Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
19 mai 2010 3 19 /05 /mai /2010 09:52

Cela sonne comme un sérieux avertissement à Barack Obama, mais aussi à la partie jugée trop timorée du Parti Républicain par ses électeurs !!

Cette nuit, le Kentucky a vu la victoire de Rand Paul, l'une des figures de proue du Tea Party, ce mouvement opposé à la montée en puissance de l'Etat dans la vie quotidienne (Obamacare, hausse d'impôts...) contre son challenger républicain Trey Grason.

La Tea Party, qui s'inspire largement des idées et de l'action de Sarah Palin, doit son nom à l'épisode célèbre où des colons anglais, déguisés en indiens, jetèrent à la mer , à Boston, une cargaison de thé destinée à l'Angleterre, en 1773. Cette action est vue comme le premier pas vers la guerre d'Indépendance qui fonda les Etats Unis et montrait surtout l'hostilité des colons aux taxes de la couronne. Si les colons ne cherchaient pas forcément l'indépendance, on sait ce que l'intransigeance anglais engendra.

La semaine dernière déjà, c'est dans l'Utah que le candidat "officiel" républicain a été battu par un conservateur Tim Bridgewater.

Le GOP se voit donc amené à sa politique future : les représentants du parti qui sont jugé trop timorés dans leur opposition à Barack Obama risquent de ne pas recevoir la confiance de leurs électeurs qui leur préféreront des candidats issus du mouvement Tea Party.

Mais c'est aussi du côté de la Maison Blanche que l'on s'inquiète car cette vague conservatrice risque bien de faire un sacré score aux élections de novembre !! Le succès du Tea Party montre que l'Amérique , et pas uniquement l'Amérique blanche et raciste comme le caricature en France, est de plus en plus hostile à la politique de Barrack Obama. Sa sécurité sociale étatiste ne convainc toujours pas. Ainsi, en Pennsylvanie, le candidat "officiel" de la Maison Blanche, Arlen Specter (un ancien Républicain qui est passé du côté démocrate l'an dernier) a été battu lors des primaires par Joe Sestack .

La vie politique américaine se recompose donc à toute vitesse et les battus de 2008 ont toutes les chances de prendre leur revanche. Quand à W, il doit observer avec une certaine satisfaction que ses thèses sont toujours populaires aux USA.

Partager cet article
Repost0
22 mars 2010 1 22 /03 /mars /2010 18:38
A force de persuasion et de lobying , Barack Obama a donc réusi à faire voter son assurance maladie. Cela tendrait peut être à montrer qu'il vaut mieux s'axer sur une seule grosse réforme que s'atteler à plusieurs à la fois. Mais ce qui vaut en Amérique ne vaut peut être (et sans doute) pas en France.

219 voix (il en fallait 216) et tout le monde crie victoire !!

Sauf que !!!

Lisez donc la suite ci dessous, tirée du Figaro.fr et qui prouve que l'affaire est loin d'être terminée...

Dix Etats américains prévoient d'intenter une action en justice pour contester la réforme du système de santé dès que le président Barack Obama l'aura promulguée. Le ministre de la Justice de Floride la considère inconstituionnelle. 


La réforme adoptée dimanche par la Chambre des représentants prévoit de garantir une couverture à 32 millions d'Américains qui n'en n'ont pas. L'ensemble des élus de l'opposition républicaine ont voté contre.


Le républicain Bill McCollum, candidat au poste de gouverneur de Floride, compte s'attaquer à une disposition qui obligerait la majeure partie des Américains à contracter une assurance-santé sous peine d'amende.


Il est rejoint dans son action par ses collègues de Caroline du Sud, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvanie, de l'Etat de Washington, du Dakota du Nord, du Dakota du Sud et de l'Alabama.

La réforme telle qu'elle a été adoptée par la Chambre des représentants dimanche soir "viole clairement la constitution américaine et empiète sur la souveraineté de chaque Etat", souligne M. McCollum dans un communiqué. "Si le président promulgue cette loi, nous intenterons une action en justice pour protéger les droits et les intérêts des citoyens américains". 


Le gouverneur de l'Idaho (nord-ouest) a signé la semaine dernière une loi empêchant l'Etat fédéral d'obliger les citoyens de son Etat à souscrire une assurance-santé.

Quelque 38 Etats ont déjà adopté ou prévu d'adopter des dispositions similaires selon l'organisation American Legislative Exchange Council, qui s'oppose à la réforme de l'assurance-santé.

 
Partager cet article
Repost0
7 février 2010 7 07 /02 /février /2010 15:00

(Source : Le Figaro)

Plantés en file indienne au milieu de quelque trois cents autres participants pour récupérer leur accréditation, Ruth Weiss et son mari David font patiemment la queue dans l'immense hall de l'hôtel Opryland de Nashville, dans le Tennessee. C'est dans ce centre touristique d'un gigantisme un peu surréaliste, avec ses 4 000  chambres, ses palmiers et ses cascades kitsch, que se tient pour trois jours la convention de la «nation des Tea party», une nébuleuse conservatrice anti-establishment en plein essor, qui donne des maux de tête à l'Administration Obama et sème l'inquiétude dans les rangs républicains.

David, 61 ans, a une longue barbe grise et un tee-shirt aux couleurs du drapeau américain. Ruth, 60  ans, a les cheveux blonds teints et un chemisier léopard sur lequel est accroché un badge qui dit : «Je suis fière d'être une “Tea Bagger”». Partis dimanche dernier en voiture de San Diego, en Californie, ils sont venus pour «se former», car ils ne veulent plus laisser la politique aux «soi-disant politiciens professionnels» qui «sont en train de ruiner le pays».

Le terme «Tea party», qui fait allusion au coup d'envoi de la révolution américaine en 1773 à Boston, sous-entend un retour résolu à la pratique politique des Pères fondateurs et à la Constitution. Né au printemps pour protester contre le plan de relance d'Obama, le mouvement, version américaine du poujadisme français, a capitalisé au cours de l'été sur son opposition active à la réforme du système de santé, pour finalement se transformer en porte-voix d'une Amérique profonde exaspérée par «Washington» et «ses pratiques non transparentes». «Obama veut changer notre pays. Nous ne sommes pas d'accord», martèle Ruth, une ancienne enseignante. «Il donne de l'argent sans compter aux banques, aux compagnies automobiles et aux individus qui ne peuvent plus payer leur maison, les poussant à être irresponsables. Pourquoi ceux qui travaillent dur devraient-ils payer ?»

Jusqu'ici sans affiliation et sans grande culture politique, Ruth et David ont sauté le pas le 12 septembre, en participant à la grande manifestation des Tea party à Washington DC. Inspirés par les «centaines de milliers de gens côtoyés», ils ont créé un groupe grâce au site Internet Meet up.com. De la même manière, Lori Christensen, quinquagénaire débonnaire originaire de la bourgade d'Evergreen, dans le Colorado, a décidé «de réagir» après avoir participé en avril à une réunion des Tea party sur la question du «trop d'État et des déficits abyssaux». De retour chez eux, elle et son mari ont commencé par convoquer des réunions modestes de 4 à 5 voisins, pour finalement recruter quelque 100 adhérents. «Tout cela est très spontané, les gens arrivent et arrivent, par le bouche à oreille. Ils sont très inquiets», dit Lori, enthousiaste, qui fera aujourd'hui un discours pour raconter son expérience. Elle note que la plupart des adhérents ont plus de 50 ans et qu'ils représentent en général les classes moyennes.

 

Dissensions violentes

 

L'élément le plus frappant, chez Lori comme chez les autres congressistes, est que tout en se disant «conservateurs», ils renvoient dos à dos démocrates et républicains, soupçonnés de collusion. En observant la salle, Chris Bundgaard, un journaliste local de la chaîne WKRN, note qu'il s'agit aussi d'un mouvement «remarquablement blanc», mais dit ne pas avoir noté de haine particulière contre le président Obama. De fait, celle-ci affleure peu dans les témoignages, sauf lors de la soirée d'ouverture, quand l'ancien représentant républicain Tom Tancredo prend la parole pour dénoncer la politique de «Barack Hussein Obama» et mettre en garde contre «le multiculturalisme» qui menace le modèle «occidental et judéo-chrétien.» «Notre culture est la meilleure», lance ce politique connu pour son discours anti-immigration, appelant la nation à «reprendre possession du pays». Un tonnerre d'applaudissements répond à ses paroles.

La question est de savoir si ce mouvement hétéroclite et spontané en pleine affirmation parviendra à s'imposer comme une force autonome entre démocrates et républicains. Des dissensions violentes sont apparues avant la convention, accusée de faire payer trop cher le droit de participation, menant à de nombreux boycotts. Déstabilisés par le côté brouillon et peu transparent de l'organisation, plusieurs républicains en vue ont ajourné leur participation, laissant la vedette à Sarah Palin, idole du mouvement, qui sera ce soir à Nashville. Les médias ont dû attendre la dernière minute pour être accrédités.

Mais il n'empêche qu'un vent puissant porte pour l'instant les «patriotes», bien plus populaires dans l'opinion que les partis discrédités. Des millions de personnes auraient rejoint le mouvement, même si les chiffres restent flous. C'est surtout grâce à la mobilisation des activistes du Tea party que le républicain Scott Brown a raflé le siège de sénateur de feu Ted Kennedy dans le Massachusetts. Ces derniers espèrent maintenant promouvoir leurs propres candidats pour les primaires des élections de mi-mandat. «Nous voulons qu'on nous rende notre pays, lance Kimberley, activiste dans l'Ohio. Washington n'a qu'à bien se tenir.»

Partager cet article
Repost0
18 janvier 2010 1 18 /01 /janvier /2010 07:10
7423618.obama_mundo_246_418.jpg
N'en déplaise à certains, Haïti a une petite chance dans son malheur : l'Amérique n'est pas loin. Et, comme en 2004, lors du Tsumani, quand elle se mobilise, elle met le paquet.

Ce n'est pas en France  non plus que l'on verra deux anciens présidents côte à côte. Bush et Clinton n'ont pas hésité à le faire car l'urgence est là !!

Non, en France, on préfère critiquer l'initiative et "l'invasion" américaine. On préfère critiquer le travail de l'armée, on préfère ironiser, on préfère brailler. Mais on n'envoie qu'un airbus !!

Qu'on le sache, Haïti est en Amérique du Nord, la mer des Caraïbes faisant partie de ce continent. Les beaufs qui critiquent, y compris au gouvernement , doivent réviser le géographie.
Partager cet article
Repost0
4 novembre 2009 3 04 /11 /novembre /2009 18:09
Il y a des symboles qui ne trompent pas !! Un an après son élection "triomphale" et la déferlante de pronostics qui vouaient les Républicains aux poubelles de l'histoire, Obama a perdu deux élections partielles.
 
En Virginie et dans le New Jersey (un état traditionnellement démocrate) , ce sont deux gouverneurs républicains qui ont élus et pas avec des scores riquiquis !!
 
Chris Christie obtient donc le siège de Gouverneur de Virginie avec 49% (contre 44% et 5% pour un indépendant).
 
Robert McDonnel obtient le siège de Gouverneur de New Jersey avec 58% (contre 42%) !!
 
On rappelle que les élections mi-mandats auront lieu l'an prochain. A ce rythme, Obama risque bien de subir le sort de Clinton à savoir être obligé de cohabiter au bout de deux ans de pouvoir seulement !!!
 
Happy Birthday, Mr President 
Partager cet article
Repost0
4 septembre 2009 5 04 /09 /septembre /2009 06:26
Dans le concert de louanges qui a suivi la mort de Ted Kennedy, quelques petits couacs ont été vus ici ou là. Celui soulevé par American Thinker est assez symptomatique : il montre comment, en 1983, le sénateur tenta de redorer l'image de l'URSS en Amérique afin de contrer le "belliqueux" Reagan. Il s'adressa donc directement à Andropov afin d'organiser une sorte de "lobbying" aux USA, le tout évidemment dans le dos de ses compatriotes.

L'affaire fut relevé par Paul Kengor dans son livre "The crusader : Ronald Reagan and the Fall of the communism" en 2006. Bien sûr, le black out des médias fut total à l'exception de , comme par hasard, Fox News ou Rush Limbaugh.


(Merci à Extreme centre pour avoir trouvé cette perle)

Shortly after the announcement of Ted Kennedy's death, I had already received several interview requests. I declined them, not wanting to be uncharitable to the man upon his death. Since then, I've seen the need to step up and provide some clarification.


The issue is a remarkable 1983 KGB document on Kennedy, which I published in my 2006 book, The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperCollins). The document is a May 14, 1983 memo from KGB head Victor Chebrikov to his boss, the odious Soviet General Secretary Yuri Andropov, designated with the highest classification. It concerns a confidential offer to the Soviet leadership by Senator Kennedy. The target: President Ronald Reagan. (A pdf  file of the original Russian language document and an English translation are available 
here.)

With Kennedy's death, this stunning revelation is again making the rounds, especially after Rush Limbaugh flagged it in his "Stack of Stuff." I'm being inundated with emails, asking basically two questions: 1) is the document legitimate; and 2) what does it allege of Senator Kennedy?

The document was first reported in a February 2, 1992 article in the London Times, titled, "Teddy, the KGB and the top secret file," by reporter Tim Sebastian. Russian President Boris Yeltsin had opened the Soviet archives. Sebastian discovered the document in the Central Committee archives specifically. When his article appeared in the Times, other on-site researchers dashed to the archives and grabbed their own copy. Those archives have been resealed.

The Times merely quoted the document and ran a tiny photo of its heading. Once I got ahold of it later, I published the entire text (English translation) in my book. 

mportantly, when I published the document, Senator Kennedy's office didn't dispute its authenticity, instead ambiguously (and briefly) arguing with its "interpretation." This was clever. The senator's office didn't specify whether this interpretation problem was a matter of my personal misunderstanding of the document or the misunderstanding of the document's author, Chebrikov. Chebrikov couldn't be reached for comment; he was dead. 

So, what was the offer?

 

The subject head, carried under the words, "Special Importance," read: "Regarding Senator Kennedy's request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov." According to the memo, Senator Kennedy was "very troubled" by U.S.-Soviet relations, which Kennedy attributed not to the murderous tyrant running the USSR but to President Reagan. The problem was Reagan's "belligerence."

 

This was allegedly made worse by Reagan's stubbornness. "According to Kennedy," reported Chebrikov, "the current threat is due to the President's refusal to engage any modification to his politics." That refusal, said the memo, was exacerbated by Reagan's political success, which made the president surer of his course, and more obstinate -- and, worst of all, re-electable.

 

On that, the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov's memo got to the thrust of Kennedy's offer: The senator was apparently clinging to hope that President Reagan's 1984 reelection bid could be thwarted. Of course, this seemed unlikely, given Reagan's undeniable popularity. So, where was the president vulnerable?

 

Alas, Kennedy had an answer, and suggestion, for his Soviet friends: In Chebrikov's words, "The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign."

 

Therein, Chebrikov got to the heart of the U.S. senator's offer to the USSR's general secretary: "Kennedy believes that, given the state of current affairs, and in the interest of peace, it would be prudent and timely to undertake the following steps to counter the militaristic politics of Reagan."

 

Of these, step one would be for Andropov to invite the senator to Moscow for a personal meeting. Said Chebrikov: "The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they would be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA."

 

The second step, the KGB head informed Andropov, was a Kennedy strategy to help the Soviets "influence Americans." Chebrikov explained: "Kennedy believes that in order to influence Americans it would be important to organize in August-September of this year [1983], televised interviews with Y. V. Andropov in the USA." The media savvy Massachusetts senator recommended to the Soviet dictator that he seek a "direct appeal" to the American people. And, on that, "Kennedy and his friends," explained Chebrikov, were willing to help, listing Walter Cronkite and Barbara Walters (both listed by name in the memo) as good candidates for sit-down interviews with the dictator.

 

Kennedy concluded that the Soviets needed, in effect, some PR help, given that Reagan was good at "propaganda" (the word used in the memo). The senator wanted them to know he was more than eager to lend a hand.

 

Kennedy wanted the Soviets to saturate the American media during such a visit. Chebrikov said Kennedy could arrange interviews not only for the dictator but for "lower level Soviet officials, particularly from the military," who "would also have an opportunity to appeal directly to the American people about the peaceful intentions of the USSR."

 

This was apparently deemed crucial because of the dangerous threat posed not by Andropov's regime but -- in Kennedy's view -- by Ronald Reagan and his administration. It was up to the Kremlin folks to "root out the threat of nuclear war," "improve Soviet-American relations," and "define the safety for the world."

 

Quite contrary to the ludicrous assertions now being made about Ted Kennedy working jovially with Ronald Reagan, Kennedy, in truth, thought Reagan was a trigger-happy buffoon, and said so constantly, with vicious words of caricature and ridicule. The senator felt very differently about Yuri Andropov. As Chebrikov noted in his memo, "Kennedy is very impressed with the activities of Y. V. Andropov and other Soviet leaders."

 

Alas, the memo concluded with a discussion of Kennedy's own presidential prospects in 1984, and a note that Kennedy "underscored that he eagerly awaits a reply to his appeal."

 

What happened next? We will never know. None of the Kennedy admirers and court composers who serve as "journalists" bothered to ask, even with decades available to pose questions, beginning back in January 1992 when the highly reputable London Times broke the story.

 

In 2006, when my book was released, there was a virtual media blackout on coverage of the document, with the exception of conservative media: talk-radio, Rush Limbaugh, some websites, and mention on FoxNews by Brit Hume. Amazingly, I didn't even get calls from mainstream reporters seeking to shoot down the story. I had prepared in great detail to be grilled on national television, picturing the likes of Katie Couric needling me. I didn't need to worry.

 

I worked up a detailed op-ed on the document, where I even played devil's advocate by defending Kennedy, trying to get at his thinking, being as fair as possible. No major newspapers would touch it. The Boston Globe editors refused to acknowledge it or reply to my emails. The editor at the New York Times confessed to being "fascinated" by the piece but conceded that he wouldn't "be able to get it in."

 

One editor at a West Coast newspaper, a genuinely fair liberal, considered it carefully. We went back and forth. I was shocked to see that neither the editor nor his staff would do any investigating, not placing a single phone call to Kennedy's office. In the end, the editor rejected the piece, telling me: "I just can't believe Kennedy would do something that stupid."

 

Alas, here we are now, after Kennedy's death, and I'm reliving the same experience, as no one from the mainstream media has contacted me. Liberal reporters lionized Ted Kennedy in life and have begun the canonization process in death. They are liberal activists first, and journalists second.

 

Finally, a postscript for these liberal Democrat "journalists:" We know they don't care that Ted Kennedy did this to Ronald Reagan. Fine. Well, how about this? As the Mitrokhin Archives reveal, Senator Kennedy did something similar to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 -- his own political flesh and blood.

 

Does that story interest liberal reporters? No. I likewise noted that gem in 2006. I didn't get a single media inquiry.

 

It will be left to future generations to examine these truths. As for Senator Ted Kennedy's motivations for doing what he did with the Soviet leadership? Alas, now we can definitively say, he will never tell us. The liberal media protected him, all the way to the grave.

 

Partager cet article
Repost0
24 août 2009 1 24 /08 /août /2009 09:32

LUNDI 25 AOUT 2009

 

USA-SECU

La presse est remplie régulièrement d’un sujet qui va revenir en boucle à savoir  la promesse de campagne du président OBAMA de créer une sorte de sécurité sociale publique aux Etats-Unis.

C'est  une entreprise difficile car il a contre lui non seulement les républicains mais beaucoup de démocrates. L'ensemble des élus est fort inquiet de la pression éventuelle de l'opinion publique, d'autant plus qu'en 2010 un tiers des sénateurs doivent être changés et tous les représentants doivent être soumis à la réélection. En plus il n'est pas possible de dire que le président ait remporté quelque succès valable depuis sa prise de pouvoir. Sa popularité baisse d'une façon marquante et il semble désireux de se refaire  justement à la faveur de ce projet qu’il voudrait le boucler avant la fin de l’année.
 

C'est l'occasion pour la presse française et l’ensemble de  la presse occidentale  de ressortir diverses contrevérités sur l'organisation de la santé  aux Etats-Unis. Il nous est dit qu’il y aurait  47 millions d'Américains non-assurés ; il y a peu il était question de seulement 40 millions ! Tous les trucages sont bons pour nos médias.

D'une curieuse façon  personne ne cite,  ni aux États-Unis  ni ailleurs, le nombre de personnes très riches qui n'ont nul besoin d'assurance quel que soit le coût des soins : c’est une sorte d’omerta sur un chiffre qui relativiserait le problème.  Beaucoup de non-assurés  le sont parce qu'ils sont en transit entre deux emplois. Il est des jeunes, aussi, pleins de santé, qui pensent  qu'ils ne doivent pas prendre une assurance. Probablement il existe aussi beaucoup d'émigrés récents  venus participer au rêve américain et qui attendent de pouvoir se payer une assurance ou de se la faire payer par un employeur.
 

Devant tous ces faits l'argument suprême des médias occidentaux est de  dire qu'aux États-Unis beaucoup  de gens meurent dans la rue devant un hôpital sans pouvoir être soignés. Or, même les sans-papiers sont soignés. Il existe deux systèmes publics :  Medicaid qui prend en charge les non-assurés ainsi que les plus démunis et Medicare pour les personnes agées. Justement ces organismes sont en déficit récurrent comme une banale « sécu » à la française et ce n’est pas encourageant pour l’avenir du projet. Le président, comme un quelconque président français depuis 60 ans, a promis de veiller à une amélioration de la gestion de ces organismes !

Son  projet n'est pas facile à cerner d’autant plus qu’il évolue au hasard des obstacles.

Au centre, se trouve  l'idée d'une assurance obligatoire pour tous. Le plan prévoirait une structure publique et l'obligation pour tous les employeurs d'assurer leurs employés, à l'exception des entreprises de moins de 25 personnes. Il est prévu  1000 milliards de dollars sur 10 ans ; les experts connaissent la vanité de ces chiffres dès lors que le robinet des dépenses sera forcément ouvert en grand. La folie législative serait totale puisque le premier projet contient déjà I000 pages et c’est nécessairement un début. Dans un esprit de lutte des classes, il  serait prévu d'épargner la  classe moyenne, c'est-à-dire en fait de taxer les plus riches avec l'effet habituel de fuite devant l'impôt  et de ruine de l’économie.

Il est utile de rappeler  à ce stade le désastre de la « sécu » à la française telle qu’en  rêve  le président américain. Limitons-nous à l’assurance maladie. 

Le premier inconvénient  majeur est la stérilisation de l'épargne qui est détruite par ce quasi impôt que sont les contributions obligatoires à la prétendue assurance maladie ; dans une société libre chacun serait invité à épargner pour sa santé, soit de lui-même soit en  adhérant à des assurances privées ; en France les faits et les calculs montrent que le coût des   assurances privées serait  très sensiblement inférieur aux cotisations versées à l'assurance-maladie de la sécurité sociale. La marge de manœuvre  qui serait dégagée par le libre choix de l’assurance maladie procurerait aux investissements privés une manne considérable, avec en prime l’amélioration des soins. La stérilisation de l'épargne a pour conséquence un amoindrissement considérable  de la richesse nationale ; c’est une des raisons qui explique par effets indirects la paupérisation relative du peuple français. 
 

Il s'ajoute évidemment la déresponsabilisation générale puisque les décisions pour la santé dite publique sont prises par un organisme central qui navigue au hasard et au gré des politiques successives et des syndicats. Le concept de santé publique est à rejeter car la santé est un bien purement privé que chacun doit pouvoir gérer à sa guise.

Enfin, en conséquence de ce qui précède, se trouve l’impossibilité de gérer normalement : c’est l’explication du fameux « trou » qui existe depuis la création de la « sécu » et est consubstantiel au système, avec régulièrement des solutions bâtardes et insuffisantes. Des assurances privées sont par obligation capitalistique gérées correctement.

Toutes ces constatations doivent être connues des élus américains et cela  les conduit à beaucoup de méfiance. Certains n'hésitent pas à dire que ce programme de santé peut être le Waterloo du président.

Vu sous l'angle de la  France, qui nous intéresse évidemment en priorité, il est permis de  se demander si un échec éventuel serait une bonne nouvelle.


Si le président arrive à réaliser son projet, il est possible que l'économie américaine soit durablement affaiblie suite à la surcharge qu'il va lui imposer et en particulier au découragement des investisseurs. Cela pourrait être considéré chez nous comme une bonne nouvelle étant donnée la compétition ouverte entre toutes les économies et la formidable compétitivité de l'économie américaine dans les conditions actuelles. Mais cela pourrait aussi conduire à saluer une mauvaise nouvelle, car dans la médiocrité de l'économie française créée par l'action délétère des pouvoirs publics, nous sommes, hélas, obligés de compter avec la dynamique américaine.

Il reste l'hypothèse où effectivement OBAMA rencontrerait son Waterloo.

Pour les très nombreux Français qui ne vibrent pas avec l’OBAMANIA, ce serait excellent.

A chacun de choisir.

Michel de Poncins

 

Partager cet article
Repost0
16 mai 2009 6 16 /05 /mai /2009 18:44
 
An Important Message from Rick Santorum May 5, 2009


Dear [[FIRST NAME(FALLBACK:Friend of Marriage)]],

My friend, I've never come to you with a more urgent message: we must act NOW to protect marriage.

An out-of-control supreme court has forced same-sex marriage on Iowa and an out-of-touch legislature has done the same in Vermont. States like New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Maine are in the fight of their lives to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Understand this: these fights are about much more than these states alone. There is a concerted effort to use passage of same-sex marriage in these states to force it on every other state in the union. How? Through the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act!

With one stroke of the pen, President Obama could sign into law a bill that allows judges in one state to impose gay marriage on 47 other states.

Yes, powerful leaders in the White House and Congress are taking aim at the one federal law that protects marriage and other values we hold sacred.

But fortunately, the National Organization for Marriage has already prepared a DOMA Defense Fund to mobilize the American people and tell Congress: "Enough, Don't Mess with Marriage!"

Will you join me, Dr. James Dobson, and thousands of other people of faith who support the National Organization for Marriage? Together, we can stop those who would repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. Your gift of $35, $100, or even $500 today would help organize grassroots support for DOMA in all 50 states! Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation today!

I was in the Senate chamber on that historic day back in 1996 when an overwhelming majority of Senators and Congressmen came together to pass the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which is the ONLY federal law that protects marriage as the union of husband and wife.

DOMA makes sure that four judges based in Boston or San Francisco cannot impose gay marriage on the rest of us. It also makes sure that taxpayers like you and me cannot be forced by judges or gay marriage activists to subsidize same-sex unions as if they were just the same as traditional marriages.

As I sat in the Senate that day I can remember what an extraordinary moment it was: How proud you and I could be of the way Americans of every party and creed came together to protect our common sense understanding of marriage. Even Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law -- that's how broad and powerful the bipartisan consensus for marriage is.

This was a high moment in our history, an instance of real bipartisanship, real unity, a real shining moment of patriots rising above factionalism in the national interest to protect our shared values.

In passing DOMA, Republicans and Democrats came together to make sure marriage remains one man and one woman.

Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine a day when a handful of special interests would try to take that great moment away -- a day when special interests threaten to prove more powerful and influential than the great, vast voice of the American people on marriage.

But my friends, that is where we are today. This is the day that God has made for us to stand up for traditional marriage once again, backed up by reason, history and common sense.

Will you stand with us today? Standing together, we can put a stop to those special interest trying to repeal DOMA as a key part of their strategy to force same-sex marriage on the entire nation. Use this hyperlink to make a generous donation of $35, $50 or even $100 right now. We need your help!

Marriage is a sacred union of male and female. Marriage is a unique status and a shared social ideal; it's the precious and irreplaceable way we teach the next generation that men and women need each other and that children have a right to both a mother and a father.

Marriage should never be turned into a politicized plaything that powerful politicians misuse to placate their clamorous partisan bases.

Not while you and I have a breath left in our bodies, right?

Last November, the American people yet again voted to protect marriage in California, Arizona and Florida, bringing to 30 the number of states where the people have voted to protect marriage. On 30 out of 30 occasions, everywhere from Alabama to Wisconsin, from Oregon to Virginia, the American people have demonstrated OUR commitment to marriage.

This fall, the voice of the people surprised the pundits and reaffirmed a core truth: When it comes to marriage there are no blue states, red states or purple states. On marriage, Americans speak with one voice, in rare unity of purpose.

Americans do not want activist judges or arrogant politicians changing the meaning of marriage for us -- or worse, imposing a twisted politicized idea of marriage on our children and grandchildren.

Unfortunately, some of our politicians don't want to hear what the American people keep saying about marriage. Help make sure our politicians in Washington can't ignore us any longer! Click here to make a generous contribution to the 2009 DOMA Defense Fund today!

"Leave it to the states" was the slogan we heard over and over again from gay marriage activists when Congress was debating the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. Yet today these same activists want to force every single state to recognize the same-sex marriages that have been forced on the country by one-judge majorities in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

They are backed by billionaires who want to use their money to change the face of politics -- to impose their values on the rest of us.

That's right, while we are tending to our jobs, going to church, and raising our families, a handful of wealthy gay men are plotting ways to use their giant fortunes to reshape the entire American political landscape in their own image.

Sound a little hard to believe? I thought so too, until I read the March 1, 2007 Atlantic Monthly article that documents the detailed plans and huge influence these men are having, led by one gay billionaire activist named Tim Gill.

The article is called "They Won't Know What Hit Them," and the subtitle pretty much says it all:

"Tim Gill has a mission: stop the Rick Santorums of tomorrow before they get started. How a network of gay political donors is stealthily . . . reshaping American politics."

That grabbed my attention, how about yours?

In the 2006 election cycle, Gill pumped $15 million into defeating the good guys. According to the Atlantic Monthly, he succeeded seventy percent of the time.

We don't have tens of millions of dollars from a handful of billionaires funding our efforts. This time, it's up to us.

Think about the success of the gay marriage movement. If two percent of the population funded by a handful of rich men can work a revolution in culture, what could sixty percent of the population do with the right tools and strategy?

We can take Gill's strategy and flip it against him. We can use it to protect marriage by creating the real possibility of political risk, the risk that politicians SHOULD feel when they vote against their own constituents' voices and values.

Will you join me in making a donation to support the National Organization for Marriage 2009 DOMA Defense Fund, making sure that we protect every state's right to protect marriage as the union of a husband and wife?

Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation of $35, $100, or even $500 or more. Even a gift of $15 or $20 -- or maybe $5 a month -- would help send the message Washington needs to hear. Don't put it off! Do it today!

NOM has turned the tables on the radical same-sex marriage lobby before. They have a proven track record of success in even the most liberal environments.

Here's what one radical gay marriage group wrote about NOM's key role in allowing the people of California to vote to protect marriage: "Due to its sizeable early financial support . . . . NOM is chiefly responsible for the qualification of Proposition 8."

What happened next as a result of NOM's foresight? A HUGE, totally unpredicted victory for marriage: California passed Proposition 8. Arizona and Florida followed suit, passing their own state marriage amendments, giving us a trifecta in the battle to protect marriage in 2008.

In helping pass Proposition 8, NOM did what many said was impossible. In the deepest of blue states it proved that with the right resources and message, traditional marriage will win out every time against out-of-control judges and out-of-touch politicians.

You and I and millions of other Americans know that we don't want courts telling us our views of marriage are just old-fashioned bigotry. We don't want public schools teaching our own children and grandchildren that our view of marriage is outdated hatred.

We want and expect respect for marriage as an ideal because the ideal for children is a mother and a father united by the bonds of matrimony. Protecting children requires protecting marriage and its meaning from politicization and judicial deformation.

Some things are just too important to leave up to politicians and special interests.

So now NOM is taking on yet another monumental challenge: protecting the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Will you help them today? Use this hyperlink to make a secure online donation.

Now is the time. One of President Obama's first acts was to announce the goal of repealing DOMA.

He was bold enough to even highlight his plans for DOMA on the White House website:

"Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

Yes, that's right. Don't let the media fool you. Powerful politicians in Washington are pushing an aggressive, radical, and divisive new culture war on the American people. "Whether you like it or not," as San Francisco's Mayor Gavin Newsom put it when he announced plans to push gay marriage down the throat of all Californians.

If we don't act today, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and others in Congress will succeed in making the repeal of DOMA one of their most important "civil rights" priorities for 2009.

With your help we will bring our voice and our values to Washington D.C. to defend marriage from the politicians and the special interests that seek to politicize our most precious institution for protecting children. Will you help us today?

The White House web announcement was overlooked by some, because instead of being located under the "Family" heading, sabotaging DOMA was placed under the heading of one of the White House's highest "Civil Rights" priorities.

Huh? Same-sex marriage is a "civil right"? Says who?

Even most courts and the overwhelming majority of Americans have rejected that view. And just a few months ago, 70 percent of African Americans voted to protect marriage as one man and one woman in California.

Americans of every race, creed and color are coming together to protect marriage.

So why are Washington politicians taking aim at the one federal law that protects this common sense public definition of marriage?

Because the hard-left base of the party is trying to persuade President Obama and Congress to do something that is bad policy and bad politics: bad for the country, bad for this Administration, bad for children, decency and common sense, bad for faith communities of all colors and creeds.

They know the American people are not with them on this issue, but they are counting on apathy and silence to let them ram through their unpopular policies on a country distracted by our severe economic crisis.

Well they don't know what people like you and me are willing to do to defend our values, do they? Thanks to the National Organization for Marriage, you and I have a plan to fight back.

Would you use this hyperlink to support the National Organization for Marriage 2009 DOMA Defense Fund today?

Activists are trying right now to persuade Congress that repealing DOMA is a win/win for them -- they can please a vocal minority of gay marriage activists and the rest of the country really won't care.

They are wrong -- Americans do care about marriage. But Congress won't know it unless we tell them!

Together you and I can make it crystal clear to the powerful misguided politicians in Washington:

Don't sabotage DOMA, the one federal law protecting U.S. taxpayers from being forced by judges to treat same-sex unions as marriages. Don't let Washington politicians push such a divisive and intrusive issue against the will of the majority of the American people.

What's at stake in this marriage debate? Common sense, common decency and the common good. The welfare of children, who get enough confusing distorted messages without our own government targeting marriage for redefinition.

Here's one other thing you may not know about: Protecting marriage protects the religious liberty of all traditional faith communities.

Why? Well, as judges and politicians push a radical redefinition of basic American values, they are beginning to use the power of government to order religious people and organizations -- charities, schools, and even churches -- to treat same-sex unions as marriages.

  • One of the nation's oldest Christian adoption agencies -- Boston Catholic Charities -- has been put out of business by the government. Why? Because it won't give children to same-sex married couples. The government's new same-sex marriage dogma? Treat two guys in a committed gay union exactly like a husband and wife -- or else we will shut you down.
  • A Christian school was ordered by government to permit two girls to live an openly lesbian lifestyle on its premises -- or face devastating penalties.
  • A Georgia marriage counselor who tried to refer a gay couple to another counselor -- because she had moral objections to helping same-sex unions stay together -- was threatened with the loss of her job.
  • A Christian physician unwilling to help a lesbian couple start a family was punished by the government of California -- fined thousands of dollars.

We've just gotten word: another Catholic Charities in Massachusetts is the latest sad victim of this ideological and political effort to use the power of government to impose new values on you and me. Catholic Charities in Worcester is being penalized by the state government. And in this case the true victims are the thousands of innocent children who are being denied this Christian adoption agency's loving help in finding good homes -- because this religious charity will not place children with same-sex couples. Other agencies will and do, but the government of Massachusetts, thanks to same-sex marriage, is increasingly committed to excluding traditional Christians (and people of other traditional faiths) from the public square.

Pray for the children and for a change of heart!

"I firmly believe that the revocation occurred because we were providing our adoption services in harmony with Catholic teaching," Ms. [Catherine] Loeffler said. "The Commonwealth of Massachusetts previously denied Massachusetts Catholic Charities a religious exemption to carry out our work according to our religious beliefs and then revoked our contracts."

"I urge you to speak up," she said at the annual meeting of Catholic Charities. "Let's consider restoring hope for children."

It's a powerful message: Restore hope for children. For it's always the most helpless innocents who suffer when adults put their politicized rights agenda first, isn't it?

Thousands have already responded to NOM's call through its new DomaDefenseFund.com website to tell President Obama and Nancy Pelosi what YOU think about the radicals' plan to overturn DOMA. But we need your help to make sure the message gets through to these powerful politicians in Washington: Marriage matters to us and we vote! Visit DOMADefenseFund.com and help protect DOMA today!

We need your help to break through the media silence and alert every caring American to the dangerously radical and deeply unpopular plan to overturn DOMA.

Here's what Dr. James Dobson said about the urgency of the issue, after personally donating $25,000 to the National Organization for Marriage: "It's not just marriage that is at stake, it's absolutely everything."

Dr. Dobson invited Maggie Gallagher and Professor Robert George to speak about the National Organization for Marriage on a Focus on the Family radio broadcast and urged pro-family Americans to support these important efforts:

"This has been an ongoing struggle that burns in our hearts," Dr. Dobson says. "And now, marriage is really on the brink, and I don't know how to emphasize that more."

I can't tell you how rare that it is for Dr. Dobson to endorse an organization -- not only with his warmest words, but with his and Shirley Dobson's own personal financial support.

If you are like me, you probably can't match Dr. Dobson's generous past donation to NOM. But each of us is called to give what we can: our prayers, our calls and letters, our time and our treasure.

Can you pledge $5 a month to support the sacred institution of marriage from the radical assault by an out-of-control government? That's one Big Mac a month to support marriage by pledging a gift to NOM's DOMA Defense Fund. If we each sacrifice just a few dollars a month, together we can save marriage for our children. Use this hyperlink to make your donation today.

NOM's powerful new technology allows ordinary Americans to multiply their voices with a few clicks of the mouse, swelling the chorus of pro-marriage voices to a never-before-heard crescendo: Americans of every race, creed and color speaking together for God's truth about marriage.

NOM's 2009 DOMA Defense Fund will make your voice heard in the halls of power in Congress -- to make sure every member of Congress knows that in his or her district there are people to whom marriage matters and that we vote!

How can 2 percent of the population defeat 60 percent majorities? They are counting on marriage supporters like us to be apathetic, silent, demoralized and disorganized. But no more, my friend, thanks to the National Organization for Marriage's DOMA Defense Fund.

NOM's 2009 DOMA Defense Fund will build new coalitions across parties, races, denominations and organizations in order to swell our voices into an unstoppable pro-marriage chorus.

So much is happening in Washington D.C. We need your help to be on the ground in D.C. now so that we can keep a watchful eye on out-of-control politicians.

Most importantly, NOM's 2009 DOMA Defense Fund will help YOU take back the airwaves for marriage; it gives us a way to fight back against the unfair, absurd depiction of gay marriage radicalism the media portrays as a civil rights battle for our time.

You know it and I know it: the mainstream media portrays Christians and other people of faith who support marriage as hate-filled bigots. Gay marriage activists' goal is to silence, intimidate and depress the opposition. Bullying and intimidation is at the heart of their movement's tactics because silencing your voice is the only way that lies and hatred can prevail over truth and love.

But we will not be silenced or intimidated.

Our voices will be heard, thanks to NOM's 2009 DOMA Defense Fund.

With your help, we WILL hold politicians accountable for their efforts to evade the American people's values.

With your help, we WILL spread the good news about marriage: Marriage is not based on bigotry. Marriage is not discrimination. Marriage as the union of husband and wife is -- let's keep it simple -- good!

(Did you see NOM's president Maggie Gallagher on the Dr. Phil Show taking on Mayor Gavin Newsom and his absurd attempt to equate Prop 8 with a ban on interracial marriage? "The difference is that racism is bad, and marriage is good," she told this tone-deaf politician -- and millions of Americans cheered.)

Marriage is a gift from God, a sacred bond. It's also a universal human institution, the way every known society works to teach young men and women that they need each other, and their children need them both.

Marriage is not at all like racism, it is not founded on hatred, and we will NOT accept in silence these Big LIES endlessly repeated to our children and our grandchildren. Thanks to NOM, your values and your voices WILL be heard.

If you give generously today to NOM's DOMA DEFENSE FUND, we can build:

A Technology Turnaround. Creating a national grassroots email database of one million voters (segmented by state) who care about marriage and its related religious liberty issues, for state as well as national campaigns. This will permit us to let you know what your senator or congressman is up to and let HIM know how many folks in his own district care about this thing called marriage.

New Youth Outreach. The young people are the future of marriage and right now where are they? On Facebook and MySpace, on Twitter and YouTube, and that's where we need to be too, integrating the most up-to-date social networking tools into our constituent relationship management software and website. Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter, along with a new blog, allow daily interaction with our activists and allow them to use their own social networks to fight to protect marriage. We will take a page from Obama's playbook and use these tools to tap into the social networks of our most ardent supporters.

Mainstream Media (Radio and TV) Campaign. We scoured the country to find the most creative talent committed to marriage (we're talking about folks who helped craft the Passion of the Christ, and win marriage in California) and we need your help to get their great work in front of the American people. The fastest way to identify and organize new activists is through targeted TV and radio ads -- especially in the districts of tone-deaf Congressmen and Senators.

One thing I've learned to trust after 15 years on the front lines: When things look the darkest, God raises up new reasons to hope.

For those of us who are Christians, despair is a vice, and for us hope is not only a natural emotion, it's a theological virtue.

We are each called to "faith, hope and love." It is the fuel for our battles with the forces of hate who seek (in the name of tolerance!) to silence God's own truth.

That's why I'm so excited and energized by the launch of NOM's DOMA Defense Fund

Your $5 or $10 a month contribution (think: one less Big Mac a month!) would make a world of difference.

But the need is urgent, whatever you can give. A one-time donation of $35, $50, $100, or even $1000, if God has given you the gifts to afford it, would go far to giving us the ability to fight for marriage. Please do what you can, and do it right now. Use this hyperlink to make your donation today.

And know this, contributions to NOM's DOMA Defense Fund are NOT publicly disclosed. This means that you can donate unlimited funds and know they can be used in key fights around the country without worrying about harassment or intimidation from the other side.

And don't forget: we need your prayers, too.

Finally, to thank you, I'd like to give you a gift in return: Everyone who pledges a monthly gift to NOM's DOMA Defense Fund, no matter how large or small, will get a free CD of the Focus on the Family October 10th broadcast on gay marriage and what it will mean for churches and other Christian organizations throughout this country. One-time donations of $100 or more, or monthly donations of $10 a month, will receive a free copy of my book, It Takes a Family.

Won't you take a stand for marriage and give today?

God bless you,

Rick Santorum

P.S. Make your monthly gift for $5 dollars or one-time gift of $35 or more today -- for the cost of just one less Big Mac a month, you can help save marriage!

 

(C) 2009 National Organization for Marriage.

Partager cet article
Repost0
18 avril 2009 6 18 /04 /avril /2009 08:09
URGENT CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL UPDATE 

Obama's Fraudulent Filings 

Tell All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate NOW The Compelling Evidence That Barack Obama Was Born In Africa! 


Dear Concerned Friend, 

I dared bring Barack Obama into court to force him to produce his birth certificate and put an end to the controversy over his status as a "natural born" citizenship once and for all. And now he's coming after me and the United States Justice Foundation (USJF) -- the public-interest legal group that I founded over 30 years ago -- with a vengeance! Merely because we dare to seek the truth! 

And they must have something to hide, because Mr. Obama's attorneys have threatened to spend, and then sanction, USJF out of existence. 

USJF has started efforts to convince State Attorneys General, all across the country, to investigate whether Barack Obama has committed perjury by knowingly filing false nomination papers ... claiming to be constitutionally eligible to run for, and serve as, President of the United States. As you know, the available evidence shows that he was born in Africa. A FAX to all 50 State Attorneys General is available for you to send right now. 

You see, even though it's past January 20, 2009 -- inauguration day -- Barack Obama can still be stopped from becoming an illegal "squatter" in the White House.

FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Fraud
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2275

Frankly, the evidence that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Africa -- not Hawaii as he claims - and, therefore, cannot serve as the President of the United States, is compelling.
  • First, Mr. Obama's refusal to release his birth certificate. If he has nothing to hide, what does he gain by refusing to allow the press to see the birth certificate?
  • Second, the contention by Barack Obama's half-sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng, that Mr. Obama was born in a particular Hawaiian hospital, only to claim that it was in a different hospital several years later.
  • Third, the erecting of a wall around Barack Obama's grandmother, the late Madelyn Dunham, by Mr. Obama, thus cutting off access to the one person then alive who would have been present if he was actually born in Hawaii.
  • Fourth, the posting of law enforcement personnel at the two hospitals in Honolulu mentioned by Ms. Soetoro-Ng in an effort to block the press from discovering the truth about the birth certificate.
  • Fifth, a taped phone conversation with Mr. Obama's step-grandmother in Kenya, who claims that she was present at his birth ... in what is now called Kenya!
  • Sixth, the "birth certificate" posted on the Obama campaign website and other liberal websites. Since Barack Obama was born in 1961, long before laser printers and office computers, his original birth certificate would be typewritten ... unlike the laser printed "copy" purported to be genuine.
The evidence demands that Barack Obama answer why he has been hiding the truth from the American people about his eligibility to run for, and serve as, President! 

That's right. Not only does Mr. Obama continue to categorically refuse to produce the decisive evidence proving whether he is a "natural born" citizen, his high-priced LA-based "dream team" of attorneys has USJF squarely in its crosshairs! And they're loading both barrels! 

So, unless you help me and my team here at USJF to stand our ground in court, Mr. Obama's hired guns could blow a financial hole in USJF's ability to be the proverbial thorn in Mr. Obama's side! 

Barack Obama continues to battle any attempt to see his real birth certificate - producing only a phony one posted on his website -- as well as fighting us tooth and nail as we seek access to his college records... records which we believe may prove that he was foreign born! 

USJF served a subpoena upon Occidental College to gain access to Mr. Obama's college records and we are fighting to get at the truth on many other fronts, as well, including: 
  1. Appealing a case filed by USJF in California, all the way up to the United States Supreme Court, if necessary, on behalf of 2008 Presidential candidate Alan Keyes, calling into question Mr. Obama's status as a "natural born" citizen;
  2. Funding, and assisting local attorneys and Plaintiffs, in similar lawsuits, in Ohio, Hawaii, and Mississippi, AND we're considering filing more lawsuits in other states; and
  3. We have initiated a campaign demanding that your State Attorney General take action now, which I'll tell you about momentarily...
Select Here Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth!https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_demand/?a=2275

You see, when Barack Obama officially entered the office of President, he became, in essence, a "pretender to the throne." According to the Constitution, only a "natural born citizen" can occupy the presidency. 

Even though he was sworn in on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama is not legally the President of the United States, unless he can prove that he is a "natural born citizen." 

What's more, every action taken by him while he occupies the White House may be invalid. If he cannot legally be President, every law passed by Congress will be null and void because the Constitution clearly requires that all laws be signed by the President ... and, without a legally elected and sworn in President in office, that becomes an impossibility. 

Quite frankly, this crisis must be ended! And it must be ended now! 

And that's just what we're fighting to do. The United States Justice Foundation is spearheading a campaign to protect the United States Constitution ... and your liberty.


Select Here Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth!
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_demand/?a=2275

We have to press our case to stop Barack Obama from, apparently, illegally holding the Presidency, despite the ongoing threats against us. We are speaking of filing additional lawsuits and administrative actions, over and above the dozens already filed, if you will help us today. 

I need your help right now in order to win this battle. We must raise the needed funds to continue our legal research, pay court costs and lawyer fees, and to contact all 50 State Attorneys General. Helping USJF with this campaign is your best shot, and, possibly your only chance, at finding out whether Barack Obama is legally holding the Presidency of our great nation, or whether he is a fraud, a usurper!

My friend, please take action immediately. Please FAX all 50 State Attorneys General and please send to me your best possible gift to help USJF stop Barack Obama from continuing his apparent theft of the Presidency!

FAX All 50 State Attorneys General To Investigate Obama's Fraud
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_faxag/?a=2275

Are you willing to see the Constitution shredded by the Left? Will you sit back and do nothing while a foreign-born person may be illegally occupying the White House as President of the United States? 

We will not be intimidated. But we MUST have your help immediately if USJF is to survive this fight to the finish -- and if the U.S. Constitution is to weather this crisis intact! 

Our country is on the fast track to disaster ... but you can help us keep the situation from getting worse. I pray that I'll hear from you today. 


In His Name,

Gary Kreep, Executive Director
United States Justice Foundation 


P.S. America has never before faced such a threat. Everything we hold dear is at risk with Barack Obama sitting as President without him releasing his actual birth certificate. Please, send in your best possible gift today! 

P.P.S. And don't forget to check out our website at 
www.usjf.net for more information about this case and other critical issues affecting our nation. 

Select Here Donate & Demand Mr. Obama Show Us the Truth!
https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_demand/?a=2275

Or Send Checks to:
United States Justice Foundation
Dept Code 2275
P.O. Box 131637
Houston, TX 77219-1637
Partager cet article
Repost0
22 mars 2009 7 22 /03 /mars /2009 08:52
En enregistrant un message pour l'Iran , le président américain s'aplatit devant une dictature islamiste parmi les plus féroces au monde !!

En draguant ouvertement le nabot de Téhéran, Obama ne fait que continuer la sinistre tradition municharde qui consiste à préférer l'apaisement devant les ordures plutôt que la résistance !!

Raison de plus de rappeler que Munich , en 2007, c'était aussi en France , que la gauche, Bayrou et cie sont désormais satisfaits : leur pantin à la Maison Blanche pense vraiment comme eux !!

L'Amérique a soldé le monde libre par caprice, et nous allons tous en payer le prix !!

 

Munich
envoyé par davethesith
Partager cet article
Repost0