Black Exodus from Obama

Exodus: Inner City Blacks Fleeing Obama, Democrats

by Rebel Pundit 29 Oct 2012, 10:46

After his meteoric ascent to the top of the American political arena in the country’s history, we are now in the midst of witnessing one of the most stunning collapses of any man ever to hold the office of President of the United States. 

Over the past few weeks we have begun to see the ultimate unraveling of support for the president, with women and youth fleeing from his side. But what is even more surprising and perhaps unimaginable to the president and his faithful media cult is that he is now also losing members of his normally deemed “untouchable” base of support—poor, inner-city black Americans.

There is little doubt, due the historic and tremendous pressure on black Americans to support the first African-American President of the United States simply because he is not a white Republican, the President will win the black vote. However, just as his strength and reputation are growing weaker every day, the same is quickly becoming true of the support from the community he claims to be the strongest advocate for—the community-organized voting bloc on Chicago’s south and west sides that many say he has long since abandoned.

WATCH VIDEO HERE

In the course of an ongoing investigation into the root causes of the rising tide of violence and horrifying murder rate this year in Chicago’s most destitute neighborhoods, several video interviews I conducted with black American voters from the community-organized south and west side, reveal a community that is fed up with the status quo--the status quo that keeps these communities ridden with poverty, homelessness, unemployment, dismantled families, and, of course, skyrocketing murder rates. And residents say, “it is the black Democratic leadership implementing a liberal agenda” that is to blame for the ongoing plight in their community.

Community activist Mark Carter says, “our issues have not been met on, have not been adhered to, and it’s almost as if they are just saying even though no one has addressed your issues, just go with ‘em anyway. And we say no.”

A resident of the Austin community, Jean Ray, says after 40 years of Democratic party control over the black community, the policies "are hurting,” and if there were Republicans willing to do the right job in her community, she would vote for them.

Paul McKinley, an outspoken Chicago resident and voice against liberal-Chicago-machine politics, Rahm Emanuel, and President Obama, spoke to me directly about the ongoing violence in the black community, explaining, “the real cause of violence in the community is caused by narco-terrorism facilitated by Chicago’s liberal-sanctuary-city status, in addition to the historically high unemployment rate among black men between of working age,” which he claims is never addressed by the President and comes last, if at all, in the liberal agenda.

McKinley points to a Univiersity of Wisconsin Milwaukee “Race and Male Employment in the Wake of the Great Recession” study, which found that for the 40-year time span between 1970 and 2010 the employment rate of black males between 16-64 years old has fallen by 28% to 55% in the country’s 25 largest metropolitan areas. Over these 40 years, he claims his community, the “poor-black community,” has been controlled and devastated by black Democrats implementing a “white-liberal agenda.” He specifically points to the President’s policy of putting issues such as same-sex marriage and amnesty for illegal aliens in front of the struggling black community and curbing violence.

McKinley says boldly, “There is no Tea Party in my community, there is no Republicans in my community, so they can’t blame Republicans, they can’t [blame] Tea Parties; I can only blame the democrat-liberal agenda.”

Many members of the community I spoke with, in fact, agree that very little, if nothing at all, is being done to address the lack of jobs. And according to Vetress Boyce, a black woman who recently ran for alderman in the 24th ward, said hesitantly but specifically, “it’s black leadership” that is hindering job growth and failing the community. When asked flat out whether or not black people want jobs, her answer was definitive and clear: “the black community needs jobs; we need em, we want em, and it is a matter of life and death to us.”
In addition, a female black contractor, Tamiko Holt, explained that all the social programs and job training programs that purport to help the community and create a vibrant work force are not only a waste of millions of dollars but are also simply not working. She also explains that once a resident of the community is trained properly for employment, they have to "jump through the hoops of the unions" to get hired. She and others I spoke with claimed the unions are blatantly “discriminating against” blacks in their community, hiring only whites, Hispanics, and sometimes even illegal aliens before them.

Even members of the community who do still support Obama, like Rashida Ali, admit a completely different understanding of the economy than the President does. Rashida explains, “most American people, especially people of my ethnicity, they don’t understand that people create jobs, not government.”

The “war on women, war on minorities, blacks, immigrants, gays and war anyone else who the left claims can only in their right mind, be and vote for the Democrat Party,” highlight a strategy to pit Americans against one another. Most Americans, however, do have conservative values. Even those you might think agree wholeheartedly with the  government media are waking up to the liberal agenda, which is not about women, black people, or poor people--it’s about liberalism.

“Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe.” –Frederick Douglass

The Perfect Shake

Benghazi Gate...Where is the Media?... Reusable Bags with killer virus...Viola la Ley: Obama Paga con tu Dinero!

Benghazi Witnesses: 150 Terrorists, No 'Spontaneous Protest'

by Ben Shapiro 

A new report from the Associated Press demonstrates the lies and prevarications of the Obama administration over the terrorist attack in Benghazi that ended with the murder of our ambassador and three other Americans. According to the AP, which interviewed, Libyan witnesses, this was obviously an organized assault:

150 bearded gunmen, some wearing the Afghan-style tunics favored by Islamic militants, sealed off the streets leading to the US Consulate in Benghazi. They set up roadblocks with pick-up trucks mounted with heavy machine guns, according to witnesses.

The trucks bore the logo of Ansar al-Shariah, a powerful local group of Islamist militants who worked with the municipal government to manage security in Benghazi, the main city in eastern Libya and birthplace of the uprising last year that ousted Moammar Gadhafi after a 42-year dictatorship.

Most importantly, there were no – repeat, no – reports of a “spontaneous protest against an American-made movie denigrating Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.” That’s according to the AP. The Obama administration spent weeks after the attack suggesting that it began with a spontaneous protest about a YouTube video.



AP, of course, couldn’t help shilling for the administration, claiming that “Republicans, embroiled in a heated presidential campaign, seized on the confusion …. As that debate roiled, the actual events — and their meaning — became somewhat skewed in the mouths of politicians.”



But even the AP can’t bury the lead: there was no spontaneous protest. This was a full-out terrorist assault. And with our drones watching and video live-streaming to US officials, as 150 obvious terrorists sealed off streets around the consulate, the Obama administration did nothing. According to a guard at the consulate, “he saw no protesters. He heard a few shouts of ‘God is great,’ then a barrage of automatic weapons fire and rocket-propelled grenades began, along with barrages from heavy machine guns mounted on trucks.” And the AP even apologizes for its own original reporting, which tried to play the attack as a result of the YouTube video.



The Obama administration story on Benghazi is a lie. It always was a lie. And they knew it was a lie. Now, even the AP admits it was a lie.

The Perfect Nutritional Shake

INVEST IN BANCO SOCIAL...$5,000 AT 6 Mos...10% ROI...GUARANTEED!

Explosive CDC Omission: Norovirus Spread Through Reusable Grocery Bags

by Capitol Confidential 27 Oct 2012 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently expanded its website to include a norovirus toolkit advising the ways in which one might contract the killer virus.  

Among the public health agency's prescribed practices to stop the spread of the virus: "Practice proper hand hygiene … Take care in the kitchen … Do not prepare food while infected … Clean and disinfect contaminated surfaces after throwing up or having diarrhea … Wash laundry thoroughly."

But nowhere in that exhaustive battery of norovirus dodges was a recommendation to avoid reusable grocery bags. Curious, considering that reusable-but-not-recyclable alternative to single-use plastic bags were recently linked to an unsavory outbreak of norovirus that struck a hapless middle school-aged girls' soccer team.

The proliferation of the virus, which is estimated to cause 21 million of acute cases of gastroenteritis and the deaths of some 200,000 children annually, via the bags is in part the result of an unfortunate merger of form and function.

Successive studies have shown reusable bags to host bacteria like E. coli, salmonella and fecal coliform in addition to norovirus. One study even found the bacteria build-up on reusable bags was 300 percent higher than what is considered a safe level by public health officials. 

Researchers at the University of Arizona sampled 84 reusable bags from shoppers in Los Angeles, the most recent major municipality to ban plastic bags, and two additional bag-outlawed cities. The findings were stunning: just over half were contaminated with some form of harmful bacteria while at least twelve percent contained traces of fecal matter. When the contaminated bags were housed in car trunks for two hours, scientists found the number of bacteria was boosted ten-fold.

One recent study found only three out of every twenty Americans wash their reusable grocery bags with any regularity.

Wayuu Bags by CaritoCaró

REPARE SU CREDITO DE VERDAD!...BANCO SOCIAL UN VERDADERO BANCO

Administración Obama: Pagando con dinero del contribuyente por violar la ley

Hans von Spakovsky and Amy Payne

El desprecio de la administración por la ley ha quedado al descubierto de nuevo, esta vez motivando a otros para que violen la ley a costa del contribuyente.

Esto hay que repertirlo: La administración Obama está animando a que la gente viole una ley y prometiendo que usará el dinero del contribuyente para cubrir las multas en las que se incurra por la violación.
La ley: la ley en cuestión se llama ley WARN y requiere que los contratistas federales envíen a sus empleados avisos de despido 60 días antes del cierre de una fábrica o de un despido masivo.

La inconveniencia: Está previsto que las reducciones masivas del gasto en defensa debidas a la retención de fondos entren en vigor el 2 de enero de 2013. Los contratistas de defensa afectados por las reducciones presupuestarias tendrían que enviar las cartas de aviso a sus empleados el 2 de noviembre (cuatro días antes de las elecciones) para estar dentro del plazo de la fecha de inicio de las reducciones del gasto del día 2 de enero.

La penalización que pagarían los contribuyentes: Los empleadores que violen la ley WARN son responsables ante sus antiguos empleados de “pagarles con carácter retroactivo por cada día de violación” de la ley y por “los beneficios correspondientes al plan de beneficios del empleado”, así como una penalización de 500$ por cada día de retraso en el envío del aviso al gobierno de la localidad en la que ocurran los despidos.

Como ejemplo, Bob Stevens, director ejecutivo de Lockheed, comentó que 123,000 de sus empleados recibirían avisos de despido. Si las compañías no cumplen con el plazo de la ley WARN, eso podría dar como resultado la presentación de demandas judiciales por parte de sus empleados, pero la Casa Blanca ha previsto una garantía financiada por el contribuyente como medio para contrarrestar sus temores a unos enormes costos por esos litigios. Esta garantía no sólo no tiene precedentes, sino que también es potencialmente ilícita.

Esta semana, el presidente Obama envió señales contradictorias acerca del futuro de esas reducciones presupuestarias. En el debate del lunes sugirió que la retención de fondos no sucedería, pero luego, días más tarde, indicó a un periódico de Iowa que sí tendrían lugar.

Aún está por ver si las empresas aceptarán la oferta de la administración. Y los contratistas del gobierno que confíen en esta “garantía” de la Casa Blanca lo harán por su cuenta y riesgo: Si esta administración o una nueva administración cambia de parecer y retira la garantía, esos contratistas no tendrán derecho a demandar al gobierno por el costo de sus violaciones de la ley WARN.

Si esto fuera un chiste, la gracia estaría en que el presidente Obama respaldó la ley WARN cuando era senador e incluso quería requerir que los empleadores diesen el aviso con un plazo mayor. En 2007, argumentó que los contratistas deberían tener que dar el aviso con 90 días de antelación.
El entonces senador Obama dijo que:

Los trabajadores americanos que se han comprometido con sus empleadores esperan a cambio que los traten con un mínimo de respeto y justicia. No darles a los trabajadores una advertencia justa…ignora su necesidad de prepararse para la transición [al desempleo]…Muchos de estos trabajadores sustentan familias que están viviendo al día con esas nóminas, exprimidos por las exigencias de unos costos de la atención médica al alza, por la disminución del  valor de sus hogares y por unos sueldos que han estado estancados durante décadas. Cerrar una fábrica sin advertir a los empleados es como echar sal en una herida.

Pero esto no es ningún chiste. Este es el último abuso de la autoridad ejecutiva del presidente: inducir a los contratistas federales a que violen una ley federal y prometer utilizar los fondos del contribuyente para reembolsárselos a las empresas por cualquier responsabilidad resultante en la que incurran por violar dicha ley.

Negarse a cumplir las leyes federales se ha convertido en distintivo de esta administración, pero el más reciente, arrogante e ilícito ardid de la Casa Blanca va incluso más allá y puede acabar costándole al contribuyente americano una gran cantidad de dinero.

REACH OUT TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY...INN REACH GROWS WITH YOU

What Crazy things Obama supporters will do if Romney wins?...Last Poll shows Romney Wins...Media Task: Save Obama on Benghazi...Mientras El Gobierno Despilfarra nuestro Dinero!!!

50 Crazy Things That Obama Supporters Are Threatening To Do If Romney Wins

Michael Snyder
American Dream
Oct 19, 2012

Will cities all over America erupt in violence if Mitt Romney wins the election?  Right now we are probably witnessing the most divisive campaign in modern U.S. history, and both sides truly hate one another.  Even CNN is running articles about how polarized politics in America has become and how vicious both sides can be.  There is a lot of anger and frustration out there that has been bottled up for a long time, and this election could end up being a trigger event that releases a lot of it.  Both sides are entirely convinced that they can win this tightly contested election, and one side is going to feel bitterly disappointed when it does not happen.  Both sides are talking as if it is going to be “the end of America” or “the end of the world” if they lose this election.  This is particularly true when it comes to Obama supporters.  On social networking sites such as Twitter, many of them have actually been proclaiming that Mitt Romney wants to “exterminate black people” and many of them have been openly threatening to harm him if he does win the election.  This is a very dangerous sign, and these threats should be taken very seriously.  Of course a lot of Romney supporters are also likely to go absolutely insane if Obama ends up winning.  In fact, one Romney supporter apparently put a bullet through the window of an Obama campaign office in Denver the other day.  But when it comes to threatening to do crazy things if the election does not go their way, Obama supporters definitely take the cake.
The following are 50 crazy things that Obama supporters are threatening to do if Romney wins…

1. if romney wins i will cry in the fetal position every day (Source)
2. I’m serious: if Mitt Romney wins the presidency I’m moving to La Jolla to live in his vacant mansion #election (Source)
3. #IfObamaDontWin ima be walking around playing #2Pac with a 38 on my hip every where i go” (Source)
4. Best believe if Romney wins I’m dropping out and selling drugs (Source)
5. If romney win ima start bac robbin white folks.! (Source)
6. if Romney actually wins, I’m starting a riot (Source)
7. If Romney take away weave & my yams(foodstamps) . Ima get his White Asz (Source)
8. If Mitt Romney wins , I’m never having sex again! (Source)
9. if Romney wins and there’s a riot, I’m participating! (Source)
10. #IfObamaDontWin hell yeah America should riot and kill Romney!!! (Source)
11. if #Romney becomes president ima find away to be in the black panthers so we can take that mf out. (Source)
12. If Mitt Romney wins the election, I volunteer as tribute for the Hunger Games (Source)
13. If Romney Get Elected , The Only Hope Ima Have Is Sellin Dope ! #Gshit (Source)
14. Why ppl say if Romney win it’s back to the feilds? Lol if he win ima blow the white house up (Source)
15. If mitt Romney gets elected then ima buy all the tampons in the store!!!!!!!! And probably buy them in bulk from Sam’s club (Source)
16. If Romney takes away food stamps 2 Chainzz in this bit IMMA START A RIOT (Source)
17. If romney do win.. This riot is gon help out my christmas shoppin alot lol (Source)
18. I think we are all being too kind as Dems. If Romney wins see how kind he will be to our Middle class disappearing pockets. This is war! (Source)
19. If Romney wins I’m moving out of the country.. (Source)
20. If Romney wins who’s moving to Canada with me? (Source)
21. #IfObamaDontWin Im moving to mexico lol (Source)
22. I swear if #Romney wins Im legit packing up my stuff and moving to england!! I cant stand him! He always changes his mind! (Source)
23. #IfObamaDontWin Why hello Italy.. I’m going back. (Source)
24. If Romney wins the election I’m fleeing to Brazil after graduation. (Source)
25. #IfObamaDontWin Im Moving To Ghana (Source)
26. #IfObamaDontWin I’m Moving to Zimbabwe. (Source)
27. I’m an undecided voter. I haven’t decided where I’m moving if Romney wins. (Source)
28. My mom said if Romney wins we’re leaving the country ^.^ (Source)
29. #IfObamaDontWin people are gunna move to a different country were they can get financial help (Source)
30. I think ima start a riot if romney win. (Source)
31. Maybe workers should stand together and tell bosses if Romney wins they’re walking off the job. (Source)
32. If I see another “Romney” sign I swear ima knock it down… -_- #Obama2012 (Source)
33. Ima start stealing Romney signs for a bonfire lol (Source)
34. if romney wins our ppl will riot…. (Source)
35. If Romney became President and took away welfare Downtown Cincinnati would become a riot (Source)
36. If Mitt Romney wins come Nov. I’m becoming an Atheist Nun, just to shut-down those dickheads that want take control over me. (Source)
37. If romney becomes president just know it’s gone be a RiOT ! People can’t stand him. (Source)
38. Guys if Romney wins that means no more food stamps. The hood is about to have its own hunger games… (Source)
39. Oh wow! I heard there is gunna be a big riot if Romney wins! (Source)
40. When Romney wins, deys arl gonna riot and kill the cwacker, and da rest of da whiteys too. (I CAN’T F$KING WAIT!) I need a target rich envir (Source)
41. @FloggerBarb LMAO! Naw, my homeboy paged me. Say he gots to axe me a question about rioting #ifobamadontwinholla, jig! (Source)
42. If mitt Romney wins instead of ridin round wit da Nina we Gonn be ridin round wit dat pistol (Source)
43. Dear American pro-lifers, if Mitt Romney becomes president, I will personally abort one foetus for every vote he wins.#tryme (Source)
44. I Heard Mitt Romney , Tryna Take Away Food Stamps , If He Do .”IMA START A RIOT , IMA START A RIOT” (Source)
45. If Romney wins Ima start a riot ill burn the whole White House down (Source)
46. If Romney wins then ima take it upon myself to assassinate his ass!! (Source)
47. IF MITT ROMNEY WINS THERE WILL BE A CIVIL WAR (Source)
48. If Romney wins, I think I’ll kill myself. Can’t live through the indignity of that on top of a really crappy year. (Source)
49. I Hope The USA Is Well Aware That If In The Event This Character Romney Wins The Election, The People Will Start A Country Wide Riot! #Power (Source)
50. If Mit Romney win ima start a fucking riot str8 burning shit down (Source)
So do you believe that violence will erupt if Romney wins?  Please feel free to post a comment with your thoughts below….

The Perfect Shake

REACH OUT TO THE HISPANIC MARKET: INN REACH KNOWS HOW

Election 2012 Likely Voters Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney

Among likely voters : Romney 52% Obama 45%

• Download complete trend

All registered voters are asked: "Suppose the presidential election were held today, and it included Barack Obama and Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's candidates and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as the Republican Party's candidates. Who would you vote for [ROTATED: Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the Democrats (or) Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the Republicans]?" Those who are undecided are further asked if they lean more toward Obama and Biden or Romney and Ryan and their leanings are incorporated into the results.

These results are for likely voters, who are the respondents Gallup deems most likely to vote based on their responses to a series of questions asking about current voting intentions, thought given to the election, and past voting behavior. Each seven-day rolling average is based on telephone interviews with approximately 2,700 likely voters; margin of error is ±2 percentage points.
See registered voter results here.

For a complete explanation of Gallup's likely voter procedures, please click here.

IN NEED OF TEMPORARY CASH ASSISTANCE? BANCO SOCIAL...$500 @ 2 Mos.

To Save Obama, Democrats Renew Criticism of Intelligence Community

by Joel B. Pollak 19 Oct 2012

A Republican member of the House intelligence committee is vigorously disputing a new claim by Democrat and fellow committee member Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois that intelligence officials told the committee there had been a “demonstration that was going on” during an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi on 9/11 that killed four Americans.

Jonathan Allen of Politico reported early Wednesday morning that Rep. Schakowsky had blamed faulty intelligence for the Obama administration’s repeated insistence that the attack had been motivated by outrage at an anti-Islamic video. She had added that the House intelligence committee, too, had received the same incorrect information:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, called Romney’s criticism of the president “an obvious miss and a politicization” of the Libya situation. She also said the president was clear in his Rose Garden remarks, even if the cause of the attack was not yet known.

”We were told the same thing that turned out to be wrong, that there was this demonstration that was going on,” she said of the Intelligence Committee. “The president’s reaction at that time was, regardless of the circumstances, that this was an act of terror. … I don’t agree with that analysis that just technically the president was correct. I think that’s what he meant,” Schakowsky said.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), who serves with Schakowsky on the intelligence committee, said that Schakowsky’s memory of what the committee had been told was incorrect. “If anybody is trying to politicize this thing, it’s Rep. Schakowsky by twisting the intelligence to help the president’s reelection chances,” he told Breitbart News.  “That’s very dangerous.  Her comments do not reflect what we were told.”
The State Department had no evidence of a protest at the U.S. consulate, and the Central Intelligence Agency had reported to Washington within 24 hours that the Benghazi attack was an assault by terrorists, not a spontaneous demonstration against a video.

Schakowsky’s new claim about faulty early intelligence reports renew an attempt by Democrats to lay blame upon the intelligence services. During his debate with Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) last week, Vice President Joe Biden had claimed that the “intelligence community told us that” the video had been the cause of the Benghazi attacks.

Yet a new report by Hannah Allam and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy Newspapers suggests that the Obama administration changed its story about the Benghazi attack after the first 48 hours, moving away from suggestions of terrorism and embracing the idea that the deadly assault was a response to an anti-Islam video made in the U.S.

And as Breitbart News reported earlier this week, it was only once the video story began to fall apart that the Obama administration pointed to the president’s Sep. 12 statement in the Rose Garden, in which he had used the term “acts of terror” in a generic sense.
Photo credit: Evanston Now

Diez ejemplos de desperdicio del dinero del contribuyente en 2012

Emily Goff

Bailarinas exóticas, ardillas robot y un programa de reality televisivo en la India. Todo lo anterior se pagó este año con dólares de sus impuestos.

Dos informes recién aparecidos –Federal Spending by the Numbers 2012 (El Gasto Federal 2012 en cifras) de la Fundación Heritage y Waste Book 2012 (Libro del Despilfarro 2012), informe de la Oficina del senador Tom Coburn (R-OK)– arrojan luz sobre estos y otros ejemplos de gasto irresponsable llevado a cabo por Washington.

Si Ud. valora los dólares de sus impuestos, seguramente se sentirá enfurecido ante estos proyectos de desperdicio. A continuación le presentamos los 10 principales ejemplos de despilfarro, cinco de cada informe. Aunque no son necesariamente los conceptos que suponen un mayor costo, sin duda suponen un derroche y son representativos de la adicción al gasto de Washington, algo que debe acabar ya.

El Presupuesto Federal de 2012 en Cifras:

1. Un reality televisivo en la India. El Programa de Acceso al Mercado del Departamento de Agricultura gasta $200 millones anuales para ayudar a que las asociaciones y cooperativas agrícolas de Estados Unidos publiciten sus productos en los mercados extranjeros. En 2011, financió un reality televisivo en la India que promocionaba el algodón de Estados Unidos.

2. Estudiando el excremento de los cerdos. En cumplimiento de la ley del Aire Limpio, la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) concedió una subvención de $414,450 para la financiación de un estudio chino sobre el excremento de los cerdos y una subvención de $1.2 millones a las Naciones Unidas para la promoción del combustible limpio.

3. Los aperitivos de Amtrak. Amtrak, la compañía de trenes de Estados Unidos y  subsidiada por el gobierno federal, perdió en 2011 $84.5 millones en servicios de comida y bebida y $833.8 millones durante los últimos diez años. Y nunca ha cubierto los gastos por ofrecer estos servicios.

4. Usar ejercicios militares para impulsar los biocombustibles. La Armada de Estados Unidos compró 450,000 galones de combustible por valor de $12 millones (a casi $27 el galón) para llevar a cabo unos ejercicios con el objetivo de promocionar dicho combustible y hacer más fácil su comercialización. Se trata de la mayor compra de biocombustible que jamás haya hecho el gobierno.

5. Conferencias para empleados públicos. Sólo en 2008 y 2009, el Departamento de Justicia gastó $121 millones para celebrar o participar en 1,832 conferencias.

El Libro del Despilfarro de 2012:

1. La “Roboardilla”. Se gastaron $325,000 en una ardilla robot llamada “Roboardilla”. Este subsidio de la Fundación Nacional para la Ciencia se usó para crear una ardilla robótica de apariencia real con la finalidad de estudiar cómo reaccionaría ante ella una serpiente cascabel.

2. Pastelitos. Las tiendas de pastelitos están de moda en Washington DC y en el resto del país. Sin embargo, los 10 propietarios de tiendas de pastelitos que recibieron $2 millones en garantías para préstamos de la Administración de Pequeños Negocios, no pueden presumir mucho de su ingenio empresarial, pues son los contribuyentes quienes los están manteniendo a flote.

3. Cupones de comida para licor y comida basura. Aunque estaban pensados para garantizar que los niños que pasen hambre reciban una alimentación saludable, los cupones de comida financiados por el contribuyente se gastaron sin embargo en comida rápida en establecimientos como Taco Bell y Burger King, en alimentos no nutritivos como caramelos, helados y refrescos y por unas 2,000 personas de Nueva York y Massachusetts ya fallecidas. Los beneficiarios de los cupones de comida gastaron $2,000 millones sólo en gaseosas. Los pagos improcedentes del Programa de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP) sumaron $2,500 millones de despilfarro, incluida una bailarina exótica que estaba ganando $85,000 anuales.

4. Elaboración de cerveza en Nuevo Hampshire. A pesar del éxito financiero y la popularidad de la cervecera Smuttynose, esta empresa aún sigue recibiendo $750,970 del Programa de Subsidios Globales para el Desarrollo Comunitario (CDBG) para poder construir sus nuevas instalaciones que comprenden una fábrica de cerveza y un restaurante.

5. El puente cubierto a ninguna parte. ¿Qué lista del despilfarro del gobierno estaría completa sin un infame “puente a ninguna parte”? En este caso, son $520,000 para arreglar un puente cubierto Stevenson Road en el condado de Green, Ohio, que se usó por última vez en 2003.

Parte de este derroche apenas si alcanza para justificar un error de redondeo según los actuales parámetros presupuestarios federales. Sin embargo, ninguna rebaja del gasto es demasiado pequeña. El Congreso debería erradicar hasta los más pequeños ejemplos de despilfarro. Hacer eso creará el impulso necesario para que se atajen los complicados retos presupuestarios a largo plazo, tales como la reforma del programa de derechos a beneficios.

El ejercicio fiscal 2012 es el cuarto ejercicio consecutivo con más de un billón de dólares de déficit. El total de la deuda federal ha sobrepasado los $16 billones. El gasto federal alcanzó en 2012 los $3.6 billones (es decir, el 22.9% de la economía). A pesar de estas aterradoras cifras, que van camino de empeorar, el Congreso continúa ampliando las estructuras de gobierno.

El desperdicio es intrínseco a un gobierno omnipresente debido a que el gobierno se preocupa principalmente de eludir los controles y, sólo de forma secundaria, de gastar el dinero adecuadamente.
Como advierten los dos informes, ya es hora de que el Congreso ponga freno a este desperdicio del dinero del contribuyente. Punto.

Why "Democrats" oppose Voter ID?...Jobless claims hit Four-Month high...Media Ignores Jobless claim rise...Y ahora que hace el Ejercito de USA?....

71 % of Voters Favor Voter ID

by William Bigelow 17 Oct 2012 

The support for voter ID in the United States remains strong, but it is clear that Democrats, who are gullible enough to buy into expletive-laden videos like Sarah Silverman’s or faux comedy video’s like Rainn Wilson’s, are more convinced that illegal voting should be here to stay.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 71% of voters think voters should be required to show ID before they vote. 66% of likely U.S. voters believe voter fraud is a serious problem, and 33% say it is a very serious problem.

Yet 34% think voter ID laws discriminate against some voters, which is up from 22% at the end of last year. 87% of GOP voters think voter ID doesn’t discriminate, while 60% of Democrats think it does.
The bottom line is this: 94% of Republicans and 76% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor voter ID; only about 50% of Democrats do.

When it comes to support for illegal voting, the Democrats win the election hands down.

The Perfect Shake

CLEAR AND CONSISTENT HISPANIC MARKETING CAMPAIGNS...INN REACH

Jobless Claims Hit Four-Month High: Increase 46K to 388K

by John Nolte 18 Oct 2012

Now that Obama's down 51-45% in the latest Gallup poll, maybe the bureaucrats behind the jobs numbers decided it no longer made sense to juice their results to benefit a president who might go down in flames? I kid. I kid. Kinda.

It was strange, though, to see last week's jobless claims hit a four-year low right after a counter-intuitive drop in the September unemployment rate -- all of this coming just weeks before a presidential election. But according to the corrupt media, only "truthers" dare question the government, so let's just get to this week's numbers:

Weekly applications for U.S. unemployment benefits jumped 46,000 last week to a seasonally adjusted 388,000, the highest in four months. The increase represents a rebound from the previous week's sharp drop. Both swings were largely due to technical factors.

The Labor Department says the four-week average of applications, a less volatile measure, fell slightly to 365,500, a level consistent with modest hiring.

Last week, California reported a large drop in applications, pushing down the overall figure to the lowest since February 2008.

This week, it reported a significant increase as it processed applications delayed from the previous week.

Oh, I see what happened. Through some crazy coincidence, the left-wing state of California which is run by a left-wing government and left-wing bureaucrats wasn't able to process all of its unemployment claims just weeks before a presidential election and the week after that bizarre drop in unemployment. And as a result, a left-wing president in reelection trouble got quite the boost.

Like I said … coincidence.

Question my government?

Me?

Go on.

 IN NEED OF TEMPORARY CASH ASSISTANCE? BANCO SOCIAL

Media Suddenly Muted on Jobless Claims

by Joel B. Pollak 18 Oct 2012

Last Thursday morning, the headlines on National Public Radio were jubilant. "Jobless Claims Drop To Lowest Level In More Than Four Years," they crowed. NPR's anchors repeated the news in their hourly and half-hourly updates. The sudden, seasonally-adjusted drop--from 369,000 to 339,000 new claims--was touted by NPR and the rest of the mainstream media as timely evidence of economic recovery under President Barack Obama.

This week, jobless claims have soared to 388,000--a four-month high. NPR explained, correctly, that both changes were largely the result of the fact that California failed to process all of its jobless claims last week and therefore submitted an incomplete report that was rectified this week. But it did not bother to revisit its cheerleading from the week before, nor did it try to imply broader conclusions about the direction of the economy under Obama. The headline is: "Jobless Claims Take Sharp Jump: Rose By 46,000 Last Week."
Imagine if there were a conservative equivalent to NPR. The headlines this morning would have been full of dire conclusions of economic decline under Obama. But there is no media outlet that twists the truth to the right as much as NPR and other mainstream outlets twist it to the left. Fox News is muted this morning: its headline is "Jobless Claims Unexpectedly Rise to 388,000," a nod to the mainstream media narrative--for the last four years--that Obama is improving the economy and that any setbacks, no matter how large, are "unexpected."

That is the success of mainstream media bias--it has re-framed discussion to the extent that even conservative outlets feel an obligation to report the news in the left's terms. That is why everyone is discussing the jobless claims as a one- or two-week phenomenon rather than a four-year burden, which is what they have been.

 NECESITA AYUDA TEMPORAL: $500 a 2 Meses

El siguiente paso para el Ejército de Estados Unidos

Steven Bucci

Este mes, la Asociación del Ejército de Estados Unidos se reunirá para su encuentro y exposición anuales. Cuando se considere el final del conflicto iraquí y la retirada de Afganistán, habrá una pregunta en la mente de todos: ¿Adónde vamos a partir de aquí?

Durante los últimos 11 años, el Ejército ha llevado la mayor parte de la carga de las guerras en Irak y Afganistán. Los Marines han estado allí con ellos, pero el tamaño y la composición del Ejército hizo de él el mayor contribuidor de tropas para el conjunto de acontecimientos conocido como “Guerra contra el Terrorismo”. Y ha sido un camino largo y difícil.

Cada rama de las fuerzas armadas se está posicionando de cara al futuro. Eso es lo que sucede siempre que amaina un conflicto. Pero para la Fuerza Aérea, la Armada y el Cuerpo de Marines la decisión es más fácil. El nuevo “pivote” estratégico hacia Asia de la administración Obama les ha dado un rumbo que seguir. Las inmensas extensiones de aire y agua que conforman el teatro de operaciones Asia-Pacífico son sus elementos naturales. Sin embargo, el ejército contempla dicho “pivote” así como la ausencia de declaraciones de grandes o largas guerras en tierra o de conflictos debidos a la creación de nuevas naciones y no tiene más remedio que preguntar: “¿Para qué quieren que nos preparemos?”

El Ejército se está dejando el alma buscando una estrategia y devanándose los sesos para decidir cómo dimensionarse, cómo equiparse y cómo preparar a sus tropas. En las escuelas del Ejército, los instructores ya están declarando ciertos escenarios como fuera de los límites de una discusión productiva. Y los comandantes les están diciendo a los capitanes y tenientes frases como: “Nunca volveremos a hacer eso” y “Esa ya no será la misión del Ejército”.

Aunque el Ejército nunca ha sido muy bueno pronosticando. Después de Vietnam, se deshizo deliberadamente de sus conocimientos acumulados en contrainsurgencia. En mitad de la intervención en Kosovo, los coroneles que estudiaban en la Escuela de Guerra del Ejército de Estados Unidos declararon que al Ejército no le correspondía ni siquiera pensar en la creación de naciones y en otras complejas contingencias y que su única función legítima era ser un gigantesco puño que la nación enviaba para combatir en sus principales guerras. Sin duda, unos bonitos pensamientos.

Crowley's was a Disgrace to the Nation!...Media desperation is EVIDENT: Their GUY is Losing!...Usted Decide!

Crowley's False Fact Check Saves President, Derails Debate - UPDATE: Crowley Backtracks

by John Nolte 16 Oct 2012 

***UPDATE 4: Politico's Dylan Byers: "After the debate, even Crowley seemed to acknowledge that she had erred."

***UPDATE 3: Even Politico's Mike Allen is questioning Crowley's call.

***UPDATE 2: Even Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler says Crowley got it wrong: Obama "did not say terrorism."

***UPDATE: After the debate, Anderson Cooper was the first member of the CNN post debate group to question whether or not Romney really got the Libya issue wrong. They then brought Crowley on and after all the damage she had done during the debate, she finally admitted that Romney was "right" but "picked the wrong word."

Romney "picked the wrong word!" And for that sin the the referee ran onto the field and tackled the other guy!
This is a scandal; a total and complete media scandal committed by a woman who promised to violate her contract and to insert herself into the debate. All she did for weeks was brag about how she intended to grab the spotlight -- and boy did she ever.
Absolutely disgraceful.

We're done with the second presidential debate, but it was apparent 45 minutes in that between the questions Crowley chose and her handling of who was allowed to speak and when, that this debate was a total and complete setup to rehabilitate Barack Obama. 

If these are truly undecided voters, they're apparently undecided between Obama and the Green Party. Moreover, as I write this, Obama's already enjoyed four more minutes of speaking time than Romney. In a ninety-minute debate, that's a big deal.

The lowest and most dishonest part of Crowley's disgraceful "moderation" was when she actually jumped into the debate to take Obama's side when the issue of Benghazi came up. To cover for his and his administration's lying for almost two weeks about the attack coming as the result of a spontaneous protest over a YouTube video, Obama attempted to use as cover the claim that he had called the attack a "terrorist attack" on that very first day during his Rose Garden statement.

Romney correctly disputed that.

Crowley, quite incorrectly, took Obama's side and the crowd exploded.

Here's what Obama said that day:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.

Context matters and the context here is that Obama connected this "act of terror" to … a mob action over a YouTube video -- not a deliberate terrorist attack. Obama was using the term generically and it would be almost two weeks before he used it again.

Let's not forget that Susan Rice said declaratively on the five Sunday shows four days later that it was NOT an act of terror.

And during those two weeks the Obama administration lied like a rug. For Crowley to step in and attempt to correct Romney on a statement that is at best arguable, was completely out of line. The debate over this debate has only begun.

The Perfect Shake

REACH OUT TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY: INN REACH GOES BEYOND THE BARRIERS TO TARGET YOUR AUDIENCE

Crowley Interrupts Romney 28 Times, Obama Just 9

by William Bigelow 17 Oct 2012

Candy Crowley, who was suspected of being one more liberal moderator in the tank for Barack Obama, was more than just in the tank for him; she dove in and sucked all the water out for him so he could pretend he walked on water.

In the Vice-Presidential debate, Martha Raddatz, no slouch at shilling for the Democratic Party, interrupted Paul Ryan 15 times and Joe Biden only five.



Crowley made Raddatz look like an amateur. She interrupted Obama nine times, (although four of those were when he wouldn’t respect the time limit when discussing assault weapons; he went over his time limit all night long), but when it came to Mitt Romney, she was utterly beyond the pale.



Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. 28 times. Her desperation to keep Romney from scoring points was so patently obvious that it wasn’t really a surprise when she had her infamous moment: the moment when she interrupted and falsely claimed Romney was incorrect in accusing Obama of refusing to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror.



And even beyond the interruptions, there were numerous instances where Crowley’s obvious partisanship prompted her to treat Romney with great disrespect:

1. She wouldn’t let him respond when Obama lied about the auto industry. First she called him Mr. Romney instead of governor, then protested, “there'll be plenty of chances here to go on, but I want to... We have all these folks.  I will let you absolutely... OK. Will - will - you certainly will have lots of time here coming up.” Romney never did get the chance to respond.

2. After the question asking whether gas prices as they stand now are the new normal, Obama got 2 chances to respond. When Romney asked for his second chance, Crowley shut him off by saying, “ … in the follow up, it doesn't quite work like that. But I'm going to give you a chance here. I promise you, I'm going to.” She didn’t.

3. When discussing how he would deal with deductions, just as Romney was about to destroy Obama with statistics, Crowley jumped in to save her man not only by denying the value of statistics, but changing the narrative to say Romney’s numbers couldn’t possibly add up:

“And Governor, let's - before we get into a vast array of who says - what study says what, if it shouldn't add up. If somehow when you get in there, there isn't enough tax revenue coming in. If somehow the numbers don't add up, would you be willing to look again …”

4. When Romney was trying to make a point of Obama’s pension investing in China, Crowley cut him off by insinuating people were tired of him talking:
“Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They've been waiting for you.  Make it short.”


Then she really tried to humiliate him with this: “If I could have you sit down, Governor Romney. Thank you.” She never asked Obama to sit down.

5. The infamous incident when she interrupted Romney’s claim about Obama’s refusal to call the Benghazi murders a terror attack:

“It - it - it - he did in fact, sir. So let me - let me call it an act of terror...

Prompted by Obama to say it a little louder, Crowley obliged:

“He - he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take - it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.”

6.  6. Just as egregiously, when the question was about assault weapons and Romney naturally started to discuss fast and furious, Crowley quickly shifted him away from that and turned it into an attack on Romney’s assault ban position:

“Governor, Governor, if I could, the question was about these assault weapons that once were once banned and are no longer banned. I know that you signed an assault weapons ban when you were in Massachusetts, obviously, with this question, you no longer do support that. Why is that, given the kind of violence that we see sometimes with these mass killings? Why is it that you have changed your mind?’

The fact that Obama escaped all night long by lie after lie didn’t seem to disturb Crowley in the slightest. She had her shadowy agenda, and she stuck to it fiercely. Now it is our job to throw her out into the sun where every American can see exactly how dirty she is.

NECESITA AYUDA ECONOMICA TEMPORAL? BANCO SOCIAL $500 A 2 Meses

El segundo debate presidencial: Ud. decide

Israel Ortega

En el muy anticipado segundo debate presidencial, el presidente Barack Obama cumplió con la hazaña de demostrar más entusiasmo y preparación esta vez comparado con su pésimo primer debate junto al gobernador Mitt Romney. Pero, pese a toda su energía en este segundo debate, el presidente continuó dándose contra su propio récord cuando le preguntaban qué podría esperar el electorado si se le concediera un segundo mandato.

Y para una campaña presidencial obligada a inspirar por cuatro años más, simplemente criticar los planes del rival republicano no basta. Este debate presidencial ofreció muy pocos detalles sobre lo que el presidente haría de forma distinta si fuese reelegido. Prometió cuatro años más de lo mismo.
Afortunadamente para el electorado, este segundo debate tomó en cuenta la economía, el desempleo y el déficit.

Claro que ambos candidatos querían apelar a ciertos grupos demográficos como hizo el gobernador Romney cuando empezó el debate elogiando las becas Pell, a pesar que la experta de Heritage Lindsey Burke ha escrito que esto ayudará muy poco a reducir el precio de la matrícula.

En este debate tuvimos la primera mención a Latinoamérica cuando el gobernador Romney hablo sobre la importancia de incrementar el comercio con esta importante región – algo que hará que nuestras economías crezcan. Curiosamente, el presidente Obama no mencionó Latinoamérica cuando tuvo la oportunidad de responder al gobernador Romney. Muy interesante ya que, como dijo nuestro experto Bryan Riley, el comercio crea empleos. Y se habló del escándalo de Libia, aunque ese tema se tocará más en profundidad en el tercer y último debate el próximo lunes 22.

Interesante también en el debate fue que se tocó el tema de la inmigración. Ambos candidatos parecieron estar de acuerdo en que Estados Unidos es un país de inmigrantes pero también que se rige por el Estado de Derecho. Esta pública aceptación de ideas fue particularmente rara dado que los medios de comunicación y los progres suelen pintar a cualquiera que se oponga a la inmigracion ilegal como contrario a todo tipo de inmigración. El debate demostró que la diferencia entre ambos candidatos en este tema no es tan grande como algunos se empeñan en describir.

A tres semanas de las elecciones, ambas campañas presidenciales tratarán de aprovechar su actuación en este debate para animar a sus votantes y simpatizantes, pero sobre todo a los codiciados votantes independientes que finalmente serán los que decidan el resultado de las elecciones. Ojalá que en las tres semanas que restan, logremos saber más sobre lo que piensan los candidatos de asuntos como la reforma de la asistencia social o cómo reducir la carga de la deuda que pesa sobre todos los americanos y que incluye a 50.5 millones de hispanos.

Los medios hablarán toda la semana sobre este debate, las campañas dirán que su candidato fue el mejor, pero aquí, Ud. es quien decide si Obama o Romney llevará las riendas de la gran nación americana los próximos cuatro años. Son dos filosofías distintas de gobernanza: Ud. decide.

The Perfect Shake

Not Even Leftist polls are Helping OBAMA!...Clinton in the water for OBAMA!...50 Años de los Misiles en CUBA

Daily Kos/SEIU Poll: Romney Beats Obama 50-46

by John Nolte 16 Oct 2012

The left-leaning Public Policy Polling does regular weekly polling for the extreme left-leaning Daily Kos and SEIU, and the numbers this morning have probably stopped the hearts of leftists everywhere. Nationally, the poll shows Romney up four, 50-46%. In the swing states, the news is just as bad with Romney up three, 50-47%.

In this particular poll, the movement towards Romney nationally is a net gain of two points. In the swing states, Romney overcame a four-point deficit. Two weeks ago he was losing to Obama, 50-46%. That's a seven-point shift.

Daily Kos released the daily numbers in this three-day rolling poll. Friday and Saturday averaged out to a tie, but on Sunday, Romney walloped Obama by twelve points -- 55-43%. Obviously, that's a fluke, but the question is, how much of one? Was there a real momentum shift of some kind? Daily Kos claims that nothing in the news can account for this, but that's debatable.

What we might have seen on Sunday was Biden's ugly debate performance and the Libya uproar that came as a result finally coming home to roost. Again, I don't think Romney's up 55-43%, but you can make a case that a Sunday shift in momentum towards Romney does make sense.

The main takeaway in this poll is that in the swing states and nationally, Romney is now proving he has the ability to poll at or above 50%. This is a new phenomenon and one we're seeing in other polls, as well.

On the flip-side, Obama is starting to lose his ability to hit 50, even in swing states where he currently holds a slight edge over Romney. This is terrible news for any incumbent three weeks out.

The bottom line is that this poll confirms what we're seeing everywhere else: slow but certain movement towards Mitt Romney at every level. 

Wayuu Purse Bag

NEED TO REACH OUT TO THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY? INN REACH SB DR

Sens. McCain, Graham, Ayotte: Buck Still Stops with Obama

by Tony Lee 16 Oct 2012

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fell on her sword on Monday and took "responsibility" for the lack of security in Libya leading up the terrorist attacks. In response, Republican Senators John McCain (AZ), Lindsay Graham (SC), and Kelly Ayotte (NH) said while Clinton made a "laudable gesture" with her remarks, the buck still stopped with President Barack Obama at the White House.

The Senators, in a statement, said if Obama had not been aware of the rising threat level in the Middle East, especially in Libya, then they have "lost confidence" in the administration's national security team. But if Obama had known about the threats against U.S. interests in Libya, the Senators said "he bears full responsibility for any failures that occurred."

“If the President was truly not aware of this rising threat level in Benghazi, then we have lost confidence in his national security team, whose responsibility it is to keep the President informed," the Senators said. "But if the President was aware of these earlier attacks in Benghazi prior to the events of September 11, 2012, then he bears full responsibility for any security failures that occurred. The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the Commander-in-Chief. The buck stops there."
The Senators also said the American people deserve to know why the Obama administration insisted that the "attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration triggered by a hateful video, long after it had become clear that the real cause was a terrorist attack."

"The President also bears responsibility for this portrayal of the attack, and we continue to believe that the American people deserve to know why the Administration acted as it did," they wrote.

The Senators also noted that Americans “must remember that the events of September 11 were preceded by an escalating pattern of attacks this year in Benghazi, including a bomb that was thrown into our Consulate in April, another explosive device that was detonated outside of our Consulate in June, and an assassination attempt on the British Ambassador.”

Earlier, during a visit to Peru, CNN reported Clinton said she took "responsibility" and tried to absolve Obama and Vice President of blame for the lax security in Libya because Clinton was "in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts."

"The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals," Clinton said. "They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."

Clinton also said that "in the fog of war, there's always going to be confusion" and "I think it is absolutely fair to say that everyone had the same intelligence. Everyone who spoke tried to give the information that they had. As time has gone on, that information has changed. We've gotten more detail, but that's not surprising. That always happens." 

Senators McCain, Graham, and Ayotte said Clinton made "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever."

INVEST SAFELY IN BANCO SOCIAL...UP TO $10k @ 2 Mos.

La crisis de misiles en Cuba: Hace 50 años al borde de una guerra nuclear

Amy Payne

Esta semana hace cincuenta años, el mundo estuvo al borde de una guerra nuclear.

El 14 de octubre de 1962, los responsables políticos de Estados Unidos se enteraron de que la Unión Soviética estaba construyendo en Cuba bases para misiles que habrían permitido a Moscú atacar cualquier lugar del territorio continental de Estados Unidos en cuestión de minutos. A esto le siguió una crisis internacional y aunque la crisis no terminó en un enfrentamiento nuclear, es importante que los responsables políticos de Estados Unidos nunca olviden las lecciones que esa crisis nos enseñó.
Y la más importante es que es muy difícil tratar con un aliado una vez que tiene armas nucleares.

Los aliados con armas nucleares son una cosa pero los enemigos con armas nucleares son otra muy distinta. A medida que Irán forja sus capacidades nucleares, las lecciones de la Crisis de los Misiles de Cuba resuenan de nuevo.

Hoy, la Fundación Heritage vuelve la vista a esa crisis de hace 50 años con una serie de artículos acerca de las lecciones a sacar sobre sobre defensa antimisiles, liderazgo presidencial, administración de una crisis y sobre cómo evitar una escalada de la tensión.

Por ejemplo, los expertos de la Fundación Heritage Michaela Bendikova y Baker Spring nos recuerdan que “Fidel Castro y el Che Guevara animaron a los soviéticos a usar misiles balísticos estacionados en Cuba para atacar a Estados Unidos”.

Peter Brookes y Audrey Beck examinarán el liderazgo del presidente John F. Kennedy durante la crisis, “un excelente ejemplo de un liderazgo firme (bajo una intensa presión) que pudo haber evitado una apocalíptica guerra nuclear”. Esto sirve además de serio recordatorio de que este tipo de crisis recae sobre los hombros de los presidentes.

Mientras que a los escolares se les estaba enseñando a “agacharse y cubrirse” bajo los pupitres en caso de ataque, la Crisis de los Misiles de Cuba “inculcaba en dos generaciones de responsables políticos americanos una inquietud acerca de la posibilidad de una escalada fortuita en la tensión y de una guerra accidental”, como explica nuestro experto Dean Cheng.

Estados Unidos afronta ahora mismo un buen número de crisis por todo el mundo. Desde Siria y Turquía hasta Libia y Afganistán, pasando por Irán, “las políticas de actuación de la administración Obama respecto al control de armas nucleares, el desarme y las capacidades defensivas limitadas están sirviendo de manera involuntaria para socavar el paraguas de seguridad de la OTAN y para incrementar las ansias de tener armas nucleares por parte de países aliados”, observan Bendikova y Spring.

Aunque puede que hayan pasado 50 años, hay muchas y peligrosas similitudes entre aquel momento y ahora. Como advierte Ray Walser:

La nociva mezcla de armas nucleares, la furia contra Estados Unidos y una disposición a adoptar el martirio en favor de una causa (ya sea sagrada o secular) representa un peligro para el mundo de octubre de 2012 igual que lo era para el de octubre de 1962.

Reflexionar sobre las crisis que hemos capeado nos proporciona lecciones clave para administrar las crisis de hoy en día y evaluar a los líderes políticos de nuestro país. Como observó JFK, “La política nacional sólo puede derrotarnos; la política exterior nos puede matar a todos”.