¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES IMPORTANTES!!! [ Editado ]

[siboneyes]

Obama’s Four Disasters... Heckuva job, Mr. President.
BY Fred Barnes
August 30 - September 6, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 47

      Recovery summer, opposition to Arizona’s immigration law, negative campaigning, and intervention in the Ground Zero mosque dispute—call them Obama’s Four Disasters. As policy, they’re questionable. As political exercises, they’re losers. As clues about Obama, they’re evidence he’s lost his political knack.

    What was Obama thinking? These weren’t initiatives taken suddenly. They were carefully thought out and plotted, no doubt in expectation the president would gain politically and so would Democratic candidates. Whatever calculations the White House made, they were faulty.

       Recovery summer. This was proclaimed in June, with fanfare, in a briefing by Vice President Biden and the issuance of a report titled “Summer of Recovery: Project Activity Increases in Summer 2010.” The report said “millions of Americans [are] on the job today thanks to the Recovery Act”—better known as the “stimulus package”—but its work is not done. “Summer 2010 is actually poised to be the most active Recovery Act season yet.”

      Not quite. Obama, Biden, and company should have known better. It’s true there were indicators the economy would grow and hiring by private firms would increase. But anyone who traveled outside Washington would quickly discover that slow growth and minimal hiring were at least as likely to occur. And they have.

    The economy has hit the brakes, the stock market is stagnant, the jobs picture has -worsened, unemployment claims are up, and the notion of a summer of recovery has become an embarrassment.

     If there were even a glimmer of doubt about a summertime boom, you wouldn’t want to put a chronic exaggerator like Biden out front. He tends to gush uncontrollably. The stimulus will cause “even more ripple effects” than ever this summer, he declared. And more jobs means a lot more lunch breaks at the local diner because there weren’t any lunch breaks, there weren’t the jobs that existed; and a lot more trips to the barbershop, to the movies, to the department store, helping those businesses they go to maintain their employment base and increase the employment base.

      Sounds nice. Too bad it hasn’t happened.

      Opposition to the Arizona immigration law. This is what’s known as a 70-30 issue. Obama has taken the 30 percent pposition which puts him athwart the vast majority of Americans. The White House said the decision to file suit against the Arizona law was made by Attorney General Eric Holder. But Holder works for Obama, who could have told him to back off.

     There are several reasons this would have made sense. The law was not likely to have prompted a wave of profiling of Hispanics. It was (and is) popular in Arizona, and the more folks around the country heard about it, the more they liked it (and still do).

       It also would’ve bolstered Obama’s drive for immigration reform. The president favors the comprehensive approach, which includes amnesty for the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Given the politics of the issue, the only way to get what Obama wants is by first stepping up enforcement of immigration laws. Instead he opted for nullifying a popular enforcement statute.

     Negative campaigning. Obama’s great gift as a politician is the ability to rise above the normal pushing, shoving, and name-calling of politics and appear statesmanlike. He’s derided these days by Republicans for his rhetoric in 2008 about hope and change, ending polarization, and changing the way Washington does business. But it’s what elected him.

    Now he’s abandoned it. In his current stump speech, he does two things. He talks about “a lot of things I’m very proud of that we’ve done over the last two years,” including health care reform. And he attacks Republicans for “constant, nonstop opposition on everything.” Guess which one the media devours. His criticism of Republicans is not limited to political appearances. He’s begun attacking them in his Saturday radio address from the White House. This is both unappealing and unpresidential.

       Obama has fallen in love with an analogy about Republicans driving a car—a metaphor for the economy—into a ditch and asking for the keys back now that Obama has pulled it out. It’s not particularly clever, but he dwells on it. “It has since become the Mr. Potato Head of campaign stump speech metaphors,” wrote Carol E. Lee of Politico. “The president keeps expanding on it.” That’s not a compliment.

       The Ground Zero mosque. This is another 70-30 issue, and Obama is again in the minority. We know his decision to defend the plan of Muslims to build a mosque near Ground Zero wasn’t a spur of the moment thing. He put out a prepared text of his speech on this subject before it was delivered to a group of Muslims at a Ramadan event at the White House. He backtracked the next day.

     Until then, he’d wisely stayed out of the controversy, his press secretary dismissing it as a “local issue.” There was nothing to be gained and a lot to lose by jumping in. Yet he couldn’t resist holding forth, just as he couldn’t when his pal Skip Gates was arrested. Obama is not one to hold his tongue, no matter what the subject. He once again took the ***********///////********//////****** of the elites against that of most Americans.

     The contrast between the political adroitness of Obama as a presidential candidate and Obama as president is striking. His campaign was nearly error-free. As president, he’s made a string of unforced errors. He’s lost his touch, and chances are it won’t come back.

     Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard

[sirjohn]

Why We Fight: The 10 Worst Islamofascist Terrorist Attacks Since 9/11

 By Nichole Hungerford On August 22, 2010 

#10 Liquid Explosives Plot

“Mass murder on an unimaginable scale.”

       In 2006, 24 Muslim men were arrested in Britain as they were entering the final stages of a plot to blow up as many as 10 jets headed for the U.S.  Their plan was to mix an explosive cocktail, disguised as innocuous beverages, and detonate the mixture using a common electrical device such as a cellphone or mp3 player.

      A British agent had infiltrated the group, and the plot was foiled by British authorities. Many more were involved in the plot than were arrested and two of them left “martyrdom tapes.” The plot was “intended to be mass murder on an unimaginable scale,” reflected U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

      #9 The Shoe Bomber

     Many will remember, not long after the 9/11 attacks, our first apparel-connected terrorist appeared on the scene. In December of 2001, Richard Reid (who had a number of different aliases) boarded a flight from Paris bound for Miami, Florida, with the intention of blowing the plane up. He used explosives hidden in hollowed-out cavities in his shoes, which were likely obtained from the terrorist networks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where he had trained previously. Shortly after meal service on the flight, Reid attempted to ignite his shoes. Passengers and flight crew took notice and soon, Reid found himself fending off two female flight attendants. Some of the passengers joined in subduing Reid and he was eventually bound and given a tranquilizer. No one was killed — this time.

      #8 The Christmas Day Bomber, or the “Underwear Bomber,” for the unsophisticated

     On Christmas Day 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Muslim Nigerian national, boarded a flight from Amsterdam headed for Detroit. When the flight touched down on American soil, Umar attempted to detonate a bomb which was concealed in his underwear. If the crew and passengers had not apprehended him before the deed was done, Umar would have killed some 289 innocent people for Allah. Umar was a graduate of University College London where, unsurprisingly, he was president of the Islamic Society.

     #7 Time Square Bomber

Faisal Shahzad was a U.S. citizen of Pakistani origins and had spent some time in the terrorist-harboring country prior to his attempt to kill as many innocent people as possible in New York City’s Time Square. Shahzad purchased a cheap Nissan Path Finder from a seller on Craig’s List, which he — allegedly — packed with explosives and parked in Time Square. The bomb failed to detonate properly, but was noticeable enough for passers-by to report to authorities. Shahzad was arrested after an investigation of the incident.

      #6 Fort Hood Terrorist Attack

Because there has not been a conviction yet in the case of the Fort Hood terrorist attack, the following must be prefaced with the acknowledgement that it is all technically “alleged.” The “accused” perpetrator, Maj. Nidal Hasan, worked, ironically, as a U.S. Army psychiatrist. This was only his day job, off course, as we now know his other occupation was being a “Solider of Allah,” as his business card noted. Hasan reportedly appeared on the Fort Hood military base in Texas and started on a shooting rampage. He “allegedly” killed 13 people and wounded 30 others.

     #5 The London Bombings

“We could see the roof was torn off [the train], and there were bodies on the track.”

    In 2005, London was brought to its knees by several concomitant suicide bombing attacks targeted at the city’s public transportation systems. In predictable fashion, the attacks took place during and around rush hour in order to ensure that a maximal amount of infidel blood would flow. Not including the four Muslim fanatics who killed themselves in the attack, 52 other people were killed and hundreds were injured. The densely populated city was terrified.

       #4 Madrid Bombing

In 2004, 191 Spaniards were killed and another 1,800 wounded in a terrorist attack on Madrid’s public transportation system. In keeping with the barbaric, murderous Islamist MO, a number of explosions were set off during the peak of rush hour in the busy city. The bombings were attributed to a loose cabal of Islamic men of various origins — Morocco, Spain, Algeria, for example — but were not outwardly connected to any known terrorist outfit such as al-Qaida. (Although, al-Qaida did take pride in the rouge Islamists’ accomplishments.)

        #3 Moscow Theatre Siege

“[W]e will take with us the lives of hundreds of sinners. If we die, others will come and follow us—our brothers and sisters who are willing to sacrifice their lives, in Allah’s way, to liberate their nation.”

     In 2002, Islamic Chechen separatists laid siege on a Moscow theatre full of hundreds of people. After two-and-a-half days, the Russian government decided to act — unfortunately, without a great deal of foresight. In order to quell the situation, they pumped gas through the ventilation system of the building. Approximately 170 people were killed, including 39 terrorists, mostly as a result of gas poisoning. The Russian government claimed this maneuver saved many hundreds more people from dying. Whether or not this is true, it’s worth noting that this action did kill most all of the terrorists involved.

         #2 Car bombings in Al-Qataniyah and Al-Adnaniyah, Iraq

“[B]arbaric attacks on innocent civilians.”

      In attacks attributed to Al-Qa’eda, five fuel tankers in 2007 were driven into crowded Kurdish villages and were detonated, killing some 250 civilians. The attack leveled many homes, primarily of the Yazidi religious sect. It took place not long after the much maligned troop surge in Iraq was implemented, and provided endless steam to the leftist campaign that “the war was lost.”

     #1 Beslan School Massacre

“The whole floor is covered in bodies.”

In 2004, a group of heavily armed Muslim guerillas stormed a school in Beslan, Russia, shortly after the school day commenced. The school was attended by children ages 6 through 16. After 52 hours of utter terror, the Russian government attempted to overtake the siege. The terrorists, who had mined the school with explosives, detonated the devices. In all, over three hundred people were killed, among them, 186 children.

[siboneyes]

GLENN BECK’S ECUMENICAL MOMENT: The “Restoring Honor” rally showcased A nation dedicated to its constitutional heritage.

Jonah Goldberg
NRO 9/1/2010

 Predictably, the “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall last Saturday has evoked a lot of consternation.

      Because the rally explicitly and studiously avoided trumpeting a political agenda, it freed up a lot of people to fill in the blanks themselves. For instance, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post insists it was all a con: “As high-minded as that may sound, the real point of stressing the rally’s apolitical goals was political.” By leaving the listener to infer an anti-Obama agenda from all of this talk of lost honor, host Glenn Beck was practicing “classic political demagoguery.”

      So let me get this straight: If Beck had done the opposite, and invited hundreds of thousands of anti-Obama signs, and carved up Obama like a turkey dinner, folks like Sargent would think the rally was less demagogic? Hmmm.

          Obviously, Sargent’s not entirely wrong about the rally’s political resonance. Of course it was a conservative-and-libertarian-tinged event. Of course it would have been impossible without the right-leaning tea-party movement. Of course the fact that Beck and Sarah Palin managed to attract so many people to the Mall is not a ringing endorsement of the Democrats.

     But the partisan implications of the rally aren’t that interesting. Nor, really, is the argument that the relentless celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. at the National Mall amounted to some grave insult to his memory.

       One striking feature of Saturday’s rally was how deeply religious and ecumenical it was. It seems like just yesterday that everyone was talking about how Christian evangelicals were too bigoted to vote for upright and uptight Mormon Mitt Romney. Yet Christian activists saw no problem cheering for — and praying with — the equally Mormon but far less uptight Beck, who asked citizens to go to “your churches, synagogues, and mosques!”

      The inclusiveness transcended mere religion. While the crowd was preponderantly white, the message was racially universalistic. That was evident not just on the stage, but in the crowd as well. When Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie asked a couple whether as “African-Americans” they felt comfortable in such a white audience, the woman responded emphatically but good-naturedly: “First of all, I’m not African, I am an American . . . a black American.” She went on to explain how “these people” — i.e., the white folks cheering her on — “are my family.”

     Peter Viereck, a largely forgotten conservative intellectual, would have found this familiar. During the 1950s, he noted that anti-Communism — whatever its other faults and excesses — had the remarkable effect of lessoning inter-ethnic tensions among like-minded activists. Anti-Communist blacks were celebrated and welcomed by anti-Communist whites. Anti-Communist immigrants and Jews were welcomed to the supposedly nativist and anti-Semitic movement.

     Viereck, who disliked the phenomenon (he said it was akin to xenophobia practiced by a “xeno”), dubbed it “transtolerance.”

     I’m more upbeat about the dynamic. Of late there’s been a lot of debate, largely in the context of the so-called Ground Zero mosque, about the evils of American identity. Will Wilkinson, an influential liberal-libertarian writer, sees opposition to the mosque as an entirely reprehensible expression of the “cult of American identity” and the “zaniness of right identity politics.” The upshot of Wilkinson’s argument is that it’s absolutely preposterous for the American people to see themselves as a people.

      New York Times columnist Ross Douthat recently argued that there are “two Americas.” The first America is wholly secular, “where allegiance to the Constitution trumps ethnic differences, language barriers and religious divides. An America where the newest arrival to our shores is no less American than the ever-so-great granddaughter of the Pilgrims.” The other America is culturally defined: “This America speaks English, not Spanish or Chinese or Arabic. It looks back to a particular religious heritage: Protestantism originally, and then a Judeo-Christian consensus that accommodated Jews and Catholics as well.”

       Douthat makes some good points, but he downplays the relationship between what are really the two faces of one America. It is America’s conception of itself as a people that keeps it loyal to the Constitution. The Constitution, absent our cultural fidelity to it, might as well be the rules for a role-playing game.

        I confess, if Beck weren’t a libertarian, I would find his populism worrisome. But his message, flaws and excesses notwithstanding, is that our constitutional heritage defines us as a people, regardless of race, religion, or creed. Is that so insulting to Martin Luther King Jr.’s memory?

      — Jonah Goldberg is an editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

[sirjohn]

IRAK, OBAMA COSECHANDO EL EXITO DE BUSH

GEES
LIBERTAD DIGITAL
SEPT 2, 2010

    Irak está ahora, por primera vez, en manos de los iraquíes. La guerra ha sido un empeño noble y justo. Su resultado, un Irak libre, merece ser celebrado.
         Ningún lector de los diarios dominantes en España está en condiciones de entender el discurso de Obama declarando el fin de la operación Libertad Iraquí. Le han mentido demasiado.

       Unas cuantas verdades, para variar.

       La guerra se inició porque todos los servicios de inteligencia del mundo creían que Sadam poseía armas de destrucción masiva. Esta sólo fue la justificación externa de la intervención, destinada a lograr el consenso internacional sobre las “graves consecuencias” incluidas en la resolución 1441 del Consejo de Seguridad. Cuando el Congreso americano autorizó el uso de la fuerza dio 23 razones, entre ellas, la esencial de la Doctrina Bush: cambiar el régimen.

         Obama cumplió ayer, en función de plazos intermedios propios, el acuerdo de retirada logrado por Bush en 2008. La salida de tropas priva a los terroristas de uno de sus argumentos, el de la ocupación, irresponsablemente atizado por la prensa, demostrando que el interés americano era protegerse y defender a los iraquíes.

       Si Irak es hoy un país democrático, constitucional, con un sistema electoral de listas abiertas, es gracias a la intervención de 2003, y al “surge” de 2007. Todo ello, a pesar de los medios y cancillerías que recibieron la Doctrina Bush como locura o crimen.

     Obama no cambió drásticamente esta política, sólo su retórica.

   La continuidad de la estrategia, con sus mandos incluidos, como Gates o Petraeus, es la que ha permitido el éxito. Hay hoy en Irak prensa libre, libertad de expresión, surgimiento de una sociedad civil, elecciones... y, sí, discusiones para formar gobierno que a veces se prolongan, como ahora mismo en Bélgica u Holanda. Hay un Ejecutivo en funciones que garantiza la estabilidad y que colabora con un parlamento elegido, que asegura la división de poderes. No hay otro país en la región con elecciones libres.

       El terrorismo sigue haciendo daño porque no hay ningún otro acontecimiento que haya hecho vislumbrar a las fuerzas de la tiranía, ya sean islamistas, ya meramente autoritarias, que la democracia es posible en Oriente Medio. Los radicales consideran la pérdida de Irak como un cataclismo, no sólo por su valor como representante del califato del pasado, sino por su ejemplo sobre los vecinos.

     Al Qaeda, ingrediente fundamental de esa violencia, cuyo intento por incitar a la guerra civil ha fracasado, ha hecho más, paradójicamente, por desvirtuar el islamismo que ninguna otra cosa. El asesinato atroz de otros musulmanes, chiíes pero también sunitas, mujeres y niños incluidos, lejos de ser visto como responsabilidad occidental, como lo hizo estúpidamente la prensa interesada y los políticos sin escrúpulos, fue visto por los islámicos como lo que era: la horrible consecuencia de una ideología monstruosa contra la que había que alzarse.

     La guerra de Irak se ha desvinculado erróneamente del contexto de la guerra contra el terror. Al llegar Obama a la Casa Blanca, afirmó que cambiaría aquellos aspectos que eran, a su entender, contrarios a los valores americanos y que incitaban al terrorismo en lugar de combatirlo.   

        Casi dos años después, merece la pena fijarse en la lista de los elementos de la política Bush que Obama ha considerado tan eficaces como imprescindibles. Guantánamo sigue abierto. Bagram, su equivalente en Afganistán, también. Los asesinatos selectivos con aviones no tripulados y otras operaciones especiales se han multiplicado y extendido, además de a Pakistán y Afganistán, a Yemen. Sigue en vigor el Patriot Act y su sistema de escuchas para detectar amenazas en suelo americano.

     Irak está ahora, por primera vez, en manos de los iraquíes. La guerra ha sido un empeño noble y justo. Su resultado, un Irak libre, merece ser celebrado. Y sus responsables fundamentales: Bush, el Ejército americano, los mismos iraquíes, y Obama, que no ha abandonado el país a su suerte, felicitados.

     Al mismo tiempo, es hora de condenar a quienes, coaligando maldad e ignorancia –en la política y en los medios– han tratado de hundir a Irak en la sangre y la tiranía del terror, vistiéndose –sepulcros blanqueados– de un manto de corderos.

© Libertad Digital SA Juan Esplandiu 13 - 28007 Madrid

If Saddam Had Stayed Saddam would have joined the nuclear bad-boys club with Iran and North Korea.

By DANIEL HENNINGER..

WSJ 9/2/2010

        From the vantage point of history, Barack Obama's prime-time speech announcing the Iraq war's end is less important than the speech he gave eight years ago as a state senator in Illinois. This was the October 2002 "dumb war" speech to an anti-Iraq war rally in Chicago's Federal Plaza.

Back then, Mr. Obama had a more complex view of the stakes in Iraq than he does now. Today, the Iraq war has been reduced to not much more than a long, bloody and honorable gunfight between U.S. troops and various homicidal jihadists and insurgents inside Iraq, a war sustained by George Bush, Dck Cheney and some neocon advisers mainly to "impose" democracy on the Iraqis.

      I think it is a profound mistake to confine the war's significance to the borders of Iraq. Mr. Obama himself raised the central question about Iraq in that 2002 speech: Did Saddam Hussein pose a danger beyond his borders, or not? "Let me be clear," State Senator Obama told the Federal Plaza crowd, "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. . . . He has repeatedly thwarted U.N. inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons and coveted nuclear capacity. . . . But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States. . . [H]e can be contained."

      Daniel Henninger asks what the world look like today if Saddam Hussein had remained in power in Iraq. .Podcast: Listen to the audio of Wonder Land here. .This is a widely held view. The Economist's editors this week said Mr. Obama was largely right that Iraq was a dumb war. What the war did, they say, was "rid the Middle East of a bloodstained dictator."

    It did a lot more than that. Let us assume that Mr. Obama's "smarter" view had prevailed, that we had left Saddam in power in Iraq. What would the world look like today?

     Mr. Obama and others believe that Saddam and his nuclear ambitions could have been contained. I think exactly the opposite was likely. At the time of Mr. Obama's 2002 antiwar speech, three other significant, non-Iraqi events were occurring: Iran and North Korea were commencing toward a nuclear break-out, and A.Q. Khan was on the move. In March 2002, Mr. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear materials dealer, moved his production facilities from Pakistan to Malaysia. In August, an Iranian exile group revealed the existence of a centrifuge factory in Natanz, Iran. A month later, U.S. intelligence concluded that North Korea had almost completed a "production-scale" centrifuge facility.

      It was also believed in 2002 that al Qaeda was shopping for nuclear materials. In The Wall Street Journal this week, Jay Solomon described how two North Korean operatives through this period developed a network to acquire nuclear technologies.

   In short, the nuclear bad boys club was on the move in 2002. Can anyone seriously believe that amidst all this Saddam Hussein would have contented himself with administering his torture chambers? This is fanciful. Saddam was centrifugal. He moved outward, into war with Iran in 1980 and into Kuwait 10 years later. Saddam was a player, and from 2002 onward the biggest game in his orbit was acquiring nuclear capability.

        The definitive account of Saddam's WMD ambitions is the Duelfer Report, issued by the Iraq Survey Group in 2005. Yes, the Duelfer Report concluded that Saddam didn't have active WMD. But at numerous points in the 1,000-page document, it asserted (with quotes from Iraqi politicians and scientists) that Saddam's goal was to free himself of U.N. sanctions and restart his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and other WMD. The report: "Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability. . . . Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability."

     The Survey Group described Iraqi plans to develop three long-range ballistic missiles. Saddam was obsessed with Iran. Imagine the effect on the jolly Iraqi's thinking come 2005 and the rise to stardom of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, publicly mocking the West's efforts to shut his nuclear program and threatening enemies with annihilation.

     That year Ahmadinejad broke the U.N. seals at the Isfahan uranium enrichment plant. In North Korea, Kim Jong Il was flouting the civilized world, conducting nuclear-weapon tests and test-firing missiles into the Sea of Japan.

      In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have "contained" him? Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq simultaneously would have incentivized Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan to enter the nuclear marketplace. Pakistan and India would be increasing their nuke-tinged tensions, not trying as now to ease them.

      We ought to be a lot prouder of our troops coming home from Iraq than we are showing this week. They deserve a monument. That war wasn't just about helping Iraq. It was about us. The march across the nuclear threshold by lunatic regimes is a clear and present danger. The sacrifice made by the United States in Iraq took one of these nuclear-obsessed madmen off the table and gave the world more margin to deal with the threat that remains, if the world's leadership is up to it. A big if.

[sirjohn]

Thomas Sowell's Pessimism (With good reason)
American Thinker ^ | September 2, 2010 | Norah Petersen

       Last Tuesday, Dr. Thomas Sowell was interviewed on The Rush Limbaugh Show by Walter Williams, who was serving as guest host.  During this interview, Williams inquired about Sowell's opinion of direction that America is heading in . "Are you optimistic or pessimistic?"  Williams asked. "Pessimistic, and I am fighting off becoming despairing," replied Sowell. [1] 

Sowell's words should not be taken lightly. As a recent Investor's Business Daily editorial about Sowell said, "Doomsters are a dime a dozen. But when a leading economist who's been called "the nation's greatest contemporary philosopher" sees serious trouble ahead, we'd better listen up."   

The editorial went on to explain:

Sowell sees the national equivalent of a "perfect storm," a gathering of "dangerous forces (that) have been building .. . for at least a half-century."  

Yes, he says, our great nation has weathered many storms. But, he quickly notes, so did the Roman Empire before it collapsed. "Is that where America is headed?" Sowell asks upfront. "I believe it is. Our only saving grace is that we are not there yet - and that nothing is inevitable until it happens."......

The Obama administration "is not the root cause of the ominous dangers that face this country at home and aboard," Sowell says. But "it is the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago. Moreover, it has escalated those dangers to what may be a point of no return."  

Sowell has recognized the danger of Obama's radicalism and has been sounding the alarm for over the past year. 

After the Obamacare bill was passed in March, Sowell wrote:  

"The ruthless and corrupt way this bill was forced through Congress on a party-line vote, and in defiance of public opinion, provides a roadmap for how other "historic" changes can be imposed by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid. What will it matter if Obama's current approval rating is below 50 percent among the current voting public, if he can ram through new legislation to create millions of new voters by granting citizenship to illegal immigrants? That could be enough to make him a two-term president, in which case he could appoint enough Supreme Court justices to rubber-stamp further extensions of his power."

Back in October of 2009, Sowell published his timely column "Dismantling America", which begins by asking :  

"Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected government official, not even a cabinet member confirmed by the Senate but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the president, could arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50 percent or 90 percent?  

Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers - that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would depend on the government's liking what they publish?  

Did you imagine that anyone would even be talking about having a panel of so-called "experts" deciding who could and could not get life-saving medical treatments? ...   ...Does any of this sound like America?"

When Rush Limbaugh read this column, he told listeners on his radio program:

"People ask me all the time, "Rush, you'll tell us when it's time to panic, right?" I say, "Yeah, and it's not time to panic." But I have just finished a column by Thomas Sowell that strikes me as somewhat remarkable. There should not be any doubt with Americans interested in the truth about who Barack Obama is and what he represents, it's become clear, surreal clear. Dr. Thomas Sowell, a brilliant, accomplished man, a distinguished gentleman. When distinguished gentlemen, distinguished Americans such as Thomas Sowell think and write as he has in his latest column, it's time to stop gathering evidence about Obama's character and do anything within the boundaries of the law to stop his agenda." [2]

After the midterm elections, it will be absolutely crucial that the projected conservative majority in the House (and possibly the Senate) act on Rush's words and truly "do anything within the boundaries of the law to stop his [Obama's]  agenda"; so that our country does not slip past the "point of no return."

Dr. Sowell is pessimistic because understands that America is facing more than just an incompetent, rookie politician who was swept into the White House nearly two years ago. He realizes that Obama and his administration are "the embodiment, the personification and the culmination of dangerous trends that began decades ago." As he insightfully points out,  " That such an administration could be elected in the first place...speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture."  Sowell's warnings are indeed sobering; and it is important that they are not overlooked amidst the soaring optimism over the prospect of a major conservative victory in November. Taking back the congress will only be the first step in stopping the dismantling of America.  

[siboneyes]

9/11: NUNCA OLVIDAR NI PERDONAR

The Prophet Muhammad orders the burning of Christians and their Children
Facebook ^ | September 10, 2010 | Dr. Thomas Ahmed

WHICH IS MORE EVIL TO BURN A RELIGIOUS BOOK OR TO COMMAND THE BURNING AND SLAUGHTER OF THE FOLLOWERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS?

 

 

 

  

 

   

PASTOR VS. EL IMAM 

WHICH IS MORE EVIL TO BURN A RELIGIOUS BOOK OR TO COMMAND THE BURNING AND SLAUGHTER OF THE FOLLOWERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS?

Es vergonzosa la hipocresía conque la prensa ha manejado el caso del pastor que intenta quemar unos Coránes.

      El pastor cristiano de la Florida tiene tanto derecho a quemar el Corán como tiene el imán musulmán a profanar el lugar sagrado donde todavía descansan los restos de más de mil de las víctimas del vil ataque del 9/11 erigiendo un monumento para honrar  a los terroristas islámicos que cometieron tan horrendo crimen.  Ambos legalmente pueden hacerlo respaldados por nuestra constitución.

    La diferencia es que el pastor está cometiendo un error de juicio idiótico sin ulteriores motivos aviesos, sólo para ventilar el enorme enojo que comparte el 80% de los americanos ante la provocación de construir una mezquita aledaña a donde estuvieron las torres gemelas de New York.       

     Este  imán recibe dinero del gobierno americano mientras trabaja para minar los valores de este país e imponer de manera ladina la ley sharia  llegando al extremo de chantajear a los Estados Unidos amenazando a todo el país públicamente y ante las cámara de la televisión que si no se pliegan a sus pretensiones tendremos que atenernos a ataques contra embajadas e intereses americanos a través del mundo, lo que constituye una reiteración de la declaración de guerra hecha por terroristas islámicos contra los Estados Unidos el 9 de Septiembre del 2001 .

     Choca la duplicidad del presidente Obama y sus corifeos de la prensa izquierdista ante la incineración de algunos Coranes cuando el propio gobierno de Obama ordenó quemar las sagradas Biblias que habían sido llevadas a Afganistán traducidas en lenguas locales, ni nadie se rasga las vestiduras cuando los musulmanes, o cualquier otro cretino ya sea nacional o de otro país, queman la bandera americana.

     Tampoco amenazaron de muerte los católicos a quienes han profanado nuestra fe como un tal Serrano que presentó como ejemplo de su  arte en un museo, y pagado por los taxpayers, a un crucifijo dentro de un balde de orine; o el cuadro por otro artista subvencionado por el gobierno de una Virgen María entre los excrementos de elefantes.

    Quemar el Corán no es lo apropiado ya que desvía la atención a lo que es más importante, que es evitar que ese reto del radicalismo islámico pueda consumar la provocación de profanar el suelo sagrado donde  en nombre del Islám fueron asesinados más de 3,000 seres inocentes.

       La arrogancia de los envueltos en el proyecto del centro de proselitismo islámico a unos pasos del sitio del 9/11 como símbolo de supremacía e ínfulas de dominación mundial de los islámicos, hace aún más marcada su insolencia cuando en la Arabia Saudita no se permite la construcción de iglesias o sinagogas y el llevar allí, una sagrada Biblia o tratar de proclamar las palabras el evangelio conlleva la pena de muerte.  Hace menos de un mes un grupo de médicos cristianos en labor humanitaria en Afganistán fueron asesinados brutalmente por los terroristas musulmanes por el sólo hecho de ser cristianos, algo que ordena el Corán donde los cristianos son calificados como puercos y los judíos como monos.

      Tampoco recuerdo haber visto a esa prensa tan protectora de la sensibilidad de los musulmanes alzar su voz de repulsa cuando a principios de este año en Nigeria,  los musulmanes  asesinaron más de 500 cristianos a machetazos incluyendo mujeres y niños para luego, aún moribundos quemarlos, siguiendo al pie de la letra el mandato de Mahoma de matarlos y quemarlos.  No creo que los infelices nigerianos fueran  agentes de Estados Unidos, ni que su labor fuera otra que la de proclamar el evangelio de paz y de amor a fieles e infieles.

    Si de algo ha servido este nuevo reto de los musulmanes a los Estados Unidos aprovechando nuestras libertades para minarnos, es que el pueblo empieza a informarse y a conocer la verdad sobre el Islam, no la politicamente correcta falacia que proclama el presidente Obama y una prensa servil e ignorante.

The Prophet Muhammad orders the burning of Christians and their Children
Facebook ^ | September 10, 2010 | Dr. Thomas Ahmed

WHICH IS MORE EVIL TO BURN A RELIGIOUS BOOK OR TO COMMAND THE BURNING AND SLAUGHTER OF THE FOLLOWERS OF OTHER RELIGIONS?

     The prophet Muhammad is known for his hatred towards Christians and Jews. He called them apes and pigs and ordered their slaughter and in one case he commaded his Mujahideen fighters to burn them with fire.

       While Osama bin Zayd, preparing his troops to invade the Christian lands, the prophet Muhammad commanded him saying, "attack them in the darkness of the dawn and fall on them killing and burn them with fire and invade them and return with the booty."  

     Those words of the prophet Muhammad could be found in the most authentic Islamic books which are known as the Mothers of the Islamic Books and approved by Al-Azhar Al-Sharif University. Just to mention few of them (Ibn Habib in al-Mahabir p 117, Ibn Kathir in al-Bedaiah wa al-Nihaiah p 139, 143, Ibn Said al-Nas in 'Auion al-Atharig p 145, al-Suhili in Rawd Alanif p 24, Ibn Hisham p 245, and al-Tabari in Tarikh al-Rusul wa al-Milook p 156).

Qur’an 5:17 “Verily they are disbelievers and infidels who say, ‘The Messiah, son of Mary, is God.”

Qur’an 5:51 “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”

Qur’an 9:29 “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or the Last Day, who do not forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, or acknowledge the Religion of Truth (Islam), (even if they are) People of the Book (Christians and Jews), until they pay the Jiziyah tribute tax in submission, feeling themselves subdued and brought low” [Another translation says] “pay the tax in acknowledgment of our superiority and their state of subjection.”

Bukhari: V5 hadith no. 727 “When Allah’s Apostle became seriously sick, he started covering his face with a woolen sheet. When he felt short of breath, he removed it, and said, ‘that is so! Allah’s curse be on Jews and Christians.’”

The Slaughter of the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurizah,

Muhammad: Oh brothers of monkeys and pigs

The trembling Jews replied: Oh Abu al-Qasim, you have not been a bad man!! (Ibid; 392, quoting from Ibn Kathir, al-Bedayia p. 120).

The prophet called out to them: Oh brothers of monkeys. Does Allah disappointed you and send on you his curse?

The Qurizah understood the message and replied in fear: Oh Abi al-Qasim, you have not been an ignorant man (Ibid, quoting from al-Bihaqi, al-Tarikh p. 582).

The Jews of Qurizah continued to plead with Muhammad `and beg him to send to them one of their allies, a man by the name of Abi Libabah bin Abd al-Nuziar al-Awasi.

When Abi Libabah entered their garrison, the men rose, the women wept, and the children cried to him. When he saw them he had pity on them.

They said to him: oh Abi Libabah, do you think we should go out for the judgment of Muhammad?

He said, yes, and then he passed his finger across his neck, which means, the slaughter.

Then their leader, Ka'ab bin Asaad said to his people: Let us follow Muhammad and believe in him.

They replied: We will not leave the judgment of the Torah forever.

He said to them: Then let us kill our children and women and go out to Muhammad.

They said: Shall we kill these harmless children and women? What is the good of life after them? (Al-Qimni 2004: 393-394, quoting from al-Tabari p. 583).

Finally the men of Bani Qurizah decided to go out and meet Muhammad hoping that the other Medinian tribes would intercede with the Prophet and request him to send them with their women and children out of Yathrib as he did before with the other two Jewish tribes. As soon as the Jewish men emerged out of their garrison, the prophet ordered his men to bind them with ropes and march them in a long queue (Ibid: 394, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 583).  Then the prophet asked his men to dig many ditches inside the city (Ibid). After so many pleadings from the leaders of the Medinian tribes of al-Khaziriq and al-Awas, Muhammad agreed that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz should decide the fate of the Jews (Ibid, quoting from al-Tabari p. 586).

Al-Tabari narrated that Sa'ad bin Mu'aaz was dying. During the siege of the city, an arrow hit his hand and caused a cut on one of his nerves.  The prophet tried to heal him by heating a nail and burning the nerve. In doing that Muhammad thought the bleeding would stop. However, the burning nail worsened the cut and caused the nerve to swell. When the Prophet repeated the same treatment the nerve exploded (Ibid: 395). In his dying state Sa'ad was carried to the Prophet. When Muhammad saw him he ordered the Jews to stand to their Master. "When Sa'ad was put down by his carriers the prophet asked him to judge on them. He said, I judge on them that the men should be put to death, their wealth divided, and their women distributed as jawari among the Muslims.  The prophet said to him, you have judged on them with the judgment of Allah that has been given to you from seven heavens" (Ibid: 395, quoting al-Tabari, al-Tarikh p. 586).

The horrifying slaughter was described by al-Tabari as follows:

They brought first the enemy of Allah, Huaya bin Akhatab, while his hands were bound to his neck by a rope. (Huaya was the father of Safiya bint Huaya whom the Prophet killed her husband and brother and took her as his wife). When Huaya saw the Messenger of Allah, he said to him, I swear by God, I have never blamed myself for your enmity. Then, Huaya turned to the people and said, oh people there is no fear from the judgment and the Book of God, it is an honor written by God to the children of Israel to die as martyrs. Then, he sat down and his neck was beheaded… Ali bin Talib and al-Zibiar continued to strike their necks… It is assumed that their blood reached the oilstones that are at the market (Ibid: 396, quoting from al-Tabari, al-Tarikh pp. 588-589).

   The narrators of the sira differed in the number of the Jewish men who were killed on that fateful day. Some said six hundred, some seven hundred, some eight hundred, and some nine hundred (Ibid: 396). Al-Qimni states, “And we learn from our heritage a new thing happened in that slaughter. The slaughter was not restricted to men only, but included little boys too” (Ibid: 398 referring to al-Tabari p. 591). Then the victims were buried in those big holes or ditches that the Muslims dug.

      A quotation from my book, "Ibtihal and Muslims' Liberation Movement". Click on this link to view the book.  http://www.publishamerica.net/product56703.html

[sirjohn]

MEDIDAS MARXISTAS DE OBAMA PROVOCA EL AUMENTO DE LA POBREZA A NIVELES RECORDS

US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009

By HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writers Hope Yen And Liz Sidoti, Associated Press Writers Sat Sep 11, 2010

.

     WASHINGTON – The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

     Census figures for 2009 — the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat's presidency — are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

      It's unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase — from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent — would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

       "The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there," Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, "If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then

      Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

       Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959.

      Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government's role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

         Demographers also are confident the report will show:

_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.

_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

     "My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay," said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton

     Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor wrote "Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That's a lot more salient politically right now," he said.

    But if Thursday's report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.

     The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama's economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery.   Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.

    Democratic explanation will sway voters who already are trending heavily toward the GOP in polls as worrisome economic news piles up.

      Hispanics and blacks — traditionally solid Democratic constituencies — could be inclined to stay home in November if, as expected, the Census Bureau reports that many more of them were poor last year.

       Beyond this fall, the findings could put pressure on Obama to expand government safety net programs ahead of his likely 2012 re-election bid even as Republicans criticize him about federal spending and annual deficits. Those are areas of concern for independent voters whose support is critical in elections.

      Experts say a jump in the poverty rate could mean that the liberal viewpoint — social constraints prevent the poor from working — will gain steam over the conservative pposition that the poor have opportunities to work but choose not to because they get too much help.

     "The Great Recession will surely push the poverty rate for working-age people to a nearly 50-year peak," said Elise Gould, an economist with the Economic Policy Institute. She said that means "it's time for a renewed attack on poverty."

    To Douglas Besharov, a University of Maryland public policy professor, the big question is whether there's anything more to do to help these families.

       The 2009 forecasts are largely based on historical data and the unemployment rate, which climbed to 10.1 percent last October to post a record one-year gain.

     The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. "As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher," she said in an interview then.

        A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.

     That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson's war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.

     In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

     Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.

[siboneyes]

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.

[siboneyes]

Thanks Barack… US Debt Is More Than All Money In the World

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.

[siboneyes]

OBAMA Y LA BURBUJA DEL RESCATE

 “Dólares fantasma, impresos de puro aire, respaldados por nada… y que producen casi nada… definen la ‘Burbuja del Rescate.’

HACIA UNA DEPRESION PEOR QUE LA GRAN DEPRESION DE F.D.R.

“Ésta es la Madre de Todas las Burbujas, y cuando reviente, señalizará el fin del ciclo de boom/quiebra que ha caracterizado la actividad económica en todo el mundo desarrollado.”

Mientras el rescate, o “paquete de estímulo” como lo llaman frecuentemente, recibe buena cobertura en términos de que lo muestran como si hubiera reanimado la economía y encabezara la marcha hacia la luz al final del túnel, hay factores cruciales que de nuevo son tergiversados en esta situación.

A fines de marzo de 2009, Bloomberg informó que: “El gobierno de Estados Unidos y la Reserva Federal han gastado, prestado o comprometido 12,8 billones de dólares, una suma que se acerca al valor de todo lo que se produjo en el país el año pasado.” Esta suma “representa 42.105 dólares por cada hombre, mujer y niño en Estados Unidos y 14 veces los 899.800 millones de dólares de moneda en circulación. El producto interno bruto de la nación fue de 14,2 billones de dólares en 2008.” [10]

Gerald Celente, jefe del Instituto de Investigación de Tendencias, la principal agencia de predicción de tendencias en el mundo, escribió en mayo de 2009 sobre la “burbuja del rescate.” Los pronósticos de Celente no deben ser tomados a la ligera, ya que predijo con exactitud la caída del mercado bursátil de 1987, la caída de la Unión Soviética, el colapso económico ruso de 1998, la crisis económica de Asia del Este de 1997, el estallido de la burbuja del puntocom de 2000, la recesión de 2001, el comienzo de una recesión en 2007 y el colapso del mercado de la vivienda de 2008, entre otras cosas.

El 13 de mayo de 2009, Celente publicó una Alerta de Tendencia, en la que informó que: “la mayor burbuja financiera en la historia está siendo inflada a plena vista,” y que: “Ésta es la Madre de Todas las Burbujas, y cuando reviente [] señalizará el fin del ciclo de boom/quiebra que ha caracterizado la actividad económica en todo el mundo desarrollado.”

Además: “Esto es mucho mayor que las burbujas del puntocom y de los bienes raíces que afectó sobre todo a especuladores, inversionistas y financistas. Por destructivos que hayan sido los efectos de esos colapsos sobre el empleo, los ahorros y la productividad, el marco Capitalista de Libre Mercado quedó intacto. Pero cuando reviente la ‘Burbuja del Rescate’, el sistema se irá con ella.”

Celente además explicó que: “Dólares fantasma, impresos de puro aire, respaldados por nada… y que producen casi nada… definen la ‘Burbuja del Rescate.’

Exactamente como las otras burbujas, ésta también reventará. Pero a diferencia de puntocom y de los bienes inmobiliarios, cuando estalle la ‘Burbuja del Rescate’, ni el presidente ni la Reserva Federal tendrán a su disposición los arreglos fiscales o las políticas monetarias para inflar otra.” Celente entró en detalles: “Considerando el modelo de gobiernos que convierten fracasos flagrantes en mega-fracasos, se seguirá la tendencia clásica: cuando todo lo demás fracase, se llevará al país a la guerra,” y eso: “Aunque no podemos determinar con exactitud cuándo reventará la ‘Burbuja del Rescate’, estamos seguros de que lo hará. Cuando lo haga, habrá que comprender que puede sobrevenir una gran guerra.” [11]

Sin embargo, esa burbuja del rescate” a la que se refería Celente entonces eran los 12,8 billones de dólares de los que habla Bloomberg. Desde julio, los cálculos estiman que esa burbuja tiene aproximadamente el doble del cálculo anterior.

Como informó Financial Times a fines de julio de 2009, mientras la Reserva Federal y el Tesoro saludan los esfuerzos y el impacto de los rescates, “Neil Barofsky, inspector general especial para el atribulado Programa de Alivio para Activos en Problemas [TARP] dijo que si todas las promesas de apoyo anunciadas por el gobierno estadounidense se hicieran efectivas, la suma total de su desembolso sería de $23,7 millones de millones. Y estos son sólo los compromisos estadounidenses a través del TARP, ya que hay más compromisos fuera del TARP.

Su vasto cálculo fue inmediatamente descartado por el Tesoro.” El inspector general del programa TARP señaló que existen “vulnerabilidades fundamentales… relacionadas con conflictos de interés y colusión, transparencia, medidas de rendimiento y contrarias al lavado de dinero.”

Barofsky también informa de “considerable estrés” en los bienes raíces comerciales, ya que “la Reserva Federal ha comenzado a abrir TALF a valores respaldados por hipotecas comerciales para tratar de influenciar las condiciones de crédito en el mercado de los bienes raíces comerciales.

El informe llama atención a una nueva dificultad crediticia cuando hipotecas de bienes raíces por un valor de 500.000 millones de dólares tengan que ser refinanciadas a fines de año.”

Ben Bernanke, presidente de la Reserva Federal, y Timothy Geithner, Secretario del Tesoro y ex presidente de la Reserva Federal de Nueva York discuten seriamente la extensión de TALF (Facilidad de Préstamos de Valores a Término Respaldados por Activos) a CMBS (valores respaldados por hipotecas comerciales) y otros activos como ser préstamos para pequeños negocios y si aumentar el tamaño del programa.” La “expansión de los varios programas a nuevos y más arriesgados tipos de activos es uno de las principales manzanas de la discordia entre el Tesoro y el señor Barofsky.” [12]

Testificando ante el Congreso, Barofsky dijo: “De programas que involucraban grandes infusiones de capital a cientos de bancos y otras instituciones financieras, a un programa de modificación de hipotecas diseñado para modificar millones de hipotecas, a sociedades público-privadas que utilizan decenas de miles de millones de dólares del contribuyente para comprar activos ‘tóxicos’ de los bancos, TARP se ha desarrollado a ser un programa de un alcance, escala y complejidad sin precedente.” Explicó que: “El apoyo potencial total del gobierno federal podría llegar a 23,7 billones de dólares.” [13]