Estas palabras de Glenn Beck motivaron la marcha a Washington del fin de semana:
El 11.09 los americanos sufrieron un ataque terrorísta que causó la muerte de miles de personas, porqué hemos de disculparno por ello?
Tambien habló de la corrupción del gobierno de Obama.
Los americanos debemos recuperar nuestro país.
Lo encontré en Europäische Werte
L
e niveau de frustration des Japonais au sujet des exigences des Etats-Unis est tel que toutes les initiatives politiques de Washington, même celles qui sont dans l’intérêt du pays, rencontreront une résistance. L’Amérique ne le sait sans doute pas, mais elle est en train d’écraser l’identité du peuple japonais et celui-ci, à la longue, ne l’acceptera pas”. Assez inhabituel, ce franc-parler de M. Makoto Utsumi, ancien haut fonctionnaire, touche du doigt un des aspects négligés mais centraux de l’interminable crise japonaise : l’emprise américaine sur une société devenue incapable de définir des objectifs nationaux et de se donner un rôle politique à la mesure de son poids économique. La corruption, l’immense gaspillage de ressources dans de grands projets inutiles et l’incompétence affligeante de la caste dirigeante issue du Parti libéral démocrate (PLD) ne sont certes pas directement imputables à cette dépendance externe. Mais les Etats-Unis ont, dans une large mesure, façonné le système en construisant, au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale, une relation entièrement destinée à servir leurs intérêts.
Sous l’impulsion du secrétaire d’Etat américain John Foster Dulles, cet obsédé de l’anticommunisme, ils ont transformé l’ex-ennemi japonais en allié, en satellite et en agent des Etats-Unis dans la confrontation contre l’Union soviétique et la République populaire de Chine. Au nom de la guerre froide et en réaction à la victoire du Parti communiste chinois en 1949, ils ont abandonné leur projet initial de démocratisation du Japon et stimulé l’émergence d’une caste d’élite qui a monopolisé pendant près de soixante ans le pouvoir, favorisant ainsi la connivence, le clientélisme et la corruption plutôt que l’intérêt général. Ils ont dominé l’économie politique du pays et limité son autonomie. […]
L’incapacité du pays à mener à bien des réformes dans la décennie suivante n’a pas été le résultat d’une trop forte intervention de la bureaucratie dans la gestion économique. Au contraire, elle tient à l’autonomisation des intérêts privés et corrélativement à la faiblesse de l’intervention publique dans la mise en oeuvre de la politique économique du pays. Comme l’a souligné M. Joseph Stiglitz, ancien économiste en chef de la Banque mondiale et Prix Nobel d’économie, “la régulation est devenue le bouc émissaire, alors que le véritable coupable était un manque de contrôle“.
Les critiques du modèle nippon cherchent à discréditer toute autre voie que le modèle américain et à créer des fondations idéologiques solides pour la poursuite de l’ordre dominant libéral centré aux Etats-Unis. Ils visent en particulier l’”Etat développeur” capitaliste d’Asie orientale. Les idéologues américains ignorent superbement les fondements culturels du dirigisme économique dans nombre de pays d’Asie orientale : ils orientent l’économie vers le long terme, alors que les finalités du capitalisme actionnarial américain se résument à l’accumulation à court terme. De plus, ces idéologues exagèrent jusqu’à la caricature les bienfaits supposés du système américain.
Comme le souligne l’auteur anglais John Gray, “c’est une caractéristique de la civilisation américaine que de concevoir les Etats-Unis comme un modèle universel, mais cette idée n’est acceptée par aucun autre pays. Aucune culture européenne ou asiatique ne peut tolérer la déchirure sociale – dont les symptômes sont la criminalité, l’incarcération, les conflits raciaux et ethniques, et l’effondrement des structures familiales et communautaires – qui est l’envers du succès économique américain”.
Au fond, le problème du Japon ne relève pas de l’économique, mais du politique. Le Parti libéral démocrate (PLD), au pouvoir depuis 1949, est corrompu et incompétent. Son ancien rôle de bastion anticommuniste n’a plus aucune espèce de pertinence. Mais les Américains adorent le PLD, seul parti politique du pays à être suffisamment indifférent à la souffrance et à l’humiliation des habitants d’Okinawa (ou des autres populations vivant à proximité des 91 bases militaires des Etats-Unis) pour servir d’agent de Washington. Au cours des dernières décennies, ils ont déboursé des sommes immenses pour soutenir leurs affidés du PLD et diviser le camp progressiste et socialiste.
Chalmers Johnson, président du Japan Policy Recherche Institute (JPRI), “Les impasses d’un modèle : cinquante années de subordination”, Le Monde Diplomatique, mars 2002
Source : http://www.unitepopulaire.org/
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. — Thomas Jefferson
Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people. — John Adams
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
By rendering the labor of one, the property of the other, they cherish pride, luxury, and vanity on one side; on the other, vice and servility, or hatred and revolt.
Despotism can only exist in darkness, and there are too many lights now in the political firmament to permit it to remain anywhere, as it has heretofore done, almost everywhere.
– James Madison
The father of the US Constitution — James Madison. He along with Governor Morris from New York were the main draftsmen of the Constitution. He would also become the fourth president of the United States.
Madison wrote Federalist Paper #10, in which he explained how a large country with many different interests and factions could support republican values better than a small country dominated by a few special interests. Now many would say we have become a large country dominated by many special interests.
THE NEW YORK TIMES
by Keith Bradsher
China may move against new U.S. tariffs on tires with duties on chickens and car parts. Above, a chicken farm in Arkansas
HONG KONG — China unexpectedly increased pressure Sunday on the United States in a widening trade dispute, taking the first steps toward imposing tariffs on American exports of automotive products and chicken meat in retaliation for President Obama’s decision late Friday to levy tariffs on tires from China.
The Chinese government’s strong countermove followed a weekend of nationalistic vitriol against the United States on Chinese Web sites in response to the tire tariff. “The U.S. is shameless!” said one posting, while another called on the Chinese government to sell all of its huge holdings of Treasury bonds.
The impact of the dispute extends well beyond tires, chickens and cars. Both governments are facing domestic pressure to take a tougher stand against the other on economic issues. But the trade battle increases political tensions between the two nations even as they try to work together to revive the global economy and combat mutual security threats, like the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Obama’s decision to impose a tariff of up to 35 percent on Chinese tires is a signal that he plans to deliver on his promise to labor unions that he would more strictly enforce trade laws, especially against China, which has become the world’s factory while the United States has lost millions of manufacturing jobs. The trade deficit with China was a record $268 billion in 2008.
China had initially issued a fairly formulaic criticism of the tire dispute Saturday. But rising nationalism in China is making it harder for Chinese officials to gloss over American criticism.
“All kinds of policymaking, not just trade policy, is increasingly reactive to Internet opinion,” said Victor Shih, a Northwestern University specialist in economic policy formulation.
A woman passed by a tire store in Beijing, China
Eswar Prasad, a former China division chief at the International Monetary Fund, said that rising trade tensions between the United States and China could become hard to control. They could cloud the Group of 20 meeting of leaders of industrialized and fast-growing emerging nations in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 and 25, and perhaps affect Mr. Obama’s visit to Beijing in November.
“This spat about tires and chickens could turn ugly very quickly,” Mr. Prasad said.
China exported $1.3 billion in tires to the United States in the first seven months of this year, while the United States shipped about $800 million in automotive products and $376 million in chicken meat to China, according to data from Global Trade Information Services in Columbia, S.C.
For many years, American politicians have been able to take credit domestically for standing up to China by taking largely symbolic measures against Chinese exports in narrowly defined categories. In the last five years, the Commerce Department has restricted Chinese imports of goods as diverse as bras and oil well equipment.
For the most part, Chinese officials have grumbled but done little, preferring to preserve a trade relationship in which the United States buys $4.46 worth of Chinese goods for every $1 worth of American goods sold to China.
Now, the delicate equilibrium is being disturbed.
China’s commerce ministry announced Sunday that it would investigate “certain imported automotive products and certain imported chicken meat products originating from the United States” to determine if they were being subsidized or “dumped” below cost in the Chinese market. A finding of subsidies or dumping would allow China to impose tariffs on these imports.
The ministry did not mention the tire dispute in its announcement, portraying the investigations as “based on the laws of our country and on World Trade Organization rules”.
But the timing of the announcement — on a weekend and just after the tire decision in Washington — sent an unmistakable message of retaliation. The official Xinhua news agency Web site prominently linked its reports on the tire dispute and the Chinese investigations.
The commerce ministry statement, posted on its Web site, also hinted obliquely at the harm that a trade war could do while Western nations and Japan struggle to emerge from a severe economic downturn. “China is willing to continue efforts with various countries to make sure that the world economy recovers as quickly as possible,” the statement said.
The Chinese government sometimes organizes blog postings to defend its own policies. But some postings on the tire decision have been implicitly critical of the Chinese government, making it unlikely that they are part of an orchestrated effort.
“Why did our government purchase so much U.S. government debt?” said one posting signed by a “Group of Angry Youths.” The item continued, “We should get rid of all such U.S. investments”.
China has accumulated $2 trillion in foreign reserves, mostly in Treasury bonds and other dollar-denominated assets, and held down the value of its currency, which has kept Chinese goods quite inexpensive in foreign markets. China’s exports have soared — China surpassed Germany in the first half of this year as the world’s largest exporter — while China’s imports have lagged, except for commodities like iron ore and oil that China lacks.
Worries that China might sell Treasury bonds — or even slow down its purchases of them — have been a concern for the Bush and Obama administrations as they have tried to figure out how to address China’s trade and currency policies.
At the same time, the Chinese economy relies heavily on exports to the United States, while the American economy is much less dependent on exports in the other direction. Exports to the United States, at 6 percent of China’s entire economic output, account for 13 times as large a share of the Chinese economy as exports to China represent for the United States economy.
Carol J. Guthrie, a spokeswoman for the Office of the United States trade representative, said that the United States wanted to avoid disputes with China and continue talks, but would look at any Chinese trade decisions for whether they comply with W.T.O. rules.
Products involved in trade disputes between the United States and China together make up only a minuscule sliver of the two countries’ trade relationship.
The bigger risk for China, economists and corporate executives have periodically warned, is that trade frictions could cause multinationals to rethink their heavy reliance on Chinese factories in their supply chains. The Chinese targeting of autos and chickens affects two industries that may have the political muscle in the United States to dissuade the Obama administration from aggressively challenging China’s policies.
General Motors sees much of its growth coming from its China subsidiary, the second-largest auto company in China after Volkswagen. And the farm lobby in the United States has long pressed for maximum access to a market of 1.3 billion mouths.
But spotlighting automotive trade may be risky for China. G.M. and Ford both rely mostly on local production to supply the Chinese market, while China is rapidly increasing auto parts shipments to the United States.
Western countries are always redefining international terms based on their domestic conditions and national interests, not even noticing the rules they have written and posed in years. ‘Human rights’ is one of those double standards they pose on other countries where their interests are not met. The alert runs when the so-called international organizations, global community or even political bodies of the western countries ignore the vivid violation of human rights in their own countries, magnifying the same issue in others.
A few days ago, in the aftermath of Iranian presidential election, United States and some European countries expressed deep concerns over Iran issue, interfering in Iranian domestic issues, and denying their roles in turmoil despite existing conspicuous evidence provided by the Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and major political and military organizations. Their concerns are also documented in G-8 statement earlier today as:
Heads of State and Government of the G8 countries continue to be seriously concerned about recent events in Iran. We reiterate our full respect for the sovereignty of Iran. At the same time, we deplore post-electoral violence, which led to the loss of lives of Iranian civilians. Interference with media, unjustified detentions of journalists and recent arrests of foreign nationals are unacceptable. We call upon Iran to solve the situation through democratic dialogue on the basis of the rule of law and we remind it of its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We agreed that Embassies in Iran must be permitted to exercise their functions effectively under the Vienna Convention, without arbitrary restrictions on, or intimidation of, their staff.
They constantly interfere in other countries’ domestic issues forgetting to express their deep concerns!! about the murder of a pregnant Muslim woman in a German court who was stabbed 18 times in front of his husband and 3-year-old son, as well as judge and police. Moreover, they forgot to express their deep concerns about the perpetual murder of Afghan or Pakistani civilians. Ironically not a word of excuse was stated by world authorities! Instead, they regularly threaten independent states to punishments through their resolutions and statements.
UNSC, G-8, NATO and some others, mistakenly perceive themselves as the world powers, whereas the world power does not lie in some American, European and subordinate regimes but in hearts and minds of billions of free people around the world.
Yes, the title of this article is “10 Presidents, 10 CEOs Without College Degrees.” Please allow me a few moments to share a personal story and the reason I discovered these so-called “uneducated” Presidents and businessmen.
A few weeks ago I received an anonymous email from a person living in the United Kingdom, which I wrote about in the blog post titled, “You Speak As If You’re A King Or Dictator.” Even though my candidacy for Arizona Governor is young, I regularly receive “hate mail” on a weekly basis. I call it hate mail, because these messages never talk about issues affecting citizens, but rather my character.
Today, I received an email from a person that disclosed both his name and address. I was able to trace the I.P. address to Secaucus, NJ. For privacy reasons, I will not divulge the sender’s name or email address. But I will share the body of his message.
How can you lead Arizona when you don’t even have a legitimate academic degree? If you lack the self-discipline to obtain even an associate’s degree, quitting before you even finished, how do you expect us to believe that you’ll stay committed to your promises? Nobody gives a damn about an uneducated man’s opinion, Mr. Mitchell.
First and foremost, let me address the key details this person is attacking. I have a non-academic degree from the University of Sedona in Pastoral Counseling Psychology. I have both a Bachelor’s and Master’s degree from this university and I am furthering my education in the same specialization, earning my Doctorate degree. The only reason I do not have my Doctorate degree at this time is because I work a full-time, 40-hour job, along with 3-4 hours per day on my election campaign.
Generally, most elected and appointed politicians and public officials do have academic degrees. When I researched which United States politicians did not have college degrees, I discovered a startling fact about 10 U.S. Presidents. The following list of Presidents are individuals that never attended or completed college:
Three of the most famous Presidents — ones with their own dollar bills commemorating their legacies — were educated men, but possessed no official college or university degree recognizing their intelligence**. A number of these men served in the military, were Senators, judges, Vice Presidents, or publicly served their states and country.
A few months back, I read this BusinessWeek article, CEOs Without College Degrees, that notes the top 16 successful business executives that never completed college or earned a paper diploma.
Here is the list of 16 top business executives without college degrees:
These two lists prove that you can attain a successful life path without completing a higher education. Success for these men has come from their life choices and taking advantage of opportunities presented to them. By bringing these successful politicians and businessmen to light, it does not mean I am attempting to equate myself to these great men. I am far from their success and stature; I only desire to make a substantial difference in a person’s life.
The purpose of this entire article is to merely articulate a single point. I want to prove a fact that so-called “uneducated” men (as well as women) can create success and legacy from their lives. It’s not about a piece of paper, but about the life you live and the choices you make.
Footnotes:
* – These Presidents died in the Oval Office serving their country as U.S. President.
** – George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and Abraham Lincoln are the three Presidents referenced in this sentence.
EEUU ha sentado las bases para la aprobación de sanciones contra Irán tras haberse desencantado con la estrategia del acercamiento diplomático, señalaron dos altos responsables de la Administración a líderes judíos en Washington el jueves.
Wiliam Burns, subsecretario de Estado para Temas Políticos, dijo que la Administración Obama quiere prepararse para las sanciones ahora, de tal modo que ellas sean puestas en práctica a finales del año.
El alto consejero de la Casa Blanca para Oriente Medio, Dennis Ross, apareció junto a Burns en el panel de discusión con líderes judíos y explicó que el enfoque puesto por la Administración Obama en los esfuerzos diplomáticos había cambiado tras las elecciones iraníes e indicó que la Casa Blanca tenía ahora un punto de vista más excéptico sobre este asunto, lo que podría dar paso a las sanciones.
El presidente estadounidense, Barack Obama, ha respaldado durante mucho tiempo el enfoque diplomático, aunque ha advertido también de posibles sanciones y hablado de mantener “todas las opciones sobre la mesa.” Él ha dado a Teherán de plazo hasta el 24 de septiembre, cuando las naciones del G-20 se reúnan para evaluar la respuesta de Irán a su oferta de negociaciones. Altos oficiales han hablado de imponer “duras sanciones” si la diplomacia falla.
La Casa Blanca y el Departamento de Estado no respondieron inmediatamente a los comentarios hechos por los dos responsables. Antes de su aparición en lo que fue llamado el Día de Apoyo al Liderazgo Nacional Judío sobre Irán, el presidente del Comité de Asuntos Exteriores de la Cámara de Representantes, Howard Berman, realizó unas declaraciones en las que prometió una acción en referencia a su proyecto de ley sobre las sanciones, pendiente la fecha del 24 de septiembre. Él no ha actuado con respecto a la propuesta desde que ésta fue introducida en mayo con el fin de dar a la diplomacia tiempo para trabajar.
“De este modo, Irán no ha aceptado la generosa oferta del presidente Obama para negociar,” dijo: “Si Irán no cambia su curso y a falta de cualquier evidencia de que deba hacer lo contrario, yo firmaré el proyecto el próximo mes y comenzará el proceso de apretar las tuercas a Irán.”
Berman también advirtió, para el aplauso de los líderes judíos, que “no vamos a ser engañados por las argucias de Irán y sus esfuerzos de bloquear el tema. No tenemos la intención de pasar meses analizando viejas propuestas que se ofrecen meramente para retrasar la imposición de sanciones. El reloj está corriendo y, de hecho, el tiempo está casi agotado.”
Los líderes republicanos se muestran de acuerdo con Berman en que el tiempo ha pasado e insisten en que el Congreso, controlado por los demócratas, y la Administración Obama deben hacer más ahora.
Extraído de Al-Manar.
