obama administration will draw the line and say "enough is enough -- we don't mind surrendering SOME of our rights to extremists, but not the rights that WE care about!!!!".

     There are many forms of free speech that are highly controversial. Thus, the provocative statement "I may object to what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" -- a cornerstone of our freedom in this country. Obama's administration has replaced this with "If I object to what you have to say, I won't lift a finger to defend your right to say it".

     Here, on the 9th aniversaray of 9/11, we have time to reflect on the war that the extremists launched on our way of life long ago, and the most bruttle battle in that war, the downing of the two towers and the smashing of the Pentagon. We rebuilt the Pentagon, but in our first show of weakness have failed to rebuild the towers, which is a constant source of delight to the extremists -- no matter how much we weaken them on the battlefield, they can look to Ground Zero and know they have mortally wounded us; this is why so many Americans dislike the idea of building a victory mosque so close to that site.

       So it is sad that, on this aniversary, we are dealt such a blow, the surrender of our freedoms to these extremists. You don't negotiate with terrorists. You don't surrender your freedoms for the vain hope of security. If General Petraeus can't defend our troops against the mongrel extremist hordes, if the placement of our troops in Afghanistan results in the surrender of our free-speech rights at home, it is time for new leadership, a leadership that understands that the military exists to defend our freedoms, not so we have to surrender our freedoms to protect the military.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO. Obama’s War Against the U.S. Military

Obama’s War Against the U.S. Military


This is the fourth installment of a five-part series on how Barack Obama is America’s number one threat to national security.


“There are ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army by attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army.”—Sun Tzu, The Art of War

When presidential candidate Barack Obama proudly announced in the fall of 2007 that, if elected, he was going to “fundamentally change the United States of America” it was a warning shot across the bow of the U.S. military, its culture, and the men and women who bravely serve every day.

More to the point, while our armed forces take fire from enemies in the sands and mountains of the Middle East, they are also taking fire from a much more lethal source: their commander-in-chief. Yes, America’s military is at war with radical Islamists around the world and, more problematic, with their President at home.

Barack Obama’s war with the U.S. military is one with several fronts: social engineering of the military culture at the expense of readiness and capability; dictating the rules of engagement (ROE) that hinder our troops’ ability to fight an enemy that doesn’t wear traditional military uniforms and hides behind women’s burqas while operating from schools and mosques; and, slashing the necessary funding for force modernization and sustainability. And finally, morale—successful military operations always come down to morale.

Former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower once said “Morale is the greatest single factor in successful wars.” It’s also a concept that Barack Obama seems incapable of grasping.

It is hauntingly familiar to those of us who served in uniform during the 1990s, and, I would imagine, also familiar for those who served in the armed forces during the 1970s under the feeble leadership of President Jimmy Carter as well. My personal experience comes from having served for the pro-military, principled leadership of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush during the 1980s and the experience of serving on the front lines, and then at the side during the 1990s, of a man with no character or principles, Bill Clinton.

Only three days into his infant presidency, in 1993, Clinton announced that he was going to lift the 50-year ban on homosexuals in the military. The original policy had been developed out of necessity during World War II and was reaffirmed by Congress in 1982 when it declared that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service because it undermines discipline, good order and morale.” 

Bill Clinton’s first order in office was directing then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to stop enforcing the ban on recruiting homosexuals and to halt prosecutions of homosexuals already in the services. He did so without consulting the military leadership in the Pentagon only to run headlong into the protestations of then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in Staff Gen. Colin Powell.

The result was the Department of Defense’s policy we now know to be “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The policy, however, is often confused with the law passed by Congress in 1993 which expressly forbids open homosexuality in the ranks. The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is actually the implementing D.O.D. regulation.  The law itself, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., otherwise known as The Military Personnel Eligibility Act of 1993, was passed by Congress in 1993 with veto-proof majorities and the federal courts have upheld the law as constitutional several times since.

Among the findings and provisions in the law, Congress dictated, and the courts have upheld, that “there is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces,” “success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion,” “military life is fundamentally different from civilian life,” “military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society,” and, “the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.” Ultimately, open homosexuality, they concluded, would present an “unacceptable risk” to good order, discipline, morale and unit cohesion.

Just as Clinton attempted to socially engineer the military to fit his ideological palate and placate the gay and lesbian voting bloc in 1993, Barack Obama is attempting to do precisely the same thing 17 years later with his announced intent to lift the ban and make good on his quid pro quo with the LGBT Left (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered).

“I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve,” Obama said in his 2010 State of the Union address. Just a week later, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates testified, “We have received our orders from the commander in chief, and we are moving out accordingly.”

Outraged by the Obama Administrations attempt to reengineer the military culture into one in which the openly gay, bisexual and even transgendered could serve, 1,167 retired flag and general officers personally signed a statement calling for the current law to be retained.

Among the critical findings they voiced: 1) the findings in the 1993 law remain valid, 2) the proposed legislation would require acceptance of professed (not just discreet) sexual minorities, with retroactive affect, 3) the LGBT law would affect all military branches and communities, to include Army and Marine infantry, Special Operations Forces, Navy SEALS, surface ships and submarines, on a constant (24/7) basis, and, 4) unit commanders would be burdened with personnel turmoil, accusations of bias, and potential career penalties that will weaken trust and team cohesion.  In the end, there is no value added by overturning the ban. Quite to the contrary, recent polls of U.S. military personnel indicate that 10% of those in uniform will leave the service or “vote with their feet,” if such a law is changed. Another 15% say that they will seriously consider doing so.

In time of war, can we accept that sort of devastating impact? Social engineering should not be the priority of Barack Obama, or any President for that matter; fighting and doing what it takes to win wars should be.


Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.-LA FORMADABLE ENTREVISTA DE SALINS A CALDERON

LA ENTREVISTA DE MARIA ELENA SALINAS AL PRESIDENTE FELIPE CALDERON.

 

 

 

¡MAGISTRAL!!... y me quedo corto.   La entrevista de María Elena Salinas a Felipe Calderón sienta un hito en la historia del periodismo hispano, jamás ha habido una entrevista hecha por un periodista hispano con ese calibre de profesionalismo e integridad.  Fue directa y al punto afrontando los grandes problemas que confronta México sin rodeos, a tal extremo fueron incisivas sus preguntas que dudo que jamás Calderón vuelva a darle otra entrevista a es distinguida periodista.

      Por su lado Calderón mostró ante el mundo su incapacidad para afrontar y asumir responsabilidades por la situación caótica reinante en México, recurriendo a achacarle a Estados Unidos por todos los males que sufre esa nación.

    “Quienes ignoran la historia están condenados a repetirla” decía el filosofo Jorge Santayana.  Al independizarse México, su nivel tanto cultural como económico estaba por encima de las 13 colonias americanas, tal como atestiguó en las crónicas de sus viajes por todo el hemisferio americano el erudito protestante alemán Varon de Humboldt.  La situación de México es el producto de 200 años de corrupción donde los políticos se enriquecen a costa de mantener el pueblo en la miseria obligándolo a tener que emigrar hacia ese vecino del norte que con tanto odio atacó en su entrevista Calderón y de donde proviene la segunda más importante  fuente de ingresos de México, producto de las remesas de los mexicanos en U.S. a sus familias, ingresos para la economía de mexicana superados sólo por los ingresos del petróleo.

       A tal extremo llegó la desfachatez de Calderón cuando Salinas le confrontó con el asesinato en masa de 72 centroamericanos que trataban de cruzar México en su busca de llegar a Estados Unidos, que el presidente mexicano difamó de manera inaudita a las autoridades americanas acusándoles  de asesinar a los centroamericanos que cruzaban la frontera sur de Estados Unidos.

        A su vez, confrontado con el problema de las matanzas entre los narcotraficantes, Calderón hizo a los Estados Unidos como el principal culpable, a pesar que Estados Unidos esta donando billones de dólares a México para la lucha contra los carteles de la droga y que Estados Unidos ha entrenado agentes especiales mexicanos para llevar la lucha exitosamente contra el narcotráfico; y a pesar que la mayor parte de esos agentes, una vez que regresaron a México se pasaron a trabajar para los carteles de la droga en lugar de combatirlos.

        Ni corto, ni perezoso en sus cínicos ataques a Estados Unidos, Calderón repetidamente sacó a relucir que el famoso y sanguinario capo mexicano de la droga recién capturado, Edgard Valdez, “el barbie” era ciudadano americano, lo cual ni le quita ni le añade a la alevosía de sus crímenes y a su larga historia criminal.

dqban22

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.-

SOROS, EL FINANCIERO DE OBAMA, DETRAS DE LA CAMPAÑA MUNDIAL PARA LEGALIZAR LAS DROGAS

 

SOROS: ¿ Que pretende?

 

     Afirman SOROS y sus activistas a favor de las drogas: “Enseñar a los adictos la adecuada administración de drogas ilegales, incluido el crack, reduciría su daño.”
     George Soros nació en Budapest, Hungría el 12 de agosto de 1930. Sobrevivió la ocupación nazi de Budapest y de la Hungría comunista en 1947 (colaborando con ambos) para ir a vivir en Inglaterra, graduándose en la escuela de Economía de Londres.

    La Presidenta de Europa Contra las Drogas (EURAD), Graine Kenny, en una conferencia celebrada en Oslo, Noruega, en septiembre del año pasado, advirtió a las autoridades locales que el libre consumo de drogas, propuesto por el grupo “Reducción de Daño” en su ciudad, convertiría a Noruega en un prisionero de la estrategia de George SOROS para obtener la legalización global de todas las drogas. Además (EURAD), describe como facilitadores del consumo de drogas a los que son financiados por el multimillonario George SOROS

     Para graficar la vida en las ciudades podemos usar una metáfora: Los jóvenes hoy pululan por un campo minado con los ojos vendados. La droga está al alcance de su mano y no saben cual será la consecuencia de su uso.

     Según las cifras oficiales que difundió la Subsecretaría de Prevención y Asistencia de las Adicciones de la Provincia de Buenos Aires dice: “En los últimos diez años se triplicó la cantidad de muertes de chicos de entre 14 y 19 años en todo el territorio bonaerense. Y en el 90 por ciento de los casos, se indica, se trata de muertes evitables.

       De esta manera, mientras cae la mortalidad infantil y aumenta la expectativa de vida en casi todo el territorio nacional, la tasa de mortalidad de los adolescentes crece a niveles escalofriantes, tanto que, según los especialistas, no ocurría algo así desde la Guerra del Paraguay, en 1865.”

      Mientras tanto George SOROS, es la figura pública que presta su voz a la cacofonía de la legalización. El apoyo financiero tanto como político y social del movimiento a favor de la legalización, no viene de una amplia diversidad de gente y organizaciones, sino de quienes siguen a George SOROS como Robert Mc Namara y Walter Cronkite .

      La Fundación de Políticas Relativas a las Drogas (DPF) en Washington, la Fundación Tides de San Francisco, Asociación de Reducción de Daño (ARDA) en Santa Fe, Argentina y Asociación Intercambios con sede en Buenos Aires, Argentina, se benefician de la generosidad del multimillonario George SOROS, apoyando políticas permisivas en el uso de drogas, en especial la “reducción del daño”.

      Afirman SOROS y sus activistas a favor de las drogas: “Enseñar a los adictos la adecuada administración de drogas ilegales, incluido el crack, reduciría su daño.”

      Enseñar a un adicto la “administración adecuada de drogas” es como dejar a un perro hambriento a cargo de una carnicería.

      Mientras tanto la realidad nos muestra que los adolescentes que usan drogas, se suicidan, se alejan de sus familias, abandonan las escuelas y se sumergen en la marginalidad.

       ¿Puede el poder del dinero impulsar la destrucción generalizada de nuestros jóvenes? ¿Podemos los adultos doblegarnos ante el dinero aunque la consecuencia sea nefasta? ¿Es criterioso pensar en el propio bolsillo, dejando de lado nuestros deberes de adultos? ¿Es factible pensar que por unos pesos, desinformemos a los pibes haciéndoles creer que la droga es un elemento recreativo?

Ciudad de Buenos Aires, junio 4 de 2006

Claudio Izaguirre

Presidente
Asociación Antidrogas de la República Argentina
Delegado por Argentina ante la Drug Watch International

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, September 11, 2010,


The US now owes more money than all of the money in the world combined.
Kevin D. Williamson at
National Review Online reported:

I have argued that the real national debt is about $130 trillion. Let’s say I’m being pessimistic. Forbes, in a 2008 article, came up with a lower number: $70 trillion. Let’s say the sunny optimists at Forbes got it right and I got it wrong.

For perspective: At the time that 2008 article was written, the entire supply of money in the world (“broad money,” i.e., global M3, meaning cash, consumer-account deposits, checkable accounts, CDs, long-term deposits, travelers’ checks, money-market funds, the whole enchilada) was estimated to be just under $60 trillion. Which is to say: The optimistic view is that our outstanding obligations amount to more than all of the money in the world.

Global GDP in 2008? Also about $60 trillion. Meaning that the optimistic view is that our federal obligations outpace the entire annual economic output of human civilization.

So, John Boehner wants to roll spending back to where it was in the last year of the Bush administration. Okay, great. Nice start.

The Obama-Pelosi economic plan resulted in a cumulative 7.5 million jobs deficit. By every objective measure the democrat’s Trillion dollar stimulus bomb was a complete disaster.

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi tripled the national deficit last year by nearly a trillion dollars – something unheard of in our nation’s history.

After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.

Instead of focusing on the economy the past two years the radicals in Washington beat up on business and rammed through an unpopular nationalized health care entitlement program.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

De coranes y mezquitas

 

 "Obama, el presidente parece olvidar que en mayo de 2009 su propia administración obligó al ejército norteamericano a quemar un lote de Biblias enviadas a Afganistán para evitar ofender la sensibilidad de los musulmanes en aquel país..." 

 

Alberto Acereda

Libertad Digital

9/Sept. 11, 2010

 

    Lo justo sería señalar que en este 11-S resulta tan inapropiado quemar coranes en Florida como insistir en construir una mezquita en la Zona Cero.

     Mientras Obama acaba de nombrar el cuadragésimo primer zar de su administración para combatir las carpas en los grandes lagos, el pueblo norteamericano recuerda estos días con dolor el noveno aniversario del mayor atentado terrorista contra este país.

     La fecha llega en medio de una polémica sobre "coranes" por quemar y "mezquitas" por construir. Llega cuando cada vez son más los ciudadanos que sufren la incompetencia de Obama en varios frentes, particularmente en el económico.

    El aniversario llega después de que se nos metiera con embudo una ley de sanidad que, a menos que sea revocada, aumentará más el ya inaguantable déficit nacional. Y llega cuando el norteamericano de a pie se siente engañado por un Gobierno federal que se dedica a perseguir más a sus propios ciudadanos (los ataques contra Arizona así lo prueban) que a los terroristas que siguen haciendo daño a este país.

     Nueve años después del 11 de septiembre de 2001, Estados Unidos va derivando hacia una de sus situaciones más caóticas en las últimas décadas. Las torres gemelas fueron trituradas y miles de norteamericanos fueron masacrados por terroristas islámicos que asesinaron en nombre de su religión, esa que llaman de la paz... Pero para Obama, la guerra global contra el terror ya no existe; todo es ahora una "Operación de Contingencia en el Exterior". Obama no viaja el 11-S a Nueva York pero defiende que allí, en esa misma Zona Cero, se construya una inmensa mezquita. Y al imán que la dirigirá, Feisal Abdul Rauf, el gobierno norteamericano le paga con dinero público un viaje a Oriente Medio.

     En otra columna escrita hace unos días con Newt Gingrich ya expusimos nuestro rechazo a la construcción de esa mezquita en dicho lugar pese a que legalmente cuenten con el derecho para construirla.

    Otra cosa es que acabe teniendo realmente el dinero para ello. El libre mercado así lo permite, aunque hay cosas que pueden resultar legales pero que no son apropiadas y que incitan a la provocación. En Nueva York existen ya más de cien mezquitas.

      Al margen de que la ley islámica de la sharía que defiende el imán Rauf no es apropiada ni en Estados Unidos ni en ningún lugar donde impere la libertad, cabría indagar de verdad en los lazos terroristas que financian la construcción de dicha mezquita, los nombres de Hisham Elzanaty o Sharif El-Gamal y sus conexiones con grupos de probado apoyo terrorista como la "Holy Land Foundation".

      Porque si legal es construir esa mezquita en la Zona Cero, legal es también que este 11-S el "pastor" Terry Jones, de la minúscula congregación "Dove World Outreach Center" de Florida, quisiera quemar varios ejemplares del Corán para conmemorar los ataques terroristas del 11-S. Sin embargo, pese a la legalidad del acto y al que a Jones le ampare el inalienable derecho constitucional a la libre expresión, esa quema resulta inapropiada y provocadora: es un error llevarla a cabo. La quema de esos libros, como la construcción de la mezquita podrán ser ambas legales pero son indignantes. Una y otra son actos inapropiados y provocadores que faltan al respeto. Quizá por eso, el tal "pastor" Jones decidió no seguir adelante con su proyecto.

       Lo que resulta incongruente es defender el derecho a hacer una cosa pero no la otra, como ha hecho públicamente Obama. Porque el presidente y su cortejo de medios y agencias afines no han perdido ni segundos para desplegar toda su fuerza hasta Florida y contrastar la idea idi..ota de este "pastor" cristiano con la supuestamente bondadosa visión del imán Rauf de construir una mezquita en la Zona Cero.

        El objetivo de Obama y la progresía no es otro que jalear mediáticamente al imán y denostar al "pastor", mostrar al mundo que la maldad de aquellos terroristas del 11-S resultó algo excepcional y que en el lado cristiano hay también una alta dosis de locos y pirómanos.

      El imán de la mezquita, Rauf, a quien siguen millones de personas, es visto por Obama y sus babosos mediáticos como hombre de bien. No importa que Rauf se niegue a condenar los atentados de los terroristas de Hamás o que culpe a Estados Unidos como causa del 11-S. Por otro lado, el insignificante "pastor" Jones es presentado por Obama y sus medios como hombre de mal aunque tenga razón al culpar al terrorismo islámico por los atentados del 11-S. Así, Obama y sus reporteros se ceban hipócritamente con el cristiano y enaltecen al musulmán.

      Lo justo sería señalar que en este 11-S resulta tan inapropiado quemar coranes en Florida como insistir en construir una mezquita en la Zona Cero. Y lo justo sería señalar también que entre los elogios al imán Rauf y los ataques al pastor Jones por parte del propio Obama, el presidente parece olvidar que en mayo de 2009 su propia administración obligó al ejército norteamericano a quemar un lote de Biblias enviadas a Afganistán para evitar ofender la sensibilidad de los musulmanes en aquel país...

     Traigo aquí a colación y comparativamente esta polémica para mostrar el peligro de perder de vista la realidad: mientras los escasos y únicos cincuenta seguidores de la congregación de Florida no iban a pasar de quemar el libro islámico sagrado, por mal que eso resulte, los seguidores de la sharía en la que cree Rauf siguen planeando construir la mezquita en un edificio tocado la mañana del 11-S hace nueve años. El imán amenaza diciendo que de no construirse la mezquita habrá más atentados terroristas contra Estados Unidos... A nueve años ya de la masacre humana del 11-S, sólo en los últimos meses hemos visto terroristas en aviones en Detroit, coches bomba en la Times Square, matanzas de inocentes en Fort Hood... y todo por obra del terrorismo islámico infiltrado ya en Estados Unidos.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.- OBAMA DIGGING HIS OWN DITCH...

Posted By Tait Trussell On September 14, 2010 FrontPage

 

 

     Bush is charged with putting the economy in a ditch. But who really dug the hole?

     President Obama is correct. Our economy is in a ditch. He has used that analogy to blame Republicans uncountable times. He did so recently, Sept 5, campaigning in Parma, Ohio, where he pleaded, “Do we return to the same failed policies [1] that ran our economy into a ditch, or do we keep moving forward with policies that are slowly pulling us out?

     But it was not the economic policies [2] of George W. Bush and the GOP that got us into this economic ditch. It was Obama’s own Democrat party that is primarily to blame, and Obama himself.

      Bush economic policies [3] included tax reductions for all Americans, spending to fight two wars, and a free-market ideology aimed at reducing the role of the federal government in the private sector. He promoted the concept of individual accountability. The national debt did rise significantly from 2001 to 2008. But in his State of the Union speech in 2005, Bush said his budget eliminated 150 government programs [2] that “don’t fulfill priorities.” Bush spending actually averaged that of President Clinton. But Bush policies were not flawless.

     The recession started 13 months before Obama’s inauguration, by the measurement of the National Bureau [4] of Economic Research. In February 2008, Bush agreed with the then-Democrat controlled Congress on a $168 billion combination of spending and temporary tax rebates. These steps were supposed to prop up growth due to the house slump. Once in office, Obama’s top economic advisers called for their hoped-for mighty stimulus [5]. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sept. 7 in an article explaining how trillions in fiscal and monetary stimulus bucks have produced an embarrassingly anemic 1.6 percent recovery. Talk about being in a ditch!

     During this Keynesian ***********///////********//////****** economic policy—from cash for clunkers [6], $8,000 home-buyer’s [7] tax credits, to jobless pay [8] for 99 weeks, not to mention the nearly $800 billion stimulus [9] that didn’t stimulate, the Obama economy decelerated to the abysmal 1.6 percent ditch, with 9.6 percent unemployment. Never has anyone dug the ditch so deep. Obama’s “shovel” seemed the only one “ready.”

       Instead of focusing on the economy, The Obama Administration “embarked on the most sweeping expansion of government since the 1960s,” as The Wall Street Journal put it. A year was wasted on a health plan that a majority of American don’t want. “Obama’s policies have spread fear and uncertainty,“ while he blasts anyone in sight for “greed and recklessness,” The Wall Street Journal commented.

       In April, Peter Wallison, the Arthur Burns Fellow in financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, wrote in The Wall Street Journal: “Obama has taken to accusing others of representing ‘special interests,’” Obama charged that “the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis.”

     Wallison wrote: “He should know. As a Senator, OBAMA was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions [10] from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

 

     This brings us to what started the digging of the economic “ditch.”

Why did Bear Sterns (the global investment bank) fail? How does this relate to AIG (the international insurance and financial services giant)?  

     Kevin Hassett, director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute, shortly before Obama took office, wrote. “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.” They did this by becoming “a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street’s efforts to securitize subprime loans” by becoming the primary customer of subprime mortgage pools.

    As of June 2009, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. “They created an environment in which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home. The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were low-risk investments only if real estate prices continued to rise. Once prices began to fall, the whole house of cards came down with them.”

    Take away Fannie and Freddie, and these highly liquid markets would never have emerged. The whole mess would never have happened [11]. In 2005, then-Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan warned Congress about Fannie and Freddie, saying, “We are placing the total financial system of the future at risk.”

    What occurred then “was extraordinary,” Hassettt said. “For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee.” It was supported by then-President Bush. The bill would have required Fannie and Freddie to eliminate their investments in risky loans. Many loans were given to low-income borrowers who couldn’t afford them. But the Democrats voted against the bill. So, it was Democrats who created [12] the financial problems that helped dig the “ditch” when they launched “affordable housing mandates” that lowered lending standards.

     According to Wallison, today Fannie and Freddie hold $5.5 trillion in mortgage loans. “They have lost billions of federal dollars and continue to bleed billions more because of the high default rate.” Fannie’s and Freddy’s toxic assets set off the financial crisis that TARP I and II [13] (Troubled Asset Relief Programs) were supposed to have eliminated.   

      The housing crisis was the central cause of the recession, Wallison said. Other proposals by Bush to oversee Fannie and Freddie were shot down by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif).

    Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution Thomas Sowell, Sept 7 agreed in All Clear Politics that the risky loans by Fannie and Freddie are what “set off the chain reaction that bought down the whole economy…The current policies of the Obama Administration are a continuation of the same policies that brought on the current economic problems—all in the name of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—still sacred cows [14] in Washington.”

     And so Obama keeps digging and digging the ditch.

 

 

Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, September 11, 2010,


The US now owes more money than all of the money in the world combined.
Kevin D. Williamson at
National Review Online reported:

I have argued that the real national debt is about $130 trillion. Let’s say I’m being pessimistic. Forbes, in a 2008 article, came up with a lower number: $70 trillion. Let’s say the sunny optimists at Forbes got it right and I got it wrong.

For perspective: At the time that 2008 article was written, the entire supply of money in the world (“broad money,” i.e., global M3, meaning cash, consumer-account deposits, checkable accounts, CDs, long-term deposits, travelers’ checks, money-market funds, the whole enchilada) was estimated to be just under $60 trillion. Which is to say: The optimistic view is that our outstanding obligations amount to more than all of the money in the world.

Global GDP in 2008? Also about $60 trillion. Meaning that the optimistic view is that our federal obligations outpace the entire annual economic output of human civilization.

So, John Boehner wants to roll spending back to where it was in the last year of the Bush administration. Okay, great. Nice start.

The Obama-Pelosi economic plan resulted in a cumulative 7.5 million jobs deficit. By every objective measure the democrat’s Trillion dollar stimulus bomb was a complete disaster.

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi tripled the national deficit last year by nearly a trillion dollars – something unheard of in our nation’s history.

After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.

Instead of focusing on the economy the past two years the radicals in Washington beat up on business and rammed through an unpopular nationalized health care entitlement program.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.- OBAMA DIGGING HIS OWN DITCH...

EL FRAUDE DE LAS PROMESAS DE OBAMA DE REBAJAR IMPUESTOS A LOS PEQUEÑOS NEGOCIOS

 DQBAN22

9/14/2010

“Quienes ignoran la historia esta condenados a repetirla.” ( J. Santayana) El propio Obama anteriormente había reconocido que jamás se aumentan los impuesto durante una recesión…  y mucho menos en una recesión que Obama ha convertido en una depresión siguiendo los mismo esquemas keynesianos usados por Franklin D. Roosevelt y que provocaron la gran depresión de los años 30 con un desempleo del 25% y que nunca bajó del 20%.  Es axioma más que probado que cuando se aumentan los impuestos decrece la actividad económica, disminuyen las recaudaciones de impuestos mientras que se dispara el desempleo. 

 

     Que el recíproco es cierto fue probado cuando John F. Kennedy rebajó toda la escala de los impuestos federales, incluyendo los impuestos a los más “ricos” del 91% al 70% iniciándose un período de prosperidad a la vez que aumentaban las recaudaciones al fisco. 

 

       Más tarde, Reagan demostró una vez más lo acertado de bajar los impuestos rebajándoles a todo el mundo incluyendo la tasa máxima de impuestos del 70% al 50% a los que crean la mayor parte de los empleos, (los ricos, como le llaman a los empleadores Obama y los marxista que recurren a la lucha de clases) dando lugar al periodo de prosperidad más largo y sostenido en tiempos en tiempos de paz en la historia de U.S., prosperidad que fue interrumpida por los demócratas al provocar la debacle financiera que trajo consigo las medidas de Carter y Clinton que forzaban a los bancos a financiar la compra de casas a personas sin recursos para poder pagar dichas  hipotecas creando un monstruo que las absorbería a través de Fannie Mae y Freddi Mac, dos instituciones llenas de corrupción manejadas por los demócratas que terminaron cargándole la deuda de trillones dólares a los nietos de nuestros nietos, a la vez que derrumbaban la estabilidad de las instituciones financieras no solo americanas, sino del todo el mundo. 

        La debacle financiera desembocó en una recesión  que más tarde Obama la convirtió en una depresión con sus medidas marxistas y keynesianas que provocaron el estancamiento de la economía y un desempleo real de cerca del 17%, algo nunca visto desde la depresión provocada por Franklin D. Roosevelt.

 

      Gracias a la revolución de Reganomics entre el 1983 y el 2007 la economía creció un promedio del 3.5 % y se crearon 72 millones de nuevos empleos.  En el mismo periodo, la Unión Europea, gracias al socialismo, con más población y una economía en conjunto mayor que la americana, su economía creció por debajo del 2 % mientras que sólo se crearon 4 millones de nuevos empleos

    En cuanto a la rebaja de impuestos del presidente George W Bush en el 2003, esa rebaja incentivó la anémica economía que había heredado de Clinton que crecía un 1.9%, y es una gran mentira que fueron recortes de impuestos para los “ricos”, que incluye los pequeños empresarios,  ya que incluía a todos los contribuyentes al fisco, siendo a los llamados “ricos” por Obama y sus camaradas marxistas,a  los que menos se les recortó la tasa de impuestos que fue de un 11.61%, es decir del 39.6% al 35%, mientras que casi el 50% de los que tenían los ingresos menores quedaban exentos de impuestos, los siguientes en la escala se les rebajo en un 33.33%, es decir del 15% al 10% dando lugar a un resurgimiento de la actividad económica que produjo tasas de crecimiento por encima del 5% mientras que el desempleo llegó a descender al récord  del 4.5 %.

 

      La supuesta rebaja de impuestos de Obama a las pequeñas  empresas es otro fraude más que sigue en los pasos de sus fracasados trillón dólares de “estímulos” que fueron despilfarrados sin lograr incentivar la economía ni rebajar el desempleo.

 

Obama, un ideólogo marxista radical, no comprende que  "No se hacen ricos a los pobres haciendo pobres a los ricos."

 

    El pueblo está harto y asqueado de las patrañas de Obama y sus secuaces en el Capitolio y expresará su repudio a este farsante en las   elecciones de Noviembre de una manera clara y contundente.

    

Dqban22

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.

TEA PARTY REPUBLICAN, MARCO RUBIO, HAS BIG LEAD IN FLORIDA

 

 

 

9/15/2010

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican candidate Marco Rubio has opened a clear lead in a Florida Senate race, becoming the latest Tea Party favorite to benefit from voter anger at Washington, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Wednesday.

   Six weeks before November 2 congressional elections, Rubio leads state Governor Charlie Crist, an independent, by 40 percent to 26 percent among likely voters, the poll found. Democrat Kendrick Meek trails at 21 percent.

    The conservative Tea Party roiled Republican politics when a little-known candidate backed by the movement beat a veteran lawmaker in Delaware on Tuesday in the race to decide the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate in November.

     The Tea Party is a loose-knit group of mostly Republicans that has been attracting anti-Washington voters upset at government spending, taxes and deficits. They are strong critics of President Barack Obama.

    Tea Party-backed candidates have ousted Republican establishment politicians in Nevada, Colorado, Kentucky and Connecticut. Crist fled the Republican Party earlier this year to run as an independent when it seemed clear he would lose to the conservative Rubio in the state's primary vote.

     Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, is softening his rhetoric in an apparent attempt to appeal to moderates before the November vote.

"The language he is using is a little more mainstream Republican," said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark.

      The poll numbers show a big swing since mid-August, when an Ipsos Public Affairs poll showed Crist leading Rubio by 33 percent to 29 percent if Meek were the Democratic candidate.

     Florida is one of a dozen toss-up Senate contests across the United States that could decide the balance of power in the November and the fate of Obama's legislative agenda.

     Voters are anxious about high unemployment and the sour economy in this election year when all 435 seats of the House of Representatives are up for grabs in November along with 37 Senate seats and 36 governorships.

      ENTHUSIASM GAP

Florida, like other states, has a large "enthusiasm gap" with Republicans far more motivated to vote in November than Democrats. The poll said 82 percent of Republicans said they are certain to vote, compared to 61 percent of Democrats.

    Crist and Meek are likely splitting Democratic votes, according to the poll.

    When voters were asked their choice between Rubio and Crist if Meek was not in the race, the contest is essentially tied -- Rubio 46 percent, and Crist 45 percent.

    "We know that until recently Crist has been benefiting tremendously from Democratic support and that seems to have ceded somewhat," Clark said.

     Concern among Floridians about the economy has increased 10 points since the last poll in early July -- 61 percent said the economy is the biggest problem facing the state, up from 51 percent.

   This could be related to declining concern about the BP Plc oil spill that afflicted the Gulf and damaged Florida tourism, Clark said.

     The poll said he is seen as more likely than Rubio to "say anything to win votes" and more "part of the problem with politics right now in this country."

     The race to replace Crist as governor is close, with Republican Rick Scott and Democrat Alex Sink statistically tied, Scott with 47 percent and Sink with 45 percent, the poll found.

    The survey of 600 registered Florida voters, of which 486 said they are likely to vote has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points among registered voters and 4.6 points among likely voters.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: VAMOS AL PUNTO.- MICHELLE Y LA BRUNI

'It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Carla Bruni reveals what Michelle Obama REALLY thinks of being First Lady

By Daily Mail Reporter
 16th September 2010

 

 


MICHELLE IN 'HELL': 'CAN'T STAND' FIRST LADY JOB



 

  • New biography alleges rivalry between two women strained relations between the French and U.S. presidential couples

  •     Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’, Carla Bruni reveals today in a wildly indiscreet book.

        Miss Bruni divulges that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her pposition as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’

        Details of the private conversation, which took place at the White House during an official visit by Nicolas Sarkozy last March, emerged in Carla And The Ambitious, a book written in collaboration with Miss Bruni.

        However another book, an unauthorised biography about the French president's wife, offers an insight into an apparently testy relationship between the two women.

    No secrets: Michelle Obama, left, and Carla Bruni last year

    No secrets: Michelle Obama, left, and Carla Bruni last year. Miss Bruni made the revelations about the U.S. First Lady's feelings in a wildly indiscreet new book.

       

     

     

    Michelle Obama le dijo a Carla Bruni, primera dama de Francia que detesta ser primera dama de Estados Unidos, y que no soporta lo que calificó de ser un verdadero infierno. 

        Afirmación altamente creíble ya que es típico de Michelle expresar su desprecio hacia U.S.   En un discurso que pronunció en Milwaukee cuando Obama derrotó a Hillary en las primarias demócrata, Michelle declaró:  "Por primera vez en mi vida adulta me siento verdaderamente orgullosa de mi país, y no sólo porque a Barack le esté yendo tan bien, sino porque creo que la gente tiene hambre de cambio".

        Para mayor desvergüenza, Michelle, quien lleva una vida de opulencia y ostentación jamás vista en las primeras damas de los Estados Unidos, vida que haría la envidia de Evita Perón y de la Reina Marie Antoinette, una vez más demostró su desprecio por esta nación que los elevó a ella y a Obama a la más alta posición que pueda aspirar un ser humano, y esto, a pesar de carecer de méritos propios y de haber escalado a esa posición por medio del engaño y la complicidad de una prensa sicofante que comparte con ellos su odio hacia el sistema de libre empresa que hizo de los Estados Unidos la envidia del mundo.