OBAMA PROVOCA UNA ESTRUENDOSA CAIDA DEL DOLAR
Dollar plunges to 2½-year low
By Peter Garnham
April 21 2011
The dollar dropped to its lowest level in more than two-and-a-half years on Thursday as buoyant risk appetite prompted investors to sell the currency to fund carry trades.
Analysts said robust corporate earnings figures had boosted hopes over global growth, while the prospect that US interest rates would remain at ultra-low levels was fuelling demand for carry trades, in which low-yielding currencies such as the dollar are sold to finance the purchase of riskier, higher-yielding assets elsewhere.
Market rumour that the People’s Bank of China was poised to implement of substantial, one-off revaluation of the renminbi also weighed on the US currency.
The dollar index, which tracks its progress against a basket of six leading currencies, fell 0.8 per cent to 73.785, its weakest level since August 2008. Traders said the stage could now be set for the index to target the record low of 70.698 it hit in March 2008.
The dollar also dropped 0.9 per cent to a 16-month low of $1.4641 against the euro, fell 1 per cent to a 16-month trough of $1.6560 against the pound, lost 0.8 per cent to a record low of SFr0.8817 against the Swiss franc and plunged 0.7 per cent lower to Y81.93 against the yen.
The Australian dollar, which with its relatively high yield and commodity-linked status has been a favourite target for carry trade investors, surged to a fresh 29-year high against the dollar, rising 0.6 per cent to $1.0758.
Lee Hardman at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ said dollar weakness continued to be mainly driven by widening expectations of monetary policy divergence between the Federal Reserve and other major central banks.
He said the downgrade of the outlook of US sovereign debt by rating agency Standard & Poor’s on Monday had reinforced this dynamic by increasing expectations that the Fed would have to keep interest rates at ultra-low levels for longer to offset the negative impact from the expected fiscal tightening.
Mr Hardman added, however, that while near-term concerns over monetary policy divergence and heightened US fiscal concerns were genuine, he believed there was a strong case that current dollar weakness was overextending.
“With market liquidity thinning heading into the Easter holidays, it provides the ideal conditions for a dollar undershoot relative to fundamentals,” he said.
“Indeed, while there is a notable risk that the near-term dollar sell-off extends further, it appears only a matter before a correction takes place.”
Commentary: Beijing won't push the renminbi too fast
China and four other leading high-growth economies have taken landmark steps toward lowering the importance of the dollar in international financial transactions — part of a seminal shift in the move towards a multicurrency reserve and trading system.
Mind you, you wouldn't get an idea of anything dramatic from reading the official Chinese press on the conclusion of a summit meeting of the so-called BRICS economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) in the southern resort twin of Sanya in southern China last week.
"Leaders call for peace and prosperity" was the front-page headline in the China Daily. Stirring stiff. Even more striking was the prominent story the previous day that China's President Hu Jintao and visiting Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff had agreed to quicken trade procedures for "gelatin, corn, tobacco leaf, bovine embryos and semen." At least we know there's no holding back the Chinese rhetorical flourishes on these issues.
Leave aside the whimsical acronyms. Addition of South Africa to the former BRICS format seems to have galvanized the grouping. The five countries agreed to expand use of their own currencies in trade with each other — an important step toward putting the dollar into a new downsized place. One key influence is the annual expansion of China's trade volume with other core countries by 40% in 2010 — and the buoyancy looks set to continue.
The BRICS' state development banks, including the China Development Bank, agreed to use their own currencies instead of the dollar in issuing credit or grants to each other — and they will also phase out the dollar in overall settlements and lending among each other.
Chinese officials at the annual Boao Forum at the end of last week voiced cautious optimism about the possibilities for far-reaching international monetary reform proposals taking a step forward when the G-20 meet in Cannes in November at the behest of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Chief among these is for enhancing the special drawing right of the International Monetary Fund through the inclusion of emerging market currencies.
Speaking in Boao, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, refused to get carried away by any of this. He gave a cautious welcome to bringing the renminbi in to the SDR but admitted it had to be part of a planned move to full convertibility of the Chinese currency as well a shift to a flexible exchange rate.
Fresh signs of a disturbing lack of equilibrium in the Chinese economy, above all the latest annual rise in the consumer price index in March to 5.4% — have heightened speculation that China will speed up a rise in the renminbi to lower import prices. Governor Zhou, while not yet wishing to confirm any details, delivered a strong hint that he was prepared for such a course.
If the renminbi were to become a fully fledged reserve currency, of course, it would have to go down as well as up — marking enormous risks along the journey for the renminbi to assume a greater international role. For all of these reasons, Beijing will proceed with utmost caution in relaxing its restrictions for the currency to circulate freely overseas.
The last few days, make no mistake about it, mark an important step along this path — but there is a long way to go still.
David Marsh is co-chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions
EN LOS AEROPUERTOS DE BRASIL LAS AUTORIDADES NO ACEPTAN DÓLARES PARA PAGAR LOS IMPUESTOS DE SALIDA DEL PAÍS, TIENEN QUE PAGAR EN LA MONEDA BRASILEÑA, REALES, O CON TARJETA DE CRÉDITO... ¿QUIEREN MAYOR AFRONTA? ESTAMOS COSECHANDO LO QUE OBAMA HA SEMBRADO, EL DESPRESTIGIO INTERNACIONAL DEL DÓLAR... YA NADIE RESPETA LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS, NI SIQUIERA NUESTROS MAS FIELES ALIADOS.
Real Wages Fall For 5th Straight Month, Bad News For Obama
By Ed Carson
Fri., April 15, 2011
Tags: Economy - Income - Inflation - Obama - Elections
Real earnings fell for a fifth straight month as wages fail to keep up with soaring gasoline prices and other costs. Inflation-adjusted earnings for all private workers dropped 0.5% in March, the worst monthly drop since July 2008, according to Labor Department data. Nominal wages were flat while consumer prices climbed more than 0.5% for a second straight month.
Year over year, inflation-adjusted weekly pay sank 0.4%. That’s the first drop in a year and down from a 2.2% gain in October.
Since October, real weekly wages have dropped at a 3.8% annual rate — matching the decline set in July 2008, when oil prices peaked above $147 a barrel.
(Meanwhile, real hourly wages fell 0.6% vs. Feb. and 1% vs. a year earlier.)
The 2 percentage point temporary cut in payroll taxes has offset much of the recent decline in wages. But prices at the pump are taking their toll on consumers’ pocketbooks and psyche. Retail sales ex gasoline rose just 0.1% last month. The IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index dived to a 33-month low in April, losing more than 20% in the last three months.
Overall consumer inflation was 2.7% in March, the highest since the end of 2009. Core inflation was 1.2%, the highest since the start of 2010 but still moderate. However, overall and core inflation should continue to trend higher for the next few months, if only because of easy year-earlier comparisons.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is betting that commodity prices will have only a temporary impact on U.S. inflation. We’ll see.
It’s not just inflation. Nominal weekly wages were flat in March. The yearly gain slowed from 3.4% in October to 2.3% in March.
Wage woes are bad news for President Obama’s re-election hopes. As James Pethokoukis has pointed out, income is the biggest variable on national elections.
The skunk has replaced the Eagle as the new symbol
of the American Presidency.
Publicado: 04-22-2011 02:55 PM
$8 GALLON? Going Green by Starving America of Oil
By Tait Trussell On April 22, 2011 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage
A gallon of regular gas in Caracus,Venezuella, costs 12 cents. In Saudi Arabia, gas is at 91 cents a gallon. So, why, when we have more fossil fuel deposits in America on shore and off shore than either of those countries, are we paying $4.00 a gallon or higher? Could it be unbounded politics?
As an op-ed piece in the Wall Street journal put it: “For decades—going back to Jimmy Carter—politicians have been peddling an America free of fossil fuels…” President Obama has raised the anti-petroleum ghost to a new level of fear linked to the misguided theory of global warming.
To satisfy his left-wing base of narrow-minded environmentalists, along with his own twisted ideals, Obama’s administration has blocked drilling for oil and gas, proposed new taxes on oil companies, and called for costly restraints on carbon emissions while persistently touting the ethereal promise of green energy.
Although the bloated Federal budget, deficit, and debt are drawing the focus of political Washington, our stifling energy policy is contributing to the economic conditions which, in turn, influence our spending and debt as well as our high unemployment.
Increased access to domestic oil and natural gas—rather than increased taxes on the U.S. oil and gas industry—is the best strategy for increasing government revenue, jobs and energy production, according to a new study by Wood MacKenzie, the global research and consulting firm.
What the political know-it-alls won’t tell the public is that America has more recoverable fossil fuel resources than any other country on earth. More than any Middle Eastern country, more than Russia, more than China, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reported recently. It compared various countries in terms of estimated amounts of oil and gas discovered or existing in unexplored areas but considered recoverable using present technology.
The CRS estimate of oil and gas doesn’t even include coal, with U.S. reserves of 262 billion tons. That’s 28 percent of the world’s coal.
It doesn’t attempt to quantify the new frontier of methane hydrate (methane locked in ice). This gas source has “immense” energy potential, possibly exceeding the combined energy content of all known fossil fuels, according to the Congressional Research Service. It could eventually be available if the environmentalists of the Left will permit it.
Nor are shale oil deposits included in the CRS estimate. Shale oil and gas are being uncovered rapidly with the new technology of fracking—pumping water and chemicals at high pressure far below the surface to break up the shale and release gas.
The environmental extremists are already whining about fracking, claiming the drilling fluids applied to get the oil and gas from deep shale formations contain carcinogens hazardous to clean water.
These charges, according to a Wall Street Journal story April 18, are being supported by Senate Democrats who are always ready to spoil technological advances. Industry says there’s no evidence these fluids have found their way into water supplies. Nearly 800 million gallons of drilling fluids have been pumped deep into the earth in the past few years.
The White House defensively bragged that last year U.S. oil production reached its highest level since 2003. Obama apparently was unaware that it takes years for a leased area to begin producing. So, the credit for last year’s rise really goes to the Bush administration. Once again the administration had its facts wrong.
The Left seems tied to the stake of green energy, even though it holds little promise today or in the foreseeable future. Green energy, be it windmills or solar panels, exists only because the Obama administration is causing the cost of its competition to soar and because Obama has dumped billions of dollars into the pockets of his cronies to subsidize green projects.
But for the immediate future, U.S. oil and gas companies are a major force in our economy. “These companies produce most of the nation’s energy, put millions of people to work and deliver billions in taxes and royalties to our government.” as American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard pointed out.
The Wood MacKenzie study looked ahead. It said increased access could by 2025 create 530,000 jobs, deliver $150 billion more in tax, royalty and other revenue to the government, and boost domestic production by four million barrels of oil equivalent a day….Raising taxes on the industry with no increase in access could reduce domestic production by 700,000 barrels of oil equivalent a day (in 2020) and reduce revenue to the government by billions of dollars annually.
Although more access would eventually replace oil imports, it would not necessarily drive gasoline down to dime-store prices, an API senior manager explains. “We are in a global market for crude oil. Even if we were entirely self-sufficient in crude oil, the price of that crude would be determined by all the thousands of buyers and sellers in the world’s market, not just by us…All we know for sure is that the benefits—jobs, tax revenue, energy security—would be greater.”
Strident environmentalists have long predicted that we will soon be running out of oil. To the contrary, over the past 30 years, the world’s proven reserves have increased 130 percent.
Some Democrats also are calling for a “use it or lose it” policy regarding oil and gas leases. They claim companies are sitting on scores of leases that could be used to search for oil. Obama said in a speech that the industry “holds tens of millions of acres where its not producing a drop.” But the problem is not with leases. It’s with permits. Permits have been tied up with over-burdensome regulations. Again, Obama speaks with a forked tongue.
Adding a spit in the face to industry, the Administration saw fit to lend $2.84 billion to Columbia for an oil refinery, it was revealed April 19. According to reports, the money would go to Reficar, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ecopetrol, the Columbian national oil company. This is part of a $5 billion refinery upgrade project supplying petroleum, products for domestic and export purposes. Who knows what energy misdeeds lie ahead?
Publicado: 04-23-2011 09:45 AM
ESTADOS UNIDOS DESPUES DE OBAMA DOS AÑOS EN EL PODER
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a rate more than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.
An analogy, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane 27 times faster, it would be doing 1,755 MPH!
(2) Wall Street Journal
(3) Bureau of Labor Statistics
(4) Census Bureau
(6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor
(8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller
(10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ
(11) The Conference Board
(14) U.S. Treasury
Publicado: 04-23-2011 02:29 PM
"Gangster Government" Exposes the First Thug's Abuse of Power
Washington journalist David Freddoso, who's making a name for himself as a paladin on the American right, is hot on the trail of the Obama gang again, with both guns blazing.
The fearless author of The New York Times’ campaign bestseller, The Case Against Barack Obama, who warned us of the Chicago-***********///////********//////****** outlaw government we’d get if we elected him President, is back, this time with a detailed account of how Obama and his gang have abused their powers and now threaten our freedoms.
His new action-packed book, accurately and appropriately titled Gangster Government: Barack Obama and the New Washington Thugocracy (Regnery Publishing) is crammed with criminal indictments against Obama’s hired guns and their dirty deeds. It’s must reading for anyone who is, or will be, working in this two-year election cycle to oust him and his Most Wanted desperados from Washington.
Of course, if you are talking about thugs, there are plenty of them in the ranks of organized labor, many of whom have been wandering the halls of the West Wing over the past two years as if they owned the place. Come to think of it, after all of the IOUs Obama gave them for their work in the 2008 election, they do own the place, and they’ve taken full advantage of their behind-the-scenes influence at the very highest levels of government.
Perhaps no other union official has had more access to the White House than Andy Stern, the politically powerful president of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who paid nearly 60 visits in Obama’s first two years in office. Whatever Andy wanted, Andy got.
What did Stern do to earn his $260,000 a year salary? Why, he lobbied, of course, the kind of activity Obama regularly attacked in his campaign for the presidency under the previous administration. But when Stern lobbied, he did it inside the Oval Office.
Obama and his aides were eager to keep the unions happy, and Freddoso points out that Obama’s $800 billion economic stimulus legislation “was specifically designed to protect state government workers who might otherwise have been laid off—even if their jobs were jobs that states needed to cut.”
When California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to cut $2 an hour from the state’s subsidy for unionized health care workers to save money, Stern lobbied the White House to block it. The White House dutifully threatened to cut off $6.8 billion in stimulus funds if the Schwarzenegger administration did not back down.
Stepping up the pressure, the White House held a conference call with California officials, putting the SEIU’s general counsel and two union officials in California on the line. When a story leaked out about Obama’s blackmail tactics, the White House backed off. “It was one of those cases where gangster government was just too unsubtle to be effective,” Feddoso writes.
It was also an all-too-typical example of the strong-arm tactics the Obama gang regularly used to get its way.
Next to labor, no other lobbying group exerted more influence on the Obama government than the trial lawyers. At a $2 million fund-raiser bankrolled by the nation’s richest liability trial attorneys, Sen. Joseph Biden said there were “two groups that stand between us and the barbarians at the gate. It’s you and organized labor.”
But the tens of millions of dollars trial lawyers paid to the Obama campaign yielded huge dividends for one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country. The White House made sure that proposed curbs on medical liability lawsuits never made it into the ObamaCare bill that the President signed into law.
One of strongest themes that runs throughout Freddoso’s book is the Obama gang’s cynical view that the Constitution and the laws that govern our country are only for the little people, not for those at the pinnacles of power who revel in ruling over us.
Historically, the government’s departments and major agencies are run by the Cabinet secretaries and agency chiefs nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They are required to testify before Congress and cooperate with any investigations and other oversight inquiries.
But under Obama’s rules, these departments and agencies are now run by a cadre of little-known White House czars, far removed from the Senate’s confirmation process and congressional oversight. The White House wants everything in the government run from the West Wing, far from the prying inquiries of the legislative branch.
While even some Democrats have groused about this seemingly illegal power shift, the White House has gotten away with it.
But it is in the health care law, “read by so few but supported by so many in Congress,” that “President Obama has stretched the constitutional limits of federal power beyond their breaking point,” Freddoso writes. Particularly, he says, in forcing uninsured Americans to purchase and/or businesses to provide federally approved health care plans they do not want and cannot afford, or otherwise pay a penalty or even face jail.
But Freddoso remains confident that, in the end, all of this will be overturned in the next election by the voters whose opposition to the Obama presidency runs far deeper than a mediocre economy and high unemployment. He points to exit polls in last year’s elections, when voters by three-to-one said: “Government is doing too many things better left to business and individuals.”
Freddoso believes the voters have “turned on Obama because they saw something they didn’t like: the big, heavy, pushy hand of big government, reaching out from every shadow. They saw one overreach after another—the stimulus package, the health care bill, the bailout of the automakers, the favoritism toward special interests. And they said No to gangster government.”
We’ll know soon enough whether Freddoso’s prediction proves true, but I suspect he’s right. The political rebellion we saw at work in last year’s elections shows no signs of receding. It’s just getting bigger and angrier.
|Mr. Lambro is a nationally syndicated columnist and former chief political correspondent for the Washington Times.|
Publicado: 04-24-2011 08:52 PM
Syria Gets Free Pass From Obama Because They Fight American Influence
The Voice of Reason ^ | April 24, 2011 | Texas Peartree
One of the themes of President Obama’s foreign policy, heck the only theme to President Obama’s foreign policy, is his extraordinary effort to punish America’s friends and support our enemies.
Examples of this moral inversion are many. Let’s put aside the easy examples of Obama’s shabby treatment of the Queen of England and the Prime Minister of Israel (who does he think he is, Lyndon LaRouche?). Obama refused to say supportive words for Iran’s democratic protesters who could have possibly overthrown their stolen election in the terror-state of Iran and replaced the government with something, anything more pro-American. Instead our President said nothing while students were arrested, shot in the streets, tortured and raped in secret prisons.
When Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak was destabilized, we took the side of the street protesters, even though Mubarak had been a largely pro-West leader in the most important Arab state for the past three decades. Mubarak was no saint, but in the real world you need the support of some authoritarians to stave off the rule of totalitarians. Has the Iranian Revolution taught us nothing?
Likewise, in Honduras, American policy was to support an anti-American puppet of Nicaragua and Venezuela who wished to unconstitutionally stay in power, instead of supporting the pro-American business elite that wanted to stay out of the anti-American Latin American bloc.
Now comes Syria. Syria is run by a minority government led by comical President-for-life Bashir Assad, son of the late Syrian President-for-life Hafez Assad. Syria proliferates weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah against UN resolutions. Syria helps thousands of jihadists to slip into Iraq to destabilize her neighbor and kill American soldiers. Syria facilitated the destruction of the US embassy and Marine base in Beirut in the 1980s. Syria also is the one state that has broken ranks with the Arab world to support Iran’s Shia ambitions across the Middle East. In short, Syria is a dangerous economic basket case and outlier that supports terrorist movements and subverts US influence in the region. No wonder President Obama has been silent about them murdering hundreds of anti-Assad protesters.
Even the generally pro-community organizing Washington Post has called our President’s approach shameful.
Question: if you were a leader of another nation, whether friend or foe, can you think of any reason you might respect our President? In a crisis would you be likely to support American interests, knowing that this support brings no reward? Or would you stand staunchly against American interests, knowing there will be no repercussions?
Shameful U.S. inaction on Syria’s massacres
By Editorial WASHINGTON POST
FOR THE PAST five weeks, growing numbers of Syrians have been gathering in cities and towns across the country to demand political freedom — and the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad have been responding by opening fire on them. According to Syrian human rights groups, more than 220 people had been killed by Friday. And Friday may have been the worst day yet: According to Western news organizations, which mostly have had to gather information from outside the country, at least 75 people were gunned down in places that included the suburbs of Damascus, the city of Homs and a village near the southern town of Daraa, where the protests began.
Massacres on this scale usually prompt a strong response from Western democracies, as they should. Ambassadors are withdrawn; resolutions are introduced at the U.N. Security Council; international investigations are mounted and sanctions applied. In Syria’s case, none of this has happened. The Obama administration has denounced the violence — a presidential statement called Friday’s acts of repression “outrageous” — but otherwise remained passive. Even the ambassador it dispatched to Damascus during a congressional recess last year remains on post.
The administration has sat on its hands despite the fact that the Assad regime is one of the most implacable U.S. adversaries in the Middle East. It is Iran’s closest ally; it supplies Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip for use against Israel. Since 2003 it has helped thousands of jihadists from across the Arab world travel to Iraq to attack American soldiers. It sought to build a secret nuclear reactor with the help of North Korea and destabilized the pro-Western government of neighboring Lebanon by sponsoring a series of assassinations.
Like people across the Middle East, the protesters in Syria say that they are seeking the establishment of a democratic system. A statement issued by organizers of the protests Friday called for an end to torture and killings by security forces; the release of all political prisoners; an investigation into the deaths of those killed so far; and reform of the constitution, including a limit on presidential terms. The mass demonstrations on Good Friday were called to show that the cause is neither Islamic nor sectarian.
Yet the Obama administration has effectively sided with the regime against the protesters. Rather than repudiate Mr. Assad and take tangible steps to weaken his regime, it has proposed, with increasing implausibility, that his government “implement meaningful reforms,” as the president’s latest statement put it. As The Post’s Karen DeYoung and Scott Wilson reported Friday, the administration, which made the “engagement” of Syria a key part of its Middle East policy, still clings to the belief that Mr. Assad could be part of a Middle East peace process; and it would rather not trade “a known quantity in Assad for an unknown future.”
As a practical matter, these considerations are misguided. Even if his massacres allow him to survive in power, Mr. Assad will hardly be a credible partner for Israel. And no matter what happens, Syria will not return to the police-state stability it has known during the past several decades.
As a moral matter, the stance of the United States is shameful. To stand by passively while hundreds of people seeking freedom are gunned down by their government makes a mockery of the U.S. commitment to human rights. In recent months President Obama has pledged repeatedly that he would support the aspiration of Arabs for greater freedom. In Syria, he has not kept his word.
Leaders: The champion of Polish freedom tells America it's no longer that shining city on a hill. As it slouches toward socialism, he warns, those yearning to breathe free in the world can no longer look to the U.S. for help.
They were the giants of their age. Together, President Ronald Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Pope John Paul II and a little known shipyard worker named Lech Walesa stood up to Soviet communism and brought freedom to the captive nations of Europe.
Last Friday, Walesa was in Chicago campaigning for a GOP gubernatorial candidate in the Illinois primary who happened to be Polish. Arguably the father of Polish democracy, Walesa knows a little bit about tyranny, socialism and the slippery path to both, and came to warn us about the path we've been on.
In a press conference, Walesa commented on an America that seemingly apologizes for everything these days, cajoles rather than confronts the thugs of the world and is embarked on a path to shackle beyond redemption the free economy that led the Free World to victory.
He no longer thinks we are the last best hope for mankind.
"The United States is only one superpower. Today they lead the world. Nobody has doubts about it, militarily," the Polish leader said. "They also lead economically, but they're getting weak.
"But they don't lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we lost that hope."
Walesa led the Solidarity movement in Poland. He was in a sense a community organizer, but not in the mold of a Saul Alinsky. He sought to liberate his people, not control them.
The marches and protests that led to Polish freedom were a precursor to America's tea party movement that likewise seeks to throw off the chains of a command-and-control society and restore genuine economic and political freedom.
The Soviet empire had its commissars. Our government has its czars, and Walesa definitely feels the America that was his friend is moving in the wrong direction. He sees our quest for redistribution of income as not different from the Marxist credo — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
In a video-taped interview, Walesa saw a hint of socialism creeping into America's domestic policies. He spoke of "the issue with the banks" and how "the government wastes all the money ... building a bureaucracy — just for itself."
Indeed, it seems the only growth sector in the U.S. is its government and the unions that exist not for the prosperity and freedom of their members, but for the power and influence of their leaders.
Poland had Lech Walesa. We have the SEIU's Andy Stern ,who says that if those who disagree with command-and-control government do not bow to the power of persuasion, they will bow to the persuasion of power.
It has been a long journey for Walesa from the Gdansk Lenin Shipyards to Chicago's Back of the Yards. He's the man who turned an illegal independent trade union into a force for freedom in communist Poland. He served as Poland's president from 1990 to 1995.
He has witnessed a lot of history and knows when people refuse to learn from it.
In Walesa's view, something needs to be done to restore America's strength and leadership. America, in his view, is too big to fail.
Publicado: 04-24-2011 11:15 PM
EN EL CASO DE SIR JOHN Y SIBONEYES , NO SE? SIEMPRE ES EL TEMA DE OBAMA Y LOS REPUBLICANOS Y CUESTIONES POLITICAS, NO SE COMO NO SE CANSA Y QUE HARA SI OBAMA SALE REELECTO Y LOS DEMOCRATAS VUELVAN A GANAR...ME IMAGINO QUE MORIRA DE UN ATAQUE CARDIACO O SE ACABARA DE VOLVER LOCO O SE SUICIDARA... SU VIDA ES ESTAR ESCRIBIENDO EN ESTOS FOROS COSAS ENCONTRA DE OBAMA Y LOS DEMOCRATAS, YA NADIE LE HACE CASO, YA RAYA EN LO RIDICULO, AUNQUE TUVIERA RAZON EN ALGUNAS COSAS, NADIE VA A ELEGIR A ALGUIEN QUE ES SEGUIDO POR ALGUIEN COMO SIR JOHN O SIBONEYES, QUE TIENEN UNA OBSECION POLITICA TERRIBLE, IMAGINATE UN MUNDO ASI DONDE SOLO UN LADO ES EL QUE TIENE LA RAZON Y EL OTRO SIEMPRE ES SUPUESTAMENTE UN CONSPIRADOR "COMUNISTA" Y QUE TODO LO HACE PARA HACERLE DANO AL PAIS. ES REALMENTE UN CASO PSIQUIATRICO PARA ESTUDIAR SIR JOHN, NO SE SI ALGUN SICOLOGO O PSIQUIATRA YA HABRA NOTADO SUS MENSAJES Y LO ESTE ESTUDIANDO, SIR JOHNS Y SIBONEYES ES REALMENTE UN CASO Y LO GRACIOSO ES COMO EN LOS FOROS DE UNIVISION LO DEJAN PONER TANTAS COSAS, NI YO PUEDO POR FALTA DE TIEMPO Y YO CREO QUE SI TU COMIENZAS A PONER TANTOS MENSAJES EN TEORIA EN EL SISTEMA NO TE LOS DEJA PONER, PUES SON DEMASIADOS , PERO NO SE COMO SE LOS DEJAN PONER...., PERO EN EL CASO MIO , SIEMPRE LO QUE COPIO ES ALGO DE CALIDAD DE ALGUN TEMA INTERESANTE Y DISTINTO. YO TE HAGO LA MISMA PREGUNTA , QUE SIEMPRE LE HAGO A LOS QUE ME CRITICAN , QUE DE NUEVO TU TRAES?...QUE PUEDES TRAER INTERESANTE...IMAGINATE SI TODO AQUI FUERA PARA HABLAR DE LOS TRAJES DE LA GENTE DE LA TV , DE LOS NOVIOS , DE LOS DIVORCIOS, CHIMES Y FUTBOL...ECT...NO CREES QUE ENTONCES SI QUE FUERA ABURRIDO? EN VEZ DE CRITICAR TRAE COSAS INTERESANTES Y OPINA CON ALGO DE INTERES. POR YA CASI UNA DECADA QUE LLEVO AQUI, ME HAN HECHO EL MISMO COMENTARIO MUCHAS VECES Y YO POR MUCHO TIEMPO LE DIGO LO MISMO. QUE TRAES TU? HAY ALGUNOS QUE NUNCA VI MAS POR ESTOS FOROS , PUES ERA CRITICAR POR CRITICAR...SALUDOS....
04-25-2011 03:42 AM - editado 04-25-2011 03:52 AM
Estimada nuevaera, uno no puede vivir de espaldas a la realidad, mientras Roma ardía, el emperador Nerón tocaba la lira extasiado con el espectáculo... estamos viviendo la destrucción sistemática de la nación más rica y poderosa que jamás haya habido en la historia de la humanidad a manos de un psicópata que emplea su tiempo en jugar golf mientras con sus medidas de inspiración marxista provocan el derrumbe de la economía empeñando por décadas el futuro de las generaciones venideras.
Por tanto, estimada forista, nuestros esfuerzos deben estar centrados en parar la labor destructiva del pirómano que ocupa ilegalmente la Casa blanca y dejar a un lado los temas baladíes.
THE UNHAPPY PRESIDENT
The president has always had a gift for self-pity.
April 22, 2011
The Oval Office, I always thought I was going to have really cool phones and stuff. . . . I’m like, “C’mon guys, I’m the president of the United States. Where’s the fancy buttons and stuff and the big screen comes up?” It doesn’t happen.
— Pres. Barack H. Obama
The list of people I feel sorry for is long. It includes not just all of the people I know personally who are suffering from one misfortune or another, but the billions around the world who’re having a rougher time than they ought: Japanese earthquake victims, targets of ethnic cleansing, etc. Then there’s the supplemental list, which includes everyone from fans of Lost who were ripped off by the series finale to the guy in the middle seat on a long flight.
But one guy who doesn’t make the list is Barack Obama.
And yet the president seems eager for people to know he feels aggrieved. All of a sudden, he’s had a few “hot mic” incidents in which he “accidentally” vented his displeasure about various alleged insults. His staff let it be known that the president feels the head of China’s one-party authoritarian regime has it better than him, because no one second-guesses Hu Jintao.
“I just miss — I miss being anonymous,” he told some magazine executives recently. “I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls . . . taking walks. I can’t take a walk.” He says the reason he plays so much golf is that it’s the only way he can get away from the “bubble” he’s in.
None of this is entirely new. The president has always had a gift for self-pity. And blame-shifting. “It’s Bush’s fault” could be the subtitle of his presidency.
And from the outset, the president has had little patience with critics. Serious critiques are always illegitimate “talking points.” In the summer of ’09 he started insisting that he didn’t want to hear “a lot of talking” from Republicans. The time for debate always seems to be over when it’s clear to everyone that he’s losing the argument. When abroad, he loves to whine about the impertinence of the press.
I can’t prove it, but I’m also hardly alone (on the right or the left) in thinking the president really just doesn’t like the job anymore. He’s testier. His response to the Republican budget plan was not merely dishonest, hypocritical, and partisan, it was bitterly personal.
One can understand his frustration. The guy who once said to a reporter during the 2008 campaign, “You know, I actually believe my own bulls***” about fundamentally transforming America, is now forced to run as a reactionary, defending “Medicare as we know it” from “radicals” who — gasp! — want to change America. The overrated and inexperienced politician, accustomed to nothing but adulation, who was swept into office thanks to discontent with the incumbent, is now himself the incumbent desperately trying to explain how he’s done nothing wrong.
He demonized George W. Bush as an evil fool, but Obama has been forced to adopt many of the very policies he derided as evil and foolish. The “change” candidate is now the “more of the same” guy.
That’d put anybody in a funk.
But I don’t care. The presidency is not like his Nobel Prize — an award for just being you. If you hate the job, don’t run.
Moreover, I don’t think that’s the whole story. Many of his seemingly self-pitying jokes and asides just don’t seem that innocent to me, never mind endearing.
He may sincerely have wished his awesome job came with a cooler phone (or a Bat Signal perhaps?), and he may honestly feel trapped in a bubble. But he’s also determined to pretend that he is running “against Washington” in 2012. And that is outrageous nonsense for a president who effectively owned the government for two years.
Already his campaign’s messaging is all about recapturing the feeling of insurgency from the first time around. Finish the mission. Complete the work. Remember the feeling. That’s why he’s running his reelection campaign out of Chicago, as if people won’t notice he’s the incumbent.
Obama has never run on a record. He’s always run almost literally on a hope and a prayer. Now he must defend what he has done — and what he has failed to do.
If that makes him cranky, that’s just too bad.
— Jonah Goldbergis editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. © 2011 Tribune Media Services, Inc. He can be reached on Twitter @JonahNRO
04-25-2011 09:40 AM - editado 04-25-2011 02:02 PM
OBAMA READY TO SHUTDOWN THE LARGEST OIL WELL IN TEXAS
Obama Clears the Way For America's 2 Largest Oil Wells to be Shutdown in Texas
ChicoER Gate ^ | 4/25/11 | Chuck Wolk
From the moment Richard Nixon created the EPA in 1970, and signed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) into law, they have been the primary engines of social change used by leftists environmental elitists to destroy America. They have done so by infiltrating the EPA, and the US Fish & Wildlife (USF&W) the agency which decides what animals will be listed as endangered. Now, 28 years later, these renegade environmentalist wackos are prepared to use the ESA to shut down oil and gas operations in portions of Southeast New Mexico and in West Texas, including the state's top two oil producing counties. All because of a tiny lizard they claim to be endangered, and Obama who has the power to put it on a waiting list has cleared the way for it to be listed.
Through the years the EPA & the ESA have been used to shut down vast areas of America that we as Americans need to survive in a modern world. Areas that contain, rich farmland needed to grow food that both America and foreign countries need to feed billions of people. Forest areas so rich in timber that the price of building homes could be reduced dramatically if only we were allowed to harvest them. Instead, year after year we spend billions fighting fires that reduce the timber to ashes. When it comes to energy, these government paid earth worshipers have used their power to keep us from drilling for oil, and stand in the way of building needed power plants all across America. According to a recent Congressional report America has the largest oil, coal, and natural gas reserves in the world, if tapped we could be completely energy independent. Truth is, America has enough natural energy reserves, timberland, sustainable farm land, freshwater lakes and underground reservoirs that we could reduce the cost of living for each and every American by more than 50%, if only the governments chains of restrictions were removed.
The earth worshiping environmentalists running the USF&W have used an owl to shut down logging in the Northwest, a mouse to shut down wheat farming in Colorado, a minnow and rat to end vegetable growing in California, a frog has closed fish hatcheries in the deep South, while the reintroduction of wolves are endangering the lives of ranchers, farmers, and hunters all across America from the Rockies to Maine. Now they are planning to use a lizard to shut down two of Americas largest oil wells in Texas. We already have one of the largest oil reserves put off limits by the EPA in Anwar Alaska, while Obama is ignoring a Federal judges order to allow drilling to continue in the Gulf. This while almost every communist country in the world has oil wells operating in our backyard, the Gulf of Mexico.
In a logical universe, we would have politicians that would do all they can to make sure Americans had a cost of living so low that no one in America would be struggling to make ends meet. Instead these traitors would rather see Americans struggle to survive while they act as if their various government programs are saving the day. Never before in the history of the world has a countries leaders tried so hard to force its citizens to become so dependent and subservient to other countries. Many of which are our sworn enemies. Can anyone imagine Alexander, Caesar, or even George Washington forcing their citizens to humble themselves before an enemy of lesser power like Persia, Carthage, or England? No, only a modern day Judas, Ephialtes, or Benedict Arnold, would cause their own people to suffer the indignities our leaders so consistently force us to.
The current threat to America's freedom comes from a 3 inch lizard called the Sceloporus Arenicolus, or better known as the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard or the Sand Dune Lizard. It was originally classified as a subspecies of the Sceloporus Graciosus, or Common Sagebrush Lizard. Before they designated the Dune Lizards as a separate species, there were so many of them you could feed them to the Chinese as a delicacy and never run out. It was in 2002 that the Center for Biological Diversity first petitioned to have the lizard listed as endangered. The Bush administration stood in the way of the lizard being listed for 6 years, but last year Obama cleared the way by ordering his administration to back off from delaying the listing. This in spite of the news that Obama has repeatedly refused to grant species the protection for which they are known to qualify adding them instead to the waiting list. So why did he allow this lizard to be listed? There can be only one reason, and that is because Obama wants to destroy America's ability to be energy free. So his relentless attack on America's energy capabilities continues. Go figure.
There was a rally in Roswell NM last week on April 20th that had hundreds protesting the listing and there will be another one on Tuesday April 26th, in Midland Tx at the Midland Center that begins at 5 p.m. with Congressman Mike Conaway will speaking to the concerned citizens. Then on Wednesday April 27th, there will be a public hearing held at 6:30 p.m at the Midland Center. If you want to be heard then be there to support those at the front line in the battle to stop a lizard from shutting down Americas 2 largest working oil wells.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds."
-- Samuel Adams --
Leader in our Fight for Independence
The following is from the Federal register PDF file. In it the USF&W explains what they are attempting to accomplish through the Endangered Species Act,
We, the USF&W, propose to list the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus Arenicolus), a lizard known from southeastern New Mexico and adjacent west Texas, as endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If we finalize the rule as proposed, it would extend the Act's protections to this species. We have determined that critical habitat for the dunes sagebrush lizard is prudent but not determinable at this time.
Proposed Listing Determination We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats to the dunes sagebrush lizard. The dunes sagebrush lizard faces immediate and significant threats due to oil and gas activities, and herbicide treatments. Habitat loss and fragmentation due to oil and gas development is a measureable factor impacting the species due to the removal of shinnery oak and creation of roads and pads, pipelines, and power lines that create habitat patches and increase the proportion of habitat edge to habitat interior. In addition, impacts that are not easily quantified such as climate change, competition, and pollution may exacerbate adverse effects caused by habitat loss. Cumulative threats to the dunes sagebrush lizard are not being adequately addressed through existing regulatory mechanisms. Oil and gas pollutants are a current and ongoing threat to the species throughout its range.
We believe the following actions may jeopardize this species, and therefore we would seek to conference with BLM and NRCS on these actions:
Publicado: 04-25-2011 03:39 PM