Archive for the ‘obama’ Category

A diabólica guerra do Partido Democrata contra Trump

06/03/2017

segunda-feira, março 06, 2017

A SOTURNA MANSÃO DE OBAMA EM KALORAMA SERÁ UMA ESPÉCIE “THINK TANK” DO TERROR ESQUERDISTA AMERICANO CONTRA DONALD TRUMP.

A mansão de Kalorama: a fortaleza do terror esquerdista sob o comando de Obama e seus sequazes.

Barack Obama, o ex-POTUS (President of The United States), como seus homólogos do PT no Brasil, não consegue desencarnar do poder. Para tanto, está ultimando os preparativos para ocupar uma soturna mansão em Kalorama, célebre refúgio de milionários nos arredores de Washington, mais ou menos a cerca de 3 quilômetros da Casa Branca.

Atualmente, Hussein Obama ocupa um escritório no centro de Washington, a que tem direito por lei. Todavia, esse mimo que lhe concede a lei não permite que o ex-mandatário utilize-o para finalidades políticas. Daí a decisão do ex-POTUS de alugar a portentosa mansão que bem poderia servir como a vivenda de Drácula, naqueles filmes estrelados pelo sósia de Michel Temer. Mas ninguém se espante se das águas furtadas que rasgam o telhado da soturna mansão escapem tenebrosos e deploráveis morcegos quando a noite abraça Washington.

Na verdade, a mansão está sendo preparada para ser um bunker político de Obama, segundo assinala o site TheDuran. Tanto é que o ex-POTUS já preparou uma suíte especial na mansão para abrigar Valerie Jarret, que fora sua assessora especial enquanto reinou durante 8 anos na Presidência.
Muito conhecida pela mídia Fake News que infesta o jornalismo americano, Jarret viveu dentro da Casa Branca com a família de Obama, inclusive participando todos os dias do jantar em família.

Hussein Obama e Valerie Jarret na mansão: planos para incendiar os Estados Unidos.
PROJETO DIABÓLICO

Dizem que estimulado por Jarret e Michlele (a esposa de Obama), o ex-POTUS passará a se concentrar num diabólico plano destinado a pressionar o governo de Donald Trump. Obama quer se transformar no líder da Oposição e mobilizará todas as suas energias para obrigar uma eventual renúncia de Trump ou o seu impeachment.

Coincidências à parte, a mansão de Kalorama, que os Obama estão alugando é de propriedade de Joe Lockhart, que foi o secretário de imprensa de Bill Clinton.

O vetusto e imponente imóvel ainda está sendo remodelado e redecorado por Michelle, não sem os imprescindíveis pitacos de Jarret, espécie de cão de guarda da ex-primeira família.

Concluindo: os esquerdistas são todos iguais. Como Lula e seus sequazes aqui no Brasil. Jatinhos, sítios e triplex. Em Washington, a fabulosa mansão de Kalorama, um bucólico e tranquilo enclave a alguns minutos do centro político dos United States.

Lá, como aqui, os esquerdistas liderados por Obama e sua trupe, continuam gritando nas ruas, atacando até mesmo idosos, incendiando automóveis, enfim, espalhando o terror. Todos os esquerdistas são psicopatas. Pior que isso. Eles são os principais causadores de todos os problemas do mundo.

Quem é o Anti Cristo? Obama e ninguém mais! e o Soros, simpatia??????????

24/02/2017

Imagem do artigo ESCRAVIDÃO na Wikipedia – Só que os comunistas lá não permitem dizer que é uma ESCRAVA BRANCA BRANCA BRANCA

24/02/2017

É politicamente incorreto um professor de história dizer que Kirk Douglas fez o papel de Spartacus – BEM O ESCRAVO ERA BRANCO E  KIRK DOUGLAS CENTENÁRIO ATOR AINDA VIVO SEMPRE FOI UM BRANCO.

QUE MONSTRUOSIDADE E PENSAR QUE IMBECIL DOUTRINADO POR PROFESSORES COMUNISTAS DISSE EM COMENTARIOS DO GI NO 20 DE NOVEMBRO QUE IMAGINA NUNCA BRANCO FOI ESCRAVO.

É MAIS É ELA É BRANCA BRANCA BRANCA

PINTURA FAMOSA DE BRANCA ESCRAVA EM LEILÃO.

CHORA COMUNISTAS

c5mer4mwcaas_pl

Todo ateu e todo mulçumano vota no Obama – Aí tem coisa? Obama é mulçumano? Obama é ateu?

11/07/2014

Colabora com o terrorismo do Taliban?

Persegue cristãos?

veja o vergonhoso resultado da pesquisa do Gallup

http://www.gallup.com/poll/172442/muslims-approving-obama-mormons-least.aspx

July 11, 2014

U.S. Muslims Most Approving of Obama, Mormons Least

Relative rank order of religious groups stable throughout his presidency

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — Seventy-two percent of U.S. Muslims approved of the job President Barack Obama was doing as president during the first six months of 2014, higher than any other U.S. religious group Gallup tracks. Mormons were least approving, at 18%. In general, majorities of those in non-Christian religions — including those who do not affiliate with any religion — approved of Obama, while less than a majority of those in the three major Christian religious groups did.

Obama Job Approval, by Religion, January-June 2014

Sem medo de ser chamado de racista, senador Ted Cruz lista 76 crimes de Obama

09/05/2014

76 Times Obama’s White House Illegally & Unethically Abused Its Power as Documented by Ted Cruz

obama-blasts-ted-cruz-over-obamacare--but-not-by-name

Only Constitutional lawyer and Texas Senator Ted Cruz would call the White House out like this.

No commentary needed, just going to get out of Cruz’ way:

1. Disregarded 1996 welfare reform law in granting broad work waivers for work requirements of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

2. Implemented portions of the DREAM Act, which Congress rejected, by executive action.

3. Ended some terror asylum restrictions, by allowing asylum for people who provided only “insignificant” or “limited” material support of terrorists.

4. Allowed immigrants in the U.S. illegally, who are relatives of military troops and veterans, to stay in the country and get legal status.

5. Extended federal marriage benefits by recognizing, under federal law, same-sex marriages created in a state that allows same-sex marriage even if the couple is living in a state that doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage.

6. Recognized same-sex marriage in Utah, even though the Supreme Court stayed the court order recognizing same-sex marriage in Utah and Utah said it would not recognize same-sex marriages performed before the stay.

7. Refused to prosecute violation of drug laws with certain mandatory minimums.

8. Issued signing statements, refusing to enforce parts of congressional-enacted statutes.

9. Illegally refused to act on Yucca Mountain’s application to become a nuclear waste repository.

10. Falsely portrayed the Benghazi terrorist attack as a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim YouTube video, and then lied about the White House’s involvement.

11 Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation.

12. Failed to enforce the Magnitsky Act as required by law, by not adding Russian human rights abusers to a list of people not permitted to travel to or do business in the U.S.

13. Killed four Americans overseas in counterterrorism operations without judicial process.

14. Continued to give Egypt aid after the military took over its government, even though federal law prohibits aid to Egypt in the event of a coup.

15. Granted a “hardship” exemption from the individual mandate for people whose health plans were canceled because their plans weren’t Obamacare compliant.

16. Delayed the individual mandate for two years.

17. Allowed individuals to buy health insurance plans in 2014 that did not comply with Obamacare. Extended this delay until 2016—past the mid-term elections.

18. Extended the deadline to enroll in Obamacare.

19. Illegally granted businesses a waiver from Obamacare’s employer mandate. Twice.

20. Illegally continued the Obamacare employer contribution for congressional staffs.

21. Illegally delayed the Obamacare caps on out-of-pocket healthcare payments.

22. Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies.

23. Illegally required people to violate their faith via the Obamacare contraception mandate.

24. As of May 2011, over 50% of Obamacare waiver beneficiaries were union members (who account for less than 12% of the American work force).

25. Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union.

26. Implemented a moratorium on offshore drilling after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill without statutory authority, and continued to enact new versions after federal courts repeatedly invalidated the moratorium.

27. Treated secured creditors worse than unsecured creditors in the Chrysler bankruptcy.

28. Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.

29. Had SWAT teams raid a Gibson guitar factory and seize property, on the purported basis that Gibson had broken India’s environmental laws—but no charges were filed.

30. Government agencies are engaging in “Operation Choke Point,” where the government asks banks to “choke off” access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as “ammunition sales.”

31. Made illegal “recess” appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board when Congress wasn’t in recess. Ignored the rulings of three federal courts of appeals that held those nominations unconstitutional. 2.

32. Appointed czars to oversee federal policy specifically because czars do not require Senate confirmation, earning criticism from stalwart Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd and Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold.

33. As of January 2012, 36 of the President’s executive office staff owed $833,970 in back taxes.

34. As of 2011, 311,566 federal employees or retirees owed $3.5 billion in taxes.

35. Illegally targeted conservative groups for heightened IRS scrutiny.

36. Circumvented the Freedom of Information Act, by requiring White House Counsel review of all documents to be released under the Freedom of Information Act that the Administration believed pertained to “White House equities”—and then delayed in producing many of these documents by FOIA’s statutory deadline, or didn’t produce them at all.

37. Got secret permission from the FISA Court to reverse restrictions on the National Security Agency’s use of intercepted phone calls and emails, permitting the NSA to search American’s communications in its databases.

38. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is seeking to monitor about 80% of U.S. credit card transactions.

39. Targeted Fox News reporter James Rosen by falsely labeling him a possible “co-conspirator” in a criminal investigation of a new leak.

40. Secretly obtained phone records from staff at the Associated Press.

41. Had meetings with lobbyists in coffee shops near White House to avoid disclosure requirements.

42. Aided drug cartels instead of enforcing immigration laws—as found by a federal judge. Border Patrol agents, multiple times, knowingly helped smuggle illegal immigrant children into the U.S.; “the DHS is encouraging parents to seriously jeopardize the safety of their children.”

43. Illegally sold thousands of guns to criminals, in the operation known as Fast and Furious and then refused to comply with congressional subpoenas about the operation.

44. Dismissed charges filed by Bush Administration against New Black Panther Party members who were videotaped intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling station during the 2008 election.

45. Argued for expansive federal powers in the Supreme Court, which has rejected the Administration’s arguments unanimously 9 times since January 2012.

46. Sued Louisiana to stop school vouchers and keep low-income minorities trapped in failing schools.

47. Threatened to arrest military priests for practicing their faith during the partial government shutdown.

48. Muzzled the speech of military chaplains.

49. Sued fire departments saying their multiple-choice, open-book written employment tests were racially discriminatory.

50. Gave 23,994 tax refunds worth more than $46 million to aliens here illegally using the same address in Atlanta, GA.

51. Released a mentally ill Guantanamo detainee… who had been a high-risk al Qaeda fighter in jihad combat since the 1980s.

52. Backed release of the Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Baset al-Megrahi.

53. President Obama told NASA administrator to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world.”

54. Claimed the Fort Hood shooting was “workplace violence” rather than terrorism.

55. Signed a stimulus bill that spent money on bonuses for AIG executives, and then acted shocked and outraged at the bonuses.

56. Gave $535 million to Solyndra, which went bankrupt; Solyndra shareholders and officials made substantial donations to Obama’s campaign.

57. Reneged on a campaign promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term in office.

58. Increased the national debt more in one term than President Bush did in two terms.

59. Extended mortgage assistance to people who bought multiple homes during the housing bubble.

60. Proposed rules that would have decimated family farms, by prohibiting children under 18 from doing many forms of farm work.

61. Former “safe schools czar” has written about his past drug abuse and advocated promoting homosexuality in schools.

62. Nominated Timothy Geithner—who had significant tax issues —to head the Treasury Department, which enforces tax laws.

63. Reneged on campaign promise to broadcast healthcare reform negotiations on C-SPAN.

64. Reneged on a campaign promise to wait five days before signing any non-emergency bill (at least 10 times during first 3 months in office).

65. Unilaterally, increased the minimum wage for federal contract workers from $7.25 to $10.10, via executive order.

66. Cancelled all White House tours after sequestration—purportedly saving $18,000 per week—even though President Obama had spent more than $1 million in tax money to golf with Tiger Woods one weekend a few weeks before.

67. Adopted pro-union “ambush election” rules.

68. Pressured Ford to pull an anti-auto-bailout TV ad.

69. Actively, aided in George Zimmerman protests.

70. Tried to seize a privately owned motel when guests used illegal drugs at the motel.

71. Shut down the Amber Alert website, while keeping up Let’s Move website, during the partial government shutdown.

72. Gave supervised release to a convicted criminal (an alien here illegally) who later killed a nun in a DUI.

73. Shut down an Amish farm for selling fresh unpasteurized milk across state lines.

74. Spent $7 million per household in “stimulus funds” to connect a few Montana households to the Internet.

75. Spent $205,075 in “stimulus” funds to relocate a shrub that sells for $16.

76. Fired an inspector general after investigating an $850,000 AmeriCorps grant received by a nonprofit run by former NBA star and Obama supporter Kevin Johnson (now mayor of Sacramento).

Resultado de Eleição direta para Presidente da República – A falência da democracia

02/05/2014

obama bebado

Obama apoia genocídio de Cristãos na Síria

02/01/2014

http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/obama-backed-wrong-side-in-syria/#i8eWbTTQs41X8yvT.99

PA Looking to take control of all Waterways: Millions of Americans could Lose Property Rights

18/12/2013

Posted on DECEMBER 17, 2013 Written by  7 COMMENTS

safe_image

The Environmental Protection Agency is in the middle of drafting a set of rules that will vastly expand the agencies power, and could cause millions of Americans to lose their property rights.

The draft rules, as reported by the Daily Caller, will redefine the term “waters of the United States” to include all “tributaries, bulletproofregardless of size and flow, and all lakes, ponds and wetlands within a floodplain.” This means almost any piece of property could be declared a wetland by the EPA, making way for the takeover of private property across the country.

In a statement to Fox News, the EPA is denying claims that they are trying to seize private property rights. They told Fox News, “The proposed rule would not expand EPA’s or the (Army Corps of Engineers’) jurisdiction or protect any new waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act.”

Although the EPA denies the claim, their past behavior seems to support what many, including Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith, are calling a “massive power grab.”

We’ve covered many stories in the past of how the EPA is already using these waterway acts to take land from private property owners, by redefining dry land as “protected wetlands”. And last year the Obama administration passed an executive order, “The Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes”, which established The National Ocean Council.

The Council essentially created a national zoning board that can regulate any activity that may affect our waterways, inland communities, and oceans. It effectively dictates what activities can and can’t take place on our waterways, including regulating what you can or can’t build on your own land.Aquaponics Gardening

An attack on Self-Sufficiency?

In my opinion, the ability to own property is one of the most important freedoms we have in this country. It not only represents the founding principles of our country, but it’s the cornerstone of freedom and self-reliant living.

If we lose our right to own property, we lose our right to live a free and self-reliant lifestyle.

source: offgridsurvival.com

www.patriotnetdaily.com

(Visited 1,971 times, 1,853 visits today)

A América de Obama não é a Nossa América

14/12/2013

988393_791099557570974_1428638969_n

Ten Commandments according to Barack Obama

14/12/2013

556385_3413549946482_179648806_n

Refuting Obama’s Statement that America was not a Christian Nation

02/12/2013

“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

– President Barack Obama, June 28, 2006

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out “whatever we once were”?

Originally, laws that governed personal behavior were under states’ jurisdiction, not federal.

ChristianNation01

 

People today are aware that some states allow minors to consume alcohol, and others do not; some states have smoking bans, and others do not; some states allow gambling, and others do not; some states attempt to limit the Second Amendment, and others do not; some states allow gay marriage, and others do not; and one state allows prostitution, while the rest do not.

At the time the Constitution was written, religion was under each individual state’s jurisdiction, and each state expanded religious tolerance at its own speed.

The U.S. Constitution went into effect June 21, 1788, when two-thirds of the states ratified it.

What was in those original 13 state Constitutions concerning religion at the time those states ratified the U.S. Constitution? [Caps added throughout for emphasis.]

DELAWARE – first to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“Every person … appointed to any office … shall … subscribe … ‘I … profess faith in GOD THE FATHER, and in JESUS CHRIST His only Son, and in the HOLY GHOST, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.’”

PENNSYLVANIA – second to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution, signed by Ben Franklin:

“Each member, before he takes his seat, shall … subscribe … ‘I do believe in one GOD, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the Rewarder of the good and the Punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.’”

NEW JERSEY – third to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“All persons, professing a belief in the faith of any PROTESTANT sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government … shall be capable of being elected.”

GEORGIA – fourth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1777 state constitution:

“Representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county … and they shall be of the PROTESTANT religion.”

CONNECTICUT – fifth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, retained its 1662 Colonial Constitution, which was established PROTESTANT CONGREGATIONAL, till 1818:

“By the Providence of GOD … having from their ancestors derived a free and excellent Constitution … whereby the legislature depends on the free and annual election. … The free fruition of such liberties and privileges as humanity, civility and CHRISTIANITY call for.”

MASSACHUSETTS – sixth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1780 state constitution, written by John Adams:

“Any person … before he … execute the duties of his … office … [shall] subscribe … ‘I … declare, that I believe the CHRISTIAN religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.’ … The legislature shall … authorize the support and maintenance of public PROTESTANT teachers of piety, religion and morality.”

MARYLAND – seventh to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1776 state constitution:

“No other test … ought to be required, on admission to any office … than such oath of support and fidelity to this State … and a declaration of a belief in the CHRISTIAN religion.”

SOUTH CAROLINA – eighth to ratify the U.S. Constitution, stated in its 1778 state constitution:

Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/refuting-obamas-statement-america-christian-nation/#ixzz2mJ855SC2
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/refuting-obamas-statement-america-christian-nation/#DOPc773PQw2RK4JG.99

Primeiro Presidente Negro consegue fechar o Governo dos Estados Unidos

13/10/2013

1378167_10151934177901955_1372364068_n

Sem arrudeios – Obama arma e financia terroristas que matam cristãos

18/07/2013

1069125_568812376493119_282993328_n

Video- Barack Hussein Obama rindo da Bíblia – Obama é o Anti-Cristo e é o Satanás em forma de “gente”

07/05/2013

Radio host Rush Limbaugh says President Obama and officials in his administration are intentionally stoking racial chaos in America in connection with the Trayvon Martin case.

02/03/2013

“There’s no question that the White House wants this kind of chaos and unrest in the culture,” Limbaugh said this afternoon.

  • His comments came moments before the Washington Post reported Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey planned to announce she is charging neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in the shooting of Martin.

Limbaugh said the situation is “a powder keg waiting to go off,” and that “nobody that I see is doing anything to try to make sure that powder keg doesn’t explode.”

He added: “If in the White House they wanted to cool this down, which they should do, they could do it. All it would take … would be Obama addressing the nation to calm this down, and then speaking about it in genuine American terms, not racial terms. If they wanted tot do that, they could. Other presidents have. It’s not happening here.”

Limbaugh says the White House has determined “it is helpful for Obama’s re-election because they believe that they can tie all of this to the existence of Republicans and conservatives, that the racial problems exist because of never-ending racism of the right, never-ending racism of Republicans. And that’s why George Zimmerman in the New York Times is called a white Hispanic. There are people un the race industry who became excited that this event took place because it allowed them to carry forward with their template, that we still are a nation, essentially, with slaves. You couple that with what I think is a chip on Obama’s shoulder about the founding of the country, the engrained discrimination, his anger over it, his opportunity now here to finally make it right.”

Martin, 17 and unarmed, was shot and killed Feb. 26 by Zimmerman, who said he was acting in self-defense after getting his bashed by Martin. Police in Sanford, Fla., where the shooting took place, initially did not charge Zimmerman, based on the state’s “stand your ground” law.

AS CARACTERÍSTICAS DO ANTI CRISTO – O ANTI CRISTO ESTÁ CHEGANDO? OBAMA É O ANTICRISTO? O ANTICRISTO ESTÁ ENTRE NÓS?

17/02/2013

http://www.obamacrimes.com/

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105527

TESTING THE FAITH

Did Jesus actually reveal name of the ‘antichrist’?

Viral video makes Hebrew word connection to latest White House occupant

Posted: July 30, 2009, 9:50 pm Eastern, By Joe Kovacs, © 2009 WorldNetDaily

For centuries, many have wondered about the identity of a biblical leader who will do Satan the devil’s bidding, trying to thwart the plans of Jesus Christ shortly before His prophesied return to Earth.

That character has come to be known as “the antichrist,” even though the Bible never uses that word to describe any single person.

Now, after endless speculation suggesting Presidents John F. Kennedy, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush could possibly be the End Times Bad Boy, there’s a new viral video placing the current occupant of the White House into the club.

An American Christian has produced a brief film for YouTube that connects one statement by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke to President Barack Obama.

His 4-minute video focuses on the direct quote: “I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.” (Luke 10:18)

“When I started doing a little research, I found the Greek word for ‘lightning’ is ‘astrape’, and the Hebrew equivalent is ‘Baraq,'” said YouTube contributor “ppsimmons,” a self-described Christian with a theological education and many years in the ministry, who spoke to WND under condition of anonymity. “I thought that was fascinating.”

As he continued looking into the rest of the words in the phrase, he focused on “heaven,” and found that it can refer not just to God’s dwelling place, but also “the heights” or “high places.”

He then recalled Isaiah 14:14, where Lucifer, another name for Satan, is quoted as saying, “I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.”

“I wondered what the word ‘heights’ is,” said ppsimmons, “and I looked it up in the dictionary, and it’s ‘Bamah.'”

Thus, on the video, the announcer notes, “If spoken by a Jewish rabbi today, influenced by the poetry of Isaiah, He (Jesus) would say these words in Hebrew … ‘I saw Satan as Baraq Ubamah.'”

“Gosh, was Jesus giving us a clue or was this just a freak coincidence?” thought the filmmaker at the time of his research.

Find out everything you always wanted to know about the devil but were too afraid to ask (plus hundreds of other amazing Bible facts) in the best-selling book that champions the absolute truth of Scripture, “Shocked by the Bible: The Most Astonishing Facts You’ve Never Been Told” — personally autographed!

“I want to emphasize I’m not ashamed of what I put there,” he told WND. “I’m not proclaiming he is the antichrist, or that I’m some kind of a Hebrew expert, but the word associations are indisputable. The Hebrew word for lightning is ‘Baraq’ and the word for heights or high places is ‘Bamah.'”

The movie has a prominent disclaimer stressing the film does not declare “BHO” [Barack Hussein Obama] to be the antichrist, but is merely pointing out the Hebrew words and their “striking” correlations to Jesus’ statement.

Obama is far from being the first public figure to have his identity tied to Bible prophecy. For instance, President Reagan was considered by some to be a potential merely because each of his names – Ronald Wilson Reagan – has six letters, prompting some to think of 666, the “number of the beast” in the Book of Revelation.

Modern books such as “Naming the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession” and “Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil” have chronicled a wide variety of other suspects including Henry Kissinger, Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Italy’s Benito Mussolini, Juan Carlos of Spain, Israel’s Moshe Dayan, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Elvis Presley and ex-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, perhaps for his famous birthmark on his head that some thought could be “the mark” of the beast mentioned in Revelation.

When WND asked if people should take the video seriously or with a grain of salt, its producer said, “I take the middle road. I don’t take it with a grain of salt, but I don’t use the Bible like a Ouija board either. It’s not like a magical crystal ball. Clear prophecy is one thing. Making word associations is another. Just look at it. I wouldn’t take it super serious and say that’s the proof we need. It’s a little weird.”

With the video posted now in several locations on YouTube and more than 75,000 total views, there has been plenty of reaction, with comments such as:

Anyone who knows multiple languages, which I do, and attempts to translate from one to the other knows that some meaning and inflection is lost in the translation. Here, we’re translating three times: from Aramaic to Greek, and Greek to English, and English to Hebrew. A lot to be lost.

If I went through thousands and thousands of pieces of text about the devil (the whole bible!), I could find things to say [Fox News anchor] Glenn Beck is the antichrist.

It was Michael Jackson. No wait. It was George Bush. No wait. It was Paris Hilton! What the [expletive] is wrong with you people? Grow up. I bet you don’t worship the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy, too. Do you?

The Bible uses the word “antichrist” only four times, with one instance in the plural, in the following verses:

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (1 John 2:18)

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22)

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (1 John 4:3)

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 1:7).

O Bebê de 12 semanas fazendo sinal de positivo

09/02/2013

Letter From 12-Week-Old Unborn Baby: Please Don’t Abort Me

Imagem

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/08/letter-from-12-week-old-unborn-baby-please-dont-abort-me/

by Adam Cassandra | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 2/8/12 11:57 AM

In New York, abortion of an unborn child after the 24th week of pregnancy is defined as homicide, but prior to that the killing of such a child is legal. This beautiful letter is another creative and truthful attempt to encourage our nation’s leaders to recognize that abortion is not a human right, but rather, ends an innocent human life.

That letter, written from the perspective of the 12-week old baby in the womb, is shared with you below:

Dear Member of the NY State Senate or Assembly:

 

I am not a blob of tissue to be disposed of. When I became a zygote at fertilization, I was already composed of 39,000 genes made up of 3.2 billion base pair sequences. Hard to believe, I know, but it’s scientifically true! These detailed directions for my development have been compared to the amount of information found in two hundred New York City phone books.

After this beginning, I worked actively to prevent any other sperm from fertilizing the same egg, and on my own impetus took a journey down the fallopian tube to implant upon my mother’s uterus.

At 5 weeks, my cerebral cortex was developing, and well before I reached 12 weeks my brain was functioning. I was already responding to stimuli.

So how can you allow me to be tortured? Shouldn’t you be working to protect me from suffering? Why allow me to be torn limb from limb?

At 12 weeks, I am not merely a design for a house yet to be built, I am already “a tiny house that constructs itself larger and more complex through its active self-development towards maturity” (Patrick Lee). If I live and grow to maturity, this growth will not involve a change in my identity or substance, only the development of what’s already there.

I am not a “potential” child, but a real child. Take a good look at the image of me that you received. My mother cannot “choose” to have a child – she already has one! Her only “choice” is whether or not to let me live.

Size has nothing to do with human rights. The sun may be vast in size, but it can’t think or love. It is only matter. It will never be part of an American family and community, nor will it ever serve my country. It will never ponder the mystery of life and the beauty of the night-skies, nor will it ever be able to conceive of the universe or meditate on Scripture.

Small as I am at 12 weeks, I can say that I am more precious than that huge and majestic sun, because I am made in the image of God, the One who created the sun, the night skies and the universe. All those things will pass away, but I am made for eternity.”

LifeNews.com Note:  Reprinted with permission from Human Life International’s  Truth and Charityforum. Adam Cassandra is a Communications Specialist at Human Life International.

Quando Obama e o PT falarem em desarmamento não acredite

02/02/2013

US-POLITICS-OBAMA

 

 

E QUANDO ELA ATIRA.. aquela merda de revista ISTOE diz que republicano tem sede de sangue:

BCHiW6cCEAA8nmG

 

Voto Gay nos EUA é 3×1 Pró Obama

16/11/2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/us/politics/gay-vote-seen-as-crucial-in-obamas-victory.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0

Gallup: Obama é o candidato LGBT

19/10/2012

LGBT Americans Skew Democratic, Largely Support Obama

October 18, 2012
Gallup’s landmark study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) Americans finds that 44% identify as Democratic, 43% as independent, and 13% as Republican. Conservative LGBT Americans share similar traits with conservatives overall.

Cientista prova que Certidão de Nascimento de Obama é falsa.

11/09/2012

http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/israeli-science-website-obama-birth-certificate-forged/?cat_orig=politics

WND EXCLUSIVE   Israeli science website: Obama birth certificate forged, Award-winning, former Netanyahu adviser behind assessment

 Published: 18 hours ago
author-image by Jerome R. CorsiEmail |

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.”  Corsi’s latest book is “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?” 
 
Israel Science and Technology, the national database and directory of science and technology-related websites in Israel, has published an article asserting the long-form birth certificate released by the White House is a forged document.
 
The website was created by a former science adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel Hanukoglu, Ph.D. Hanukoglu, an award-winning researcher, is a professor of biochemistry and molecular biology in the Department of Molecular Biology at Ariel University Center of Samaria in Ariel, Israel.

The website says the status line “at the bottom of the software reports that the image is composed of ’2 objects’ that have been grouped.”

The Israelis found the Obama birth certificate PDF could be ungrouped, revealing individual layers. The most important of nine different ungrouped layers also shows the final digit, 1, is missing in the birth certificate number 61 10641.

Israeli Science and Technology “ungrouped” image of Obama long-form birth certificate

Israeli Science and Technology cited as additional evidence of forgery the following analyses, many of which were first published by WND:

  • An expert analysis of the typography and layout of elements in the long-form birth certificate by Mara Zebest, here and here

O candidato GLBT Obama é o Anticristo?

27/06/2012

=

=

Obama, o Anti-Cristo, mostra a que veio: Faz a Proclamação do Orgulho GLBTS, Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month,

01/06/2012

The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, For Immediate Release, June 01, 2012

Presidential Proclamation: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, 2012

By The President Of The United States Of America

A Proclamation

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/06/01/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-mon#.T8ldjaPGsD0.twitter

Obama o primeiro africano mulçumano presidente dos EUA

20/05/2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people/post/the-birthers-are-back-the-birthers-are-back/2012/05/19/gIQAw8nObU_blog.html?hpid=z10

Birth cerfificate de Obama pode ser falso

03/03/2012

http://www.inquisitr.com/200321/obama-birth-certificate-forgery-arizona-sheriff/

Para quem duvida que Obama seja o AntiCristo

08/12/2011

http://juliosevero.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-se-compromete-reestruturar-orgaos.html?spref=fb

Obama, primeiro presidente negro dos Estados Unidos, já deportou 1.200.000 imigrantes ilegais

22/10/2011

=

=

Triste fim do amigo de Lula, o seca pimenteira: kadafi morto e humilhado: Defenda seu mestre, òh Lula

21/10/2011

=

=

 

=

 

Hollywood Gritam para Obama que ele é o anti cristo

28/09/2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/44/post/hollywood-heckler-interrupts-obama-fundraiser-at-house-of-blues/2011/09/27/gIQAjdBA1K_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

Revolução das Bichas prossegue: Acabou o “Não pergunte, Não fale” nas Forças Armadas dos EUA.

20/09/2011

The United States formally ends a decades-old ban on open gays in the ranks on Tuesday, a historic day that the military services hope will pass as routinely as roll calls, marching and lights-out.

The Pentagon, after putting all active-duty and reserve troops through months of mandatory indoctrination, generally is playing down the event and has announced no special plans for the repeal of a policy known as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Continue lendo:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/pentagon-downplays-ending-of-dont-ask-dont-tell/?page=all#pagebreak

OBAMA é o maior inimigo das forças armadas americanas e acredita que a América é uma ameaça à paz mundial

13/09/2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/12/armed-services-buck-mckeon-criticizes-obama/

Armed Services chairman: Obama is anti-military

O presidente do House Armed Services Committee, em um duro ataque contra a administração Obama segunda-feira, acusou o presidente de ver o poder militar norte-americana como uma força negativa no mundo, e planejando cortar gastos com a defesa através da comissão de redução do déficit do Congresso .

“É a minha suspeita de que a Casa Branca e os democratas do Congresso” desenhado o processo de supercommittee “para uma finalidade: para forçar os republicanos a optar entre o aumento de impostos ou evisceração defesa”, disse Howard California Rep. P. “Buck” McKeon, Armados da Câmara serviços de presidente do Comitê.

Mr. McKeon também atacou a defesa do governo e as políticas de segurança que ele afirmava são baseados em uma visão negativa do poder dos EUA no mundo.

“As políticas do presidente Barack Obama parecem muitas vezes reflexo de uma ideologia que trata o poder americano como o principal adversário, não aliado, para a paz mundial”, ele disse a uma audiência do American Enterprise Institute.

September eleven 11, 11 de setembro, 10 anos, aniversário do ataque ao World Trade Center, WTC, Fumaça de Satanás CNN nas Torres Gêmeas, coincidências com o número 11

27/08/2011

=

https://homemculto.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/fumaca-de-satanas-e-o-capetinha-do-11-de-setembro-nas-torres-gemeas/

==

O 11 passou a ser um número inquietante. Há coisas interessantes, senão, vejamos:

=

1) New York City tem 11 letras.
2) Afghanistan tem 11 letras.
3) “The Pentagon” tem 11 letras.
4) George W. Bush tem 11 letras.
==

Até aqui, meras coincidências ou casualidades forçadas (será???).
Agora começa o interessante:

=

1) New York é o estado Nº 11 dos EUA.
2) O primeiro dos vôos que embateu contra as Torres Gêmeas era o Nº11.
3) O vôo Nº 11 levava a bordo 92 passageiros; somando os numerais dá: 9+2=11.
4) O outro vôo que bateu contra as Torres, levava a bordo 65 passageiros, que somando os numerais dá: 6+5=11.
5) A tragédia teve lugar a 11 de Setembro, ou seja, 11 do 9, que somando os numerais dá: 1+1+9=11.
=

Agora, o inquietante :
=

1) As vítimas totais que faleceram nos aviões são 254: 2+5+4=11.
2) O dia 11 de Setembro, é o dia número 254 do ano: 2+5+4=11.
3) A partir do 11 de setembro sobram 111 dias até ao fim de um ano.
4) Nostradamus (11 letras) profetiza a destruição de New Iork City na Centúria número 11 dos seus versos.
Mas o mais chocante de tudo é que, se pensarmos nas Torres Gêmeas, damo-nos conta que tinham a forma de um gigantesco número 11. E, como se não bastasse, o atentado de Madrid aconteceu no dia 11.03.2004 , que somando os numerais dá: 1+1+0+3+2+0+0+4=11.
=

Intrigante, não acham ?

==

E se esqueceram que o atentado de Madrid aconteceu 911 dias depois do de New York, que somando os numerais 9+1+1=11!!!!

=

veja aqui o capetinha na fumaça do WTC:

https://homemculto.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/fumaca-de-satanas-e-o-capetinha-do-11-de-setembro-nas-torres-gemeas/

=

Estado do Arizona vai exigir certidão de nascimento de Obama para ele poder se registrar nas eleições de 2012: Obama terá que provar no Arizona se é americano mesmo

15/04/2011

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/15/arizona-legislature-oks-presidential-birther/

Arizona HB 2544 requiresthe following:

“The national political party committee for a candidate for…shall submit an affidavit of the presidential candidate in which the presidential candidate states the candidate’s citizenship and age and shall append to the affidavit documents that prove that the candidate is a natural born citizen, prove the candidate’s age and prove that the candidate meets the residency requirements for President of the United States as prescribed in article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States.

“The affidavit…shall include references to and attachment of all of the following:

“An original long form birth certificate that includes the date and place of birth, the names of the hospital and the attending physician and signatures of the witnesses in attendance.

“A sworn statement attesting that the candidate has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.

“A sworn statement or form that identifies the candidate’s places of residence in the United States for the preceding fourteen years.”

Vitória do Partido Republicano e derrota de Obama em 2 de novembro de 2010 já tem explicação

01/11/2010
Explicações que sairá, nos jornais, dadas pelos “””especialistas“”‘ da folha de s. paulo, o globo, isto é, carta capital, e da usp e unicamp e unesp:

“””racismo renasce nos eua, o negro obama sofre preconceito da maioria branca.””

“”votaram contra ele só por ser negro.””

“republicanos ganham fazendo campanha suja racista e difamando o estadista obama.””

“”eleitos pelo partido americano são pessoas crueis milionarios que detestam pobres, são todos brancos….””

“”Obama é excelente mas sofreu boicote da imprensa dominada pelos poderosos,”””

“”‘Partido republicano faz campanha milionaria, ilude o povo simples e compra a imprensa””

“excelente desenpenho de obama na economia, nos direitos reprodutivos e nos direitos civis e no Iraque foi escondido do povo pela imprensa”””

Reportagem: Série de reportagens especiais do The Washington Post sobre o Pentágano, a inteligência, os serviços secretos americanos, a espionagem fora do controle pós 11 de setembro, a herança de Bush para Obama

19/07/2010

=

leia o especial: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/ 

A hidden world, growing beyond control

The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. 

These are some of the findings of a two-year investigation by The Washington Post that discovered what amounts to an alternative geography of the United States, a Top Secret America hidden from public view and lacking in thorough oversight. After nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the system put in place to keep the United States safe is so massive that its effectiveness is impossible to determine. 

The investigation’s other findings include: * Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. * An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances. * In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings – about 17 million square feet of space. 

=

O racialismo do Governo Obama: Brancos são fora da lei que não podem reclamar de nada, O revanchismo racial oficial nos Estados Unidos

18/07/2010

EDITORIAL: Racialist Justice

Attorney General Holder’s lawyers won’t protect whites By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

By now, the default judgment about the Barack Obama-Eric H. Holder Jr. Justice Department is that it discriminates intentionally on the basis of race. By the precise definition used in the American Heritage dictionary, the department is racialist.

The Justice Department hasn’t seriously contested the accusation of racialism. Recently resigned whistleblowing attorney J. Christian Adams has made credible charges, backed by at least five former colleagues, that the department’s Civil Rights Division has adopted a policy of refusing to enforce civil rights laws on behalf of whites victimized by minority perpetrators. Mr. Adams cited an incident from November in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes openly stated it was departmental policy not to enforce parts of the federal motor-voter law that involve cleaning up dead and ineligible voters from poll registries. Another former department attorney, Nicole S. Marrone, has written that Ms. Fernandes previously discussed that law in explicitly racial terms.

To such a specific allegation of lawlessness, the Justice Department´s response has been dead silence. No specific denial of the accusation. No statement that the department would not tolerate such lawlessness. No investigation. And when The Washington Times asked directly on Monday about the Fernandes statement, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler responded with boilerplate that neither affirmed nor denied the statement.

As in the voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party – a case developed by Mr. Adams but dropped by the Obama-Holder crew – a failure to contest a charge is to be taken as an admission of the charge. It leads to a default judgment.

Now Mr. Adams says the Justice Department failed Monday to take a simple step that would have disallowed a proposed voting change that was intended to disenfranchise white voters in Noxubee County, Miss. Instead, the department made a flurry of court filings Mr. Adams characterizes as “a strategic feint that allows it to avoid the core issue of equal enforcement” and that is “the most contorted, most expensive way possible to [protect voters.] … [T]he real motive is to avoid expanding Section 5 to protect a white or Asian victimized minority.”

The controversy originated from a case in which Noxubee County Democratic leader Ike Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. “He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates,” Mr. Adams explained. “He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters.”

Mr. Brown spearheaded a request for a voting-practice change to approve the same practices – under cover of law – that he previously had done illegally. The Justice Department did not object. Instead, it issued a “no determination” letter that, according to Mr. Adams, effectively leaves the issue open for another day.

The Black Panther and Mississippi cases are hardly isolated instances. In North Carolina (voting), Texas (race-based admissions) and Connecticut (race-based promotions of firefighters), the Obama-Holder Justice Department advocated racial preferences or results predicated by race. Department officials reportedly have espoused biases in favor of minorities in open meetings.

Mr. Holder called America a “nation of cowards” on racial issues and has said black solidarity should bind black prosecutors and criminals together. These are not signs of equal justice. They are signs of a racial spoils system that’s lawless and dangerous.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC.

National Security Strategy Quinta-feira, dia 27 de maio, Obama anuncia nova estratégia de defesa de segurança dos Estados Unidos EUA guerra anti terror Iraque Talibã, Estratégia de segurança nacional leia na íntegra

26/05/2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/26/strategy-focuses-on-terrorists-at-home/?page=1

ÍNTEGRA:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

 

Nova estratégia de Obama e dos Estados Unidos EUA para a guerra do Afeganistão e Paquistão e contra terrorismo e TAliban: Long Gray Line

24/05/2010

On Saturday, President Obama delivered the commencement address at the United States Military Academy in West Point, New York.  This year one thousand and two cadets entered into the “Long Gray Line” of West Point graduates. 

The class of 2010 is the ninth consecutive class to graduate while our nation is at war.  Last year, President Obama visited West Point to his strategy on Afghanistan and Pakistan.  During the commencement address the President reflected on the changing nature of the war over the past nine years: .

We face a tough fight in Afghanistan.  Any insurgency that is confronted with a direct challenge will turn to new tactics.  And from Marja to Kandahar, that is what the Taliban has done through assassination and indiscriminate killing and intimidation.  Moreover, any country that has known decades of war will be tested in finding political solutions to its problems, and providing governance that can sustain progress and serve the needs of its people.

So this war has changed over the last nine years, but it’s no less important than it was in those days after 9/11.  We toppled the Taliban regime — now we must break the momentum of a Taliban insurgency and train Afghan security forces.  We have supported the election of a sovereign government — now we must strengthen its capacities.  We’ve brought hope to the Afghan people — now we must see that their country does not fall prey to our common enemies.  Cadets, there will be difficult days ahead.  We will adapt, we will persist, and I have no doubt that together with our Afghan and international partners, we will succeed in Afghanistan. 

The President stressed the importance of looking beyond the immediate task at hand to building a more prosperous and peaceful future for our country and the international community.

Now even as we fight the wars in front of us, we also have to see the horizon beyond these wars — because unlike a terrorist whose goal is to destroy, our future will be defined by what we build.  We have to see that horizon, and to get there we must pursue a strategy of national renewal and global leadership.  We have to build the sources of America’s strength and influence, and shape a world that’s more peaceful and more prosperous.

Continue lendo em:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/24/long-gray-line 

leia na íntegra a reforma econômica financeira bancária de Obama

21/05/2010

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c111:2:./temp/~c111gojQRD::

Se eleições nos EUA fossem hoje, Obama não seria reeleito, fracasso completo do primeiro presidente mestiço americano pode redundar em perda de prestígio do movimento negro

20/02/2010

Les Américains expriment leurs doutes sur Obama 

Adèle Smith  18/02/2010 | Mise à jour : 21:41 – Le figaro

Pour la première fois, un sondage indique que le président ne serait pas réélu aujourd’hui. 

Cruelle désillusion pour Barack Obama : pour la première fois depuis son arrivée à la Maison-Blanche, un sondage CNN/Opinion Poll Research indique que la majorité des Américains ne le réélirait pas si la présidentielle avait lieu aujourd’hui. Il ne remporterait que 44% des voix, et 52% voteraient pour un autre candidat. 

L’euphorie de novembre 2008 est déjà un lointain souvenir. Un an après le plan de relance à 787 milliards de dollars censé sortir l’Amérique de la crise, mais qui n’a pas eu les effets escomptés sur l’emploi, le président peine à convaincre. Un sondage unique portant seulement sur 954 électeurs enregistrés a une portée limitée. Selon les dernières enquêtes d’opinion Washington Post-ABC et Gallup, le taux d’approbation du président était encore à 51-52%. Mais ce capital de confiance ne cesse de se réduire, en particulier en ce qui concerne l’économie, alors que le taux de chômage atteint 9,7%. 

Surtout, la colère populaire monte contre Washington et ses querelles partisanes. C’est le Congrès qui catalyse le plus la grogne. Selon un sondage CBS/New York Times, huit Américains sur dix sont furieux contre leurs élus, qui passent leur temps à se disputer avant les élections de mi-mandat de novembre prochain, au lieu de faire avancer les réformes. L’annonce de la démission prochaine de l’un des piliers démo­crates du Sénat, Evan Bayh, a porté un nouveau coup dur à Barack Obama ­cette semaine. 

L’histoire montre que les élections de mi-mandat peuvent coûter cher au parti au pouvoir et au locataire de la Maison-Blanche. En 1982, lorsque le taux de popularité de Ronald Reagan était de 42%, les républicains avaient perdu 26 sièges à la Chambre des représentants. En 1994, lorsque la cote de Bill Clinton plafonnait à 48%, le Parti démocrate avait perdu 52 sièges à la Chambre et huit au Sénat. Cela n’a pas empêché ces deux présidents de remonter dans les sondages et d’être réélus pour un deuxième mandat. 

Rien n’est donc perdu pour Barack Obama. Mais le président, qui avait promis de changer la culture politique de Washington, a pour l’instant échoué sur ce plan. Sa politique d’ouverture est jugée hypocrite par les républicains, qui ne voient pas de réels efforts de compromis sur le fond des réformes, qu’il s’agisse de la santé, du déficit budgé­taire ou même de l’emploi. Le président les accuse à son tour «d’obstruction­nisme», un argument qu’il entend brandir au moment des élections. 

Changement d’équipe 

 Aujourd’hui, le débat fait rage sur les effets supposés du plan de relance. Barack Obama a reconnu mercredi que des millions d’Américains attendaient toujours d’en voir les effets. «Cela ne ressemble pas à une reprise. J’en suis conscient», a-t-il dit. Mais il martèle qu’il a bel et bien évité une «catastrophe». Selon les calculs de l’Administration, 2 millions d’emplois ont été préservés ou créés grâce au plan de relance. Pour convaincre l’opinion face au tir de barrage des républicains, la Maison-Blanche vient de lancer une vaste campagne d’information sur ce thème. Elle envisage aussi de nouvelles mesures pour relancer l’emploi, notamment en faveur des PME, moteur de l’économie aux États-Unis. Quelque 267 milliards de dollars du budget 2010 pourraient aller à la création d’emplois. 

Les critiques estiment qu’il est un peu tard et reprochent à Barack Obama d’avoir négligé l’emploi durant la première année de son mandat au profit de la réforme de la santé, qui n’a abouti nulle part à ce jour. Pour preuve, le changement de priorité après l’humiliation du Massachusetts et l’élection surprise d’un républicain dans un État ultralibéral sur fond de frustration populaire. 

Certains observateurs vont jusqu’à juger un changement d’équipe indispensable à la Maison-Blanche. Le directeur de cabinet d’Obama, Rahm Emanuel, pourrait être le premier visé.

OBAMA VAI ABANDONAR O PROJETO DE LEVAR O HOMEM A LULA EM 2020 por ser muito caro.

29/01/2010

OBAMA VAI ABANDONAR O PROJETO DE LEVAR O HOMEM A LULA EM 2020 por ser muito caro.

Mais uma prova que o homem  não pisou na Lua em 1969. 

B.F. (lefigaro.fr)

29/01/2010 | Mise à jour : 10:13

La Nasa a déjà dépensé 9 milliards de dollars pour préparer le retour des Américains sur la Lune. Crédits photo : AP

Barack Obama préfère que la Nasa se concentre sur d’autres priorités, et réduise sa dépendance aux vaisseaux russes Soyouz pour accéder à la Station spatiale internationale.

Le grand programme spatial «Constellation», successeur d’Apollo lancé en 2004 par George W. Bush, n’est pas près de voir le jour. Lundi prochain, à l’occasion de la présentation du budget des Etats-Unis pour l’année 2011, Barack Obama va proposer un changement de stratégie de la Nasa, qui conduira à l’abandon de l’objectif d’envoyer à nouveau des astronautes sur la Lune d’ici à 2020, ont confirmé plusieurs sources officielles citées par la presse américaine. «Nous parcourrons le budget ligne par ligne à la recherche de programmes qui ne sont pas efficaces et coûtent trop cher et nous les supprimerons», avait promis le président mercredi.

Sur le papier, l’agence spatiale profitera bien d’une hausse de ses crédits au cours des cinq prochaines années de 5,9 milliards de dollars, soit 100 milliards de dollars au total entre 2011 et 2015. Mais ce budget sera destiné en priorité à prolonger la durée de vie de l’ISS, la station spatiale internationale. Il sera aussi consacré à des projets privés d’acheminement d’astronautes vers l’ISS. L’administration Obama cherche en effet à réduire rapidement sa dépendance aux vaisseaux russes Soyouz, alors que les trois navettes de la Nasa doivent principe prendre leur retraite cette année.

Des crédits insuffisants

Mécaniquement, ces investissements conduiront à l’abandon du développement du lanceur Ares 1, prévu par le programme Constellation, ainsi que de la capsule Orion, qui rappelle celle d’Apollo. Selon le rapport d’une commission créée par Barack Obama, l’administration Bush n’a de toute façon jamais accordé les crédits nécessaires pour que les astronautes américaines puissent reposer le pied sur la Lune à l’horizon 2020. Plus de 9 milliards de dollars ont pourtant déjà été investis dans la préparation du retour sur la Lune, soulignent au New York Times deux représentants républicains, qui redoutent la fin des vols habités.

Tous les projets de voyages habités vers la Lune puis vers Mars ne sont toutefois pas abandonnés. Selon les plans de la Maison-Blanche, le rôle accru du secteur commercial doit tout de même contribuer à entreprendre des missions d’explorations au-delà de l’orbite terrestre, en contribuant au développement de nouvelles technologies. Mais il aura aussi des effets négatifs. Plus de 4.600 emplois, sur 15.000 que compte le Centre spatial Kennedy de la Nasa, pourraient être supprimés.

ESTADO DA UNIÃO OBAMA REPETE CLÍNTON QUER BAIXAR DÉFICIT ORÇAMENTÁRIO FISCAL NORTE AMERICANO CORTE DE GASTO PÚBLICO COMO SEMPRE TRANSPORTE É O MAIS AFETADO

26/01/2010

Obama congela el gasto público durante tres años

El presidente de EE UU presentará su plan contra el déficit fiscal en su primer discurso sobre el estado de la Unión.- Los departamentos de Defensa, Seguridad y Asuntos de los Veteranos no se verán afectados

ANTONIO CAÑO – Washington – 26/01/2010  

En el último y más decisivo paso hacia el empequeñecimiento de su programa político, la Administración de Barack Obama ha decidido la congelación durante tres años de todos los gastos públicos no imprescindibles. Esta medida, que será desarrollada mañana por el presidente en el discurso sobre el estado de la Unión, está esencialmente destinada a tranquilizar los ánimos de un electorado de centro que es el que domina políticamente el país y que ha hecho visible su angustia por el constante aumento del déficit.

Obama se vuelca con la clase media

 Barack Obama  A FONDO Nacimiento: 04-08-1961 Lugar: Honolulu  Estados Unidos

A FONDO Capital: Washington. Gobierno: República Federal. Población: 303,824,640 (est. 2008)

La Oficina de Presupuestos del Congreso ha anunciado hoy precisamente que el déficit previsto para este año es de 1,35 billones de dólares, que en realidad representa una ligera mejora sobre los 1,4 billones de 2009, pero es todavía, a juicio de los expertos, un lastre que amenaza la solidez de la economía norteamericana a largo plazo.

La congelación decidida por la Casa Blanca no afectará al gasto militar, la seguridad interior, las relaciones internacionales, la ayuda a los veteranos de guerra y los programas sociales más extensos y costosos, como la Seguridad Social y la asistencia médica a los pobres y los jubilados. Pero seguramente exigirá un recorte en los presupuestos de varios departamentos importantes, como los de Educación, Salud, Vivienda o Transporte y, sobre todo, compromete gravemente los planes iniciales del presidente de acometer reformas en profundidad en materia de educación, energía y medio ambiente, entre otras.

La Administración intenta ahorrar con esta medida, según portavoces oficiales, unos 250.000 millones de dólares en los próximos diez años, lo que supone poco más del 3% de déficit que se calcula para esa fecha, alrededor de 9 billones de dólares.

Se trata, por tanto, más de una iniciativa para demostrar la intención de frenar una tendencia negativa que una verdadera acción contundente contra el déficit. El destinatario, además de una economía a la que se alivia de cierta presión, es un sector considerable del electorado que exige poner orden en las cuentas en Washington.

¿Efecto Massachusetts?

Es imposible saber si esta decisión se hubiera producido también si los republicanos no hubieran ganado la semana pasada ese trascendental escaño senatorial de Massachusetts, pero hay razones para pensar que no. Desde esa derrota, Obama ha ido acomodando su proyecto político acorde con el mensaje que parecieron enviar esas elecciones: menos transformaciones de largo plazo que exigen inversión pública y más medidas inmediatas para ayudar a la clase media con empleos y rebajas fiscales.

No es sorprendente que este paso, que será formalizado en la presentación de los próximos presupuestos federales, la semana que viene, haya sido recibido con escepticismo por la derecha y gran decepción por la izquierda. La reacción de la mayoría de los republicanos en el Congreso se resume en cuatro palabras: demasiado poco, demasiado tarde. Para resumir la de la izquierda, bastan tres: “Un gran error”, como ha dicho el profesor Robert Reich, antiguo secretario de Trabajo y una de las grandes referencias del pensamiento progresista norteamericano.

La iniciativa de Obama tendrá, en todo caso, que ser aprobada por el Congreso, que es el que tiene la última palabra sobre cuánto dinero se gasta y dónde se gasta. El Congreso no está, en estos momentos, en las mejores relaciones con la Casa Blanca. Obama está ya trabajando a fondo para conseguir -probablemente con éxito- la confirmación para un segundo mandato de Ben Bernanke como presidente de la Reserva Federal. Está tratando también de sacar adelante -en este caso con pocas posibilidades- una propuesta para la creación de una comisión bipartidista que decida sobre los recortes del gasto público. Ahora tendrá que pelear además por su presupuesto para este año.

Para Obama, todo se ha puesto cuesta arriba e intenta remontar con medidas que los norteamericanos entienden fácilmente. Pararle los pies a Wall Street se entiende fácilmente. Ahorrar en Washington, todavía mejor. El problema es que eso obliga a reinventar esta presidencia.

Obama asumió el cargo decidido a seguir los pasos de grandes presidentes transformadores, como Lincoln, Roosevelt o Kennedy. Ahora algunos de sus colaboradores le sugieren que se fije en modelos más modestos, como Bill Clinton, a quien no se le recuerda ninguna gran obra en sus ocho años de presidencia, pero que, a fuerza de no hacer nada y dejar que los republicanos manejaran la economía, acabó con el déficit y dejó al país en superávit. Obama e niega a seguir ese camino. “Prefiero ser un buen presidente durante cuatro años que un mal presidente durante ocho”, dijo el lunes en una entrevista con la cadena ABC.

obama 1 um ano casa branca poder aniversário posse era bush balanço governo derrota senado senador eleição 20 janeiro 2009 casa branca

20/01/2010

Obama 1 year later: Voters pick ‘someone else’

Still have unanswered questions about legitimacy, fear his plans

Posted: January 19, 2010

10:00 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh© 2010 WorldNetDaily Editor’s note: This is another in a series of monthly “WND/WENZEL POLLS” – polls conducted exclusively for WND by the public opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.

A new poll marking Barack Obama’s one year as president reveals Americans are questioning his legitimacy to hold the office, fear his plans and doubt even his friends.

“Typically, a political figure in trouble from pursuing a radical agenda generally tacks to the political center, but there is no evidence that Obama is interested in following conventional wisdom on this point. Democrats nationwide may face the fallout in November,” warned Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies.

The poll revealed if the 2012 election were held today, Obama would come in second to an unspecified opponent.

The WND/Wenzel poll was conducted by telephone from Jan. 14-17 using an automated telephone technology calling a random sampling of listed telephone numbers nationwide. The survey included 30 questions and carries a 95 percent confidence interval. It included 823 likely voters and has a margin of error of 3.65 percentage points.

Wenzel said voters have advanced in their opinions of the issue of Obama’s legitimacy from some six months ago when most Americans said they were aware of the questions being raised.

When asked if they consider Obama a “legitimate president,” 32.6 percent said no, and another 15.8 percent said they were not sure. Barely half of the voters, 51.5 percent said they do consider Obama a legitimate president even though he has yet to produce a long-form birth certificate that would prove he was born in the U.S.

Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they do not consider him a legitimate president, along with 52.2 percent of the Republicans. Significantly, 31.8 percent of the independents said no.

Those who were uncertain included 12.1 percent of the Democrats, 21.3 percent of the Republicans and 14.3 percent of the independents.

Also, asked whether they were more or less likely to believe in Obama’s legitimacy, only 40.1 percent said much more. Some 27.9 percent said much less, with a significant 12 percent unsure.

“A lingering doubt about his legitimacy as president continues to dog Obama,” Wenzel said. “Barely half – 52 percent – said they believe that, in light of the fact he has not yet presented a long-form birth certificate that would prove he was born on U.S. soil, while 33 percent said they do not consider him to be a legitimate president. Another 16 percent were unsure on the question. While some try to marginalize those who continue to call for Obama to release his birth certificate, it is clear many don’t think this is a settled matter.

“As he loses public support for his agenda, the risk grows that this unaddressed issue could come back to haunt Obama, perhaps at a time when he can least afford it. Evidence of this stems from this latest WND/Wenzel Strategies poll – where support for Obama’s legitimacy drops to 48 percent when respondents are asked to consider not only the birth certificate issue but also Obama’s legislative agenda during his first year,” Wenzel said. “The percentage who question his legitimacy also increases when his agenda is considered as part of the equation.”

The poll revealed voters are split 39.4 percent to 36.3 percent on whether Obama’s performance has been poor or excellent.

“Voters are split on whether Obama has met their expectations. While 49 percent said they felt he has done better than they expected he might, while 47 percent said he has done worse than expected,” Wenzel said.

But the alarming news to members of Congress is that Obama comes in second to “someone else” in a 2012 presidential race and that status very well may drag down members of the Democratic Party.

Asked who they would choose if the next election were held today, only 44.3 percent of the voters said they would vote for Obama while another 45.1 percent said they would choose an unspecified “someone else.” Another 10.6 percent were unsure.

“His agenda may also have an impact on the future make-up of Congress, as 41 percent said they planned to vote for the congressional candidate in their home district who would oppose Obama’s agenda, compared to 34 percent who said they would vote for a congressional candidate who would support the Obama agenda,” Wenzel said.

“That said, the ‘generic ballot’ congressional question shows that Democrats and Republicans are evenly split – with 38 percent saying they would vote for the Democrat and 36 percent saying they would vote for the Republican,” he said. “A danger signal for Obama – 64 percent of Republicans and 44 percent of independents said they believe he is trying to turn America into a socialist country,” Wenzel said. “Even 27 percent of Democrats agreed.”

“This is a reflection of how deeply some people fear what Obama might do to the foundation of the country if given a chance,” he said.

“Overall, this has been a rough year in public opinion for Barack Obama, whose job approval rating has dropped from 69 percent the day after his inauguration to a low of 41 percent in last month’s Wenzel Strategies survey. While it has bounced back to 46 percent positive in this month’s survey, he still faces a difficult road ahead,” Wenzel said.

On another question, 35.6 percent said they were “more hopeful” about America since Obama’s election, and 35.3 percent said they were “less hopeful.”

On Obama’s campaign theme of “change,” 22.1 percent of the voters said his changes have made the nation much better, while 32.6 percent said the result is “much worse

LEIA NA ÍNTEGRA DISCURSO DE OBAMA EM OSLO RECEBENDO PRÊMIO NOBEL DA PAZ

11/12/2009

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/world/europe/11prexy.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

Text

Obama’s Nobel Remarks

// //

//

Article Tools Sponsored By
Published: December 10, 2009

Following is the transcript of President Obama’s speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo on Wednesday, as released by the White House:

Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations — that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who’ve received this prize — Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela — my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women — some known, some obscure to all but those they help — to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I’m responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict — filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease — the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a “just war” emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of “just war” was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations — total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it’s hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations — an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize — America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states — all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today’s wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: “Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones.” As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King’s life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there’s nothing weak — nothing passive — nothing naïve — in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world’s sole military superpower.

But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier’s courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.” A gradual evolution of human institutions.

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait — a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America — in fact, no nation — can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don’t, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.

And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That’s why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America’s commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they’ve shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That’s why NATO continues to be indispensable. That’s why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That’s why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali — we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers — but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant — the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor — we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior — for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I’m working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia’s nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma — there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy — but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point — the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation’s development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists — a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.

I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America’s interests — nor the world’s — are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements — these movements of hope and history — they have us on their side.

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution’s horrors, Nixon’s meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable — and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul’s engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There’s no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights — it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can’t aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that’s why helping farmers feed their own people — or nations educate their children and care for the sick — is not mere charity. It’s also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement — all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action — it’s military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more — and that’s the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there’s something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we’re all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities — their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we’re moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint — no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one’s own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it’s incompatible with the very purpose of faith — for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached — their fundamental faith in human progress — that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith — if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace — then we lose what’s best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the ‘isness’ of man’s present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal ‘oughtness’ that forever confronts him.”

Let us reach for the world that ought to be — that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)

Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he’s outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school — because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child’s dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that — for that is the story of human progress; that’s the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

OBAMA É O ANTICRISTO DO ISLÃ? ISLÂMICO? ANIVERSÁRIO DO NASCIMENTO DE OBAMA NO QUÊNIA ENCONTRADA A CERTIDÃO DE NASCIMENTO DE OBAMA NASCEU NO QUÊNIA Kenia

02/08/2009

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105906 

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764

kenyandocument-top

O PLANO DE OBAMA DE CONTROLAR A POPULAÇÃO MUNDIAL REFORMA DO SISTEMA DE SAÚDE DOS EUA É PARA CONTROLAR A POPULAÇÃO

01/08/2009

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105525