Publicado: 02-22-2008 08:21 PM
MICHELE ES UNA PERSONA AMARGADA QUE ODIA ESTADOS UNIDOS A PESAR QUE LOS OBAMAS SE HICIERON MILLONARIOS EN UN CORTO LAPSO DE TIEMPO GRACIAS AL SISTEMA CAPITALISTA QUE ELLOS QUIEREN DESTRUIR.
Barack and Michelle Keeping the Faith
American Thinker ^ | February 22, 2008 | Kyle-Anne Shiver
I’m not buying the Obama campaign spin on Michelle Obama’s patriotic faux pas this week, any more than I’m inclined to believe that Barack Obama’s refusal to wear our flag pin in his lapel is a meaningless gesture. Both Michelle’s stated lack of pride in America until this precise moment in history, and Barack’s unwillingness to don our national symbol are in perfect keeping with the doctrines of their church, Trinity United Church of Christ.
The simple truth is that if any of us exposed ourselves to the kind of teachings espoused by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, we might find it downright impossible to do any better than Barack and Michelle in the loving-America category of citizenship.
We probably couldn’t summon a whole lot of American patriotism if our brains were stuffed on a weekly basis with sermons like this:
“Racism is how this country (America) was founded and how this country is still run!”
“We (Americans) are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS. . . . We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God. . . . We conducted radiation experiments on our own people. . . . We care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!”
If I listened to stuff like this every Sunday for 20 years, I probably wouldn’t be all that proud of my Country either, and certainly would feel it hypocritical to wear the symbol of this God-forsaken Nation in my lapel.
Trinity’s Black Liberation Theology
The Chicago Tribune’s religion reporter, Manya Brachear, interviewed Rev. Wright in January 2007, writing:
“Wright sought to build on the black theology of liberation introduced in 1968 by Rev. James Cone of New York, by emphasizing Africa’s contribution to Christianity rather than that of mainstream white theologians.”
If only it were this simple.
But it isn’t.
According to Cone:
“Christian theology is language about God’s liberating activity in the world on behalf of freedom of the oppressed. Any talk about God that fails to make God’s liberation of the oppressed its starting point is not Christian.” (Speaking the Truth; James H. Cone; p. 4)
The gospel according to Cone revolves around a single dimension of the Christian faith and necessarily interprets the very nature of “oppression” as solely material and of this world. In effect, black liberation theology reduces the entire Gospel down to a Marxist people’s struggle and hijacks the Christ for political purpose.
“What else can the crucifixion mean except that God, the Holy One of Israel, became identified with the victims of oppression? What else can the resurrection mean except that God’s victory in Christ is the poor person’s victory over poverty?” (Speaking the Truth; p. 6)
This certainly puts an altogether different light on the crucifixion than any to which I’ve ever been exposed.
According to this theology, we are not individually saved by grace. God hasn’t anything at all to do with salvation or sanctification.
“...sanctification is liberation. To be sanctified is to be liberated - that is, politically engaged in the struggle of freedom. When sanctification is defined as a commitment to the historical struggle for political liberation, then it is possible to connect it with socialism and Marxism the reconstruction of society on the basis of freedom and justice for all.”
(Speaking the Truth; p. 33; emphases mine)
According to the writings of Cone and the preaching of Rev. Wright, America can lay no claim whatsoever to any sort of goodness, and will perhaps never be able to do so until we are all residing in one, big, happy Marxist America with the presently “oppressed” on top and the evil “oppressors” on the bottom.
When these theologians re-wrote the gospel around their political ideology, they evidently came up with a way to make two wrongs into right.
Not exactly changing water into wine, walking on water, healing the maimed, the deaf and the blind, but quite a feat nevertheless.
Obama’s Own Faith
Barack Obama expends an entire chapter in his book, The Audacity of Hope, writing about faith. In a chapter of 31 pages, he gives only 2 pages to his own decision to finally “walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ” and “be baptized.”
Having been raised by a “spiritual,” but non-religious mother, Obama says that he had quite a bit of antipathy for organized religion, but was able to overcome this at Trinity, where he recognized that faith was more than “just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death,” but that faith was rather an “active, palpable agent in the world.”
Obama’s statements on his own faith in his book are as vague as his now all too familiar mantra, “Yes, we can.”
But Trinity United Church of Christ isn’t afraid to be more specific and blunt. Where mainline Christian denominations might focus on the Apostles’ Creed, stating the basic tenets of Christianity, Trinity has this:
Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:
A congregation committed to ADORATION.
A congregation preaching SALVATION.
A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.
Interestingly enough, a change has been made quite recently (in the past 2 weeks) to number 3 on this list, obtained from Obama’s church website. It did read, “a non-negotiable allegiance to Africa.” Perhaps the church felt that it might reflect badly upon an American presidential candidate to be a prominent member of a church espousing “non-negotiable allegiance” to another continent.
Obama continues to see some of us as “oppressed,” and he spouts a very condescending attitude towards those of us who have found spiritual food in evangelical Christian churches. Writing about why these churches have been growing by leaps and bounds, he says explanation for the success of these churches could be anything from “the skill of marketing religion” to the “charisma of their leaders,” but primarily points to “hunger for the product they are selling.”
So, how does Obama describe this “hunger”?
“They (religious seekers) want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives, something that will relieve a chronic loneliness or lift them above the exhausting, relentless toll of daily life. They need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway toward nothingness.” (Audacity of Hope; p. 202)
That’s a very bleak picture of our lives.
Precisely the kind of picture Marxist revolutionaries have always painted for the masses, right before they offer up the “hope” of something new and different, and the perfect “blueprint for change” that will make it all better.
As for me, I have been at the very, very bottom of life’s rungs, even downright oppressed at times, but I have never been so far down that I would look to a mere man, or any government or movement, or even a church community, for salvation. And I’m surprised that anyone with a grain of self-respect or reverence for God would swoon over the purely preposterous notion that any man or government has such power to offer.
Pope Benedict XVI seems to agree:
“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Publicado: 02-22-2008 08:50 PM
SI ILFIGARO Y TODOS LOS COMUNISTAS APOYAN A OBAMA ES PORQUE SON "BIRDS OF THE SAME FEATHER"
CULTO A OBAMA
Obama usa la misma retórica demagógica de Benito Mussolini y Fidel Castro para hipnotizar a las multitudes que reaccionan con un fervor y fanatismo irracional en una forma de culto casi místico. ¿Resultará la retórica de Obama para USA como el Kool Aid que le administraron a los seguidores de otro culto tan irracional como el culto a Obama, quienes reunidos en “jonestown”, Guyana, cometieron un suicidio en masa?
Que la inspiración e histrionismo de Obama es fraudulento quedó demostrado cuando plagió al pie de la letra, incluyendo los manierismos, de un discurso del gobernador de Massachusetts.
Bajo el estribillo de “hope” y “change” se esconde la aviesa maniobra de llevar a los Estados Unidos hacia el socialismo a pasos aún más acelerados que los que planea Hillary.
Obama no especifica cuales son los cambios a los que quiere llevar la nación y espera que el pueblo los acepte ciegamente sin tener la menor idea de lo que se trae entre manos. Su record como denota una militancia más de extrema izquierda que la propia Hillary, ¡que ya es mucho decir!
Sin embargo hay quienes si están seguros de los planes de cambio que proyecta Obama, y han lanzado públicamente su apoyo a esos cambios. Así vemos como se han unido en darle su apoyo a Obama el Partido Comunista de Estados Unidos, los musulmanes a través del mundo, incluyendo los terroristas islámicos, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Hugo Chávez, los órganos de desinformación de los partidos comunistas de América Latina y Europa, lo cual deja claro que esos expertos de la política tanto americana como global, consideran que Obama es el candidato que mejor sirven a sus intereses, que en el caso de comunistas y terrorista, son intereses comunes.
El reciente episodio en Houston donde en la oficina de la campaña de Obama no estaba la bandera americana, sino por una bandera cubana profanada con la cara del Che, demuestra la osadía de los comunistas y agentes de Castro que expresan abiertamente su apoyo a los cambios que trata de imponernos Obama.
¿Sucumbirá el pueblo americano a las ofertas de “cambio” que quiere perpetrar Obama cuando el país esta en medio de una guerra a muerte declarada por el terrorismo islámico contra los Estados Unidos y la civilización occidental o responderá rechazando a Obama como rechazó a McGovern en 1972, en medio de la guerra de Vietnam quien sufrió la segunda peor derrota de la historia frente a Nixon con el 60% -38% del voto popular y 530-17 de los votos del colegio electoral?
Roguemos a Dios que le pueblo americano realice el peligro que representa Obama para la libertad y el progreso de los Estados Unidos.
Publicado: 02-23-2008 10:58 PM
Study: 3 in 4 U.S. mosques preach anti-West extremism
Secret survey exposes
Posted: February 23, 2008
9:51 pm Eastern
An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.
The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.
“So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist,” an official familiar with the project said.
Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.
Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that “the vast majority” are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.
The project, headed by David Yerushalmi, a lawyer and expert on sharia law, has finished collecting data from the first cohort of 102 mosques and schools. Preliminary findings indicate that almost 80 percent of the group exhibit a high level of sharia-compliance and jihadi threat, including:
Ultra-orthodox worship in which women are separated from men in the prayer hall and must enter the mosque from a separate, usually back, entrance; and are required to wear hijabs.
Sermons that preach women are inferior to men and can be beaten for disobedience; that non-Muslims, particularly Jews, are infidels and inferior to Muslims; that jihad or support of jihad is not only a Muslim’s duty but the noblest way, and suicide bombers and other so-called “martyrs” are worthy of the highest praise; and that an Islamic caliphate should one day encompass the U.S.
Solicitation of financial support for jihad.
Bookstores that sell books, CDs and DVDs promoting jihad and glorifying martyrdom.
Though not all mosques in America are radicalized, many have tended to serve as safe havens and meeting points for Islamic terrorist groups. Experts say there are at least 40 episodes of extremists and terrorists being connected to mosques in the past decade alone.
Some of the 9/11 hijackers, in fact, received aid and counsel from one of the largest mosques in the Washington, D.C., area. Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center is one of the mosques indentified by undercover investigators as a hive of terrorist activity and other extremism.
It was founded and is currently run by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood. Imams there preach what is called “jihad qital,” which means physical jihad, and incite violence and hatred against the U.S.
Dar al-Hijrah’s ultimate goal, investigators say, is to turn the U.S. into an Islamic state governed by sharia law.
Another D.C.-area mosque, the ADAMS Center, was founded and financed by members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and has been one of the top distributors of Wahhabist anti-Semitic and anti-Christian dogma.
Even with such radical mosques operating in its backyard, the U.S. government has not undertaken its own systematic investigation of U.S. mosques.
In contrast, European Union security officials are analyzing member-state mosques, examining the training and funding sources of imams, in a large-scale project.
Some U.S. lawmakers want the U.S. to conduct its own investigation.
“We have too many mosques in this country,” said Rep. Pete King, R-N.Y. “There are too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully.”
Publicado: 02-24-2008 10:55 AM
For a long time, there has been a controversy brewing in America over whether or not to make English our official language. The arguments in favor seem overwhelmingly compelling to me. Doesn’t it seem absurd that when so many people living in foreign countries see obvious advantages in learning English, that millions of those who actually reside here, who make their livings and raise their children here, and who vote in our elections, can neither read nor write the language?
Yet, most Democratic politicians and even some Republicans balk at the idea. All this time, I have assumed that their objection was predicated on their fear of being labeled racists, and worried that it might cost them votes in future elections. But I am beginning to wonder if their reluctance isn’t based on the fact that for so many of those in public life, basic English skills are simply beyond them.
For instance, have you ever listened to Robert Byrd give a speech on the floor of the Senate? Have you ever heard Barbara Boxer try to answer a reporter’s questions? You would think these people had just been introduced to our mother tongue last Thursday.
Even though it pains me as a conservative to say so, we’re not always any better than the liberals. Take President Bush. I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but how many times over the past seven years has some White House spokesman had to step forward after the president has given an address to explain what the Commander in Chief really meant to say? The president, whichever party we belong to, speaks for all of us. In Bush’s case, though, as often as not, he misspeaks for all of us.
Now I’m not as hard-nosed as some people when it comes to flip-flopping on the issues, so long as the politician winds up agreeing with my -------------. But when you realize how much talking these people do every hour of every day, is clarity too much to expect? I don’t expect them to be Churchillian, combining wit and vocal grandeur in a way that suggests that the free world’s gain was the theatre’s loss. But, if practice makes perfect, is it too much to ask that a politician be at least as clear-speaking as, say, a Valley girl?
And when I refer to a politician, I’m also including their wives and husbands, if those spouses are going to hit the campaign trail and speak on their behalf.
Which brings us to Michelle Obama. Recently, in Wisconsin, while addressing an audience of her husband’s disciples, she said: “What we have learned over this year is that hope is making a comeback…and let me tell you, for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I made of this is that she’s proud of America for the first time, perhaps the only time, because people are hungry for a change. Funny, because I knew the country was pretty darn hungry when Reagan defeated Carter in 1980, but Mrs. Obama was only a teenager at the time, so maybe that doesn’t count. How about when Bill Clinton defeated George H.W. Bush in 1992? Didn’t that make her proud? Then there was 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore because, I assume, people were hungry -- perhaps downright ravenous -- for change.
But as I soon discovered, I’d been wasting my time trying to figure out when change didn’t really mean change because Obama’s people were soon e-mailing reporters the following clarification: “What she meant is that she’s really proud at this moment because for the first time in a long time, thousands of Americans who’ve never participated in politics before are coming out in record numbers to build a grass-roots movement for change.”
That’s the best these high-priced spinners could come up with? Frankly, if that’s what she meant to say, I’m pretty certain that this rich, privileged Princeton graduate would have said that. To which I would have replied: “What about Ross Perot’s grass-roots movement? What about Howard Dean’s or Ralph Nader’s? Or even Ron Paul’s? How is it that none of those movements made Michelle Obama swell up with pride at being an American?”
To me, though, the really scary thing is that when she made her statement, thousands of people in the audience gave her a rousing ovation. Apparently, all those folks in Madison, Wisconsin, were finally proud to be Americans, too.
Publicado: 02-24-2008 08:11 PM
Michelle Obama's comments may prove significant.
By Michael Barone
He promised to “make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people.”
Scorch. Some 40 minutes later, Hillary Clinton got up before the cameras and set out her platform as if she were the winner, ignoring Obama as she had on primary night the week before. Having not been extended this courtesy, Obama did not extend her the courtesy of waiting for her to finish before he began his victory speech.
The networks quickly switched from Clinton to Obama, who went on for 45 minutes, cutting and pasting platform planks into the unspecific ode to hope that has enchanted so many voters.
That camera switch may turn out to be the beginning of the end of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. She’s still hoping for victories in Ohio and Texas on March 4, but Obama’s margin in Wisconsin makes that seem less likely, and in any case, she will still be behind in delegates. She could win the nomination only with the votes of super-delegates or by counting the results in Florida and Michigan, where the national party commanded candidates not to compete.
Either move will strike many Obama enthusiasts — and others — as profoundly unfair. The way Clinton has run her campaign — like the way she ran health-care reform in 1993-94 — undercuts her claim to be ready for the presidency from day one. In both cases, she had no fallback strategy, no Plan B, in case her best-case scenario failed to come to pass. She started campaigning in Wisconsin only last Saturday and had to cancel her events because of a snowstorm. Didn’t anyone check weather.com?
Obama’s cut-and-paste job does respond to the complaint that he is without substance. But it’s hard to mix poetry and prose and come up with an appealing product. Particularly when, as columnist Robert Samuelson points out, there’s not much that’s interesting about the substance.
Then there are the wives. In Milwaukee on Monday, Michelle Obama, who has spoken frequently in the campaign, said: “Hope is making a comeback, and let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”
For the first time in her life? Coming from the realm in which Michelle Obama has lived her adult life — Princeton, Harvard Law, a top law firm, a $342,000-a year job doing community relations for the University of Chicago hospital system — this may not sound out of the ordinary. As Samuel Huntington has pointed out, people in this stratum tend to have transnational attitudes — all nations are morally equal, except maybe for ours, which is worse.
This is not, to say the least, the view of most Americans, including very many who regularly vote Democratic. And it undercuts Barack Obama’s most appealing rhetoric, which emphasizes what Americans have in common.
Cindy McCain, who ordinarily doesn’t speak in public, picked up on this immediately. On Tuesday, she made a point of saying, several times, that she has always been proud of America. On election night, John McCain said he was “proud, proud of the privilege” of being an American.
I remember the electric feeling in the hall, at the first Republican National Convention I attended, in 1984, when Lee Greenwood belted out his country hit, “I’m proud to be an American.” I don’t believe that I’ve heard it at any Democratic National Convention, and I’m pretty sure that some nontrivial number of the delegates would find it off-putting, even obnoxious.
Barack Obama has explained that his wife was just saying that she was proud for the first time of her country’s politics. But that’s not what she said, and said with considerable emphasis. Tuesday night seemed to be the beginning of the general-election campaign. But what was said on Monday may prove to be just as important.
© 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Publicado: 02-26-2008 02:21 PM
CNN DESCUBRE QUIEN TE MIENTE EN ESTA ELECCION
EL BILLETAL PARA EL POLITIC BUSINESS DE DOñA CLINTON
Dime y lo olvido, enséñame y lo recuerdo, involúcrame y lo aprendo.
Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) Estadista y científico estadounidense.
Cuando debemos hacer una elección y no la hacemos, esto ya es una elección.
William James (1842-1910) Psicólogo y filósofo estadounidense.
Tú verás que los males de los hombres son fruto de su elección; y que la fuente del bien la buscan lejos, cuando la llevan dentro de su corazón.
Pitágoras de Samos (582 AC-497 AC) Filósofo y matemático griego.
Como la dicha de un pueblo depende de ser bien gobernado, la elección de sus gobernantes pide una reflexión profunda.
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824) Ensayista y moralista francés.
La muy "SINCERA" candidata, Hillary Clinton y Barack Obama solo tienen de comun el ser democratas, por que despues representan dos opciones totalmente diferentes dentro de su partido.Desde sus origenes Clinton proviene de una opulenta familia con una vida que nunca conocio privaciones, en suma una vida facil que le dio todo sin casi pedirlo. Obama por el contrario es un hombre que se forjo por si mismo
hijo de un inmigrante africano y de una madre blanca, por lo tanto conocio tambien los problemas mas comunes de una familia promedio como el divorcio de sus padres, el racismo, las dificultades y las visicitudes extremas para un muchacho rechazado pero que por mas obstaculos que la vida le dio salio adelante. El abandono de su padre a los 2 años de edad, la prematura muerte por cancer de su madre por que el seguro que tenia no le cubria su mal... y se graduo con honores en Harvard como abogado en derechos humanos...Puede Ud. comprender porque eligio el camino que tomo?
Otra gran diferencia y muy con el tema electoral, el dinero que el esta usando para su limpia campaña libre de adjetivos o guerra sucia proviene de solo donaciones de personas como Ud. o yo. Obama se rehusa a tocar el dinero de empresarios que solo quieren ganar influencia en Washington. El no acepta dinero de grupos corporativos que mandan nuestros trabajos a otros paises para ahorrarse dinero.
Hillary si ha tomado ese dinero de las companias que lo ofrezcan, de las aseguradoras, etc. Yo me pregunto ahora si Ud. cree que ella nos va a dar una cobertura medica justa asi? Ahora la pobre le ha echado guante a 5 millones de su ahorros pero para el noble fin de seguir mintiendo por todos los medio a su alcance, con tal de conseguir el poder por el que llora, desespera y hace lo que fuera...
ACUERDATE DE LA GUERRA DE LOS REPUBLICANOS Y CLINTON:
¿Tres Iraq son mejor que uno?
El Senado aprobó el octubre pasado 75 contra 23 una resolución que llama a descentralizar a Iraq en un sistema federal .La idea consiste en separar el territorio iraquí en una entidad kurda, otra chiita y otra sunita, con un gobierno federal en Bagdad encargado de la seguridad de las fronteras y de administrar las ganancias del petróleo .
WASHINGTON, 5 oct (IPS) - Miembros del opositor Partido Demócrata de
Estados Unidos y moderados del gobernante Partido Republicano insisten
para que el presidente George W. Bush cambie su política en Iraq, en
especial considerando que una fuerte mayoría de la población quiere un
repliegue militar en el corto plazo.
Pero, como muchos miembros del gobierno han reconocido, cualquier giro en la política hacia Iraq no cambiaría mucho la realidad. "No hay buenas opciones, sólo malas y peores", señalan.
El Senado aprobó la semana pasada 75 contra 23 una resolución no
vinculante, propuesta por los senadores Joe Biden, demócrata, y Sam
Brownback, republicano, que llama a descentralizar a Iraq en un sistema
federal con el objetivo de impedir que se agrave la guerra civil en ese
país de Medio Oriente.
La idea consiste en separar el territorio iraquí en una entidad kurda,
otra chiita y otra sunita, con un gobierno federal en Bagdad encargado de
la seguridad de las fronteras y de administrar las ganancias del petróleo.
"Si Estados Unidos no puede poner en marcha esta idea de federalismo,
no tendremos oportunidad de una solución política a Iraq y, sin eso, no
podremos dejar ese país", escribieron Biden y Leslie Gelb, ex presidente
del Consejo de Relaciones Exteriores, en el diario The Washington Post.
"El federalismo es la única fórmula que se acopla a los al parecer
contradictorios deseos de la mayoría de los iraquíes de permanecer como un
todo y a la vez que diversos grupos se gobiernen a sí mismos", señalaron.
La senadora y candidata demócrata Hillary Clinton votó a favor de la
resolución, en tanto que su competidor del mismo partido, Barack Obama, se
ACUERDATE QUE GRACIAS AL OLVIDO REPUBLICANO Y LA PREFERENCIA DE LA GUERRA POR SOBRE LA TRAGEDIA DEL HURACAN KATRINA EN NEW ORLEANS GRAN PARTE DE SU POBLACION (un 30 % segun algunos calculos) SE VIO OBLIGADA A EMIGRAR AL ACOGEDOR ESTADO DE TEXAS.Y ESA ES UNA REALIDAD QUE SE CONVERTIRA EN VOTOS POR EL CAMBIO!
ACUERDATE AHORA DE LA GENTE DE LOS ESTADOS DEL NORTE AHORA AZOTADOS POR TEMPORALES, TORNADOS Y TORMENTAS DE NIEVE NUNCA ANTES CONOCIDOS PRODUCTO DEL CALENTAMIENTO GLOBAL QUE LES IMPORTO UN COMINO TAMBIEN A LOS REPUBLICANOS SOCIOS DE GOBIERNO DE LA ESTIMADA CLINTON!
OBAMA LO TIENE CLARITO Y COMPLETO EN SU PROGRAMA!
ACUERDATE TAMBIEN DE LOS PADRES CON HIJOS EN CENTROS DE ESTUDIOS DESPROTEGIDOS DE DIOS Y SUS PERDIDAS HUMANAS ASESINADOS POR ARMAS QUE PUEDEN COMPRAR CUAQUIER PERSONA CON UN PAR DE BILLETES EN LA CALLE Y QUE NI A CLINTON NI A NINGUN REPUBLICANO IMPORTARON NI IMPORTAN, ALGUIEN DIJO QUE HARA ALGO?
SOLO OBAMA PENSO EN ESO Y ESTA EN SU PLAN DE GOBIERNO!
AUSTIN DEBATE RESULTS
Post-Debate Coverage: Support in Texas
Latinos For Barack Obama
Viva Voz - NCLR - La Raza - Barack Obama http://youtube.com/watch?v=5WLQZMZtoSo
Imagine - John Lennon
Bob Dylan & Joan Baez Blowing in the wind
DON'T LET ME BE MISUNDERSTOOD
SI SE PUEDE!!!
IMAGINE BARACK OBAMA
Publicado: 02-29-2008 09:39 PM
MICHELLE OBAMA First Lady Of Gaffes
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Friday, February 29, 2008
Election ‘08: After revealing she had never been “really proud of my country,” Michelle Obama damns business as “the money-making industry.” By contrast, she says, the Obamas are in “the helping industry.” Bad omen.
Visiting a day-care center in Zanesville, Ohio, America’s would-be first lady advised the assembled women not to “go into corporate America.”
“Become teachers,” she counseled. “Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the moneymaking industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.”
No disrespect to teachers and nurses, but there are problems with those remarks.
First, when she says “move out of the moneymaking industry into the helping industry,” she speaks volumes. Apparently, well-paid people in all kinds of profitable fields are, in the Obama worldview, just idle, scheming splinter-collectors who help only themselves.
On the other hand, the social workers who make sure the cash flows from the various elements of the massive government bureaucracy are the great and noble helpers.
However, the oil CEO who invests billions of dollars of his firm’s profits in the research and development of new technologies that bring hitherto unreachable deposits of fuel to the cars and homes of millions of Americans is very much in “the helping industry.”
So is the pharmaceutical executive who uses her business skills and scientific knowledge to decide to spend billions on R&D for new drugs that lengthen the lives of millions.
The real, productive jobs in the private sector help people in ways government can’t. A president who does not understand these things will kill the geese who lay the golden eggs — kill them with high taxes and onerous regulations and ultimately adverse economic conditions.
Second, did the Obamas really make a tough choice to give up high-paying jobs to work in community service? The University of Chicago Medical Center reportedly pays Michelle more than $300,000 a year for her services as “vice president of community and external affairs.”
Her husband made a big splash last year with a bill to curtail lavish executive compensation. If he could incorporate that concept into his health care plan and stop hospitals from overpaying their public liaisons, it might go a long way toward cutting health costs.
We doubt, however, that Michelle would find that very “helpful.”
Publicado: 03-03-2008 09:27 PM
Barack Obama’s revival tent rhetoric stirs his followers’ emotions. But in them there is a disturbing lack of the usual tools of leadership that may indicate a disqualification to serve as commander-in-chief.
Great leaders have to be great communicators, not just orators. Throughout history, they have used more than mere appeals to emotion. From Caesar to Churchill they have all given context and weight to their speeches by showing they have a command of the facts, of history and of literature.
Obama’s speeches are devoid of these essential tools. Why? Apparently because he lacks the knowledge and understanding to employ them.
Obama gained national attention with his speech to the 2004 Democratic National Convention. It was a purely emotional appeal, borrowing ------------- from Martin Luther King, Jr. Instead of “I have a dream,” Obama incanted “I believe.”
His campaign speeches are equally devoid of substance and historical reference. In his response to the president’s State of the Union address Obama said, “I believe a new kind of politics is possible, and I believe it is necessary. Because the American people can't afford another four years without health care, decent wages, or an end to this war.”
What this “new kind of politics” is and how Obama will create it are left to our imagination. Last month, in his stock condemnation of Washington he said, “It's a Washington where decades of trade deals like NAFTA and China have been signed with plenty of protections for corporations and their profits, but none for our environment or our workers who've seen factories shut their doors and millions of jobs disappear...” Is he naïve enough to believe that all our trading partners -- including totalitarian regimes such as China and kleptocracies such as Saudi Arabia -- will adopt American environmental and labor standards if only we ask them to?
Of the facts, Obama has little grasp. He insists, for example, that there was no al-Queda presence in Iraq before we decided to invade it. But Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad as early as June 2002 and was confirmed operating there in September 2002. By the time of the invasion, al-Queda was deeply embedded in the Sunni Triangle, its operational organization having been established in the six months we fiddled and diddled at the UN before the invasion.
Obama’s judgment -- what little we know of it -- lacks a foundation in history and evidences no understanding of how the levers of American power can be pulled to move the world.
Does he really believe that the war the terrorists and the nations supporting them are waging against America will end with a retreat from Iraq? Or does he understand how our withdrawal from Beirut in 1984 and our retreat from Somalia emboldened our enemies? Has he read any of bin Laden’s or Zawahiri’s screeds bragging of how Islam defeated America in those instances?
What do we know about Barack Obama?
We know he often ducks responsibility, as he did when -- having voted earlier that day -- he absented himself from the Senate when it voted on Sen. John Cornyn’s resolution condemning the infamous MoveOn.org “Petraeus/Betray Us” ad. We know that when he does vote on national security matters, he gets it wrong. He voted against the bipartisan Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill last month, one of only 29 senators voting in the negative.
We can learn much about a man by what he reads, what influenced him in his youth. Obama’s youth -- as much as we can learn about it -- is in his early memoir, Dreams from My Father. Obama was born in August 1961, the “memoir” published in 1995 when he was thirty-four.
Dreams reads like an historical novel by Leon Uris or Alex Haley. It is a long string of recounted conversations, written as if he recalled them verbatim, including details of what people wore, how they sat and what weather was while he was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and in his early career in Chicago. Dates to place them in context are not provided.
We can learn a lot about a man by discovering what he read and what influenced his mind in his formative years. Churchill said, “Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft.” Has Obama studied history? If so, he does not value it enough to mention it. In Dreams, Obama mentions only one book that influenced him, the autobiography of black radical Malcolm X. Obama writes, “Only Malcolm X’s autobiography seemed to offer something different. His repeated acts of self-creation spoke to me; the blunt poetry of his words, his unadorned insistence on respect, promised a new and uncompromising order, martial in discipline, forged through the sheer force of will.”
What does Obama know about the military? In Dreams the only reference is in a conversation with a young man named Kyle who had been considering an Air Force career and then rejected it because the Air Force would never allow a black man to fly a plane. Obama disagreed but Kyle won the argument by asking, “Yeah, well…how many black pilots you know?” Apparently, Obama didn’t know of any, not even the Tuskeegee Airmen or their most successful member, four-star Air Force General Daniel “Chappie” James.
And how does Obama define the “change” mantra of his campaign? In Dreams he writes that in 1983 he decided that he’d do his job as a community organizer by pronouncing the need for change: “Change in the White House, where Reagan and his minions were carrying on their dirty deeds. Change in Congress, compliant and corrupt. Change in the mood of our country, manic and self-absorbed.”
Every president is challenged by our adversaries soon after he takes office to take the measure of the man. In April 2001, just three months after his inauguration, George W. Bush was challenged by the Chinese. Patrolling in international airspace off China, a Navy EP-3 reconnaissance aircraft was intercepted by a reckless Chinese pilot who collided with the US plane which was then forced down on Hainan Island, its crew held hostage to an American apology.
President Bush reacted weakly, obtaining the release of the crew after expressing regret at the death of the Chinese pilot. China has grown ever more aggressive since then. As Chris Wallace joked, we know that Hillary’s experience in answering the Red Phone consists entirely of saying, “Wake up, Bill. It’s for you.” But the fact that she’s no better than Obama is no comfort.
What would a President Obama do if Russia does to Poland what it did to Estonia last year, interrupting the nation’s government and economy in a highly effective cyber war attack? What would he do if the Musharraf government falls and a radical Islamic regime takes over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal? How would he react to the next terrorist attack against America?
If he is as ignorant and unmindful of history as his novelized “memoir” indicates, if his understanding of the world is as shallow as his speeches, Barack Obama will fail disastrously. Investigating that failure, Congress will have to modernize the mantra of Watergate. For Obama, it will be, “What didn’t the president know, and when didn’t he know it?”