Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Zafiro
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

REGIMEN DE OBAMA ENVUELTO EN VENTA DE ARMAS AL NARCO

  

New Mexico Mayor, Police Chief, City Councilman Arrested For Gunrunning To Cartels

3/14/2011
There are the “Gunwalkers” at ATF, and then there are the real Gunrunners. In addition to turning a knowingly blind eye to gun smuggling, some New Mexico City officials are alleged to be willing participants in gunrunning for profit for them.

 Eddie Espinoza, Mayor of Columbus, New Mexico, its Police Chief, Angelo Vega, who had just come off administrative leave for alleged wrongdoing, and Blas Giuterrez, a city councilman, have been arrested for suspected gunrunning across the border from this town. They were among eleven arrested under an 84 count indictment.  The town’s last claim to fame was that it was where Pancho Villa entered the United States when he made a raid there.
     Police found and seized 40 AK-47rifles, over 1,500 rounds of ammunition and 30 high-capacity magazines from those before they crossed the border. At least 12 firearms found in Mexico were traced back to them.
    The Bradys, Violence Policy Center, and Ceasefire have been saying that gun dealers have been indiscriminately letting guns go across the border into Mexico. This has become their latest cause. Instead of expressing outrage over the ATF “Gunwalker” scandal,   the Brady Campaign is Outraged Over House Vote To Kill Funds To Curb Illegal Gun Trafficking   according to a recent press release. They are also touting Obama’s anti gun editorial letter published this weekend in a Tucson newspaper.    
     As much as these groups have pounded on illegal “straw man” sales of firearms, they have been as equally silent about the “Gunwalker” ATF scandal, where ATF allowed thousands of firearms across the border to “trace” them. Unsuspecting gun dealers who tried to cooperate with ATF have been smeared by ATF’s actions, and now, one group of New Mexico officials have been arrested for gun smuggling.
      As far as dealers are concerned, many gun dealers tip off ATF when they suspect "straw purchases," in which a person buys for someone who is prohibited from owning a gun, a common practice in Mexican gun running cases. And that’s what happened recently at a big Arizona gun store. And, you’re going to read now that a small town New Mexico Mayor, Police Chief, and councilman have been indicted on over eighty counts of Gunrunning into Mexico for the cartels
      But, before more on the city officials, here’s how one gun store was sucked into ATF wrongdoing. Someone came into nationally known retailer J&G Sales in Prescott, Arizona recently and plunked down enough cash to buy 40 WASR 10 AK47s.
   
  The guys at J&G Sales called The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and told them that something was “fishy” with the sale, and that they suspected that it was a straw man sale.  But the FBI and ATF's tail wagging lackeys at NICS said, "Go ahead, Sell them." And, not only did the sale smell fishy, it stank.

    The ATF was in the midst of their “Project Gunrunner,” and was using the store as a patsy. But, this so called “Project Gunrunner” turned into “Gunwalker,” where the ATF was knowingly allowing firearms to be taken into Mexico to be used in drug crime there.
      While ATF allowed at least 3,000 firearms to illicitly enter Mexico until a Federal Agent blew the whistle, the U.S. Embassy in Mexico had this to say about “Project Gunrunner.”
     “ATF is deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the “tools of the trade,” to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, and to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border…  Firearm tracing intelligence is critical because it allows ATF and its partners to identify trafficking corridors, patterns and schemes as well as traffickers and their accomplices. Firearms tracing helps identify firearms straw purchasers, the traffickers, trafficking networks and patterns, thus allowing law enforcement to target and dismantle the infrastructure supplying firearms to the DTOs in Mexico.”
     What the hell is a gun shop supposed to do when they are told to “Go ahead, sell them,” by the government agency that approves the sales of guns at gun shops here? The Government was intent on their being sold and traced.
     It is known that a “Gunwalker” AK47  that the ATF let intentionally "let walk" into Mexico killed Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and it was being traced by Gunrunner into, Mexico. God knows how many others these guns that “Walked” into Mexico will maim and kill in the hands of Mexican drug lord maniac gunmen.
      One good question is how high in government does this scandal go? Janet Napolitano of “Homeland Security” has recently disavowed knowledge of this wrongdoing at ATF. But, Just like anti gun groups have remained silent on “Gunwalker,” she has said nothing more in hopes that this will just blow over.

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Altas dosis de catastrofismo - FUKUSHIMA, BAJO CONTROL
Las mentiras ecologistas sobre Japón desatan una nueva ola antinuclear

      El terremoto nipón y su impacto sobre la central de Fukushima han desatado mensajes apocalípticos. En Japón dan por finalizada la situación de emergencia.

M. Llamas / F.D. Villanueva

     Altas dosis de catastrofismo. Así se podría resumir el tratamiento generalizado que prensa, políticos y, sobre todo, ecologistas de medio mundo han otorgado a la crisis nuclear causada por el terremoto y posterior tsunami que golpearon Japón el pasado viernes.

     A las 14:46 (hora local de Japón) un terremoto de casi 9 puntos en la escala de Richter sacudió el país y un posterior tsunami arrasó parte de la costa nipona. Pero más allá de la catástrofe económica y humanitaria que ha provocado el seísmo, con miles de muertos y desaparecidos, llama poderosamente la atención que numerosos medios de comunicación, gobiernos y grupos ecologistas hayan aprovechado la catástrofe para volver a cuestionar la energía nuclear llegando, incluso, a comparar la actual situación con el desastre de Chernóbil, cuando nada tienen que ver el uno con el otro.

     Dicho dramatismo mediático se ha trasladado casi de inmediato a los poderes públicos. En este sentido, destaca la reacción de los gobiernos de la UE. El eurocomisario de Energía, el alemán Günther Oettinger, ha convocado a los ministros del ramo de los 27 países miembros de la Unión Europea a un Consejo Extraordinario el martes ante la crisis nuclear en Japón.

      "Considero que el alcance de los acontecimientos en Japón es impredecible", dijo el político cristianodemócrata. La convocatoria de Oettinger tiene lugar después de que su colega de Medio Ambiente en la UE, Jamez Potocnik, citara también a los ministros del ramo y expertos nucleares de los 27 este lunes en Bruselas. Bruselas quiere que las centrales nucleares de la UE (143) sean sometidas a test de estrés para comprobar su resistencia a un gran terremoto o un atentado terrorista.

     Tales declaraciones no son tan extrañas si se tienen en cuenta algunas de las llamativas portadas publicadas estos días...

    A nivel nacional, Suiza anuncia que paralizará la renovación de sus centrales nucleares mientras que el Gobierno federal alemán estudia suspender temporalmente la ley recientemente aprobada para prolongar la vida de las centrales nucleares hasta 14 años, a la espera de nuevos estudios.

      "Necesitamos un nuevo análisis de riesgos", dijo el vicanciller federal y titular de Exteriores, el liberal Guido Westerwelle, quien subrayó que el Gobierno desea verificar minuciosamente la seguridad de cada una de las 17 plantas atómicas en funcionamiento. De hecho, no descartó que se opte finalmente por el cierre anticipado de alguna de las centrales de Alemania, el tercer país del mundo con plantas más antiguas.

    Por su parte, el líder de la oposición socialdemócrata (SPD), Sigmar Gabriel, exigió la derogación inmediata de la ley para la prolongación de la vida de las plantas atómicas, así como el cierre automático de las siete centrales más antiguas y una apuesta decidida por el rápido final de la energía nuclear en Alemania.

      Un mensaje que, desde luego, contrasta con la moderación y la prudencia mostrada en este caso por la ministra de Economía española, Elena Salgado, que consideró que el debate sobre el uso de la energía nuclear en España debe abordarse con una "perspectiva global", sin tomar decisiones basadas únicamente en una "circunstancia concreta", en referencia al terremoto ocurrido en Japón. Confió en que "las cosas no vayan más allá" y las medidas adoptadas en Japón minimicen el riesgo nuclear.

     Reacción ecologista

Por último, los ecologistas no han dejado escapar esta oportunidad para lanzar, si cabe con más fuerza, su tradicional alarmismo nuclear. Tan sólo es necesario pasearse por la web de Greenpeace España para observar la campaña puesta en marcha en contra de este tipo de energía, encabezada con el siguiente banner: 

      Carlos Bravo, responsable de energía de Greenpeace, ha seguido la crisis desde su blog, y su diagnóstico acerca de la situación en las centrales niponas no llama precisamente a la calma. Esto es lo que decía el domingo:

Greenpeace sigue extremadamente preocupada por la seguridad de los trabajadores y de los habitantes de las zonas colindantesa las  plantas nucleares averiadas en Fukushima, Japón. Al parecer hay cinco reactores nucleares cuyo sistema de refrigeración se estropeó por el seísmo [...] De acuerdo con la última información disponible, las unidades 1, 2 y 4 están todavía sin refrigerar y periódicamente se liberan gases radiactivos.

Hay noticias de mediciones elevadas de radiactividad hasta 100 kilómetros de distancia, cerca de Onagawa, otra central nuclear, pero la causa no ha sido identificada – podría ser contaminación de Fukushima llevada por el viento, o un escape local.

Aunque, en este sentido, destacan sobremanera las conclusiones lanzadas por Bravo el pasado sábado, apenas horas después de que se produjera el seísmo:

[...] nos enfrentamos a un escenario en el que podría ocurrir una liberación ingente de radiactividad del reactor Fukushima-1.

De momento, no se puede descartar que la situación pueda avanzar hacia una fusión total del núcleo de la central, como se dio en Chernobyl [...] Las consecuencias de tal accidente sería tremendas, como ya se comprobó en el de Chernobyl.

 [...] una conclusión es clara: los reactores nucleares son intrínsecamente peligrosos [...] hoy Japón está en medio de una crisis de consecuencias potencialmente devastadoras por culpa de la energía nuclear [...] Las energías limpias de verdad, las renovables, no crean problemas de seguridad nacional.

Alarmismo vs realidad

Y frente a todo este catastrofismo nuclear, la empresa Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) aseguró este mismo lunes que la situación de emergencia ha finalizado en los reactores 1 y 2 de la central nuclear de Fukushima (noreste de Japón), que sufrieron problemas de refrigeración tras el seísmo del viernes. La temperatura en ambos reactores ya ha bajado y es estable, por lo que ya no entrañarían peligro, según TEPCO, operadora de la central, citada por la agencia local Kyodo.

Los problemas continúan en el reactor 3, después de que este lunes se produjera una explosión por hidrógeno en su recipiente secundario de contención que, según TEPCO, no dañó el reactor ni produjo una fuga masiva de radiactividad. Los esfuerzos de los responsables de la central 1 de Fukushima (Daiichi), situada a unos 270 kilómetros de Tokio, se centran ahora en enfriar el tercer reactor, donde se trata de reanudar la inyección de agua marina para controlar su temperatura.

Es decir, según las últimas informaciones, la situación está bajo control. Ni medios, ni políticos ni ecologistas han prestado atención a la espectacular resistencia que han mostrado las plantas niponas, pese a que el país ha sufrido el peor terremoto de su historia y el quinto a nivel mundial desde que existen registros. Seísmo que, además, fue seguido por un gran tsunami de olas gigantescas que arrasó todo a su paso.

Tampoco se ha destacado la reacción del Gobierno nipón, que ha logrado evacuar a la población a un radio de 20 kilómetros en torno a la central de Fukushima, ni la puntual información aportada por el Foro de la Industria Atómica Japonesa ante el estado de alarma presente en todo el país.

La cuestión es que a día de hoy los niveles de radiación a cinco kilómetros de la central eran similares a los de ayer y, por el momento, las autoridades descartan la existencia de una fuga masiva, y que desde el primer momento todos los reactores cercanos al seísmo pararon de forma automática, tal y como está previsto para este tipo de situaciones.

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

AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

 

Nuclear Disaster in Japan?

By Rich Trzupek On March 15, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

     If there is a positive note to be found in the devastating earthquake that struck Japan last week it should be this: the aftermath of the disaster provides incontrovertible proof that nuclear power plants are safe.

    You wouldn’t know that from the way that the mainstream media has covered the story, particularly when it comes to the Fukushima Daiichi plant that was hardest hit, but this is undoubtedly the case nonetheless. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) will have an expensive clean up to deal with, but no one living in Japan or anywhere else will be affected in any measurable way. It’s rather remarkable when you think about it. A huge nuclear power plant suffered the twin blows of a massive earthquake and huge tsunami while three reactors were operating and there was never any chance of a nuclear disaster. Japan will mourn the thousands of dead that Mother Nature took from her for a long time, but no bodies will ever be traced to the Fukushima plant.

     To understand why a technical fellow like myself can make those kind of bold statements, we must start with a few basics regarding nuclear reactor design and the details of the last week’s events at Fukushima. I’ll have to simplify certain issues in the name of brevity and comprehension, but you’ll get the jist.

      First of all, understand that the reactors at Fukushima were designed to withstand a massive earthquake. They’re built on bedrock, their primary containment vessels are massive, and there are multiple back-up systems. When the earthquake hit, all of primary and secondary containment vessels survived undamaged. As you probably know, water flowing through the vessels keeps the temperature and pressure in the vessels at safe levels. When the earthquake hit, primary power to the water pumps was lost. No problem – back up diesel generators cut in to take up the load and keep water flowing. Then the tsunami hit, a much bigger tsunami than designers anticipated, and this blow knocked out the back-up generators, which effectively shut down the pumps.

     TEPCO then took steps to stop nuclear reactions in Units 1, 2 and 3, but you can no more bring a nuclear reaction to an immediate halt than you can instantly stop a car going 60 miles an hour. Thus, all of the frenetic news coming out of Fukushima is really nothing more than coverage of a controlled shut down in abnormal conditions. Disaster is not looming around the corner, but the mainstream media loves to create drama. I have no doubt that the MSM will publish self-serving stories in a week or two that piously describe how disaster was “narrowly averted” at Fukushima.

      The explosions that have occurred are a result of what happens when liquid water dissociates at high temperatures, forms hydrogen and oxygen, and those two elements then recombine explosively. It’s spectacular and the explosions have destroyed non-vital parts of structures, but those explosions haven’t resulted in the release of any radiation or damage to the primary containment vessels. When pressures in the vessels did climb too high, TEPCO vented excess gas to ensure that primary containment structural integrity would not be compromised. The small amounts of radiation released were vented through a filter that removed that tiny bit of radioactivity.

     TEPCO has introduced sea water into Units 1 and 3 (Unit 2 is doing fine) to further cool the fuel rods until the nuclear reactions stop. There is not, and never has been, any danger of a catastrophic fuel rod explosion as happened at Chernobyl. This is rather another “Three Mile Island” moment for the nuclear power industry: a “disaster” in which nobody is killed, nobody gets hurt and nobody is in any real danger. While I can understand the public relations aspect inherent to the Japanese government’s decision to issue an evacuation order around the Fukushima plant, it has no scientific basis for doing so.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to environmental issues or any other technical topics, most of the mainstream media takes their cues from “experts” whose most important qualifications involve ideology, not science. And so the situation at Fukushima generated the kind of hysteria in the media that we’ve come to expect. For example, Utah ABC 4 reporter Emily Clark wondered: ”If the reactors melt down, could the reactive material make it to Utah?” The answers are: 1) the reactors aren’t going to “melt down”, 2) “reactive material” isn’t a term that makes any sense in the context of this story, and 3) not only is nobody in Utah going to be in danger from the Fukushima reactors, nobody in Japan is. Nothing to see here folks – move along.

       A headline in the Vancouver Sun screamed: “Quake ravaged Japan battles against nuclear meltdown.” While he said that he has been a big supporter of nuclear energy in the past, Senator Joe Liebermann said that we should hit the brakes now that the fifth biggest earthquake in recorded history has done nothing to put Japan at risk of nuclear disaster. “I think we’ve got to kind of quietly, quickly put the brakes on until we can absorb what has happened in Japan as a result of the earthquake and the tsunami and then see what more, if anything, we can demand of the new power plants that are coming online,” Liebermann said. The lead of an AFP story on Sunday declared: “Explosion and meltdown fears at Japan’s quake-hit Fukushima nuclear plant renewed debate today about the safety of atomic energy and cast doubt over its future as a clean energy source.”

     Hyperbole seems to rule the day when it comes to nuclear energy, at least in the way that the media and politicians react. It’s ironic, because few industries can boast the kind of safety record that the nuclear power industry can offer. There has been exactly one real disaster involving nuclear power plants and that only happened because operators took foolish action at a poorly designed plant. In contrast, and like Three Mile Island before it, Fukushima is proof that engineers know how to design nuclear plants to withstand virtually any problem. Far from putting the brakes on renewed development of nuclear power in America as Liebermann suggests, Fukushima should serve as the ultimate reassurance that this technology is mature and as safe as any energy source we have.

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Obama: The Man Who Would Be King
It’s time to face reality and declare Barry the Emperor Hussein.

 

 

King Obama

 

By: David Kahane

 

 A couple of you wingnuts have been floating an idea lately that, mirabile dic tu, actually makes a lot of sense. No, I’m not talking about running Michele “The Battle of Lexington and Concord, N.H.” Bachmann for president; that member of the House Intelligence Committee has enough on her plate right now, including elementary history and geography, without having to worry about the other 56 states.

Rather, I’m talking about the movement afoot to make our beloved bonze, Barry, a.k.a. His Serene Majesty the Emperor Barack Hussein Obama II, Lord of the Flies, Keeper of the Hoops, Master of the Greens, and Protector of the Holy Cities of Honolulu and Chicago, into a, you know, honest-to-Gaia emperor. I mean, here we’ve been talking about finding common ground since the election of 2008, and now we just may have stumbled upon the solution to our contentious national dialogue.

You perhaps may have noticed that the former Mr. Barry Soetoro already has lots of different names and titles, so why not make it official and add the one toward which he has striven all his charmed, magical life? You’d think that Barry, Barry Obama, Barry Soetoro, the Punahou Kid, Barack Obama Jr., Barack Hussein Obama, Barack Hussein Obama II, State Senator Barack Obama, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, President Barack Hussein Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Hussein Obama, and the First Black President would be enough for anybody, but the one thing we men of the Left love about Mr. Multiple Handles is his unceasing, restless, relentless quest for his next résumé topper.

After POTUS, of course, there’s really nowhere else to go, unless you count Ban Ki-moon’s job over at the U.N., and I have it on good authority that the other First Black President, Billy Jeff Blythe III, has dibs on that one. Since Billy III’s one up on Hussein II in the Roman-numeral department, it’s probably his for the asking. And the
Chinese gig is already taken.

My first thought was that we should offer Barry the vacant throne of his native Hawaiian Islands. Sure, he’d have to put on three or four hundred pounds to fit the royal robes of King Kamehameha, but even Barry might blanch at the thought of adding King Kam’s full moniker to his roster of names: Kalani Paiea Wohi o Kaleikini Kealiikui Kamehameha o Iolani i Kaiwikapu kaui Ka Liholiho Kūnuiākea, the Second. Still, Michelle would have a real shot of slipping into
Queen Kapiolani’s muumuu collection and making it her own, especially after a few more meals of short ribs in Vail, the calorie count of which is only slightly offset by her incessant finger-wagging at the rest of us.

I’ve never read that Barry can cook, so Top Chef is probably out. Since he’s never shown the slightest inclination for hard work, president of Paramount Pictures is equally unlikely, or of any of the other Hollywood studios, where you actually have to do the job and show results or get fired. And if there’s one thing, among many, that Barry has never done, it’s get fired. Like all good confidence men, his strategy has always been to seek the next higher office before the voters decide his services are no longer required.

Speaking of Hollywood, “Tammany” Chris Dodd (D., Countrywide) managed to retire unindicted and has just scooped up the chairmanship of the Motion Picture Association of America, so there goes a perfectly good layabout lobbying gig. Maybe Obama could appoint Dodd ambassador to Ireland, so Mr. Ethics can spend more time at his
house in Galway, but that would require Obama’s looking down the road to electoral defeat in 2012, and we don’t want to go there just yet.

Still, there’s got to be a pot of gold at the end of this rainbow coalition somewhere, and that’s what I’m here to propose.

Rather than go through all the muss and fuss and time and expense of a presidential election next year, let’s call the whole thing off. Think about it: With Wisconsin as our new template, what is the point of your trying to defeat Barry fair and square at the ballot box when you know in advance that, if it goes against us, we’re going to refuse to accept the results of your so-called “election,” and instead will appeal to the higher democratic nature of our society and call out every union thug and goon in these United States to occupy the Capitol, shred the drapery, steal the silver, and molest the servants? If you thought the sit-ins and tractor pulls in Madison were uplifting and awe-inspiring, wait till you see what we’ve got in store for you on Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012. I tell you, it will make the
Whiskey Rebellion and the Bonus Army’s march on Washington look like NPR pledge drives.

And that’s why what we might call the Imperial Compromise is such a good deal for your side. It eliminates widespread bloodshed and destruction of property, at least for a while, kicks Barry upstairs, and lets us install a bona fide idiot as a figurehead president while Bill Ayers and George Soros really run the show. Biden won’t mind, the peace will be kept, and fundamental transformation will get four more years without anybody having to get hurt. What’s not to like?

It’s a deal you ought to take. None of your
clowns is likely to beat Hussein, so by taking the 2012 election off the table, you’ll have plenty of time to groom someone who can actually win. Not the retreads of Gingrich, Romney, Palin et al., but the fresh new faces of Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and Col. Allen West — who, when you stop to think about it, actually would be the First Black President. Luckily for us, they don’t dare shoot for the nomination of the It’s His Turn Now party next year, and there’s no point ruining a perfectly good crop of candidates just to, you know, “take your country back” (ha ha).

Now, what exactly would the Emperor Hussein do under this minor modification of the American electoral system? This is the genius of my idea: exactly what he’s doing today, which is basically voting present and letting his below-the-radar henchmen run the show. Health-care reform? Leave it to the speaker of the House,
Maerose Prizzi! Clean up prostitution in Nevada? Get Horseless Harry on the case! That other boring, governing stuff — well, that’s what extra-constitutional czars are for. Badges? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!

So
all hail O! As emperor, his duties will continue to include golf, basketball, and trips to his royal residences in Honolulu and Chicago. He’ll have unlimited use of Air Force One to jet him around the globe at his slightest whim, while the Empress Michelle will have hundreds of fashion designers at her beck and call, except for, of course, John Galliano, who’s temporarily hors de combat until his attitude readjustment is complete. Naturally, he’ll be stripped of any actual decision making, but we can live with that because he doesn’t do that anyway.

What do you say, Amerikkka? Shall we make it official and just get this over with already? Or are you really going to run Mr. Newt or Mitt against His Majesty?

David Kahane is proud to say that he remains resolutely bipartisan in his voting habits, casting his ballots for radical Communists and garden-variety Democrats alike. If you can keep a civil tongue in your heads, he’d be pleased to hear from you about the Imperial Compromise. As long as you have a cash receipt from purchasing Rules for Radical Conservatives, you can write to him at kahanenro@gmail.com or fake being his friend on Facebook.
Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Castro Condemns Jewish American to 15 Years in Prison

By Humberto Fontova On March 16, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage

     On Saturday, Castro’s court handed down a sentence of 15 years to Alan Gross, a contractor for USAID jailed in Cuba since Dec. 2009. The crime? Bringing cell-phone and Internet equipment into Castro’s fiefdom. Mr. Gross was trying to help Cuba’s tiny Jewish community communicate more freely with the outside world.

    Upon being bestowed their coveted Havana Bureau in 1997, CNN Bureau chief Lucia Newman (now with Al Jazeera) assured viewers that “CNN will be given total freedom to do what we want and to work without censorship.” Alas, CNN has little to report on the “trial” except for the verdict. The trial, in perfect keeping with the Stalinist regime’s agenda, was closed to all media.

     So we’ll never know the evidence, but the Castroite judge ruled that the Castroite prosecution “demonstrated the participation of the North American contractor in a subversive project of the U.S. government that aimed to destroy the Revolution through the use of communication systems out of the control of authorities” (emphasis mine).

     And there’s the rub: control of the authorities. Not even Libya or China seek to control cell-phone and internet access. Censor? Absolutely. But outright control of all means of communication is a fetish peculiar to Communists. (And no, the Chinese regime is no longer technically Communist, though certainly despicable and dangerous.)

     Regarding the Alan Gross sentence, Senator Marco Rubio was among the first to fire:

     Mr. Gross is simply a humanitarian who was seeking to help the Jewish community in Cuba access the Internet, and he deserves to be freed and reunited with his family at once. With Mr. Gross’ sentencing, the Castro regime has effectively demonstrated the hopeless and dangerous naiveté of this administration’s policy toward the regime.

    Obama’s “outreach” (a.k.a. naiveté) to Castro started early. “We have seen Raul Castro’s comments and we welcome this overture,” gushed Sec. of State Hillary Clinton at the Latin American Summit in April 2009. “We are taking a very serious look at it. We are continuing to look for productive ways forward, because we view the present [President Bush’s] policy as having failed. Engagement is a useful tool to advance our national interests.”

     Deeds quickly followed words. In executive order after executive order, Obama abolished Bush’s travel and remittance restrictions to Castro’s terrorist-sponsoring fiefdom to a point where the cash-flow from the U.S. to Cuba today is estimated at $4 billion a year. Compare this to the proud Soviet Cuba that received $3-5 billion annually from the Soviets. Some “embargo.”

 

    The U.S. embassy in Cuba (officially euphemized as a “U.S. Diplomatic Mission” or “Interest Section”) also responded to Mr. Gross’s sentence: “He is guilty of nothing more than caring for the Jewish community and the people of Cuba,” said the embassy’s Public Affairs officer, Gloria Berbena. She continued: “the Cuba government seeks to criminalize what most of the world deems normal [my emphasis] — in this case, access to information and technology.”

     So, Cuba is Communist after all! Did Ms. Barbena think she was being posted to Denmark? Maybe if our “diplomatic mission’s” officers spent less time partying with Fidel Castro’s son and the son of the vice chief of Cuba’s secret police, they’d learn how someone like Alan Gross might be subject to arrest. For proof of the above-mentioned fraternization, see these pictures recently smuggled from Cuba.

     Based on the “reporting” by networks and press agencies bestowed to Havana bureaus, an Obama-appointed diplomat can be forgiven for forgetting this, but Castro’s is a Stalinist regime. Based on modern college textbooks, this diplomat can be forgiven for never knowing this, but such regimes are rigidly totalitarian. Based on modern public education, this diplomat can be forgiven for not knowing what totalitarian means, but it means total state control of every facet of their subjects’ life.

      Former political prisoner Armando Valladares, who somehow escaped the firing squad but spent 22 torture-filled years in Cuba’s Gulag, described his trial very succinctly: “Not one witness to accuse me, not one to identify me, not one single piece of evidence against me.”

    Senor Valladares was arrested in 1961 for the crime of refusing to display a pro-Castro sign on his desk. Shortly after his arrival on U.S. shores, Valladares was appointed by Ronald Reagan as U.S. ambassador to the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations, a setting where both Fidel Castro and Che Guevara traditionally basked in wild ovations. Modern history records few U.S. diplomatic tweaks as slick, or U.S. ambassadors as effective.

      “When it is a question of annihilating the enemy,” pronounced Stalin’s chief prosecutor Andrei Vishinsky, “we can do it just as well without a trial.”

“Judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail,” explained Castro’s first hangman, Che Guevara, “we execute from Revolutionary conviction.”

Our “diplomats” in Cuba might take note.

 

Where is Obama and the powerful Jewish lobby that put him in the white house?

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Anchor Babies Present More Problems Than Previously Realized
Dakota Voice ^ | March 16, 2011 | Bob Ellis

 

Mark Krikorian at the brings up some excellent and under-reported points in the illegal alien issue.

    We’re all aware of the problem of millions of illegal aliens coming across our borders, many of whom are likely terrorists slipping into our country with ill-intent and who knows what else (maybe a suitcase nuke or a dirty bomb?). Yet our federal government refuses to do anything about it.

   We’re all also aware of the millions of illegal aliens who have been here for years, yet our federal government is unwilling to track them down, capture them and deport them.

   We are also aware that many illegal aliens have “anchor babies” while they are in our country illegally, garnering sympathy and making it more difficult to send them home even after we identify them. Many Americans are too soft-hearted and soft-headed to realize that even though the anchor baby might be an American citizen (depending on how you interpret the 14th Amendment), children should always go where their parents go, and if their parents are in our country illegally and need to be sent home, the children should, of course, go home with them (the American citizen children can always return to America when they get old enough to live on their own).

    But as Krikorian points out, there are quite a few children born in America to legal aliens (tourists, students, workers on legitimate work visas, etc). A new report indicates there may be as many as 200,000 a year born in this status.

   This complicates things somewhat, not so much with regard to dealing with illegal aliens (remember in these cases, the parents are here legally), but somewhere down the road when we may have to deal with a large number of people claiming already-existing American citizenship…when they may have not the slightest idea what it really means to be an American.

    As Krikorian says:

The first decision policymakers face is whether they think it’s a good idea to give away United States citizenship promiscuously to any child born here to a Latvian tourist or Japanese student or a Mexican Border-Crossing Card holder, who then promptly leaves and raises the child in a foreign country.

    This ultimately brings us back around to a problem we have in America which has both received a lot of attention and virtually no attention at all (no, this is not a contradiction).

    First the facet of the problem that has received a lot of attention. As Krikorian alluded to, we may be inviting a recipe for chaos and disaster if we allow a large influx somewhere down the road of people who were raised entirely in a foreign country, learning foreign values, a foreign way of life, foreign priorities, and foreign allegiances…and suddenly extending to them the full rights and privileges (including residency) of a natural-born citizen.

    The issue of Barack Obama’s birthplace continues to make headlines even after two years in the Oval Office. Why? Because our Constitution requires that our president must be a natural-born citizen. If Obama really was born in Kenya, this would render him ineligible to be our president according to the letter of our nation’s highest law: the U.S. Constitution. But why did the founders install that requirement in the Constitution in the first place? Because they understood the critical importance of having the man at the head of our government be someone whose values would be 100% fully American, and whose priorities and loyalties would be 100% American. While someone foreign-born might come to adopt our values fully and love America with all the passion and commitment of someone born here (I know a few naturalized citizens who do indeed love America MORE than some natural-born citizens that I know), the odds are against this when you consider the millions of immigrants coming to our country.

    Which brings us to the second facet which I said has received virtually no attention. Regardless of whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, from the very beginning, President Barack Obama’s priorities have been completely out of whack with American values and priorities. From his predilection to bow to foreign kings, to his Apology Tour around the world apologizing for the country he heads, to his casual disregard for our national defense, to his embrace of our natural enemies, to his eagerness to undermine military readiness, to his loathing for the most fundamental institution in American society, his animosity for our national borders, his contempt for our laws, to his contempt for the suffering incurred by this nation on 911, to his programs which force socialist schemes on America that would fit better in other countries, to his longstanding embrace of Marxism, to his contempt for the energy that powers our nation, to his personal associations with foreign and domestic terrorists, to building his administration with avowed communists, Marxists and other anti-American radicals.

It’s no wonder 55% of likely voters consider Obama a socialist (something directly at odds with the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life). It is also no wonder that Dinesh D’Souza found so much evidence of anti-colonialist hostility in Obama’s background, or that he has been called the “Radical in Chief,” or even that he has been called the “Manchurian President.” His ideals, values and principles simply aren’t in alignment with American values or principles, nor are they what one would expect from an American. Why is that?

    The fact remains that whether he was born in Hawaii or not, he spent a great number of his formative years being raised in foreign countries with foreign values; even his own autobiography confirms this. Having been raised in foreign countries around people who loathe the American way of life, it would be a miracle if Barack Obama’s values and principles actually did line up with American ones.

    Hopefully most Americans still consider it important that our leaders hold to American values. If so, this means it is important that we not allow the “anchor baby loophole” mentioned above to be used as a tool for anti-American foreigners (who have nothing more in common with America than having been born on American soil) to come into our country, influence our public policy and political system, and God forbid rise to a ***********///////********//////****** of leadership in our country.

    Even closing this loophole will not totally preclude the possibility of someone with un-American or even anti-American ideals from rising to power; sadly, there are a number of natural-born people who were raised here who have still ended up loathing our way of life.

    But perhaps it will help reduce those odds. People who become naturalized citizens have to go through an education course on what it means to be an American, and they have to pass a test. Then they have to swear loyalty to America–and as I said earlier, some of them love America more than some who were born here. Those who were born here never have to go through that process.

    Obviously this problem of illegal aliens and anchor babies is even bigger than we realized. And of course the Left (along with a few soft-minded tools on the Right) will resist fixing any of this, but more Americans all the time are waking up to these problems. We’ll get a chance in 2012 to take some of them out of office and replace them with leaders who will put our country first.

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

A Glowing Report on Radiation


With the terrible earthquake and resulting tsunami that have devastated Japan, the only good news is that anyone exposed to excess radiation from the nuclear power plants is now probably much less likely to get cancer.

This only seems counterintuitive because of media hysteria for the past 20 years trying to convince Americans that radiation at any dose is bad. There is, however, burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.

As The New York Times science section reported in 2001, an increasing number of scientists believe that at some level -- much higher than the minimums set by the U.S. government -- radiation is good for you. "They theorize," the Times said, that "these doses protect against cancer by activating cells' natural defense mechanisms."

Among the studies mentioned by the Times was one in Canada finding that tuberculosis patients subjected to multiple chest X-rays had much lower rates of breast cancer than the general population.

And there are lots more!

A $10 million Department of Energy study from 1991 examined 10 years of epidemiological research by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health on 700,000 shipyard workers, some of whom had been exposed to 10 times more radiation than the others from their work on the ships' nuclear reactors. The workers exposed to excess radiation had a 24 percent lower death rate and a 25 percent lower cancer mortality than the non-irradiated workers.

Isn't that just incredible? I mean, that the Department of Energy spent $10 million doing something useful? Amazing, right?

In 1983, a series of apartment buildings in Taiwan were accidentally constructed with massive amounts of cobalt 60, a radioactive substance. After 16 years, the buildings' 10,000 occupants developed only five cases of cancer. The cancer rate for the same age group in the general Taiwanese population over that time period predicted 170 cancers.

The people in those buildings had been exposed to radiation nearly five times the maximum "safe" level according to the U.S. government. But they ended up with a cancer rate 96 percent lower than the general population.

Bernard L. Cohen, a physics professor at the University of Pittsburgh, compared radon exposure and lung cancer rates in 1,729 counties covering 90 percent of the U.S. population. His study in the 1990s found far fewer cases of lung cancer in those counties with the highest amounts of radon -- a correlation that could not be explained by smoking rates.

Tom Bethell, author of the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," has been writing for years about the beneficial effects of some radiation, or "hormesis." A few years ago, he reported on a group of scientists who concluded their conference on hormesis at the University of Massachusetts by repairing to a spa in Boulder, Mont., specifically in order to expose themselves to excess radiation.

At the Free Enterprise Radon Health Mine in Boulder, people pay $5 to descend 85 feet into an old mining pit to be irradiated with more than 400 times the EPA-recommended level of radon. In the summer, 50 people a day visit the mine hoping for relief from chronic pain and autoimmune disorders.

Amazingly, even the Soviet-engineered disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 can be directly blamed for the deaths of no more than the 31 people inside the plant who died in the explosion. Although news reports generally claimed a few thousand people died as a result of Chernobyl -- far fewer than the tens of thousands initially predicted -- that hasn't been confirmed by studies.

Indeed, after endless investigations, including by the United Nations, Manhattan Project veteran Theodore Rockwell summarized the reports to Bethell in 2002, saying, "They have not yet reported any deaths outside of the 30 who died in the plant."

Even the thyroid cancers in people who lived near the reactor were attributed to low iodine in the Russian diet -- and consequently had no effect on the cancer rate.

Meanwhile, the animals around the Chernobyl reactor, who were not evacuated, are "thriving," according to scientists quoted in the April 28, 2002 Sunday Times (UK).

Dr. Dade W. Moeller, a radiation expert and professor emeritus at Harvard, told the Times that it's been hard to find excess cancers even from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, particularly because one-third of the population will get cancer anyway. There were about 90,000 survivors of the atomic bombs in 1945 and, more than 50 years later, half of them were still alive. (Other scientists say there were 700 excess cancer deaths among the 90,000.)

Although it is hardly a settled scientific fact that excess radiation is a health benefit, there's certainly evidence that it decreases the risk of some cancers -- and there are plenty of scientists willing to say so. But Jenny McCarthy's vaccine theories get more press than Harvard physics professors' studies on the potential benefits of radiation. (And they say conservatives are anti-science!)

I guess good radiation stories are not as exciting as news anchors warning of mutant humans and scary nuclear power plants -- news anchors who, by the way, have injected small amounts of poison into their foreheads to stave off wrinkles. Which is to say: The general theory that small amounts of toxins can be healthy is widely accepted --except in the case of radiation.

Every day Americans pop multivitamins containing trace amount of zinc, magnesium, selenium, copper, manganese, chromium, molybdenum, nickel, boron -- all poisons.

They get flu shots. They'll drink copious amounts of coffee to ingest a poison: caffeine. (Back in the '70s, Professor Cohen offered to eat as much plutonium as Ralph Nader would eat caffeine -- an offer Nader never accepted.)

But in the case of radiation, the media have Americans convinced that the minutest amount is always deadly.

Although reporters love to issue sensationalized reports about the danger from Japan's nuclear reactors, remember that, so far, thousands have died only because of Mother Nature. And the survivors may outlive all of us over here in hermetically sealed, radiation-free America.

 

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Top Obama Aide Ripped by Rubio, Senate Dems
By James Rosen

Published March 17, 2011 | FoxNews.com

     As Muammar al-Qaddafi’s soldiers and mercenaries closed within 100 miles of the Libyan rebel stronghold of Benghazi Thursday, preparing to crush the revolution that just three weeks ago appeared on the brink of ending Qaddafi’s four decades of authoritarian rule, a top foreign policy aide to President Obama endured a withering barrage of criticism on Capitol Hill over the administration’s handling of the Libyan crisis.

     Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns, the third highest-ranking official at the State Department and a veteran of high-level Washington across the last two presidencies, remained calm and collected under Thursday morning’s assault. He maintained that the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have responded with urgency to the fluid and rapidly evolving events on the ground in Libya.

     But lawmakers from both parties on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee openly expressed skepticism about those claims, with a bluntness rare in the normally staid confines of Capitol Hill hearing rooms.

    None was more direct or impassioned than Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., the freshman elected last year with Tea Party backing.

“The United States, quite frankly, looks weak in this endeavor,” said Rubio. “It looks unwilling, and maybe even unable, to act in this capacity….What are we going to do if there’s a bloodbath after this? The president of the United States has specifically said Qaddafi must go, but has done nothing since saying that, except have internal debates about it for a week-and-a half or two.”

     When Burns cited pending efforts at the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S., France and Great Britain were working to ssecure Russian and Chinese agreement on a resolution establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, to be coordinated with Arab participation, Rubio —in extraordinarily blunt terms – challenged both the rationale and timing for that course of action.

      “So our message to the dissidents,” Rubio said, “the people with the bravery to stand up to Muammar Qaddafi, and then the people maybe thinking to stand up to the Iranian regime, and in other places, our message is: ‘You guys go ahead and do this stuff, and if we can ever get the Russians or the Chinese to ever come around, we may or may not join you’?

     “Russia and China don’t care about this stuff,” Rubio continued. “They don’t care that Muammar Qaddafi is going to massacre people. So if Russia doesn’t care, and China doesn’t care, and we care but won’t do anything about it, who is it  up to – the French?”

      Senate Democrats were less pointed in their comments, but expressed similar concerns about the Obama administration’s handling of the crisis. At one point, Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J. lamented all that the international community “said but didn’t do” about the Qaddafi regime’s military assault, and wondered aloud whether the president’s national security team was ever “serious about trying to shape the outcome” of the Libyan conflict.

     “I read the statements [from administration officials] and I almost get a sense it’s like a Texas two-step,” Menendez said. “I’m still not sure what we are supporting. It seems to me that it is a dangerous proposition to urge people to seek democracy and revolt and then basically not to help them. And so, you know, I am concerned as I listen to your answers, including what happens if Qaddafi prevails…I think we’re going to miss an opportunity to promote democracy with a small ‘d’ throughout the region, and to be seen on the side of those who have aspirations of that.”

    Burns conceded that “extremist fighters” could try to take advantage of a Qaddafi victory, and envisioned other, equally adverse, consequences that could flow from such an outcome. “The dangers of [Qaddafi] returning to terrorism and violent extremism himself,” Burns listed, adding to them “the dangers of the turmoil that he could help create, at a very critical moment, elsewhere in the region.”

      Even after that dire assessment, Sen. James Webb, D-Va., suggested   that Burns, an experienced diplomat, was putting the best face possible on an unpleasant portrait. “Your testimony sounds, frankly, optimistic,” Webb said, “which, after four years on this committee, I know that’s how administration figures tend to sound. ‘Reform, peace, prosperity.’ But we’ve both worn enough hats to know that in this region [the Mideast], there’s other forces at work.”

     The bumpy reception accorded Burns ranked the hearing among the most contentious in recent memory. In July 2007, then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez faced angry queries from members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who memorably asked the witness: “Would you please explain to us why the administration of justice and the American people would not be better served by somebody sitting in the office who does not have all of the problems that you possess with respect to believability, credibility, confidence, trust?”

       More recently, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner endured bipartisan criticism during a January 2010 hearing held by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which was examining the various bailouts the federal government had sponsored during the financial crisis. “You gave lame excuses then, you are giving lame excuses now,” thundered Rep. John Mica, R-Fla. “Why shouldn’t we ask for your resignation as secretary of the Treasury?”

    One of the few holdovers from the Bush administration to occupy a top spot on the Obama national security team, Burns has held the No. 3 pposition at State since May 2008. Prior to that, he served three years as the U.S. ambassador to Russia. He spent the first Bush term, from 2001 to 2005, as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, the bureau that oversees the Mideast.

    At all points, Burns, a tall, slender man with a bushy gray moustache and a professorial disposition, refused to rise to the lawmakers’ bait. “We’re still in the process to try to develop as full a picture as we can,” he said when Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., asked whether the United States knows who the Libyan opposition is and what they stand for.

      Under Rubio’s sustained assault, Burns calmly defended the administration’s pursuit of a fresh U.N. Security Council resolution against Russian and Chinese opposition. “I’m not assuming it’s going to fail,” Burns said. And when the Floridian asked if the administration has a backup plan, Burns replied dryly: “Senator, we’ve thought through lots of possibilities.”

 

 

 

Will Libya be Obama’s Bay of Pigs?

     Often compared to President Kennedy, President Obama may well find that Libya has become his Bay of Pigs.

     Barely remembered now, the Bay of Pigs fiasco occurred early in the Kennedy administration. It was the first mistake in a string of foreign policy miscues reversed only when the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 brought the world to the edge of nuclear war. The young JFK, badly advised by the CIA, was forced to watch helplessly as a rag-tag invasion force of Cuban exiles was chopped to pieces and the survivors were led away to dungeons — or worse. Castro’s forces won because of a critical battlefield advantage — close air support — that the CIA somehow overlooked. Instead, the Wizards of Langley assumed that the invasion would touch off an unstoppable popular uprising against the Castro regime.

      Fifty years later, an eerily similar scenario is unfolding in Libya. The fate of that sandy, oil-rich satrapy — a wholly owned subsidiary of the Gaddafi family — is up for grabs. Although the Libyan protestors once seemed as unstoppable as those ill-fated Cuban exiles, on Saturday the Associated Press reported that “Gaddafi has seized the momentum, battering opponents with air strikes and artillery fire.” The Libyan dictator is using his air force just as Castro did at the Bay of Pigs. His planes are relentlessly pounding the opposition because close air support allows ground forces to mass before closing in for the kill. If he can keep the rebels off balance while controlling the skies, Gaddafi will probably survive.

     That is certainly the opinion of our director of national intelligence, retired Lieutenant General James Clapper. In Senate testimony on Thursday, he admitted that, “over the longer term I think [Gaddafi’s] regime will prevail.” Several outraged senators — Lindsey Graham among them — promptly called for Clapper to resign. But I have known General Clapper for over a decade as a highly respected intelligence professional and a long-suffering public servant. He took on the thankless job of leading DNI last year simply because his president asked him to. If his candid assessment of the situation in Libya seems mistaken, try studying more military history. No matter how enthusiastic, amateurs are no more than speed bumps against infantry, tanks and artillery effectively backed from the air. In the half century since the Bay of Pigs, those realities haven’t changed.

     Jim Clapper knows just how far his boss will go because intelligence can never substitute for the will or worldview of the decision-maker. The White House has said harsh things about Gaddafi but seems paralyzed whenever asked about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. On Friday, President Obama spoke about the crisis not as a casus belli for American military action but as an opportunity to exercise the seductive shibboleths of soft power: seizing financial assets, evacuating American civilians and imposing economic sanctions. Inexplicably, he added that “we are slowly tightening the noose” on Libya.

     Sorry, Mr. President, but Gaddafi is the only one tightening a noose here — he’s tightening it around the necks of those unwise enough to fight for freedom. General Clapper may actually have sent a subtle signal: There is no reason to expect either international consensus or more resolute presidential leadership before Gaddafi has effectively crushed the rebellion.

      Such an outcome would be even worse than what happened after we decided to leave Saddam in power in Iraq after Desert Storm — easily the worst American foreign policy blunder in a generation. After all, for decades Gaddafi was a notorious supporter of terrorism — and may feel compelled to become one again to settle old scores. But the most immediate effect of the crisis will be to underline our nation’s cascading weaknesses: our bankrupt treasury, our overextended military and our hamstrung diplomacy. These weaknesses will only embolden China, North Korea and Iran — to say nothing of the countries in the Middle East.

        Americans only pay attention to foreign policy when they’re forced to pay four (or is it five?) bucks a gallon for unleaded gas. We’re reaching that point just as the Libyan debacle, a tragedy reminiscent of the one that unfolded on the beaches of Cuba fifty years ago, plays out.

Maybe the next Democratic president to whom Mr. Obama will be compared is Jimmy Carter.

      Colonel (Ret.) Ken Allard rose from draftee to Dean of the National War College. A former military analyst for NBC News, he is a prolific writer on national security issues.

 

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

OBAMA BORN IN THE USA? TRUST, BUT VERIFY!!!

Hannity flings open doors to birth-certificate questions

Cites Trump comments, says 'can't they just produce it and we move on?'

 

March 24, 2011

© 2011 WorldNetDaily


Sean Hannity

Questions about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president, and specifically about his birth certificate, largely have been off-limits to many in the major U.S. media outlets over the last two years that it's been an issue, with show hosts only occasionally noting the question exists.

 

That suddenly and dramatically may be changing, after Sean Hannity used his Fox News show to plunge in with both feet, demanding, "Can't they just produce it and we move on?"

 

The questions came on his "Great American Panel" show segment yesterday, when U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas; LeeAnn Tweeden, host of NBC's late-night "Poker After Dark;" and syndicated talker Jerry Springer were guests.

 

Burgess, Tweeden and Hannity actually ganged up on Springer, who claimed that questions about Obama's eligibility stem from his race, and not the fact that he grew up in Indonesia, his father never was a U.S. citizen and documents including his passport records, kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules, medical records and adoption records remain out of public view.

 

Here's the exchange, excerpted by the left-leaning Media Matters:

  

Hannity referenced Donald Trump's demand on "The View" television program that Obama should just "show the birth certificate."

 

Trump, a possible president candidate, apparently made the issue a legitimate campaign question, prompting Hannity to ask his panel, "What do you think about this birth certificate issue? … It has not been my main issue, but it kind of does get a little odd here after a while. Can't they just produce it and we move on?"

 

Read the free landmark summary that explains the eligibility issue clearly, and suggests what you sh...

 

Burgess, whose new book, "Doctor in the House," explains the failings of Obamacare and what the nation needs to do to fix the Washington catastrophe, said, "Obviously, there's some value to the White House [in] not producing it. I don't know what it could be. This easily could be ended, it could have been ended a couple of years ago."

 

 

Springer argued that it was racism that causes people to demand Obama's information about eligibility, but Hannity noted that it's a constitutional requirement that a president be a "natural born Citizen."

 

Springer reported he was born in England and he admitted he "had to go through a whole process" to obtain his birth certificate to be eligible for Medicare.

 

"You had to track it down, and you did, right? And you had to produce it, right?" questioned Tweeden.

 

When Springer again tried to suggest racism, Burgess pointed out it was an issue – actually addressed by Congress – for GOP candidate Sen. John McCain in 2008.

 

"Because he lived in Indonesia as a kid. He talked about, you know, the prayer at sunset being one of the most beautiful things … So, so, he grew up in a foreign country. So some have said, all right, you grew up in Hawaii, it's a constitutional requirement, show us. What's the big deal?" Hannity said.

 

At Free Republic, one commenter said, "First time I've seen anyone at Fox actually run with the idea. In fact until just now I thought Hannity was part of the 'squelch' faction."

 

At the BirtherReport.com, which monitors statements about the eligibility issue, an editorial noted the change of perspective at Fox, which previously had remained largely silent on the issue.

 

"Sean Hannity finally broke down the Birther Barrier at Fox News. Well, for at least six minutes. Sean Hannity passionately defended Donald Trump's recent comments on Obama's early life. Hannity rightly points out that MSNBC's Chris Matthews is even asking for Obama AKA Soetoro AKA Soebarkah to produce the long-form birth certificate. Hannity then asked, 'why can't they just produce it, and move on?'"

 

The commentary also had a message for Springer: "John McCain was forced to prove his 'natural born Citizen' status to run for president in 2008. Is that racist? Also Dwight D. Eisenhower had to file his birth certificate when he ran for president. Is that racist?"

 

At Examiner.com, writer Marc Schenker noted Springer's defense of Obama didn't even address the question.

 

"He basically called every conservative a racist, just because some conservatives want to see Barack Obama's birth certificate, which the president has yet to produce to put this issue to rest."

 

The series of events was sparked just one day earlier, when Trump warred with Whoopi Goldberg over O...

 

"I want him to show his birth certificate! There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like," said Trump on ABC's "The View."

 

The comment enraged co-host Whoopi Goldberg, who fired back, "I think that's the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in ages. It's not 'cause he's black is it?"

 

"It has nothing to do with that," said Trump.

 

Goldberg interjected, "Because I've never heard any white president asked to be shown the birth certificate. When you become a president of the United States of America, you know that he's American. I'm sorry, that's B.S."

 

Discussion of Obama's birth certificate can be seen in the following YouTube video:

 

 

"I really believe there's a birth certificate," Trump explained. "Why doesn't he show his birth certificate? And you know what? I wish he would. Because I think it's a terrible pall that's hanging over him. He should show his birth certificate.

 

"The other thing. If you go back to my first grade, my kindergarten, people remember me. Nobody from those early years remembers him. If you're going to be the president of the United States, it says very profoundly that you have to be born in this country."

 

As WND reported this week, not even one person in 10 says Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president, according to a new scientific poll that also reveals political independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue. Another 32 percent would disregard the questions entirely, concluding they are not valid.

 

Much of the concern centers on Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document specifying the birth hospital and doctor's name, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives.

 

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

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

The Damning Contradictions of Obama's Attack on Libya


Let's imagine that all goes well in Libya. The rebels, protected by air strikes, recapture lost territory and sweep into Tripoli. Moammar Gadhafi and his sons one way or the other disappear.
   
Leaders propose a democratic and secular constitution that voters overwhelmingly approve. The first act of the duly elected government is to issue a proclamation of thanks and friendship to the United States, Britain, France and others who prevented Gadhafi's mass slaughter.
   
Well, we can all dream, can't we?
   
But in the cold light of day, none of these happy eventualities seems very likely. As one who hopes for success in this enterprise, I am dismayed by the contradictions in the course we are following.
   
Some three weeks ago, Barack Obama said Gadhafi "must go." But the United Nations Security Council resolution under which we are acting stops well short of this goal.
    
Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen confirmed that Gadhafi may remain in power indefinitely. National Security Council staffer Ben Rhodes said, "It's not about regime change."
   
If not, then the purported purpose of the operation, to "protect civilians," could be of unlimited duration. Libya might well be divided between a Gadhafi regime in the west around Tripoli and a rebel regime in the east around Benghazi.
   
Maintaining the existence of the latter will likely require military force. Obama has conceded that the United States is currently in command of operations, but says that command will be handed off to others in "days, not weeks."
   
But news reports make it clear that the overwhelming majority of military forces in action are American. Putting a British or French officer in command will not change that. And putting U.S. forces under foreign command might weaken support for the enterprise here at home.
   
Obama's policy is reminiscent of the old saying that a camel is a horse designed by committee. The policy satisfies advocates of humanitarian intervention, like the National Security Council's Samantha Power, who remember Bill Clinton's regret that he didn't intervene to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.
   
Unfortunately, in order to satisfy those who oppose anything smacking of unilateralism, it took time to get the U.N. Security Council to act, so that we missed the moment when it seemed possible that recognition of a rebel government or imposition of a no-fly zone would topple Gadhafi.
   
That delay gave him time to launchh a counterattack that made him strong enough to withstand the limited military action that could get multilateral approval.
   
By accepting limits on U.S. involvement, Obama aims to satisfy skeptics of military action, like Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who publicly pointed out the difficulties of maintaining a no-fly zone. We have seen this before, when Obama announced his surge in Afghanistan together with a deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawals.
   
The result in Libya is a policy whose means seem unlikely to produce the desired ends.
   
In the process, this Democratic president has jettisoned some of the basic tenets of his party's foreign policy.
   
"It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action," candidate Obama said in December 2007. But Congress was not informed or, it seems, consulted in any serious way about this decision to take military action in Libya.
   
Instead, members of Congress, like the general public, heard the president make the announcement in Rio de Janeiro. That's quite a contrast with George W. Bush, who sought and obtained congressional approval of military action in Afghanistan in September 2001 and Iraq in October 2002.
   
Since then, many Democrats have denounced Bush's "rush to war" in Iraq. But military action there began a full five months after Congress approved. Obama didn't wait five days after the Security Council resolution.
   
Bush argued that intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was in the national interest. Obama, who has made the same argument about Afghanistan, doesn't seem to be making it about Libya. For some supporters of his policy, the absence of any great national interest makes it all the more attractive.
   
It's not likely to remain attractive to American voters if it fails to result in the overthrow of Gadhafi and leads to an open-ended military commitment in a nation where our vital interests are not at stake.
   
But a better outcome is at least possible. After all, history shows that dreams sometimes do come true.


OBAMA PUSHED IN FEB. FOR $1.7 BILLION IN MILITARY AID TO GADAFFI

 

 

Did Qaddafi Deserve US Funding?Aid Under Scrutiny Amid ME Unrest [Obama pushed military aid Feb]
Fox News | March 24 2011 | William La Jeunesse

    While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi's military to $1.7 million.

    According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, ssecure its borders and to counter terrorism.

     If this seems contradictory, welcome to the world of U.S. foreign aid, where billions of tax dollars go to people we don't like and nations some say don't need the help. The latest unrest has drawn renewed scrutiny to these policies.

    "It's certainly not wise or smart to give American aid to countries like Libya where the ruling class use it against their own people," said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is sponsoring a bill that would rein in foreign aid.

    Libya isn't the only repressive Arab regime benefiting from U.S. military aid. Obama wants $120 million for Yemen next year, including $20 million for a military accused of brutally putting down a popular revolt, and $11 million to promote democracy and human rights, something critics say doesn't exist in Yemen.

    The U.S. also gives Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, substantial military aid. In the last four years, the United States provided security forces in Bahrain $51 million. On Feb. 14, Obama asked Congress for $26 million more, even though its royal family is not democratically elected and is accused of using military force to put down a popular revolt against the monarchy.

     "I'm not saying you can justify each and every one of these expenditures, but you have to be able to look at it from a strategic perspective and they could well be justified," said John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. "Military training for officers from various countries all around the world has historically been a very good investment for the U.S.   We get to know officers as they go through their career path. We train them in notions like civilian control of the military. It hasn't been perfect, but for relatively small expenditures of money it can pay real benefits."

     Bolton and Poe agree that the roughly $50 billion U.S. taxpayers spend overseas needs an overhaul. Of 192 countries in the world, the U.S. gives aid to 174 -- including repressive regimes in Africa and the Middle East like those of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe and Omar al-Bashir in the Sudan; U.S. adversaries like Kim Jong Il in North Korea and Evo Morales in Bolivia; and countries like Russia and China.

    "We cannot buy friendship. If we're trying to do that, we're a total failure. Most of these countries that we give money to, they vote against us in the United Nations, they don't like us, many of them hate us and we don't need to pay them to hate us. They can do it on their own," Poe said.

    Poe is sponsoring legislation that would require Congress to approve U.S. aid on a country-by-country basis. He believes that would force it to scrutinize the aid sent to countries that don't like the U.S., don't support or share its values, and in many cases don't need the cash.

 

Obama in February: The US Must Give Libya’s Military More Money
Posted by Aurelius
3/24/2011

     Another day, another discovery. You might have wondered why President Obama was hesitant to do anything in Libya, be it condemn a blood-thirsty dictator or decide to bomb it.

    In February, in the midst of a revolution in Egypt and an uprising in Tunisia, the President actually asked the United States Congress to provide Dictator Maummar Gaddafi with an additional $1.7 million in funds for his military.

    Ironically, the President now specifically supports a “no-fly zone” in Libya to prevent Gaddafi’s air force from bombing protesters. Last month, he lobbied to give money directly to the dictator to improve his air capabilities.

More ironically, with the foreign aid gotten from the United States and President Obama, Gaddafi has been killing civilians on the ground. The very same civilians that the US and UN militaries are trying to protect.

    In response, Republican Congressman Ted Poe of Texas stated, “It’s certainly not wise or smart to give American aid to countries like Libya where the ruling class use it against their own people.” Apparently the leader of the free world disagrees.

      Mr. Obama
While a case may be made for “allies” of the United States who need money to continue their rule over a country, Maummar Gaddafi has never been an ally. Nor a friend. Simply an enemy who has been considered a “mad dog” for over two decades.

   The report continues:

While President Obama calls Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi a threat to his own people, just one month before attacking Libya the president asked Congress to increase U.S. aid for Qaddafi’s military to $1.7 Billion.

    According to State Department figures, the money was earmarked to train Libyan military officers, improve its air force, ssecure its borders and to counter terrorism.