Publicado: 07-02-2009 07:51 PM
¿ES EL FIN DE LA LIBERTAD DE PRENSA? OBAMA SIGUE LOS PASOS DE CHAVEZ Y CASTRO
OBAMA DISMANTLES FREE PRESS
2009 July 2
One of the lessons history teaches us is that the further a country moves to the left, the more restrictive its press becomes. In a true Marxist state, the press is an extension of the government and acts as the party’s official mouthpiece. Competition, freedom to report accurately, and dissent are not allowed. Punishments for transgressions are swift and severe. The most egregious example of this was the former Soviet Union.
Today, all true socialist and communist countries lack a free press. North Korea, led by the the demented Kim Jung Il; Cuba, led by the Marxist Castro brothers, Venezuela, led by the the megalomaniac Hugo Chavez; and Communist China are the most familiar examples of the above axiom. Some of the countries mentioned lost their freedom of press almost immediately after a revolution — China and Cuba, for example. Others lost it by degrees. Chavez dismantled Venezuela’s free press a little at a time, all the while consolidating his own power. As he became stronger, the press became weaker, until ultimately, it merely became a transcription service for his speeches.
As our country lurches further to the left, we are starting to see the familiar pattern emerge. The administration of Barack Obama has chosen the Venezuelen model. Slowly and methodically, the government’s fingers are wrapping around the neck of the free press.
The first assault was in the form of the “Fairness Doctrine,” an effort to purge conservatives from the airwaves.
Next came the phony “Town Hall Meetings” with the public, where cherry-picked Obama supporters were allowed to toss pre-screened softball questions designed not to embarass the president.
Now, the same concept of pre-screening both the questions and the questioners has been applied to “White House Press Corps Meetings,” the latest of which was such a fiasco that it prompted an angry exchange [video here] between liberal correspondent Helen Thomas and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs!
Said Thomas: “Nixon didn’t try to do that. They [the Nixon administration] couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try…. What the hell do they think we are, puppets?”
The answer, Ms. Thomas, is “Yes.”
Publicado: 07-02-2009 08:00 PM
INFORMATIBOS, QUE QUIEREN INFORMAR SOLAMENTE COSAS BUENAS DE OBAMA CUANDO ELLOS SABEN BIEN CLARO QUE ES EL DIABLO!!!!
Publicado: 07-03-2009 12:14 AM
El gobierno impone la ley y su voluntad. No importa que tan grande sea la promesa o la mentira.
Se va ha crear un monopolio federal único sobre la salud de nuestros ciudadanos, el gobierno determinara que medico te atenderá, que tratamiento te corresponderá y cual tratamiento se te negara.
Desgraciadamente este sistema ha sido fracasado siempre que se ha implementado en el mundo, la principales victimas serán los paciente,
Y la salud dejara de ser un derecho de todos para convertirse en una herramienta política, y un lujo solo accesible a quienes doblegarán su ideología y sus creencias. Me dan lastima los obamista.
Senate bill fines people refusing health coverage
WASHINGTON – Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama's top domestic priority.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. Senate aides said the penalties would be modeled on the approach taken by Massachusetts, which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.
In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.
Called "shared responsibility payments," the fines would be set at least half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.
In 2008, employer-provided coverage averaged $12,680 a year for a family plan, and $4,704 for individual coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation's annual survey. Senate aides, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, said the cost of the federal plan would be lower but declined to provide specifics.
The legislation would exempt certain hardship cases from fines. The fines would be collected through the income tax system.
The new proposals were released as Congress neared the end of a weeklong July 4 break, with lawmakers expected to quickly take up health care legislation when they return to Washington. With deepening divisions along partisan and ideological lines, the complex legislation faces an uncertain future.
Obama wants a bill this year that would provide coverage to the nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and reduce medical costs.
In a statement, Obama welcomed the legislation, saying it "reflects many of the principles I've laid out, such as reforms that will prohibit insurance companies from refusing coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and the concept of insurance exchanges where individuals can find affordable coverage if they lose their jobs, move or get sick."
The Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions bill also calls for a government-run insurance option to compete with private plans as well as a $750-per-worker annual fee on larger companies that do not offer coverage to employees.
Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said in a letter to colleagues that their revised plan would cost dramatically less than an earlier, incomplete proposal, and help show the way toward coverage for 97 percent of all Americans.
In a conference call with reporters, Dodd said the revised bill had brought "historic reform of health care" closer. He said the bill's public option will bring coverage and benefit decisions driven "not by what generates the biggest profits, but by what works best for American families."
The two senators said the Congressional Budget Office put the cost of the proposal at $611.4 billion over 10 years, down from $1 trillion two weeks ago.
However, the total cost of legislation will rise considerably once provisions are added to subsidize health insurance for the poor through Medicaid. Those additions, needed to ensure coverage for nearly all U.S. residents, are being handled by a separate panel, the Senate Finance Committee. Bipartisan talks on the Finance panel aim to hold the overall price tag to $1 trillion.
The Health Committee could complete its portion of the bill as soon as next week, and the presence of a government health insurance option virtually assures a party-line vote.
In the Senate, the Finance Committee version of the bill is unlikely to include a government-run insurance option. Bipartisan negotiations are centered on a proposal for a nonprofit insurance cooperative as a competitor to private companies.
Three committees are collaborating in the House on legislation expected to come to a vote by the end of July. That measure is certain to include a government-run insurance option.
At their heart, all the bills would require insurance companies to sell coverage to any applicant, without charging higher premiums for pre-existing medical conditions. The poor and some middle-class families would qualify for government subsidies to help with the cost of coverage. The government's costs would be covered by a combination of higher taxes and cuts in projected Medicare and Medicaid spending.
Publicado: 09-26-2009 03:13 PM
"SON TERRIBLES EN MANOS DE LOS POLITICOS DE OFICIO LAS MASAS IGNORANTES; QUE NO SABEN VER TRAS LA MÁSCARA DE JUSTICIA DEL QUE EXPLOTA SUS RESENTIMIENTOS Y PASIONES." José Martí
"DOS PELIGROS TIENE LA IDEA SOCIALISTA , COMO TANTAS OTRAS: EL DE LAS LECTURAS EXTRANJERIZAS, CONFUSAS E INCOMPLETAS, Y EL DE LA SOBERBIA Y LA RABIA DISIMULADA DE LOS AMBICIOSOS, QUE PARA IR LEVANTANDOSE EN EL MUNDO EMPIEZAN OR FINGIRSE, PARA TENER HOMBROS EN QUE ALZARSE, FRENETICOS DEFENSORES DE LOS DESAMPARADOS." José Martí
Recuerden los frutos de los grandes demagogos, Hitler, Castro, Chavez.... Obama
Publicado: 09-26-2009 05:40 PM
Publicado: 09-29-2009 09:57 PM
Para la mas fina joya que aparentemente le gusta que los gringos con los cuales quiere que la asimilen la dipicten asi, me gustaria saber si tu piensas a el igual que estos gringuitos que aparentemente sus papas les dieron el ejemplo que muestran aqui:
Publicado: 09-30-2009 03:08 PM
The Brainy Bunch
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Many people, including some conservatives, have been very impressed with how brainy the president and his advisers are. But that is not quite as reassuring as it might seem.
It was, after all, Franklin D. Roosevelt’s brilliant “brains trust” advisers whose policies are now increasingly recognized as having prolonged the Great Depression of the 1930s, while claiming credit for ending it. The Great Depression ended only when the Second World War put an end to many New Deal policies.
FDR himself said that “Dr. New Deal” had been replaced by “Dr. Win-the-War.” But those today who are for big spending like to credit wartime big spending for bringing the Great Depression to an end. They never ask the question as to why previous depressions had always ended on their own, much faster than the one under FDR, and without government intervention or massive government spending.
Brainy folks were also present in Lyndon Johnson’s administration, especially in the Pentagon, where Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s brilliant “whiz kids” tried to micro-manage the Vietnam war, with disastrous results.
There is usually only a limited amount of damage that can be done by dull or stupid people. For creating a truly monumental disaster, you need people with high IQs.
Such people have been told all their lives how brilliant they are, until finally they feel forced to admit it, with all due modesty. But they not only tend to over-estimate their own brilliance, more fundamentally they tend to over-estimate how important brilliance itself is when dealing with real world problems.
Many crucial things in life are learned from experience, rather than from clever thoughts or clever words. Indeed, a gift for the clever phrasing so much admired by the media can be a fatal talent, especially for someone chosen to lead a government.
Make no mistake about it, Adolf Hitler was brilliant. His underlying beliefs may have been half-baked and his hatreds overwhelming, but he was a genius when it came to carrying out his plans politically, based on those beliefs and hatreds.
Starting from a ***********///////********//////****** of Germany’s military weakness in the early 1930s, Hitler not only built up Germany’s war-making potential, he did so in ways that minimized the danger that his potential victims would match his military build-up with their own. He said whatever soothing words they wanted to hear that would spare them the cost of military deterrence and the pain of contemplating another war.
He played some of the most highly educated people of his time for fools— not only foreign political leaders but also members of the intelligentsia. The editor of The Times of London filtered out reports that his own foreign correspondents in Germany sent him about the evils and dangers of the Nazis. In the United States, W.E.B. Du Bois— with a Ph.D. from Harvard— said that dictatorship in Germany was “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.”
In an age when facts seem to carry less weight than the visions of brilliant and charismatic leaders, it is more important than ever to look at the actual track records of those brilliant and charismatic leaders. After all, Hitler led Germany into military catastrophe and left much of the country in ruins.
Even in a country which suffered none of the wartime destruction that others suffered in the 20th century, Argentina began that century as one of the 10 richest nations in the world— ahead of France and Germany— and ended it as such an economic disaster that no one would even compare it to France or Germany.
Politically brilliant and charismatic leaders, promoting reckless government spending— of whom Juan Peron was the most prominent, but by no means alone— managed to create an economic disaster in a country with an abundance of natural resources and a country that was spared the stresses that wars inflicted on other nations in the 20th century.
Someone recently pointed out how much Barack Obama’s ***********///////********//////****** and strategies resemble those of Latin American charismatic despots— the takeover of industries by demagogues who never ran a business, the rousing rhetoric of resentment addressed to the masses and the personal cult of the leader promoted by the media. But do we want to become the world’s largest banana republic?
Publicado: 02-14-2010 10:05 PM
¿ES TODAVIA OBAMA UN CONVENCIDO MARXISTA LENINISTA?
Obama a Marxist in College?: John C. Drew Sheds Light on Obama College Years
The Obama college years remain a black hole in Obama’s past. We really don’t know much about Obama’s college years other than the first few college years were a blur of drug usage and partying.
Now a college professors who knew Obama in college is shedding some light on the Obama college years. Drugs may not be the only thing Obama dabbled with in college. The professor posted a blog and is conducted interviews on Obama’s intrigue with Marxism.
This story isn’t new. The mainstream media including Fox News ignored the story. Dr. John C. Drew claims he was a Marxist as well when he enrolled in college himself.
Drew had an encounter with Obama to specifically discuss Marxism. He was dating a girl who knew Barack Obama. His girlfriend came home one day excited wanting Drew to meet this man, knowing their philosophical views were similar. They eventually went out to dinner, drinks, partied, and discussed each other’s Marxist views. Drew discusses more about the conversation in the video interview below.
Drew describes himself as a serious Marxist, including being an enemy of the US government, while he was in college. When they met, Drew describes Obama’s views were parallel with Drew’s views. He was one of the brotherhood, ready for revolution. Obama wasn’t just an explorer of intellectual Marxism. He embraced Marxist Leninism.
Drew says Obama was in 100% agreement with his Marxist professors in college. He looked forward to a revolution in this country to overturn the power structure. This is a fascinating interview, because we may be seeing those revolutionary efforts engaged in front of us as Obama’s policies appear to be dooming the country more than helping.
Drew has a Communist radar like gay men have gaydar. He has no doubt that Obama was a hard-core Marxist in college. I don’t think this comes to any surprise as we have watched Obama wiggle around the Socialist label, while his critics have gone as far as equating socialism to racism. Of course Obama is working to give the power to the state by creating more dependency on the central government. This interview will further confirm what most of us suspect. Obama’s roots are placed in the Communist Manifesto and other radical documents like Rules for Radicals—which is socialist/communist propaganda.
OBAMA NEXUS WITH BILL AYERS, AN UNREPENTANT LYING TERRORIST
The Corner at National Review ^ | 27 August 2008 | Andy McCarthy
In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, “by design”; they only wanted to cause property damage:
Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely.Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.”
In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.
First of all, “that moment in the townhouse” he’s talking about happened in 1970. Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction. As noted in Ayers’ Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb. Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:
That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”
In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:
Characterizing Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”
Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes. But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,” he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: “Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”
And he wasn’t singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama’s motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers’ fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, “In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered “fork” gesture its official salute.” They weren’t talking about scratching up the wall-paper.
A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself “the Family” colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive.
On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people. They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices. Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.
When she was sentenced to 58 years’ imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police. Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg. Not to worry, though. On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.
These savages wanted to kill massively. That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design. They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want. But those are the facts.
Publicado: 10-26-2010 02:38 PM
EL FRUSTRADO ATENTADO TERRORISTA DE CASTRO EN NEW YORK Y PBS
NPR fires Juan Williams - Big Deal?
Townhall.com ^ | October 26, 2010 | Huimberto Fontova
They finally nabbed Al Capone—but for tax evasion. Legislation to de-fund The Corporation for Public Broadcasting will finally be introduced—but because of Juan Williams’ pink slip. Senator Jim DeMint explained his motivation, “Since 2001, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds programming for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service, has received nearly $4 billion in taxpayer money..there’s simply no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize liberal programming they disagree with.”
Good for you, Senator DeMint. Many taxpayers indeed find it galling to fund lopsidedly liberal programming. Even more galling for some is funding the distribution and broadcasting of films produced by Fidel Castro’s propaganda ministry, a PBS specialty.
Equally as galling for many U.S. taxpayers was paying part of the salary for Alan Sagner, who was appointed chairman of Corporation for Public Broadcasting by President Clinton and served on the board from 1994-98. Mr Sanger was a founder of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.
You may recall that one of its members really racked up some headlines on Nov. 23rd 1963. Less well known is how, a year earlier, two members of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (Marino Suero, Jose Garcia), acting in concert with Castro’s delegation to the United nations, and under the direction of Che Guevara’s “Foreign Liberation Department,” plotted a terrorist attack against New York civilian targets would have dwarfed the 9/11 death toll. Fortunately J. Edgar Hoover’s crackerjack FBI foiled it. Alas, no alternative media was around to investigate, report and comment on the CPB indiscretions above, as they’re around to report and comment on Juan Williams’ pink slip. So allow me to make up for lost time.
PBS hails Estela Bravo’s 1992 documentary Miami-Havana, as among the “10 best documentaries” of its POV (Point of View series.) Estela Bravo has lived off and on in Havana since 1959 and functioned as an executive in Castro’s Oficina de Publicaciones Consejo de Estado (Publication Office of (Cuba’s) Council of State.)
For obvious reasons Ms Bravo’s film are among the most widely shown in Fidel Castro’s fiefdom. Cuban Dissidents refer to her a “Fidel’s Personal Documentarian,” and PBS refers to her as among their top ten filmmakers of 1992.
Along with the usual Cuban-exile bashing, Bravo’s “Miami-Havana” also features Jimmy Carter’s top Cuba diplomat, Wayne Smith, claiming, "If elections were held today (in Cuba) he (Fidel Castro) would probably still win."
Note the word, "still." The PBS documentary implies Castro would win again—apparently just like in all those other Cuban elections he’s won. This documentary also showed Cubans expressing immense gratitude to Fidel Castro for allowing them to return to Cuba from their horrible ordeal in the U.S. As Dave Barry used to write: “I swear I’m not making (any of the above) up.”
"As Fidel spoke I could feel a peculiar sensation in his presence!” gasped filmmaker and former Fair Play for Cuba Committee activist Saul Landau. “It’s as if I am meeting with a new force of nature! Here is a man so filled with energy he is almost a different species! Power radiates from him!" continued Landau. No trifling “tingle up his leg” for Sol Landau. Fidel Castro really Rocked -His-World!
Sol Landau’s 1988 film “The Uncompromising Revolution,” which fully delivers on the director’s above-mentioned hyperventilations was run nationwide by PBS in 1990.
In 1985 Oscar-winning director Nelson Almendros released the film “Improper Conduct,’ documenting Castroite oppression, especially against youth and gays who were herded at Soviet bayonet point into forced -labor camps decorated with signs reading, “Work Will Make Men out of You”. Oddly for an anti-Castro documentary, it was shown worldwide to wide acclaim and several awards. The Cuban-exile Almendros had won an Oscar for earlier work.
PBS refused to show Improper Conduct, despite repeated entreaties from the late Mr Almendros. Now over to former CPB chairman Alan Sagner’s Fair Play for Cuba Committee. On Nov. 17, 1962, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI cracked a plot by Cuban agents that targeted Macy’s, Gimbels, Bloomingdale’s, and Manhattan’s Grand Central Terminal with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT. The holocaust was set for the following week, the day after Thanksgiving.
A little perspective: For the March 2004 Madrid subway blasts, all 10 of them that killed and maimed almost 2,000 people, al-Qaeda used a grand total of 100 kilos of TNT. Members of the group co-founded and funded by Alan Sagner planned to set off five times that explosive power in the some of the biggest department stores on earth, all packed to suffocation and pulsing with holiday cheer on the year’s biggest shopping day.
The chief plotter was Roberto Santiesteban, chief aide to Carlos Lechuga, Cuba’s UN ambassador. The FBI found many of the explosive devices and detonators in the very apartment belonging to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee members, Suero and Garcia.
Ah, but a CPB subsidiary handed Juan Williams a pink slip.