¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Responder
Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

HOW THE OBAMAS AVOID TO PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES.

First family transfers wealth, avoids taxes

Obama Family Tax Shelter

 

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - April 13, 2012

President Obama and his wife, Michele, gave a total of $48,000 in tax-free gifts to their daughters, according to tax records made public on Friday.

The president and his wife separately gave each daughter a $12,000 gift under a section of the federal tax code that exempts such donations from federal taxes.

There is nothing illegal about the president’s taking advantage of this tax shelter, but it does raise eyebrows given that he has lamented the myriad tax exemptions used by the wealthy—“millionaires and billionaires” like himself—to pay less in taxes. He has yet to propose a comprehensive plan to reform the byzantine tax code.

The Obama’s tax return indicates that the gifts, likely for their daughter’s college educations, began in 2007, when the maximum exemptible amount was $24,000 per couple. The maximum exemption has since increased to $26,000 per couple.

The Obamas paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, which would typically fall within the top federal rate of 35 percent. According to an analysis of the president’s tax return, he may have paid a lower rate than his secretary despite making more than eight times as much money as she did.

His most recent tax proposal—the so-called “Buffett Rule”—would increase taxes on about 4,000 millionaires and raise about $4.7 billion in new revenue per year, enough to cover about 0.4 percent of the projected budget deficit in 2012. Though the rule would apparently not hit the president himself.

Supporters of the rule have acknowledged that the projected revenue from the “Buffett Rule,” which the Democratic-led Senate is expected to vote down, is “not even a meaningful small amount.”

The Obama’s untaxed gift to their daughters will leave American taxpayers to subsidize the college education of the children of the multi-millionaire Obamas.

 

THE OBAMA'S  AVOID TO PAY THEIR FARE SHARE OF TAXES; BUT THEY WANT TO RISE THE BURDEN TO THOSE WHO ALREADY PAY 70% OF ALL THE COLLECTED TAXES WHILE ALMOST 50% PAY $0 INCOME TAX.



 

President Obama’s Secretary Paid   Higher Tax Rate Than He Did

April 13, 2012 Brendan Smialowski

President Obama today released his 2011 federal income  tax,  with he and his wife reporting an adjusted gross income of $789,674.  The Obamas  paid $162,074 in total tax – an effective federal income tax  rate of 20.5%. The  Obamas also reported donating approximately 22% of  their income to charity — $172,130.

President Obama has been making a big political push for the “Buffett Rule,” which would require millionaires to pay a minimum of 30%  of  their income in taxes. To illustrate the point, the president has  pointed out  that billionaire investor Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate  than does his  secretary.

President Obama’s secretary, Anita Decker Breckenridge,  makes  $95,000 a year. White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage tells ABC News  that  Breckenridge “pays a slightly higher rate this year on her  substantially lower  income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax  code and ask the  wealthiest to pay their fair share. ”

It should be noted that president would not be impacted by  the  Buffett Rule, though he would see his taxes go up if the so-called  Bush tax cuts  on higher income wage-earners were allowed to expire, as the  president says he  wants.

-Jake Tapper



~COMRADE OBAMA DID NOT PAY HIS  FARE SHARE IN TAXES....  DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I  DO!!!

Let's look at this: OBAMA made  $789,674 and gave $172,130 to charity. That leaves $617,544 taxable income. From  that he took enough deductions to bring his income down to $142,700 at the VERY  top to mean he paid in the 20% bracket. So he wrote off $464,844 of his income  for mortgage interest, taxes and other non-taxable ventures.

It astounds me that he can  bIitch and whine about the rich getting all these breaks but he da.mn sure takes  them himself. No one made him do it - it was his  choice.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

31 / 03 / 2012 Miryam Lindberg
 

EN PARTES DE CALIFORNIA LA GASOLINA YA ESTA A $7 EL GALÓN. LA META DECLARADA DE OBAMA ES QUE PAGUEMOS LOS PRECIOS DE EUROPA, ES DECIR DE $9 A $10 EL GALON.

Estos días parece que cada vez son más los que pasan por las gasolineras mirando más detenidamente a ver quién tiene el precio más bajo antes lanzarse a llenar el tanque. Y es que los precios de la gasolina están subiendo imparablemente.

El presidente Obama afirma que no es su culpa, aunque si los precios estuvieran bajando seguramente diría que es gracias a su política. Los políticos son expertos en llevarse las glorias ajenas y echarle la culpa a los demás de sus errores. Pero, sí, el ocupante de la Casa Blanca generalmente influye mucho en el precio porque sea cual sea su política, el mercado está siempre atento a las decisiones y planes de acción de los gobiernos. Y en este caso, la política de la administración Obama ha sido una de hacerle las cosas difíciles a la industria petrolera.

Si no es tratando de subirle los impuestos (que al final los paga el consumidor), entonces es no dando permisos para la exploración y explotación de nuestras propias reservas, o bloqueando el oleoducto Keystone XL, por poner sólo algunos ejemplos.

 

 

Como indica el Gráfico de la Semana, la suma de las políticas de esta administración han tenido un fuerte efecto de subida en el precio que hoy pagamos por la gasolina. Mientras que durante la administración Bush y a pesar de la convulsa situación con los atentados del 11 de septiembre y las guerra de Afganistán, los precios de la gasolina fluctuaron, con la administración Obama, la subida es imparable porque el presidente ha decidido cerrar el grifo del petróleo nacional.

 

 

OBAMA SE NIEGA A PERMITIR CONSTRUIR EL OLEODUCTO DE CANADA A HOUSTON OBLIGANDO A CANADA A VENDER SU PETROLEO A CHINA, PETROLEO QUE HUBIERA LIBERADO A U.S. DE COMPRARLO A CHAVEZ.... ASI OBAMA CASTIGA A LOS AMIGOS Y AYUDA A LOS ENEMIGOS DE U.S.

OBAMA"Wanted Higher Gas Prices, and He Got Them"
LA GUERRA DE OBAMA CONTRA LA INDUSTRIA DOMESTICA DEL PETROLEO ES RESPONSABLE DE QUE EN CALIFORNIA YA ESTA A $7 EL GALON.

Los precios suben cuando hay inseguridad en el mercado sobre la continua disponibilidad del combustible que la nación necesita para operar. La cosa es ideológica, el credo verde del presidente es invertir en industrias que siguen siendo poco rentables e ir diciendo medias verdades como por ejemplo que incrementar la producción de petróleo lleva demasiado tiempo y no impactaría en el mercado durante al menos una década. Como indica nuestro experto en temas de energía, Nicolas Loris: “Este ha sido el mantra de las huestes antiperforaciones y cuanto más tiempo escuchen los políticos el mensaje, más tiempo permanecerán sin desarrollarse los recursos petroleros de la nación”.

Entonces, ¿qué hacemos? Como indica el analista de Heritage Mike Brownfield:

 

En lugar de elegir ganadores y perdedores, el gobierno federal debería dejar que el mercado libre haga su trabajo. Además de salirse del asunto de financiar la investigación, que es mejor dejarla en manos del sector privado, eso también significa acabar con los créditos tributarios específicos para el petróleo, las energías renovables, la energía nuclear, los combustibles y vehículos alternativos, el carbón avanzado y la gasificación avanzada. El siguiente paso para el gobierno federal es abrir el acceso a las fuentes de energía del país y acabar con los innecesarios y demasiado onerosos regímenes reguladores que obstaculizan la producción de energía. Y el presidente debería aprobar el oleoducto Keystone XL y abrir las tierras federales para la exploración energética.

 

Este es un plan de acción que mandaría los precios del combustible hacia abajo.

 

 

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ENTERENSE

Unbelievable: Jon Corzine still bundling mega-bucks for  Obama’s campaign

Hotair ^ | 04/20/2012 | AllahPundit

 

The information's hiding in plain sight but it’s still a nifty  catch by the Standard’s Daniel Halper. You know why? Because the idea  that Jon Corzine is still raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for The One  is so insane and implausible, virtually no one would have thought to check. Of coursethat's not happening. Of course.

And yet.

He's in the $500,000+ club for the first quarter of this year,  the most elite group there is among O's cash cows. You know what else happened  during that quarter? News broke that more than a billion dollars in MF Global  client funds had apparently been “vaporized” in the firm’s collapse, with investigators  clueless as to where the money might have gone. As recently as last month, new  evidence emerged pointing to Corzine’s direct involvement in using clients’ cash to cover  the firm’s debts. And yet, presumably, he was squeezing his rich friends for  dough for Obama the whole time. Ace asks a good question: “Why is a man under  investigation by a government agency permitted to raise money for the man who  controls that agency?” Wouldn’t be the first time Corzine’s used his political leverageto personal advantage.

If you missed it a few days ago, read Ed’s post on Patrick  Kennedy claiming that the White House rewards its rich donors with certain quid pro quos. Can’t wait to see what Jon Corzine gets in return for his extreme  diligence on behalf of the “Not a Republican” reelection effort. Exit question: Does  Team O understand that transparency is supposed to act as a deterrent to  impropriety or the appearance of impropriety? They love to pat themselves on the  back for voluntarily disclosing the names of their bundlers, but the point of  disclosure is that it dissuades you, at least in theory, from dealing with  cretins lest you be scrutinized for it. Where’s the dissuasion, guys?

 

LA MADRE DE TODOS LOS DEFALCOS,  CORZINE DONA MILLONES A OBAMA MIENTRAS DEFRAUDA ¡$1,800 MILLONES A SUS  CLIENTES!!!

 



 

 

OBAMA/ CORZINE, UNA MANO LAVA LA  OTRA...

LA MAFIA DEMOCRATA EN PLENA  ACCION

 

 

QUID PRO QUO...  LA MAFIA  DEMOCRATA

 

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

Yes, Obama Eating Dogmeat Matters
My Brain | 4/21/12 | Alan Levy

 

"And away from the dinner table I was introduced to dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher) and roasted grasshopper (crunchy)...."---Bark Hussein Obama, writing in Dreams From My Father

 

Yes, it matters. Yes, it matters a great deal.

This little quote speaks volumes. It shows just how foreign Obama truly is. It shows how foreign his upbringing was. Not only that, it also shows how much the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media sucks at its job.

Now, before we get started, yes, I know that former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers may have ghost written Chairman Obama's books. However, that changes nothing. Even if Ayers ghost wrote the above quote, that doesn't mean it wasn't proofread by the future American dictator, nor does it mean that Ayers wasn't given first hand accounts about Bark's life, this incident included.

Back to the matter at hand.

This quote, among thousands admittedly far more important, illustrates just how foreign Obama's upbringing truly was and how truly foreign his thought processes are. For thousands of years, dogs have been domesticated by humans living in western civilization. Dogs (along with cats) are universally accepted as pets, but not as food. Many western cultures have outlawed the eating of dogs and cats for that purpose. It's a social more. Most folks find eating dogmeat almost as repugnant as polygamy and incest. It simply isn't done by normal people with a normal upbringing.

But yet, in the above quote, Obama is treating it as if it was no big deal, like eating duck pate or escargot. That coudn't be further from the truth. It's barbaric.To a lot folks in western civilization, especially those who consider their pets part of the family like I do, this is almost like admitting that one ate Aunt Gladys for dinner. The very fact that this was included in his autobiography, when there was no real reason to do so, shows just how out of touch Bark Obama truly is with American culture.

The worst thing about it is the fact that the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media isn't making more of this. I know they're doing their doggone best to make sure their Fuhrer gets another term to finish off America, but hey, just once, can't they pretend to be Americans who have a vested interest in American culture ? More importantly, as Mark Levin brilliantly asked, why isn't the Arrogant and Lazy Mainstream Media asking when Bark Obama stoppedeating the flesh of Man's Best Friend ?

Yes, I know I should be writing about Bark Obama's countless scandals, ranging from arming Mexican drug cartels with Operation Fast and Furious to aiding the Muslim Brotherhood take control of Libya. I get it. In the grand scheme of things, this is nowhere near as important as those crimes against humanity. However, we can't lose sight of things like this. After all, snippets like this from Bark Obama's childhood explain why he's the [fill in your favorite curse word here] he is today. What's more important, it's a barometer of what kind of [fill in your favorite curse word here] he'll be if he gets another four years without having to worry about be reelected.

We are on the edge of complete economic, political, and social disaster. I can't gussy it up. I can't make it sound palatable. The truth is what the truth is.

Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ENTERENSE

How Obama and Friends Are Stifling Our Economy

By Bruce Bialosky

4/23/2012

 

If you’ve recently tried to refinance your home, you’re probably quite aware of the changes in the lending market from a few years back. Even though interest rates have been held artificially low by the Federal Reserve, obtaining financing can be worse than getting a tooth extracted – even if you have pristine credit. That same market exists for commercial loans, and that’s why I sat down with industry guru Steve Gold to discover what’s going on.

Steve has been in the commercial financing business for forty years, during which time he has arranged both equity and debt for commercial properties of all kinds. In 1976, he became president of Center Financial, which he ran for fifteen years and during which it became one of America’s largest lenders for commercial properties. He chaired the advisory board for the Real Estate Curriculum at UCLA; and, in 1980, formed the UCLA Hotel Conference (although now housed under another entity) which attracts 2,500 attendees every year.

In 2000, Gold formed Hotel Financial Strategies, specializing in loans and equity funding for hotels. It quickly became one of the premier boutique firms in its field, annually supplying over $1 billion of financing for hotel development and acquisition. Gold’s extensive experience and influence in the lending industry made him the perfect person to explain why the economy remains so stagnant almost three years after the recession was declared over.

Gold reminded me that the real estate market started to plummet in the fourth quarter of 2007, and by 2009 he was down to two offices (from seven) and down to $50 million (from $1 billion) in annual finance activity.  During the first nine months of the downturn, he had potential customers walk away from a billion dollars in commitments – a perfect, if concise, example of why the economy went into a free fall.  The question is why it hasn’t bounced back.

The principal answer is Dodd-Frank. The recession left very few players on the field, and, while there used to be multiple sources of financing, the nation’s ten largest banks now control between 75% and 80% of the market. Dodd-Frank may not officially be in effect, but Gold explained how each of these banks is acting as if the law is in full force. In addition, the banks are spending huge sums of money dealing with the regulators who are crawling all over them and restricting their activities.

For those who continue to blame bankers for the downfall of our financial system, that may all sound fine; but for people looking for a job, or waiting for the economy to turn around, this is bad news. Big banks prefer to lend to their largest customers or the ones with whom they have long-term relationships, thereby leaving out in the cold both new entrepreneurs and anyone who wants to take the risk of a new project. This means that the Administration (that campaigns against the 1%) is actively encouraging policies that restrict the 99% percent from even getting a chance. Right now, if you don’t have a big bankroll or a long-term relationship, don’t expect to get a bank loan.

And if you want to actually build a property, you better have a lot of cash.  Historically, developers need to pony up 20% equity to get a deal done.  Of course, during the crazy years, deals would get done with little or no equity at all, but now things have swung too far the other way.  Today, a builder needs to put up 35% equity to get a loan for a new project.  That is an impossible hurdle for almost everyone in this business, which is why so few deals are being consummated.  (Oddly, the exception seems to be apartment financing.)

But in Gold’s segment of the market – hotel construction – the need for new development is significant.  Occupancy rates are higher than they were in 2007, causing room rates to soar.  The lack of development in the last four years has created substantial demand for new product.  This, of course, would generate substantial construction activity and loads of jobs for the 99%, but there is no money being made available.  As a result, we experience a stagnant economy.

Gold told me that in his forty-year career, he’s never seen a finance market like this one.  Even though banks have significantly cleaned up their balance sheets, they are preparing for much higher reserve requirements scheduled for 2014.  Fewer lenders, combined with higher reserve requirements, will always result in less money to stimulate the economy.

Gold believes that Dodd-Frank needs to be repealed.  He concedes that to avoid the mistakes of the last decade, new rules need to be in place, but the harsh regulations of Dodd-Frank are killing the hopes of the current generation of developers and investors.  The rich will get richer and the rest of us can say goodbye to the American Dream – all courtesy of our current President, his friends, and their anti-business policies.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

How Babies Were Left to Die: Nurse Recounts Horrors of Infanticide Practice Barack Obama Protected
Life Site News ^ | August 12, 2008 | John Jalsevac

 

August 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - At the same time that the National Right to Life Committee has unearthed documents proving that Barack Obama repeatedly voted against a bill that would have protected children born alive after an attempted abortion, Illuminati Pictures has released a video of an interview with a nurse who witnessed the very practice that Obama protected while in the Illinois senate (See: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081101.html).

Jill Stanek was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois in 1999 when she discovered that babies born alive after failed abortions purposely were being left to die in the "soiled utility room," which, says Stanek, is a room where biohazard materials and soiled linens are disposed of.

"That’s where nursing staff took these babies and left them to die."

Stanek went public with her traumatizing experiences when hospital staff refused to stop the practice of infanticide. In 2000 she was asked to testify before a U.S. House committee for the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). The BAIPA was a two-paragraph bill intended to clarify that any baby who is entirely expelled from his or her mother, and who shows any signs of life, is to be regarded as a legal "person" for all federal law purposes, whether or not the baby was born during an attempted abortion.

A version of this bill, almost identical to the federal bill, was eventually brought before the Illinois Senate, which is where Obama repeatedly opposed the measure.

"Christ hospital - and we now know other hospitals and clinics around the country - are involved in an abortion procedure called ‘induced labor abortion,’" says Stanek in the video, entitled "Kill and Destroy". In this type of abortion, she says, the abortionist inserts a medication into the birth canal of the mother and induces premature labor.

"My experience was that they [the babies] survive as short as a few minutes, to once, almost as long as an eight hour shift.

"To be clear these were living babies who were left out to die. And they were issued both birth and death certificates according to Illinois state law."

Stanek relates the story of how one night she saw a nurse bringing a baby to the soiled utility room to die, because the parents of the child did not want to hold it. The other nurse also did not have the time to hold the child. "When she told me what she was doing I couldn’t bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone," says Stanek. "And so I cradled and rocked him for the forty-five minutes that he lived."

Stanek recounts how, besides testifying before the federal House, she also testified before an Illinois State Senate Committee, a Committee on which Barack Obama sat.

"Barack Obama," she says, "was unmoved, and actually opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act."

"This one guy, Barack Obama," she says, "thought that infanticide was acceptable and voted to protect it. Some people said that Barack Obama was uninformed or may not have fully understood the implications of this bill. But he voted against it three times. That’s calculated."

The former nurse of Christ Hospital also dispels the myth, propagated by Obama and his campaign, that Obama only voted against the bill because it did not include language clarifying that the bill would have no effect on legal abortion; this language was found in the federal version of the legislation.

However, observes Stanek, "As chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, he stopped the identical wording from being introduced." This fact was confirmed recently by the National Right to Life Committee, which found and made public documents proving, beyond a doubt, that Obama voted against a version of the bill that included the abortion-protecting language.

Illuminati Pictures’ video concludes with a dramatization of nurses leaving a newborn infant to die on a table in a darkened room.

"Barack Obama can play word games, but at the end of the day his opposition was responsible for living babies being left out to die, and that is indefensible," concludes Stanek.

To view the video "Kill and Destroy"
http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo

Obama Cover-up Revealed On Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Bill
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081101.html

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

LUCHA CONTRA LA POBREZA El triunfo del capitalismo

Por José Carlos Rodríguez

El Banco Mundial acaba de publicar su informe Indicadores Mundiales de Desarrollo 2012, donde indaga en si se está avanzando en la consecución de los Objetivos del Milenio.

Son ocho esos objetivos, el último de los cuales es la creación de un gobierno económico mundial, del que la propia institución, claro está, no quedaría muy lejos. El primero es el más importante: reducir la pobreza extrema y el hambre a la mitad en 2015, teniendo como referencia los índices de 1990.

El informe de 2012 sólo tiene datos hasta 2008, aunque cuenta con datos provisionales hasta 2010. Los datos son relevantes en sí mismos, ya que la reducción de la pobreza en el mundo es el primer problema al que nos enfrentamos. Y también son relevantes para observar en qué medida contribuye el capitalismo a tal objetivo.

¿Qué dicen los datos? Mirémoslos en conjunto. Trazada la línea de la pobreza extrema en 1,25 dólares al día (dólares constantes de 2005 y en paridad del poder de compra), en 1981 el 52,2 por ciento de la población mundial quedaba por debajo de ella. En 1990, que es cuando se fija el punto de partida de los objetivos del milenio, el porcentaje era ya nueve puntos inferior: 43,1 por ciento. Cayó después otros nueve puntos en nueve años (34,1 por ciento en 1999), y doce en los nueve siguientes (22,4 por ciento en 2008, último año para el que hay datos completos).

El Banco Mundial dice:

Teniendo en cuenta los puntos de partida de 1990, el progreso se ha acelerado en la última década, arrancando a millones de personas de la pobreza, llevando a millones de niños a la escuela y reduciendo drásticamente la pérdida de vidas humanas debida a causas que se pueden prevenir.

Lo cierto es que en 2008 casi se logra el objetivo de reducción de la pobreza extrema previsto para 2015. Además,

las estimaciones preliminares de 2010 muestran que la tasa de pobreza extrema cayó aún más, con lo que se ha alcanzado el objetivo global (...) de reducir la pobreza mundial cinco años antes.

Siempre se señalan otros aspectos de la vida que indican carencias. Son aspectos distintos de la pobreza, y a medida que ésta va remitiendo esos otros problemas también lo hacen. Por ejemplo, la mortalidad en los países en desarrollo ha pasado de 98 por mil nacimientos a 63 en 2010.

Pero la incidencia del capitalismo en la pobreza se ve aún mejor si miramos la evolución por regiones. El Extremo Oriente ha sido la zona que con más fervor ha abrazado el capitalismo en las últimas décadas. Pues bien, ahí la pobreza se ha reducido del 77,2 por ciento del total de la población en 1981 al 14,3 de 2008 (del 84 al 13,1 en China). La región más orillada por la globalización, la que más se ha mantenido al margen del comercio internacional, viene siendo el África Subsahariana, si bien a partir del cambio de siglo las cosas han empezado a cambiar. Es la que padece el peor índice de pobreza; de hecho, aumentó entre 1981 y 1993 (del 51,5 al 59,4 por ciento), si bien luego –curiosamente, a medida que se ha ido abriendo al resto del mundo– se ha reducido, lentamente en un principio (57,9 por ciento en 1999) y luego ya más rápidamente (47,5 por ciento en 2008).

En definitiva, año a año se confirma que el capitalismo está rescatando de la pobreza a millones y millones de personas, y a una velocidad desconocida en la historia. La mejora es una aspiración legítima de la humanidad, y el progreso material no sólo es bueno por sí, sino que está asociado a otros bienes morales que también consideramos valiosos. El capitalismo, la economía de mercado, la producción libre y el libre intercambio están en el centro de esa ingente transformación que se está produciendo tan lejos de donde vivimos.

 

© Instituto Juan de Mariana

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

New Obama slogan has long ties to  Marxism, socialism

By Victor Morton

April 30, 2012



The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into  history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long  and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities  throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign  cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of  socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist  political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist,  communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online  encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European  Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which  would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in  a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this  weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official  beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the  Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and  Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that  party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly  reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among  the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin  (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian  word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a  documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though  also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted  numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from  his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former  Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a  self-described communist.

 
 
OBAMA'S SLOGAN: "Forward Forward" A Hitler Youth  Anthem
 

A few people have commented on the fact that Obama's 2012  campaign slogan 'Forward' has a long history in socialist and communist  ideology. The most chilling and in your face example I've seen so far is from  the National Socialist Hitler Youth Anthem "Forward,Forward." The themes of  youth have always been a big part of Obama's campaigns, but seeing his campaign  slogan being sung by actual Hitler Youth Members really brings it all together  and creeps me out. As I said on Twitter, those who fail to learn from history  are doomed to release it as campaign material. Forward Forward.

 

 

FORWARD, FORWARD... ADELANTE,  ADELANTE!!!



No nos sorprende a los cubanos que Obama arme su campaña para reelección con el grito de lucha escogido por los marxistas y fascistas desde Hitler hasta Castro, ya que es parte del himno del 26 de Julio que empieza: "Adelante cubanos que Cuba premiará tu heroísmo ..."

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

President Obama Is No Transcender—He's The Divider In Chief

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER
5/3/2012

 

 

"The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states." Barack Obama, rising star, Democratic convention, 2004

Poor Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Once again he's been pilloried for fumbling a historic Supreme Court case. First shredded for his "train wreck" defense of ObamaCare's individual mandate, he is now blamed for the defenestration in oral argument of Obama's challenge to the Arizona immigration law.

The law allows police to check the immigration status of someone stopped for other reasons. Verrilli claimed that constitutes an intrusion on the federal monopoly on immigration enforcement. He was pummeled. Why shouldn't a state help the federal government enforce the law?

"You can see it's not selling very well," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

But Verrilli never had a chance. This was never a serious legal challenge in the first place. It was confected (and timed) purely for political effect, to highlight immigration as a campaign issue with which to portray Republicans as anti-Hispanic.

Hispanics are just the beginning, however. The entire Obama campaign is a slice-and-dice operation, pandering to one group after another, particularly those that elected Obama in 2008 — blacks, Hispanics, women, young people — and for whom the thrill is now gone.

What to do? Try fear. Create division, stir resentment, by whatever means necessary — bogus court challenges, dead-end Senate bills and a forest of straw men.

Why else would the Justice Department challenge the Texas photo ID law? To charge the GOP with seeking to disenfranchise Hispanics and blacks, of course. But in 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a similar Indiana law. It wasn't close: 6-3, the majority including venerated liberal John Paul Stevens.

Moreover, photo IDs were recommended by the 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by Jimmy Carter. And you surely can't get into the attorney general's building without one. Are Stevens, Carter and Eric Holder anti-Hispanic and anti-black?

The ethnic bases covered, we proceed to the "war on women." It sprang to public notice when a 30-year-old student at an elite law school (starting private-sector salary upon graduation: $160,000) was denied the inalienable right to have the rest of the citizenry (as co-insured and/or taxpayers — median household income: $52,000) pay for her contraception.

Despite a temporary setback — Hilary Rosen's hastily surrendered war on moms — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will resume the battle with a Paycheck Fairness Act that practically encourages frivolous lawsuits and has zero chance of passage.

No matter. Its sole purpose is to keep the war-on-women theme going, while the equally just-for-show Buffett Rule, nicely pitting the 99% vs. the 1%, is a clever bit of class warfare designed to let Democrats play tribune of the middle class.

Ethnicity, race, gender, class. One more box to check: the young. Just four years ago, they swooned in the aisles for Obama. No longer. Not when 54% of college graduates under 25 are unemployed or underemployed.

How to shake them from their lethargy? Fear again. Tell them, as Obama repeatedly does, that Paul Ryan's budget would cut Pell Grants by $1,000 each, if his domestic cuts were evenly distributed. (They are not evenly distributed, making the charge a fabrication. But a great applause line.)

Then warn that the GOP would double student loan interest rates. Well, first, Mitt Romney has said he would keep them right where they are. Second, as the Washington Post points out, this is nothing but a recycled campaign gimmick from 2006 when Democrats advocated (and later passed) a 50% rate cut that gratuitously squanders student aid by subsidizing the wealthy as well as the needy.

For Obama, what's not to like? More beneficiaries, more votes.

What else to run on with 1.7% GDP growth (2011), record long-term joblessness and record 8%-plus unemployment (38 straight months, as of this writing). Slice and dice, group against group.

There is a problem, however. It makes a mockery of Obama's pose as the great transcender, uniter, healer of divisions. This is the man who sprang from nowhere with that thrilling 2004 convention speech declaring that there is "not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America."

That was then. Today, we are just sects with quarrels — to be exploited for political advantage. And Obama is just the man to fulfill Al Gore's famous mistranslation of our national motto: Out of one, many.

Retirado
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ENTERENSE

OBAMA OPENS TO EMPTY SEATS...

How Mitt Romney’s Campaign Put A Damper On Obama’s Big Day

Hand-to-hand political combat, as Romney aides show up at Obama's rallies to spin back

 

by Zeke Miller May  6, 2012

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Saturday was supposed to be President Barack Obama’s day, dominated by headlines of successful campaign holding its first rally. Instead, reports prominently included references to thousands of empty seats at the president’s first rally here — just as the Romney campaign wanted it.

At The Ohio State University, over 5,000 seats in the 20,000-person venue went unfilled on the upper seating deck and behind the press cameras —a sharp contrast to Obama’s events in 2008, and even a 2010 event with then-Gov. Ted Strickland which drew 35,000

 

ABC News had reported Saturday morning that the campaign  expected “overflow” crowds at each event, crowds which never did  materialize.

The New York Times quoted Obama senior adviser David Plouffe,  not about the president’s remarks, but about the crowd size — with reporter Mark Landler comparing the rallies  to “a concert by an aging rock star.”

Reporters had some help in noticing the empty seats. Romney  spokespeople made it into both events, waiting in line like everyone else. They  worked their way close to the press risers, ready to provide rapid response to  Obama’s speech.

Romney Deputy Press Secretary Ryan Williams was in the  audience at the OSU rally, and tweeted a picture of the empty seats — which  instantly got picked up by conservative blogs. After Obama’s remarks he was  swarmed by local reporters, and after giving them a standard response to the  speech, he commented on the empty seats.

References to the crowd size made it into local papers and  television reporters, all distracting from Obama’s message.

Democrats fired back with references to “Ford Field,” and  Romney’s infamous speech to the Detroit Economic Club and the bare football  stadium.